Aubert & Cranmore

In the matter of *Aubert & Cranmore*, Altobelli J of the Family Court of Australia considered interim parenting orders concerning a child, X, born in 2017. The dispute arose between the child's mothers, Ms Aubert (the Applicant) and Ms Cranmore (the Respondent), following their separation in 2019. The court was tasked with determining whether existing interim parenting orders should be varied, particularly in light of a newly available expert report.

The central legal issues before the court were how to best promote the child's welfare and best interests in the context of intense parental conflict, and whether the existing interim parenting arrangements, which involved numerous changeovers, were appropriate given the availability of expert evidence. The court was required to consider the paramountcy of the child's best interests, as stipulated by Part VII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and the principles outlined in section 60B of the Act, including the importance of both parents having a meaningful involvement in the child's life and protecting the child from harm.

Altobelli J reasoned that the greatest risk of harm to the child stemmed from the ongoing and intense parental conflict. The court noted that while both parents were capable and loving, their inability to co-parent effectively was detrimental to X. The judge applied the principles of the *Family Law Act*, emphasising that the child's best interests were the paramount consideration. In light of the expert report and the evidence presented, the court determined that a variation of the existing orders was necessary to reduce conflict and promote a more stable co-parenting relationship.

Consequently, the court discharged all previous interim parenting orders and made new orders. These new orders established equal shared parental responsibility for major long-term decisions, requiring the parties to consult and genuinely attempt to reach joint decisions on issues such as education, health, and upbringing. The parties were granted sole parental responsibility for day-to-day care decisions during their respective periods of care. The orders also detailed a revised schedule for X to live with the Respondent and spend time with the Applicant, aiming to reduce the number of changeovers and facilitate a more consistent routine. Furthermore, the orders mandated attendance at family therapy, established specific communication protocols via a co-parenting app, and included provisions to minimise parental conflict and protect the child from exposure to such conflict.