Finnegan and Larkin

This matter concerned an application before the Family Court of Australia, brought by Ms Finnegan (the applicant mother) against Mr Larkin (the respondent father) concerning their child, B. The dispute centred on orders relating to the child's living arrangements and contact with the father. The father had filed a Notice of Discontinuance, effectively withdrawing his participation in the proceedings, and the court was asked to make orders based on the remaining material and the agreement of the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

The primary legal issues before the court were what orders were in the child's best interests, particularly in light of significant concerns regarding family violence perpetrated by the father, allegations of sexual abuse of the child by the father, and the father's lack of contact with the child for over a year. The court was required to consider the provisions of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the paramount consideration of the child's protection from harm, as well as the child's views and the capacity of each parent to meet the child's needs.

Justice Murphy reasoned that the father's discontinuance of the proceedings did not absolve the court of its obligation to make orders in the child's best interests. The court had regard to a Family Report and a psychologist's report detailing the child's expressed fears and allegations of sexual abuse by the father. The court also noted existing protection orders under state family violence legislation naming the child and mother as aggrieved persons, and that members of the father's own family were also protected by these orders. Given the history of family violence, the allegations of abuse, the child's adamant views against contact, and the father's absence from the child's life for a considerable period, the court found it appropriate to make orders reflecting these circumstances.

The court ordered that the child live with the mother, that the mother have sole parental responsibility, and that the child have no in-person contact or indirect dealings with the father. Further orders were made to facilitate the child's contact with his extended paternal family, ensure ongoing counselling for the child, and require the mother to refrain from denigrating the father. The father was restrained from approaching or contacting the child, and his name was placed on the Airport Watch List to prevent international travel with the child. All other extant applications were dismissed.