Blann & Kenny

In the matter of *Blann & Kenny*, the parties were the mother, Ms Blann, and the father, Mr Kenny, concerning parenting orders for their two children, B and C. The mother alleged that the father and members of his family had sexually abused one of the children and posed an unacceptable risk to both children. The mother sought orders that the children spend no time with the father, while the father proposed a gradual reintroduction to the children, commencing with supervised time. The case was heard by Macmillan J in the Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the allegations of sexual and physical abuse were substantiated to the requisite standard, and if so, what orders were in the children's best interests. Specifically, the court had to assess the risk of harm to the children if they were to spend time with the father and consider the evidence presented, including disclosures made by the child to various family members and a treating psychologist. The court also considered the application of the *Jones v Dunkel* principle regarding the failure to call certain witnesses and the appropriate orders for costs.

Macmillan J found that the allegations of sexual abuse were not substantiated to the required standard, nor was there evidence to support the conclusion that the children had been physically abused by the father. The court was satisfied that orders for the children to spend time with the father would not expose them to an unacceptable risk of harm. The court applied the principles of determining the best interests of the child under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), considering the evidence presented by both parties, the Independent Children's Lawyer, and the Magellan Report. The court noted concerns regarding the evidence of the mother and maternal grandmother but found the father and paternal grandmother to be forthright witnesses. The court also determined that the circumstances did not permit drawing an adverse inference from the father's failure to call his brothers as witnesses, as he had provided a reasonable explanation.

The court made consent orders discharging previous parenting orders. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility, and the children were to live with her. Orders were made for the father to spend supervised time with the children, progressing to unsupervised day time, with a gradual reintroduction supported by family therapy. The court also made orders regarding communication, parental responsibilities for medical and educational decisions, and international travel. Costs were not awarded to either party, and certain applications were dismissed. The matter was adjourned for mention to address further issues.