Zarins & Mylne (No 2)

This case concerned parenting arrangements for the child B, born in April 2007, between the applicant mother, Ms Zarins, and the respondent father, Mr Mylne. The proceedings also involved the Independent Children’s Lawyer. The Family Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Macmillan, was required to determine issues relating to the child's time with the mother, the mother's access to her child's psychological records, and injunctive relief sought by the father concerning the maternal grandmother's conduct at the child's school.

The court was tasked with determining whether to grant the mother's application for additional supervised time with the child, whether to uphold the mother's claim of legal professional privilege over certain passages in her psychologist's records, and whether to grant the father's application for injunctive orders restraining the maternal grandmother from attending the child's school and restraining the mother from facilitating such attendance or making unsubstantiated reports to welfare authorities. The paramount consideration in determining these issues was the best interests of the child, as guided by sections 60B, 60CC, and 65DAA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Justice Macmillan ordered that the child would spend additional supervised time with the mother on alternate Sundays, to be supervised at the mother's cost. The court upheld the mother's claim of legal professional privilege over specific passages in her psychologist's records, pursuant to section 118 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth), and ordered that these privileged passages be redacted before the records were released to the parties. The court also granted the father's application to restrain the mother from permitting, allowing, encouraging, arranging, or facilitating the maternal grandmother's attendance at or approach to the child at the child's school, finding such attendances to be not in the child's best interests and potentially undermining the child's sense of security at school. The court declined to grant the father's requested injunctive relief concerning reports to welfare authorities, finding no evidence that the mother had facilitated or encouraged such reports.