White and Mathers

The Family Court of Australia heard a dispute between Mr White (the applicant father) and Ms Mathers (the respondent mother) concerning the parenting arrangements for their two children, T and C. The father sought equal shared parental responsibility and proposed significant time with the children, while the mother sought sole parental responsibility, with the children living with her and having no contact with the father. The Independent Children’s Lawyer proposed sole parental responsibility for the mother, with T having no contact with the father and C having limited supervised contact. The mother alleged that the father had sexually and emotionally abused T and C, and had also abused her son S.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children, specifically addressing the allegations of child sexual abuse and the meaning of an "unacceptable risk" in this context. The court also had to consider the appropriate standard of proof for such allegations and whether it was appropriate for the father to spend any time with the children, and if so, under what conditions. The court's determination of these issues would inform the final orders regarding parental responsibility, the children's living arrangements, and the nature and extent of any time the children might spend with their father.

Justice Stevenson found that both parents were unreliable witnesses, noting inconsistencies and a lack of frankness in their evidence. The court considered the evidence from the Independent Children’s Lawyer, family consultants, and various witnesses, including friends and family of both parties, as well as T's sexual assault counsellor. The court applied the principles outlined in section 60B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), focusing on the best interests of the children, including protection from harm and ensuring meaningful involvement of both parents where consistent with those interests. The court concluded that the mother should have sole parental responsibility and that the children should live with her.

The court ordered that T spend no time with the father. However, C was to spend two hours per month with the father, supervised at a contact centre. The orders also detailed the process for arranging supervised time, including intake assessments and equal sharing of contact centre fees. The father was granted liberty to obtain school progress details for both children, and the mother was to keep him informed of their current school. Further orders addressed the conclusion of T's therapeutic relationship with Ms M and the referral to a new counsellor, with the selected professional to be provided with a copy of the judgment. The father was also at liberty to provide the judgment to any therapist he engaged.