Father Opposes Mother Having Sole Responsibility Over Child

Hossain & Karam [2021] FCCA 1606 (15 July 2021)

The parties are in dispute over the previous parenting orders declared by the Court. The Father seeks equal shared responsibility over the child while the mother seeks sole parental responsibility. The Court, in making its orders, was guided by the best interests of the child. 

Facts:

The parties met and commenced a relationship in Tasmania in 2000. The wife was visiting Australia from Britain and later that year she returned to Britain. In 2001, the parties commenced cohabitation.  They never lived together.  Their relationship ended when the child was born.  Thereafter, the child did not spend time with the Father until August 2016 as ordered on 24 May 2016.

On 6 November 2019, the Court made Orders that the child live with the Mother, and that she have sole parental responsibility. 

The Court made interim parenting Orders, inter alia, that the child spend supervised time with the Father at the City L contact centre on 15 November 2019, and, thereafter, supervised time for a period not exceeding 4 hours per fortnight, with such time to be supervised at all times by B Families.

The Father had sought Orders that the parties have equal shared responsibility for the child; that the child spend time with the Father each Wednesday 3 PM to 7 PM, and every weekend from Friday 5 PM to Monday 8 AM; and once the child commences school, the child spend time with the Father in the first half of each NSW school holidays. 

Issues:

Whether or not it is in the best interests of the child for the parties to have equal shared parental responsibility.

Applicable law:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 60B, 60CC, 60CA, 65Y - the Court in making parenting orders, should treat the child's interest as the paramount consideration. 

Analysis:

The father spent time with the child at the mother's residence after the child's birth. The mother submitted that during the visits, the Father harassed the Mother emotionally and sexually. There were many occasions during this period that the Father would argue and yell at the Mother while she was holding the child and she would be crying. During this period the Father was verbally abusive to the Mother.

At a supervised visit between the child and the Father on 26 August 2016, the child became too distressed for the visit to continue, and after 20 minutes the visit was terminated. The child is now only six years old, she has not spent significant unsupervised time with the Father post separation, and she has not spent time with the Father face-to-face since November 2019.  The family report writer, had stated that  it was essential for there to be a gradual increase in contact between the child and the Father to rebuild their relationship.

Conclusion:

The Court ordered that all previous parenting orders in relation to the child, X, born in 2015, be discharged EXCEPT Orders 3(a) and 3(b) made by consent on 6 November 2019 being Final Orders for X to live with the Mother and for the Mother to have sole parental responsibility for X. CONDITIONAL UPON the Father’s compliance with Order 5, X shall spend time with the Father as agreed by the parties.