TALLANT & KELSEY

In the Family Court of Australia, Hannam J considered a dispute concerning the best interests of two children, C and D. The proceedings were determined on an undefended basis due to the father's non-appearance and lack of affidavit evidence. The mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) agreed on proposed parenting orders, but the court was required to make findings on significant factual disputes, including allegations of sexual and physical abuse of the children by the father, the father's risk of harm, and his perpetration of family violence. The court also noted concerns arising from the Department of Family and Community Services' decision not to intervene.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the proposed parenting orders, which included the children living with the mother and having no contact with the father, were in the best interests of the children, as mandated by the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This required the court to consider the various factors outlined in section 60CC of the Act, including the need to protect the children from harm, the family violence orders, the children's exposure to family violence perpetrated by the father, and the capacity of each parent to provide for the children's needs. The court also had to consider the cultural background of the mother and children, who are Aboriginal.

Hannam J applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly sections 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61C, 61DA, 65DAA, and 65DAC, in determining the children's best interests. The court found that the children would be better protected from harm in the mother's care if they had no contact with the father, given the exposure to family violence and the concerns of risk of harm in the care of both parents. The court also applied section 140 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) in assessing the evidence presented.

The court ordered that the previous consent orders be discharged. The children were to live with the mother, who was granted sole parental responsibility. The father was ordered to have no contact with the children. Further orders were made restraining the mother from using illicit drugs while the children were in her care and from engaging one of the children in counselling regarding past allegations of sexual abuse by the father. The mother was also directed to engage with family support services and counselling, and to ensure the children's regular school attendance. Leave was granted for the ICL to provide a report to treating counsellors, and a copy of the judgment was to be provided to the Department of Family and Community Services legal department. The orders also included a fact sheet detailing obligations and consequences of contravention.