Contact between Parent and Child – where the Court draws the line (Orlova & Florea [2025] FedCFamC1F 156)

Written By: Simran Suvarna

The judgement delivered by Justice Carter in Orlova & Florea [2025] FedCFamC1F 156 is one of significance, as it serves as a reminder that although the Court generally upholds that view that parental contact is in the best interest of the child, it is not opposed to ordering that contact be minimised or severed completely if it may threaten the safety or wellbeing of the child.

Background

The matter concerned a child who was almost five years of age. The parents had separated when the child was an infant, and the mother had acted as the primary carer since the child’s birth.

The father began seeking shared decision-making and time with child, whilst the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer maintained that the child should continue to live with the mother and have no communication with the father at this time. The father had a long-standing diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder for which he was not medicated and had not received any psychological treatment. Following the separation, he berated the mother with abusive and disturbing communications directed towards both her and the child. Supervised contact was granted by consent in April 2022, but was terminated after just three sessions, when the father was found to have bought a weapon to a supervised visit.

Observational Reports from contact supervisors, a Family Report and Psychiatrist Evidence indicated that the father repeatedly denigrated the mother due to his strong negative views about her, and that he was unable to shield the child from these views and the parental conflict, due to a lack of reflective capacity. Expert evidence concluded that therapeutic intervention was necessary to manage the father’s emotional reactivity and expand his insight, before safe parenting time could be resumed. This evidence was given substantial weight by the Court.

The Decision

The court applied the statutory best interests test entailed under ss 60CA and 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and in doing so found that:

• The child was safe in the mother’s care, and time with the father at this stage could present serious psychological risks.
• The father’s his limited insight and perspective-taking ability coupled with his unwillingness to partake in therapeutic intervention as recommended prevented him from being able to prioritise the child’s needs over his own, therefore making contact inappropriate.
• The potential harm of contact outweighed any possible benefit.

Orders were made that the child continue to live with the mother, who was granted sole parental responsibility. No direct contact was ordered between father and child; however, the mother was required to provide the father with biannual written updates and an annual photograph of the child.

The Court expressed that this position could be reconsidered in the future, should the father engage with therapeutic treatment and demonstrate sustained progress.

Key Takeaways:

• The child’s best interest is paramount – the general presumption that parental contact be upheld is only applicable when the Court is satisfied that it is beneficial and safe.
• The risk of psychological harm is sufficient – the absence of criminal charges or protection orders will not prevent the Court from restricting parental contact, where other evidence establishes a risk of harm to the child on the balance of probabilities.
• The substantial weight of expert evidence – family reports and psychiatric assessments are extremely influential in determinations of parental capacity.

Conclusion

Orlova & Florea confirms that although parental contact is often regarded as synonymous to the best interest of the child, it is not an entitlement. Contact is always subject to a cautionary approach adopted by the Court, especially in cases where one parent demonstrates diminished parental capacity for any reason, that may in turn pose a risk to the child’s safety or well-being.