Collins and Collins

This case involved competing applications for parenting orders concerning two children, R and H, born in 1999 and 2002 respectively. The proceedings were commenced by the mother, with the father filing a response. The court was required to determine the most appropriate parenting arrangements, considering serious allegations of domestic violence and child abuse made by the mother against the father, and counter-allegations of abuse and manipulation made by the father against the mother.

The central legal issues before the court were: (1) whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied, and if so, whether it could be rebutted; (2) what parenting orders, if any, would be in the best interests of the children, with paramount consideration given to their welfare and protection from harm; and (3) the specific terms of any parenting orders, including the children's living arrangements, the allocation of parental responsibility, and the nature and extent of time the father would spend with the children.

The court applied the principles outlined in Part VII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the paramountcy of the child's best interests, the primary considerations of a meaningful relationship with both parents and protection from harm, and the additional considerations such as the child's views and the parents' ability to facilitate a relationship with the other parent. The court considered extensive evidence, including expert reports, affidavits, and oral testimony, to assess the allegations and determine the risks to the children. The court found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility did not apply due to reasonable grounds to believe the father had engaged in child abuse and family violence, and that it would not be in the children's best interests to have equal shared parental responsibility.

The court ordered that all previous parenting orders be discharged. The children were to live with their mother, who was to have sole parental responsibility for their long-term and day-to-day care, welfare, and development. The father was to spend supervised time with the children for two hours every three weeks at a contact centre, with specific arrangements for intake, assessment, and adherence to the centre's rules. The father was also ordered to pay all costs associated with the contact service. Further orders addressed communication, school reports, and notification of address changes, with provisions for the father's liberty to send letters and presents, and restraints on his attendance at the children's schools. The court also stipulated consequences for contravention of these orders, as detailed in an annexure.