EASTELL & EASTELL

In *Eastell & Eastell*, the Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning a child born in 2008. The dispute involved the mother and father and concerned the child's living arrangements, parental responsibility, and the extent of contact the child would have with the father.

The court was required to determine the primary considerations under section 60CC(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), specifically the benefit to the child of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from harm. This involved assessing whether the child would be at an unacceptable risk of physical or psychological harm if she spent unsupervised time with the father, particularly in light of past allegations of offences committed by the father.

Judge Terry reasoned that the father's argument that the child would not be at risk relied on expert opinions that were based on the father's self-reporting of the incident as isolated and linked to excessive alcohol consumption. However, the court found that the father had committed an offence and that his account of the incident was not credible, as the mother's evidence suggested similar events had occurred previously. The court concluded that the risk assessments provided by the experts were undermined by their reliance on the father's uncorroborated and inconsistent statements.

Consequently, the court ordered that all previous parenting orders be discharged. The child was to live with the mother, who was granted sole parental responsibility. The child was to spend no time with and have no communication with the father, except with the mother's written consent. The mother was also ordered to promptly inform the father if the child suffered a serious injury or was diagnosed with a life-threatening medical condition.