Hilden and Hilden

In this matter before Judge B Smith, the parties were Mr. Hilden and Ms. Hilden, parents of two children, [X] and [Y]. The dispute concerned the children's welfare and their relationship with their father, particularly in light of allegations of family violence and the mother's actions which effectively prevented the children from spending time with the father. The court was asked to consider whether existing consent orders should be set aside.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the existing consent orders, made on 12 October 2016, should be set aside. This required the court to consider the guiding principles established in *Rice & Asplund*, the circumstances under which the consent orders were entered, and the likely future events. The court also had to determine if the current situation, where the children had no contact with the father, was in their best interests.

The court reasoned that the children's views, as expressed in the Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum, were not genuinely their own but rather reflected the mother's position, thus diminishing the weight of any decision based solely on those purported views. The judge noted that while the mother's fears might be genuine, her unilateral imposition of a "no time" order, contrary to the spirit of the consent orders which contemplated time with the father as agreed in writing, was not in the children's best interests. The court found that the existing orders, as currently interpreted and exercised, effectively amounted to "no time" orders, which are rare and require substantial evidence to justify. Given these circumstances and the material before the court, the judge was not persuaded that the current orders were in the children's best interests.

Consequently, the court ordered that the consent orders of 12 October 2016 be set aside. The court also made interim orders restraining the removal of the children from Australia, requiring passports to be delivered to the Registrar, and establishing equal shared parental responsibility. Further orders addressed the children living with the mother, mandatory family therapy, communication protocols between parents, and the preparation of a Family Report by a Family Consultant.