WALLACE & WALLACE

This case concerned parenting orders sought by a mother and father in relation to their two children. The dispute involved allegations of family violence and child abuse, with each party asserting that the other presented an unacceptable risk to the children. The father opposed orders for the mother to spend time with the children, and both parties sought sole parental responsibility, deeming equal shared parental responsibility untenable.

The court was required to determine the paramount consideration of the children's best interests, specifically whether either parent posed an unacceptable risk to them. This involved assessing allegations of child abuse and family violence, and considering the impact of an existing intervention order that was inconsistent with potential orders. The court also had to consider the meaning of a "meaningful relationship" in the context of the children's welfare and the father's assertion that the children would not benefit from a significant relationship with the mother.

Berman J applied the principles established in *M v M* and *Vasser v Taylor-Black*, which emphasise that the paramount consideration in parenting proceedings is the welfare of the child. The court noted that while allegations of abuse are serious, the ultimate issue is what order best promotes the child's interests. The court found that the father had used intervention orders punitively and that his evidence did not support a finding that the children had been subject to abuse. Conversely, the court found that the father had been deliberately manipulative in attempting to cause the children to make allegations against the mother, and that the evidence did not support a finding that the mother posed a risk to the children. The court also considered the importance of maintaining a meaningful relationship between the children and both parents, provided it was in their best interests.

The court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children, with a requirement to consult the father on major decisions regarding their health and education, but with the mother retaining the final decision-making power. The children were ordered to live with the mother, and specific time-spent-with orders were made for the father, commencing after a 28-day period. The court also revoked an intervention order against the mother, limited communication between the parties to email except in emergencies, and made various injunctions restraining specific behaviours, including physical discipline, denigration of the other parent, and social media posts. Handovers were to take place at a police station, and the father was restrained from attending handovers unless otherwise agreed. The appointment of the Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged.