Lewis and Dyer (No. 2)

In *Lewis and Dyer (No. 2)*, Justice Cronin of the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute concerning the parenting arrangements for two children, J and G. The proceedings involved allegations of sexual impropriety by the father towards G when she was a baby, and J's perception of having had a gun held to his head as a baby. The court was tasked with determining the future parental responsibility and living arrangements for the children, as well as the nature and extent of the father's contact with them.

The central legal issues before the court were: (1) whether the existing parenting orders should be discharged; (2) who should have sole parental responsibility for the children; (3) where the children should live; (4) the terms and conditions under which the father could communicate with the children, including the role of an Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) and the mother in vetting communications; and (5) how to address the children's understanding of the allegations and the court's findings regarding those allegations. The court also considered the discharge of the ICL's appointment and the mother's role in explaining the proceedings to the children.

Justice Cronin reasoned that the existing parenting orders should be discharged. The court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for both children and that they live with her. The father's liberty to communicate with the children was significantly restricted and phased, with all initial communications to be vetted by the ICL. The court also made specific orders regarding the father's ability to send cards and presents, with varying levels of vetting and direct communication permitted over time. Crucially, the court requested the ICL to arrange for a Mr Y to advise the children that their perceptions of the father's alleged impropriety and the gun incident were untrue, while acknowledging the mother's mistaken belief about these issues. The mother was restrained from discussing the proceedings with the children until advised by Mr Y, and the father was similarly restrained from writing to the children except for cards and presents without messages until Mr Y had spoken to them. The ICL's appointment was to be discharged on 1 March 2011.