MAGOLAN & CAFFERY

The case of *Magolan & Caffery* [2021] FamCA 179 involved an application before the Family Court of Australia concerning parental responsibility and time arrangements for a child, X, born in 2015. The applicant was Ms Magolan (the mother) and the respondent was Mr Caffery (the father). The dispute arose following allegations of sexual abuse made by X against the father, after which the mother refused to allow X to spend time with him.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, X, in light of the serious allegations made against the father and the history of the parents' relationship and living arrangements. Specifically, the court had to consider issues of parental responsibility, where X should live, and the nature and extent of time X should spend with the father, including the necessity and conditions of supervision. The court also had to address communication arrangements between X and her father, and the financial responsibilities for travel.

Justice Mead applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly those relating to the best interests of the child. The court noted the serious nature of the allegations and the subsequent refusal of contact by the mother. Despite the allegations, the court made orders for the mother to have sole parental responsibility and for X to live with her. However, the court also made detailed orders for X to spend time with the father, commencing with supervised contact and gradually transitioning to unsupervised contact over time, with specific provisions for communication and travel arrangements. The court also made orders restraining both parents from denigrating the other in X's presence and requiring them to attend counselling.

The final orders provided for the mother to have sole parental responsibility and for X to live with her. The father was granted specific, supervised time with X, with a phased approach towards unsupervised contact over several years. The orders also included provisions for communication between X and her father, financial contributions towards travel, and specific handover arrangements. All extant applications were otherwise dismissed.