SCVG and KLD

This matter concerned interim parenting orders before the Family Court of Australia, with SCVG as the applicant and KLD as the respondent. The central dispute revolved around whether the father's physical time with the children should remain suspended pending further orders, particularly in light of concerns about potential psychological harm. The court was also tasked with determining the weight to be given to expert evidence presented by the father, which lacked a clear reasoning pathway.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children under section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), with a primary consideration being the need to protect the children from psychological harm. This involved assessing the contradictory evidence presented by both parents regarding the children's well-being and their relationship with the father. The court also needed to consider the weight to be afforded to the father's expert evidence, given its deficiencies, and the practical difficulties and unexplained issues surrounding the father's proposed time with the children.

Deputy Chief Justice Faulks reasoned that while there was no evidence of physical danger to the children, the risk of psychological harm was a significant concern, necessitating further independent assessment of the children's wishes and views. The court found that the expert evidence presented by the father was of little weight due to a lack of discernible reasoning and insufficient factual basis. Applying the principles from *Sydneywide Distributors Pty Ltd v Red Bull*, the court acknowledged the professional opinions but gave them limited weight in the absence of a clear pathway from facts to conclusions. The court noted the mother's illness and the father's ongoing legal and medical issues, including his good behaviour bond, as relevant factors. Ultimately, the court concluded that the benefit of the children having physical time with their father at this interim stage did not outweigh the importance of other factors, including the potential for psychological harm and the need for a clearer understanding of the children's views.

Consequently, the court ordered the suspension of physical time between the children and their father, pending the receipt of a report from a Family Consultant and further submissions. Telephone contact was permitted to continue. The matter was adjourned for a Family Consultant's report and a subsequent relisting for final determination of parenting orders.