COHEN & GREEN

In the matter of *Cohen & Green*, Austin J of the Family Court of Australia determined parenting orders concerning a child, B. The dispute centred on with whom the child should live, given the child’s secure relationships with both parents, the mother’s primary caregiver role, and the parents' respective capacities to meet the child's emotional needs. The father's work commitments limited his ability to care for the child alone, while the mother had full-time availability. The child also shared a strong bond with her maternal half-sibling.

The court was required to consider several legal issues, including the child’s best interests, specifically where the child should live, and the weight to be given to the child’s expressed views. A significant issue was the risk of harm to the child, with allegations of sexual abuse by the mother’s ex-partner, which, when aggregated with evidence of family violence, was considered to pose an unacceptable risk. The court also had to determine appropriate time spent arrangements and consider injunctive relief to protect the child.

Austin J reasoned that the child’s expressed wishes to live with the mother and remain with her maternal half-sibling were of considerable importance and should be given significant weight. The court found that while the mother had an impaired capacity to meet the child’s emotional needs, her full-time availability and the child’s strong bond with her maternal half-sibling weighed in favour of the child living with her. Crucially, the court was satisfied that the mother could protect the child from the risk of harm posed by her ex-partner. The court ordered that the child live with the mother, subject to compliance with an injunction restraining the parties from allowing the child to be in the presence of the mother’s ex-partner. Equal shared parental responsibility was ordered, and detailed time spent arrangements were made for the child to spend time with the father.