Stevens and Richards

This case concerned parenting orders for a child, N, born in October 2001. The dispute involved the father and mother of N, with the court being the Family Court of Australia. The primary focus of the proceedings was to determine the future living arrangements and contact arrangements for N, considering the existing orders and the welfare of the child.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including the extent to which previous parenting orders should be discharged, who should have parental responsibility for N, where N should live, and the nature and frequency of N's time with his mother. Additionally, the court had to consider the impact of N's relationship with his sibling, H, and the practicalities and safety of contact arrangements, particularly in light of the mother's perceived inability to protect N from her views about his father and her own mood swings and behaviour. The court also had to assess the financial capacity of the parties to afford supervised contact and the appropriateness of a contact centre setting.

In reaching its decision, the court applied the paramount consideration of the child's best interests, as mandated by the Family Law Act. The court considered the evidence from a Family Consultant, Ms W, and observations from Berry Street Children’s Contact Services, which indicated that N was settled and happy with his father and that this stability should not be disturbed. The court found that the mother was incapable of protecting N from her views about his father and that N could be psychologically or emotionally harmed by stressful contact. Therefore, the court determined that less, but safe and good quality, time with his mother would be better for N than more stressful time. The court also noted the practical difficulties and expense of paid supervision, concluding that a contact centre was the more appropriate setting for N's time with his mother.

The court ordered that previous parenting orders be discharged, save for those relating to N's time with M. The father was granted sole parental responsibility for N, and N was ordered to live with the father. N was to spend time with the mother on at least four occasions each year, supervised by Berry Street Children’s Contact Services, and on other occasions as notified by the service. The mother was restrained from having her son H present on more than alternate occasions of N's contact, and was also restrained from attending within 100 metres of any school N attended when N was present. The court also made orders regarding communication between the parents, the mother's ability to send letters and gifts to N, and the father's facilitation of school reports to the mother. The order for the appointment of an Independent Children’s Lawyer was discharged, and all existing applications were dismissed. The orders included particulars of obligations and consequences of contravention, as set out in an attached Fact Sheet.