McCoy v Wessex

In *McCoy v Wessex*, heard in the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne, Brown J was required to determine the future parenting arrangements for a child born in November 2001. The dispute arose from the mother's application to discharge existing contact orders and prevent the child from spending any time with the father, based on allegations of sexual abuse. The father sought to resume spending time with the child.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the child had been sexually abused by the father or his associates, and if not, whether there was an unacceptable risk of such abuse occurring in the future. The court was also required to consider the father's alleged verbal abuse and intimidation of the mother, and to determine the best interests of the child in light of these allegations and the legal principles governing parenting orders, including the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility.

Brown J found that the evidence did not establish that the child had been sexually abused by the father or his associates, nor was there an unacceptable risk of such abuse. The court placed significant weight on the evidence of Dr K, a psychologist, who concluded that the child did not recall being touched sexually but had been told this had occurred by his mother. The court also found that the evidence did not establish that the father had programmed or coached the child to repeat insulting or threatening remarks to the mother or her household, and that there was no unacceptable risk of future exposure to such remarks. The court determined that a meaningful relationship with the father would be of benefit to the child, provided it did not expose him to unacceptable risk and was otherwise in his best interests. The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was found to apply and was not rebutted.

Consequently, the court made orders discharging previous orders and injunctions, establishing equal shared parental responsibility, and stipulating that the child live with the mother. The orders detailed specific arrangements for the father to spend time with the child, including phased-in contact over time, and included injunctions restraining both parties from denigrating each other, discussing proceedings with the child, or applying physical punishment. Further orders addressed car safety, alcohol consumption, smoking in the child's presence, changeover locations, and the use of a communication book. The court also ordered supervision of the parenting orders by a family and child consultant for twelve months.