Hollister & Gosselin

In the Family Court of Australia, Justice Tree considered an application by a father seeking interim orders for contact with his children, with whom he had not seen or communicated since 2012. The mother held sole parental responsibility for the children and asserted that the father had sexually abused them. The matter was to be relisted for mention after the release of a report, but the father sought immediate orders to facilitate a potential reunification.

The central legal issues before the court were whether interim orders permitting an attempt at reunification were in the best interests of the children, and whether the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm, specifically sexual harm, to them. The court also had to consider the mother's genuine belief regarding the alleged abuse and the potential risks of emotional harm and continued alienation posed by the mother's conduct.

Justice Tree reasoned that the material before the court did not meet the requisite standard to establish that the father had sexually abused the children, particularly given that a criminal prosecution for the alleged offences had ended with a nolle prosequi. While acknowledging the mother's genuine belief, the court found that she presented a risk of emotional harm and continued alienation. Consequently, the court determined that the father did not present an unacceptable risk of sexual harm and that the mother required support and guidance to manage her beliefs and cope with the potential resumption of contact. The court concluded that facilitating an attempt at reunification, under appropriate supervision and support, was in the best interests of the children.