Rasher and Carlou and Ors

In *Rasher and Carlou and Ors*, Baumann J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning a child, X Carlou (also known as X Rasher), born in 2013. The proceedings involved the mother, the father, and the second and third respondents, who appear to be other family members. The core of the dispute revolved around the arrangements for the child's living situation, parental responsibility, and contact with various parties, particularly in light of significant restrictions placed upon the father.

The court was required to determine the appropriate parenting orders, including who should have sole parental responsibility for major long-term decisions, where the child should live, and the extent of the child's time and communication with the father. Additionally, the court had to consider whether to issue an injunction restraining the father from approaching the mother, the child, or specific locations associated with them, and to establish the terms of communication and contact between the child and the second and third respondents, with specific provisions regarding the father's involvement.

Baumann J discharged all previous parenting orders and made new orders granting the mother sole parental responsibility for major long-term decisions and ordering that the child live with the mother. The father was ordered to have no time and no communication with the child unless otherwise ordered. Crucially, pursuant to s 68B of the *Family Law Act 1975*, an injunction was issued restraining the father from approaching the mother, the child, the child's school, places of public sport or entertainment attended by the child, the mother's place of employment, or the residence of the mother or child. The court also made detailed orders regarding communication between the child and the second and third respondents, including provisions for supervised contact in a specific park under certain conditions, and strict prohibitions against the second and third respondents allowing the child to communicate with the father during their time with her. The mother and the second and third respondents were ordered to exchange contact details, with restrictions on sharing these details with the father. The court also addressed the sending of letters and gifts to the child, requiring the mother to provide an address for this purpose and restraining the second and third respondents from sharing it with the father or allowing the father to send items to the child through them. All other applications were dismissed, and the Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged.