Tamer and Brown

This case involved parenting arrangements for two children, L and S, with Ms Tamer as the applicant mother and Mr Brown as the respondent father. The dispute concerned allegations of violence and drug and alcohol abuse by both parents, leading to orders for the father to spend supervised time with the children and to communicate with them. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children in light of the parents' histories, including criminal convictions, allegations of violence, and substance abuse. Specifically, the court had to consider the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and whether it applied, given the allegations of abuse and family violence. The court also needed to decide on appropriate parenting orders that would protect the children from harm while ensuring they maintained a meaningful relationship with both parents.

The court's reasoning was guided by the objects and principles of the *Family Law Act 1975*, particularly the paramount consideration of the children's best interests, which includes protecting them from harm and ensuring their meaningful involvement with both parents. The court had regard to expert reports, including those from Dr K and Ms W, which assessed the parents' capacities and the children's bonds. Dr K's report indicated the mother had a history of drug abuse but was managing her life better and had support, while the father was described as intellectually limited, suffering from schizophrenia, and having a history of significant drug abuse, rendering him incapable of effective parenting without supervision. Ms W recommended the children live with the mother and the father have fortnightly supervised time. The court found that while both children had meaningful relationships with both parents, the father's difficulties necessitated supervised contact for their safety. The court also noted the mother's past struggles but concluded that, on balance, she would prioritise the children's best interests, especially with support.

Consequently, the court made orders for the children to live with the mother, who was granted sole parental responsibility. The father was ordered to spend supervised time with the children fortnightly for a maximum of three hours per occasion, and to have telephone communication with them twice weekly. Orders were also made prohibiting drug influence or possession by either parent when the children were in their care, and requiring the exchange of information regarding the children's reports, health, and contact details. The court directed that copies of the reasons for the decision and relevant documents be forwarded to the Department of Child Safety to inform them of the ongoing difficulties. The appointment of the Independent Children’s Lawyer was continued for a further three months.