Neate and Malin & Ors

In the Family Court of Australia, Rees J considered parenting orders concerning a child, Y, born in 2015. The child had been living with the paternal grandmother since the age of six weeks. The mother sought to re-establish a relationship with Y, despite a history of illicit substance abuse and criminal behaviour, though she asserted she was now drug-free. The child presented with social and behavioural difficulties, and a sibling was also subject to court proceedings. The central dispute revolved around how Y's time with the mother should be facilitated, with a focus on ensuring Y's safety and well-being.

The court was required to determine the living arrangements for Y, the extent of parental responsibility to be allocated, and the nature and conditions of Y's time with both the mother and the father. Key issues included the appropriate level of supervision for contact between Y and the mother, the necessity and form of ongoing drug testing for the mother, and the conditions under which Y's time with the mother could gradually increase. The court also had to consider the impact of the mother's past behaviour and the child's specific needs on the proposed arrangements.

Rees J ordered that Y live with the paternal grandmother, who was granted sole parental responsibility. The father was to spend time with Y as agreed with and supervised by the paternal grandmother. Time between Y and the mother was to commence at a supervised contact centre for two hours on alternate Saturdays for one year, transitioning to four hours on alternate Sundays thereafter. This graduated time was subject to strict conditions, including the paternal grandmother's presence and proximity for initial visits, and the mother's agreement to supervised collection and return of Y. Crucially, the mother was ordered to undergo Chain of Custody hair follicle testing within two months and every three months thereafter, with failure to provide clear results or attend contact visits leading to the suspension of these orders. The court also made orders regarding communication, restraints on unsupervised time with certain individuals, and the co-ordination of Y's time with his sibling, X.