TORRENS & GALL

The case of Torrens & Gall concerned parenting orders for a child, B. The dispute centred on the child's relationship with his father, who had perpetrated family violence and abuse, including pleading guilty to assault of the child. The child was wary of the father and did not wish to spend time with him, despite the mother's attempts to maintain some level of relationship. The mother had moderated or suspended the child's time with the father based on his behaviour, and the court was required to determine the child's best interests, including the need for protection from the risk of harm posed by the father.

The court was required to determine whether to make prescriptive orders for the child to spend time with the father, and how to address the father's attempts to participate in proceedings after the evidence had closed. The father sought an adjournment to file an affidavit and participate in the proceedings, despite having failed to comply with previous procedural orders. The court also considered the father's application to re-open the evidence.

Austin J reasoned that the child required protection from the risk of harm posed by the father, and that the father's behaviour warranted a decision against making prescriptive orders for the child to spend time with him. The court refused the father's adjournment application, finding it unfair to the mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer to expect them to listen to and cross-examine the father on oral testimony after the evidence had closed. The court also decided not to re-open the evidence, though it permitted the father to make final submissions. The court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act* concerning the best interests of the child and the need to protect children from harm.

The court ordered that all former parenting orders be discharged and that the mother have sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues concerning the child. The child was ordered to live with the mother. The parties were ordered to facilitate limited written communication between the child and the father, with specific provisions for the mother to send letters, cards, and other written communication from the child to the father, and for the father to send gifts and correspondence to the child on specific occasions. The court also made orders restraining corporal punishment and denigration of either parent in the child's presence, and requiring notification of medical emergencies. Crucially, the orders intentionally made no provision for the child to spend time or communicate by telephone with the father, with decisions regarding future contact to be made by the mother as an incident of her sole parental responsibility.