BAUR & FUHRMANN

The Family Court of Australia heard proceedings between Ms Baur (the applicant mother) and Mr Fuhrmann (the respondent father) concerning parenting orders for their two children, D (born 1999) and J (born 2002). The dispute centred on the allocation of parental responsibility and whether the children should spend time with their father, particularly in light of allegations of physical violence between the parents and sexual abuse of the children by the father. The court was required to determine the children's best interests as the paramount consideration in making any parenting order.

The legal issues before the court included whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) applied, and if not, how parental responsibility should be allocated. The court also had to consider the children's views, given their ages (approximately 14 and 12), and whether they should spend time with the father, and if so, under what conditions. The court was tasked with deciding whether to grant the mother sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues and to make orders regarding the children's living arrangements and time spent with the father.

Hogan J found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility did not apply because there were reasonable grounds to believe the father had engaged in family violence towards the mother. The court accepted the mother's account of a violent interaction in 2006, including physical and verbal abuse, and noted the father's lack of empathy regarding the incident. The court also considered the Family Report writer's assessment that the children were consistently opposed to seeing the father and that forcing such interaction could be harmful to them. Applying section 60CA and section 65AA of the Act, the court determined that the children's best interests were paramount.

By final order, the court ordered that the children live with the mother and that the mother have sole responsibility for major long-term issues, including their education, religious and cultural upbringing, and health. The mother was ordered to facilitate time with the father if the children indicated a desire to do so, including providing necessary therapeutic support. The children were granted liberty to communicate with the father by telephone and written communication at their instigation, with the mother to provide contact details. The Independent Children’s Lawyer was discharged.