MADDIGAN & GEARY

In the matter of MADDIGAN & GEARY, Austin J of the Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning three children. The dispute arose after two prior sets of final parenting orders, made by consent, had failed. The court found that the children had meaningful relationships with both parents and were not at risk of harm from family violence, sexual abuse, or physical abuse. However, the primary risk to the children's emotional security was identified as the incessant parental conflict, particularly the mother's lack of insight into how her anxiety negatively impacted the children and their relationships with the father. The mother had also repeatedly failed to comply with court orders by withholding the children from the father, leading the court to conclude that the children were in grave danger of losing their relationships with him if they remained living with the mother.

The court was required to determine the most appropriate parenting arrangements for the children, considering their best interests. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied, given evidence of past family violence by both parties. The court also needed to determine with whom the children should primarily live and the extent of time they should spend with the other parent, taking into account the history of non-compliance and the detrimental impact of parental conflict.

Austin J reasoned that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility did not apply because the evidence established that both parties had engaged in family violence at times. The court concluded that such an order would not serve the best interests of the children. Given the repeated failure of previous arrangements where the children lived with the mother and spent significant time with the father, the court determined that this regime was unlikely to succeed again. The court found that the children's emotional security was best protected by living with the father, who would have sole parental responsibility. The mother would be permitted to spend substantial and significant time with the children after an initial short embargo period.

The court ordered the discharge of all former parenting orders. The father was granted sole parental responsibility, and the children were ordered to live with him. The mother was restrained from approaching within 100 metres of the father's residence or the children's schools for a specified period. The mother was to spend substantial and significant time with the children, with detailed provisions for the timing of this contact, including during school holidays and specific public holidays. The court also made orders regarding communication between the children and each parent, restrained corporal punishment and denigration of a parent, and required parties to keep each other informed of their contact details. The father was restrained from changing the children's schools until the end of the 2016 academic year, and he was to provide school reports to the mother. The court also ordered that the children be explained the effect of the orders by the Independent Children's Lawyer. Costs were reserved, and all outstanding applications were dismissed.