Vasser & Taylor-Black

This case concerned an appeal from orders made by a Federal Magistrate regarding child welfare. The dispute involved allegations of sexually inappropriate conduct by the father towards the child, and the mother's application for an adjournment to allow for an investigation into these allegations. The father sought orders for access to the child.

The Federal Court was required to determine whether the Federal Magistrate erred in rejecting the mother's application for an adjournment, given that information from an investigation into the allegations could have been beneficial in determining the child's best interests. The court also had to consider whether the Federal Magistrate erred in finding that the child was likely to suffer an unacceptable risk of psychological abuse in the mother's care, and whether the Federal Magistrate failed to provide adequate reasons for this finding, assess the impact of a sudden change in care arrangements on the child, or consider the relevant matters under section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) as outlined in *Goode and Goode*.

The Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Federal Magistrate had erred in several respects. Specifically, the Magistrate did not adequately discuss and weigh the benefits of allowing the investigation to proceed against any prejudice caused by granting the adjournment. Furthermore, the Magistrate failed to identify the governing law and the basis for the finding of unacceptable risk of psychological abuse in the mother's care was not discernible from the reasons. The Magistrate also failed to analyse the risks within the mother's household and consider potential safeguards. The Court emphasised the paramount consideration of the child's welfare and the principles established in *M and M*, which require courts to assess the risk of harm to a child, including the magnitude of that risk, when determining custody and access orders. The Magistrate's failure to consider these matters constituted appealable error.

Given the errors of law identified, the appeal was allowed. The Court also ordered that both parties and the independent children's lawyer receive costs certificates.