Johnson & Field

In the matter of *Johnson & Field*, Justice Mullane of the Family Court of Australia considered proceedings concerning the time a child, born in August 1998, should spend with her mother. Previous orders from January 2007 stipulated that the child live with the father and spend supervised, then unsupervised, time with the mother. The current dispute focused on the quantum of time the child should spend with her mother, with the court noting the mother's continued undermining of the child's relationship with the father and her failure to recognise her responsibility to support that relationship. The court also found that the mother's behaviour was abusive to the child, causing psychological harm, and that the child's wishes to spend more time with her mother were motivated by a sense of responsibility for her mother's welfare and an awareness of her mother's desires, rather than a mature consideration of the implications.

The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with determining the appropriate amount of time the child should spend with her mother, and the nature of communication between them, all within the overarching consideration of the child's best interests. This included assessing the impact of the mother's behaviour on the child and whether the child's expressed wishes were a reliable indicator of her best interests, given her age and immaturity. The court was also required to consider orders to protect the child from further psychological harm and to manage the practicalities of any contact arrangements.

Justice Mullane reasoned that the child needed protection from the mother's emotionally abusive behaviour and that her wishes were not indicative of her best interests due to her age and immaturity. Consequently, the court made orders significantly reducing the time the child spends with her mother. These orders included specific, limited periods for contact during school terms and school vacations, and a strict limitation on telephone communication to one call per Sunday. The mother was also restrained from discussing certain topics with the child, enrolling her in activities without the father's approval, attending at the child's school, or requesting additional time with the child. The father was ordered to facilitate counselling for the child to help her adapt to the new orders and a Family Consultant was appointed to supervise the parents' compliance.