Stevens and Stevens

This matter concerned an application before the court regarding the welfare of two children, R and N. The primary dispute revolved around the risk of physical harm to the children, particularly in light of the father's past use of physical discipline. The court was required to assess the father's intentions and the children's recollections of this discipline, and to determine whether the children would be at an unacceptable risk of physical harm if they spent unsupervised time with him.

The court was tasked with determining whether the father's use of physical discipline constituted an unacceptable risk of harm to the children. This involved assessing the father's evidence regarding the nature of the discipline and the children's ongoing memory of the events. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the broader question of the children's best interests, specifically whether their primary care should remain with the mother or transition to the father, taking into account the importance of maintaining meaningful relationships with both parents.

The court accepted the evidence of Mr I, a professional who had assessed the situation, that the father had conceded using inappropriate or excessive discipline. Despite the father's assertion that the discipline was moderate, the court found that the father's intention was for the child to retain a strong memory of the physical discipline. While acknowledging the father's undertaking not to administer physical discipline in the future, the court ordered that neither parent was to discipline the children physically. Ultimately, the court concluded that the children would not be at an unacceptable risk of physical harm from the father during unsupervised time. The court also found that both children would benefit from a meaningful relationship with both parents, noting their strong attachment to the mother and a strengthening attachment to the father, evidenced by R's proactive engagement.