PALMER & PALMER

In *Palmer & Palmer*, heard before Cleary J, the dispute concerned parenting orders for three children. The mother proposed that the children live with her and her brother, the maternal uncle. However, concerns were raised regarding the maternal uncle's history of mental illness and violent tendencies, and the mother's candour in disclosing these issues.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the proposed living arrangements, specifically the children residing in the same household or on the same property as the maternal uncle, were in the best interests of the children, given the uncle's history. The court was required to assess the risks posed by the maternal uncle's past behaviour and the mother's approach to managing those risks.

Cleary J reasoned that the mother's lack of candour about the maternal uncle's violent tendencies was a significant concern. The court applied the paramount principle that the best interests of the children must guide all parenting decisions. Based on the evidence presented regarding the maternal uncle's history and the mother's lack of transparency, the court concluded that it was not in the children's best interests to live in the same house or on the same property as the maternal uncle.

Consequently, the court made orders restraining the mother from establishing a residence for the children in the same house or on the same property as the maternal uncle or maternal aunt. Further orders prohibited the mother from permitting the children to stay overnight in the same property as the maternal uncle. The mother was also required to be present at all times when the children were in the company of the maternal uncle, regardless of who else might be present.