RM v KM

(ii) S was to spend time with the father "as may be agreed between the parents". However, if there was to be failure to agree specific provisions were made for such contact.

(iii) The other children, H, T and KN were to spend time with the father as agreed.

(iv) Specific provision was made for counselling in respect of H who, at the time of the Order, was already receiving it. This was to continue via an agency call "All About Kids". Part of the arrangement was that the mother was not to attend counselling sessions but that H and her father were to attend what was described as "reunification counselling" with a qualified psychologist "for the purpose of re-establishing and restoring a meaningful relationship between the child and [her] father" [3] .

(vi) In respect of the issue of travel, the Order contained detailed provisions. The key element within these provisions was that in respect of any travel by the mother, the father was to be provided with "no less than 30 days' notice" of her intention to travel. In addition, no less than 7 days prior to intended departure from Australia, the mother was to provide the father with a copy of the return travel tickets for any child and the itinerary for the period of travel and the intended departure and return dates to and from Australia.

(vii) The Order also included provisions in respect of schooling which the court need not set out, though it is clear that the intention behind these provisions, inter alia, was to enable the father to attend at, and keep in contact with, the children's schools.