Tatoulis and Romanos

This case involved an application before Dessau J of the Family Court of Australia concerning interim parenting arrangements for a 14-month-old child. The parents had recently separated and were unable to agree on the father's time with the child. The mother sought orders for no contact between the father and the child, while the father sought significant time, including overnight stays. Both parents made serious allegations against each other, including claims of post-natal depression, violence, threats, and association with underworld figures.

The court was required to determine the interim parenting orders, applying Part VII of the *Family Law Act 1975* as amended by the *Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act*. This involved considering the legislative intent favouring substantial involvement of both parents, subject to the child's best interests and protection from harm. The court had to weigh the primary considerations under section 60CC(2) of the Act, specifically the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from harm, abuse, and family violence, alongside the additional considerations in section 60CC(3).

Dessau J noted the abridged nature of interim hearings and the limited material available. The court expressed concern for the child's welfare, balancing the need to maintain the child's relationship with her father against the risk posed by the serious, albeit untested, allegations of violence. After considering various supervision options, including contact centres and paid supervisors, the court decided that the father's sister would supervise the child's time with the father. This decision was based on the child having already been separated from her father for six weeks and the perceived lower risk associated with supervision by the sister compared to further reducing contact or using other methods. The court aimed to ensure the child had more than four hours of contact per week, ordering supervised time on Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday mornings.

The court made orders for equal shared parental responsibility and restrained the parents from removing the child from Victoria or Australia, placing the child's name on the Airport Watch List. Further orders were made for the appointment of an Independent Children's Lawyer, the exchange of medical information, the issuance of subpoenas to various medical and government bodies, and the attendance of the parties upon counsellors and psychiatrists for welfare and psychiatric reports. The father was ordered to ensure the reconnection of gas and electrical services to the property. The court also directed that the transcript of the reasons for judgment be placed on the court file.