PATRICK & BALODIS

In the matter of *Patrick & Balodis*, Benjamin J of the Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning the child T. The dispute involved the father seeking sole parental responsibility and the mother's time with the child. The court was required to determine the most appropriate parenting arrangements for T, considering the existing circumstances and the child's best interests.

The central legal issues before the court were whether to discharge previous parenting orders, whether the father should have sole parental responsibility, and the specific terms of the child's time with each parent. The court also had to consider the communication protocols between the parents, the mother's access to information about the child's education and health, and the conditions under which supervised contact would occur. Furthermore, the court was tasked with addressing the child's ongoing engagement with mental health services and the potential for future relocation of the child.

Benjamin J reasoned that the existing parenting orders were no longer appropriate and ordered their discharge. The court determined that the father should have sole parental responsibility for the child, with specific provisions for the mother to be informed in writing of significant parenting decisions. The child was ordered to live with the father, and the mother was granted supervised time with the child on one occasion per calendar month, to occur at a contact service or with a qualified supervisor. The court also imposed strict communication limitations on the mother and detailed the process for arranging and conducting the supervised time, including provisions for termination of visits under certain circumstances. The court further ordered that the child continue to engage with a Child Youth Mental Health service and made detailed provisions regarding the exchange of information between the parents and with the child's school and medical practitioners.

The court made comprehensive orders reflecting these determinations, including provisions for the mother's responsibility for contact service costs, the notification of residential address changes, and the father's obligation to provide three months' written notice if proposing to move the child from the Town M area. The court also directed that the Independent Children's Lawyer and Ms E inform the child of these orders and extended the appointment of the Independent Children's Lawyer for four months. All outstanding applications were dismissed, except for any applications for costs.