Perkesh and Said

In *Perkesh & Said*, the Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning three children, B (born 2005), C (born 2010), and D (born 2012). The applicant, Ms Perkesh (the wife), sought sole parental responsibility and orders for the children to live with her. The respondent, Mr Said (the husband), did not appear or file any response to the application, despite having legal representation in another country.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the best interests of the children, as mandated by Part VII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This required the court to consider various factors under section 60CC of the Act, including the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents, the need to protect the children from harm, the children's views (if any), each parent's capacity to provide for the children's needs, and the extent to which each parent had fulfilled their responsibilities. The court also had to consider the history of proceedings in another country and the husband's lack of participation in the Australian proceedings.

Justice Cronin reasoned that the husband's complete lack of participation in the Australian proceedings, despite ample opportunity and notice, meant his evidence was unchallenged. The court found that the children had a close and loving relationship with their mother and that the husband had had virtually no contact with them for a number of years. Furthermore, the court noted a history of family violence, including police involvement and an intervention order, which necessitated protecting the children. Given the husband's absence and the need for certainty for the children, the court granted the wife leave to proceed on an undefended basis.

The court made final orders granting the wife sole parental responsibility for the children and ordering that they live with her. The husband was granted leave to seek to set aside these orders within one month of service, provided he filed an application supported by an affidavit explaining his non-participation. The court also ordered that the reasons for judgment be transcribed and served on the husband.