Grolman & Swift

This case concerned Mr Grolman (the Father) and Ms Swift (the Mother), who were divorced parents of a son born in 1990 and a daughter born in 1997. The primary dispute before the Family Court of Australia at Lismore was whether the Father's contact with his daughter should be supervised or unsupervised, and the extent of that contact. The Mother had raised concerns about the Father's behaviour towards the daughter, alleging sexual abuse, which had led to an investigation by the Department of Family Services.

The Court was required to determine whether the Father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the daughter, and consequently, the nature and extent of contact arrangements. This involved assessing the allegations of sexual abuse, considering the evidence presented by both parties, including expert reports from a psychologist and a family consultant, and applying the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* regarding the best interests of the child. The Court also had to consider the wishes of the daughter, who was nine years old at the time of the hearing, and the capacity of each parent to facilitate a meaningful relationship between the child and the other parent.

Justice Barry found that there was insufficient evidence to make a finding of sexual abuse by the Father against the daughter. The Court noted that while the Mother held genuine concerns, these were not entirely supported by the available evidence and appeared to be influenced by her own history of abuse and low self-esteem. The Court concluded that the benefit of the daughter having a meaningful relationship with her Father outweighed the Mother's concerns, and that the risk of harm was not unacceptable. The Court also considered the practicalities of contact, noting the limitations of contact centres and the need for long-term arrangements.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the son, being over 16, was at liberty to spend time with either parent as he wished. The daughter was to live with the Mother, but the Father was granted unsupervised day-time contact on alternate weekends, with specific restrictions on taking the child to his residence or properties with heavy machinery. The Court also made orders regarding communication, joint long-term responsibility for the children's welfare, and mutual notification of significant issues, while also ordering the Mother to refrain from discussing sexual abuse with the child and neither parent to denigrate the other.