EYLES & SENG

In the matter of *Eyles & Seng*, Dawe J of the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute between a mother and father concerning their child, A. The mother alleged physical and sexual abuse by the father, and the proceedings involved determining with whom the child would live and spend time, as well as the nature of parental responsibility.

The court was required to determine whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under s 61DA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) had been rebutted, and if not, whether equal shared parental responsibility was in the child's best interests. Additionally, the court had to consider the paramount consideration of the child's best interests, specifically balancing the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents against the need to protect the child from harm, in light of the allegations of abuse and concerns regarding the parties' mental health. The court also had to determine the specific arrangements for the child's living arrangements and time spent with each parent.

Dawe J applied the principles outlined in *M v F* and other relevant authorities regarding allegations of sexual abuse in family law proceedings, emphasising that the standard of proof is the civil standard and that the court's focus is on the child's best interests, not the criminal guilt or innocence of a parent. The court found that the evidence did not support the allegations of sexual abuse or a risk of such abuse. Consequently, the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was not rebutted. The court considered the factors under s 60CC of the Act, including the need to protect the child from harm and the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents.

The court made orders that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the child. The child was ordered to live with the mother, and specific arrangements were made for the child to spend time with the father, with a strong emphasis on therapy for the child, mother, and father to facilitate a positive ongoing relationship. The orders also included provisions for supervised time initially, restrictions on alcohol and drug use for the father, and injunctions restraining denigration of either parent in the child's presence. The court also made detailed provisions regarding the commencement and continuation of therapy for all parties, the role of therapists, and the sharing of costs.