Fletcher & Haley

In *Fletcher & Haley*, Howard J of the Family Court of Australia considered competing applications for the residence of a nine-year-old boy. The child had been living with his father for approximately four years and seven months. The mother and the maternal grandparents each sought orders for the child to live with them. The proceedings involved allegations of sexual abuse against the father, which the court ultimately found to be unfounded.

The central legal issues before the court were to determine where the child should live, who should have parental responsibility for major long-term decisions, and the nature and extent of the child's time with each party. The court was required to assess the risk factors associated with each proposed living arrangement, the mother's capacity to parent, her ability to facilitate a relationship between the child and the father, and the intractable conflict between the parties. A significant aspect of the determination involved considering the allegations of sexual abuse and their impact on the child's best interests, in accordance with the principles established in *M v M*.

Howard J applied the principles from *M v M*, emphasizing that in parenting proceedings, the court's primary concern is the best interests of the child, not the definitive resolution of disputed allegations of sexual abuse as in criminal proceedings. The court found the allegations of sexual abuse against the father to be unfounded, accepting the father's evidence regarding the circumstances of bathing the child. The court noted that the mother remained convinced of the abuse despite the child never having disclosed such allegations to her. Considering the child's established living arrangements and the father's capacity to parent, the court determined that it was in the child's best interests to live with his father.

On a final basis, the court discharged all previous parenting orders. The father was granted sole parental responsibility for major long-term decisions concerning the child. The child was ordered to live with his father. The child was to spend time and communicate with his mother during times he was with the maternal grandparents, provided it was at agreed times and in their presence. Specific provisions were made for the child to spend time with his mother on Mother's Day and with his maternal grandparents on Tuesdays and alternate weekends, including during school holidays, with specified periods of time to be spent with the father. The court also made orders prohibiting denigration of parties and requiring attendance at counselling and educational services.