Hennessy & Rhys

This case involved an application concerning the future living arrangements for a child born in December 2004. The child's parents had separated when she was nine months old, and she had subsequently lived with various foster carers, including her maternal grandfather and his wife, before entering the state foster care system. The Department of Community Services (DOCS) intervened due to child protection concerns, submitting that the child's long-term interests required her placement in their care until she reached 18 years of age.

The central legal issues before the Court were to determine the paramount consideration of the child's best interests and, in light of the circumstances, what parenting orders were appropriate. This involved assessing the capacity and commitment of both parents to provide adequate care, the need to protect the child from harm, abuse, neglect, or family violence, and the nature of the child's relationships with her parents and other significant individuals. The Court was required to consider the relevant provisions of Part VII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including sections 60B, 60CC, and 65DAA, to determine parental responsibility and living arrangements.

Justice Ryan's reasoning focused on the extensive history of the child's care, including documented instances of neglect and potential abuse, as well as the parents' respective capacities and demonstrated commitment to the child. The Court found that neither parent possessed the necessary capacity or commitment to ensure the child's physical, emotional, and psychological well-being. The father had repeatedly withdrawn from the child's life, and the mother had consistently failed to prioritise the child's needs, demonstrating a lack of insight and an inability to provide a safe and stable environment. The Court also considered the child's disorganised attachment and the significant harm that further changes in her living arrangements could cause.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the Minister for Community Services have sole parental responsibility for the child, including day-to-day and long-term care, welfare, and development. The child was to live as directed by the Minister or the Director-General. The orders also provided for limited supervised time with both the father and mother on four occasions each year, with specific arrangements for notification, venue, and supervision. The child was also to spend time with her maternal grandparents as agreed with the Department. The Court noted that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility did not apply due to the findings of risk and the parents' demonstrated lack of capacity and commitment.