Shields & Anor and Putney

In the Family Court of Australia, Loughnan J considered an application by a mother (Ms Shields) and the father (Mr Oaks) for orders allowing the mother to spend supervised time with their three children, aged three, five, and eight. The application was opposed by the maternal grandmother (Ms Putney), with whom the children were residing. The mother had a history of mental health issues, including a recent suicide attempt, and a final apprehended violence order was in place against her, prohibiting contact with the children for 12 months.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children in relation to interim time orders for the mother to spend with them, considering the existing apprehended violence order and the mother's mental health. Specifically, the court had to assess whether supervised time with the mother was appropriate and how such supervision should be managed, particularly in light of the apprehended violence order and the need to ensure the children's safety and well-being. The court also had to consider the practicalities of implementing any such orders, including the role of the paternal grandparents as supervisors.

Loughnan J applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly section 68P concerning the best interests of the child. The court reasoned that despite the apprehended violence order, supervised time with the mother was in the children's best interests, provided stringent supervision was in place. The court ordered that the children spend supervised time with the mother during school terms and half of school holidays, with supervision to be provided by the father or the paternal grandparents. The paternal grandparents were required to provide undertakings to ensure the children were not left unsupervised with the mother and to immediately terminate contact if concerned about the mother's behaviour. The court also noted that to the extent that its orders for supervised time were inconsistent with the apprehended violence order, the latter was invalid pursuant to section 68Q(1) of the *Family Law Act*.

The court made orders for the children to reside with the maternal grandmother pending further order. It also ordered a full family report to be prepared and directed that the proceedings be listed for trial directions after the report's release. The court specifically requested that the independent children's lawyer bring to the attention of the report writer the possibility of a mental health assessment for the mother.