WILDE & FOSTER

In the matter of WILDE & FOSTER, McClelland J considered parenting and property disputes between the parties concerning their children, X and Y. The central dispute revolved around the children's living arrangements, with the father alleging a risk to the children due to the mother's mental illness. Previous consent orders had been made, but the mother contended she had not had a proper opportunity to consider her position before agreeing to them. The court also addressed the issue of exclusive occupation of a property.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children, specifically with whom they should live, and the nature and extent of the time the children should spend with the mother. This involved balancing the importance of maintaining meaningful relationships with the need to protect the children from harm, particularly in light of the allegations concerning the mother's mental health. The court also had to consider the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and the appropriate approach in interim proceedings, which generally favours a conservative stance. The appointment and role of an Independent Children’s Lawyer and a Single Expert were also key issues.

McClelland J applied the paramount consideration of the children's best interests, acknowledging the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility but recognising that it could be displaced by evidence of risk. The court adopted a conservative approach for interim orders, prioritising the protection of the children. The reasoning led to orders for the children to live with the father, with supervised time for the mother. The court also appointed an Independent Children’s Lawyer and a Single Expert to report on the parenting issues, granting liberty to apply for variation of the parenting orders upon the release of the expert report. In relation to the property dispute, the mother was ordered to vacate the shared residence, with the father granted exclusive occupation.