Richard and Briar (No 2)

In *Richard and Briar (No 2)*, Dessau J of the Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning a child born in 2002. The dispute involved the father seeking sole parental responsibility and the mother's continued involvement in the child's life.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, specifically addressing the likely effect of any changes in the child's circumstances, including separation from either parent. The court also considered the practical difficulties and expense of the child spending time with and communicating with the mother, and the maturity, sex, lifestyle, and background of the child and parents.

Dessau J reasoned that the mother's actions did not demonstrate a true understanding of the child's needs, despite her claims. The court found that removing the child from his father's stable environment would pose grave concerns for his welfare. While acknowledging the sadness of no contact with the mother, the court concluded that this would remove the child from adverse influences that had impacted his well-being. Expert evidence indicated that the risks to the child's well-being were higher if he spent time with his mother. The court also noted the failure of previous attempts to involve the mother's family in supervised contact, expressing no confidence that they would protect the child from the mother's harmful ideas. The mother's refusal to accept supervised contact or a contact centre, and her insistence on unsupervised time, further informed the court's decision.

The court ordered that all previous parenting orders be discharged. The father was granted sole parental responsibility for the child, with the child to live with him and spend no time with the mother. The mother was also prohibited from any telephone communication with the child and permitted only limited, father-approved letter correspondence. Significant restrictions were placed on the mother's proximity to the child, his home, and school, and she was restrained from removing the child from Australia. The mother was also restrained from instituting further proceedings concerning the child without judicial permission.