Orders for Indefinite Supervised time between a Parent and a Child

Orders for Indefinite Supervised time between a parent and child, at [300] of Gorman & Huffman a

nd Anor [2016] FamCAFC 174 the Court summarised the guideline to be followed if final orders for supervised time are being contemplated: 

"In summary, what emerges from the authorities by way of guideline when orders for supervised time are in contemplation is that:

a. Consideration of a time or condition by which supervised time should cease is a relevant consideration in the exercise of the best interests discretion in making such an order;

b. As a consequence, the failure by a trial judge to take account of that relevant consideration may constitute discretionary error attracting the intervention of this Court;

c. Alternatively, if, having considered and rejected such a limitation, an order for indefinite supervision is made, the failure to consider or make an additional order whereby the indefinite order can be revisited in the future, may be indicative of discretionary error; and

d. Given that, by operation of the Act, “final” parenting orders can be revisited in any event (usually conditioned upon satisfaction of the “rule in Rice v Asplund”), the failure of a trial judge to provide reasons why any future change to the order is left to a party pursuing that right, as distinct from the orders providing a mechanism for the orders to be revisited, may constitute a failure to provide adequate reasons."

It is important to be aware of the above considerations if you are dealing with a case where final orders for indefinite supervised time are being contemplated. Including an order that serves as a mechanism to relist the matter for review (for example, once there is evidence that the risk issues leading to supervised time have been mitigated) in the future might avoid an appeal.

Katherine Guilfoyle