Sturges and Gisby

The Family Court of Australia heard parenting proceedings concerning two children, B and C, with the Applicant being their Mother, Ms Sturges, and the Respondent being their Father, Mr Gisby. The dispute arose from previous consent orders for equal shared parental responsibility and regular time with the Father, which had broken down due to serious allegations against the Father, including sexual offences against other children and a history of family violence. The Father was also incarcerated with an extensive criminal history.

The Court was required to determine the parenting arrangements for the children, specifically whether to continue with equal shared parental responsibility or to make different orders, considering the history of family violence, the Father's incarceration, his criminal record, and the lack of time or communication between the Father and the children since August 2011. The Court also had to consider the Father's limited engagement with the proceedings and whether it was appropriate to proceed on an undefended basis.

Justice Kent found that the Father had ample opportunity to participate in the proceedings but had largely failed to do so, including terminating communication with the Court. The Court accepted the Mother's evidence regarding the Father's history of family violence, including a domestic violence order and concerning reports from one of the children about the Father's violent behaviour. Given the serious nature of the Father's criminal history, particularly offences involving children, and the evidence of family violence, the Court concluded that it was not in the children's best interests for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility. The Court found that there was a need to protect the children from potential harm and that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) did not apply.

The Court ordered that all previous parenting orders and plans be discharged. The Mother was granted sole parental responsibility for the children, and the children were ordered to live with the Mother. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged. The Court noted that particulars of the obligations and consequences of contravening these orders were set out in an attached Fact Sheet.