The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia’s recent case Joustra & Schuman [2025] introduces seminal ideas reaffirming s 60CC of Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) which focuses on how courts apply and interpret frameworks to family law matters.
What is Section 60CC?
60CC of the Family Law Act is a statutory inscription on the discretionary factors that a court must consider when determining what is in the best interest of a concerned child. The court’s primary focus is on the child’s safety, wellbeing and developmental needs, including protection from harm, developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child, the child’s views and each carer’s ability to support the child. The court also considers the benefit of the child maintaining relationships with parents and significant others. This is important in determining as to whether a child should be removed or added to the care of a particular person as seen in this case.
Facts and key issues of the case
In Joustra & Schuman [2025], the initial facts show that the parents separated after a relationship that produced one child born in 2019, with Final parenting orders allowing the child to primarily live with the mother. However, in 2024, the mother ceased contact with the father, alleging their six-year-old was abused by him. This was found to be an unsustained allegation, as per Police and Child Protection Service reports. The father proceeded to challenge the initial Parenting Orders by lodging a fresh application to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2). There, the courts questioned the mother’s capacity to care for the child.
How the courts applied it
In application of Section 60CC(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act, the Court found the mother’s persistent allegations and conduct caused emotional and psychological harm to the child. It detrimentally impacted the child’s developmental needs in their engagement with a safe parent. As per his Honour’s words:
“Instead, [the child] has been subjected to interviews and examinations with people in authority and has been left traumatised to the point where [the child] is apparently triggered when seeing certain marked vehicles like ambulances. In addition to that trauma, [the child] has been fed a false narrative that [the child] is a victim at the hands of [the child’s] father, when the reality is that [the child’s] psychological and emotional safety has been imperilled by the one person he has always trusted, [the child’s] mother.”
As such, the Child was ordered to be in the primary care of the father and mandatory therapeutic support.
Key Takeaways
It is imperative to understand that the Family Act pushes courts to focus upon the emotional and developmental needs of a child. False or unsubstantiated allegations can seriously impact parenting outcomes where the child is harmed by repeated exposure which reaffirms the act’s intention in making sure that all needs of a child are met rather than some necessary needs.
If you need advice today, please do not hesitate to contact our offices via telephone for a free initial consultation.