JOLLIE & DYSART

This case concerned competing parenting applications brought by the mother, Ms Jollie, and the father, Mr Dysart, regarding their 12-year-old child, H. Both parents sought orders for sole parental responsibility and residence, with an alternative claim for equal shared parental responsibility. The Family Court of Australia, presided over by Cleary J, was tasked with determining the parenting arrangements for H.

The central legal issues before the court were: with whom H should live and spend time, and who should have parental responsibility for him. The court was required to consider the impact of the mother's mental health and personality on H, and to make orders that would facilitate H's transition to living full-time with his father. The court also had to address the need for incentives for compliance with orders to avoid future enforcement applications.

Cleary J applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly ss 60CC, 62B, 64B, 65DA, 67Q, and 68B, in determining the best interests of the child. The court found that the mother's mental health and personality presented significant issues, leading to the decision that H should live with his father and that the father should have sole parental responsibility. The court made detailed orders regarding H's time with his mother, commencing with limited telephone contact and progressing to supervised face-to-face time, with provisions for increasing the duration and frequency of contact over time, provided certain conditions were met. The mother was also restrained from making contact with H other than in accordance with the orders and from providing him with a mobile telephone.

The court ordered that all prior parenting orders be discharged. H was to live with his father, who was to have sole parental responsibility until H reached 16 years of age. The mother's time with H was to progress from supervised telephone contact to alternating weekends, with specific conditions and safeguards in place, including the presence of supportive adults. The court also issued injunctions restraining the mother from unauthorised contact with H and from providing him with a mobile telephone. The Independent Children's Lawyer was directed to explain the orders to H, particularly regarding the implications of reaching 16 years of age. Provisions were also made for psychological support for H and the family, and for the exchange of information regarding H's health and education. A recovery order was issued but stayed, to be executed only if H was absent from the father's care in contravention of the orders.