Case Note: Parenting Order Appeal Dismissed

Arrighetti & Qodirova [2026]

Summary of Facts

The Full Court upheld extensive protective parenting orders in circumstances involving entrenched but unfounded allegations of sexual abuse, confirming the broad discretion of trial judges when assessing emotional and psychological risk.

The case offers important guidance for practitioners managing matters involving fixed parental beliefs, moratoria, and supervised time.

Overview

This 2026 appeal concerned significant parenting orders, including a change of residence, a six-month moratorium on the mother’s contact with the child, indefinite supervised time thereafter, and a prohibition on the child communicating with the maternal grandmother. The mother appealed aspects of these protective measures, arguing they were disproportionate and inadequately reasoned. A majority of the Court dismissed the appeal.

Background Facts

The parties’ ten-year-old child had lived with the mother since separation in 2018 and had not spent meaningful time with the father since early 2022, aside from a single supervised visit for litigation purposes. The trial judge ordered that the child move to live with the father, imposed a six-month moratorium on any contact with the mother, and directed that once the moratorium concluded, the mother’s time with the child would occur under indefinite supervision - defaulting to two hours per fortnight at a contact centre. The Court also restrained any contact between the child and the maternal grandmother.

These orders were based on findings that both the mother and maternal grandmother held entrenched but unjustified beliefs that the father had sexually abused the child - allegations raised with authorities but not substantiated. The trial judge found that continuing to live in an environment shaped by those fixed beliefs created an unacceptable risk of emotional and psychological harm, particularly due to the undermining of the child’s relationship with her father. Therapeutic interventions were ordered to support the child and both parents throughout the transition.

Issues on Appeal

The mother did not challenge the change of residence. Instead, she appealed:

the six-month moratorium on any contact
the indefinite supervised time order
the injunction preventing contact with the maternal grandmother
alleged failures to consider less restrictive alternatives
alleged inadequacy of reasons

Decision

Majority (Riethmuller & Kari JJ)

The appeal was dismissed. The majority held:

The protective measures were reasonably open on the evidence.
The mother’s entrenched false beliefs posed an unacceptable emotional and psychological risk.
A moratorium was appropriate to stabilise the child during the transition.
Indefinite supervision, while usually disfavoured, was justified where the only alternative would be to eliminate the parent from the child’s life.
The grandmother’s conduct justified restraining all contact unless her behaviour changed.
The trial judge was not required to propose or design alternatives not advanced by the parties, particularly with an ICL participating.

Separate Reasons (McClelland DCJ)

McClelland DCJ would have allowed the appeal in part, finding that the supervision arrangements and total prohibition on grandmother contact were disproportionate. His Honour emphasised:

Courts should fully evaluate a spectrum of protective measures, not simply accept binary options.
Children’s rights to meaningful relationships with parents and significant people should only be limited to the degree necessary to ensure safety.

Implications for Family Lawyers

Avoid binary case structures - always propose fallback options (e.g., semi?supervised models, expanded venues, structured step?ups).
Prepare clients early for credibility issues where fixed beliefs may undermine parenting capacity.
Use experts strategically - put timeframes and supervision levels directly to family report writers to avoid appellate constraints later.
Grandparent involvement - if safe contact is sought, propose recognition or supervised contact to avoid total severance.
Variation strategies (s 65DAAA) - clients subject to supervision or moratoria should be advised about behavioural change pathways to support future variation applications.

We are experienced in representing clients on interim applications and appeals in complex parenting matters. Contact us today for assistance.

This information does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with a lawyer to obtain independent legal advice relevant to your situation.