Horton and Horton

The case of *Horton and Horton* involved an application before Chief Justice Bryant of the Family Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the welfare and living arrangements of a child, M, born in November 1995. The proceedings were complex, stemming from earlier final orders made by Bennett J in August 2006, which had placed M into the care of her mother in Adelaide, with a period of no contact with the father. The husband, Mr. Horton, had subsequently filed an application seeking to have M reside with him, while the wife, Mrs. Horton, sought to suspend certain aspects of the previous orders and establish a framework for contact.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including the appropriate interim orders regarding M's residence and contact with her parents, given the husband's rejection of previous findings and his application to revisit the orders. Specifically, the court had to consider whether to suspend the existing residence orders in favour of the wife, how to manage M's contact with her mother, the allocation of travel costs for this contact, and whether to involve the Department of Community Services. The paramount consideration for the court was M's best interests, as mandated by the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Chief Justice Bryant reasoned that while the husband sought final orders for M to reside with him, the proceedings were not in a state for a final determination due to procedural considerations and the lack of consensus. Therefore, the court made interim orders. The court acknowledged the husband's rejection of Bennett J's findings, particularly concerning allegations of inappropriate sexual material and psychological abuse directed at M by the husband. Despite the husband's claims, the court found that it could not be satisfied that M would be protected from harm if she were to live with him, nor could it be satisfied that she would have a meaningful relationship with her mother in that scenario. Consequently, the court declined to make an order for M to live with the husband. The court also declined to lift an existing injunction preventing either parent from removing M from Australia, citing the need for careful consideration on a final basis and the husband's lack of immediate plans to travel.

The court ordered the suspension of the previous residence orders made by Bennett J. It was agreed that M should spend half of each school holiday period with the wife in Adelaide, with M to inform the wife of her intentions. The husband was made responsible for the airfare from Adelaide to regional NSW, and the wife for the airfare from regional NSW to Adelaide, a departure from the wife's initial request for the husband to bear all costs, aimed at encouraging contact. The court also ordered that the husband be restrained by injunction from communicating with the wife except for necessary arrangements regarding M's welfare, and that the Department of Community Services be requested to provide information regarding any allegations of abuse concerning M. The minister for the Department of Community Services was invited to intervene in the proceedings.