Perton and Hungerford

The case of Perton and Hungerford involved a dispute between the mother and father concerning parenting orders for their child, G. The proceedings were before the court, with McClelland J presiding. The core of the dispute revolved around the child's health, specifically his diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), and the appropriate therapeutic and educational interventions.

The court was required to determine a range of issues concerning the child's welfare and the parental responsibilities of both the mother and father. These included the allocation of parental responsibility for health and therapy, the specific health professionals the child should attend, the extent to which the mother could engage other professionals, and the father's access to information about the child's treatment. The court also had to consider the father's role in the child's therapy and the communication protocols between the parents and the child's treating practitioners. Furthermore, the court addressed the admissibility of evidence from treating therapists and the rules governing expert evidence in family law proceedings.

McClelland J applied principles relating to the best interests of the child, as is paramount in family law matters. The court discharged previous parenting orders and made new orders that granted the mother sole parental responsibility for the child's health and therapy, specifying a comprehensive list of health professionals the child was to attend. The mother was restrained from engaging other professionals without specific conditions. The court also established detailed provisions for communication and information sharing between the parents, including monthly photographs or videos of the child, and outlined the father's right to obtain reports from treating professionals. The court also addressed the admissibility of evidence from treating therapists, referencing section 69ZT of the *Family Law Act 1975* and Rule 15.41 of the Family Law Rules, which provide exemptions from certain evidence rules for treating practitioners.

The court made extensive orders, including provisions for the child to live with the mother and for the mother to have sole parental responsibility for health and therapy. The orders detailed the specific health professionals to be involved, communication requirements between parents, and the father's access to information. The court also included orders restraining both parties from denigrating each other in the child's presence and from discussing proceedings with the child. The child's name was to remain G Hungerford Perton, and the father was permitted to send gifts and letters to the child. The matter was listed for further direction.