James and Sutton (No 2)

In the matter of *James and Sutton (No 2)*, Tree J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications concerning the parenting of a child, C. The mother sought orders that C live with her, spend no time with the father, and that she have sole parental responsibility. The father resided in Country B and spent no time in Australia, nor did he seek any orders for C to live with him or for any allocation of parental responsibility. C had always lived with the mother.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including with whom C should live and spend time, and whether the mother should have sole parental responsibility. A significant issue was the risk of harm to C, particularly in light of disclosures made in 2012 by C and a friend alleging sexual abuse by the father. The court also considered the father's limited and irregular contact with C since 2005, his lack of communication since the allegations, and the mother's daughter's disclosure of similar abuse by the father. The court also addressed the proposed communication regime between the father and C, and the father's past indirect provision of gifts and cards.

Tree J reasoned that the best interests of the child were paramount. The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the father presented an unacceptable risk of harm to C, a finding significantly influenced by C's "fervent belief" of having been sexually abused by the father. Consequently, the court determined it was in C's best interests not to spend face-to-face time with the father. The court acknowledged the father's international location made direct communication difficult, but found that Skype calls, initiated by C and supervised by the mother, along with the father sending gifts and cards for birthdays and Christmas, were appropriate communication methods. The court also ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility.

The court ordered that all previous parenting orders be discharged. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for C, and C was ordered to live with the mother. C was to spend no time with the father. The father was permitted to communicate with C via Skype calls initiated by C and supervised by the mother, and by sending cards and presents for birthdays and Christmas. The mother was to keep the father advised of her postal address and was permitted to review any written communication from the father to C. The Independent Children's Lawyer was to explain the orders to C and was then discharged. All other extant applications were dismissed.