LETT & LETT

In the matter of LETT & LETT, Tree J of the Family Court of Australia considered competing proposals regarding the living arrangements and time spent between the father and his two children. The central dispute revolved around allegations of sexual abuse, with the children having made disclosures of such abuse, which were substantiated to some degree by the Department of Community Services. The court was required to assess the risk of harm posed by the father and determine the children's best interests in light of these serious allegations and the mother's role as the children's primary carer.

The legal issues before the court included whether the father posed an unacceptable risk of sexual harm to the children, and consequently, with whom the children should live and whether they should spend any time with the father. The court also had to consider the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and whether it should be rebutted, particularly given the allegations of abuse. Furthermore, the court was tasked with determining the appropriate standard of proof for these allegations, acknowledging the gravity of the matters at hand while applying the civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities. The mother's alleged coaching of the children was also a live issue to be considered.

Tree J found that while not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the father had sexually abused the children, there was a substantial probability of such abuse, leading to the conclusion that the father presented an unacceptable risk of sexual abuse. The court was not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the mother had coached the children. Applying the principles of s60CA and s60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and considering the gravity of the allegations as per *Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan & Holdings Pty Ltd*, the court determined that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted due to reasonable grounds to believe the father had engaged in abuse. The court found it to be in the children's best interests to live with the mother and to spend no time with the father, noting the lack of available supervised contact and the children's disclosures being linked to contact with the father's family. The court was not satisfied there was a sufficient factual basis for personal protection injunctions.

Consequently, the court ordered the discharge of all previous parenting orders and granted the mother sole parental responsibility for the children, with the children to live with her. The father was restrained from spending any time with or having any communication with the children, save for the ability to send gifts and letters on birthdays and at Christmas via a postal address provided by the mother. Communication between the parents was to be via email or mail, and the mother was to advise the father of significant health issues and forward school reports. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged.