RAWSON & GLYNN

In the matter of *Rawson & Glynn*, Judge Altobelli of the Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning a child born in 2014. The dispute involved concerns about the Father's mental health and a risk of relapse into drug use, coupled with a significant period of time since the Father last saw the Child, meaning the Child would not recognise him. The Court's primary focus was on establishing a pathway for potential future contact between the Father and the Child, contingent on therapeutic engagement and demonstrated sobriety.

The Court was required to determine the extent of parental responsibility, where the Child should live, and the nature and conditions of any future contact between the Father and the Child. Key issues included how to manage the significant estrangement between the Father and the Child, the Father's mental health and drug use concerns, and the appropriate therapeutic and supervised contact arrangements to facilitate any re-introduction. The Court also had to consider the provision of information about the Father to the Child and the Father's responsibilities regarding drug testing and associated costs.

The Court ordered that the Applicant Mother have sole parental responsibility and that the Child live with her. All previous parenting orders were discharged. The orders mandated intensive therapeutic engagement for both parents and the Child with Uniting Counselling and Mediation to address the Child's re-introduction to the Father and the appropriate communication of information about the Father. Following a minimum of two months of therapeutic engagement, supervised contact was to commence through a professional contact service, with the Father responsible for all associated fees. The Father was also subjected to stringent urinalysis and hair follicle testing requirements, with non-compliance or positive results leading to the immediate suspension of contact. Injunctions were imposed on the Father restraining him from approaching or contacting the Mother or Child except as permitted by the orders, and he was prohibited from posting media related to them on social media. The Mother was permitted to travel internationally with the Child and to apply for a passport for the Child without the Father's consent.