VARDAKAS & KANAVAS

This case concerned an application by a mother for contact with her daughter. Final parenting orders had been made by Dessau J on 22 December 2011, which placed the child to live with the father and significantly restricted the mother's contact. Crucially, paragraph 10 of those orders required the mother to obtain leave from the court before commencing any further parenting application. The application was heard by Wilson J in the Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the mother had complied with the evidentiary requirements stipulated in paragraph 10 of the 2011 orders to seek leave for a further parenting application. These requirements included providing detailed information about her psychiatric treatment, diagnosis, medication compliance, and an assessment of her progress and insight into the child's needs. The court also considered the mother's contention that the 2011 orders were no longer appropriate and that contact with her daughter was in the child's best interests, referencing provisions of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) such as section 60CC.

Wilson J dismissed the mother's application, finding that she had failed to comply with the mandatory evidentiary requirements of paragraph 10 of Dessau J's orders. The mother conceded non-compliance and stated she had no intention of seeking psychiatric assistance, which was a central element of the regime established by the previous orders. The court found that the mother's assertions regarding the child's best interests and wishes were unsubstantiated by any evidence beyond her own affidavit, and that she could not unilaterally disregard the binding orders of the court. Consequently, the court found no evidence of compliance with the leave requirements. The court then ordered the respondent father to file submissions regarding his costs on both a party/party and indemnity basis, with the applicant mother to file submissions in reply.