KEATON & MAHONEY

In the Family Court of Australia, the case of Keaton & Mahoney concerned parenting orders for five children. The dispute arose from allegations of significant family violence perpetrated by the father, Mr. Keaton, towards the mother, Mrs. Mahoney, and the children. The proceedings were initiated by the father, but he subsequently discontinued his case and failed to appear at the final hearing. The mother, with the support of the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the Family Consultant, sought orders that would largely remove the father from the children's lives due to the violence.

The court was required to determine the appropriate parenting orders in circumstances where family violence had been established. Specifically, the court had to consider the paramountcy of the children's safety and protection against family violence, as well as the scope of its jurisdiction to make parenting orders, particularly concerning therapeutic counselling. The court also considered its power to restrain the institution of future proceedings and whether the father had been afforded procedural fairness despite his withdrawal from the proceedings.

The court's reasoning was heavily influenced by the evidence of family violence, including apprehended domestic violence orders and convictions against the father for breaching those orders. The court applied the principles outlined in the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly the mandate to consider the child's best interests as the paramount consideration (ss 60CA, 65AA) and the criteria for determining those interests (s 60CC). The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under s 61DA was rebutted due to the evidence of family violence. The court found that the father's voluntary withdrawal from the proceedings did not amount to a denial of procedural fairness, as he had been afforded the opportunity to participate. The court aligned its decision with the recommendations of the Family Consultant and the joint proposal of the mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer, prioritising the safety and protection of the children.

The court ordered that all former parenting orders be discharged. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for the children, and the children were to live with her. The parties were restrained from permitting the children to spend any time with the father. The father was restrained from approaching within 100 metres of the mother's residence or any school attended by the children. Communication between the father and children was limited to written correspondence, such as letters, cards, or gifts, no more frequently than once every three months, with provisions for the mother to facilitate this communication and for the children to send their own communications to the father. The mother was also restrained from denigrating the father in the presence of the children and from permitting corporal punishment. The Independent Children’s Lawyer was discharged upon the expiration of the appeal period, and costs were reserved.