KHOO & PRYDE

In *Khoo & Pryde* [2013] FamCA 929, the Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders for a child born in 2001. The proceedings involved Mr. Khoo (the father) and Ms. Pryde (the mother), with an Independent Children’s Lawyer appointed. The dispute had been ongoing since 2010 and involved serious allegations of family violence and child abuse, leading to the matter being transferred to the Family Court and classified under the Magellan protocol. The Court noted that the proceedings had been significantly delayed due to parallel criminal proceedings against the father and a lack of consistent legal representation, resulting in fractured family relationships and limited evidence.

The Court was required to determine the best interests of the child, specifically with whom the child should live and spend time, and the nature of parental responsibility. Key issues included assessing the credibility and substantiation of allegations of child abuse and family violence made against the father, and determining the level of risk to the child in maintaining a relationship with him. The Court also had to consider the communication breakdown between the parents, the child's perception of pressure from the mother and her half-sibling, and the mother's animosity towards the father, all of which impacted the child's emotional needs and relationship with the father.

Justice Austin found that while allegations of child sexual abuse against the father were not substantiated, allegations of child abuse and family violence were sustained. The Court concluded that there was no unacceptable risk of harm to the child in maintaining a limited, supervised relationship with the father. The reasoning applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly concerning the best interests of the child and the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, which was displaced in this instance. The Court noted that both parents struggled to recognise the child's emotional needs and that the child's relationship with the father was hampered by her perception of pressure from the mother.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility and that the child live with her. The father was restrained from approaching the mother's home or the child's school. Contact between the child and father was limited to twice a year for two hours at a supervised contact centre, deemed to be in the child's best interests due to the infrequent nature of the visits and the sustained allegations. The mother was also required to ensure the child retained the father's surname.