Ames & Caddy (No 2)

In the matter of Ames & Caddy (No 2), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was presented with a complex family law dispute concerning the residence and welfare of two minor children, X and Y. The case involved allegations of sexual abuse by the older child, X, towards the younger child, Y, and required urgent interim decisions regarding their living arrangements. The mother had filed an Application for Review of the Senior Judicial Registrar’s decision, which led to a hearing before McGuire J on 9 March 2023. McGuire J discharged the Order made for a change of residence by the Senior Judicial Registrar and reinstated the previous Order that the children live with the mother and have unsupervised time with the father. The court was required to consider expert evidence and family reports to determine the best living arrangements for the children, given the allegations of sexual abuse and the mental health concerns of the mother.

The court needed to address several legal issues, including the impact of the alleged sexual abuse on the children's welfare, the mental health of the parents, and the recommendations of the expert psychiatrist and family report writer. The expert psychiatrist, Dr M, raised concerns about the mother’s mental health, describing her prognosis as guarded, while the father’s prognosis was described as good. The family report writer recommended that the children live with one parent and spend every second weekend with the other, with sole parental responsibility held by the primary parent. The court also had to consider the Independent Children’s Lawyer's urgent intervention and interim hearing request, which was based on the need to address the children's immediate welfare needs.

Baumann J carefully considered the evidence and recommendations presented, leading to the interim orders made on 13 March 2024. The court suspended all previous parenting Orders and directed that Y live with the father while X live with the mother. The parents and children were required to attend a psychiatric evaluation to assess the risks arising from X’s recent behaviour. The children were not to spend time with each other until the risk report was completed, and the mother was restrained from collecting Y from school or participating in the Restorative Justice Process without Dr J’s recommendation. The Independent Children’s Lawyer was granted leave to inspect relevant documents from the Queensland Police Service and the Department of Child Safety, Seniors and Disability Services. The proceedings were to be listed for further Case Management Hearing after Dr J’s report was filed with the Court.