RADLEY & RADLEY

In the Family Court of Australia, Mr Radley (the applicant father) and Ms Radley (the respondent mother) brought proceedings concerning their three children. The dispute involved orders regarding the children's living arrangements, parental responsibility, and time spent with each parent, including the mother's desire to relocate with the children.

The court was required to determine several key issues. These included the appropriate allocation of parental responsibility, given the father's history of family violence and the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility not applying. The court also had to consider the children's best interests in relation to spending time with the father, the mother's proposed relocation, and the impact of family violence on the parties' ability to communicate and co-parent. The court also had to evaluate the evidence of a Family Consultant and decide whether to adopt their recommendations.

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the father had perpetrated family violence against the mother throughout their relationship, supported by convictions for assault and granted injunctions. The court acknowledged the father's voluntary engagement in rehabilitation programs for alcohol use and behaviour, and his progress in supervised contact with the children. However, the court rejected the Family Consultant's recommendation for no contact, applying the principles from *Bostoi & Bostoi* and *Whipp & Richards* that such evidence must be evaluated and not uncritically adopted. The court determined that the children would benefit from ongoing meaningful relationships with both parents, but that the mother should have sole parental responsibility due to the family violence. The mother was permitted to relocate, but was restrained from moving the children more than 325 kilometres from Sydney.

The court made orders discharging all former orders relating to the children. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility, and the children were to live with her. The mother was restrained from relocating the children's residence outside a 325-kilometre radius from the Sydney city post office. Supervised time with the father was ordered to commence, gradually increasing in duration and decreasing in supervision levels over time, subject to the father's compliance with various conditions, including abstaining from alcohol. The father was also restrained from approaching the mother's residence or the children's schools. Provisions were made for communication between the children and both parents, including telephone contact and the exchange of letters.