Walsham & Darracott

This case concerned Ms Walsham (the Mother) and Mr Daracott (the Father) regarding parenting orders for their two children, X (born 2008) and Y (born 2007). The dispute centred on the nature and extent of the children's time with the Father, following a history of litigation and previous consent orders. The matter came before Lapthorn J in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the children's best interests in relation to their time with the Father, specifically whether that time should continue to be supervised and, if so, to what extent and under what conditions. This involved assessing the Father's capacity to self-regulate his conduct, the potential risk of harm to the children, and the benefit of maintaining a meaningful relationship between the children and both parents, as mandated by section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Lapthorn J found the Mother to be an honest and forthright witness, while the Father was less impressive and minimised his involvement in certain events, with his account of a sexual assault on the Mother being found untruthful. The court accepted submissions that the Father could be uncontained, verbally aggressive, intimidating, and at times physically violent, and that he did not take responsibility for his actions. Consequently, the court concluded that the risk of the children being harmed, either physically or emotionally, by the Father remained at an unacceptable level, and his proposal for unsupervised time was not in their best interests. The court applied the principles from *Betros & Betros* regarding the undesirability of permanent supervision, but found that in this specific case, indefinite supervision was warranted due to the unacceptable risk factors.

The court ordered that the children live with the Mother and spend supervised time with the Father. This supervision was to be conducted by Ms B, as previously arranged, for a minimum of four hours fortnightly, with provisions for special occasions. If Ms B was unable to supervise, an alternate supervisor was to be agreed upon, failing which, supervision was to occur at a nominated contact centre with costs shared equally. The court also made orders restraining the Father from attending the children's school and limiting communication between the parties to email for specific purposes. A notation clarified that strict supervision was not required, but the supervisor must be physically present at all times.