Z is for zero contact – A-Z of Family Law

Parenting arrangements are governed by Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Courts are primarily concerned about what arrangements are in the best interests of the child (sections 60CA and 60CC).

As one can imagine, rarely would a court conclude that a child spending no time with one of their parents is in their best interests, but it does happen. In fact, the Court appears to be arriving at this conclusion more and more. These are extreme outcomes which are nonetheless necessary on occasion.

A no time order will typically follow a finding by the Court that one of their parents poses such a significant risk of harm so as to render any form of time unsuitable, though it may also follow a finding that the effect on the primary carer of the child spending time with the other parent would be so burdensome as to inhibit their parenting capacity and or health.

Judge Jenkins of Division Two of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia faced such a situation in the case of Demir & Ozden [2025] FedCFamC2F 80. The facts were as follows:

• The subject child was X, a 13-year-old girl.
• The applicant mother had not spent any time with X since she was 8 months old.
• X had been in the care of the respondent father since this time.
• X and the father lived in a different state to the mother.
• The father sought sole decision-making for X, and that the mother spend no time with X. This position was supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer (‘ICL’).
• The mother sought joint decision-making for X, and a build-up of time up to a shared care arrangement.

The mother alleged kidnapping and parental alienation against the father, and was generally very disparaging of the father, his role in X’s life, and his parental capacity. Many of the mother’s allegations were unsubstantiated, or the Court otherwise could not make findings of fact when considered the parents’ competing positions.

Furthermore, expert evidence was obtained by way of a child impact report. The assessment confirmed that “X would be at risk of emotional harm if she had any contact or spent any time with her mother” [63].

Finally, X’s own views did the mother’s position no favors, given that she did not wish to meet nor spend any time with her [64] (section 60CC(b)).

Judge Jenkins identified two risks at [82], being the risk that imposing a relationship between X and the mother may jeopardise a future relationship, and the risk that X would be exposed to the conduct and opinions of the mother (which were severely negative of the father and his family, and unlikely to be withheld from X by the mother). Various

alternatives to a no time order were considered, but could not be supported by the Court. The orders sought by the father and the ICL were made.

A difficult set of facts, but a reminder that:

1. Parents are not entitled to spend time with their children.

2. Evidence is crucial in substantiating allegations against another party, particularly serious allegations.

3. Risks of harm are but one consideration within Part VII of the Act, with the Court always taking a holistic approach.