MATTHEWS & BENDER

This matter concerned an application before Johns J in the Family Court of Australia, involving a mother and father and their child, M. The dispute centred on the terms of contact between the mother and child, and related welfare and counselling arrangements for the child.

The court was required to determine the appropriate arrangements for the mother to spend time and communicate with the child, M. This included the frequency and nature of contact, the role of supervised contact, telephone communication, and the provision of gifts and letters. The court also had to consider the child's ongoing therapy and counselling, the use of a communication book, and whether to impose injunctions and restrictions on the mother's future applications to the court.

Johns J made detailed orders regarding the mother's contact with the child, primarily through supervised contact at a contact centre once a month for two hours, with the mother responsible for supervision costs. Communication was also permitted via telephone on specific annual occasions and at other reasonable times requested by the child, with the father having the right to monitor and terminate calls if the mother discussed undermining topics. The father was also directed to facilitate the child sending letters, cards, or gifts to the mother. The court ordered the father to ensure the child continued therapy with Dr J, with the father bearing the costs, and that such therapy be reportable. A communication book was to be used to keep the mother informed about the child's welfare. Crucially, the mother was restrained by injunction from attending the child's school or extra-curricular activities without written agreement, and from making further applications under Part VII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) without leave until July 2017. The court noted that the mother had not addressed significant psychological issues impacting her functioning and self-awareness, leading to a lack of confidence that she would change, and that further litigation would not be in the child's best interests.

The court ordered the discharge of the Independent Children's Lawyer and dismissed all extant applications. The orders included a fact sheet detailing obligations and consequences of contravention, pursuant to sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Documents produced to the court were to be returned after thirty days or upon the conclusion of any appeal.