VICKERY & VICKERY (No.2)

In *Vickery & Vickery (No.2)*, heard by Judge Harman, the mother conceded to non-compliance with a prior parenting order concerning the child, X. The mother advanced a defence of reasonable excuse, asserting that the child's psychological and emotional health, including historic threats of self-harm and fears and phobias regarding the relationship with the father, necessitated her actions.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the mother had a reasonable excuse for contravening the parenting order, considering the child's welfare and the application of section 70NAE(5) of the relevant legislation. The Court was required to determine if the paramountcy principle, which dictates that the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration, supported the mother's non-compliance.

Judge Harman found that the child harboured fears and phobias concerning the relationship with the father, irrespective of whether these were rational. Applying section 70NAE(5) and the paramountcy principle, the Court concluded that suspending the relevant parenting order was appropriate in the circumstances. Consequently, the Court dismissed the applications for contravention. Further orders included the appointment of an Independent Children's Lawyer, the transfer of proceedings to the Wollongong Registry, and a pending suspension of all parenting orders requiring the child X to spend time with or communicate with his Father.