HARRELL & HANCOCK-HARRELL

The case of *Harrell & Hancock-Harrell* concerned parenting orders for a child born in 2011. The dispute involved allegations of risk of harm to the child by the father, stemming from his mental health condition, specifically Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD), and past outbursts of violence. The mother sought sole parental responsibility and a no-contact order, while the father sought for the child to live with him. The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, considering the risks posed by each parent and the father's mental health.

The court was tasked with determining whether the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the child, and if so, what parenting orders were appropriate. Specifically, the court had to assess the risk of physical and emotional harm, the father's insight into his condition and its management, and the potential for his OCD symptoms to negatively impact the child. The court also considered whether equal shared parental responsibility was appropriate, given the parties' communication difficulties, and whether a no-contact order would be detrimental to the child's long-term emotional well-being.

Justice Tree found that while the father presented a low risk of physical harm, his OCD symptoms and lack of insight into his behaviour posed a real and substantial risk of emotional harm to the child. The court determined that unsupervised time with the father would constitute an unacceptable risk. Conversely, the mother was found not to pose an unacceptable risk. The court concluded that equal shared parental responsibility was not in the child's best interests due to the parties' inability to communicate effectively.

Consequently, the court ordered that the child live with the mother and that she have sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues. The father was ordered to attend appointments with mental health professionals, discuss his treatment plan, and provide confirmation of his attendance and compliance. Supervised time with the child was to commence upon the father's mental health condition being deemed stable by his treating professionals, with a pathway for increased contact and eventual unsupervised time after 12 months of demonstrated progress and stability. The court also mandated that the child attend a program to support and educate them regarding the father's mental health.