Jarrah and Neason and Anor

The Family Court of Australia heard parenting proceedings concerning five children, M Neason-Jarrah, K Neason-Jarrah, R Neason-Jarrah, U Neason-Jarrah, and Z Neason, whose parents are Mr Jarrah (the father) and Ms Neason (the mother). The Director-General of the Department of Family and Community Services intervened in the proceedings, which were listed in the Court's Magellan list due to allegations of sexual abuse and family violence. The father sought orders for equal shared parental responsibility and for the children to live with their mother, with a graduated regime for his time with them. The mother sought sole parental responsibility or, alternatively, shared responsibility with the Director-General, with very limited supervised contact for the father. The Director-General proposed alternative orders, including sole parental responsibility for the Minister for Family and Community Services if an unacceptable risk of harm to the children was found.

The central legal issues before the Court were to determine the best interests of the children, considering the extensive history of risk reports to the Department of Family and Community Services, the father's criminal record and predilection for relationships with younger persons, and findings of sexual assault against the father. The Court was required to assess the capacity of both parents to meet the children's needs and protect them from harm, and to determine whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted. The Court also considered the mother's insight into protecting the children and her ability to parent without departmental assistance.

The Court found that the father's potential to meet the children's needs was negligible and that there was an unacceptable risk to the children if placed in his unsupervised care. It also found that the mother was unable to adequately parent and protect the children without departmental assistance and lacked the necessary insight. Consequently, the Court was satisfied that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted. Applying the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly Part VII concerning children's best interests, the Court determined that the children's welfare required sole parental responsibility to be vested in the Minister for Family and Community Services.

The Court ordered that the Minister for Family and Community Services have sole parental responsibility for the children until they reach 18 years of age. The Minister or the Director-General was to determine where and with whom the children live. The mother and father were to spend time with and have telephone contact with the children as determined by the Director-General, with specific conditions and supervision. The Court also made various consequential orders, including injunctions restraining certain behaviours by the parents during contact and a power of arrest for police officers in the event of breaches. The child Z's surname was ordered to be changed from "Neason" to "Neason-Jarrah".