BRENNAN & EMERY

[2014] FamCA 492

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BRENNAN & EMERY [2014] FamCA 492

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child lives – Best interests of the child – Where mother has been the primary carer of the children for most of their lives other than for the period they were in foster care – Where father does not seek any order to displace the current arrangements where the children live with the mother – Court ordered it is in the best interests of the children that they live with the mother.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child spends time – Whether father presents as an unacceptable risk of physical or sexual harm to the children – Where a child and step child made disclosures – Where there is a degree of specificity to the time, place and specific content of the alleged abuse – Where father denies he was the perpetrator – Where given the absence of any opportunity to the father to challenge the child’s version of events and explore the possibility of alternate perpetrators the Court was not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that in fact the assaults occurred – Where Court satisfied there is a real risk of sexual abuse associated with the father – Where Court satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the father presents an unacceptable risk of sexual abuse to the child – Where child experiences real ambivalence about seeing her father – Where children suffer from medical conditions – Where a child suffers from a medical condition that would impact on a change in current circumstances – Where practically difficulties for father to spend supervised time with the children as considerable distance between the parties residences – Where block holiday time precluded on the basis that the father presents as an unacceptable risk of sexual abuse to a child and as such would not be in the children’s best interests – Where the Court found the father does not have the capacity to provide for the emotional needs of either biological child – Where father sought supervised time at a contact centre as an alternative to block time – Where only contact centre identified by father is not in sufficient proximity to where the mother lives – Where Court found it was not in the best interests of the children to prohibit further contact or communication with the father as sought by the mother – Where Court ordered the father be at liberty, in the event that he can identify an appropriate contact centre, to seek orders for supervised time between himself and the children – Where Court ordered the father’s application be otherwise dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Presumption of equal shared parental responsibility – Where there has been family violence involving both children – Where other allegations of violence towards the children by the father – Where presumption rebutted – Where parties have not been able to have a civil conversation for seven years –…