SEYDL & HALLADAY (No.2)

In this matter before Judge Cassidy, the court considered final orders concerning a three-year-old child. The mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer sought orders restraining the father from having any time or communication with the child. The proceedings were informed by findings of family violence, specifically coercive controlling family violence perpetrated by the father against the mother, which placed the child at an unacceptable risk of harm in the father's care.

The central legal issues before the court were whether to make final orders for the child to live with the mother, grant the mother sole parental responsibility, and impose significant restraints on the father's contact with the child and the mother. The court was required to determine the best interests of the child in light of the established family violence and the father's conduct, and to assess the risks posed by the father's behaviour.

Judge Cassidy's reasoning focused on the paramountcy of the child's best interests and the need to protect the child from harm. The court found that the father's history of coercive controlling family violence against the mother, including stalking and the covert use of a tracking device, demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that placed the child at unacceptable risk. The court considered the father's admissions to aspects of his offending behaviour and his explanation for pleading guilty, finding that his conduct warranted significant protective measures. The court also noted the mother's concerns regarding the father's alcohol use and the father's allegations of substance abuse by the mother, but ultimately prioritised the immediate safety of the child from the father's demonstrated behaviour.

Consequently, the court ordered that the child live with the mother and that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the child's long-term care, welfare, and development. The father was restrained from communicating with or spending time with the child. Furthermore, an injunction was issued restraining the father from communicating with the mother, approaching her home or workplace, attending the child's care or school, removing the child, or posting information about the mother or child on social media. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged.