Cordis & Suvas

In the matter of *Cordis & Suvas*, Brown J of the Family Court of Australia considered interim parenting arrangements for a child, X, aged almost three years. The proceedings were initiated by the mother, Ms Cordis, following the separation of the parties in June 2020. The central dispute revolved around allegations of child abuse and family violence made by the mother against the father, Mr Suvas, which the father denied. The court was required to determine the appropriate interim care arrangements for X, taking into account these serious allegations and the overarching principle of the child's best interests.

The legal issues before the court included the nature of an interim hearing in the context of allegations of family violence and sexual abuse, the assessment of risk to the child, and the application of presumptions of equal shared parental responsibility under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to consider whether the allegations warranted dispensing with the usual requirement for family dispute resolution and how the matters to be considered under section 60CC of the Act should be weighed in determining interim orders. The court also had to address the filing of a "Notice of Risk" by the mother, detailing her allegations of the father's exposure of X to abuse, and her reasons for not reporting these to the authorities.

Brown J reasoned that at the interim stage, the court's primary focus must be on assessing and managing risk to the child. While the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility is a significant consideration, it can be displaced where there is evidence of family violence. The court noted that the mother's allegations, though not yet formally reported to authorities, were detailed in her Notice of Risk and required careful consideration. The court also acknowledged the father's denial of these allegations and his assertion that family dispute resolution would be beneficial. In balancing these competing considerations, the court prioritised the child's safety and welfare.

Consequently, the court made interim orders that the child, X, live with the mother. The father was granted specific, supervised time with X on Sundays and Fridays, with exchanges to occur at a police station or the child's daycare. The parties were also restrained from denigrating each other in the child's presence and from using illicit drugs or consuming alcohol within 24 hours of caring for the child. The court also made orders regarding financial disclosure and directed the parties to attend a family dispute resolution conference with a family consultant to discuss the child's care, welfare, and development. Further directions were adjourned to a later date.