BIGGS & SIMPKINS

In *Biggs & Simpkins*, Vasta J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered an application concerning the parenting arrangements for a child born in 2017. The dispute centred on the father's alleged posing of an unacceptable risk to the child, a concern amplified by his prior conviction for possessing child exploitation material, which arose from a previous relationship involving a minor. The proceedings also involved allegations of family violence and the father's contact with an expert and a witness in the week preceding the trial.

The court was required to determine whether the father posed an unacceptable risk of emotional and psychological harm to the child, and consequently, what parenting orders were in the child's best interests. A key consideration was the weight to be given to an expert assessment that characterised the risk as "low," in light of the father's conviction and other relevant circumstances. The court also had to consider the implications of a section 128 certificate, which typically relates to privilege against self-incrimination, though its specific relevance here is not detailed in the provided text.

Vasta J reasoned that despite the expert's assessment of a "low" risk, the father's conviction for possessing child exploitation material, stemming from a relationship with a 16-year-old, coupled with allegations of family violence, created an unacceptable risk of emotional and psychological harm to the child. The court applied the paramount consideration of the child's best interests, finding that the father's past conduct and behaviour warranted significant restrictions on his involvement in the child's life.

The court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the child, with the child to live with the mother and spend no time with the father, except for the ability to send cards and gifts on birthdays and Christmas, with the mother to ensure their receipt. The mother was to consult the father on significant decisions in writing, and he was to be informed of the child's progress. The court also made orders regarding passports, permitting the child to leave Australia with or without the mother, and dispensing with the father's signature on the passport application.