VANCE & CARLYLE

The Family Court of Australia considered the parenting arrangements for a child, N Vance, born in 2011. The applicant father, Mr Vance, sought orders for equal shared parental responsibility and for the child to live with each parent for equal time, or alternatively, for the child to spend significant unsupervised time with him. The respondent mother, Ms Carlyle, sought sole parental responsibility for the child, for the child to live with her, and for the child to spend only limited supervised time with the father on four occasions annually. The Independent Children’s Lawyer supported the mother’s position.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, specifically with whom the child should live and spend time, and whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied. Key issues included the father's perceived lack of insight into the child's emotional needs, the risk of family violence and psychological harm to the child from witnessing the mother's fear of the father's intimidation, and the impact of unsupervised time with the father on the mother's parenting capacity. The court also had to consider the father's history of family violence.

The court found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility did not apply due to evidence of the father's commission of family violence. Applying the best interests principles under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), the court determined that the mother presented a better residential option for the child. The court reasoned that the child was at risk of psychological harm and exposure to family violence if in proximity to the father, and that the father's contingent interest in the child affected the re-establishment of a meaningful relationship. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility, and the child was ordered to live with the mother.

The court ordered that the child spend limited supervised time with the father, for a maximum of two hours on specific weekends each year, with the supervisor to be nominated by a contact centre or agreed between the parties. The father was to bear all costs associated with this supervised time. The court further ordered that these supervised time arrangements would be discharged if the father failed to attend two consecutive visits. Additionally, the father was restrained from approaching within 100 metres of the mother's residence or any school attended by the child. The court also made orders regarding communication between the child and father, and prohibited denigration of either parent in the child's presence.