Pacino & Pacino

In the matter of *Pacino & Pacino*, Harper J of the Family Court of Australia considered consent orders proposed by the applicant father, Mr Pacino, and the respondent mother, Ms Pacino. The proceedings, which had been acrimonious for five years, concerned parenting and financial matters. The children had accused the father of family violence, which led to criminal proceedings where the children gave evidence. The father was found not guilty. The father also made claims of family violence against the mother. The children had not seen the father for five years.

The central legal issues before the court were whether to approve consent orders that would finalise all aspects of the proceedings, including the division of a modest asset pool and an agreement for the parties to engage in family therapy. The court also had to consider the opinion of a Single Expert who, in 2018, believed family therapy was unlikely to be successful, and the position of the Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL), who neither supported nor opposed the consent orders. The court was also tasked with determining the appropriate orders to ensure the children understood the consent orders and to manage communication about them.

Harper J reasoned that the proposed consent orders would relieve the children of the burden of ongoing litigation. Despite the history of conflict and the expert's earlier opinion on family therapy, the court ultimately made orders by consent. The court's reasoning appears to have been influenced by the parties' agreement to finalise the proceedings and their commitment to family therapy, even if its success was uncertain. The court also made specific orders to ensure the children understood the terms of the consent orders, requiring them to attend an explanation by a Family Consultant.

The court ordered that the Minute of Consent Orders be marked as Exhibit A and that orders be made in accordance with it. Further orders directed the ICL to arrange for the children to attend an explanation of the orders by a Family Consultant, with the mother to be retrained from communicating about the orders until this explanation occurred. The ICL was to be discharged from 30 April 2021.