Wray & Wray

This case involved Mr Wray (Applicant) and Ms Wray (Respondent) concerning parenting orders for their child, X. The dispute had a long history of litigation, with the court being asked to review interim parenting orders in light of an expert's report, address concerns about the risk to the child in the father's care, and consider an oral application for recusal and whether the father should be prohibited from making further interim applications under section 102QB of the Family Law Act 1975.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether to continue the suspension of all time and contact between the child and the father, the appropriate approach to interim parenting orders given the expert recommendations and concerns about risk, and whether the father should be restrained from making further interim applications. The court also had to consider an application for its own recusal.

Altobelli J applied the paramount consideration of the best interests of the child under section 60CA of the Family Law Act 1975. The court considered the independent expert report of Dr C, which contained significant concerns regarding the father's mental health and capacity to parent. The court noted the father's treating professionals had not demonstrably engaged with this report, despite opportunities to do so. The court also considered the objects and principles of Part VII of the Act, including protecting children from harm and ensuring meaningful involvement of both parents where consistent with the child's best interests.

The court made orders continuing the mother's sole parental responsibility for the long-term care, welfare, and development of X, with X to live with the mother and spend no time with the father. The father was restrained by injunction from using X's school portal to harass X and from contacting X directly or placing X in group chats. A single expert witness was appointed to report on the father's psychiatric state, and all outstanding interim applications by the father were dismissed. The court also declined the oral application for recusal.