LAWSON & HILL

The case involved a father seeking orders for equal shared parental responsibility and supervised time with his child, progressing to unsupervised time. The mother sought sole parental responsibility and limited supervised time for the father, specifically once per month at a supervision agency. The court was required to determine the most appropriate parenting arrangements for the child, considering the father's significant mental health issues, a history of inappropriate behaviour during supervised contact, high levels of conflict between the parents, and instances of family violence.

The court considered the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) but found it did not apply in this instance. The primary legal issue was to determine what orders were in the child's best interests, particularly in light of the unacceptable risk of harm to the child if contact with the father was not properly supervised. The court also had to address the father's applications regarding the child's name and schooling, and the child's religious education.

Applying the principles of *Reynolds & Sherman* and *Rice v Asplund*, the court found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted due to the unacceptable risk of harm. The court reasoned that the father's mental health issues were unlikely to significantly improve and that past supervision agencies had withdrawn services due to his behaviour. Consequently, the court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for major long-term decisions, though she was to notify the father of their implementation. The father's applications to change the child's name and schooling were dismissed.

The court ordered that the child live with the mother and spend supervised time with the father for four hours per month during school terms and for four hours on two days during school holidays, with specific provisions for costs and supervision arrangements. The father was also restrained from interrogating supervisors and from attending school events. The court made orders for the mother to facilitate the child's attendance at a Jewish program. Further orders addressed communication between the parties, the father's access to school and medical information about the child, and the father's ongoing treatment.