Parker & Karl

This matter concerned an appeal to the Supreme Court of South Australia (Family Law) from interim orders made by a Federal Magistrate. The appeal was brought by the mother of two children, B and BI, who alleged abuse and a high level of risk to the children if the father's time with them was not professionally supervised. The primary dispute revolved around the Federal Magistrate's failure to appoint an Independent Children's Lawyer and the weight given to evidence concerning the risk of harm to the children.

The court was required to determine whether the Federal Magistrate erred in failing to specifically refer to section 61DA of the *Family Law Act 1975* in their reasons, whether insufficient weight was given to the evidence regarding the risk of harm to the children, and whether the father's time with the children should be supervised at a Children's Contact Service.

Strickland J found that the Federal Magistrate had erred in their decision. The court reasoned that the allegations of abuse and the identified high level of risk necessitated the appointment of an Independent Children's Lawyer to represent the children's interests, as mandated by section 68L of the *Family Law Act 1975*. Furthermore, the court concluded that the evidence warranted supervised contact between the father and the children. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the previous order regarding the father's contact was set aside, and the court ordered that an Independent Children's Lawyer be appointed. The father's time with the children was to be supervised at a Children's Contact Service, with the costs to be shared equally by the parties. The mother was also granted a costs certificate.