SALDO & TINDALL

In this matter before Cleary J, the father sought to re-open final parenting orders made in September 2012, which had restricted his contact with the child to communication only, following his guilty plea to assaults on the mother. The mother opposed this application. The court was presented with fresh evidence that it considered sufficient to justify a reconsideration of the parenting issues.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the child's best interests warranted a change to the existing parenting orders, specifically concerning the father's time and communication with the child, given that the orders regarding parental responsibility and residence remained unchallenged. The court was required to assess the potential benefit to the child of a meaningful relationship with the father, the mother's assertions regarding health and safety risks, and the child's own expressed wishes.

Cleary J reasoned that there was a benefit to the child in having a meaningful relationship with her father, and gave considerable weight to the child's expressed desire to see him. The court found no specific evidence to support the mother's assertion that her and the child's health and safety would be at risk from direct face-to-face contact. The court concluded that the effect of an order for the child to spend time with the father was likely to be positive, noting the father's continued commitment and the significant period the child had not seen him. Consequently, the court ordered supervised time with the father, commencing in short periods and gradually increasing, to allow for a slow reintroduction of face-to-face contact. The father was to be responsible for the costs of supervision, and the mother was to arrange for the child to have the orders explained by a Senior Family Consultant.