De Haven and De Haven and Ors

This case concerned applications by the Applicant Father and the Respondent Mother regarding their two children, F and G. The children were residing with the First Interveners, the paternal grandparents, pursuant to interim orders. The Second Intervener was the biological father of the eldest child. The proceedings involved determining who qualified as a "parent" for the purposes of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and the appropriate parenting arrangements for the children.

The court was required to determine the children's best interests, considering their relationships with the paternal grandparents, the Applicant Father, and the Respondent Mother. A key issue was the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and whether it applied to either child, given the circumstances. The court also had to address the eldest child's relationship with his biological father and the implications for his understanding of paternity.

Austin J found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility did not apply. The court determined that the children's best interests were served by the paternal grandparents having parental responsibility and that they should live with them. The Applicant Father was to have supervised time with the children until the youngest commenced school, due to his history of physical abuse. The Respondent Mother, who also posed a risk of harm through physical abuse and had impaired parenting capacity, was to have graduating supervised time. The eldest child was to have supervised time with his biological father three times per year to address his misunderstanding about paternity. The maternal grandmother was restrained from spending time with the children until the mother's time graduated to unsupervised. The court also made orders restraining corporal punishment and denigration of parties, and requiring the amendment of the eldest child's birth certificate to reflect his paternity.