Thorp & Thorp

This case involved competing applications by Mr and Ms Thorp for variation of interim parenting arrangements for their two young children. The existing consent orders provided for the father to have supervised time with the children. The mother alleged a risk of harm to the children due to abuse, neglect, and family violence, arguing for the continuation of supervision. The father, while agreeing to supervised time as an opportunity to spend time with the children, sought substantial and significant time. The matter was heard by Cleary J.

The court was required to determine whether the need for protection by way of supervision was established, and if not, to vary the interim parenting arrangements to reflect the best interests of the children. The court also considered the need for therapeutic counselling for the children and the terms under which it should proceed. The central legal issue revolved around the application of section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly the consideration of the need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm, and the capacity of each parent to provide for the children's needs.

Cleary J concluded that the need for protection by way of supervision was not established, finding the mother's evidence of violence, financial disputes, and parenting style disagreements insufficient to warrant continued supervision. The court also considered the father's medical records, noting that while he had experienced stress and sought therapeutic help, this did not automatically preclude him from spending substantial time with the children, provided his mental health was well-managed. The court reasoned that continuing supervision risked the children believing they were unsafe with their father.

Consequently, the court discharged the supervision orders and varied the contact arrangements to allow for a progressive increase in time spent with the father, commencing with supervised day visits and progressing towards alternate weekends and holiday time by agreement. In the event of disagreement on future arrangements, this would be a matter for final trial. The court also varied the counselling order, stipulating that counselling should commence within 14 days of the parents agreeing to it, with detailed provisions regarding the selection of a psychologist, parental involvement, and cost sharing.