OGILVY & OGILVY

In the matter of OGILVY & OGILVY, Tree J of the Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning a child, B. The proceedings arose from previous orders intended to facilitate reunification between B and the father, with the assistance of psychological counselling. However, the father subsequently disengaged from the proceedings. The child made disclosures to the counsellor of sexually oriented activity by the father, leading the counsellor to refuse further reunification counselling. B consistently expressed fear of the father and a reluctance to engage with him.

The court was required to determine with whom the child should live, the extent of parental responsibility, and whether the child should spend time with the father. Key issues included the weight to be given to the child’s views, the impact of the father's past behaviour, including inappropriate text messages and non-payment of child support, and the need to protect the child from potential harm. The court also considered the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and whether family violence had contributed to the child's fear.

Tree J reasoned that the child’s primary attachment was to the mother, who had been the primary carer since birth and was the only viable contender for primary care. The court found the father had a very poor capacity to meet the child's needs, particularly emotional needs, and demonstrated a poor attitude towards parenthood. The child’s expressed fear and disinclination to interact with the father were considered significant, with the court noting that family violence was likely to have contributed to this. Despite acknowledging that orders restricting all contact are typically reserved for cases involving findings of unacceptable risk of harm, the court was satisfied that, in this instance, it was in B’s best interests to have no contact with the father without the mother’s written consent. The court also found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility did not apply, and that sole parental responsibility should vest in the mother.

Consequently, Tree J ordered that all previous parenting orders be discharged. The child, B, was to live with the mother, who was granted sole parental responsibility for B’s long-term care, welfare, and development. The father was ordered to have no contact with B except with the mother’s prior written consent. All extant applications were dismissed, and the matter was removed from the active list. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged upon the expiration of the appeal period or the determination of any appeal.