Sheridan and Sheridan (No. 3)

In *Sheridan & Sheridan (No. 3)*, the Family Court of Australia considered interim parenting orders concerning the child H. The applicant, Ms Sheridan, sought to vary existing final parenting orders, while the respondent, Mr Sheridan, sought a recovery order for the child. The dispute escalated due to serious allegations made by Ms Sheridan regarding Mr Sheridan's alleged involvement in the illicit drug industry, including a recent conviction for drug-related offences.

The primary legal issue before the Court was to determine what interim parenting orders were appropriate, given the serious allegations of the husband's involvement in the illicit drug industry and the potential risk to the child. This required the Court to consider the paramountcy of the child's best interests, as outlined in section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and to balance the child's right to a meaningful relationship with both parents against the need to protect the child from harm. The Court also had to assess the credibility of the evidence presented by both parties, including police testimony and the husband's own admissions.

Justice Cronin applied the principles established in *Goode and Goode*, which require the Court to identify competing proposals, disputed issues, uncontested facts, and relevant considerations under section 60CC. The Court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the husband had some involvement with drugs and drug paraphernalia, which posed a risk to the child. This risk was amplified by the husband's willingness to break the law, raising concerns about his role modelling and preparedness to expose the child to undesirable elements of society. Despite acknowledging the significance of the father-child relationship, the Court adopted a cautious approach, prioritising the child's safety and well-being.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the husband's time with the child H be suspended until further order. All outstanding interim applications were dismissed, and the matter was adjourned for a comprehensive hearing on parenting issues to be listed as soon as practicable, with parties required to file all affidavit material by 15 August 2013. The Court also noted that the publication of the judgment under a pseudonym was approved by the Chief Justice.