FREEMAN & BAGGS

The case of *Freeman & Baggs* concerned parenting orders for a child born in 2002. The dispute involved allegations of physical abuse of the child by the father, and unsubstantiated allegations of neglect and mistreatment by the mother. The court was required to determine with whom the child should live and the extent of parental responsibility to be allocated to each parent.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied, and if so, whether it should be rebutted. The court also had to consider the risk of emotional harm to the child arising from the father's aggressive behaviour towards the maternal family and his lack of willingness or capacity to control this behaviour. Furthermore, the court needed to assess the mother's capacity to provide for the child's needs and her attitude towards her parental responsibilities, as well as the father's impaired capacity to fulfil the child's emotional needs. Expert evidence regarding the risk of psychological harm to the child and the conditions under which supervised time with the father could be facilitated was also a key consideration.

Austin J found that the father posed no risk of physical harm to the child, but his aggressive behaviour and inability to control it presented a risk of emotional harm. The allegations against the mother were unsubstantiated, and she posed no risk to the child. Consequently, the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was not applicable or was rebutted. The court determined that the mother had the capacity to provide for all the child's needs and demonstrated a proper attitude to parenthood. The father's capacity to fulfil the child's emotional needs was found to be impaired.

The court ordered that all former parenting orders be discharged and that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the child, with the child to live with the mother. The father was granted supervised time with the child, commencing with supervised visits and transitioning to unsupervised time, contingent upon the father engaging in counselling and therapy for a period of 18 months or as deemed necessary by the counsellor. The father was also restrained from approaching within 200 metres of the mother's residence or the child's school, and both parties were restrained from denigrating each other in the child's presence. The court also made detailed orders regarding communication between the father and child, and the implementation of the supervised time.