Abadi and Sokulsky (No. 2)

In *Abadi and Sokulsky (No. 2)*, Gill J of the Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning a child, B, born in 2009. The proceedings involved the mother's withdrawal from the proceedings and the court's determination of what parenting arrangements were in B's best interests, balancing the risks associated with B living with either parent, including the risk of change of residence to a parent with whom B had not spent recent time, and the risks posed by the parent with whom B was currently living.

The court was required to determine the primary issue of what parenting orders would serve B's best interests, particularly in light of the mother's disengagement from the proceedings and the father's demonstrated commitment to B's welfare. This involved assessing the risks and benefits of B residing with the father, who was described as having a greater likelihood of providing emotional and practical care, compared to the mother's current care arrangement, which was assessed as deficient and potentially harmful. The court also considered the presumption of equally shared parental responsibility and whether the parties could genuinely resolve long-term decisions jointly.

Gill J reasoned that placing B with the father, despite the risks associated with change and the father being untested, outweighed the risks of B remaining in the mother's deficient care. The father's commitment to B's best interests, as evidenced in cross-examination, was pivotal in the Independent Children's Lawyer's change of position to support a move to the father. The court found that the potential for B to have relationships with both parents, protection from family violence and neglect, and the care offered by the father's household were more beneficial than maintaining the current arrangement. Consequently, the court ordered that the father have sole parental responsibility for B, with provisions for the father to make final long-term decisions after consulting with the mother. The child was ordered to live with the father, and specific orders were made for a family consultant to facilitate the transition and explain the orders to B. The court also ordered a period of no contact with the mother to allow the new arrangements to settle, with the father to seek advice from a psychologist regarding future contact.