The Full Court’s decision in Bergsma v Hyde [2026] FedCFamC1A 148 offers helpful guidance on parenting orders that require a parent’s time with a child to be supervised indefinitely. 

The father appealed orders that limited him to four hours of supervised time every second Saturday. He argued that the trial judge had not properly assessed the risk, considered the impact of supervision on the child, or provided a way for the arrangements to be reviewed or changed in the future. 

The Full Court upheld the orders. The trial judge had made extensive, unchallenged findings about family violence, unresolved mental health concerns, and the father’s lack of insight and skills to meet the child’s significant disabilities. Those findings supported the conclusion that supervision was necessary to protect both the child and the mother. 

The earlier observation in Slater v Light (2013) 48 Fam LR 573—that long-term orders for indefinite supervision are generally discouraged as undesirable—has sometimes been relied on to argue that these orders should include a pathway to increased time or, eventually, unsupervised time. 

Bergsma v Hyde makes clear, however, that the trial judge’s task is to make the orders that are in the child’s best interests based on the evidence at trial - not to design a future pathway for those orders to be varied. 

Parenting orders can still be varied later. Under the rule in Rice v Asplund, now substantially codified in s 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975, the person seeking to reopen the parenting arrangements must show a significant change in circumstances and that reconsidering the orders would be in the child’s best interests. However, a supervision order is not invalid simply because it does not include an express review mechanism. 

For separated parents, the decision confirms that genuine safety concerns can outweigh the recognised limitations of supervised time. A parent seeking less restrictive arrangements should respond to the identified risks with clear, practical evidence. Equally, a parent seeking ongoing supervision must show why it is necessary in the particular circumstances, supported by strong evidence rather than general concerns.