Acton and Hammer

In the matter of *Acton and Hammer*, heard before Judge Harman, the dispute concerned parenting orders for two children, X and Y. The mother sought sole parental responsibility and orders for the children to live with her, while the father sought orders for shared parenting arrangements.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children in relation to their living arrangements, parental responsibility, and time spent with each parent. Specifically, the court had to consider the extent to which each parent should have decision-making authority regarding the children's upbringing and the practical arrangements for the children's time with the father, including during school holidays and on specific family occasions. The court also had to address communication protocols between the parents and the financial implications of the proceedings.

Judge Harman ordered that all previous parenting orders be discharged. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for the children, with the requirement to consult the father on major long-term issues at least twenty-one days prior to making a decision, or sooner if circumstances demanded, and to seek his views. The ultimate decision on these matters, after consultation, was to lie with the mother. The children were ordered to live with the mother, and detailed provisions were made for the children to spend time with the father, including specific arrangements for weekends, public holidays, and school holidays, with certain conditions and restrictions. The father was restrained from taking one child for medical treatment without the mother's written consent or a court order. The court also made orders regarding changeover locations, communication between parents and children, notification of address and contact details, and the use of email for communication regarding the children.

Finally, the court ordered the father to pay the mother's costs thrown away in the sum of $1,100 within seven days, and to contribute $3,893 towards the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer within six months. All further applications for costs and other outstanding applications were dismissed. The court also made provisions for the return of exhibits and subpoenaed material upon the expiration of the appeal period without an appeal being lodged.