Kerrison and Kerrison

In the Family Court of Australia, Mr Kerrison (the Father) and Ms Kerrison (the Mother) were parties to proceedings concerning parenting orders for their three children: J (born 1998), M (born 2004), and B (born 2006). The dispute centred on the children's living arrangements and time spent with each parent, particularly in light of allegations of sexual abuse by the Father against a child from a previous marriage. The Father initially sought equal shared parental responsibility and week-about living arrangements, later seeking reinstatement of prior orders for the children to live with the Mother and spend alternate weekends with him. The Mother's position evolved, initially proposing similar orders but later seeking restricted time for the younger children with the Father until he secured suitable accommodation, prompted by allegations of sexual abuse made by the Father's adult daughter from a previous marriage.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the Father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the subject children, specifically concerning allegations of sexual abuse from a previous marriage and a finding of past physical abuse of another child. The Court was required to determine the appropriate parenting orders, including the extent of shared parental responsibility and the specific arrangements for the children to spend time with each parent, while considering the children's best interests and the need for their protection. The Court also had to assess the credibility of the allegations of sexual abuse and their relevance to the current parenting arrangements for J, M, and B.

The Court found that while there was no direct evidence of the Father being sexually abusive to the subject children or in the past 20 years, and the Mother had not previously raised such concerns, there was a finding that the Father had physically abused his son from a previous marriage. Crucially, the Court accepted the evidence of the Father's daughter from a previous marriage regarding sexual abuse. Despite the Mother's capacity to act protectively and the children's existing meaningful relationship with both parents, the Court determined that there was an unacceptable risk of harm if the younger two children, M and B, were to spend unsupervised overnight time with the Father until they reached an age where they could protect themselves.

Consequently, the Court made orders for equal shared parental responsibility for major long-term issues. The children were ordered to live with the Mother. J was to spend every second weekend with the Father, subject to the Father providing documentary evidence of suitable residential accommodation. M and B were to spend every second weekend with the Father from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturday and Sunday, with provisions for their overnight time to commence upon M turning 13, contingent on the Father maintaining suitable accommodation. The Father's overnight time was to be suspended if he failed to maintain suitable accommodation, reverting to day-time only contact. Specific arrangements were also made for school holidays and communication between parents and children.