The High Court has ordered a mother to return to the family home with her two younger sons while a family law case awaits a full hearing. The interim order also sets limits on their father’s contact with them and requires the parents to consult before further medical interventions.
The ruling followed an urgent motion by the father, who sought enforcement of an earlier order on care and access, the mother’s removal from the home, or alternative protective orders. The judgment records that a 2015 consent order and recommendations by consultant clinical psychologist Dr Geraldine Curtin had not been implemented.
Dr Curtin’s reports and oral evidence described severe conflict between the parents and concerns about the boys’ welfare, including restricted contact between the mother and one son. Those were the assessor’s views and evidence. The father disputed aspects of her assessment, saying he had not spoken against the mother and wanted an end to hostilities. The court found that the case involved very high conflict and that the mother had been degraded in the sons’ eyes.
The court said urgent steps were needed to address the mother’s position with the children. It directed that the father leave the family home by 5pm on 6 August 2016 and that the mother could enter at 5.15pm. The two younger sons, identified in the judgment as U. and H., were to remain in her primary care and control at the home pending further determination after a full hearing.
The order provides for no contact between the father and the children for three weeks after the move. After that period, the father is to have access every other weekend from 7pm Friday to 7pm Sunday; Wednesday evening access was excluded. A proposed holiday for the mother and children could take place during the third week if arranged, with the father agreeing to fund it. The court also said a short holiday with the father during the Halloween school break, for up to one week, was acceptable.
The parents must consult and agree before further medical interventions. The father was directed to explain the court’s decision calmly to the two boys in language they could understand. The mother was to inform their school principal, and the court lifted the in-camera restriction so the order could be shown to school authorities. The father could move to another property owned by the parties pending trial.
The court refused a stay of its order and reserved the question of costs. The ruling was an interim decision; the judgment states that the case remained pending a full hearing and determination.