Doan & Lock (No. 3)

This case concerned a dispute between Mr Doan (the applicant father) and Ms Lock (the respondent mother) regarding the residence of their child, Y, born in 2011. The matter came before Baumann J of the Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine the primary residence of the child, Y, and the nature and extent of the time Y would spend with the other parent. Key issues included assessing the risks to the child's emotional and psychological wellbeing in each parent's home, the weight to be given to the child's expressed wishes, and whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied. The court also considered the capacity of the parents to communicate and co-operate, and the potential for future proceedings.

Baumann J applied the principle that greater weight must be given to the prospects of a child being exposed to risk, neglect, and abuse than to the benefits of a meaningful relationship with a parent. The court found significantly greater risks to Y's emotional and psychological wellbeing in the mother's home compared to the father's, and no physical risks in the father's home. While Y expressed a strong desire to live with his mother, the court gave this wish less weight due to Y's limited experience with his father and the influence of the mother's negative views. The court concluded that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was not in Y's best interests due to the parents' inability to communicate.

The court ordered that Y live with the father and that the father have sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues, with an obligation to inform the mother of decisions. Previous orders and parenting plans were discharged. The mother was to have no contact with Y for an initial three-month period, followed by supervised contact, and then unsupervised day-time contact. The father was directed to engage Y in therapeutic support to assist with the transition. An injunction was issued restraining the mother from approaching or removing Y from school or the father's care. The court also made orders regarding respectful communication between the parents and prohibited physical discipline or the involvement of external agencies without consent.