Romanos and Tatoulis

In *Romanos and Tatoulis*, heard by Cronin J, the court considered orders relating to a child born in January 2006. The proceedings involved a dispute between the parties concerning parental responsibility and the child's living arrangements.

The primary legal issues before the court were the determination of parental responsibility, the child's residence, and the nature and extent of the husband's future contact with the child. The court was also required to consider provisions for the child's health, education, and the communication between the parents regarding the child.

The court made orders by consent regarding the discharge of previous orders and the establishment of new arrangements. The wife was granted sole parental responsibility, and the child was ordered to live with her. The husband was significantly restricted in his contact with the child, being prohibited from spending time with, communicating with, or approaching the child unless by written agreement. However, provisions were made for the wife to authorise health professionals to liaise with the husband regarding the child's health, with the husband bearing the costs of such consultations. Both parents were ordered to keep each other informed of their contact details and to comply with the directions of the child's treating health professionals. The wife was also directed to facilitate the child's attendance at medical appointments and to inform the husband of any changes to the child's principal treating medical practitioner. Further orders stipulated that the wife ensure the child receives gifts and correspondence from the husband, and that she provide the husband with photographs and filmed footage of the child on specified dates, as well as copies of school and kindergarten reports, with the liberty to obliterate identifying details. The court also made orders restraining both parents from denigrating the other in the presence of the child.

The court also ordered that the particulars of the obligations and consequences of contravening these orders, as set out in an attached Fact Sheet, be included within the orders themselves, pursuant to sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the *Family Law Act 1975*. All other applications were dismissed, the Independent Children's Lawyer was dismissed, and documents held by the Subpoena Clerk were to be returned. Counsel was certified.