Hinds and Hinds

In *Hurst v Hurst*, heard in the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne, the parties, a husband and wife, were in dispute regarding parenting orders for their son, B. The wife sought to discharge existing parenting orders that allowed the husband substantial time with B, following allegations of sexual abuse made by the wife. The court was presented with reports from the Department of Human Services (DHS) and another expert, both indicating concerns that B had been exposed to sexually explicit material.

The primary legal issues before the court were the terms of interim parenting arrangements for B, specifically the frequency and duration of supervised contact between the husband and B, and the scope of a psycho-sexual assessment to be conducted. The court also had to consider the implications of the DHS report, which suggested departmental intervention if unsupervised access were ordered.

Justice Brown reasoned that while the parties agreed on supervised contact, they disagreed on its extent. The wife proposed alternate Sundays from 10 am to 4 pm, while the husband sought every Sunday. The court noted the wife's submission that B had been upset and disturbed, corroborated by the independent children's lawyer. Considering the need to re-establish the father-son relationship while allegations were investigated, the court ordered supervised contact on alternate Sundays from 10 am to 4 pm, with the husband's daughter permitted to be present. The court also clarified the instructions for the psycho-sexual assessment, directing the assessor to review all relevant affidavit material, subpoenaed documents, and a specific report, to ensure the assessment would be useful for the trial judge. The court further ordered that discussions about the proceedings be prohibited in B's presence and that the husband bear the costs of supervision.