MOHSEN & COLLINGS

In the matter of Mohsen & Collings, Rees J of the Family Court of Australia considered allegations of domestic violence made by the mother against the father. The mother expressed fear of the father and did not wish for him to spend any time with the child. The father denied the allegations and sought orders for the child to spend time with him, having not seen the child for over two years. Findings were made in respect of some of the domestic violence allegations.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, specifically whether the child should spend time with the father, and if so, under what conditions. A further issue concerned the admissibility of a statement made by a deceased individual, Mr L, which contained allegations of domestic violence. The court had to consider whether this statement fell within an exception to the hearsay rule due to the unavailability of the maker and its probative value, and whether its admission would be unfairly prejudicial to the father.

Rees J admitted Mr L's statement into evidence, finding that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, misleading or confusing the court, or causing undue waste of time, as required by section 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). The court reasoned that the statement provided significant insight into the mother's experiences and her fear of the father, which was central to the parenting dispute. Having considered the evidence, including the findings of domestic violence and the mother's expressed fear, the court concluded that it was not in the child's best interests to spend time with the father.

Consequently, the court made orders that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the child, that the child live with the mother, and that the father have no contact with the child. These orders were accompanied by a Fact Sheet detailing the obligations, consequences of contravention, and assistance available to the parties.