Muggeridge & Anor and Moller

This matter concerned applications by the first and second applicants, fathers of two children, B and D respectively, seeking orders for the children to live with them. The children had primarily resided with their mother, the respondent. Allegations of sexual abuse by the first applicant were initially raised by the mother, who it was considered likely coached the child to make these allegations. However, the mother later accepted there was no evidence to support a finding of sexual abuse by the first applicant. The court was required to determine the parenting arrangements for B and D, considering the best interests of the children, including the significant risk of serious damage to the sibling relationship if the children were separated.

The court was required to determine the parenting arrangements for B and D, with a particular focus on the best interests of the children. This involved assessing the risk posed by the allegations of sexual abuse, the mother's role in potentially coaching a child, and the impact of separating the siblings. The court also had to consider the children's existing living arrangements and the fathers' respective applications for the children to transition into their care.

Berman J applied the paramount consideration of the best interests of the children. The court noted that separating the siblings would likely cause serious damage to their relationship, which was not in their best interests. Despite the initial allegations of sexual abuse, the mother ultimately conceded there was no evidence to support them. The court therefore focused on establishing parenting orders that would allow for meaningful relationships with both parents while preserving the sibling bond.

The court made orders for equal shared parental responsibility for B between the first applicant and the mother, with B to live alternately with each parent on a weekly basis, and specific arrangements for school holidays. For D, the court ordered equal shared parental responsibility between the second applicant and the mother, with D to live with the mother but spend significant time with the second applicant, including alternate weekends or every third weekend, and half of school holidays, with these arrangements to coincide with B's time with the first applicant. Injunctions were granted against all parties restraining denigration, discussing proceedings with the children, and discussing current or future parenting arrangements with them. Further injunctions were placed on the mother restraining her from permitting maternal grandparents from communicating with the fathers except in emergencies, and from taking the children for therapeutic assessment without the fathers' consent. The mother was also ordered to facilitate FaceTime communication between D and the second applicant.