Noor and Nabil

In the matter of *Noor and Nabil*, heard in the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne, Justice Carter was required to determine a dispute between Mr Noor (the father) and Ms Nabil (the mother) concerning contact between the father and their three daughters, J, G, and A. The father sought to re-establish contact, claiming the children wished to see him, while the mother asserted the children did not want any contact and that she would permit it if they did. The proceedings involved extensive evidence regarding the family's history, including allegations of family violence by the father towards the mother and the children.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the statutory presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied, and if not, what parenting orders would best serve the paramount consideration of the children's best interests. This required the Court to consider the objects and principles of Part VII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly sections 60B, 60CA, and 60CC, which mandate that the best interests of the child are paramount and outline various primary and additional considerations. The Court also had to assess the credibility of the parties and the evidence presented, including reports from an Independent Children's Lawyer and a psychologist.

Justice Carter found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA of the *Family Law Act 1975* did not apply, being satisfied that the father had engaged in family violence towards the mother and that the children had been victims of physical and psychological abuse. The Court accepted the mother's evidence and that of the psychologist, Mr L, regarding the father's violent behaviour and the children's distress. Crucially, the Court gave significant weight to the consistent and clear views of the three children, who expressed a strong desire for no contact with their father, noting that their wishes were genuine and not influenced by the mother. The Court concluded that the father's evidence was often contradictory and untruthful, and he displayed no insight into the harm caused to his family.

Consequently, the Court ordered the discharge of all previous parenting orders and that the children live with the mother, who was granted sole parental responsibility. Furthermore, the Court ordered that there be no time spent by the father with any of the children or any communication between them, finding that any contact would not be in the children's best interests. The Court also noted concerns about potential future proceedings but declined to make an order precluding the father from bringing further applications at that stage.