Beadel & Beadel

In the matter of *Beadel & Beadel*, Mr Beadel (the applicant father) sought orders for the child to live with him and spend time with the respondent mother, while the mother sought orders for the child to live with her and spend time with the father, subject to the child's wishes. The dispute involved allegations of family violence, unsuccessful attempts at supervised time and reunification therapy, and a current lack of relationship between the father and child, with the child expressing no desire for such a relationship. The court was also required to consider allegations of child abuse, specifically the child's belief of sexual abuse by the father, despite a lack of evidence supporting this belief.

The court was tasked with determining the best interests of the child, specifically whether to make orders for the child to live with the father, and how to address the child's expressed wishes and beliefs regarding the father. This included considering the primary considerations under section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), namely the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from harm, as well as additional considerations. The court also had to assess the weight to be given to various pieces of evidence, including voluminous affidavits and text messages, some of which were contested.

Justice Berman applied the principles outlined in section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), focusing on the benefit of a meaningful relationship and the protection of the child from harm. The court noted that a "meaningful relationship" is a legal construct to be determined by the court, and that such a relationship must first be possible and beneficial to the child. Given the child's current disdain for the father, the unsuccessful attempts at reunification, and the risk of psychological harm if removed from the mother's care, the court found that the father's proposed orders were not viable. The court concluded that while there was no evidence of family violence or sexual abuse by the father, the child's belief to the contrary was a tragic outcome that required therapeutic intervention.

Consequently, the court made orders for the mother to have sole parental responsibility and for the child to live with the mother. The child was to spend time with the father pursuant to the child's wishes. A further order required the parties to engage a therapist to counsel the child regarding the unfounded belief of sexual abuse by the father, aiming to mitigate potential long-term adverse developmental consequences. The court also made ancillary orders regarding parental responsibility, communication, and the registration of the father's name on the child's birth certificate.