TIJANI & JORDAN

In the Family Court of Australia, Justice Rees considered an application by the father concerning the living arrangements and time spent with the child, Y. The child resided with the mother and maternal grandparents and had not seen the father for over two years. The proceedings were significantly influenced by extensive allegations of sexual abuse made against the father, which the father contended were coached by the mother. Crucially, the court found that regardless of whether the abuse actually occurred, the child believed she had been sexually abused.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether it was in the child's best interests to live with the father and spend no time with the mother, and consequently, what orders should be made regarding the child's residence and contact with each parent. The court also had to determine the father's liability for the costs of the Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL).

Justice Rees reasoned that removing the child from the care of the mother and maternal family would not be in the child's best interests, particularly given the child's belief of having been sexually abused and the existing care arrangements. The court applied the paramountcy principle of the child's welfare and best interests under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). In relation to costs, the father was ordered to pay half of the ICL's costs, despite his opposition to this application.

The court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the child, that the child live with the mother, and that the child spend no time with the father unless she expresses a wish to do so. Further orders mandated the mother to ensure the child's attendance at counselling as recommended by her current counsellor. The father was also ordered to pay $4,605.40, representing half the costs of the ICL.