Richards and Young

This case concerned an application by Mr Richards (the father) against Ms Young (the mother) regarding parenting orders for their three children. The dispute centred on the extent to which the father, who suffers from a complex spectrum of psychiatric illness, should have communication with the children and access to information about their schooling and extra-curricular activities. The mother sought significantly more restrictive orders than the father, opposing any communication initiated by him and any access to information about the children's activities.

The primary legal issues before the Family Court of Australia were whether the father should have any communication with the children and whether he should have access to information regarding their schools and extra-curricular activities. These issues arose in the context of the father's psychiatric illness and his past behaviour, which had caused significant distress to the mother and children since final parenting orders were initially made in 2006.

The court's reasoning was heavily influenced by expert evidence, particularly from Dr L, who supported the maintenance of communication between the children and the father, but only on the basis that such communications were initiated and managed by the children. Dr L did not support any communication initiated by the father, even the limited contact he sought, but did consider it a positive experience for the children to receive cards and gifts. The court noted that the father's legal representatives had agreed to many of the mother's sought restrictions, including his inability to attend schools or extra-curricular activities and the requirement to seek leave for further proceedings.

The final orders discharged all previous orders and granted the mother sole parental responsibility for the children, with the children to live with her and spend no time with the father. The father was restrained from initiating any communication with the children, though the children were at liberty to initiate communication with him. The mother was ordered to provide the father with copies of school reports, and the father was restrained from attending schools or extra-curricular activities. Further injunctions were imposed to prevent the father from contacting the mother, attending near her residence or workplace, or entering the suburb in which she resided with the children. The father was also restrained from applying for passports for the children, and the children were permitted to leave Australia only with the mother's consent. The father was also restrained from initiating further proceedings concerning children's issues without leave of the court.