Curtain & Finch (No 2)

The Family Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Thornton, considered proposed consent orders in a dispute between Ms Curtain (the applicant mother) and Mr Finch (the respondent father) concerning their three children. The proceedings involved allegations of sexual abuse against the father and grave psychological risk posed by the mother due to potentially false abuse allegations and her resistance to the children having a relationship with their father. The case had a complex procedural history, including transfers between courts and involvement with the Department of Human Services.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the proposed consent orders were in the best interests of the children, as required by sections 60B and 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to determine if there was an unacceptable risk of sexual abuse for one child in the father's care and if the mother posed a grave psychological risk to the children's welfare. The court also considered the impact of parental conflict on the children and the significant change in circumstances arising from the mother's recent separation from her partner and relocation.

Justice Thornton reasoned that the parties had reached an agreement with the assistance of the Independent Children’s Lawyer, reflecting a significant change in circumstances, including the mother and children living in closer proximity to the father. Both parties now agreed there was no unacceptable risk to the children in the other parent's care, a substantial shift from previous positions. The court noted that the Department of Human Services had closed its case, finding that substantiated protective concerns were being appropriately addressed, and that police investigations into sexual abuse allegations against the father had resulted in no further action. Relying on the objects of the Act and the considerations outlined in section 60CC, the court was satisfied that the proposed consent orders were in the best interests of the children.

By consent, the court made final parenting orders in accordance with the minutes provided, which included equal shared parental responsibility, a week-about living arrangement, specific provisions for communication and holiday time, injunctions restraining denigration and discussion of proceedings with the children, and arrangements for schooling and medical care. The subpoena issued by the Independent Children’s Lawyer was discharged, and all subpoenaed documents were ordered to be returned. The court also ordered that the particulars of obligations, consequences of contravention, and assistance for compliance be set out in a Fact Sheet attached to the orders. All extant applications were dismissed, and the matter was removed from the list of pending cases.