Redshaw and Redshaw

The Family Court of Australia, presided over by Benjamin J, heard proceedings between Mr Redshaw (the applicant father) and Ms Redshaw (the respondent mother) concerning parenting arrangements for their child, S. The father sought orders for equal shared parental responsibility, that the child live with the mother, and that he spend supervised time with the child. The mother sought sole parental responsibility and orders that the child live with her and spend no time with the father.

The court was required to determine several key issues. These included whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied, given allegations of sexual abuse and family violence, and whether such arrangements were in the child's best interests. The court also had to decide the nature of the father's future involvement with the child, including whether any time spent together should be supervised, and the impact of any such arrangements on the mother. The court also considered the question of parental responsibility and whether the child had been, or was at risk of being, sexually abused or exposed to neglect or violence.

In reaching its decision, the court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), with the paramount consideration being the best interests of the child. The court found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility did not apply due to an unacceptable risk to the child and because it was not in the child's best interests. The court noted the father's rigid thought form, self-serving statements, and lack of empathy, as observed by a single expert. While the father denied allegations of sexual abuse, the court found his evidence to be at times self-serving and subjective. The mother's evidence was found to be generally frank and consistent, though she was criticised for leading questions and for the delay in concluding abuse had occurred. The court also considered the evidence of teachers, the father's siblings, and the maternal grandmother, noting the grandmother's strong animosity towards the father. Ultimately, the court found significant doubts about the nature and extent of the alleged sexualised conduct.

By consent, the court ordered that the child live with the mother and that the mother have sole parental responsibility. The father was permitted to communicate with the child in writing and to receive information about the child's education, health, welfare, and development. The father and his family were permitted to send letters, cards, and presents to the child, subject to the mother's right to examine and withhold material on reasonable grounds. The father was prohibited from spending any time with or further communicating with the child except as agreed or ordered by the court. Both parties were restrained from denigrating each other to or in the presence of the child, and from informing the child of the proceedings. The mother was ordered to complete a post-parenting course regarding not demonising the father to the child. The court also made injunctive orders restraining the parties from providing details of the proceedings to the child. Property proceedings were adjourned for a conciliation conference.