BEATTIE & DEMYAN

The Family Court of Australia considered an application by Ms Beattie (the mother) and Mr Demyan (the father) concerning parenting orders for their child, R. The proceedings arose from dissatisfaction with final parenting orders made in March 2011, which had provided for the mother to have sole parental responsibility, the child to live with her, and for the child to spend time with the father on a graduated basis. Both parties sought a reconsideration of these orders, with the mother aiming to significantly limit the father's involvement in the child's life, and the father seeking for the child to live with him.

The court was required to determine two primary issues. Firstly, whether the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the child through exposure to family violence, which would justify his exclusion or marginalisation from the child's life. Secondly, the court had to consider the feasibility of relocating the child to live with the father to foster a meaningful relationship with both parents, given the mother's alleged deliberate obstruction of the child's relationship with the father. A further issue concerned the child's surname, with previous orders providing for hyphenated surnames.

The court's reasoning was significantly influenced by the father's conviction for aggravated assault of the mother in the presence of the child, which occurred after the March 2011 orders. Despite the father's appeal being dismissed, he demonstrated a lack of contrition. The court also noted the mother's history of deliberate disobedience to court orders, her unwillingness or inability to facilitate a relationship between the child and the father, and the prolonged period of no contact between the child and the father. The child's primary attachment figure was identified as the mother. The court applied principles relating to the best interests of the child, including protection from psychological harm and exposure to family violence, as well as the importance of maintaining a relationship with both parents where safe and appropriate.

The court discharged certain previous orders and made new orders to facilitate implementation. These included granting the father leave to approach the Registrar of the Family Court to amend the child's birth certificate to reflect the father's surname. The child was ordered to spend supervised time with the father for two hours on two occasions each year, at a designated contact centre, with the father to bear the costs. The parties were also ordered to facilitate communication between the child and the father through cards and gifts, and the mother was to promptly send any communications from the child to the father. The court also made orders restraining the parties from discussing family violence incidents with the child. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged, and costs were reserved.