APPLICANT FILES FOR A PARENTING ORDER EVEN IF SHE IS NOT A RELATIVE
Parkmore & Miglio [2020] FCCA 3568 (22 December 2020)
This is a parenting proceeding concerning two children where the applicant is not the children’s mother. The applicant alleges the children are at risk of harm of physical violence.
Facts:
This is a parenting application by Ms Parkmore. Ms Parkmore seeks orders, essentially, in relation to two children: X, who is seven, and Y, who is four years old. Both children are Aboriginal children.
The children have previously lived with the applicant but she is not the children’s mother.
She sought an urgent listing on the basis that the children were at risk of harm of physical violence. The allegation is in the of an affidavit but lacking in specifics. The court asked Ms Parkmore if she had reported the matter to Territory Families and she said she had in late October 2020. It is therefore somewhat surprising that, if it was apparent to Ms Parkmore that the children were at risk of harm and there was urgency about the matter, that she did not apply to this Court until 14 December 2020 for orders.
Issue: Should the court grant the parenting application of Ms. Parkermore?
Law:
Analysis:
Territory Families is the organisation that has primary responsibility for investigating whether children are at risk of harm or neglect under the relevant child welfare legislation. This Court does not have the means to make investigations of allegations of the kind Ms Parkmore raises. It depends very much on the evidence from organizations such as the police and Territory Families or, usually, its own inquiries made through the process of preparation of family reports or child memorandums. That is the primary means that this Court has of investigating and gathering information.
On the return of an urgent application where vague allegations are made, this Court simply does not have the capacity to act unilaterally or hastily in the way Ms Parkmore is urging the Court to do and nor should it. The court is not satisfied that the children are at unacceptable risk of harm and it does not propose to make orders that Ms Parkmore seeks.
Also, Ms Parkmore had not complied with the requirements of section 60i of the Family Law Act and she is strongly urged her to have regard to that section of the Act and give it appropriate consideration.
Conclusion: The court proposes to make an order pursuant to section 69ZW for the return of any child welfare material held by Territory Families, for the preparation of a child inclusive memorandum, with the family consultant to have any discretion about interviewing the youngest child.
