Jardine and Sackville (No 2)

In the matter of *Jardine and Sackville (No 2)*, Austin J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the father seeking orders for the children to communicate and spend time with him, the amendment of an apprehended violence order made by a State court, and for the mother and maternal grandparents to undergo psychological or psychiatric assessments. The mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer sought the dismissal of the father's application. The father alleged parental alienation by the mother, while the mother contended the father was violent.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the father's interim orders, considering the existing interim orders from March 2019 which granted the mother sole parental responsibility and stipulated the children live with her, and the father's prior withdrawal of his application for contact. Key legal issues included the application of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, the weight to be given to the considerations under section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) in the context of interim proceedings, the court's power to amend or annul orders of a State court, and its power to compel psychological or psychiatric assessments of parties and third parties.

Austin J reasoned that factual findings on the allegations of parental alienation and violence could not be made at the interim stage, as evidence required testing at trial, which was listed for January 2020. The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility did not apply. The court found that the father's desire for contact was outweighed by the section 60CC considerations. Furthermore, the court determined it lacked the power to annul or amend the apprehended violence order made by a State court, and it had no power to compel the maternal grandparents to undergo assessments. There was also no evidentiary basis to compel the mother to submit to such an assessment at this interim stage.

Consequently, the father's application was dismissed. The respondent mother's application for costs arising from the interim hearing was reserved to the final trial. Leave was granted to the Independent Children’s Lawyer to issue a subpoena to the father's psychologist.