Curtis and Harvey

The Family Court of Australia considered competing applications for parenting orders concerning two young children, B and C. The applicants were the children's maternal great aunt and uncle, Ms and Mr Curtis, who sought orders for the children to live with them and for them to have sole parental responsibility. The respondent was the children's father, Mr Harvey. The children had been in the care of the applicants since October 2009, following the death of their mother and previous child protection interventions.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues, including whether the children should live with the applicants or the father, and the extent of parental responsibility to be allocated. Central to the dispute were allegations of sexual abuse of the children by the father, and concerns regarding his capacity to care for them, including alleged substance abuse. The court also had to consider the paramount consideration of the children's best interests, including the potential for ongoing conflict between the parties and the emotional and psychological impact of any change in living arrangements.

In its reasoning, the court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly those relating to the best interests of the child. The court was not satisfied to the necessary standard of proof that the father had sexually abused the children or that there was an unacceptable risk of such abuse. However, the court did express concerns about the father's capacity to care for the children. Crucially, the court found that moving the children from their current living arrangements with the applicants would place them at significant emotional and psychological risk. The court also considered that further conflict between the parties would be detrimental to the children's welfare.

Consequently, the court made final orders discharging all previous parenting orders. The applicants, Ms and Mr Curtis, were granted sole parental responsibility for the children, and the children were ordered to live with them. The court made no order for the father to spend time with or communicate with the children. The appointment of the Independent Children's Lawyer was also discharged.