CHIMIN & FIATO

The Family Court of Australia considered a dispute between Mr Chimin (the applicant father) and Ms Fiato (the respondent mother) concerning the living arrangements and time spent between their child, B, and each parent. The mother alleged that the father had sexually abused the child and posed a future risk of abuse, specifically related to an alleged circumcision. The father denied these allegations and sought orders for the child to live with him, with only supervised time with the mother.

The court was required to determine whether the child was at an unacceptable risk of harm if her time with the father remained unsupervised, and what orders were in the child's best interests regarding her living arrangements and time with each parent. The mother's application sought a finding of harm and risk, yet she proposed unsupervised time with the father, creating a tension in her requested orders.

The court found that the child would not be at an unacceptable risk of harm if her time with the father continued to be unsupervised. Applying the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) regarding the best interests of the child, the court concluded that, despite the mother's asserted beliefs about the father's alleged behaviours, it was in the child's best interests for her to continue living primarily with her mother. The court made final orders discharging previous parenting orders, with the child to live with the mother and the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for major long-term issues. The father was restrained from causing or facilitating any form of female genital mutilation of the child. Specific orders were made regarding the child's time with the father, including provisions for school terms, school holidays, and special occasions, as well as communication arrangements and parental responsibilities for daily decisions.