Rylie and Rylie

This matter concerned an application by Ms Rylie (the Mother) for parenting orders under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) regarding the child T. The Respondent was Mr Rylie (the Father), and an Independent Children’s Lawyer, Mr Carter, represented the child's interests. The proceedings had been initiated in November 2010, and the court was required to make final orders on an undefended basis due to the Father's failure to participate.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the parenting orders that best met the child's best interests, given the Father's consistent failure to engage with the proceedings and the serious, albeit untested, allegations made by the Mother concerning the Father's capacity to provide parenting. The court also had to consider the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice in the context of a party's deliberate decision not to participate in court proceedings.

Justice Kent applied the principles of procedural fairness, as articulated in *Allesch v Maunz*, which establish that a party must be afforded an opportunity to be heard, but not that the court must compel their participation or receive submissions if they elect not to provide them. The Father had been repeatedly given opportunities to participate, file material, and attend case management and trial dates, but had consistently failed to do so, even confirming his intention not to participate to the Independent Children's Lawyer. In light of the Father's conduct and the serious allegations made by the Mother, which were supported by a Family Report, the court was satisfied that the Father had had ample opportunity to be heard and had elected not to participate. Consequently, the court was left with little option but to proceed on the basis that the allegations had substance and that the parenting orders should reflect this context.

The court made final orders granting the Mother sole parental responsibility for the child, including decisions concerning medical treatment, mental health, international travel, and passports. The child was ordered to live with the Mother, and the Father was prohibited from contacting the child except with the Mother's consent. Both parents were ordered not to criticise the other parent or their family to the child or in the child's presence, and not to discuss the proceedings with or in front of the child. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged, and the application was removed from the pending cases list.