CAULSON & KINGSLEY

In *Caulson & Kingsley* [2012] FamCA 949, the Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning a child born in July 2001. The mother sought orders that the child live with her and that she have sole parental responsibility. The father had a history of non-attendance at court events, failed to return the child at the end of an access period, and had not availed himself of supervised time with the child. The child had also witnessed family violence in the father's home and experienced distress and anxiety associated with time with her father.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it was in the child's best interests to spend unsupervised time with the father, and consequently, what parenting orders should be made. The Court was required to determine if the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted, considering the paramountcy of the child's welfare and the statutory considerations under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly the need to protect the child from psychological harm and exposure to family violence. The Court also considered the mother's application for costs.

Justice Murphy found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted in the child's best interests due to the father's repeated failures to participate in court proceedings and his child's life, as well as the child's exposure to family violence. The Court applied the principles that the child's best interests are paramount and that protection from psychological harm is a primary consideration. The Court noted the child's expressed views and her significant reduction in distress and anxiety since ceasing contact with the father. The father's consistent non-engagement and failure to avail himself of opportunities for supervised contact were critical factors.

The Court ordered that the child live with the mother and that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the child's long-term care, welfare, and development. The child was to spend supervised time with the father at a contact centre, with costs to be shared. The Court also ordered the father to pay the mother's costs of and incidental to the proceedings in the Family Court, taking into account the father's conduct, including his repeated non-appearances at court events, and the mother's success in the proceedings.