Mayer and Mayer (No 2)

In *Mayer and Mayer (No 2)*, Tree J of the Family Court of Australia considered competing parenting applications concerning the children X and Y. The father proposed that the children live with him and have limited or supervised time with the mother, while the mother sought for the children to have no time with the father until 2022. The mother alleged the father posed a risk of harm, including sexual harm, to the children, but these allegations could not be substantiated.

The court was required to determine the living arrangements for the children, the extent of time each parent should spend with them, and who should hold parental responsibility for long-term decisions. Key issues included assessing the risk of harm posed by each parent, the children's primary attachment, and the extent to which each parent would facilitate the children's relationship with the other. The court also considered an application by the mother to lead oral evidence in chief from a witness, which was made in breach of trial directions.

Tree J found that the daughter's disclosures of sexual abuse against the father were unsubstantiated and that the father did not pose a material risk of harm to the children. Conversely, the court determined that the mother posed a risk of emotional harm to the children through coaching them to make disclosures against the father. Observing that the children's primary attachment was with their father, and that he was more likely to facilitate a relationship between the mother and children, the court ordered that the children live with the father and that he have sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues. The mother's time with the children was to be subject to a three-month moratorium, followed by a period of supervised time, and then gradually increasing unsupervised time, contingent on her engaging with mental health professionals. The application to lead oral evidence was dismissed due to the mother's breach of trial directions.