False Allegations, Real Consequences: Court Finds Mother Posed the Risk — Not the Father

In Joustra & Schuman [2025] FedCFamC2F 1478, Judge Suthers delivered a decisive ruling in a highly contentious second tranche of parenting proceedings. The mother, who initiated the case, alleged the father had sexually abused their six-year-old son. However, after multiple investigations by police and child protection authorities found no evidence, the Court determined that the mother’s persistent and unsubstantiated allegations caused emotional harm to the child. In a rare but clear outcome, the Court found the mother — not the father — posed an unacceptable risk to the child’s psychological wellbeing, granting the father sole parental responsibility and ordering that the child live with him.

📜 Facts and Issues

Facts

• The parties separated in 2021 and had one child, X, born in 2019.
• Final parenting orders in 2023 allowed X to live primarily with the mother and spend time with the father.
• In 2024, the mother unilaterally stopped contact after alleging that the father had sexually abused the child, prompting new litigation.
• Police, child protection (DCJ), and medical professionals investigated the allegations twice and concluded there was no evidence of abuse.
• Despite this, the mother continued to believe X’s claims, withheld time, and exposed him to repeated questioning by herself and others, including her therapist.
• The Court found the child had developed distress and confusion due to the mother’s conduct and exposure to false narratives.

Issues

1. Whether the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the child.
2. Whether the mother’s behaviour and allegations caused emotional or psychological harm.
3. What parenting orders would best promote the child’s welfare and safety.
4. How the new s 60CC(2)(e) framework (“relationship where safe to do so”) applies post-2023 reforms.

⚖️ Law

Legislative Framework

• Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 60CA, 60CC(2)(a)-(e), 65DAAA.
• Family Law Amendment Act 2023 (Cth) — repealed “meaningful relationship” but retained “benefit of relationship where safe to do so.”
• United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Arts 8–9 (right to parental relationships unless unsafe).

Key Authorities

• Mazorski & Albright [2007] FamCA 520; (2008) 37 Fam LR 518 – “meaningful relationship” interpreted as one that is “important, significant and valuable.”
• McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92 – best interests determined through child’s safety and meaningful connection.
• Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249 – expanded definition of family violence.
• Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 – inferences from failure to call witnesses.

🔍 Application

1️⃣ Father’s Alleged Risk of Harm

The mother alleged sexual and physical abuse, but the evidence did not substantiate it.

• Both police and DCJ determined that the allegations were unfounded and that the child’s accounts were inconsistent or coached.
• The Court found the father’s evidence consistent, honest, and corroborated by contemporaneous records.
• At trial, even the mother conceded:

“It is my understanding that he did not [sexually assault the child]” (at [93]).

Judge Suthers concluded there was no probative evidence of abuse or family violence, and the father did not pose an unacceptable risk.

2️⃣ Mother’s Conduct and Psychological Risk

In contrast, the mother’s persistence in pursuing discredited allegations caused emotional harm:

• She repeatedly questioned X about “what Daddy did” and involved him in discussions with police and therapists.
• The child’s therapist and court expert observed that X had begun to express age-inappropriate and inconsistent statements, showing signs of anxiety and confusion.
• The Court found that the mother’s behaviour had become “emotionally contaminating,” creating a resist-refuse dynamic between father and child.

Accordingly, Judge Suthers held that the mother posed an unacceptable risk to the child’s emotional and psychological safety, though one that could be ameliorated through therapy and structured contact.

3️⃣ Orders and Outcome

The Court made significant protective orders:

• X to live with the father.
• The father to have sole parental responsibility.
• An eight-week moratorium on time with the mother.
• Gradual transition from supervised to unsupervised time, contingent on progress and compliance.

The Court also noted the child’s need for therapeutic support and the importance of reducing exposure to parental conflict at school.

💬 Analysis of the Judgment

Judge Suthers’ reasoning demonstrates the modern post-reform balance between child safety and relationship preservation under s 60CC(2)(e).

While Parliament removed “meaningful relationship” from the Act, the judgment reaffirmed that judicial discretion still requires a qualitative assessment of the child’s relationships — not just whether contact exists, but whether it is safe and nurturing.

The decision is a careful yet firm repudiation of speculative or unsubstantiated allegations.

The Court distinguished between genuine protective conduct and maladaptive overprotection, finding that the mother’s conduct crossed the line into emotional abuse through persistent false allegations and undermining the father-child bond.

🧠 Take-Home Lesson

“False allegations can backfire — emotional harm counts too.”

For practitioners and parents alike, Joustra & Schuman stands as a sobering lesson:

• Allegations without evidence can irreparably damage credibility and parenting outcomes.
• Unproven claims of abuse, especially when repeatedly made, can be viewed as emotionally harmful conduct.
• The Court will protect the child’s relationship with a safe parent, even where it means reversing primary care.
• Mothers (or any initiating parent) must appreciate that being the applicant does not guarantee judicial sympathy; evidence, not emotion, drives the outcome.

As the Court found, the mother’s insistence on relitigating disproved allegations transformed her from protector to risk — a pattern increasingly visible in post-reform family law jurisprudence.