When to Address Issues and Concerns of Safety

In the case of Seller & Danell [2017] FamCA161, the court confronter the grave acts of family violence and sexualized conduct perpetrated by the father, which posted a significant and immediate risk or harm to the children involved. The court emphasized the overriding importance of safeguarding the children’s safety and well-being, while still recognizing the value of meaningful parental involvement. This case reinforced the imperative of striking a delicate balance between parental participation and ensuring child protection. 

Deputy Chief Justice McClelland’s findings uncovered the father’s engagement in severe acts of family violence and sexual misconduct, creating an unacceptable risk that exposed the children to profound physical and psychological trauma. Given the children’s vulnerability, their safety and the establishment of a secure and nurturing environment were deemed of utmost priority.

Of particular concern was the father’s possession of a photograph of the children that qualified as “child abuse material.” This deeply troubling act raised questions regarding the father’s boundaries and intentions, signaling an elevated risk to the children’s well-being. Taking into account the nature of the father’s relationship with the children and his history of family violence, Deputy Chief Justice McClelland concluded that there was an unacceptable risk of the children experiencing further harm while under the father’s care.

When determining the children’s best interests, the court referred to the meaning of a “meaningful relationship” as established in the Loddington & Derringford (No 2) [2008] FamCA 925 case. Justice Cronin articulated that for a relationship to be meaningful, it must be healthy, beneficial, and advantageous to the child. Despite the serious findings, the court acknowledged positive aspects in the father’s interactions with the children, as reported during supervised contact sessions, suggesting some redeeming qualities in his relationship with them.

The court also took into account the children’s mixed feelings towards their father and the paramount importance of respecting their wishes. It evaluated the parents’ involvement in decision-making and the time they spent with the children, noting the father’s lack of participation. Furthermore, the potential effects of any changes in the children’s circumstances were carefully considered, with a strong emphasis on minimizing burdens and safeguarding confidentiality. The practical difficulties and expenses associated with visitation were also taken into account.

Ultimately, the court’s decision aligned with the children’s wishes and best interests, placing primary focus on their well-being and adopting a child-centric approach. It aimed to strike an equitable balance between parental involvement and the safety and protection of the children, ensuring that their needs were paramount throughout the proceedings.

The court recognizes that the safety and well-being of the children should always take precedence over any other considerations. When serious acts of family violence or potential harm are identified, it becomes imperative to promptly and effectively address these issues. Delaying or disregarding safety concerns further exposes the children to physical and psychological harm, jeopardizing their overall development and stability. Therefore, it is crucial for the court to promptly intervene, assess the risks, and implement appropriate measures to ensure the immediate safety of the children. By proactively addressing safety concerns, the court can create a protective environment that nurtures the children’s growth, enabling them to thrive and reach their full potential.

By Chichi Lopez, Law Student