King and King (No 2)

The Family Court of Australia heard a dispute between Ms King (the applicant mother) and Mr King (the respondent father) concerning parenting arrangements for their three children: C (aged 17), D (aged 10), and E (aged 7). The children had been living with their mother since the parties' final separation in August 2011 and had had minimal contact with their father since that time. The mother sought orders for the children to continue living with her and to have no time with the father, alleging threats of violence, lack of involvement, and financial withholding by the father, as well as the children's strong opposition to spending time with him. The father contended that the mother had alienated him from the children and that their opposition stemmed from her influence.

The court was required to determine the parenting arrangements for the three children, specifically addressing the children's strong resistance to spending time with their father. The central legal issue was how to best promote the children's welfare and best interests in light of their expressed wishes and the allegations made by both parents. This involved considering the impact of the alleged financial hardships on the children, which differed from typical abuse allegations in "no time" cases, and assessing the credibility of the parents' claims regarding parental alienation.

Justice Johns applied the paramount principle of the children's best interests, as enshrined in the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court noted the consistent and strong opposition of the children to spending time with their father, as observed by a contact centre and a family consultant. While acknowledging the father's claims of parental alienation, the court found that much of the children's and mother's criticism related to financial hardship rather than direct abuse. The court considered the ages and maturity of the children, particularly the older child C, whose wishes were given significant weight.

The court ordered the discharge of all previous parenting orders and granted the mother sole parental responsibility for the children, with the children to live with her. The eldest child, C, was permitted to spend time and communicate with the father according to her wishes. For the younger children, D and E, the court ordered no face-to-face time with the father but mandated therapeutic counselling to explore the nature of their relationship with him and the possibility of re-establishing face-to-face contact. The father was permitted to maintain communication through letters and presents on special occasions, and the mother was to provide school reports and advise him of significant welfare issues. The father and mother were to share the costs of the counselling.