LOWRIE & BAGLEY

In the matter of *Lowrie & Bagley*, Austin J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application concerning the parental responsibility and living arrangements for two children, B and C. The dispute involved the mother seeking orders for the children to live with her and for an injunction restraining the father from approaching the children's school or the mother's residence. The father did not participate in the proceedings.

The court was required to determine whether to grant sole parental responsibility to the mother, whether the children should live with the mother, and whether to issue an injunction restraining the father's proximity to the mother's residence and the children's school. A key issue was whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted by evidence of family violence.

Austin J found that the evidence established a history of family violence perpetrated by the father against the mother, as well as a history of illicit drug and alcohol abuse by the father. These factors led the court to rebut the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. The court concluded that the need to protect the children from the father outweighed any potential benefit they might derive from a meaningful relationship with him, particularly given the risk of harm through exposure to abuse and family violence in his care.

Consequently, the court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children and that the children live with the mother. Pursuant to section 68B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), the father was restrained from entering or approaching within 100 metres of the mother's residence or any school attended by either child. Leave was granted to the mother to provide a sealed copy of these orders to the relevant schools and the police in circumstances of alleged breach. The court also noted that any time or communication between the children and the father would be determined by the mother as an incident of her sole parental responsibility, and that these orders were consistent with an apprehended violence order previously made against the father.