MEDWELL & CALVETT

This case concerned an interim hearing in the Family Court of Australia at Adelaide, presided over by Justice Dawe. The parties were Ms Medwell (the applicant mother) and Mr Calvett (the respondent father), with an Independent Children's Lawyer also involved. The dispute centred on the father's application for time spent with their infant child, S, which was opposed by both the mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer. The proceedings were brought in the context of a significant injury sustained by the child when approximately two months old, the cause of which was unclear and disputed between the parents, leading to intervention by child protection services and the child being placed in the mother's care.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it was in the best interests of the child, S, for the father to spend any time with the child, including supervised time, on an interim basis. This required the Court to consider the paramountcy principle under section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly in light of the child's young age, the disputed circumstances surrounding the child's significant injury, and the mother's allegations that the father was responsible for that injury. The Court also had to assess the risk of harm to the child, both physical and developmental, and consider the existing care arrangements and the mother's expressed concerns about the father's capacity to provide safe care.

Justice Dawe reasoned that, on an interim basis, the Court lacked the capacity to make definitive findings on the contested versions of events or the parties' respective capacities. However, the Court's overriding obligation was to protect the child from harm and ensure the child's best interests were paramount. Taking into account the child's age, the limited interaction the father had established due to intervening circumstances, and the potential impact of any change in the child's current care arrangements with the mother, the Court was not satisfied that any time with the father, even supervised, was currently in the child's best interests. The Court noted that the father had a history of domestic violence and pending charges, but also that he was taking steps towards psychological assessment and parenting education, which would be relevant for the final determination of the matter.

The Court ordered that certain previous interim orders be continued, with an amendment requiring both parents to undertake further random drug urinalysis tests within 24 hours of a written request from the Independent Children's Lawyer, with results to be provided within seven days of receipt. The final application proceedings were referred for trial allocation, with an estimated trial length of 7 to 10 days, and were adjourned for trial directions. The mother's Case Application filed on 20 November 2013 was dismissed.