Carbirne and Jetton

In *Carbirne & Jetton* [2013] FamCA 310, the Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning three children, L, R, and M, whose parents, Mr Carbirne (the father) and Ms Jetton (the mother), were unable to agree on arrangements for their care. The dispute was complicated by allegations of child sexual abuse made by the mother against the father concerning M, and by an attempted murder incident involving the mother's then-partner and the father. The father initially sought sole parental responsibility and for the children to live with him, later amending his application to seek equal shared parental responsibility and a week-about living arrangement. The mother sought for the children to live with her and for her to have sole parental responsibility, later proposing equal shared parental responsibility with a graduated reintroduction of M to the father. The Independent Children’s Lawyer proposed equal shared parental responsibility and a week-about living arrangement for all children after M's reintroduction.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children, specifically addressing the allegations of sexual abuse against the father, the meaning of "unacceptable risk" in this context, and the implications of the mother's relationship with her former partner who had committed an attempted murder against the father. The court also had to consider the appropriate parenting orders, including the extent of shared parental responsibility and the living arrangements for the children, particularly the reintroduction of M to the father.

Stevenson J found, on the balance of probabilities, that the father did not sexually abuse M, and therefore, there was no unacceptable risk of M spending unsupervised time with him. The court applied the principles outlined in Part VII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the considerations under section 60CC, to determine the children's best interests. The court noted that the mother's position regarding the abuse allegations had evolved, and her primary concern appeared to be M's reassurance rather than protection from harm. The court also considered the mother's denial of prior knowledge or complicity in the attempted murder of the father by her former partner.

The court ordered the discharge of all existing orders and that the father and mother have equal shared parental responsibility for the children. The children were ordered to live with the mother, with specific provisions for the children to spend time with the father, including overnight stays and substantial time during school holidays. The court also made detailed orders for M's reintroduction to the father, culminating in her spending time with him simultaneously with her siblings. Further orders included the continuation of therapy, restraints on the mother regarding contact between the children and Mr B, and prohibitions on discussing court proceedings involving Mr B in the children's presence. Changeovers were to occur at designated locations, and the orders included a fact sheet detailing obligations and consequences of contravention.