CATHCART & CATHCART

This case concerned parenting proceedings in the Family Court of Australia between Ms Cathcart (the mother) and Mr Cathcart (the father) regarding their child, X, born in 2005. The dispute arose from allegations of the mother assaulting the child, leading to the child developing a fear of her and having no contact with her for approximately three years. The mother failed to file any material in support of her position, and did not appear at the final hearing.

The court was required to determine the parenting orders that would be in the best interests of the child, X. Specifically, the court had to consider whether to grant the father sole parental responsibility, whether to make orders for the child to live with the father, and whether to impose restraints on the mother’s contact with the child. The court also had to address the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and whether it was rebutted in this instance.

Justice Cronin reasoned that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted due to findings of violence towards the child and the inability of the parents to communicate effectively. The court found that the mother had assaulted the child, and the child continued to express fear of her mother, which was supported by evidence of past incidents and a psychiatric assessment suggesting potential delusional thinking and thought disorder in the mother. The court also considered the child's expressed views, her age, and the need to protect her from psychological harm. Given the mother's failure to participate in proceedings or provide evidence of her capacity to co-parent responsibly, and the child's consistent fear and resistance to contact, the court concluded that it was in X's best interests for the father to have sole parental responsibility and for the child to live with him.

The court ordered that all extant parenting orders be discharged, that the father have sole parental responsibility for X, and that X live with her father. Pursuant to section 68B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), the mother was restrained by injunction from approaching or being in the vicinity of the child, the child's school, or any school or extracurricular activity attended by the child, or attending at a specific address. The application for final orders by the father was otherwise dismissed, and the order for the appointment of the Independent Children’s Lawyer was discharged.