CAPEK & SAMERA

In the matter of *Capek & Samera*, Judge B Smith of the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute concerning the parenting arrangements for the child, X, born in 2013. The applicant, Ms Capek, sought sole parental responsibility and for the child to live with her, while the respondent is Mr Samera. The proceedings were characterised by high conflict, including a sexual abuse allegation made by the father against the maternal uncle, which was subsequently withdrawn.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, X, in circumstances involving significant parental conflict and a withdrawn allegation of sexual abuse. Key issues included whether the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the child and, consequently, what form of contact, if any, between the child and the father would be in X's best interests, alongside the need for protective injunctions.

Judge B Smith found that the father's withdrawn allegation, despite being genuinely held by him at the time, created an unacceptable risk of harm to the child. The court reasoned that the high conflict and the nature of the withdrawn allegation necessitated a significant restriction on the father's contact with the child to ensure X's safety and welfare. The court applied principles under the *Family Law Act 1975* concerning the best interests of the child and the need to protect them from harm.

Consequently, the court ordered that Ms Capek have sole parental responsibility for long-term decisions and that the child live with her. Contact between the child and Mr Samera was severely restricted to supervised identity contact at a paid centre, four times per year, with specific provisions for communication and the attendance of Mr Samera's mother. Furthermore, injunctions were granted under s 68B of the *Family Law Act 1975* restraining Mr Samera from approaching within 100 metres of the applicant or child's residence, school, or the applicant's workplace, with provisions for arrest without warrant for breaches.