HOWARD & LIPSCHITZ

In the Family Court of Australia, Mr Howard (the applicant father) and Ms Lipschitz (the respondent mother) were involved in parenting proceedings concerning their two children. The dispute centred on with whom the children should live and spend time, particularly in light of allegations of sexual abuse and neglect made by the mother against the father, which were found to be unsubstantiated. The court also considered an application for an adjournment of the final hearing and the admissibility of a covert recording made by the mother.

The primary legal issues before the court were to determine the best interests of the children, including whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied and, if so, whether it was rebutted. The court was required to decide with whom the children should live and spend time, and whether to grant an injunction restraining the mother from attending the children's school or residence, and from allowing the children contact with her former partner. Additionally, the court had to rule on the admissibility of a recording and transcript made by the mother without the father's consent, and whether to grant the mother's application for an adjournment of the final hearing.

Justice Austin found that the allegations of sexual abuse and neglect made by the mother against the father were unsubstantiated and that the children were at risk of psychological harm in the mother's care. Consequently, the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted. The court applied the principles outlined in the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) regarding the best interests of the child, including the importance of meaningful relationships with both parents. The court also applied section 138 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) and section 12 of the *Surveillance Devices Act 2007* (NSW) to rule the covert recording and its transcript inadmissible due to the breach of state legislation. The application for adjournment was dismissed, with the court noting the significant delays already experienced in finalising the proceedings.

The court ordered that the father have sole parental responsibility for the children, and that the children live with the father. The mother was granted supervised time with the children at a contact centre, with the mother to bear the costs. The mother was restrained from attending the children's school or residence, and from allowing the children contact with her former partner. Further orders were made to protect the children from denigration and discussions of past allegations, and to ensure the mother's compliance with reporting obligations to child welfare authorities.