Vickers and Kingsmill & Anor

The proceedings before Forrest J concerned interim parenting orders for a child, B. The father sought to enforce existing Federal Circuit Court orders for the child to spend time with him. The Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services had become involved with the family, leading to proceedings in the Children’s Court where the child was placed in foster care. A Protective Supervision Order was subsequently made in the Children’s Court, stipulating the child live with the mother and spend supervised time with the father. The Director-General of the Department intervened, indicating an intention to seek the revocation of the Protective Supervision Order.

The court was required to determine the appropriate interim parenting arrangements for the child, considering the involvement of the Department and the existing orders in both the Federal Circuit Court and the Children’s Court. A key issue was whether the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) applied to the proceedings, specifically in light of section 69ZK(1), which addresses children under the care of a person under a child welfare law. The court also needed to decide whether to transfer the proceedings back to the Federal Circuit Court.

Forrest J declared, by consent, that the proceedings were not in relation to a child under the care of a person under a child welfare law for the purposes of section 69ZK(1) of the Family Law Act. The court then discharged all previous parenting orders. New interim orders were made, granting the mother sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues, with specific requirements for her to inform and consider the father's input. The child was ordered to live with the mother and commence supervised time with the father for two hours per fortnight, to be arranged with a contact centre. The child was also to communicate with the father by telephone twice weekly. Further orders addressed the exchange of contact details, notification of significant health issues, provision of school information to the father, continued attendance at a support program, and prohibitions against negative conduct towards the other parent in the child's presence. Finally, the proceedings were transferred to the Federal Circuit Court for further mention.