Omidvar & Jarah (No. 2)

In *Omidvar & Jarah (No. 2)*, Carew J of the Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning a child, X, born in 2010. The dispute involved allegations of significant family violence by the mother against the father, which the father denied. The court was required to determine whether family violence had occurred, the risk of harm to the child, the impact on the mother's parenting capacity, the child's best interests, and the practicability of the father's proposed time with the child.

The court was tasked with determining several key issues, including whether the father had perpetrated family violence against the mother or child, and if so, whether he posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the child. It also needed to assess whether the mother's parenting capacity would be negatively impacted if the child spent time with the father, the potential impact on the child of spending time with the father given the mother's opposition, and the practicability of the father's proposed parenting arrangements.

Carew J found that, despite the mother's allegations, there were numerous inconsistencies and troubling aspects in her evidence, particularly concerning alleged serious assaults and injuries. The court was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a positive finding of family violence could or should be made against the father. This conclusion was reached after considering the paramountcy of the child's best interests, the potential detrimental impact of a family violence finding on the child's future relationship with the father, and the high standard of proof required for such findings, especially when medical evidence did not corroborate the extent of the alleged injuries. The court also noted inconsistencies in the mother's accounts regarding threats, the child's fear of the father, and her own relationship history.

Ultimately, the court ordered that the father spend no time with the child unless instigated by the child. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility, and the child was to live with the mother. The court also made orders regarding the child's ability to travel internationally and the issuance of the child's passport, with the father not opposing these specific orders.