ANG & JIANG

In proceedings before Faulks DCJ, the court considered the parenting arrangements for a child of the parties, ANG and JIANG. The dispute concerned the extent of parental responsibility each parent should hold, particularly in light of the father's conduct and perceived lack of empathy towards the mother and child.

The central legal issue before the court was whether equal shared parental responsibility was appropriate for the child, or if sole parental responsibility should be granted to one parent. This determination was to be made by regarding the child's best interests as the paramount consideration, as mandated by section 60CA of the relevant Act. The court also had to consider the application of section 61C, which presumes that each parent has parental responsibility for a child under 18.

Faulks DCJ reasoned that the father's conduct, including his cross-examination of the Family Reporter and the mother, and his responses to the court, demonstrated a pronounced lack of empathy. While acknowledging the father's love for the child, the judge concluded that the parents were unlikely to cooperate effectively in making decisions about the child's future. Applying the paramount consideration of the child's best interests, the court found that equal shared parental responsibility would not be in the child's best interests. The judge noted previous orders that had granted the mother sole responsibility for decisions regarding the child's eczema, while leaving day-to-day care decisions with the parent in whose care the child was.

Consequently, the court ordered that the mother should have sole parental responsibility for the child, and that the child should live principally with her. The orders also stipulated that the mother must promptly provide the father with information regarding the child's health, school progress, and other significant life events. Furthermore, the mother was ordered to authorise medical practitioners and schools to provide the father with information at his request and expense. The court reiterated that the parent in whose care the child was at any given time would be responsible for day-to-day matters.