Ustinov and Peters

In *Ustinov & Peters* [2012] FamCA 1129, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the father, Mr Ustinov, for orders permitting him to take the subject child, B, overseas during the holiday period. The mother, Ms Peters, had filed a response seeking sole parental responsibility for B, that B live with her, and that B spend time with the father as agreed between them. The father had also withdrawn two contravention applications against the mother.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the father should spend further time with the child until the matter was next heard, and whether the father should be permitted to take the child out of Australia for the Christmas holidays. The Court noted that if it determined the father should not spend time with the child in the interim, the question of overseas travel would become moot. The Court also considered the mother's application for sole parental responsibility and the suspension of the father's time with the child.

Justice Collier, in her reasoning, placed significant weight on the tested evidence of the child's treating psychiatrist, Dr G. While the evidence of the parents remained untested, Dr G's testimony, particularly regarding the child's mental health, anxiety, and expressed views about spending time with his father, was considered crucial. Dr G testified that it was not in the child's best interests to travel overseas with his father and that the child appeared relieved not to have to see him. Applying the principles under sections 60CC(2) and 60CC(3) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), the Court found that the child's relationship with his mother was close, while his relationship with his father, based on Dr G's report, was a matter of significant concern. The Court was not satisfied that the father had the capacity to understand and meet the child's emotional needs, and concluded that suspending the father's time with the child was in B's best interests.

Consequently, the Court ordered that any parenting orders providing for the father to spend time with the child be suspended until 4.15 pm on 7 February 2013. The matter was adjourned to that date for further directions, with the Court intending to re-examine the suspension of time and make orders for the appointment or reappointment of an Independent Children's Lawyer. The Court also reserved costs in relation to the withdrawn contravention applications and the costs of Dr G's attendance for cross-examination.