MATTHEWS & BENDER

The Family Court of Australia considered an application by Mr Matthews (the applicant father) and Ms Bender (the respondent mother) concerning interim parenting orders for their child, M. The dispute centred on the recommencement of the child's time with the mother, specifically whether this time should be supervised and who should bear the costs of such supervision. The court was required to determine the best interests of the child in light of previous orders that had removed the child from the mother's care and the mother's current circumstances and capacity.

The legal issues before the court were whether the child's time with the mother should commence immediately, the nature of any supervision required, and the allocation of the costs associated with supervised contact. The court was mandated to consider the paramountcy of the child's best interests, as outlined in sections 60B and 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the primary and additional considerations relevant to the dispute. This involved weighing the child's apparent desire to reconnect with her mother against the mother's demonstrated difficulties in managing her behaviour and her capacity to prioritise the child's needs.

Justice Macmillan reasoned that while it was in the child's best interests to commence spending time with the mother as soon as practically possible, this needed to be balanced against the need for appropriate supervision to protect the child from the mother's negative views of the father and to allow the child to build trust in her father. The court found that supervision was necessary due to the mother's lack of insight, her inability to consistently regulate her behaviour, and the concerns raised by professionals regarding her capacity to interact appropriately with the child. The court also considered the suitability of various proposed supervisors, ultimately finding none to be appropriate at that stage. Regarding costs, despite the general benefit of both parents contributing, the court determined that the father was in a superior financial position and that it would not be in the child's best interests for the mother's inability to meet supervision costs to preclude face-to-face contact.

Consequently, the court ordered that the mother and father facilitate the child's time with the mother through the I Contact Centre, with the father to bear the cost of supervision until further order. The court also made orders for the child to communicate with the mother by telephone or Skype, commencing immediately, and for the Independent Children's Lawyer to obtain a report on the progress of supervised time. The matter was adjourned for further hearing to consider ongoing supervision and costs.