Theophane and Hunt (No 2)

This case concerned interim parenting orders for a child, X, born in September 2006. The applicant was Mr Theophane (the father) and the respondent was Ms Hunt (the mother). The dispute arose from serious allegations made by the father against the mother, including that she attempted to kill him while armed with a knife, leading to her being charged with attempted murder and released on bail. The mother, in turn, alleged a history of abuse by the father. The Family Court of Australia, constituted by Benjamin J, was required to make interim orders balancing the child's need for a relationship with both parents against the imperative to protect her from harm.

The court was required to determine the appropriate interim parenting arrangements for the child, X, given the severe allegations and criminal charges against the mother, and the history of conflict between the parents. Specifically, the court needed to decide whether the child should live with the father, as ordered on an earlier date following the mother's incarceration, and what supervised time, if any, the mother should have with X. The court also had to consider the suitability of proposed supervisors for any time the mother spent with the child, taking into account the father's criticisms of some potential supervisors.

Benjamin J reasoned that while it was important for the child to maintain a relationship with both parents, the mother's current circumstances, including the serious criminal charges, necessitated a cautious approach to protect the child. The court noted the mother's assertion that she did not present a risk to the child, but found that the events of early September 2011 could not be ignored. Applying the paramountcy principle of the child's welfare, the court decided to continue the order for the child to live with the father. The mother was granted supervised time with the child, with specific arrangements for supervised weekend contact involving at least two nominated supervisors, excluding the maternal grandparents acting as the sole supervisors. The court also directed that the child see a psychologist. The court acknowledged the need for further information, including a Family Report, and listed the matter for further hearing.