LANE & STEINER

In *Lane & Steiner* [2014] FamCA 214, the Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning a child born in 2007. The proceedings involved the child's mother, Ms Lane (the applicant), and her father, Mr Steiner (the respondent). An Independent Children’s Lawyer was also appointed to represent the child's interests. The dispute centred on the extent of contact, if any, the father should have with the child, given a history of violence and family violence.

The court was required to determine three key issues: whether the child should spend any time with the father; whether the mother was psychiatrically, psychologically, or emotionally capable of coping with the father spending time with the child, in light of the relevant legal principles; and whether the father posed an unacceptable risk to the mother and/or the child. These issues were to be considered within the framework of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), with the child's best interests as the paramount consideration.

Justice Benjamin noted the significant history of violence, threats, and intimidation by the father and his family against the mother and her new partner, including charges of arson and unlawful wounding. The father consented to orders for the child to live with the mother and for her to have sole parental responsibility. The mother sought orders for no time or communication between the father and the child, though she indicated a willingness to provide photographs and brief updates on the child's health and education. The father sought regular contact through a Children’s Contact Service. The Independent Children’s Lawyer supported the mother's position for limited or no contact.

By consent, the court vacated all previous parenting orders and made new orders granting the mother sole parental responsibility for the child. The mother was ordered to provide the father with one to three photographs of the child and a brief description of her health, welfare, and education annually. Crucially, the father was prohibited from spending time or communicating with the child, and was restrained from approaching the child or mother without the mother's express written consent or a court order. All other extant applications were dismissed.