CHAUNCEY & CLAIRMONT

In the matter of Chauncey & Clairmont, heard before Judge Terry, the dispute concerned the father's time with their five-year-old child. The mother sought orders for no time and no communication between the father and the child. Despite failing to file trial documents, the father appeared at the trial and expressed a desire to participate. The court noted the father had previously had the opportunity to obtain representation under s.102NA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) but had not pursued it. Consequently, the court considered it appropriate to proceed with the hearing and determine the matter on an undefended basis.

The central legal issues before the court were whether to grant the mother's application for sole parental responsibility and for the child to live with her, with no time or communication with the father. This required the court to assess the risk of harm posed by the father to the mother and the child, particularly in light of his history of family violence and a recent criminal conviction. The court was tasked with determining what orders were in the best interests of the child, considering the father's conduct and the potential risks.

Judge Terry reasoned that the father had perpetrated severe family violence both during and after the relationship. Furthermore, the father had recently been convicted of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm arising from an assault on a stranger, which resulted in serious facial injuries. Based on this history and the recent conviction, the court concluded that the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to both the mother and the child.

Accordingly, the court made orders that the child live with the mother, that the mother have sole parental responsibility, and that the father have no time and no communication with the child. In addition, injunctions were granted restraining the father from attending or attempting to collect the child from any educational facility, and from attending the mother's residence or place of work.