RAVIN & CZERKASKI

This matter concerned parenting orders made by Johns J in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The parties involved were the mother and the father, with the Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) also playing a significant role. The dispute revolved around the arrangements for the children, X and Y, including their living arrangements, time spent with each parent, and therapeutic interventions.

The court was required to determine a range of issues concerning the welfare of the children. These included the specific terms of therapeutic treatment for the mother, the children's living arrangements with the mother, the father's time with the children, and the nature and purpose of family counselling. The court also had to address communication protocols between the parents, restrictions on discussing proceedings with the children, and the management of external counselling services.

The orders were made by consent, indicating an agreement between the parties on the proposed arrangements. The court discharged previous parenting orders and imposed new ones designed to address concerns raised in a Family Report and expert evidence. Key to the decision was the requirement for the mother to undergo therapeutic treatment, the children to live with the mother, and specific time arrangements with the father. Furthermore, the court mandated therapeutic family counselling for the entire family, with detailed provisions regarding reporting and costs. Restrictions were placed on the parents' communication with the children about the proceedings and on denigrating each other.

By consent, the court ordered the discharge of all previous parenting orders. The mother was ordered to attend therapeutic treatment, and the children were to live with the mother, spending time with the father on alternate weekends and specified holidays. The court also ordered therapeutic family counselling for the mother, father, and children, with detailed provisions for reporting and cost allocation. Various orders were made to regulate communication between the parents, restrict discussions about proceedings with the children, and manage external counselling services. The matter was adjourned for further consideration.