DAWHURST & TINTO

In the matter of *DAWHURST & TINTO*, Cleary J determined the living arrangements and parental responsibility for the child E Dawhurst. The dispute concerned the child's residence and time spent with each parent, particularly in light of the mother's history of aggressive outbursts and mental health issues, and the presence of the mother's ex-partner, who was a perpetrator of family violence in the mother's home. The court also considered an injunction to protect the child from contact with this ex-partner.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility should be rebutted, with whom the child should live, and the nature and extent of the time the child would spend with each parent. The court was required to determine what orders were in the best interests of the child, considering the risks of harm associated with the mother's mental health and her past relationship dynamics.

Cleary J found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted due to evidence of a risk of harm to the child while in the mother's household. The court reasoned that it was not in the child's best interests to have equal shared parental responsibility given the mother's diagnosed Borderline Personality Disorder and history of aggressive outbursts. Consequently, the father was allocated sole parental responsibility, and the child was ordered to live with the father. The mother's time with the child was to commence with supervised contact at a contact centre for a minimum of six months, with a pathway to unsupervised weekend time conditional upon her engaging in and committing to individual therapy with a Clinical Psychologist to address her mental health issues. An injunction was also made restraining both parents from bringing the child into contact with the mother's ex-partner, Mr VT, due to his history of family violence.