Ganesh & Ganesh

This case involved an application by Ms A Ganesh (the Applicant) for sole parental responsibility and final parenting orders concerning her severely handicapped younger sister, the child. The child's birth father is deceased, and her birth mother suffers from a disability. The second Respondent sister, Ms D Ganesh, initially participated in the proceedings but disengaged and failed to comply with court orders. The child had been subjected to various risks, including neglect and exposure to family violence, particularly when in the care of the mother and the second Respondent sister following the father's death. The Applicant had increasingly taken on the child's care and protection due to serious concerns about the capacity of the mother and the second Respondent sister. The court was presided over by Hannam J.

The central legal issue before the court was to determine what orders were in the child's best interests, specifically concerning parental responsibility, living arrangements, and time spent with each party. This required the court to consider the primary considerations under section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), namely the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, abuse, neglect, or family violence. The court also had to address the ongoing disruptive and aggressive behaviour of the second Respondent sister and the need for protective measures.

Hannam J applied the principles of section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to the facts. The court found that while a meaningful relationship with the mother was important and would continue to be facilitated by the Applicant, the paramount consideration was the child's need for protection from harm. The evidence clearly indicated that the child had been neglected and exposed to family violence when in the care of the mother and the second Respondent sister. The Applicant's intervention had ensured the child's safety since interim orders were made in August 2018, including the child's recovery to the Applicant's care and the Applicant being granted sole parental responsibility. The court also noted the second Respondent sister's history of violent outbursts and psychotic symptoms, which posed a significant risk.

The court made final orders reflecting the Applicant's proposal, which were consented to by the mother through her case guardian. The Applicant was granted sole parental responsibility for the child, and the child was ordered to live with the Applicant. The child was to spend time with the first Respondent (the mother) as agreed between the Applicant and the mother. Crucially, the child was to spend no time with the second Respondent. Furthermore, the second Respondent was restrained from approaching or contacting the Applicant, the Applicant's places of residence or work, or the child and the child's places of residence or study, with a power of arrest attached to these protective orders.