MORALES & LOPEZ

In *Morales & Lopez* [2020] FamCA 979, the Family Court of Australia considered parenting arrangements for a child, X, born in 2008. The dispute involved allegations of physical and sexual abuse made by each parent against the other and their respective partners. Despite these allegations, none were substantiated. The court also found that the father had coached X to make allegations against the mother and that both parents had failed to protect X from their conflict, placing him at serious risk of psychological harm. X was deemed psychologically unable to accommodate the presence of both parents in his life. X had been living with the mother since 2017 and had no contact with the father.

The legal issues before the court were whether to reinstate parenting arrangements that would involve X spending time with his father, and more broadly, what orders were in X's best interests, particularly in light of the parental conflict and the risk of psychological harm. The court was required to consider the objects of Part VII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the benefit to X of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect him from harm, with greater weight given to the latter. The court also had to consider the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and whether it applied or could be rebutted, as well as the provisions of section 65DAA regarding equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent.

Stevenson J determined that re-introducing time with the father was not in X's best interests due to the serious risk of psychological harm arising from the parental conflict and the father's conduct in coaching X. The court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly sections 60B, 60CC, and 65DAA, and the High Court's decision in *MRR v GR* (2010) 240 CLR 461, to assess the best interests of the child. The court found that the need to protect X from harm outweighed the benefit of a relationship with both parents in this specific context.

Consequently, the court made orders discharging all previous parenting orders. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for X, with X to live with the mother and spend no time with the father. However, the mother was ordered to facilitate any future expressed wish by X to spend time and communicate with the father, including re-engaging a therapist for this purpose. X's name was removed from the Family Law Watchlist, and the mother was granted liberty to obtain an Australian passport for X and travel internationally without the father's consent.