FLAST NEWS
 ·   ·  839 posts
  •  ·  4839 friends

Mother’s Grooming Allegations Collapse: Court Restores Father’s Time in Landmark Briginshaw Caution Case

In Deacon & Deacon [2025] FedCFamC2F 1066, Judge Obradovic delivered a meticulous and balanced judgment dealing with one of the most emotionally charged issues in family law—allegations of sexual misconduct and “grooming” behaviour by a parent.

The Court found the mother’s claims unsubstantiated under the Briginshaw standard and reaffirmed that allegations of serious misconduct require clear, cogent evidence—not suspicion or discomfort.

Ultimately, the Court reinstated the father’s time with the children, maintaining joint parental responsibility and preserving meaningful relationships on both sides.

⚖️ Facts and Issues

Facts

  • The parents have three children, X (11), Y (9), and Z (6).
  • After separation, the children lived with the mother and spent regular time with the father under interim orders.
  • In March 2025, the mother unilaterally suspended the children’s time after alleging:
  • “Secret cuddles” between Y and the father during showers,
  • A “tongue-licking game” involving X, and
  • Inappropriate hugging and kissing at a public dance event.
  • The mother reported these concerns to police; all three children were interviewed. No charges were laid.
  • The father denied all allegations and sought equal shared parental responsibility and meaningful time.

Issues

  1. Did the father pose an unacceptable risk of sexual harm to the children?
  2. Was the mother justified in unilaterally suspending the father’s time?
  3. What parenting orders best served the children’s safety and stability?

📜 Law

Relevant provisions and principles:

  • Family Law Act 1975 (Cth):
  • s 60CC – Best interests of the child, including safety and relationships.
  • s 60CG – Parenting orders must not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.
  • s 69ZT – Relaxation of the rules of evidence in child-related proceedings.
  • s 61DAA – Requirement for genuine consultation under joint parental responsibility.
  • Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 140 – Civil standard of proof: balance of probabilities.
  • Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 – Serious allegations require a higher level of evidentiary satisfaction.
  • Isles v Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97 – Distinguishes between findings of fact and unacceptable risk.
  • WK v SR (1997) FLC 92-787 – Speculative or inferential evidence insufficient for findings of abuse.

🔍 Application (Law to Facts)

1️⃣ On Allegations of Sexual Misconduct

Judge Obradovic applied Briginshaw (at [35]) and found:

“Inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences are insufficient to ground a finding of violence and abuse” ([36]).

The mother’s allegations—including the “tongue-licking game” and “secret cuddles”—were uncorroborated and often contradicted by contemporaneous evidence:

  • The photos of the alleged grooming (Exhibit 1) showed nothing “explicitly inappropriate or sexual” ([130]).
  • The audio recording of Y’s conversation confirmed that the “secret cuddles” were affectionate but not sexual ([137]–[144]).
  • The police interviews yielded no disclosures of abuse or discomfort ([152]–[158]).

Thus, the Court found:

“The evidence does not establish any inappropriate or sexual behaviour towards the children by the father” ([161]–[162]).

2️⃣ On Unilateral Suspension of Time

The Court criticised the mother’s actions as harmful to the children’s relationships:

“The unilateral suspension of the children’s time… and the interviews by Police… might have impacted the children’s relationships with the father” ([164]–[166]).

The Court accepted Ms F’s expert opinion that these actions risked confusing and alienating the children from the father, creating emotional conflict and distrust ([165]–[166]).

3️⃣ On Best Interests and Parental Capacity

Both parents were found capable, but the father needed to “step up” ([99], [174]).

While equal time was not feasible due to high conflict ([177]), the Court found that meaningful time with the father—four nights per fortnight plus half of school holidays—was in the children’s best interests ([193]–[197]).

🧠 Judgment and Reasoning

Judge Obradovic concluded:

  • The allegations were not proven on the balance of probabilities, applying Briginshaw and Isles v Nelissen.
  • There was no unacceptable risk of harm from the father.
  • Both parents were granted joint parental responsibility, reinforcing the importance of both parents’ involvement ([203]–[205]).
  • The mother’s hypervigilance was found damaging to the children’s emotional stability ([134]–[136]).
“While these are not safety issues per se, the parties working together in an open and honest manner would go a long way to assist their children in feeling safe and loved in both homes.” ([163])

🧩 Precedents Relied Upon

  • Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 – Proof of serious allegations.
  • WK v SR (1997) FLC 92-787 – Conjecture insufficient for findings of abuse.
  • Isles v Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97 – Risk must be evidence-based, not discretionary.
  • Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249 – Burden of proof remains with the accuser.

💬 Take-Home Lesson

Allegations of abuse demand more than suspicion—they demand evidence.
Unproven claims, even if sincerely believed, can irreparably harm children’s relationships and emotional wellbeing.
Family law prioritises safety and evidence, not parental fear or perception.
The Court reaffirmed that unilateral action based on speculation undermines both justice and the children’s right to a meaningful relationship with both parents.

FLAST

Close