MELVIN & KUMAR (No.2)

Harman J presided over this matter involving a dispute between parents concerning their child. The core of the disagreement revolved around arrangements for the child's psychological support and intervention, the presence of family violence, and significant inter-parental conflict. The court was tasked with determining how best to promote the child's wellbeing in light of these complex issues.

The court was required to consider the best interests of the child, a paramount consideration in family law matters. Specifically, the court needed to address the implications of inter-parental conflict and family violence on the child's welfare, distinguishing between these two concepts as outlined in the Australian Psychological Society's position paper. The court also had to determine the appropriate parenting orders, including arrangements for the child's living situation, time spent with each parent, and communication protocols between the parents, all while ensuring the child's safety and emotional stability.

Harman J's reasoning incorporated the distinction between inter-parental conflict and family violence, as detailed in the Australian Psychological Society's position paper. The court acknowledged that while conflict can be reciprocal, family violence typically involves a power imbalance and aims to coerce or control. The court's decision was guided by the principle that children exposed to ongoing denigration and hostility between parents are more likely to suffer adverse psychological outcomes, including depression and anxiety. The court also recognised that separation can be beneficial if it removes a child from a violent or highly conflictual environment. The orders made by consent reflected a comprehensive approach to the child's wellbeing, including provisions for therapeutic engagement, communication between parents, and specific time arrangements.

By consent, the court made orders in accordance with the parties' Terms of Settlement and the Independent Children's Lawyer's recommendations. All outstanding applications were withdrawn and dismissed. The court also requested that subpoenaed material be retained for 12 months and included a fact sheet detailing the obligations and consequences of contravening the orders. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged with the court's thanks. The detailed terms of settlement included provisions for equal shared parental responsibility, the child living with the mother, a phased-in schedule for the child spending time with the father, arrangements for special occasions, changeover protocols, parental involvement in school events, information sharing regarding the child's health, a prohibition on denigration, and mandatory intensive therapy with a specified expert, with the father to meet the costs. The orders also prohibited physical discipline of the children.