NADILE & RABATIN

In the matter of *NadiLe & Rabatin*, Judge Burchardt of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered a deeply acrimonious parenting dispute between a father and mother concerning their three children. The father alleged that the mother was fabricating assaults on the children and unduly influencing them to cease contact with him, while also expressing significant criticism of independent experts and denying the children's allegations of assault.

The court was tasked with determining the best interests of the children in light of these conflicting allegations and the father's apparent lack of insight into his own conduct and its impact on the children. Specifically, the court had to assess the credibility of the evidence presented, including the children's claims of assault, and decide on the appropriate parenting arrangements moving forward.

Judge Burchardt found the evidence presented to be overwhelming, clearly establishing the assaults alleged by the children. The court noted the father's unfortunate lack of insight into his behaviour and its consequences. Applying the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975*, the court made orders reflecting the recommendations of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

Consequently, all previous parenting orders were discharged. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for the children, with the children to live with her. The father was to have supervised time and communication with the eldest child, X, subject to her wishes, but was to have no face-to-face contact with the younger children, Y and Z. The court also made orders regarding communication between the parents, information sharing, and imposed injunctions restraining the parties from denigrating each other in the presence of the children or discussing the proceedings with them. The court further noted that the father's approach to anger management and behavioural change, and his acceptance of past conduct, could influence future considerations regarding contact, referencing the principles in *Rice v Asplund*.