Rouse and Rouse

This matter concerned the parents of L, born in September 1995, and M, born in July 1998, who were before the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne. The dispute arose after the parties' separation, during which the children had primarily resided with their mother. The mother had recently ended a relationship with Mr L, which had involved a violent relationship with his son, B. The father sought orders concerning the children's residence and contact arrangements, citing concerns about the mother's emotional and psychiatric well-being and potential exposure of the children to violence.

The court was required to determine the interim living arrangements for the children, considering the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and the paramount consideration of the children's best interests. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied, and if not, what arrangements would best serve the children's welfare, particularly in light of the mother's recent personal difficulties and the father's concerns about her stability and the children's safety. The court also had to consider the impact of the mother's relationship with B and the potential for violence.

Justice Brown applied the principles outlined in *Goode v Goode* [2006] FamCA 1346, which affirmed that the court must consider the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility even at the interim stage, unless it is not appropriate. The court found that equal time was not practicable or in the children's best interests in this case, and therefore, the presumption under s.61DA(3) of the *Family Law Act 1975* was not applied. The court emphasised the importance of protecting children from harm, both physical and emotional, and determined that this need took precedence over other factors. The court considered the mother's past role as primary carer and her current efforts to stabilise her life, but ultimately concluded that the children's best interests would be met by residing with their father in Melbourne, with regular and frequent contact with their mother, to ensure a safe and stable environment.

The court ordered that the children live with the husband pending the adjourned date, with specific contact arrangements for the wife. Further orders included the wife being restrained from removing the children from their city of residence or school, and from discussing the proceedings with them. The parties were ordered to attend a family report and the wife was to undergo a psychiatric assessment. Crucially, an independent children's lawyer was appointed to represent the interests of L and M, pursuant to s.68L(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975*.