Hopkins and Walker

In *Hopkins & Walker* [2012] FamCA 646, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by a father, Mr Hopkins, for interim parenting orders concerning his son, C, who was 17 and a half years old. The proceedings had been lengthy and acrimonious, involving allegations of physical abuse by the father and the mother's alleged intent to estrange the children from him. The father sought orders for C to relocate from his mother's residence to his own, for C to spend time with him, for the father to have sole parental responsibility, and for him to be released from an undertaking given in 2004 not to approach teachers or treating professionals without specific written requests for clarification.

The court was required to determine whether the father's application for interim orders, particularly concerning a change of residence and sole parental responsibility, was in C's best interests. A key legal issue was the weight to be given to C's expressed views, given his age and the nature of his allegations against his father. The court also had to consider the impact of any proposed changes on C's settled environment and schooling, and whether releasing the father from his undertaking was appropriate on an interim basis.

Justice O'Reilly dismissed the father's application for interim orders. The court reasoned that C, being nearly 18, did not require protection from harm in the same way a younger child might, as he had demonstrated an ability to remove himself from situations he found unacceptable. Crucially, C had expressed very strong views to the family report writer, stating he did not want to spend time or communicate with his father and describing his father's parenting as "abusive." The court gave considerable weight to these views, noting that C was settled with his mother, enjoying his school and friendships, and that a relocation would involve significant disruption. The court also found that it would not be in C's best interests to grant the father sole parental responsibility or to release him from his undertaking on an interim basis, as the undertaking already allowed for written communication regarding reports.

Consequently, the father's application for interim orders was dismissed, and his application to be released from part of his undertaking was also dismissed. The proceedings were listed for a trial directions hearing, with an order that if the trial had not been concluded by C's 18th birthday on 3 February 2013, all proceedings concerning him would be dismissed.