Clarke and Vargas

In *Clarke & Vargas* [2013] FamCA 679, the Family Court of Australia considered a parenting dispute between Ms Clarke (the mother) and Mr Vargas (the father) concerning their child, C, born in March 2011. The mother sought orders for the return of C to her care, alleging the father had retained the child contrary to existing interim parenting orders. The father, in turn, sought orders for C to live with him and for the mother to have supervised time with the child.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including with whom C should live and spend time, and the nature of parental responsibility. Central to the determination was the assessment of C's best interests, considering the factors outlined in section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court also had to consider whether a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was displaced and the impact of the father's repeated allegations of child abuse by the mother.

The court's reasoning was heavily influenced by the evidence presented, including reports from a psychiatrist, Dr F, and a family consultant, Ms E. Dr F concluded that the mother's mental health did not place C at significant risk of harm and suggested the father would benefit from assistance in managing his anxiety about C's welfare. Ms E's updated report, which incorporated information from a child safety officer, indicated that investigations into alleged abuse by the mother had been unsubstantiated and that C was not a child in need of protection. Crucially, Ms E opined that the father's actions, characterised as obsessive and compulsive, posed a significant risk of emotional harm to C and recommended that C's time with the father should occur under supervision at a contact centre. The court found that the father's persistent allegations, despite a lack of substantiation and contrary evidence, placed C at risk of emotional harm.

Consequently, the court discharged all previous parenting orders. It ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for C, with the caveat that she keep the father informed in writing of decisions regarding long-term issues. C was ordered to live with the mother, and the father was to have supervised time with C at a contact centre for two hours each week, or at least two hours each alternate week. The parents were ordered to register with the contact centre and share its costs. Further orders required both parents to participate in parenting programs and engage with mental health professionals.