JACKSON & WHITEMAN

In *Jackson & Whiteman* [2021] FamCA 280, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by Ms Jackson (the applicant) and Mr Whiteman (the respondent) to file consent orders regarding their children. The proceedings were before Hannam J and involved a history of family violence perpetrated by the father against the mother and children, with a current protection order in place for the mother. Concerns were also raised regarding potential risks posed by the paternal grandmother and stepfather.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the proposed consent orders were in the best interests of the children, particularly in light of the history of family violence and the potential risks identified. The Court was required to assess the risk of harm to the children, rather than relying solely on the parties' subjective views or the passage of time since the last alleged violent incident.

Hannam J dismissed the application, finding that there was insufficient information to determine that the proposed orders were in the best interests of the children. The Court emphasised that it is not a mere rubber stamp and must give significant weight to the harm associated with family violence, as reflected in the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The Court noted the mother's affidavit detailing protection orders against the father, including a conviction for breaching a previous order, and an allegation that the father had struck one of the children. The Court concluded that a proper assessment of risk, rather than the parties' feelings about risk, was necessary before consent orders could be made, and this assessment could not be undertaken with the limited information provided.