TOWERS & ATKINS (No.2)

In the matter of *Towers & Atkins (No.2)*, Judge Scarlett of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the father to vary interim parenting orders and for an injunction. The dispute arose from the mother's failure to inform the father of the location of the child's day-care or the identity of the child's treating medical practitioners, despite existing orders for equal shared parental responsibility.

The court was required to determine whether the mother's conduct warranted an injunction under section 68B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court also addressed the issue of aggressive and discourteous correspondence exchanged between the solicitors for the parties, which the court indicated it disapproved of.

Judge Scarlett reasoned that while the mother's failure to provide the requested information was a breach of the spirit of equal shared parental responsibility, there was insufficient evidence to justify the grant of an injunction under section 68B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court noted that the existing interim parenting orders, which provided for shared parental responsibility, were not being sufficiently complied with by the mother in relation to the disclosure of essential information.

Consequently, the court ordered that within seven days, the mother must provide the father in writing with the name and address of the child's day-care facility, the days and times of attendance, confirmation that the father's emergency contact details have been provided to the facility, and the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all the child's treating medical practitioners. The mother's Response to an Application in a Case filed on 4 November 2015 was dismissed, and the substantive proceedings were adjourned for further mention.