Lamine & Lamine

In the matter of Lamine & Lamine, heard before Hannam J, the dispute concerned final parenting orders. The applicant father had failed to follow trial directions and made an oral application for an adjournment on the day of the undefended hearing. The respondent mother sought orders for sole parental responsibility, that the children live with her, and that they spend no time with the father, with the Independent Children's Lawyer supporting these orders. Allegations of significant family violence were present, and there had been no contact between the children and the father since 2015.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the mother's application for sole parental responsibility and no contact between the children and the father, despite the general presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. This involved considering the primary considerations under section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), specifically the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents versus the need to protect the child from harm, abuse, neglect, or family violence. The court also had to consider the father's failure to engage with the proceedings and the impact of his alleged family violence on the children's best interests.

Hannam J reasoned that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility did not apply due to reasonable grounds to believe the father had engaged in family violence. The court gave greater weight to the need to protect the children from harm, noting the mother's extensive account of family violence, corroborated by support workers, and the family consultant's opinion that the mother's fear and mistrust would make facilitating a relationship with the father difficult. The court found that the children did not have a meaningful relationship with the father, that there was no positive benefit in attempting to foster one, and that any contact would negatively impact the children and the mother's parenting capacity. The father's disengagement from the proceedings and the lack of prospect for a co-parenting relationship further supported the mother's application.

Consequently, the court ordered that all prior parenting orders be discharged, that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children, that the children live with the mother, and that they spend no time with the father. Further orders were made restraining the father from living with, spending time with, or communicating with the children, and from approaching or communicating with the mother and children. These protective orders carried a power of arrest without warrant. The mother was also permitted to relocate the children's residence within the Commonwealth of Australia at her sole discretion.