Janeiro and Janeiro (No 2)

In *Janeiro & Janeiro (No. 2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered interim parenting orders concerning B, the 10-year-old child of Mr Janeiro (Applicant) and Ms Janeiro (Respondent). The proceedings also involved an Independent Children’s Lawyer, Mr Alexander. The court was tasked with determining the best interim parenting arrangements for B, particularly regarding overnight time with his father, pending the finalisation of property proceedings.

The central legal issue was to determine the interim parenting arrangements that would be in the best interests of the child, B. This involved assessing the competing proposals of the parents, considering the child's diagnosed conditions and behavioural challenges, and evaluating the expert evidence presented, particularly from Dr Q, regarding the impact of increased time with the father and the mother-child dynamic. The court also had to consider the weight to be given to the child's own views and the potential risks and benefits of any proposed changes to the existing, limited contact regime.

Justice Hannam applied the paramount consideration of the child's best interests under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court gave significant weight to the uncontradicted expert opinion of Dr Q, who strongly advocated for an increase in overnight time with the father, citing risks associated with the child's current isolation and enmeshment with the mother. Dr Q also noted potential benefits for the child in spending more time with his father, suggesting it was time to "bite the bullet" and that there were greater risks in maintaining the status quo. The court found that the mother's cautious approach, while understandable given the child's vulnerabilities, appeared to be given too much weight and was potentially detrimental due to the ongoing hostility between the parents. The court also noted that the father's own view that the child was not ready for overnight time was unusual in light of the expert evidence.

The court ordered that the current parenting orders be discharged and made interim orders in accordance with the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s proposals. These orders included the father undertaking all necessary steps to obtain an urgent appointment with Dr P, the child's paediatrician, to receive information regarding B's diagnoses, management, and treatment, and to comply with Dr P's directions. By consent, both parties were to facilitate obtaining a full paediatric report from Dr P, with costs to be shared equally and the terms of engagement to be determined by the Independent Children’s Lawyer. The court also noted that the child would commence spending overnight time with his father during the upcoming school holidays.