Ganem and Ganem (No. 4)

The Family Court of Australia considered interim parenting orders concerning the child K, with Ms Ganem (the mother) seeking sole parental responsibility and limited or supervised contact for Mr Ganem (the father), while the father sought shared parental responsibility and significantly more time with K. The court was required to determine appropriate interim arrangements for K's care and contact with her parents, balancing the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility against the need to protect K's welfare.

The court's determination was guided by the paramount consideration of K's best interests, as outlined in section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This involved assessing the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents against the need to protect K from harm, with greater weight given to the latter. The court considered evidence of family violence, including allegations of verbal abuse and threatened violence by the father towards the mother and older children, which raised reasonable grounds to believe the father had engaged in family violence. Consequently, the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA was deemed not to apply.

The court reasoned that the evidence of family violence, particularly the mother's and older daughter's accounts, established a significant risk of psychological harm to K if she were to spend substantial time with her father. This risk, coupled with the fundamental difficulties between the parents and the interim nature of the hearing, led the court to conclude that it was not appropriate for the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility to apply. The court also considered K's relationship with each parent, the father's failure to facilitate contact, and the potential impact of significant changes on K, noting that K had experienced nightmares and distress following her removal from her mother's care by the father.

In light of these considerations, the court ordered that K live with her mother and that the father have supervised time with K fortnightly, with the specific arrangements to be determined by a contact service. The mother was to facilitate K's travel to and from these visits, with the father responsible for the reasonable costs. Leave was granted to relist the matter if an alternative, suitable supervision centre could be found. The court also noted that particulars of the obligations and consequences of contravening these orders were set out in an attachment, and costs were reserved.