Tattoos, HIV, Breastfeeding and The Risk of Harm To The Child
The controversy in Jackson & Macek [2015] FCCA 1656 focussed on whether the mother should breast feed their child. The parties were each 20 years old and their child was born in 2014 (11 months of age at the time of the interim hearing on 5 June 2015).
Whilst the suicidal ideation of the mother was noted by Meyers J at paragraph [18], His Honour found at paragraph [45] that:
- There is no evidence before the Court that suggested that the mother’s mental health is such that at this time it poses a risk to the child, in that the child will suffer physical or psychological harm from coming into contact with the mother or spending time or in this case living with the mother
- in circumstances where the Court forms the view that the mother will not abuse the child or neglect the child or subject the child to family violence as a result of her mental health issues.
At paragraph [37] His Honour said:
“The Court must consider the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence. It is a paramount consideration with primacy over all others, and it is a consideration the Court gives greatest weight of those condensations at s.60CC when determining what is in the best interests of the child, particularly with respect to the injunctive order sought by the father in the proceedings.”
“The Court must consider the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence. It is a paramount consideration with primacy over all others, and it is a consideration the Court gives greatest weight of those condensations at s.60CC when determining what is in the best interests of the child, particularly with respect to the injunctive order sought by the father in the proceedings.”
