SANDWELL & SANDWELL

In the matter of SANDWELL & SANDWELL, Austin J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications by both the mother and the father concerning their two children. The mother sought fresh interim orders, including sole parental responsibility, that the children live with her, and that their time with the father be professionally supervised. The Independent Children’s Lawyer supported the mother's application. The father sought the retention of existing interim orders.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility should be rebutted due to the parties' inability to cooperate, and how to allocate parental responsibility and living arrangements for the children. The court also considered the father's history of unstable psychological health, including a fixed and delusional belief that the mother was harming the children, and the consequent risk of further false reports. The court needed to assess whether the children required protection from neglect or abuse while in the mother's care.

Austin J found that while findings about past family violence could not be made, the parties' inability to cooperate rebutted the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. The court accepted the single expert's recommendation for sole parental responsibility to be allocated to the residential parent, noting the father's delusional beliefs and the real risk of further false allegations. Given the absence of evidence that the children needed protection from the mother, and the father's psychological state, the court ordered that the children live with the mother and spend supervised time with the father.

Consequently, the court discharged all former interim orders and made new orders. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues, and the children were ordered to live with her. The father was ordered to have supervised time with the children on Sundays and Wednesdays, with specific provisions for supervision, venue, and costs. The father was also restrained from photographing or videoing the children for the purpose of verifying injury, from approaching within 100 metres of the mother's residence, and both parties were restrained from denigrating each other in the children's presence. The children were placed on an Airport Watch List for 12 months. All other interim applications were dismissed, with no order as to costs.