O'Keefe & O'Keefe

In the matter of O'Keefe & O'Keefe, O'Reilly J determined parenting orders concerning five children. The dispute involved the living arrangements and parental responsibilities for the children, B, C, D, E, and F.

The court was required to determine the primary residence of the children, the allocation of parental responsibility, the nature and extent of the father's time with the children, and the communication protocols between the parents regarding the children. Additionally, the court considered the role of a family consultant and the potential for future proceedings.

O'Reilly J ordered that the children live with the mother and that she have sole parental responsibility. The father was granted supervised time with D, E, and F at a contact centre on alternate weekends for two hours. Specific provisions were made for the mother to ensure the younger children attend before and after school care when she is working or attending college, and for the father and mother to attend intake interviews at the contact centre. The older children, B and C, were to spend time with the father if they expressed a desire to do so, accompanying their younger siblings. The orders also established detailed communication arrangements, including the use of post office boxes for letters and gifts, and the mother's role in inspecting and forwarding communications. The court also mandated the mother to provide school reports to the father, with deletions to protect the children's school location, and to notify specific individuals of any serious accident or medical emergency concerning the children. Assistance from a family consultant was to be provided to the parties.

All previous orders were discharged, and all other applications were dismissed. The father was permitted to institute fresh proceedings after 18 months, limited to proposals for unsupervised time with the children. The independent children's lawyer was to remain in place for 12 months and provide copies of the orders and reasons to the contact centre. The notation clarified that the orders were not to conflict with the principles in *Rice v Asplund* should there be a significant change in circumstances.