Westcott & Hanley

This case concerned an application by the mother, Ms Hanley, for final parenting orders in relation to her three children, Y, Z, and X, against the father, Mr Westcott. The mother sought sole parental responsibility for the children, that they live with her and spend no time with the father, and orders permitting her to obtain passports for the children without the father's consent and to change their names. The Independent Children's Lawyer supported the mother's application for sole parental responsibility and for the children to live with her and spend no time with the father. The father had formally discontinued his participation in the proceedings and failed to attend the final hearing.

The court was required to determine whether the orders sought by the mother, including sole parental responsibility, the children living with her and spending no time with the father, and the ability to obtain passports and change the children's names without the father's consent, were in the children's best interests. This involved considering the primary considerations under section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), specifically the benefit to the children of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect them from harm, abuse, neglect, or family violence, with a greater weight to be given to the latter.

Hannam J reasoned that the father's significant disengagement from the proceedings, including his failure to attend the final hearing, weighed heavily in favour of making orders that aligned with the mother's proposals. The court noted the mother's serious allegations of sexual and physical abuse, family violence, and concerns about the father's mental health and parental capacity. While the court found insufficient evidence to support the mother's contention that the children's names were registered without her consent, it was satisfied that changing the children's names was in their best interests given the father's lack of ongoing involvement in their lives. The court attached particular weight to the father's disengagement and concluded that the mother's proposed orders, supported by the Independent Children's Lawyer, were in the children's best interests.

The court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children, that the children live with her, and that they spend no time and have no communication with the father. The court also permitted the mother to travel internationally with the children and to obtain Australian travel documents for them without the father's consent. Furthermore, the mother was authorised to apply to the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages in New South Wales to change the children's names, removing the father's surname, notwithstanding the absence of the father's consent.