Harper and Wilson and Anor

This case concerned parenting orders for a child, X, born in 2010. The applicant, Ms Harper, sought sole parental responsibility for X, while the mother sought shared parental responsibility with her daughter. The father's involvement was minimal. The court was required to determine the most appropriate parenting arrangements for X, considering his best interests as paramount.

The court was tasked with determining the primary considerations under s 60CC(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975*, specifically the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect X from harm. It also had to consider additional factors under s 60CC(3), including X's maturity, sex, background, his views, and the demonstrated attitudes and responsibilities of each parent. The court needed to assess the risk of harm to X, particularly in relation to the mother's past drug use and the father's lack of involvement.

In its reasoning, the court found that X could not have a meaningful relationship with his father. While a relationship with his mother was possible, it was contingent on her ceasing drug use. The court noted a serious risk of neglect, abuse, and potential family violence if X were in the mother's care while she was using drugs. Evidence suggested X had been neglected in the mother's care prior to coming to the applicant's, exhibiting developmental delays. Despite X's expressed wish to live with his mother, the court found the applicant was able to provide for X's needs and had facilitated his significant progress. The court also considered the practical difficulties and the applicant's capacity to provide for X's emotional and practical needs, noting her maturity and dedication.

Consequently, the court discharged all previous parenting orders. It ordered that the applicant have sole parental responsibility for X, with X to live with the applicant. The mother was to be notified of major long-term decisions and would spend time with X as agreed in writing. The child was to spend no time with and have no communication with the father, who was also subject to an injunction restraining him from coming within 100 metres of X's residence or school. The mother was granted limited access to school information and restricted from attending school events without the applicant's written agreement.