None.
The Court is bound to consider only the elements outlined in s 60CC of the Family Law Act when determining what's in the best interests of the children, and profession isn't included in that list.
However, if it can be proven (and proof is not the same as speculative risk, remember) that the child is at an unacceptable risk of harm due to a parent's profession, then the Court can take it into consideration in the 'any other considerations the Court deems relevant' category.
To what degree it takes that risk into consideration, however, remains to be seen - it might result in a no-contact order, sure, but the more likely outcome is that the Court will just make an order restraining the parent from exposing the child to their profession.
Just on the question of risk in relation to sex workers, the reality is that being a sex worker is not synonymous with being an unfit parent, and a being a sex worker's client is not synonymous with being a bad person. Imposing generalised statements based on morality is fundamentally just a matter of opinion, and the Court can't deal in opinions. It can only deal in facts.
The risk of harm would need to be proven more likely than not to transfer into actual harm, and it's not possible to do that when we're talking about clients the Court knows nothing about (except, of course, the service they intend to utilise by way of ordinary business dealings).
The Court is bound to consider only the elements outlined in s 60CC of the Family Law Act when determining what's in the best interests of the children, and profession isn't included in that list.
However, if it can be proven (and proof is not the same as speculative risk, remember) that the child is at an unacceptable risk of harm due to a parent's profession, then the Court can take it into consideration in the 'any other considerations the Court deems relevant' category.
To what degree it takes that risk into consideration, however, remains to be seen - it might result in a no-contact order, sure, but the more likely outcome is that the Court will just make an order restraining the parent from exposing the child to their profession.
Just on the question of risk in relation to sex workers, the reality is that being a sex worker is not synonymous with being an unfit parent, and a being a sex worker's client is not synonymous with being a bad person. Imposing generalised statements based on morality is fundamentally just a matter of opinion, and the Court can't deal in opinions. It can only deal in facts.
The risk of harm would need to be proven more likely than not to transfer into actual harm, and it's not possible to do that when we're talking about clients the Court knows nothing about (except, of course, the service they intend to utilise by way of ordinary business dealings).
