Matthews& Norris (No 2)

In *Matthews & Norris (No 2)*, Austin J of the Family Court of Australia considered an interlocutory application concerning the living arrangements and parental responsibility of the parties' child. The dispute arose from the mother's alleged intent to preclude the child's interaction with the father and her non-compliance with previous consent orders, including an instance of abduction. The father sought a reversal of the child's residence from the mother to himself.

The court was required to determine, on an interim basis, with whom the child should live, who should hold parental responsibility, and the nature and extent of the mother's time with the child. Central to these determinations was the court's assessment of the mother's parenting capacity, her commitment to complying with court orders, and the potential impact on the child's relationship with the father if the current living arrangements persisted.

Austin J reasoned that the mother's parenting capacity was impaired, evidenced by her intent to isolate the child from the father and her refusal to comply with prior consent orders. The court noted that untested evidence from a Family Consultant suggested the child's relationship with the father would likely diminish or cease if the child remained with the mother. Given the mother's demonstrated unwillingness to commit to future compliance with orders, the court concluded that it was in the child's best interests to live with the father.

Consequently, the court ordered that the father have sole parental responsibility for the child, and that the child live with the father. The mother was granted supervised time with the child for two hours once per week, with specific provisions for supervision and venue. The mother was also restrained from approaching within 100 metres of the father's residence or the child's school, and both parents were restrained from removing the child from Australia. An update family report was ordered to be prepared by the Family Consultant.