Shergold & Clark

In the matter of *Shergold & Clark*, heard by Cleary J, the dispute concerned parenting orders for two children, J and M. The children resided with their mother, and had no physical contact with their father, with contact limited to monthly letters and birthday correspondence. The father had withdrawn from the proceedings, meaning no expert evidence was available regarding his mental health or the extent of his substance abuse.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children in circumstances where the father had allegedly exposed them to extreme family violence against the mother and third parties, had a lack of insight into the impact of his drug abuse and family violence, and had actively attempted to damage the relationship between the mother and children. Further, the father had made repeated threats against the mother and her family, including threats to kill himself in front of the children, and there were existing family violence orders in place for the protection of the mother and children. The mother and children's location remained undisclosed to the father for their safety.

Cleary J reasoned that the benefit of the children having contact with the father was outweighed by the damage such contact would cause to the mother and her capacity to parent. The father's demonstrated behaviour, including his threats and lack of insight, indicated he did not have the capacity to meet the children's needs. The court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly those concerning the paramountcy of the child's best interests and the need to protect children from harm.

The court ordered that all prior parenting orders be discharged. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for the children, and they were to live with her. The father was ordered to spend no time with the children. The mother was to provide a postal address for the father to send letters, cards, and gifts, with specific conditions regarding the content of such correspondence and the mother's right to inspect and withhold it if it contained denigrating material or would cause the children fear. The mother was to assist the children in responding to the father's correspondence if they wished. The father was to be notified of any hospitalisation or serious medical condition or injury concerning the children. The mother was restrained from changing the children's surname from Clark.