Vieth and Camkin

This case concerned competing applications for parenting orders between Ms Vieth (the mother) and Mr Camkin (the father) concerning their two children, E and M. The proceedings had initially involved allegations by the mother of sexual abuse of the children by the father and step-mother, which were withdrawn by the mother during the hearing. The dispute then proceeded as a contest over residence, time, and communication arrangements, with the mother acknowledging that the children should spend time with their father and step-mother. The children resided with the mother, and had not seen their father since March 2012, prior to the hearing.

The Court was required to determine the most appropriate parenting orders for the children, considering their best interests. Key issues included establishing the primary residence of the children, the extent and nature of the time the children would spend with the father, arrangements for communication between the children and each parent, and the allocation of parental responsibility. The Court also needed to address the consequences of the withdrawn abuse allegations, the father's damaged reputation, and the mother's past lack of support for the children's relationship with the father, as well as the very poor communication between the parents.

The Court ordered that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children, with the children to live with the mother. The father was granted significant time with the children, including periods during school holidays and two shorter periods per year in New South Wales, necessitating air travel between Melbourne and the Gold Coast/Brisbane. The Court made detailed provisions for the cost and logistics of this travel, including initial accompanied travel and subsequent unaccompanied travel arrangements for the younger child, M, subject to airline acceptance. The orders also included specific communication protocols, restraints on the parties discussing proceedings with the children, denigrating each other, or physically disciplining the children, and provisions for the father's name to be removed from certain databases.

The Court's orders aimed to reverse the negative consequences of the allegations on the father and to foster a more cooperative co-parenting relationship. The orders also sought to ensure the mother did not undermine the father's role in the future, given her past lack of support for the children's relationship with him. The Court made no finding that the children had been harmed or were at risk of harm in either parent's household.