WINTERS & WINTERS

In *Winters & Winters* [2014] FamCA 216, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by Mr. Winters (the father) and a response by Ms. Winters (the mother) concerning the living arrangements and parental responsibility for their two young children. The father initially sought orders for the children to live with him and spend time with the mother, while the mother sought orders for the children to remain in her care with only supervised time for the father. By the conclusion of the trial, the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer proposed interim orders, differing from the father's revised proposals which varied between the children.

The court was required to determine several key issues, including whether the relationship between the parties involved domestic violence, the risk of emotional harm posed by the father, and the risk of physical or emotional harm posed by the mother. Further, the court had to assess the nature of the attachment between one child and the mother, the extent to which the parents' communication was irretrievably broken down, and the realistic prospects of them being able to co-parent in the future. Crucially, the court considered whether interim orders, rather than final orders, were appropriate given the circumstances.

Justice Tree applied the paramountcy principle of the best interests of the children under section 60CA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court found that the mother lived in an environment that posed a real risk of harm to the children and ordered her to obtain alternative accommodation, noting this would significantly influence the final outcome. The court also identified an impaired attachment between one child and the mother requiring repair, and observed the father's behaviour of interrogating the child upon return from the mother's care. Recognising a realistic prospect of rehabilitation of the parties' communication, the court made interim orders for both children to live with the mother for the first six months, with the father to have supervised time.

The court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues concerning the children, with specific provisions for consultation with the father regarding such decisions. The children were ordered to live with the mother, and for the initial six months, their time with the father was to be supervised at a contact centre. The father was responsible for contact centre fees and was required to attend a men's program, while the mother was to attend counselling. Both parents were ordered to undertake a parenting program, and neither parent was permitted to denigrate the other or discuss the proceedings with the children. The court also issued injunctions restraining the consumption of illicit drugs and excessive alcohol when the children were in a parent's care.