PACILLO & SEALES

In the Family Court of Australia, Hannam J considered a dispute between the parents of a child concerning interim and final parenting orders. The child was not currently spending time with the father, and their relationship was strained. The Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) proposed interim orders to allow the child therapeutic assistance to rebuild the relationship with the father, while the father sought final orders for the child to reside with him. The ICL also sought the intervention of the Department of Family and Community Services under section 91B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The court was required to determine whether interim or final orders were appropriate in the circumstances, and whether the Department of Family and Community Services should be requested to intervene. Key considerations included the Family Consultant's opinion that no time should be ordered with the father, the child's wishes, concerns about both parents' capacities and attitudes, and high parental conflict. The court ultimately determined that the child's best interests would be served by making interim orders.

Hannam J placed significant weight on the Family Consultant's opinion and gave some weight to the child's wishes. The court noted concerns regarding both parents' capacities and their attitudes towards their parental responsibilities, highlighting the high level of conflict. Consequently, the court made a range of interim orders designed to manage the immediate situation and facilitate potential future improvements in the parent-child relationships.

The court ordered that the child live with the mother and imposed various restrictions and obligations on both parents, including communication protocols, restrictions on alcohol consumption by the mother when the child is in her care, and a prohibition on denigrating the other parent in the child's presence. The mother was also directed to arrange a mental health assessment for herself. Crucially, the Secretary of the NSW Department of Family and Community Services was requested to intervene in the proceedings. The orders also provided for the child and father to have an opportunity to participate in therapeutic services aimed at rebuilding their relationship, with the ICL to facilitate this where appropriate. The matter was adjourned for further interim hearings and sentencing proceedings related to a contravention application.