APOSTOLOS & DIMAKIS

This matter concerned an interim hearing in the Family Court of Australia, presided over by Judge Howard. The parties, a father residing in Brisbane and a mother residing in Sydney, presented competing proposals regarding the care of their infant child. The central dispute revolved around the child's living arrangements and the extent of the father's time with the child, particularly in light of the mother's relocation to Sydney.

The court was required to determine the interim parenting arrangements for the child, focusing on the child's best interests. Key legal issues included the assessment of the "meaningful relationship" between the father and the child, the impact of the mother's relocation on the child's arrangements, and the application of principles concerning equal shared parental responsibility and substantial and significant time with each parent. The court also considered the desirability of family reports and the location of interviews for such reports.

Judge Howard reasoned that there was no long-standing arrangement for the child's care, given the child's young age and the recent relocation. The court found that a meaningful relationship existed between the father and the child prior to the mother's move to Sydney and that interim orders should facilitate the preservation and continuation of this relationship. The court determined that equal shared parental responsibility was appropriate and had not been rebutted, leading to the consideration of section 65DAA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court emphasised that a unilateral relocation is merely one factor among many to be considered in determining the child's best interests on an interim basis, referencing *Parks & Farmer* [2012] FamCAFC 12. The court also highlighted the High Court's guidance in *MRR v GR* (2010) 240 CLR 461, stressing the need to consider the "reality of the situation" of the parents and child when assessing the practicality of equal time arrangements.

The court ordered that the parties provide a draft order reflecting the reasons for judgment. The court indicated that unsupervised time with the father should occur two to three times per week in Sydney, progressing to overnight time. A family report writer from Southeast Queensland was to be appointed, with interviews to be conducted in person in Queensland after the father had spent further time with the child. The father was required to have another adult from his family present for the first three visits, for the initial two hours of each visit.