TILLEY & EDWARDS

In the matter of *Tilley & Edwards*, heard before Tree J, the dispute concerned parenting orders for two children, T and Y. The primary issue before the court was whether the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm, physical or emotional, to the children. The court was required to determine the best interests of the children, considering the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and the specific circumstances of family violence.

The court was tasked with determining whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied and, if not, how to best ensure the children's safety and well-being. This involved assessing the father's conduct, including incidents of violence and substance abuse, and the potential for future harm. The court also had to consider the children's living arrangements, the father's time with them, and the nature of their communication, all within the framework of the father's incarceration at the time of proceedings.

Tree J found that the father posed an unacceptable risk of physical harm to the children, thereby rebutting the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. The court noted that the standard of proof in civil proceedings, as per section 140 of the *Family Law Act 1975*, was on the balance of probabilities. Given the father's history of violence, including incidents in the children's presence and an attempt to endanger the family residence, and the prospect of continued substance abuse, the court concluded that it was not in the children's best interests to live with the father. Consequently, the court ordered that the children live with the mother and that the father have supervised time with them once a month at a contact centre, with equal cost sharing. The father was also permitted to send letters and gifts, and to have supervised telephone and Skype communication with the children.