Judgments

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – International relocation – Where the parties agree the child will relocate with the mother to the USA – Where the father seeks to delay the relocation to July – Child has a good relationship with the father – Disadvantages of delay outweigh the advantages – Relocation to occur in February – Where it is desirable for the father’s time with the child to increase in manageable increments – Father has a history of drug and alcohol abuse – Father falsified drug test results – Father has not acted on single expert’s recommendation for changes to his therapeutic engagements – Where it is in the child’s best interest for testing to continue until the child is 10 years of age.

PROPERTY – Balance sheet items – Add backs – Where the parties agree their contributions were equal – Where the mother will retain primary care of the child – Consideration of the mother’s student loans – Where the father has significant capacity for employment but is currently unemployed – Consideration of the father’s expenditure on drugs and alcohol – Property to be divided 65 per cent to the mother and 35 per cent to the father.
 

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –experts’ evidence – experts’ reports – application for leave to rely on adversarial expert witness report – application allowed.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the applicant seeks costs on an indemnity basis for $235,000 – Where the applicant concedes that costs should be assessed on a party/party basis and limited to $150,000 held in a joint bank account – Where the respondent also seeks an order for costs – Where the respondent provides no evidence or assistance in relation to the quantum sought – Consideration of s 117(2A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Consideration of the various offers made – Consideration of the parties financial circumstances – Costs order.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where judgment was delivered following a final hearing – Where the husband seeks costs – Consideration of whether the wife was wholly unsuccessful – Where each of the parties’ cases were arguable and had merit – Where neither party was wholly unsuccessful – Consideration of various offers made by the husband – Consideration of whether it was reasonable for the wife to accept an offer pending valuation reports – Where the offer was open for 14 days – Consideration of whether 14 days was a reasonable time – No order for costs.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the wife sought an order for indemnity costs – Where the parties entered into consent orders for property settlement – Where the wife had earlier offered to settle the proceeding in the same terms as that consented to by the husband during the trial – Costs order made against the husband on a party-party basis.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best Interests – Where the operation of interim orders by this Court were interrupted due to State Court proceedings resulting in an Apprehended Violence Order being ordered, naming the father as the Respondent and the children as the aggrieved parties, following an allegation of the children being reported by a third party – Where the children were ordinarily living with the father by consent on an interim basis – Where the State Court proceedings are yet to be finalised – Where the nature of such allegations are yet to be particularised or available to the Court.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the father sought leave to dispense with the Harman undertaking.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Application by mother that children live with her, that she have sole responsibility for the long-term decision-making for the children and the father spend conditional supervised time with the children – Application opposed by the father – Orders that children live with the mother and that she have sole parental responsibility for long-term decision-making in respect of medical issues for the children – The parents otherwise share joint parental responsibility for the long-term decision-making for the children – Father to initially spend supervised time with the children gradually transitioning to unsupervised time.

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT – Where the Court is asked to determine whether the respondent breached final orders of this Court – Where the respondent prevented the sale of the former matrimonial home – Where the Court determines that the respondent is in breach of final orders mandating the former matrimonial home to be sold by auction – Where the final orders are a contingent obligation to pay money – Where the respondents’ contravention of orders is enforceable – Where the Court orders that the former matrimonial home be sold by auction on an urgent basis.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the siblings of the husband were joined as Second and Third Respondents (“the siblings”) in the substantive proceedings by the wife – Where the siblings seek costs of proceedings on an indemnity basis against the wife – Where $100,000 of the adjustment payment by the husband to the wife pursuant to the final orders is held on trust as security for the siblings’ costs application – Where the wife was wholly unsuccessful in her equitable claim against the siblings – Indemnity costs not established – Wife to pay 50 per cent of the siblings’ costs of proceedings and the application for costs on a party/party basis as agreed or assessed – Payment in first instance to be from funds held on trust by wife’s solicitors.

FAMILY LAW – Contempt proceedings – submission made that there is no case to answer – no case application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – application by mother for leave to adduce further evidence after evidence has closed – application to reopen case – prejudice to the respondent and ICL the grant of the application to reopen outweighs the probative value in reopening the case – application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Final hearing – Property adjustment pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Consideration of s 75(2) – Where husband has a far superior earning capacity– Where wife has primary care of the children – Wife’s earning capacity.

CHILD SUPPORT – Application for departure – Where the wife seeks a departure order for periodic and non-periodic child support – Finding of grounds for a departure order – Orders made for non-periodic child support departure but not for periodic departure order.

SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE – Consideration of the parties’ respective financial positions – Where some expenses of the wife were not qualified with evidence and were unreasonable –Wife will have significant financial resources available to her – The benefits of finality – Application for periodic or lump sum spousal maintenance refused.

FAMILY LAW – DIVORCE – Declaration of validity – Where the parties are citizens of Pakistan – Where the parties married in Australia – Where the respondent asserted the parties had been divorced in Pakistan – Where the applicant asserted the Pakistan divorce was invalid and sought a divorce in Australia – Where the respondent produced a Divorce Registration Certificate and a Divorce Deed – Where there is evidence that Talaq was pronounced – Where there is no cogent reason not to give effect to the Pakistan divorce – Declaration of validity made.

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT – Where the wife seeks to enforce orders made on an undefended basis for the sale of three real properties in her capacity as trustee for sale – Where the husband opposes the sale of the properties – Where the parties are in a precarious circumstance – Orders made broadly as sought by the wife.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where an oral application for supervised time is made – Where the Court receives information about the father’s mental health – Where the new information received changes the calculous with respect to the child’s safety – Where promoting the safety of the child requires that time be supervised – Where the Court allows the oral application for supervised time.

FAMILY LAW – PROCEEDURE – Where the Court receives new information about the father’s mental health during a final hearing – Where an oral application for adjournment is made – Where the final hearing is adjourned to consider the new information provided – Where consent orders are made for disclosure of the father’s mental health records – Where consent orders are made for the filing of updated material.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Enforcement Application – No need to resolve the judicial controversy – Earlier orders superseded by orders made within jurisdiction.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – where three trials have taken place – where an appeal against the orders made at the conclusion of the second trial was allowed – where at the conclusion of the third trial, one party seeks a costs order in respect of the second trial – application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Final hearing – Family violence – where parties reached consent position as to a child nearing the age of 18 prior to trial – where Independent Children’s Lawyer, mother and maternal aunt proposed a joint minute of order seeking no time and no communication with the father – serious allegations of physical, psychological and sexual abuse family violence against the father – where father denied family violence or risk – where findings of serious long term family violence by father poses a high and unacceptable risk of any time or any communication - Ordered there be no time and no communication between the father and the child – s 68B injunctions ordered for the protection of the child.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Undefended hearing – Where neither biological parent made an appearance –Where serious allegations of risk and neglect are substantiated – Where the maternal grandmother seeks for the child to live with her – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer consents to the maternal grandmother’s position – Where orders were made in favour of the maternal grandmother.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the father seeks spend time with arrangements for both children – Where the parties reach a consent position for one child – Where the other child expresses a strong view to spend no time with the father – Where consent orders are made for decision making, family therapy, spend time with arrangements for one child, interstate travel and restraints – Where the Court orders time for one child in accordance with his wishes and telephone time only.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where applicant husband first sought orders pursuant to the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) in an Amended Initiating Application filed less than two months prior to Final Hearing – where the respondent wife objected on both jurisdictional and procedural fairness grounds -where jurisdictional ground unclear – finding that wife was not given procedural fairness to address the claim at the final hearing – in circumstances where final hearing is likely to be stood-over part-heard – judicial determination as to whether the husband may seek child support departure orders stood-over to a later date.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Slip rule – Application to vary order of the Court under rule 5.01 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Whether the orders in question reflect the Court’s intention at the time the orders were made – Where the wife seeks leave to provide documents in Australian family law proceedings to other jurisdictions – Where the wife contends that the documents form part of the court record, were used in the proceedings, are not the subject of any Harman undertaking, and that disclosure of them would not be a communication to the public within the meaning of s 114Q – Where the husband does not consent to the release of documents due to the lack of specificity and precision of the documents – Where the second respondent contends that there is an absence of any evidence on behalf of the wife that the documents were necessary for the wife to achieve justice in the other proceedings – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where the father’s Response to Final orders was dismissed and struck out in circumstances where the Court formed the view that the father was not prosecuting the proceedings with due diligence –Where the father makes an oral application to have his Response reinstated – Where the father has failed to comply with procedural orders as well as orders for time spending at a contact centre – Apprehension that the father is using these proceedings to perpetrate further family violence upon the mother – Father’s oral application refused – Proceedings are finalised with orders made in terms of the mother’s Amended Initiating Application.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim Hearing – Where an order was made by consent restraining the husband from terminating the employment of the wife in an entity owned by him – Where the husband seeks to discharge that order – Where the parties are engaged in proceedings in the Fair Work Commission – Where the parties agree to the sale of a property – Where there is dispute as to the application of the proceeds of sale and how ongoing expenses and liabilities should be met – Orders made for the proceeds of sale of be placed in an offset account and applied to enumerated expenses.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the Court is asked to determine the time the children spend with the parents over the holidays – Where the parents application is heard on an urgent interim basis pending a listed final hearing – Where the Court considers the children’s safety should they travel internationally – Where the Court considered whether one parent’s partner posed any risk to the children – Where the Court allows extended holiday time with the parents – Where the Court permits the children to travel internationally.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim Hearing – Where the children live with the mother and spend professionally supervised time with the father – Where the father seeks orders for time to be supervised by a member of his family – Where the mother seeks changes to the time arrangements and order to permit her to travel overseas to Country G with the children – Where orders are made for the father to spend time with the children during the school holiday period supervised by a member of his family – Where no orders are made with respect to overseas travel.

FAMILY LAW – ADOPTION – Where the applicant father and the applicant step-mother sought leave to commence adoption proceedings in relation to the father’s 12 year old child – Where the biological mother consented to the orders sought – Where leave is granted.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife seeks the variation of an injunctive order preventing the husband from attending a real property more than once each calendar month to restrain him by injunction from attending the subject property for a specified period – Where the husband consents to the variation of such order on condition – Order made varying the injunctive order in the terms broadly as sought by the wife – Costs reserved to final hearing.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the parties currently have property proceedings on foot – Where the mother seeks to reconsider parenting orders by way of her orders sought in her Response to an Initiating Application – Where the father seeks dismissal pursuant to s 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where there has not been a significant change in circumstances – Where the mother largely seeks to reagitate issues which were already determined – Where it is not in the best interests of the child for the parenting orders to be reconsidered – Mother’s Response to an Initiating Application as it relates to parenting proceedings dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final orders – Where parties entered into consent orders on the final day of hearing save for two discrete issues of overnight time and cost of travel – Where the father contends that overnight time with the children occur as soon as possible – Where the mother and ICL contend that overnight time should be progressed in a staggered approach – Where the father contends that the cost of travel of the children should be borne equally by the parties – Where the mother contends that the father should bear the costs of travel of the children – Orders made for a progression to overnight time – Orders made for the father to bear the costs of travel of the children.

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – Final parenting orders made in September 2021 – Where the mother was previously found to have contravened the orders – Where the mother is on a bond – One count dismissed – Where four further counts are established – Where the mother did not take reasonable steps to comply – Where the mother has not established a reasonable excuse.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the father seeks to travel – Where the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer oppose this travel – Where the Court believes that the father’s evidence is incomplete – Where the Court determines that it would not be safe for the child to travel with the father – Where the father’s application for international travel is refused.

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – Sanctions – Whether the mother should be sanctioned under subdivision E or subdivision F of Division 13A Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where each of the four counts are sanctioned under subdivision F because they occurred while the mother was already serving bonds in relation to proven contraventions in earlier proceedings – Where the mother is to attend a serious of appointments with a counsellor as a condition of four further bonds – Where the mother is to pay the father’s costs of the contravention proceedings on a party-party basis to be assessed – Where the mother is to pay the father compensation for his expenses.

FAMILY LAW – CRITICAL INCIDENT LIST -Where the mother has passed away - Where the child conceived by sperm donor unknown to the applicant maternal grandparents -Where the applicants seek parental responsibility for the child - Where the applicants lived with the child and mother since child’s birth -Where major long term decisions required on an urgent basis -Where the Department and Police hold no child protection concerns or records about the child and applicants - Final Orders made.

FAMILY LAW – JURISDICTION – PERMANENT STAY – Where the husband contends that Australia is a clearly inappropriate forum to hear and determine the wife’s relief pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) and related relief seeking declarations as to the beneficial interests held by the husband’s adult children in real property in Australia, and in the alternative pursuant to s 106B of the Act – Where the husband commenced proceedings in the Family Justice Courts in Country G for divorce and ancillary relief for the division of matrimonial assets immediately prior to the wife commencing proceedings in this Court – Where the husband bears the onus of establishing that Australia is a clearly inappropriate forum to determine the dispute – Consideration of single expert evidence pursuant to ch 7 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) as to the law of Country G – Where the proceedings in the current respective courts do not involve the same parties and do not engage the same controversies – Where the Country G proceedings would require a separate claim in a different court in that forum – Where to order a permanent stay of the proceedings in this Court would have the effect of summarily determining parts of the wife’s relief – Where it is not established that Australia is a clearly inappropriate forum – Application for a permanent stay of these proceedings dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Final orders – Where the wife and husband both contend the contribution-based entitlement was equal – Where the wife contends there should be a 5 percent adjustment under s 75(2) because of the wife’s care of the parties’ youngest child, the husband’s greater earning capacity and the wife’s contention that the two older children will pay to the husband their unpaid present entitlements – Where the husband contends there should be no adjustment under s 75(2) – Where the wife’s position regarding property alteration pursuant to s 79 shifted from seeking a cash adjustment to seeking a transfer to her of a property, a company in which the husband was a director holding on trust for her 50 percent of the parties’ units in a unit trust, as well as a cash adjustment – Orders made as to the parties’ SMSF, payment of present unpaid entitlements, and a division of assets as to 52 percent to the wife and 48 percent to the husband in the form of a cash payment.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to adduce adversarial evidence – Where the wife seeks to adduce adversarial evidence as to the value of a commercial property – Where the husband objected to the adducing of adversarial evidence – Discussion of ‘special reason’ for allowing adversarial evidence – Where there is a special reason for allowing adversarial evidence in addition to the evidence of the jointly appointed single expert – Application to adduce adversarial evidence as to the value of commercial property allowed.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where the proceedings were listed for final hearing in relation to property and parenting matters – Where orders were made by consent on the first day of the trial removing a third party associated with the property proceedings – Where subsequently the property proceedings were bifurcated – Where the parties are largely in agreement on parenting matters – Where the remaining disputed parenting issues were exacerbated by the parents’ differing parenting styles and opinions in relation to the management of the child’s behavioural challenges, of which the child has now received a formal diagnosis.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Assessment of contributions – Modest pool – Final property adjustment orders made.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Accrued jurisdiction – Where the applicant and first respondent were in a short marriage – Where the applicant sought orders pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where whilst proceedings were on foot in the then Federal Circuit Court of Australia the applicant brought proceedings in the District Court seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly inflicted by the first respondent in the course of the marriage – Where the applicant was awarded damages against the first respondent in the District Court for personal injuries – Where the first respondent was unsuccessful in his appeals and owes the applicant the damages and costs – Where the applicant alleges that throughout the District Court proceedings the first respondent divested funds to the second respondent – Where the applicant seeks for the transfers of funds from the first to the second respondent be set aside pursuant to s 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) – Where the first and second respondent were in a de facto relationship – Where the first and second respondent contend that the transfers were the subject of a separation agreement and loans – Orders that the transactions are set aside and payment to the applicant of the moneys owed to her by the first respondent – No orders made for property adjustment.

BANKRUPTCY – COSTS – Where during these proceedings the first respondent entered into bankruptcy by presenting a debtor’s petition in circumstances where the applicant was seeking to serve a creditor’s petition – Where on the first day the proceeding was listed for final hearing the bankruptcy was annulled by consent and orders were made for the trustee’s costs to be reserved – Determination of the trustee’s costs – Orders for the first respondent to pay the costs of the trustee – Where the parties contest the quantum of the trustee’s costs – Where failing agreement of the parties as to the quantum, orders made for determination by a report from a Registrar.

FAMILY LAW – PROCEDURAL – Where an issue estoppel operates to bind the first respondent but not the second respondent to findings made in District Court proceedings brought by the applicant – Where no issue estoppel arises against either the first or second respondent in relation to the second set of orders and reasons in the District Court of New South Wales and where s 91 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) applies.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the applicant and first respondent were in a de facto relationship – Where the applicant contends that the behaviour of the first respondent shortly prior to separation constituted wastage – Where the applicant seeks an adjustment pursuant to Kennon & Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757 – Where, taking all matters into consideration, the applicant seeks orders that there be an adjustment in her favour of about 75 per cent pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the third and fourth respondents previously acted for the first respondent – Where the first and third respondent were in an intimate relationship and have a child together – Where the third and fourth respondents say that they are creditors by way of unpaid legal fees and personal loans – Where the first respondent acted in a belligerent manner throughout the proceedings – Where the third and fourth respondents failed to comply with procedural orders – Where the matter proceeded undefended as against the first, third and fourth respondents.

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT – Where the husband as the trustee for the parties seeks to facilitate the enforcement of mechanical orders the sale of real property – Where the wife concedes that she has not complied with the orders facilitating the sale – Where orders are made permitting the wife a reasonable period to vacate the property, for husband to thereafter have exclusive occupation of the property in his capacity as trustee for the parties and for warrant for possession in the event the wife fails to vacate – Orders made for the wife to pay the husband’s costs of the enforcement application.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Oral decision – Interim orders – Parenting orders – Best interests of child – Where the father filed an application seeking supervised time – where the mother and ICL oppose that application – where the child has not seen the father since October 2021 – where the matter is listed for final hearing in March 2025 – where the principles of interim hearings apply – where it is in the child’s best interests for reintroduction to occur and prior to the final hearing – where the risks are ameliorated by professional supervision.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE –Application by the Second Respondent to be removed as a party to the proceedings – Where the Applicant contends that she has an equitable claim as against the Second Respondent – Where the court finds that is necessary for the Second Respondent to be a party to the proceedings.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Overseas divorce agreement – Where the husband consents to property orders transferring real property to the wife – Where despite purported willingness the husband has not effected the transfer of real property – Where the wife seeks orders to effect the divorce agreement and subsequent judgment made in overseas enforcement proceedings – Orders made to effect the transfer.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the de facto wife (“wife”) seeks costs in a fixed sum for property proceedings only – Where neither party was wholly unsuccessful – Where the de facto husband’s (“husband”) denial that a de facto relationship existed until the eve of trial is conduct justifying a costs order in favour of the wife – Where the wife’s rejection of offers of settlement made by the husband were not unreasonable as they were materially worse than the final outcome – Where the wife made two offers of settlement to the husband – Where the husband’s rejection of the first offer by the wife was not unreasonable as it was made early in the proceedings – Where the husband’s rejection of the wife’s second offer was unreasonable as he should have been in a position to assess the strengths of his case and the offer was materially better than the final outcome achieved – Where the husband’s rejection of the wife’s second offer was a failure in his duty to act in accordance with the overarching purpose of s 67 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) – Where the wife’s alternative claim for indemnity costs is not established – Where it is not possible to quantify the wife’s costs on a party/party basis without assessment by a registrar – Order for husband to pay 50 per cent of wife’s costs of the proceedings on a party/party basis as agreed or assessed – Order to certify counsel.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where husband seeks costs in a fixed sum – Where no party wholly unsuccessful – Where both parties claimed the conduct of the other caused delay and unnecessary costs to be incurred – Where husband had been tardy and non-compliant with disclosure during substantive proceedings – Both parties of substantial wealth – Where wife rejected two settlement offers made by the husband – Where wife claimed rejection of offers was not unreasonable as balance sheet was not sufficiently settled when offers were live – Where wife’s rejection of first offer was not unreasonable as offer made early in proceedings – Where wife’s rejection of second offer was unreasonable as she was in a position to assess the strength of her case and the offer provided a better outcome than achieved in final judgment – Where wife’s failure to accept the second offer was a failure in her duty to act consistently with the overarching purpose of s 67 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) – Award of costs justified in husband’s favour from date of expiry of second offer – No basis for indemnity costs established – Wife to pay 40 per cent of husband’s costs as his conduct likely increased his own costs – Costs ordered in fixed sum of $270,000 in favour of the husband.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where anticipated wishes report not ready for an interim hearing because father failed to take the child to the Family Consultant – Where the child’s views ought be ascertained for the interim hearing and for trial – Where trial three months away - Where interim hearing adjourned to first day of trial and father again ordered to take the child to the Family Consultant.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – BALANCE SHEET - Where husband asserts loans to his family which would reduce the pool to a negative - Where loans found to be a sham - Where husband wishes to use 2022 valuations for three overseas properties but apply the current 2024 exchange rate meaning the pool would reduce by $200,000 - Where no evidence underlying assets have altered in value - Where husband transferred money to family overseas and withdrew cash after the wife filed for interim asset preservation orders - Where sums included in the balance sheet - Where husband divested himself of long-held shares in overseas family businesses after the wife applied to have his interests in those businesses valued - Where husband's interests included in the pool - Where wife used funds for living and re-housing after husband stopped voluntary financial support - Where husband sought add backs of those funds -  Where living costs money - Where children cost money - Where wife's use of money not added back.

PROPERTY – CONTRIBUTIONS - Where husband focused on his direct financial contributions during the relationship - Where parties entitled to live as they lived when together - Where holistic assessment required.

PROPERTY – FUTURE NEEDS - Where husband says he should have the vast bulk of the pool so he can maintain himself going forward - Where wife's resources and court ordered sums used on costs of living and children pre-trial.

PROPERTY – ORDERS - Where the division of assets and add backs is so close to assessed percentage outcome that no further order made for payment of a comparatively meagre amount of money by one party to the other.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim proceedings – Where the child lived with the mother and spent no time with the father – Where the Department removed the child from the mother’s care – Where the child currently lives with the father and spends limited supervised time with the mother – Where the mother seeks primary care – Consideration of risk – Where the Department highlight significant concerns with respect to both parents – Where the father lives with his mother – Where the Department considers the paternal grandmother to be a protective person – Where evidence cannot be tested on an interim basis – Orders made for the child to remain in the father’s primary care – Consideration of time spending – Consideration of best interests – Where the father concedes the requirement for supervision – Orders made for unsupervised time.