Delahunty & Delahunty (No 3)

In *Delahunty & Delahunty (No 3)*, the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute between parents concerning parenting orders for their child. The father sought orders for the child to live with him and spend limited time with the mother, while the mother sought orders for the child to live with her and spend limited time with the father. A significant factor in the proceedings was an undertaking given by the mother in 2012, as part of a consent parenting order, not to leave the child alone with the maternal uncle, who was a convicted paedophile.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether the mother would facilitate the father's relationship with the child and whether the mother posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the child due to her perceived failure to accept the danger posed by the maternal uncle. Additionally, the court had to consider the child's best interests in relation to parental responsibility, particularly in light of submissions from the independent children's lawyer advocating for sole parental responsibility for the mother, a position the mother belatedly adopted.

Carew J reasoned that an injunction previously made in July 2016, restraining the maternal uncle from any contact with the child, should continue by consent. The court was satisfied that the mother had complied with this injunction and recognised the risk of harm the maternal uncle posed. While acknowledging past failures by the mother to facilitate the father's time with the child, the court found she was likely to do so in the future. Regarding parental responsibility, despite the independent children's lawyer's submission and the mother's belated adoption of the position for sole parental responsibility, the court noted the parents' expressed commitment to jointly making decisions about major long-term issues. The court concluded that it was not in the child's best interests to vary the equal shared parental responsibility arrangement that had been in place since 2012.

Consequently, the court ordered that the child would live with the mother and spend 12 weekends per year and half of the school holidays with the father. The parents were to retain equal shared parental responsibility.