Wheldon and Dinh

This case involved Mr. Wheldon (the applicant father) and Ms. Dinh (the respondent mother) concerning parenting orders for their two children, S and T. The dispute centred on contravention applications filed by the father alleging breaches of existing orders by the mother, and the mother's ongoing concerns regarding the father's unsupervised time with the children. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia at Brisbane by Justice Murphy.

The court was required to determine whether the father's contravention applications should be dismissed, and to establish new parenting orders that would govern the children's time with the father. A key issue was the mother's persistent belief that the children were at risk of harm from the father, which had led to previous stays on unsupervised time and a discontinued appeal. The court also considered the impact of the mother's beliefs on her parenting capacity and the children's best interests, as well as the father's primary concern being to spend time with his daughters.

Justice Murphy reasoned that the father's contravention applications should be dismissed, as his primary focus was on seeing his children rather than pursuing punitive action against the mother. The court found that the mother's concerns, while strongly held, did not meet the standard of establishing an unacceptable risk of harm from the father, particularly in light of evidence of affectionate interactions between the father and children. The court noted the mother's difficulties with English and her genuine belief that the children were at risk, but ultimately concluded that the previous orders made in August 2010, which allowed for unsupervised time, should be reinstated and clarified. The court applied principles regarding the best interests of the children and the distinction between genuinely held beliefs and objectively based ones, referencing cases such as *Russell and Close* and *A & A*.

The court ordered the dismissal of the father's contravention applications and discharged certain previous orders. New orders were made to facilitate unsupervised time between the father and the children, specifying collection and return times, including during school holidays and alternate weekends. The Independent Children's Lawyer was authorised to publish details of the proceedings to the children's school and childcare centre, and both parents were restrained from issuing further parenting proceedings for six months unless specific conditions were met. The Independent Children's Lawyer was to be discharged six months from the date of the orders.