Correia and Davila (No 2)

This case concerned parenting orders sought by a mother and father regarding their child. The mother sought orders for the child to live with her and spend significant and substantial time with the father, while the father sought orders for the child to live with him and spend time with the mother. The Independent Children’s Lawyer supported the mother's proposed orders. A key issue was the father's allegation of an unacceptable risk of psychological harm to the child due to exposure to family violence between the mother and her new husband.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child in light of the allegations of family violence and the steps taken by the mother and her husband to address anger management and prevent future violence. The court also had to consider the competing parenting arrangements proposed by each parent.

The court found that the mother and her husband had taken steps to manage anger and avoid future family violence. Applying the paramount consideration of the child's best interests, the court determined that it was in the child's best interests to live with the mother and spend substantial and significant time with the father.

Consequently, the court discharged all prior parenting orders and made new orders. These orders stipulated that the child would live with the mother, with specific provisions for the child to live with the father on alternate weekends, mid-week overnight stays, and during specified holiday periods. The orders also included detailed arrangements for communication between the parents, travel, school matters, and prohibitions against exposing the child to violence, denigration of parents, or discussing proceedings with the child. Furthermore, the mother and her husband were ordered to attend marriage counselling, and both parents were directed to enrol the child in a specific program.