Stenning & Stenning

In the matter of *Stenning & Stenning*, Berman J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the father, Mr Stenning, seeking to vary interim parenting arrangements for the parties' child, D. The mother, Ms Stenning, opposed the father's application and sought to amend existing orders regarding communication between D and the father. The dispute centred on the extent to which D should spend time with the father, with the mother advocating for arrangements subject to D's wishes, particularly in light of unsuccessful therapeutic interventions.

The court was required to determine whether the father's application for increased time with D should be granted, and whether the existing orders for communication between D and the father should be amended. A key consideration was the best interests of the child, D, in circumstances where D reportedly complained about the father discussing his views of the mother and the family breakdown during their conversations, leading D to record these interactions. The court also had to consider the principles of *res judicata* and issue estoppel, acknowledging that while these do not strictly apply in parenting proceedings, their underlying principles remain relevant, and that any limitations on interlocutory applications must be subservient to the child's best interests.

Berman J reasoned that the father's application for increased time with D lacked sufficient evidence to support a change from the existing orders, which had been comprehensively dealt with by a Senior Registrar. The court found that D's best interests would not be served by ceasing her relationship with her father, nor by altering the orders allowing both parents to attend the children's activities, provided they behaved appropriately. However, the court noted that D's complaints about the father's conduct during conversations indicated a need for the father to better compartmentalise issues arising from the relationship breakdown. The court acknowledged the father's engagement in therapeutic intervention and positive reports regarding his insight into managing his emotions.

Consequently, Berman J dismissed the father's further amended application. The court ordered that paragraph 11(d) of the existing orders be amended to include a provision that the father would not approach D unless invited to do so. The mother's response to the application was also dismissed.