Hough and Willis (No 3)

In *Hough & Willis (No. 3)*, the Family Court of Australia considered a parenting dispute between Ms Hough (the applicant mother) and Mr Willis (the respondent husband) concerning their child, S, born in 2006. The matter came before the Court on a final basis, with the mother seeking sole parental responsibility and orders for the child to live with her. The husband did not appear at the final hearing, having previously failed to comply with court orders regarding the filing of material and attendance at a family report interview.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether to grant the mother sole parental responsibility and make orders for the child to live with her, and crucially, what, if any, contact arrangements should be made between the husband and the child. The Court was required to consider the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration, particularly in light of the husband's history of family violence and its impact on the child. The Court also had to determine whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied, and if so, whether it should be rebutted.

Justice Cronin applied Part VII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), focusing on the best interests of the child under s 60CA and the factors listed in s 60CC. The Court found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted due to the husband's history of family violence, which included numerous assaults on the mother, some witnessed by the child. The Court noted the significant psychological harm the child had suffered as a result of witnessing this violence, including speech difficulties, social difficulties, and behavioural problems. Given the husband's non-compliance with court orders, his failure to attend the family report interview, and his history of drug and alcohol abuse, the Court had no confidence that he had changed or could provide a safe environment for the child.

Consequently, the Court made final orders that the child live with the applicant mother and that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the child. All extant proceedings were dismissed, and the appointment of the Independent Children’s Lawyer was discharged. No orders were made for the husband's contact with the child, reflecting the Court's determination that such contact would not be in the child's best interests and would pose an unacceptable risk of harm.