Santanna and Santanna

The Family Court of Australia considered competing applications for parenting orders concerning six of the twelve children of Ms Santanna and Mr Santanna. The mother, of Pacific Islands heritage, alleged a history of serious domestic violence perpetrated by the father, who has mixed European heritage. The Department of Family and Community Services intervened in the proceedings, seeking orders for the children to be placed under the sole parental responsibility of the Minister. The mother ultimately supported the intervener's proposed orders, while the father sought for the children to remain in his care.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the subject children, considering the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to assess the father's potentially inappropriate conduct with his daughters, his criminal history, his illicit drug use, and his failure to comply with prior court orders regarding drug and alcohol counselling. The court also had to consider the mother's capacity to protect the children, given her alleged exclusion from their lives by the father and her own history of depression. The views of the children were also a factor, though they had not been properly obtained due to the father's non-compliance.

The court found that the children were at risk of psychological harm in the father's care and that the mother lacked the adequate capacity to protect them if they were placed with her. Expert evidence supported the need for urgent removal of the children. Consequently, the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was not applied. The court reasoned that the father's conduct, including his drug use and failure to facilitate a relationship between the children and their mother, was not in the children's best interests. The court also noted the father's inappropriate financial priorities concerning the children's needs.

The court ordered that the Minister for Family & Community Services have sole parental responsibility for the six subject children. For an initial period of one month, the children were to have no contact with either parent. Thereafter, any contact with the parents would be at the discretion of the Minister. The father was ordered to have no contact with any of the children until he completed a drug and alcohol assessment, including hair follicle testing, and was subject to significant restraining orders. The court also ordered mental health assessments for both parents and a report on the bonding and attachment between one of the adult children and the two youngest children. Recovery orders were issued to facilitate the immediate delivery of the children to the intervener.