Silmon & Holsomback (No 2)

In the matter of Silmon & Holsomback (No 2), Ms Silmon was the applicant and Mr Holsomback was the respondent before Young J. The dispute concerned orders relating to the children of the parties.

The court was required to determine several issues, including the discharge of specific prior orders, arrangements for the children to spend time and communicate with the father, the father's compliance with medical treatment, communication protocols between the parties, ongoing counselling for the children and parties, and the application of the rule in *Rice and Asplund* to future applications by the father. The court also considered the discharge of the independent children's lawyer and the dismissal of extant applications.

Young J ordered the discharge of paragraphs 20 to 27 of the previous orders made on 5 November 2018. The court stipulated that the children would spend time and communicate with the father in Darwin as agreed by the parties, and that the father must follow all treatment directions from his healthcare professionals. Communication between the parties was restricted to email, except in emergencies, and the children were to continue attending counselling with Ms B, with the parties also attending if recommended. Crucially, the court ordered that the rule in *Rice and Asplund* would not apply to any future application by the father under Part VII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) concerning the children, provided he obtained leave of a Judge, filed an application detailing the orders sought, and submitted an affidavit in support including a report from his treating health professionals. The appointment of the independent children's lawyer was discharged, and all extant applications were dismissed.