Norton v Landell (Consent Final Parenting Orders)

The case of *Norton v Landell* concerned final parenting orders proposed by consent between the mother and father, with the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) also consenting. The primary dispute revolved around the living arrangements for the child, X, and the extent to which the father should be permitted to spend time with X. The mother had exhibited concerning behaviours, including drug use and domestic violence, though there was no evidence of adverse effects on the child. The father had a prior conviction for sexual offences against a child and was acknowledged to pose a risk to other children, including X.

The court was required to determine whether the proposed consent orders, which stipulated that X live with the mother and that the father’s time with X be supervised, were in the child's best interests. Specifically, the court had to assess the risk of harm posed by the father and whether the mitigatory measures within the proposed orders were sufficient to render that risk acceptable. The court also considered the child's wishes, given that X was a young adolescent, and the unusual nature of the proposed orders, which contemplated potentially long-term supervision of the father's contact.

Justice Tree reasoned that while the mother’s behaviours were concerning, the proposed orders included specific conditions requiring her to attend drug and alcohol counselling, therapeutic support, and anger management courses, with compliance to be monitored by the ICL. Regarding the father, the court found that the proposed supervised contact arrangements, including the involvement of a supervisor and specific locations, were sufficient to ameliorate the risk of harm to X to an acceptable level. The court acknowledged the benefit X would derive from a relationship with his father and, giving considerable weight to X's wishes, concluded that the orders were in X's best interests. The court also found exceptional circumstances justified an order that any variation to unsupervised time for the father could only occur by subsequent court order, not by parenting plan.

The court made final orders discharging previous orders. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility and X was to live with her, conditional on her compliance with specific therapeutic and counselling requirements. The father was permitted supervised time with X on specified days and times, with provisions for supervision by an agreed individual or a contact service, and the father was to bear all costs. The orders also included provisions for communication between the father and X, the issuance and holding of X's passport, and X's therapeutic support. The ICL was authorised to provide relevant reports to therapists and was to be discharged in 12 months, at which point outstanding applications would be dismissed.