Menzies and Drew

This case involved competing applications for parenting orders concerning a child, K, born in December 2008. The parties, Mr. Menzies (the father) and Ms. Drew (the mother), had a brief and highly conflictual relationship. The mother alleged that the father posed a risk to the child and sought orders for supervised contact only, or no contact at all. The father, initially represented and then unrepresented, sought to spend time with his daughter. The Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) proposed orders for the child to live with the mother and spend time with the father on a graduated basis, contingent on a finding that the father did not pose an unacceptable risk of harm. The proceedings were heard in the Family Court of Australia at Brisbane by Murphy J.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the child, and if not, what parenting orders were in the child's best interests, particularly concerning the child spending time with her father. The court was required to consider the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and whether it should be rebutted. Additionally, the court had to determine appropriate arrangements for the child's living situation, time spent with each parent, communication between parents, and the provision of information regarding the child's welfare.

Murphy J found that the father did not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to the child. However, the court determined that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted in the child's best interests due to the extreme conflict between the parents and the mother's unwillingness to facilitate a relationship between the child and the father. The court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), focusing on the child's best interests as the paramount consideration, and considered the objectives of Part VII of the Act, including the child's right to know and be cared for by both parents. The court noted the parents' lack of communication and their respective immaturity and lack of insight.

The court made orders for the child to live with the mother, with the mother having sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues, subject to a process of consultation with the father. The father was granted sole parental responsibility for day-to-day decisions while the child was in his care. Crucially, the court ordered a graduated schedule for the child to spend time with the father, commencing with supervised contact and progressing to unsupervised overnight time, with specific provisions for holidays and special occasions. The court also made orders regarding communication, the provision of information, and the discharge of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.