Rose and Douglas

This case involved a dispute between a mother and father concerning parenting arrangements for their daughter, born in March 2000. The mother sought sole parental responsibility and for the child to live with her, with supervised contact for the father. Conversely, the father sought sole parental responsibility and for the child to live with him, with supervised contact for the mother. The proceedings were heard in the Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were: firstly, whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) applied, and if so, whether it should be rebutted; secondly, the determination of the child's best interests in relation to parental responsibility, living arrangements, and time spent with each parent; and thirdly, the assessment of risks to the child, particularly concerning allegations of abuse and the involvement of the paternal uncle.

Justice Benjamin determined that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility did not apply due to reasonable grounds to believe family violence had occurred, and even if it did, it would be rebutted as not being in the child's best interests. The court found that the child should live with the father, who was granted sole parental responsibility, with specific limitations regarding international travel, passport issuance, and relocation beyond 50 kilometres. The mother was to have supervised time with the child until she turned thirteen, with detailed provisions for supervision arrangements and communication. The court also made orders restraining the father from consuming illegal drugs while the child was in his care and imposed significant restrictions on the paternal uncle's contact with the child due to concerns about his past convictions and behaviour. The court also ordered that both parents refrain from discussing the proceedings or allegations with the child and from denigrating each other in the child's presence.

The court ordered that the father have sole parental responsibility for the child, subject to joint decision-making or court consent for passport issuance, international travel, and relocation beyond 50 kilometres. The child was to live with the father. The mother was to spend time with the child on alternate weekends, supervised by an agreed-upon person or approved by the Independent Children's Lawyer, or through a contact centre if agreement could not be reached. This supervision was to continue until the child turned thirteen. The father was also ordered to keep the mother informed of the child's medical and significant welfare issues and to ensure school authorities could communicate with the mother. The mother was permitted to attend school functions and discuss educational matters with school staff in the child's absence. The father was restrained from allowing the child to reside with or be left unattended with the paternal uncle, and from allowing contact if the uncle was affected by alcohol or drugs. The court also made orders regarding the father's drug use and the mother's communication with her other children.