KEAT & VELDON

Cleary J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered a dispute between parents concerning the residence and time spent with their two children, Z and X. The case involved cross-allegations of family violence and exposure of the children to such violence. Crucially, the father had faced allegations of sexual abuse against the daughter, which led to charges being laid and a period of two and a half years without contact with the children. Although these charges were later dismissed and the father was cleared by the Department of Communities and Justice, the court had previously made orders for the father to gradually recommence spending time with the children, which had been successful for six months.

The court was required to determine with whom the children would live and the extent of time they would spend with each parent, particularly in light of the history of family violence and the prior substantiated allegations of sexual abuse. A further issue was the allocation of parental responsibility, specifically whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied, given the parties' history and their apparent lack of habit of co-parenting. The court also had to consider the risk of harm to the children if shared care arrangements were implemented.

In reaching its decision, the court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including sections 60CC and 61DA. Cleary J found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted due to the parties' history of perpetrating family violence against each other and exposing the children to it, as well as their lack of a co-parenting history. The court determined that the mother was the primary carer and that shared care would expose the children to a risk of harm.

Consequently, the court ordered that the children live with the mother and spend time with the father on alternate weekends. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for long-term decisions concerning the children's health, welfare, education, and religious instruction, with specific provisions for her to consult and inform the father of such decisions. The father was granted liberty to contact treating practitioners for information about the children's progress and welfare. The orders also included detailed provisions for communication between the parents and the children, as well as specific arrangements for the father's time with the children during school terms, holidays, and on special occasions. Injunctions were also imposed on both parents to protect the children from negative commentary and to regulate communication and information sharing regarding legal proceedings.