Pacey and Earehart

This case involved parenting proceedings before Kent J of the Family Court of Australia concerning the child, A, born in 2006. The applicant father, Mr Pacey, sought orders for increased time with the child, while the respondent mother, Ms Earehart, had alleged sexual abuse of the child by the father. The central dispute revolved around whether the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the child.

The court was required to determine the nature and extent of the parenting arrangements for the child, specifically whether the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to A, and if not, what level of time the child should spend with the father. The court also considered the proposals of the father, mother, and the Independent Children’s Lawyer regarding future parenting arrangements, which varied significantly depending on the finding of risk.

Kent J's judgment established a detailed schedule for the child's time with both parents, including specific arrangements for weekends, weekdays, school holidays, and special occasions. The court's reasoning, while not fully detailed in the provided text, led to the conclusion that the father did not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to the child, as evidenced by the detailed orders for shared time. The court applied principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) concerning the best interests of the child and the determination of parenting arrangements in cases involving allegations of abuse.

The court made orders for the child to live with the mother but with significant time spent with the father, including alternate weekends and regular mid-week contact, with provisions for graduated increases in time. The court also issued an injunction preventing the relocation of the child outside of Australia without the consent of both parents and appointed a family consultant to assist with the implementation of the orders. The Independent Children’s Lawyer was to be discharged upon the expiration of the appeal period or the hearing of any appeal.