PAVE & HANNEGAN

In proceedings before Judge Riethmuller, the court considered a parenting dispute concerning the living arrangements of a young child. The primary issue revolved around significant family violence perpetrated by the applicant father. The court was required to determine whether this family violence was a relevant consideration under section 65D of the *Family Law Act 1975* and, crucially, whether a child in utero could be considered to be subject to or involved in family violence within the meaning of the relevant statutory definition.

The court reasoned that the perpetrator of family violence should not be permitted to have unsupervised time with a child, particularly given the risk of harm. The court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975*, focusing on the best interests of the child and the need to protect them from harm. The court found that the family violence perpetrated by the father was a significant factor in determining the parenting orders.

The court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the child. The father was granted limited supervised time with the child, occurring four times per annum at a contact centre, with the father to bear the costs. An injunction was imposed restraining the father from attending within a defined area around the mother's residence, with specific exceptions. The parties were ordered to communicate via "Our Family Wizard" for specific purposes, and both parents were restrained from denigrating each other or discussing the proceedings in the presence or hearing of the child. The mother was authorised to travel internationally with the child and to apply for a passport for the child without the father's consent.