Pullman and Garafolo (No 2)

In *Pullman & Garafolo (No 2)* [2020] FamCA 1143, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the father, Mr Pullman, to vary existing final orders concerning his child's time with the mother, Ms Garafolo. Final orders had previously granted the father sole parental responsibility and determined the child's residence with him. Interim orders allowed the child to spend time with the mother three nights per fortnight, intended to provide her an opportunity to complete psychiatric therapy. The father sought to reduce the mother's time to one night per fortnight, alleging the child returned distressed from time with her, suggesting inappropriate behaviour by the mother. He also objected to the mother taking the child to Sunday Mass. The mother denied engaging in un-child-focused activities and sought increased time with the child.

The court was required to determine whether to vary the existing interim orders regarding the child's time with the mother. Specifically, the court needed to assess the father's evidence of the child's distress and the mother's alleged inappropriate behaviours, and the mother's counter-arguments and requests for increased time. A further issue was the father's objection to the mother exposing the child to religious events, particularly Sunday Mass, in light of his sole parental responsibility. The court also considered the need for updated psychological reports regarding the mother's condition and its impact on her parenting capacity.

Justice McEvoy accepted the father's evidence regarding the child's distress and the mother's potentially inappropriate behaviours, finding that the mother's time with the child was impeding the child's transition into the father's care. The court found the father to be a witness of truth and accepted his evidence and that of his mother and stepfather. Conversely, the court did not accept the mother's evidence in several key respects, including her assertion of full support for the father's sole parental responsibility, given the child's distress. The court applied the principle that the father, having sole parental responsibility, was entitled to make decisions regarding major long-term issues, including the child's religious upbringing, and therefore could restrain the mother from taking the child to religious events. The court also noted the mother's apparent difficulty in accepting her diagnosis of delusional disorder, necessitating further psychiatric assessment.

The court made interim orders varying the previous arrangements. The child's time with the mother was reduced to alternate weekends from Saturday morning to Sunday afternoon, and Wednesday evenings from school until 7:00 pm. Holiday time was also adjusted. The mother was restrained from taking the child to any religious event or instructing her in religion, except for Easter and Christmas days/eve, unless by written agreement with the father. The mother was ordered to attend a psychiatric assessment for an updated report, and the court also sought a report from the child's play therapist. The matter was adjourned for a further interim defended hearing after these reports were obtained.