Athanasiou and Callow (No 2)

In *Athanasiou and Callow (No 2)*, Kent J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning a child born in 2005. The proceedings involved disputes between the parents regarding the child's upbringing and welfare.

The court was required to determine whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility should be rebutted, and if so, to make orders regarding the child's living arrangements, time with each parent, and communication. Further issues included the allocation of parental responsibility for major long-term decisions, the nature and extent of contact between the child and the mother, and various communication protocols and restrictions between the parents. The court also considered the role of an Independent Children's Lawyer and the need for counselling for the child.

Kent J found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted in the best interests of the child. The court reasoned that sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues should be vested in the Father. The child was ordered to live with the Father. The Mother's time with the child was significantly restricted and required supervision, with specific provisions for communication by telephone and limited written contact. The court also imposed injunctions on the Mother regarding attendance at the child's school and ordered that both parents engage in respectful communication and refrain from discussing the parental dispute with the child. Counselling was ordered for the child and the Father.

Consequently, all previous parenting orders were discharged. The Father was granted sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues, and the child was ordered to live with him. The Mother's time with the child was to be supervised and limited, with specific communication arrangements. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged.