BAKER & WARWICK

In the matter of *Baker & Warwick*, heard before Austin J, the dispute concerned interim parenting orders for a child. The parties, the mother and the father, were seeking to establish arrangements for the child's residence and time spent with each parent.

The court was required to determine whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied, and if so, what interim orders were in the child's best interests regarding where the child lives and spends time. This involved considering the application of section 65DAA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), the child's meaningful relationships with both parents, and whether the child required protection from abuse, family violence, or neglect. The court also had to assess the impact of the mother's relocation with the child without the father's consent and the practicability of various arrangements.

Austin J concluded that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied, as neither party submitted to the contrary. The court found that an equal time arrangement would be in the child's best interests and was reasonably practicable to implement, noting the absence of any practical impediment to the child living or spending significant periods with the father. Consequently, the court determined that a mandatory injunction compelling the mother's relocation was not necessary. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence to grant injunctions restraining the mother from changing the child's current medical providers.

The court ordered that the parties were to do all things necessary for the child to attend her current speech therapist for a period as recommended by that therapist.