Cann and Beacon and Ors

This matter concerned applications for parenting orders for two children, referred to as X and Y. In relation to child X, the father alleged controlling family violence by the mother, while the mother alleged risks to the child due to the father's negative views of her parenting capacity. In relation to child Y, the maternal grandmother sought time with the child, which was opposed by the parents and the Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL), with the mother and grandmother estranged and the grandmother holding negative views of the mother's parenting.

The court was required to determine whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility should apply to child X, given the allegations of family violence and parental conflict. It also needed to assess the risk of psychological harm to child X in the father's care. For child Y, the central issue was whether it was in his best interests to make orders for the maternal grandmother to spend time with him, considering the estrangement between the mother and grandmother and the grandmother's views.

The court found that the father had engaged in and was likely to continue to engage in controlling family violence towards the mother. It also found that allegations of risk to child X by the mother due to her mental health history were unsubstantiated and that her mental health was stable. The court determined that there was an unacceptable risk of psychological harm to child X in the father's home due to his negative views of the mother's parental capacity. Consequently, the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was not applied to child X due to the high level of parental conflict and family violence. For child Y, the court held that it was not in his best interests to make orders for the maternal grandmother to spend time with him, other than by the written consent of both parents.

The court made orders for child X that included equal shared parental responsibility, that X live with the mother, and that X spend time with the father as agreed between the parents. For child Y, the court discharged previous orders and granted the mother sole parental responsibility, with specific provisions for Y to live with the mother and for the father to spend time and communicate with Y, subject to conditions including the father engaging in psychological therapy. The maternal grandmother was ordered to spend time and communicate with Y only with the prior written consent of both parents.