Deeley and Dervin

The Family Court of Australia heard an application by Mr Deeley (the Father) for parenting orders concerning his son, E, born in June 2002. Ms Dervin (the Mother) was the respondent. The Father did not appear at the final hearing. The Independent Children's Lawyer, Mr Williams, supported the orders sought by the Mother. The Father had previously been convicted of seven counts of indecent treatment of the Mother's daughter from a previous relationship, F, and had not seen the subject child since 2008, save for one or two brief occasions.

The court was required to determine whether to make final parenting orders on an undefended basis, given the Father's discontinuance of his application and failure to appear. Central to the determination was whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) was rebutted, and if so, what orders were in the best interests of the child, particularly concerning the child living with the Mother and spending no time with the Father. The court also considered the impact of the Father's criminal history and the potential psychological harm to the child, the Mother, and the Father's stepdaughter, F.

Justice Kent found that the Father had been afforded ample opportunity to be heard and had elected not to participate further in the proceedings, thus permitting the matter to proceed on an undefended basis. The court applied section 60CA of the Act, requiring the best interests of the child to be the paramount consideration. It was determined that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted due to the Father's criminal conduct and the significant risk of psychological harm to the child and F. The court noted that the Father's history, coupled with his failure to participate in the trial, prevented a proper assessment of his genuineness and the potential benefits of a relationship with the child. The court also considered the adverse impact on the Mother's mental wellbeing and parenting capacity.

Consequently, the court ordered that all previous parenting orders be discharged. It was declared that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted in the best interests of the child, and the Mother was granted sole parental responsibility. The child was ordered to live with the Mother and spend no time with the Father. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged.