Hammond and Hammond (No 2)

In *Hammond and Hammond (No 2)*, Watts J of the Family Court of Australia considered competing final parenting orders sought by the mother and father concerning their child. The mother sought sole parental responsibility, that the child live with her, and supervised time with the father, alternatively seeking the child live with the maternal grandparents and supervised time with her. The father sought sole parental responsibility, that the child live with him, and no time with the mother. The Independent Children’s Lawyer supported the father’s position.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, specifically addressing allegations of sexual abuse by the father (which were found to be unfounded by a previous judge), inappropriate touching of the child by the child’s step-brother (found not to pose an ongoing risk), the child’s care arrangements within the mother’s household, the child’s fear of the mother, the mother’s past breaches of court orders, and the father’s ability to prioritise the child’s needs. The court also considered an application by the mother to exclude the family report, which was dismissed.

Watts J reasoned that the child’s best interests favoured the father having sole parental responsibility, with the child living with him. This decision was informed by findings of serious concerns regarding the child’s care in the mother’s household, a lack of positive interaction between the mother and child, and the child’s fear of the mother. The court also noted the mother’s history of breaching orders. The father was found to be sensitive to the child’s needs and able to prioritise them, with no concerns raised by the family consultant during observations of the child and father.

Consequently, the court ordered that the father have sole parental responsibility, that the child live with him, and have no face-to-face time with the mother except for supervised contact once every three months. The child was permitted supervised electronic communication with the mother at the father’s discretion. No restrictions were placed on the child spending time with her step-brother, provided a responsible adult was present and they did not share sleeping arrangements. The father also gave assurances that he would facilitate the child’s meaningful relationship with the maternal grandparents.