Alam & Sayid

This case concerned parenting orders for three children, B, C, and D. The mother, Ms Alam, and the independent children's lawyer sought to continue the existing parenting arrangements. The father, Mr Sayid, sought a reversal of these arrangements, proposing that the children live with him and spend time with the mother. Both parents questioned each other's credibility. The father alleged a serious violent incident between the mother and the maternal grandfather, and a risk of sexual abuse within the mother's home. The court found the evidence regarding these allegations to be equivocal and determined there was no unacceptable risk. However, the court did find evidence disclosing a likelihood of excessive chastisement by the mother in the past. The children expressed a preference to remain with the mother, and the court acknowledged that both parents had parenting deficits.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, it had to consider the father's application for leave to reopen the evidence, made after the final hearing but before judgment was delivered, concerning the mother's pregnancy with a new partner. Secondly, the court needed to assess the weight to be attributed to the expert evidence of a family report, particularly in light of the father's challenge that the expert had not adequately exposed their reasoning and had constructed their own facts. Thirdly, the court was to consider principles of inferential reasoning, including the rule in *Jones v Dunkel*, in relation to disclosures made by children in high-conflict parental situations and the father's contention that inferences should be drawn in his favour due to the mother's failure to call the maternal grandfather as a witness.

Harper J granted the father leave to reopen the evidence, finding the mother's pregnancy to be a material fact that could affect the outcome of the parenting orders. Regarding the expert evidence, the court held that the expert's opinions were inferences drawn from communicable data and observations of both parents, and that the weight of the report should be assessed accordingly, even though section 79 of the *Evidence Act 1995* did not strictly apply. The court acknowledged the children's preference to remain with the mother and found that while both parents had exhibited deceitful behaviour, the mother's conduct was more directly related to parenting. Ultimately, the court was satisfied that the orders proposed at the commencement of the reasons should be made, taking into account the best interests of the children, including considerations arising from the Covid-19 pandemic.

The court ordered that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children. The children were to live with the mother and spend time with the father on a specified schedule, including two weekends out of every three during school terms, and defined periods during school holidays and on special occasions. The court also made specific orders regarding the children's schooling and telephone contact between the parents and children. Notably, certain special occasions were designated for the children to be with the mother, with the father's time suspended if necessary.