OLSEN & RIGBY

In *Olsen & Rigby*, heard by McClelland DCJ, the court considered competing applications concerning the living arrangements and time spent between a child and their parents. The mother sought orders for the child to live with her and have only supervised recognition time with the father four times per year. Conversely, the father sought unsupervised time with the child, with a graduated increase. The Independent Children’s Lawyer proposed supervised recognition time with the father once per month until the child commenced Kindergarten, then reducing to six times per year. The mother alleged family violence by the father, including sexual abuse of the child, and disclosed her own history of mental health issues, including current Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder stemming from an alleged incident of non-fatal strangulation by the father.

The central legal issues before the court were whether there was an unacceptable risk to the child in spending time with the father, and how to best promote the child's best interests in light of the allegations of family violence, the mother's mental health vulnerabilities, and the father's conduct. The court was required to assess the evidence of family violence, which included controlling, coercive, and belittling conduct, as well as physical violence and excessive drinking, and to determine if the father had sexually abused the child. Furthermore, the court had to consider the potential impact of the father's conduct on the mother's capacity to fulfil her role as the child's primary carer, given her pre-existing mental health vulnerabilities.

The court found that the father had perpetrated family violence against the mother, including physical violence and controlling behaviour, but made no finding that the father had sexually abused the child. The court concluded that the mother was the only viable primary carer for the child. Applying the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) regarding the best interests of the child, and considering the risks and vulnerabilities identified, the court made orders reflecting the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s proposal. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility and orders for the child to live with her. The father was ordered to spend supervised recognition time with the child, initially monthly and then bi-monthly, with costs for the supervision to be shared equally. Further orders addressed communication between the parties, notification of illness, and the mother's sole authority for passport and overseas travel for the child. The father was also ordered to pay a portion of the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs.