Narwald & Narwald (No 2)

This matter concerned parenting arrangements for the children X and Y, born in 2017 and 2019 respectively, between the applicant mother, Ms Narwald, and the respondent father, Mr Narwald. The dispute arose following the parties' separation in October 2020, with the children initially residing with the father. The court, presided over by C Kelly J, was required to determine the children's living arrangements and related matters, including the impact of an alleged threat made by the father on social media and the mother's mental health.

The court was tasked with determining whether the children were at a substantial risk of harm if they resumed unsupervised time in the father's care, particularly in light of the mother's concerns stemming from an alleged Facebook exchange involving the father. Additionally, the court needed to consider the mother's psychological state and its potential impact on her capacity to facilitate the established shared parenting regime, and whether her fears for the children's safety warranted a limitation on the father's time with them. The court also had to address various practical arrangements concerning handovers, communication, and the involvement of extended family.

C Kelly J reasoned that, despite the mother's understandable alarm following the alleged Facebook incident, the evidence did not demonstrate a substantial risk of harm to the children from the father. The court accepted the reassuring assessments from both the father's and the mother's treating psychologists, concluding that the mother's psychological status had substantially improved and that she was well-supported to manage the court's decision. The court found that the mother's application to limit the children's time with the father to supervised contact was not in the children's best interests. The court also ordered that the children return to the mother's care if the father was unable to care for them due to his military service.

The court made orders continuing the previous arrangements, with specific commencement dates for the children living with the father. These orders included provisions for handovers, the father's obligation to ensure paternal grandparents' presence, and confirmation of the father's ability to obtain leave from his employment. Facetime contact was suspended unless otherwise agreed, and email communication was limited to child-related issues, requiring polite and respectful conduct. The court also ordered negotiations regarding the father's application to be released from a Harman Undertaking, the appointment of an independent children's lawyer, a forensic evaluation of electronic devices, and a family assessment. The matter was adjourned for further consideration.