Ismail and Alptekin

This case involved a dispute between Ms Ismail and Mr Alptekin concerning parenting orders for their three children: a son born in 1991, an elder daughter born in 1992, and a younger daughter born in 1996. The children had been living with their father since 2000, and contact with their mother had significantly diminished since early 2004. The mother sought to re-establish a relationship with her daughters, proposing a phased approach involving contact centre visits leading to alternate weekend stays at her home. The father contended that the children's strong resistance to seeing their mother was due to her past conduct, while the mother alleged parental alienation by the father. The Family Court of Australia, presided over by Dessau J, was required to determine the best interests of the children in light of their expressed views, the history of the parental relationship, and expert evidence.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate parenting arrangements for the children, particularly the two daughters, considering the significant estrangement from their mother and the potential for psychological harm from either continued lack of contact or forced contact. Key legal issues included assessing the children's views and the weight to be given to them, evaluating the nature of the relationships between the children and each parent, and the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate a relationship with the other. The court also had to consider the impact of the father's alleged alienation of the children and the mother's past conduct, including her decision to leave the children with the father and subsequent limited contact. The court was guided by the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975*, particularly the paramount consideration of the children's best interests as outlined in sections 60B, 60CA, and 60CC.

Dessau J reasoned that while the children, particularly the son, expressed strong hostility towards their mother, and had genuine reasons for resentment, the expert evidence from a Family Consultant and a counsellor indicated that re-establishing a relationship with their mother was crucial for the daughters' long-term well-being. The court found that the father had, through his actions and attitudes, fuelled the children's cynicism towards their mother and had not adequately facilitated contact. Conversely, the mother's past actions, including her decision to leave the children with the father and her subsequent limited engagement, had contributed to the estrangement. The court rejected the mother's proposal for the younger daughter to live with her exclusively for three months, deeming it too disruptive to the established family unit. Instead, the court ordered a supervised, phased re-introduction of the daughters to their mother, commencing with fortnightly two-hour sessions at a contact centre, supported by counselling, and transitioning to alternate weekends at the mother's home. The son's contact with his mother was to be at his discretion.

The court ordered the discharge of all existing orders and established new arrangements for the children to live with the husband, who would have sole responsibility. The wife was to spend time with and communicate with the son as agreed by him, and with the daughters through a supervised contact program for an initial period of three months, followed by alternate weekend contact. These orders were to be supervised by a Family Consultant for 12 months. The court also directed that the parents enrol in a program overseen by Centrecare Footscray and the W Contact Centre, with costs to be shared equally. The Independent Children's Lawyer's appointment was discharged, and all existing proceedings were dismissed.