Highsmith and Kelly (No 2)

In *Highsmith and Kelly (No 2)*, Cronin J considered an application by the father for parenting orders, which the mother sought to have dismissed. The Independent Children's Lawyer also made proposals regarding the parenting arrangements.

The central legal issue before the court was to determine whether any proposed parenting orders, including those put forward by the father and the Independent Children's Lawyer, would be in the best interests of the child, as mandated by section 60CA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This required the court to consider the matters outlined in sections 60CC(2) and (3) of the Act, with a specific emphasis on giving greater weight to the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, including abuse, neglect, or family violence, as stipulated in section 60CC(2A).

The court's reasoning focused on the paramountcy of the child's best interests, particularly the imperative to protect them from harm. It was noted that section 60CC(2)(b) requires greater weight to be given to the protection of a child from physical or psychological harm over the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents, should these considerations conflict. The court examined the definitions of "abuse" and "family violence" within the Act, considering whether the children faced an unacceptable risk of exposure to sexual activity or grooming by the father, or exposure to family violence.

Ultimately, the father's initiating application for parenting orders was dismissed. The mother's response and any amendments thereto were also dismissed.