Peters and Ustinov

In *Peters & Ustinov* [2013] FamCA 361, the Family Court of Australia considered the best interests of a 13-year-old child, B, in relation to his contact with his father, Mr Ustinov. Ms Peters, the mother, sought orders that B spend time with and communicate with his father only in accordance with B's wishes. Mr Ustinov, the father, sought to re-litigate parental responsibility and obtain defined time with his son, including a mechanism for B to explain directly to him why he might not wish to attend. The Independent Children’s Lawyer supported the mother's application for orders reflecting the child's wishes.

The court was required to determine whether B should spend any time with or communicate with his father, and if so, whether such time should be in accordance with B's wishes. A key issue was how to consider B's wishes, taking into account his age, maturity, and mental wellbeing, in the context of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The court also had to consider the primary considerations under section 60CC(2) of the Act, namely the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from harm.

Collier J applied the principles of the Family Law Act 1975, particularly section 60CC, to determine the child's best interests. Her Honour found that the child, B, had expressed a clear wish to see his father on his own terms and that he possessed sufficient age-appropriate maturity for his views to be given significant weight. The court was satisfied that B loved his father but felt overwhelmed by his father's personality and behaviour, and that the suspension of contact had significantly improved B's mental health and wellbeing. The father's focus on historical grievances and his inability to acknowledge the impact of his behaviour on the child led the court to conclude that his approach was not aligned with B's best interests.

The court ordered that the previous orders be discharged and that B should spend time with and communicate with his father in accordance with B's wishes. The mother was ordered to facilitate such contact if B expressed a wish to do so. All outstanding applications and cross-applications were dismissed, and the matter was removed from the Active Pending Cases List.