FAIRLEY & JAGGARD

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FAIRLEY & JAGGARD [2020] FamCA 437

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best interests – With whom the child shall live and spend time – Where the subject child is aged 14 years of age and has Autism Spectrum Disorder – Where the applicant father sought orders for the child to live with him and spend time with the mother – Where the respondent mother sought orders for the child to remain living with her and for him to only ever graduate to spending professionally supervised time with the father – Where the mother alleges the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the child – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer proposed orders for the child to live with the father and to spend only limited time with the mother – Where factors under s 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) are considered – Where the father admits the child has a meaningful relationship with the mother from which he derives benefit – Where the mother’s evidence overall seems to suggest the child’s relationship with the father is not valuable and the child does not derive much benefit from it – Where the mother alleges the child is at risk of sexual abuse in the father’s care – Where allegations of sexual abuse are unsubstantiated – Where the father alleges the mother neglects the child’s educational and social needs – Where the child lacks capacity to reliably express a view – Where the likely effect of proposed changes upon the child is a significant issue – Where the father does not pose any risk of harm to the child – Where the father is more likely than the mother to allow the child to maintain his relationships with both parents – Where the mother tends to neglect the child’s education – Where there is residual concern about the extent to which the mother’s parenting capacity is afflicted by alcohol consumption and unstable mental health – Where the single expert’s view that the father is “better equipped” than the mother to care for the child is accepted as being correct – Where orders are made closely reflecting those proposed by the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where the child shall live with the father – Where the mother will spend time with the child every third weekend – Any and all outstanding applications dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – PARENTING – Parental responsibility – Where the parties, the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the single expert all agreed that parental responsibility cannot be shared by the parties – Where presumption of equal shared parental responsibility is rebutted – Where s 65DAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) is not engaged – Where the father as the residential parent shall have sole parental responsibility for the child.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4, 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 61B, 64B, 65AA, 65D, 65DAA, 65DAC, 65DAE

Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte (2017) 259 CLR 662;