BECKS & SIMMONDS

In the matter of Becks & Simmonds, heard before Judge Terry, the mother sought parenting orders concerning their five-year-old child. The father was incarcerated, serving a sentence for intentionally choking a subsequent domestic partner, and had a history of severe, life-threatening family violence against the mother and this partner. The child had been present during one of these serious assaults, and the father also had issues with alcohol and drug use, posing a significant risk of harm to domestic partners and children. The father failed to file a Response despite being afforded ample opportunity.

The court was required to determine the appropriate parenting orders, specifically addressing the child's living arrangements, parental responsibility, and the extent of any time or communication the father should have with the child, given the father's history of violence and substance abuse, and the risk he posed. The court also needed to consider whether to grant the mother sole parental responsibility and permit international travel with the child.

Judge Terry reasoned that the father's documented history of severe family violence, including the perpetration of life-threatening assaults and the presence of the child during such an incident, coupled with his substance abuse issues, established a significant risk of harm to the child. The father's failure to participate in the proceedings further supported the need for decisive orders to protect the child. Applying principles of child welfare and protection from harm, the court made orders for the child to live with the mother and for the mother to have sole parental responsibility.

Consequently, the court ordered that the father should spend no time with and have no communication with the child. An injunction was granted under section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 to restrain the father from removing the child from school, day care, or the care of any person designated by the mother. Furthermore, the mother was permitted to obtain a passport for the child and travel internationally with the child without the father's consent. The respondent's legal representative was granted leave to withdraw.