KADENS & KADENS

This matter concerned interim parenting arrangements for three young children, aged six, five, and three, who resided with their mother in Adelaide. The father lived in Perth and had not spent time with the children for a significant period due to COVID-19 travel restrictions. All three children have significant special needs. The father had previously engaged in supervised time with the children, and the parties had agreed to unsupervised daytime periods, which did not eventuate due to the father's travel limitations. The mother sought that any future time the father spent with the children be subject to supervision.

The court was required to determine the appropriate interim parenting orders, considering the children's best interests, the assessment of risk, and the nature of an interim hearing. Specifically, the court had to decide on the terms and conditions under which the father would spend time with the children, including the duration, frequency, location, and any necessary supervision or support.

Judge Brown reasoned that given the children's special needs and the extended period of separation, a cautious approach was warranted for interim arrangements. The court applied the paramount consideration of the children's best interests, balancing the father's desire for contact with the need for safety and stability. The court noted the previous agreement for unsupervised time but acknowledged the changed circumstances and the mother's concerns. The orders reflect a phased approach, commencing with shorter, supervised visits, with provisions for increased duration and attendance at therapy sessions. The court also mandated specific parenting courses for both parties and imposed conditions regarding communication, handover, and safety measures, such as restraints in vehicles and restrictions around bodies of water.

The court ordered that the children spend time with the father in South Australia on specific weekends and during school holidays, with defined durations and conditions. These conditions included advance notice of intention to visit, the presence of a community support worker for two of the children, confirmation of visit locations for contact tracing, and specific safety requirements for transport. The father was also restrained from taking the children near bodies of water unless accompanied by at least one adult per child. The parties were ordered to complete specified parenting courses. The court also made orders for electronic communication and for the mother to provide fortnightly updates to the father. Finally, the court directed the parties to instruct a psychologist to undertake a Family Assessment Report concerning future care arrangements.