Poblano and Millard

This case involved an application by a father, Mr. Poblano, for orders allowing him to spend time with his daughter, born in May 1999. The respondent mother, Ms. Millard, opposed the application, citing a history of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse during their relationship and subsequent harassment. The court appointed an Independent Children's Lawyer and a clinical psychologist as a court expert to investigate the child's circumstances. The child had no memory of her father and no relationship with him, with evidence suggesting the mother had instilled negative views of the father in the child.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to grant the father's application for contact and, consequently, how to determine parental responsibility and the child's best interests. This required the court to consider the paramountcy of the child's welfare, the need to protect her from physical and psychological harm, the impact of family violence, and the relevant factors outlined in sections 60B and 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court also had to assess the credibility of both parents, their respective parenting capacities, and the risk of future harm to the child and mother.

Justice Ryan found that the father had a history of violence, abuse, and anti-social behaviour, including numerous convictions and apprehended violence orders against him. Expert evidence indicated the father likely had an anti-social personality disorder, with a significant risk of undermining the mother and denigrating her to the child. The court also found that the mother, while exhibiting a borderline personality disorder and exaggerating aspects of her case, was a victim of the father's violence and intimidation and had virtually no emotional capacity to cope with the child spending time with him. Crucially, the court determined that any contact between the father and child would expose the child to an unacceptable risk of family violence and an inappropriate role model, and would likely jeopardise the mother's psychological and emotional wellbeing, which in turn would catastrophically affect the child.

Consequently, the court dismissed the father's application. It made orders restraining the father from communicating with or approaching the child for her personal protection, and granted the mother sole parental responsibility. The court concluded that in these exceptional circumstances, the child's best interests necessitated no relationship with the father, as the advantages of establishing contact were greatly outweighed by the significant disadvantages and risks.