Ruddock & Robins

The appeal concerned interim parenting orders made by a Federal Magistrate regarding two children. The father had a prior conviction for child pornography offences in 2006. Following an assessment by the Department of Child and Family Services which concluded he did not pose an ongoing risk, the children lived primarily with him until May 2007. At that point, the mother obtained a restraining order. The Federal Magistrate subsequently ordered that the children spend three nights per week with the mother and four nights per week with the father. The mother appealed this decision, seeking only supervised Saturday contact for the father due to her concerns about his behaviour.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Federal Magistrate erred in finding that the father did not pose an unacceptable risk to the children, thereby making the interim parenting orders. This involved an assessment of the evidence presented and the application of relevant legal principles concerning the welfare of children and the determination of risk in parenting matters.

Kay J held that it was open to the Federal Magistrate to reach the conclusion that the father did not pose an unacceptable risk. This conclusion was based on a consideration of the Department's assessment, the significant period of time that had elapsed since the father's conviction during which the children had lived primarily with him without apparent issue, and the absence of any material demonstrating inappropriate interference by the father with the children. The court applied the principles established in cases such as *House v The King* and *Gronow v Gronow* regarding the review of discretionary decisions by lower courts, and the paramount consideration of the child's welfare as mandated by the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The appeal was dismissed.