Protecting Children in Family Law: No Time Orders in Extreme Cases
While courts typically encourage a child’s relationship with both parents, this article explores situations where the court determines that no time or contact is within the child’s best interests. Through recent case law, it explores the legal principle and threshold that guide these rare but necessary decisions.
Understanding Parenting Orders
The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) emphasises that the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration in all decisions relating to parenting orders. This principle is enshrined in section 60CA of the Act, which requires that courts must prioritise the child’s best interest when making parenting orders. In most cases, this includes promoting a child’s right to have a meaningful relationship with both parents (where it is safe to do so), alongside the need to protect them from harm.
When Courts have Ordered No Time Due to Unacceptable Risk
Australian family law courts generally promote a child’s right to have a meaningful relationship with both parents. However, there are circumstances where the risk of harm is so significant that the court may order no time and/ or no communication between a child and one of their parents. These situations often arise whether there are serious safety concerns, such as a risk of the child being exposed to domestic and family violence, where one parent has a history of alcohol and/or substance abuse, or significant criminal conduct.
The following recent decisions demonstration how the Court has exercised its discretion to make final parenting orders for no time. In practice, family lawyers must balance their duty to their client with the overarching obligation to prioritise the child’s best interest. This includes advising clients realistically about the evidentiary threshold and when there is a possibility that a no-time Order may be supported by the Court.
In Armonas v Armonas [2025] FedCFamC1F 220, the Father brought an application in relation to the living arrangements of their 5-year-old child.
It was uncontroversial that the child would live with the mother, making the primary issue for determination whether the child should spend time with the Father and if so what conditions the Court would need to impose to ensure the safety of the child.
The Mother sought Orders for no time between the Father and child, in circumstances where:
- The Court had suspended the regular supervised time between the Father and Child on 24 September 2024; and
- Where the child was at unacceptable risk of harm, including the Father:
- has a long-term history of using of illicit substances (including Ketamine, amphetamines, methamphetamines (ice), hydroxybutyric acid (GHB), cocaine, and cannabis;
- has a long-term history of use/misuse/abuse of prescription drugs including sedatives, opioids, antidepressants, and anti-psychotic medication; and
- has chronic and acute mental health issues, which included multiple drug induced psychosis, admissions to mental health facilities, and involuntary detentions in a psychiatric hospital.
The Court accepted the Mother’s evidence in relation to her observations about the Fathers conduct and shared the view that the Father posed an unacceptable risk of harm and further that the Court did not have ‘confidence whatsoever’ in the Father’s ability to manage the risk.
In those circumstances Final Orders were made granting the Mother sole parental responsibility and ordering that the child spend no time with the Father.
In Qodirov v Grayson [2024] FedCFamC1F 345, evidence was produced that the Father:
- had an extensive criminal record commencing from when he was 16 years old, including:
- 28 breaches of the protections Orders in favour of the mother and at least one other intimate partner, many of which he had been incarcerated for. He was also released on parole in early 2023 only to return to prison in mid-2023 for his parole conditions;
- Other convictions for serious offences including violence, drug offences, weapon offences (including possession of firearms), stealing, possession of stolen property, breaches of bail
- Has a history of poly-substance abuse use, which was identified by Queensladn Corrective Services as a primary area of risk for the father.
The Court was satisfied that based on the evidence available that the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the children, due to his long history of criminal behaviour, substance abuse, and use of a child to gain access to drugs in prison.
In those circumstances Final Orders were made granting the Mother sole parental responsibility, ordering that the child spend no time and have no contact with the Father.
Gallagher v Day [2025] fedCFamC2F 36
This case involved serious alcohol abuse and repeated high-level family violence by the Father against both the Mother and a later partner. The child was directly exposed to incidents of violence, and the Court found that even limited communication would cause emotional instability. The court concluded that ‘a clean break’ was in the child’s best interest and ordered no contact or communication between the Father and the child.
Conclusion
These decisions demonstrate that while ‘no time’ parenting orders are uncommon, they remain both appropriate and necessary in some cases, particularly where there is compelling evidence that a parent poses an unacceptable risk to the child’s safety or well-being. In circumstances where even supervised contact cannot adequately mitigate that risk, the Court has a duty to prioritise the child’s protection and stability above all else. These outcomes reflect the law’s fundamental commitment to safeguarding vulnerable children from harm.
How Ramsden Family Law Can Help You
At Ramsden Family Law, we understand the complexities and sensitivity associated with parenting disputes, especially when serious concerns about a child’s safety or well-being arise. Our team of experienced professionals is here to guide you through every step of the process, ensuring that your rights are protected, and your case is handled with the utmost care and diligence.
We’re here to assist you every step of the way.
