LINDFIELD & ROMANO

This case concerns the principles governing the determination of unacceptable risk in parenting disputes before the Family Court of Australia. The court's primary focus is always the best interests of the child, and any findings regarding abuse, violence, or risk are ancillary to this overarching consideration.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the standard of proof required for allegations of abuse or violence, and how this standard relates to the assessment of an unacceptable risk of future harm to a child. Specifically, the court considered whether a failure to prove past abuse to a particular standard precluded a finding of unacceptable risk, and how the court should balance the potential harm to a child from future abuse against the benefits of a healthy parent-child relationship.

The court reiterated that findings of past abuse may require proof to a higher standard, such as that articulated in *Briginshaw v Briginshaw*, or under section 140 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW). However, the absence of such a finding does not prevent a determination of unacceptable risk. The court emphasised that the assessment of risk is not a precise scientific calculation but involves a qualitative evaluation of the likelihood of future conduct and the magnitude of potential harm. This requires a careful balancing act, considering the alleged perpetrator's denials alongside the potential detriment to the child, with the ultimate aim of ensuring the child's best interests are met.