P & D

The case of P & D concerned parenting orders for a nine-year-old child who had resided with his mother since birth. The dispute arose from the mother's allegations of ill-treatment and sexual abuse against the father, which the court found to be unfounded. The mother had also persistently obstructed contact between the child and the father and engaged in efforts to alienate the child from him. The matter came before the Honourable Justice Lindenmayer.

The central legal issues before the court were whether to vary existing parenting orders, specifically concerning the residence of the child, and whether to grant leave to adduce evidence of a prior inconsistent statement. The court was required to consider the paramountcy of the child's welfare and best interests, the principle of maintaining the status quo where appropriate, and the impact of parental alienation on the child's relationship with both parents. The admissibility of certain evidence, including hearsay and prior inconsistent statements, was also a key consideration.

Justice Lindenmayer's reasoning focused on the detrimental effect of the mother's actions on the child's relationship with his father and the unfounded nature of her allegations. The court applied principles established in cases such as *B and B* and *Re David* regarding parenting orders, and *Raby and Raby*, *Jones v Jones*, and *P v P* concerning the importance of maintaining relationships and the status quo. The court also considered the concept of parental alienation, referencing Dr. Gardner's work. Leave was granted to adduce evidence of a prior inconsistent statement *nunc pro tunc*, despite the failure to object to hearsay earlier in the proceedings, given the significance of the evidence to the child's best interests. The court ultimately ordered a change of residence for the child to live with the father.