Hammond and Hammond

This case involved an application by the father, Mr Hammond, seeking sole parental responsibility for the parties' eight-year-old child, an order that the child live with him, and that the child spend no time or only supervised time with the mother, Ms Hammond. The mother opposed this application, seeking the continuation of existing interim arrangements. The Independent Children’s Lawyer proposed a compromise, suggesting increased time with the father but less than what the father sought. The dispute arose in the context of significant conflict between the parents, including allegations of sexual abuse, contraventions of court orders by the mother, and concerns about the child's emotional and psychological well-being.

The central legal issues before the Family Court of Australia were whether the risk of harm to the child, as identified in the Family Report, warranted a change in the child's residency on an interim basis, and how parental responsibility should be allocated. The court was required to consider the child's best interests, particularly in light of serious concerns raised about the child's care in the mother's household, including the mother's volatile behaviour, the child's emotional distress, and the mother's persistent, albeit previously unsubstantiated, allegations of sexual abuse against the father. The court also had to assess the credibility and weight of the Family Consultant's report and the expert evidence regarding potential risks.

The court's reasoning was heavily influenced by the Family Consultant's report, which detailed significant concerns about the mother's parenting capacity and its impact on the child. The report highlighted the mother's volatility, her preoccupation with unsubstantiated sexual abuse allegations, and the child's resulting anxiety, sadness, and withdrawal. In contrast, the child appeared relaxed and happy in the father's care. The court found the mother's arguments challenging the Family Consultant's expertise to be without merit, noting her extensive qualifications in child protection and sexual assault counselling. The court accepted the Family Consultant's recommendation that a change of residence was in the child's best interests due to the mother's inability to co-parent and her potential to undermine the child's relationship with the father.

The court ordered that the father have sole parental responsibility for the child and that the child live with the father. Further orders were made in accordance with the Independent Children’s Lawyer's recommendations, including provisions for the child to engage in counselling and for the maternal grandparents to have input into the child's location. The court also set out detailed procedural directions for the preparation of the trial, including the filing of amended applications, outlines of case, and a chronology, and listed the matter for a readiness check.