HARDWICK & SPURR

This case concerned a dispute between a father and mother regarding their ten-year-old daughter. The father sought to re-establish a relationship with the child, who had minimal contact with him since she was two and a half and no contact since she was six. The father admitted to perpetrating family violence but claimed to have changed and posed no risk to the child. He also wished to introduce the child to her Aboriginal culture. The mother was strongly opposed to any contact between the child and the father. A secondary dispute involved the mother's application to change the child's surname to that of her current husband, which the father opposed. The matter was heard by Judge Terry.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, specifically whether it was appropriate to facilitate a relationship between the child and her father, considering the history of family violence and the child's expressed views. Additionally, the court had to consider the application to change the child's surname, weighing the child's current identification with the step-father's surname against the father's opposition. The court's determination of these matters was guided by the principles set out in section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), which prioritises the protection of the child from harm over the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents.

In relation to parenting, the court found that the child's strong opposition to contact with the father, as expressed to the family consultant, was heavily influenced by the mother's "complete and utter resistance" to any relationship. Despite the child's seemingly rehearsed and emotionless responses, the court noted that the mother had explicitly discussed her negative views of the father with the child prior to a family conference. Given the history of family violence and the mother's influence, the court concluded that any attempt to reintroduce the child to the father was likely to fail and that the child's safety and psychological well-being were paramount. Consequently, the court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility and that the child live with the mother, with no time or communication with the father unless the mother consented in writing, which was not to be unreasonably withheld if the child expressed a wish for contact. Regarding the surname change, the court noted that the child was part of a family unit where all members used the step-father's surname and that the child identified with this name. The court ordered the surname change to be reflected on the child's birth certificate and other identification.