Rand and Tercel

In the matter of *Rand and Tercel*, Hogan J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application to vary existing orders concerning a child. The dispute involved the father's contact with the child and the process for obtaining an Australian passport for the child. The father had filed an application for contravention, which was to be treated as withdrawn upon a specific meeting occurring.

The court was required to determine whether to vary the existing orders to reflect a significant shift in the child's autonomy regarding contact with the father, and to establish a clear procedure for the father's consent to a passport application, including a mechanism for overcoming refusal or neglect. Additionally, the court needed to make orders facilitating a meeting between the child and the father to explain the new arrangements for contact.

Hogan J, by consent and by way of final order, varied the previous orders. Crucially, a new clause was inserted stipulating that the child's time and communication with the father would only occur at the child's instigation. Existing clauses regarding passport applications were replaced with provisions requiring the mother to provide the father with a completed application for his signature within 28 days, failing which a Registrar of the Family Court was appointed to sign the application on the father's behalf pursuant to s 106A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court also ordered that a Family Consultant would facilitate and supervise a meeting between the child and father to explain the new contact arrangements, and that the mother would arrange for the child to attend an appointment with a Family Consultant. The father was also ordered to provide certain documents to Dr C. The orders incorporated a Fact Sheet detailing obligations, consequences of contravention, and sources of assistance.