Hope and Kingston

In *Hope & Kingston*, the Family Court of Australia considered a parenting dispute between Ms Kingston (the applicant mother) and Mr Hope (the respondent father) concerning their five-year-old child, J. The primary dispute revolved around where the child would live, with the mother's time with the child having been previously restricted following an injury the child sustained. An interlocutory hearing was held to address the mother's request to have J attend therapy sessions with her psychologist, Dr B, who was assisting the mother with parental capacity issues. The father strongly opposed this, while the Independent Children's Lawyer saw merit in both arguments.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether it was in J's best interests to permit him to attend observation sessions with Dr B, a psychologist engaged by the mother to help her develop parenting skills. This request arose in the context of concerns raised by another expert, Dr K, regarding the mother's parenting, specifically an alleged enmeshment with the child. The father's opposition stemmed from a lack of trust in the mother and concerns about Dr B's potential bias or expertise, particularly given her prior involvement in assessing the child for Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Justice Cronin reasoned that the Court's paramount consideration was the best interests of the child, as mandated by Part VII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The Court acknowledged the father's concerns regarding Dr B's objectivity and qualifications, but noted that these could be tested at trial. His Honour considered it proper to allow the mother the opportunity to objectively demonstrate her parenting capacity, especially given the existing disquiet surrounding the child's injury and the mother's potential involvement. The proposed therapy sessions with Dr B were seen as a means to assess the risk and gather evidence relevant to the ultimate determination of J's best interests, particularly in light of Dr K's report.

The Court ordered that the mother be permitted to have J attend observation sessions with Dr B, as recommended by Dr B, to assist the mother with the matters identified by Dr K. These sessions were to be limited to what Dr B considered necessary for her advice and assistance. The application and response were otherwise dismissed, and the costs of the parties were reserved to the trial. A transcript of the hearing was to be provided to Dr B.