ABBAS & ROWLEY

In the Family Court of Australia, Foster J considered a dispute between ABBAS and ROWLEY concerning their child, T. The mother made allegations of exhibitionist sexual behaviour by the father and serious allegations of aggravated sexual assault against the maternal aunt. The court was required to determine whether there was an unacceptable risk to the child arising from these allegations and to make orders regarding the child's living arrangements, time spent with each parent, and ongoing therapeutic intervention. Additionally, the court addressed an application for property adjustment, which was made in circumstances of minimal property for division.

The primary legal issues before the court were the assessment of risk to the child, the determination of the child's best interests in relation to parental responsibility and time, and whether it was just and equitable to make any property adjustment orders. The court had to carefully consider the evidence presented, particularly the allegations made by the mother and the evidence of the maternal aunt, which was ultimately rejected. The court also had to take into account the child's anxious/avoidant attachment style when formulating orders for time with the father.

Foster J found that, despite the serious allegations, there was no unacceptable risk to the child. The court's reasoning involved a detailed examination of the evidence and circumstances surrounding the complaints. The court determined that it was appropriate to gradually implement substantial and significant time for the child with the father, reflecting a staged approach to increasing contact. Furthermore, considering the background circumstances, the court deemed it necessary for both parties and the child to engage in ongoing family therapy. Regarding the property dispute, the court found that in the particular circumstances of the matter, with minimal property available for division, it was not just and equitable to make any order for property adjustment, and thus dismissed that application.

The court made orders for equal shared parental responsibility, with the child to live with the mother. A detailed schedule was set out for the gradual increase of the child's time with the father over a period of 12 months, including specific arrangements for weekends, school holidays, and special days. The parties were ordered to engage in family therapy, and specific restraints were placed on the mother concerning the care arrangements with Ms A. The court also made orders to prevent the removal of the child from Australia and to place the child on a watch list. All other applications before the court were dismissed. By consent, the father was ordered to pay outstanding costs for the single expert's fees.