Belton & Braim (No 2)

In the matter of *Belton & Braim (No 2)*, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered competing applications concerning the living arrangements and parental responsibility for a child. The mother sought orders for the child to reside with her and for the father's time to be supervised until the child reached 12 years of age. Conversely, the father sought orders for the child to live with him and spend substantial and significant time with the mother. The dispute was significantly influenced by allegations of sexual abuse made by the mother's child from a previous relationship against the father.

The court was required to determine several key issues. Firstly, it had to assess whether the father posed an unacceptable risk of sexual harm to the child, given the prior allegations. Secondly, the court needed to consider the child's expressed wishes regarding her relationship with her father and whether it was in her best interests to maintain such a relationship. Thirdly, the court had to evaluate the potential emotional and psychological harm to the child if her primary attachment figure, the mother, were to change. Finally, the court was tasked with determining the appropriate form of parental responsibility, with the mother seeking sole responsibility and the father seeking equal shared parental responsibility.

Justice Carew found that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish that the father posed an unacceptable risk of sexual harm to the child. The court acknowledged the child's clear desire to maintain a relationship with her father, deeming it to be in her best interests. However, the court also recognised the mother as the child's primary attachment figure and concluded that a change in residence, as proposed by the father, would likely cause significant emotional and psychological harm to the child. Consequently, the court ordered that the child would continue to live with the mother. The father's time with the child was to commence with supervised daytime contact, gradually increasing to alternate weekends and school holiday time. Regarding parental responsibility, the court determined that the parents lacked the capacity for joint decision-making and that equal shared parental responsibility would not be in the child's best interests. Therefore, the mother was granted sole parental responsibility, with an obligation to consult with the father before making final decisions.