MELLER & FABIAN

The Family Court of Australia heard a dispute between Ms Meller (the applicant mother) and Mr Fabian (the respondent father) concerning interim parenting orders for their two children, aged ten and eight. The core of the disagreement stemmed from differing views on what constituted the children's best interests, particularly in light of sexual abuse charges brought against the mother's husband, Mr Meller, in relation to his daughter, J. The children had not had contact with Mr Meller since October 2019. The mother sought to reintroduce supervised contact with Mr Meller, while the father contended that no contact should occur until the criminal proceedings against Mr Meller were resolved.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children on an interim basis, considering the allegations against Mr Meller, the involvement of the Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women, and the existing interim parenting orders. Specifically, the court had to assess whether to vary the existing orders, which included a restraint on the mother from allowing contact between the children and Mr Meller, and to decide on the appropriate conditions for any future contact, if any. The father also sought an adjournment of the proceedings until the outcome of the criminal proceedings was known.

Hogan J applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), focusing on the paramountcy of the children's best interests. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations against Mr Meller and the Department's involvement. However, the court also noted that the children had been well-parented and had good relationships with both parents. Ultimately, the court dismissed the applications made by both parents, other than for specific orders regarding communication about sensitive matters. The court ordered that neither parent discuss or permit any third party to discuss matters concerning the criminal charges against Mr Meller, the Department's involvement, or the court proceedings with the children, except for therapeutic counselling.

The court further ordered that the parties have liberty to apply to the Court following the finalisation of the criminal proceedings against Mr Meller for an expedited hearing of the parenting proceedings. Any such application was to be brought to the attention of the Associate to Hogan J for urgent listing. The orders also included particulars of obligations and consequences of contravention, as set out in an attached Fact Sheet.