VALCOUR & ALARDIN

In the matter of *Valcour & Alardin*, heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia before Judge Altobelli, the Applicant Mother sought final parenting orders concerning the children X and Y. The proceedings were undefended by the Respondent Father, who was absent. The Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) proposed orders, and the Applicant Mother consented to these proposals.

The court was required to determine the final parenting arrangements for the children, considering ongoing concerns for their wellbeing. A significant issue was the apparent discrepancy between existing court orders and the actual living arrangements of child X, who appeared to be residing with the Father despite orders to the contrary. The court also considered the need for intervention by the Secretary of the Department of Communities and Justice.

Judge Altobelli made final parenting orders by consent between the Applicant Mother and the ICL, on an undefended basis concerning the Respondent Father. These orders granted the Mother sole parental responsibility and stipulated that the children live with her and spend no time with the Father. The Father was also subject to an injunction restraining him from contacting or approaching the children or their places of residence and schooling. Crucially, pursuant to section 91B of the *Family Law Act 1975*, the court requested the intervention of the Secretary of the Department of Communities and Justice in relation to both children, noting that child Y lived with the Mother and child X appeared to be living with the Father contrary to orders. The court also directed the ICL to forward relevant documents to the Department and permitted inspection of the court file upon request from the Secretary's nominee. The Respondent Father was at liberty to make an application pursuant to Rule 16.05 of the *Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001*.