STONE & CLIFFORD (No.2)

In the matter of *Stone & Clifford (No.2)*, Judge Wilson of the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute concerning the parenting arrangements for two children, X and Y. The proceedings involved allegations of parental alienation and enmeshment, with psychological evidence suggesting the mother's significant, though not exclusive, involvement in the children's upbringing. The court was required to determine whether orders previously made, described as "final orders," were in fact properly characterised as interim orders, and whether the case should be re-opened due to a deterioration in the children's welfare.

The central legal issues before the court were the characterisation of the prior orders as either final or interim, and the necessity of re-opening the case. This re-opening was prompted by evidence indicating the children were now at risk, a situation that had not existed when the earlier orders were pronounced. The court also had to consider the reliability of the mother's evidence, deeming it to require very careful scrutiny.

Judge Wilson reasoned that the prior orders, despite being pronounced in running, were in fact interim orders. The court extensively reviewed authorities on the re-opening of cases, concluding that re-opening was necessary due to the significant deterioration in the children's welfare, which had placed them at risk. The court applied principles relating to the best interests of the children and the court's power to vary or re-open orders when circumstances change and the welfare of the children is compromised.

The court made orders providing for equal shared parental responsibility for the children. These orders detailed communication protocols between the parents, including provisions for the father to communicate with the children via letter and send gifts, and for both parents to liaise with the children's school and other professionals. The mother was directed to keep the father informed of the children's address and any changes to telephone numbers, and to notify him of emergencies. The father was permitted to attend school functions and extra-curricular activities. Specific provisions were made regarding psychological treatment for the children, requiring the father's consent for specialist consultations and mandating participation in recommended psychological treatment. Both parents were ordered to attend a Parenting Orders Program for assessment and family counselling, and to follow its recommendations. The matter was adjourned for mention.