When Safety Must Trump Contact: Supervision Ordered in High-Risk Parenting Case
The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia's decision in Perigord & Cosic [2025] FedCFamC1F 138 is a significant reminder of how the legal system prioritizes the safety and emotional well-being of children and their caregivers in family law parenting matters. This case tackled complex issues of family violence, mental health, substance abuse, and parental capacity, ultimately culminating in a judgment that sharply limited a father’s contact with his children through strict supervision orders.
📋 Facts and Legal Issues
Key Facts
- The parties, Ms Perigord (mother) and Mr Cosic (father), have two young children aged five and three.
- The parties agreed that the children should live with the mother, and she should have sole parental responsibility and the right to travel overseas with them.
- Dispute centered on the nature and extent of the father's contact with the children: supervised vs. unsupervised, and frequency.
Key Issues
- Should the father’s time with the children be supervised or unsupervised?
- Does the father pose a risk of harm to the children or the mother due to a history of family violence, alcohol abuse, and mental health concerns?
- What arrangement is in the best interests of the children under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)?
⚖️ Application of the Law
Statutory Framework
- Section 60CA: The child's best interests are the paramount consideration.
- Section 60CC(2): Requires consideration of arrangements that promote the child’s and caregiver’s safety.
- Section 60CG: Court must avoid orders that expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.
- Section 60CC(2A): Emphasizes any history of family violence or abuse.
Risk Assessment
Justice Schonell conducted a thorough factual analysis (see [paras 25–50]) including:
- Extensive evidence of family violence perpetrated by the father, both verbal and physical (e.g., para 25: "slamming her into the kitchen bench").
- Continuing emotional abuse via social media and texts (para 37).
- Documented suicidal ideation and inconsistent engagement with mental health support (paras 33–34).
- Contradictions in the father’s testimony regarding alcohol use, undermining credibility (para 36).
- The court found the father to be "an unreliable and unconvincing witness" (para 30) and rejected his denials.
🧑⚖️ Judgment and Reasoning
Justice Schonell accepted the Family Consultant’s revised recommendation that the father's time be limited and supervised by professionals for at least three hours monthly. Key factors influencing this decision included:
- The ongoing risk of family violence: “[The father] is unable or unwilling... to desist from [denigrating the mother] and will continue to do so” (para 44).
- Lack of current psychological reports to assure the court about the father's mental health stability (para 48).
- Continued risk due to alcohol abuse relapse potential (paras 49–50).
- The impact of conflict on the children’s psychological wellbeing (para 52).
- Expert testimony warned that the father’s coercive control tactics might harm the mother’s parenting (para 41).
Ultimately, the Court ruled:
“The only arrangements that are safe and consequentially beneficial to the children’s relationship with both parents are those proposed by the mother” (para 63).
📘 Precedent Cited
- Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97: Cited for its guidance on assessing future risk based on findings of past behaviour (para 24).
✅ Take-Home Lessons
- Credibility is Critical: Contradictions and lack of evidence significantly impacted the father's case.
- Supervised Contact May Be Necessary: Even if children enjoy time with a parent, safety remains the priority.
- Family Violence Includes Coercive and Emotional Abuse: The Court gave serious weight to social media denigration and controlling behaviors.
- Comprehensive Evidence Wins: The mother’s consistent testimony, corroborated by multiple sources, was key.
- Expert Reports Matter: The Family Consultant’s insights played a pivotal role in shaping the outcome.