JAKEMAN & ROWE

In the matter of Jakeman & Rowe, the court was asked to determine parenting orders concerning the children B and C. The dispute involved allegations of family violence and child abuse, specifically sexual abuse, made by the mother against the father. The court was required to balance the need for the children to maintain a meaningful relationship with their parents against the imperative to protect them from psychological harm.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the allegations of sexual abuse were substantiated by the evidence, and if not, what orders were in the best interests of the children. The court noted that while no positive finding of abuse was made, there was also no finding that abuse did not occur, creating an unacceptable risk that needed to be addressed in the parenting orders. The court also had to consider the standard of proof applicable in family law proceedings, which is the balance of probabilities, and the careful weighing of evidence required, particularly when serious allegations are involved.

His Honour, Faulks DCJ, reasoned that the evidence did not substantiate the allegations of sexual abuse to the required standard. However, the court acknowledged the potential for psychological harm to the children if they were exposed to further family violence or if the allegations, even if unproven, created an unacceptable risk. The court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* concerning the best interests of the child, including the need to protect the child from harm and the importance of maintaining a meaningful relationship with both parents.

Ultimately, the court made orders granting the father sole parental responsibility for the children, B and C. These orders included specific provisions for the father to notify, inform, authorise, and consult with the mother on various matters relating to the children's upbringing, education, and medical care. The orders also detailed a phased approach to the children spending time with their mother, commencing with a period of no contact, followed by gradually increasing periods of time, and included detailed arrangements for communication, holidays, birthdays, and other significant events. The court also imposed restraints on both parents regarding discussions about the proceedings with the children and speaking negatively about each other, and specifically restrained the mother from seeking certain medical or psychological treatments for the children without prior agreement.