PARTIES OPT TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FAMILY CONSULTANT
Delvin & Olason [2021] FCCA 983 (13 April 2021)
This is a parenting application concerning the determination of whether the children should spend time with the father where the parents of such children substantially agree to the recommendations of the Family Consultant.
Facts:
This is a parenting matter concerning two children: X, who is 12 years old and, more recently, Y, who, following a paternity test, has been shown to be the child of the father. Y is three years old. Both children live with the mother in the former matrimonial home which is apparently in the sole name of the father.
The parties in relation to children’s matters are not far apart. They essentially adopt the recommendations of the Family Consultant in the Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum produced pursuant section 11F of the Family Law Act 1975.
The Family Consultant recommended that X should commence spending supervised time with the father at B Families once a week for a period of six weeks. The parties have agreed that that should be reformulated to a period of six visits at times that B Families can accommodate.
The specific recommendations were for one afternoon after school and on Saturday or Sunday and that that arrangement continue for twelve weeks. After twelve weeks of unsupervised time it was recommended that the parents and X attend a Child Inclusive Conference, or alternatively, a Family Report be ordered to further assess whether overnight time should commence. It was recommended that changeovers occur at X’s school or at B Families and that there be no face-to-face contact or communication between the parties.
This recommendation was made due to the hostility between the parties and the allegations of family violence, particularly the allegations of the father’s controlling and coercive.
Issue: Should the court order the parenting orders in accordance with the recommendation of the Family Consultant?
Law:
Analysis:
There is a proper basis for each of those recommendations, however, some modification has to take place. For example, it is agreed between the parties that Y should now be included in those arrangements which means that changeover at school is not easily accommodated or accommodated at all. The other issue is if changeovers are to take place at B Families, then the recommendation that X spend one afternoon with the father after school until sometime in the evening cannot properly be accommodated because B Families will close at about 5:30pm. While there is nothing inappropriate about the recommendation, it is impracticable. The court does nor propose to adopt that aspect of the recommendation.
The reason for the structure of the proposal, which both parties have agreed to, is that it contemplates X’s somewhat ambivalent relationship or attitude to his father.
X expressed some hesitation about spending time with his father, essentially because his father had yelled at him and he felt somewhat nervous about spending time with his father.
Accepting all of that is the case for the purpose of this interim hearing it follows that what is necessary is a period of confidence building between X and his father. Given Y’s age, one hopes that there also is a chance for her to develop a meaningful relationship with her father
X’s position is the one that most importantly needs to be accommodated somehow and the way to do that is to, essentially, adopt the recommendations of the Family Consultant.
Conclusion: The court orders that the children spend time with the father as agreed to between the parties in writing, and in the absence of agreement, as follows: (a) For a period of 6 visits supervised at B Families NT once a week or at times suitable to B Families NT.