Salamando and Salamando (No. 2)

This case concerned competing applications for interim parenting arrangements for four children, specifically addressing whether the three younger children should live in Queensland or Victoria. The applicant, Mr. Salamando, and the respondent, Mrs. Salamando, presented differing proposals regarding the children's return to Victoria and the time they would spend with each parent. Justice Carter of the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne was required to determine these arrangements, considering the welfare and best interests of the children.

The court was tasked with determining several key issues. These included the date by which the children should return to Victoria, the specific arrangements for the children to spend time with the non-residential parent on a cyclical basis, and whether the three younger children should be treated differently from the eldest child, V, in terms of time spent with their father. Additionally, the court needed to address arrangements for changeovers between parents, the impact of V's overseas cruise on his time with his mother and siblings, and whether any additional time should be allocated for the children to spend with their father immediately following their return to Victoria.

Justice Carter's reasoning focused on the need for the children to return to Victoria promptly to settle before the commencement of the next school term, ordering their return by 9 July 2007. He decided against differentiating the time the three younger children would spend with their father, opting for the wife's proposal of a Saturday morning to Sunday afternoon arrangement, believing this would allow for delicate handling of their relationships. For V, however, the court adopted the Independent Children's Lawyer's proposal for shorter contact with his mother, deeming their relationship more fragile. The court also ordered that V's time with his mother be suspended during his overseas cruise, acknowledging the practical necessity while noting the husband's "high-handed" approach. Further orders were made regarding communication, restraints on discussing proceedings with the children, and limitations on the wife changing the children's residence or school. The court also ordered therapeutic counselling for the children and the preparation of a Family Report, with costs to be shared equally by the parents.