Wallisham and Wallisham

The Family Court of Australia heard proceedings between Dr Wallisham (the father) and Ms Wallisham (the mother) concerning their two sons, E (aged 15) and B (aged 10). The parties had separated some years prior and had engaged in multiple sets of proceedings regarding the children. In this instance, the parties had reached an agreement on many issues, including that the children would live with the father and that they would share equal parental responsibility for major long-term decisions concerning the children. The court was required to determine the remaining issues in dispute.

The primary legal issues before the court were the specific arrangements for the children spending time with and communicating with the mother, and the terms of the orders to be made. This included the phasing in of unsupervised time, communication protocols, and the mother's attendance at school functions. The court also considered the terms of a consent order regarding the children's schooling and the duration of a restriction on further applications for variation of the orders.

The court's reasoning was largely guided by the parties' agreement and the recommendations of the independent children's lawyer, with minor adjustments. The court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly concerning the best interests of the children, as outlined in sections 60B and 60CC. The court noted the positive development in the relationship between E and his mother, as evidenced by recent interactions. The court also considered the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) and the principles established in *Briginshaw v Briginshaw* regarding the standard of proof.

By consent, the court made orders detailing a phased approach to the children spending time with the mother, commencing with supervised contact and progressing to unsupervised time over several months. The orders also included provisions for liberal telephone communication, the mother's attendance at school functions, and the sharing of school information. Further orders addressed the children's schooling, parental responsibility for day-to-day care, and a two-year restriction on varying the orders without leave. The independent children's lawyer was to remain involved for 18 months.