Event and Time
Event Description
This case involves an injunction sought in a family law matter concerning publication restrictions against a mother and father, both of whom have significant media profiles. The Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) proposed these restrictions to protect the welfare of the children, particularly in light of past negative public statements made by the parents about each other and issues around family violence, mental health, and substance abuse.
Application and Claims
- Applicant (Father): Sought a review of interim parenting orders and proposed broad restraints against any negative statements regarding the other parent, including those made in the presence of children or published on social media.
- Respondent (Mother): Alongside the ICL, sought more targeted constraints that would allow for general discussion of serious social issues while restraining derogatory comments about the other parent.
- Independent Children's Lawyer: Highlighted the risks to the children's welfare from public discussions and sought a balanced approach allowing discourse on broader issues without direct reference to their family situation.
Judicial Decisions
- The Court imposed restraining orders on both parents from discussing their family law proceedings and making derogatory statements about each other in any medium, including social media.
- The Court allowed general commentary on broader societal issues, ensuring that references to each other or their personal circumstances were excluded.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Father's Position:
- Argued for a broad restraint on ‘negative statements’ to protect the children's welfare. - Proposed definitions that could encompass a wide array of statements about the other parent, which the Court found ambiguous and overly broad.
- Mother and ICL Position: