Bateson and Geary

In the matter of Bateson and Geary, heard before Judge Terry, the dispute concerned parenting orders for a young child, X. The mother sought orders that the child live with her, that she have sole parental responsibility, and that the child have no time or communication with the father. The father sought orders for the child to spend time with him.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, X, a three-year-old Aboriginal child. Key issues included the impact of family violence on the child, the father's attitude towards his parental responsibilities, the mother's attitude and engagement with support services, the child's connection to her Aboriginal heritage, and the potential psychological harm to the child from exposure to family violence and contact with a perpetrator who denies such violence. The court also considered the likelihood of further proceedings and the financial support arrangements for the child.

Judge Terry's reasoning focused on the findings of family violence perpetrated by the father, noting the potential for serious injury to a child and the psychological harm caused by exposure to such violence. The court found that the mother had a good attitude towards her parental responsibilities and had taken steps to escape the violent relationship, while the father's attitude was poor due to his denial of the family violence. Despite the father's desire to be part of the child's life, the court gave significant weight to the family report writer's opinion regarding the potential for negative psychological responses in a child exposed to family violence, even if not consciously remembered. The court also noted the father's non-payment of child support.

The court ordered that the child, X, live with the mother and that the mother have sole parental responsibility. The child was to spend no time with and have no communication with the father. An injunction was granted under section 68B of the *Family Law Act 1975* restraining the father from removing the child from school, day care, or the care of any person the mother had placed her with. All outstanding applications were dismissed, as was the application for costs by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.