Merrick & Poulsen

In the matter of Merrick & Poulsen, Judge Newbrun of the Family Court of Australia considered interim parenting orders concerning the child X. The applicant, Mr Merrick (the Father), and the respondent, Ms Poulsen (the Mother), sought orders regarding X's time with each parent.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, X, in light of the parents' circumstances. Key issues included the appropriate level and nature of supervised contact between X and the Mother, the communication arrangements between the parents and X, and the practicalities of implementing any orders, particularly given the geographical distance between the parties and the Mother's history of alcohol dependency. The court also considered the need for drug and alcohol testing for both parents.

Judge Newbrun's reasoning focused on the paramount consideration of X's best interests, as outlined in section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court acknowledged the child's expressed views about missing his mother and the positive reports from supervised contact sessions. However, significant weight was given to the Mother's history of alcohol abuse, including breaches of prohibition orders, positive drug and alcohol tests, and periods of imprisonment. The court noted the practical difficulties of contact due to the Mother's relocation to Sydney while the Father resides in Canberra. The court also considered the need for both parents to maintain communication with X's school and to provide each other with updated contact details.

The court made detailed orders to facilitate supervised contact between X and the Mother, initially through Contact Centre B in Sydney and subsequently at Contact Centre A in Canberra, with the Mother responsible for supervision costs. Orders were also made for regular FaceTime contact, communication protocols between the parents, and mandatory hair drug and alcohol testing for both parties. The Mother was restrained from collecting X from school without the Father's consent, and the Father was restrained from changing X's school without the Mother's consent. The Mother was also ordered to notify the Independent Children's Lawyer and the Father's solicitor of any arrests or charges.