SOUTHWICK & SPARKE

This matter concerned parenting orders between Mr Southwick (the Applicant father) and Ms Sparke (the Respondent mother). The Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) submitted that the presumption of Equal Shared Parental Responsibility (ESPR) should not apply due to a history of family violence. The father conceded a history of alcohol abuse and acknowledged at least one violent incident with the mother, though he sought to minimise its severity. Police material indicated further alcohol consumption and instances of family violence involving the father and his current partner. The ICL argued the father was not entirely forthcoming regarding his alcohol use and the extent of violence, and that his demeanour raised concerns about his anger management.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the presumption of ESPR applied, and if not, what parenting orders were in the best interests of the children, with particular regard to the need to protect them from harm and the benefit of maintaining a relationship with both parents. The court was required to consider the primary considerations under section 60CC(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975*, giving greater weight to the need for protection from harm. Additionally, the court had to consider various additional factors under section 60CC(3), including the children's expressed wishes, the mother's concerns, the father's relocation, and his attitude towards parental responsibilities.

The court was urged to find that the presumption of ESPR did not apply due to the history of family violence. The ICL submitted that an order for sole parental responsibility in favour of the mother was appropriate, and consequently, the requirement to consider equal time under section 65DAA did not arise. The father did not press for equal or significant and substantial time, indicating a desire to see the children only a few times a year, initially with supervised contact. The ICL's submissions focused on whether limited time with the father, under specific conditions, would be in the children's best interests, balancing the risk of harm against the benefit of maintaining a connection to their father.

The ICL concluded that the orders most likely to meet the best interests of the children were for them to spend time with their father up to four times per year at a designated contact centre. The ICL recommended that the court make orders to this effect, acknowledging that while the children had expressed a wish not to see their father, their interest observed during contact centre assessments suggested a benefit in maintaining some limited connection. The ICL also noted that the father's temporary relocation to the mother's locality would facilitate the recommended contact for a period.