LOPEMAN & BRANDON

This case concerned a dispute between Ms Lopeman (the mother) and Mr Brandon (the father) regarding their child, H Brandon. The central issue revolved around allegations of sexual abuse of the child by the father's friend and neighbour. The father did not believe these allegations and did not perceive the alleged perpetrator as a risk to the child, leading to a significant conflict regarding the father's ability to appropriately protect the child from harm and the overall safety of the child. The court was required to determine whether the father's disbelief and perceived inability to protect the child exposed the child to unacceptable risk, and whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility should apply given the lack of trust and cooperation between the parents.

The court was asked to determine the extent to which the child should spend time with the father, particularly in light of the alleged perpetrator residing in the same building as the father. The court considered whether the father could adequately protect the child from harm in his current living situation and the frequency of the child's time with the father, noting the father's past failures to adhere to previous orders regarding time with the child.

Ultimately, the court found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted and was not in the child's best interests. The court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the child, with specific provisions for consultation with the father on schooling and medical matters. The child was ordered to live with the mother. Time with the father was significantly restricted and conditional, including a requirement for the father to move from his current residence before certain time arrangements would commence. The father was also restrained from taking the child to his current residence or bringing the child into contact with the alleged perpetrator.