NARKIS & NARKIS

In the matter of NARKIS & NARKIS, Justice Stevenson of the Family Court of Australia considered applications brought by both the wife and the husband. The wife alleged that the husband had contravened a court order concerning overseas travel with the child, claiming she was not informed of a change in travel arrangements. The wife also sought to discharge an existing order for the child's telephone and Skype communication with the husband, and requested a new psychiatric report. The husband sought an order restraining the parties from filing further interim applications without leave.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the husband had contravened the overseas travel order, whether the wife had established grounds to discharge the communication order, and whether the wife's application for a new psychiatric report met the requirements of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth). Additionally, the Court considered the husband's application for an interlocutory restraint on further applications.

Regarding the alleged contravention of the overseas travel order, the Court found that the wife had established a prima facie case. However, after considering the evidence, Justice Stevenson concluded that the husband had complied with the order and made reasonable attempts to inform the wife of the proposed changes to the travel arrangements, thus dismissing the wife's application. The wife's application to discharge the communication order was also dismissed, as she failed to adduce evidence justifying the suspension of communication or propose alternative times. The wife's application for a new psychiatric report was dismissed due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of rules 15.49 and 15.52 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth). The husband's application for a restraint on further interim applications, supported by the Independent Children's Lawyer, was granted.

Consequently, the wife's applications were dismissed. The Court ordered that the wife was to facilitate the child's communication with the husband by advising of availability twice weekly, and that both the wife and the child were to attend appointments with the Family Consultant. Furthermore, both parties were restrained from filing further applications without leave of the Court, with an exception for the wife to seek leave to adduce evidence from an adversarial expert psychiatrist.