SLOVSKY & GASTIN

In the matter of *Slovsky & Gastin*, Loughnan J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the father for orders that his 11-year-old child be introduced to him and spend time with him on a gradually increasing basis, ultimately leading to alternate weekends. The mother sought dismissal of the father's application, while the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) sought orders for the child to be provided with basic details about the father. The child had never met or had meaningful contact with the father, and the mother believed the father had sexually assaulted her, resulting in the child's conception. The mother also had a history of drug abuse, and the child expressed a strong view against having a relationship with the father. The mother was unwilling and unable to facilitate such a relationship.

The central legal issue before the court was how to best promote the child's best interests in circumstances where there was no existing relationship between the child and the father, significant allegations of sexual assault by the father against the mother, the mother's history of drug abuse, and the child's expressed wishes against contact. The court was required to determine whether any form of spending time order was appropriate, or if the father's application should be dismissed, while also considering the ICL's request for the provision of information to the child.

Loughnan J reasoned that given the child's age, the lack of any existing relationship, the serious allegations made by the mother, and the child's expressed wishes, it was not in the child's best interests to order any time spent with the father at that stage. The court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* concerning the best interests of the child, noting the importance of the child's right to be heard and the need to protect the child from harm. The court also considered the mother's inability and unwillingness to facilitate contact, which further weighed against an order for time spent.

Consequently, the court ordered that all existing parenting orders be discharged, that the mother have sole parental responsibility, and that the child live with the mother. The father was ordered to spend no time with the child and not to initiate any communication, unless the parents otherwise agreed in writing. The mother was restrained from denigrating the father to the child. In a measure aimed at preserving the child's future autonomy, the ICL was directed to provide the child with a sealed envelope containing basic details about the father, should the child later wish to know or contact him.