Standard of proof for unacceptable risk of harm — child alleged sexual abuse by father — father charged but later withdrawn due to lack of specific evidence — primary judge found that he could not make a finding that father sexually assaulted child, but held an unacceptable risk exists which could only be mitigated through supervised time (Isles and Nelissen [2021] FedCFamC1F 295) — test for making findings of sexual abuse distinguished from findings of unacceptable risk of harm — standard of proof as to whether abuse has occurred in the past is determined on the balance of probabilities — s 140 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) — an unacceptable risk of harm does not require civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities — unacceptable risk of harm requires a predictive or prospective exercise not limited to findings of past fact, but also possibilities — M v M FC 88/063 (1988) 166 CLR 69 followed — three relevant factors to consider when assessing unacceptable risk of harm: whether there are facts that indicate risk, either present or future; magnitude of risk; and tools or circumstances that can adequately mitigate that risk — appeal dismissed.

Standard of proof for unacceptable risk of harm — child alleged sexual abuse by stepfather — later retracted her complaint — whether stepfather presents an unacceptable risk — if an allegation of sexual abuse is made out/not made out on the balance of probabilities, court then assesses risk, without conflation — Isles and Nelissen [2021] FedCFamC1F 295 followed — standard of proof in assessing risk is not on the balance of probabilities, the court looks to possibilities —Isles and Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97 followed — court satisfied that there was no evidence of sexual abuse — no unacceptable risk — court finds there is a realistic possibility of restoration within a reasonable period of Xing-fu to his father — court made finding prior to hearing that realistic possibility of restoration of Janet and Xing-fu to their mother.

Care and protection — allegation father sexually abused daughter — appropriate test to be applied in cases of custody/ access to child — inability to make positive finding of abuse not ultimate determinative of unacceptable risk of harm — Browne v Dunn rule did not apply — no error of law demonstrated — summons dismissed.

Care and protection — application for care order — child welfare — whether child in need of care and protection — child infected with a sexually transmitted disease — whether child was sexually abused by the father who had the same sexually transmitted disease — onus of proof — history of litigation chequered — appeal — father seeking an order in the nature of certiorari quashing orders upon the ground of an error of law on the face of the record — whether trial judge failed to place onus on the Director-General of proving sexual abuse on the balance of probabilities — summons dismissed.

Standard of proof for sexual abuse matters — wife’s allegation that the father sexually abused daughter — trial judge not satisfied that father had sexually abused the child but considered that there was a possibility that the child had been sexually abused by the husband — in the interests of the child the risk of abuse would be eliminated by denying access to the husband, including supervised access — appeal to the Full Court of the Family Court dismissed — appeal to the High Court for an order that the father be granted access to the child — paramountcy of the welfare of the child — whether the resolution of an allegation of sexual abuse against a parent is subservient and ancillary to the court’s determination of what is in the best interests of the child — High Court dismissed appeal — to achieve a proper balance, the test is best expressed by saying that a court will not grant custody or access to a parent if that custody or access would expose the child to an unacceptable risk of sexual abuse.