Di Piero and Meehan

This case involved an application by the father for parenting orders to spend time with his son, born in June 2003, whom he had not seen since the child was ten months old. The mother opposed any such orders, citing grave fears for her safety and the child's safety due to past events, including allegations of sexual assault and the father's history of drug abuse and psychiatric problems. The proceedings were heard in the Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the Court were: firstly, whether it was in the best interests of the child to have a meaningful relationship with his father, and secondly, the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm. The Court was required to consider various factors under section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents, the need for protection from harm, the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate a relationship with the other, the capacity of each parent to provide for the child's needs, and the impact of family violence. The Court also considered the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and whether it should apply, given the history of intervention orders and family violence.

Justice Cronin reasoned that while the mother's fears were understandable, the long-term best interests of the child favoured fostering a relationship with his father, albeit under strict supervision. The Court found that the father's history of drug abuse and psychosis presented significant risks, necessitating a cautious approach. Expert evidence from Dr N, a clinical psychologist, was particularly influential, suggesting that it was important for the child to have a relationship with his father and that the mother's parenting capacity was unlikely to be significantly impaired by a graded, supervised contact regime. The Court noted the mother's resistance and anxiety but concluded that with professional support, she could cope. The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was not applied due to the history of family violence.

Consequently, the Court made interim orders adjourning the matter for a final hearing. These orders provided for supervised contact between the father and the child for two hours per fortnight, commencing after a specified date. The orders also mandated supervised drug screens for the father, monthly reports from his treating doctor regarding his mental health, and ongoing attendance with a drug counsellor. The parties were granted liberty to apply to relist the matter earlier in specific circumstances, such as the father failing to remain drug-free or experiencing a mental health relapse.