Maxwell and Cross

This case involved parenting orders concerning two children, B and N, between their parents, Mr Maxwell (the father) and Ms Cross (the mother). The dispute was transferred to the Family Court of Australia due to an allegation of sexual abuse against the father. While the parties ultimately agreed that the evidence did not support findings of unacceptable risk of sexual abuse, the court was required to determine the appropriate parenting arrangements, considering the parents' personal lifestyles, drug and criminal histories, and the impossibility of joint parenting.

The court was tasked with determining whether the father's time with the children should continue to be supervised. This required an assessment of the father's behaviour, his extensive criminal history, his history of drug use, and his capacity to be a responsible parent. The court also had to consider the impact of the parents' ongoing conflict and lack of respect for each other on the children's welfare.

The court found that while the evidence regarding sexual abuse was confusing and unreliable, and therefore no unacceptable risk finding was made, the father's extensive criminal history, including offences of violence, drug use, and breaches of intervention orders, demonstrated a significant lack of responsibility and control. The court noted the father's inconsistent evidence and his inability to recall significant events, attributing this to his drug use and dysfunctional background. The court also found that the parents' mutual animosity and vitriolic communication, even via text messages, indicated they could not protect the children from their conflict. Consequently, the court concluded that the father's time with the children needed to remain supervised indefinitely to ensure their safety and well-being.

The court ordered the discharge of all previous parenting orders. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility, and the children were to live with her. The father's time with the children was to be supervised indefinitely at a contact centre, with provisions for telephone contact and limited attendance at school events under specific conditions. The Independent Children's Lawyer was to provide copies of the order to relevant professionals, and all outstanding applications were dismissed.