Mandes & Bamford (No 2)

The Family Court of Australia considered interim parenting arrangements for a child, H, born in June 2011. The proceedings involved the child's mother, Ms Mandes (the applicant), and her father, Mr Bamford (the respondent). The dispute centred on allegations of child abuse made by the father against the mother, which had led to previous orders for the child to live with the father and have no contact with the mother. The mother sought orders for the child to live with her and spend time with the father each weekend, while the father proposed a regime mirroring earlier consent orders where the child lived with him and spent limited time with the mother.

The court was required to determine the interim parenting arrangements pending a final trial, considering the paramountcy of the child's best interests. Key legal issues included whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied, given allegations of family violence, and how to address the father's allegations of child abuse by the mother. The court also had to assess the reliability of expert evidence presented by the father, which had previously influenced interim orders. The court was guided by the principles in Part VII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the objects of the legislation and the criteria for determining a child's best interests.

The court reasoned that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility did not apply due to family violence. It found that the untested evidence did not demonstrate an unacceptable risk of harm to the child in the mother's care, who was the primary caregiver. Conversely, the court considered that the father posed a risk of psychological harm to the child if his allegations against the mother were not proven. The court determined that the risk of physical harm through abuse or neglect in the mother's care was less than the risk of psychological harm in the father's care, and that no determinative findings of controversial facts could be made on an interim basis, applying the principles from *Goode & Goode*. The court also found the father's adversarial expert opinion evidence to be unreliable.

Consequently, the court ordered that all former parenting orders be discharged. The mother was allocated sole parental responsibility, and the child was to live with her. The child was to spend time with the father each weekend, commencing on 29 December 2012, with specific collection arrangements. The court also made orders restraining corporal punishment and denigration of either parent in the child's presence, and specifically restrained the mother from contact with the maternal grandfather. The trial was listed for March 2013, with directions for the filing of amended applications and affidavits.