TOLLBRIDGE & TOLLBRIDGE

In the matter of *Tollbridge & Tollbridge*, Austin J of the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute between the parents concerning the children B and C. The father had indicated an intention to withdraw from the proceedings, and procedural orders for a hearing had been sent to him. The mother sought orders regarding parental responsibility and the children's living arrangements.

The court was required to determine whether the father had been denied procedural fairness, given his stated intention to withdraw and the subsequent dispatch of hearing orders. Furthermore, the court had to consider the best interests of the children, including their relationships with the father, the impact of family violence and child abuse, the father's insight into his behaviour, and the children's views. The court also had to determine the allocation of parental responsibility and whether the children should spend time or communicate with the father. Finally, the court was asked to consider an application for costs in favour of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

Austin J found that the father had not been denied procedural fairness, as he had been informed of the procedural orders. In relation to the children's best interests, the court noted a complete breakdown in the children's relationships with the father, evidence of family violence and child abuse, and the father's lack of insight into his behaviour. These factors militated against the restoration of the children's relationships with the father. Consequently, the court ordered that the children live with the mother and that the mother have sole parental responsibility. The court also ordered that whether the children spend time or communicate with the father would be determined by the mother as an incident of her sole parental responsibility. The father was ordered to contribute to the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.