Danton & Lancaster

Ms Lancaster and Mr Danton were married from 2009 until they separated in March 2016. They have one daughter, X, born in 2011. The dispute revolves around the determination of the best living arrangements for X, considering the potential risks of harm from family violence and the entrenched views of X against the mother. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) was tasked with deciding the legal issues concerning the best interests of the child under section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

The court needed to determine the weight to be given to the primary considerations of the child's best interests, particularly the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from harm. The court had to weigh the psychological risks of leaving the child with the mother against those of changing the child’s residence. Additionally, the court had to consider the benefits of further family therapy and the potential for such therapy to address the child's anxiety and improve family relationships. The court also had to consider the views of the child, the mother, the father, and the Independent Children's Lawyer, as well as other relevant factors outlined in section 60CC.

In its judgment, the court found that the risks of psychological harm to X from changing his residence outweighed the risks of leaving him with the mother. The court recognised X’s entrenched views against the mother and considered the potential for family therapy to address these issues. The court concluded that it was in X's best interest to live with the father while continuing to have supervised contact with the mother, followed by unsupervised contact after a period of time. The court ordered that family therapy should be undertaken to support X’s relationship with both parents and to improve communication between them. The court also imposed restrictions on the mother's contact with X and mandated the use of a parenting application for communication between the parents.

The court discharged all previous orders and granted sole parental responsibility to the father. X was ordered to live with the father, with no contact with the mother for three months, followed by supervised contact and eventually unsupervised contact. The parents were required to engage in family therapy to address X’s anxiety, support his relationships with both parents, and improve communication between the parents. The mother was also restrained from contacting X except as ordered by the court. The Independent Children's Lawyer’s appointment was discharged, and a Court Child Expert was requested to explain the orders to X. All other applications were dismissed.