Stefani & Bramble

In *Stefani & Bramble*, heard by Hannam J, the dispute concerned final parenting orders for a child. The parties and the Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) had agreed on orders for the mother to have sole parental responsibility and for the child to live with her. The sole remaining issue was the extent of time, if any, the child should spend with the father. Both the mother and the ICL contended that it was in the child's best interests for the child to spend no time with the father, citing the father's history of family violence. The father sought orders for supervised contact at a contact centre on three occasions annually.

The court was required to determine whether findings of family violence against the father should be made, and if so, what parenting arrangements were in the child's best interests, particularly in light of the father's alleged family violence and his denial of such conduct. The court also considered the family consultant's recommendations, which advised no time with the father if family violence was established, and noted the father's denial of family violence as a significant concern.

Hannam J found, on the evidence, that the father had perpetrated physical violence towards the mother as alleged. The court applied the paramount consideration of the child's best interests, weighing the need to protect the child from harm against the benefit of maintaining a relationship with the father. The court gave particular weight to the expert evidence, including the family consultant's opinion, and the father's failure to acknowledge his perpetration of serious coercive and controlling violence. The court concluded that the need to protect the child from the risks posed by the father outweighed any benefit from contact.

The court made final orders that the child spend no time with the father. Additionally, pursuant to section 65Y of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), the mother was permitted to remove the child from Australia at her discretion for international holiday travel.