L & L

The Family Court of Australia considered a dispute between a mother and father concerning contact arrangements for their two children, BS and JS, and the division of their property. The parties, residents of the Australian Capital Territory, sought property division under the Domestic Relationships Act 1994 (ACT), which was permissible as parenting orders were also sought. The children had experienced a significant reduction in contact with their father, to the point of no contact for six months prior to the hearing, following an alleged assault by the father on BS in mid-2003.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children in relation to contact with their father, considering their expressed wishes, the history of alleged violence, and the impact of previous court proceedings on their relationship with him. Additionally, the court had to determine the division of the parties' property, taking into account contributions and other relevant factors under the Family Law Act. The court also considered the father's acquittal on assault charges in the Supreme Court and the potential influence of the mother on the children's views.

Justice Faulks reasoned that while allegations of violence, including an incident involving a knife and the alleged assault on BS, were significant, the primary factor impacting the children's relationship with their father was the effect of the court proceedings themselves. The father's defence of the assault allegations, particularly the challenging of the children's veracity in court, led to the children developing feelings of "scorn" and a strong desire not to see their father. The court found that the father demonstrated a lack of understanding regarding anger management and the impact of his actions on his children. Despite the father's initial persistent application for substantial time with the children, he eventually amended his proposal to seek graduated contact and counselling, indicating some belated insight. The court accepted that the children had a close relationship with their mother and that the father, while having good intentions, lacked intuitive understanding of his children.

Ultimately, the court determined that the best interests of the children lay in continuing counselling to facilitate a potential future relationship with their father, rather than forcing immediate contact. The court acknowledged the mother's amended position supporting the children's representative's proposal for continued counselling aimed at facilitating contact. The property division orders were also made, though the specifics are not detailed in the provided text.