Pacotto & Galvin

The appeal in Pacotto & Galvin concerned a dispute between the parents over parenting arrangements for their child, with the father contesting the primary judge's assessment that he did not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to the child. The father's appeal argued a mixture of legal, factual, and discretionary errors by the primary judge in making the parenting orders. The primary judge had correctly identified the applicable legislative framework and principles, and had made findings of family violence by the father against the mother, which was unchallenged on appeal. The father's contentions of error could not be sustained upon a plain reading of the reasons.

The court's reasoning focused on the father's coercive and controlling behaviour towards the mother, including threatening and abusive text messages, and other instances of manipulative behaviour. The primary judge found that the father's conduct was designed to coerce and control the mother into meeting his wishes and demands with respect to the child. The primary judge also found an appreciable risk that the father would continue to commit acts of family violence towards the mother in the future. The court considered the father's historic use and consumption of illicit drugs and alcohol, concluding that these factors could not be excluded as risk factors in determining parenting orders. The court accepted expert opinion that supervision of the father's time with the child would significantly ameliorate the risks of harm. The primary judge found that the child would not be safe and protected from harm if there was to be unsupervised time spending.

The court dismissed the father's appeal, finding no error in the primary judge's decision. The appeal did not establish the type of error required under House v The King. The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed, and that the father pay costs to the mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer.