Parenting orders are always made with one goal in mind: the best interests of the child. But what happens when both parents are in conflict, one has significant mental health issues, and the child’s safety is at risk?
In Everett & Everett [2023], the Family Court faced a complex dispute involving:
- Allegations of mental illness
- A child refusing to see one parent
- Disputes over medical treatment
- A long history of conflict
Let’s unpack how the court reached its decision and what it means for other separated families in similar situations.
Background of the Case
- The parties had one child together, born in 2015.
- After separation, the child lived with the mother.
- The father sought increased time with the child and equal shared parental responsibility.
- The mother opposed, citing concerns about the father’s mental health and the child’s emotional safety.
The situation was made more complicated by:
- Disputes over the child’s medical treatment (especially vaccinations)
- Allegations that the father undermined the mother’s parenting
- The child expressing fear and distress around contact with the father
Key Allegations
The mother claimed:
- The father had untreated paranoid delusions
- He was aggressive and abusive in communication
- He refused to consent to basic medical care, including vaccinations
- The child was scared of spending time with him
The father denied most allegations and claimed the mother was alienating the child and exaggerating his mental health issues to block contact.
The Child’s Wishes
The child, aged 8, expressed to professionals that he felt unsafe around the father and did not want to spend time with him. He displayed:
- Sleep issues
- Anxiety around handovers
- Resistance to phone calls or visits
These concerns were backed by professional assessments and were not found to be coached or exaggerated by the mother.
The Court’s Decision
1. Sole Parental Responsibility to the Mother
The court gave the mother full decision-making responsibility over all matters, including education and health.
Why?
The father’s lack of cooperation, denial of medical needs (especially vaccinations), and erratic behaviour showed that shared decision-making would place the child at risk.
2. No Face-to-Face Contact with the Father
The court ordered that:
- The child would not have any in-person contact with the father
- There would be no supervised contact
- The father may send cards or letters, but the child was not obligated to engage
This was due to the emotional harm caused to the child, as supported by expert psychological reports.
3. Medical Decisions Clarified
The court allowed the mother to proceed with the child’s medical treatment, including vaccinations, without needing the father’s permission.
This was essential, given the father’s history of refusing consent for basic care.
Court’s Reasoning
The court’s decision focused on:
- Psychological harm to the child: Prolonged exposure to conflict and anxiety
- Parental capacity: The father had not addressed his mental health concerns, and his behaviour was unpredictable
- Child’s views: Consistent refusal to see the father, supported by professional observations
- Risk management: The child needed stability and protection from conflict, not forced contact
Lessons from This Case
1. Mental Health Concerns Are Taken Seriously
When a parent has untreated mental health issues that affect their parenting, the court will act—especially if it puts the child at risk.
2. Vaccination Disputes Can Be Resolved by the Court
If one parent refuses medical care on unreasonable grounds, the court can give the other full authority to proceed.
3. The Child’s Emotional Safety Comes First
The child’s fear and anxiety were not dismissed as alienation. The court respected the child’s lived experience and psychological well-being.
4. Communication Style Matters
The father’s hostile and aggressive messages to the mother were considered evidence of emotional instability and poor co-parenting capacity.
What This Means for Other Parents
If you’re in a parenting dispute involving mental health, medical decisions, or emotional harm:
- Get professional support and psychological assessments
- Focus on the child’s experience, not the blame game
- Courts will protect the child’s stability over a parent’s “right” to time