Our strategy centred on one objective: get the half-sister formally recognised by the Court as a party to the proceedings so that protective orders could be sought for the children.
First, we established the half-sister’s standing. Under s 65C of the Family Law Act, the Court can make parenting orders in favour of a person other than a parent if they are concerned with the care, welfare, and development of the child. We presented evidence of the half-sister’s significant involvement in raising and supporting both children, establishing her as a person genuinely invested in their wellbeing.
Second, we addressed the urgency created by the mother’s illness. With the mother’s prognosis uncertain, there was a real and pressing need for the Court to have a party before it who could step into a parental responsibility role. Without the joinder, there was a gap in the children’s protection — particularly given the father’s unresolved compliance issues and the history of family violence.
Third, we accepted the practical trade-off. We acknowledged that joining a new party would likely require vacating the existing three-day final hearing. However, we submitted that the children’s best interests must take priority, and that the additional time would allow for a new Single Expert report, the appointment of a fresh ICL, and an opportunity for the father to comply with his drug testing obligations and potentially progress to unsupervised time — something both children had expressed a desire for.
The Court granted the joinder application in full. The half-sister was formally declared a person interested in the care and welfare of both children and joined to the proceedings, giving her standing to seek parental responsibility orders.
The Court ordered the appointment of a Single Expert to prepare a comprehensive report covering the children’s relationships, the risk of harm, and the capacity of each party — including the half-sister — to meet the children’s needs. A new Independent Children’s Lawyer was also urgently appointed.
The Judge noted that the children were approaching an age where their expressed wishes to spend more unsupervised time with their father should carry weight, and encouraged the parties and ICL to progress negotiations ahead of the rescheduled final hearing.
Critically, the Court’s notes directed all parties to address interim parental responsibility arrangements in the event the mother’s condition substantially deteriorated — ensuring the children would not be left in limbo.
The Court can make orders transferring parental responsibility to another suitable person — whether the other parent, a family member, or another party. The key test is always the best interests of the children.