MORTON & MACKY

The case involved a dispute between a mother and father concerning their child, B. The Independent Children’s Lawyer and the mother sought to adjourn the proceedings part-heard, requesting interim orders only. They argued that the long period of four and a half years since the father had been out of the child's life meant the effects of any change were unknown, as was the impact of any orders on the mother's parenting capacity. The court was required to determine whether it was in the child's best interests to adjourn the litigation part-heard.

The court was also required to consider allegations of sexual abuse made by the mother against the father, which the father denied. The child had had virtually no contact with the father for four and a half years. The court had to assess the risk of sexual abuse, the impact of the mother's mental health on her parenting capacity, and whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted. Finally, the court needed to determine the appropriate orders for the child to spend time with the father, considering the need for a reintroduction of regular contact.

Watts J found that it was not in the child's best interests to adjourn the litigation part-heard and dismissed that application. The court determined there was no unacceptable risk that the child had been or would be sexually abused by the father, despite a small number of family violence incidents. While the mother submitted her mental state would make it difficult to accept this finding, she did not provide medical evidence to establish that her parenting capacity would be significantly compromised. The court found the mother's mental health did not preclude considering the father's proposal for time with the child if it was otherwise in the child's best interests. The evidence was insufficient to rebut the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, and the court found it was in the child's best interests to make an order for equal shared parental responsibility. The parties acknowledged the need for a gradual reintroduction of time with the father, and the court made orders for this to occur, initially on a supervised basis and progressing to unsupervised contact, with therapeutic support for the child and mother.

The court ordered equal shared parental responsibility for the child, with the child to live with the mother. A detailed schedule was set out for the reintroduction of the child's time with the father, commencing with supervised visits at a contact centre and gradually progressing to unsupervised overnight stays and holiday time. The orders also included provisions for communication between the parents, attendance at child-related events, and parental conduct. Furthermore, the court ordered that the parties jointly engage a psychologist to assist the child and that the mother seek professional assistance for herself.