TIFFANY & TIFFANY

In the matter of *Tiffany & Tiffany*, Kent J of the Family Court of Australia considered proceedings initiated by the Father concerning the parties' child, B, and property settlement. The Mother had not actively participated in the proceedings, having repeatedly provided medical certificates asserting her unfitness for court due to concerns about her mental health. The Father sought orders restraining the Mother from contacting the child or any authority or agency in relation to the child, with the agreement of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

The court was required to determine the appropriate parenting orders given the Mother's non-participation and history of withholding the child, as well as the Father's application for significant restrictions on the Mother's contact and communication. Additionally, the court had to consider the Mother's property settlement application, which she had initiated but subsequently failed to prosecute.

Kent J made orders on an undefended basis, granting the Father sole parental responsibility for long-term and day-to-day decisions concerning the child, including education, religious and cultural upbringing, and health matters. The child was ordered to live with the Father. The Mother was restrained from removing the child from the Father's care or school, and from approaching or being within 200 metres of the child's school or the Father's residence. Crucially, the Mother was also restrained from contacting police, welfare agencies, child protection units, Centrelink, the child's school, or any other authority or agency regarding the child or the Father, without the written consent of the parties or the permission of the Court. The Mother's property settlement application was dismissed.