Molenaar and Johnson

The Family Court of Australia, in Brisbane, heard proceedings between Ms Molenaar (the applicant mother) and Mr Johnson (the respondent father) concerning their three children, Z, T, and B. The primary dispute revolved around the children's living arrangements and parental responsibility, particularly in light of allegations of family violence, the father's history of drug use, and concerns about the children's safety in his unsupervised care. The Independent Children’s Lawyer was also involved in representing the children's interests.

The court was required to determine whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied, and if not, what parenting orders would best serve the children's interests. Specifically, the court had to assess the risk posed to the children by the father's drug use and past behaviour, including threats of self-harm and documented instances of violence. The court also considered the father's compliance with previous court orders, including those for random drug testing, and the extent to which his time with the children should be supervised.

Justice Hogan found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility did not apply due to evidence of family violence perpetrated by the father against the mother and a subsequent partner, as well as the father's history of drug use and non-compliance with drug testing orders. The court reasoned that the children's best interests, as mandated by the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), necessitated orders that prioritised their safety and well-being. This involved placing the children to live with the mother and granting her sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues, while requiring the father to consult with the mother in writing on such matters.

The final orders stipulated that the children live with the mother and that she have sole parental responsibility for their education, religious and cultural upbringing, and health. The father's time with the children was to remain supervised at a contact centre until he provided six consecutive negative drug test results. The father was also ordered to undergo random drug testing as requested by the mother and was restrained from attending the children's schools until he complied with specific conditions. The court also made detailed provisions regarding communication, travel, and the father's liberty to apply for increased time with the children in the future, contingent on his compliance with the orders.