LAMOTT & LAMOTT

In *Lamott & Lamott*, heard by Judge A Kelly, the dispute concerned interim parenting orders for a child, X. The applicant father sought orders regarding X's time with him, while the respondent mother had allegedly failed to comply with previous court orders and actively undermined X's relationship with the father. Reports from a section 11F report and a family report both supported the child spending time with the father, though the family report noted that continued undermining by the mother could warrant a change of residence. Expert evidence highlighted the harm to X from the denial of a bond with the father, with a demonstrable likelihood of further harm.

The court was required to determine the appropriate interim parenting orders, considering the mother's non-compliance and conduct, the expert and family reports, and the paramountcy of the child's best interests. Specifically, the court had to decide whether to discharge or vary existing interim orders, establish a schedule for X to spend time with the father, and implement measures to facilitate these arrangements and mitigate trauma for the child. The court also needed to address the potential conflict between its orders and any extant family violence intervention orders.

The court reasoned that the mother's comprehensive failure to comply with court orders and her efforts to undermine the child's relationship with the father necessitated a firm approach. Applying the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly concerning the child's best interests and the prevention of harm, the court made new interim orders. These orders discharged certain previous provisions and maintained others, establishing a specific schedule for X to spend time with the father, commencing immediately. The court also imposed obligations on the mother to facilitate these arrangements and restrained her from hindering them, with changeovers to occur at the child's school or an agreed alternative location. The court further declared that any conflicting family violence intervention orders would be invalid to the extent of the conflict and provided details of obligations and consequences for contravention. The proceeding was adjourned for further mention, with liberty reserved to apply.