HONUA & SKILTON

In the matter of HONUA & SKILTON, Forrest J considered parenting orders concerning two children, B and C. The dispute involved the mother's alleged contravention of previous court orders and the determination of future parenting arrangements, including parental responsibility, with whom the children would live, and with whom they would spend time. The court also addressed the children's views, the existence of family violence, the age of the children (one being 17 and the other 11), and the importance of maintaining meaningful relationships and communication.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility should be rebutted, and if so, what arrangements would be in the children's best interests. The court was required to determine with whom the children would live, given they had always resided with the mother and the parents had never lived together. Furthermore, the court had to consider the father's involvement in the children's lives, including the nature and extent of any time the children would spend with him, and how communication between the father and the children should be managed, particularly in light of the older child's age and the younger child's views. The court also had to consider the mother's contravention of prior orders and whether she had a reasonable excuse.

Forrest J found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted, determining that it was not in the children's best interests for this presumption to apply. The court reasoned that while the mother would have sole parental responsibility, she was required to consult with the father on major long-term issues. This consultation process involved notifying the father, providing him with details of the proposed decision and reasons, requesting his views, giving reasonable consideration to those views, and then informing him of the final decision and the reasons for it. The children were ordered to live with the mother. The court also made detailed orders regarding the father's therapeutic counselling, his communication with the children through letters and potentially electronic means, and a phased approach to the younger child, C, spending time with him, commencing only after the father had engaged in therapy. The older child, B, was permitted to communicate with the father via email or telephone if B initiated it, with provisions for B to request cessation of contact. The court also made orders concerning the father's access to school reports and notification of ill health, and travel arrangements for the children.

The court discharged all existing parenting orders. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for the children, B and C, with specific requirements to consult the father on major long-term issues. The children were ordered to live with the mother. Detailed provisions were made for the father's therapeutic counselling, his communication with the children, and a structured program for the younger child, C, to spend time with the father, contingent on the father commencing therapy. The older child, B, was permitted to initiate communication with the father via email or telephone. The court also made orders regarding the father's access to school information, notification of ill health, and overseas travel arrangements for the children. The Independent Children’s Lawyer was to inform the children of the outcome of the proceedings and would be discharged upon compliance with specific orders.