HOLT & THOMSON

This matter came before Judge Altobelli concerning a dispute between Ms Holt and Mr Thomson regarding the time their child, X, born in 2007, spends with Mr Thomson. The court was tasked with making orders to facilitate supervised contact between the child and Mr Thomson.

The court was required to determine the terms and conditions under which supervised contact would occur, including the process for arranging and attending assessments, compliance with contact centre rules and directions, and the frequency and location of contact. Further issues included the allocation of costs for supervision, the conduct of parents at the contact centre, and provisions for variations or cessation of the contact centre's services. The court also considered the potential appointment of an expert and the transfer of the proceedings.

The court ordered that both parties must forthwith contact designated contact centres to arrange an assessment for suitability for supervision of the child's time with Mr Thomson. They are to attend the assessment, comply with appointments for supervised time, and adhere to the contact centre's rules and staff directions. If the contact centre is unable or unwilling to provide supervision, either party or the Independent Children’s Lawyer may restore the matter to the list. If accepted for supervised time, Mr Thomson is to have contact no less than once per fortnight at times nominated by the contact centre, occurring at the contact centre, with Ms Holt responsible for delivery and collection. Both parents are to pay half of any reasonable fees for supervision. The court also made provisions for variations to the orders, including by agreement of the parties or if the contact centre declines to continue its services.

The proceedings were ordered to be transferred to the Family Court of Australia and listed before a Registrar on 14 September 2015. The court noted that consideration should be given to including the case in the Magellan program due to serious allegations made by each parent, and that the parties were considering appointing an expert. These orders do not bind the contact centre but request its assistance.