YATES & WOODFORD

This matter concerned parenting arrangements for three children, D, E, and F, before the Family Court of Australia. The applicant, the children's maternal grandmother, sought to dismiss extant applications relating to the children's older siblings, B and C, which the court granted due to those children being subject to proceedings in the Children's Court of Victoria. The primary dispute involved an application by the first respondent (the mother) and the second respondent (the father) for interim orders to spend time with D, E, and F. This application was opposed by the applicant and the Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL).

The court was required to determine whether to grant the first and second respondents' application for interim time with the children, or to make orders sought by the ICL that the first and second respondents spend no time with the children pending a final hearing. A key issue was the weight to be given to a section 69ZW report prepared by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), which did not support any contact between the children and their parents. The court also considered the children's best interests, including the need to protect them from harm, as mandated by section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Justice Johns reasoned that the DHHS report, which detailed the children's expressed fears and their strong desire not to see their parents, provided the best available evidence regarding the children's welfare. The report highlighted significant concerns about the risks the children faced if any contact with their parents were reintroduced, including exposure to family violence and drug use, and allegations of sexual abuse. Given that the children had not spent time with their parents for almost two years and the lack of available supervised contact facilities, the court found that making orders for interim time would be contrary to the children's best interests. The court agreed with the submission that the question of reintroducing time, and the basis for it, was a matter for determination at the final hearing.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application by the first and second respondents for interim time with the children. The court made orders that the first and second respondents spend no time with the children D, E, and F until further order. The ICL was granted leave to forward the DHHS s 69ZW report to the Family Consultant for an addendum to the existing family report. The matter was adjourned for a five-day final hearing to commence on 19 April 2021, with detailed directions provided for the filing of evidence and applications.