HADDOX & HOYT

In *Haddox & Hoyt*, Justice Austin of the Family Court of Australia considered an application concerning the living arrangements and parental responsibility for a child diagnosed with depression, who had a history of attempted suicide and self-harm, and who presently refused to see the father. The mother sought sole parental responsibility and orders for the child to live with her, with no provision for the child to spend time with the father.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied, and if not, what form of parental responsibility was appropriate. The court was also required to determine with whom the child should live and spend time, considering the child's best interests, including the child's expressed views and vulnerability to psychological distress.

Justice Austin found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility did not apply due to reasonable grounds to believe the father had perpetrated family violence. Furthermore, the evidence of parental conflict demonstrated the parties' inability to communicate on major long-term issues. Applying the paramount consideration of the child's best interests, and noting the child's vulnerability and expressed refusal to see the father, the court reasoned that the child might be unable to cope with orders contrary to his views. Consequently, the court ordered that the child live with the mother and that the mother have sole parental responsibility. The court also made orders restraining the father from approaching the mother's residence and the child's school, and stipulated that any future time and communication between the child and father would be determined by the mother as an incident of her sole parental responsibility.