RAWLINSON & WARLOW

This case concerned parenting orders between the father, Mr Rawlinson, and the mother, Ms Warlow, regarding their three children, X, Y, and Z. The dispute centred on the father's application for contact with the children, which was opposed by the mother due to a history of family violence and the children's expressed wishes. The matter came before Judge Howard in the Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children, specifically considering the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the children's wishes, as mandated by sections 60CC(2) and 60CC(3)(a) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). A significant issue was the risk of harm to the children, given the mother's detailed affidavit outlining numerous incidents of the father's violent and abusive behaviour towards her and the children, including threats, physical assaults, and verbal abuse. The court also had to consider the children's ages, with X being 15 and Y and Z being 12 at the time of the affidavit, and the weight to be given to their expressed wishes not to have contact with their father.

Judge Howard acknowledged the importance of a meaningful relationship with both parents but found that the mother's evidence, which included specific instances of the father's violence, threats, and abusive language directed at the children and herself, was compelling. The court noted the children's statements to the police in support of a protection order and their expressed fear of their father. Given the history of family violence and the children's stated wishes, the court determined that direct contact was not in their best interests at that time. The court also considered the father's past admissions of mental health issues and substance abuse, which contributed to his volatile behaviour.

The court ordered that the father be permitted to write one letter to each of the three children within twenty-eight days, with the mother to ensure the letters are brought to the children's attention. Except for this limited communication, the father was prohibited from contacting the children unless initiated by them. All other outstanding applications were dismissed.