O’BOYLE & SALT

The Family Court of Australia considered competing applications for parenting orders concerning four boys, H, C, T, and O. The mother, Ms O’Boyle, sought orders for the children to live with her and for sole parental responsibility. The father, Mr Salt, initially sought for the children to live with him and for shared parental responsibility, but later proposed sole parental responsibility for himself. The children had been living with the father since separation, with the youngest child having moved to live with the mother for the preceding eight months.

The court was required to determine the paramount consideration of the children's best interests, including with whom they should live and spend time. This involved assessing the children's expressed wishes, which were divided, with the three older boys wishing to live with their father and the youngest with his mother. The court also had to consider the significant behavioural problems and poor school attendance exhibited by the children when in the father's care, the alienation of the older children from their mother, and the bullying of the youngest child by his brothers for maintaining a relationship with the mother. Furthermore, the court needed to assess the father's mental health issues, history of marijuana use, and his reliance on the children for emotional support, which placed them at risk of psychological and emotional harm. The court also examined the issue of parental responsibility, noting the extremely poor parental relationship and the father's history of violence, as well as the paternal grandmother's assumption of parental responsibility and her prioritisation of the father's needs over the children's.

Cleary J reasoned that the children's views were distorted by extreme loyalty conflicts and alienation, and that the father's care presented a risk of psychological and emotional harm. The court found that there was no presumption of equal shared parental responsibility due to the extremely poor parental relationship and the father's violence. The paternal grandmother's involvement was also a significant factor, as she had effectively assumed parental responsibility and prioritised the father's needs. Applying the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly section 60CC, the court determined that the children's best interests were served by them living with the mother.

Consequently, the court ordered that all prior parenting orders be discharged. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for the children. The children were ordered to live with the mother, with initial limited and supervised time with the father in a contact centre. The eldest child, H, was given the option to move back with his father after engaging with a psychologist and a six-month period, provided the father also participated in therapeutic treatment. The father was restrained from approaching, contacting, or communicating with the children except as provided in the orders, and was also restrained from causing his mother or any other person to do so on his behalf. The paternal grandmother's presence was mandated for any overnight time the children spent with the father after the initial six-month period.