SOCIT Steps In: Judge Suspends Father’s Time Amid Child’s Abuse Allegations — Balancing Safety and Fair Process in the Face of Uncertainty
In Zan & Nimkar [2025] FedCFamC2F 1128, Judge Blake of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) grappled with urgent allegations of sexual abuse raised against a father during ongoing parenting proceedings.
The mother sought to review interim orders allowing unsupervised contact between the father and their 11-year-old son, X. After the child made fresh disclosures prompting a Victoria Police SOCIT investigation, the Court faced the delicate question of whether to immediately suspend the father’s time or maintain contact under supervision.
The decision underscores how courts apply the unacceptable risk test at the interim stage — cautiously balancing the presumption of innocence against the child’s right to protection and stability.
⚖️ Facts and Issues
Facts
- The parties share two children: Y (born 2010) and X (born 2014) ([2]).
- There were Final Parenting Orders (2018) and a later Parenting Plan (2024) varying them ([3]).
- In January 2025, the mother reported that X had disclosed to his psychologist that the father “tickled his genitals and buttocks” ([5]). Police were notified, but no action was taken because X initially refused to give a formal statement.
- On 24 July 2025, a Senior Judicial Registrar made interim orders allowing the father to have unsupervised time progressing to alternate weekends ([7]).
- On 6 August 2025, X made a formal complaint to Victoria Police’s Sexual Offences and Child Abuse Investigation Team (SOCIT), triggering an ongoing criminal investigation ([9]–[11]).
- The mother applied for review, seeking suspension of time and permission to resume psychological therapy for X ([8], [12]).
- The Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) supported suspension of unsupervised time but recommended professional supervision to preserve the father–child relationship ([15]).
Issues
- Should the father’s unsupervised time be suspended given the ongoing SOCIT investigation?
- Can supervised time adequately mitigate the risk to the child pending investigation?
- Should the order restraining the mother from taking X for trauma therapy be discharged?
📜 Law
Legislation
- Family Law Act 1975 (Cth):
- s 60CA – Best interests of the child as paramount consideration.
- s 60CC – Factors in determining best interests, including safety and meaningful relationships.
- s 67ZBE – Court’s power to obtain reports from State authorities in cases involving allegations of abuse.
- Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), Pt 14.3 – Review hearings conducted as new hearings.
Key Precedents
- Franklyn v Franklyn [2019] FamCAFC 256 at [72]–[73] — interim approach to serious but unproven allegations.
- Salah & Salah (2016) FLC 93-713 — serious allegations cannot be ignored at interlocutory stage.
- Eaby & Speelman [2015] FamCAFC 104 — risk must be considered, even if untested.
- M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 — established the unacceptable risk test for child protection cases.
🔍 Application of Law to the Facts
1️⃣ Suspension of Father’s Time
Judge Blake emphasised that the SOCIT investigation represented a “significant intervening event” since the Registrar’s orders ([23]–[25]).
The allegations — touching on possible sexual abuse — were described as “the most serious form of child abuse” ([24]).
Although no charges had yet been laid, the Court found the existence of an active investigation sufficient to infer an “unacceptable risk” if unsupervised time continued ([25]–[26]).
“In such a serious case, with an ongoing investigation, the only option available to the Court is to suspend the father’s time … pending confirmation from SOCIT as to the outcome of its investigation.” — [25]
2️⃣ Allowance for Supervised Time
While recognising the seriousness of the allegations, Judge Blake balanced the competing right of the child to maintain a relationship with both parents.
He held that supervised time under a professional service could adequately manage risk:
“Professional supervision by trained supervisors … would protect X from any physical or emotional harm.” — [29]
The Court accepted the ICL’s proposal for fortnightly supervised sessions at the father’s expense ([15], [29]), finding this arrangement a proportionate response under Franklyn and Eaby principles.
3️⃣ Therapy and Multiple Interventions
The mother sought to lift the restraint preventing X from attending therapy. The Court refused, noting that X was already being spoken to by psychologists, a Child Impact Report writer, and SOCIT officers ([31]–[33]).
“To subject him to a further round of professional intervention is not in his best interests.” — [32]
Judge Blake found it premature to introduce additional counselling before the investigation concluded ([34]).
🧠 Judgment and Reasoning
- Orders Suspended: The father’s unsupervised time was suspended pending SOCIT’s outcome ([25]).
- Supervised Contact Ordered: Fortnightly sessions, minimum 4 hours, under professional supervision ([29]).
- Therapy Restriction Maintained: No new trauma counselling until investigation complete ([31]–[34]).
- Information Orders: Pursuant to s 67ZBE, Victoria Police and the Department of Families were directed to supply all relevant material ([30]).
- Procedural Next Step: Case adjourned for review once SOCIT and supervision reports received ([35]–[36]).
Judge Blake’s reasoning followed the “precautionary principle” — prioritising safety without pre-empting guilt. The Court explicitly declined to assume the truth of the allegations but treated them as serious enough to justify interim safeguards.
📚 Key Paragraph Citations
Legal Issue Paragraphs Reference
SOCIT investigation as significant intervening event [23]–[25] Suspension justified
Application of unacceptable risk test [26]–[27] Seriousness warrants caution
Balancing safety vs. relationship [28]–[29] Supervised contact preferred
Therapy restraint reasoning [31]–[34] Avoiding over-intervention
Information sharing orders under s 67ZBE [30] Coordination with authorities
Interim principles from Franklyn applied [20] Risk ≠ automatic truth of allegation
🧩 Analysis of Judicial Reasoning
Judge Blake demonstrated the structured risk-management approach required in interim cases:
- Step 1: Recognise the existence of a credible allegation — not proof, but sufficient gravity.
- Step 2: Determine whether continuing existing arrangements presents unacceptable risk.
- Step 3: If risk can be mitigated through supervision, maintain limited contact to protect relational stability.
- Step 4: Defer therapeutic intervention until the investigative environment stabilises.
The decision reflects the “middle path” envisioned by Franklyn v Franklyn — balancing caution with continuity.
💬 Take-Home Lesson
Safety first, but relationships matter.
When child abuse allegations arise, courts must act on risk, not proof. However, the goal is not to sever relationships but to create safe structures — such as professional supervision — that preserve family bonds while investigations unfold.
The Court’s role is protective, not punitive, ensuring both procedural fairness and emotional safety.
