Bandura & Dembek

In the matter of *Bandura & Dembek*, heard before Vasta J, the applicant, Ms Bandura, sought final parenting orders concerning the child, X. The respondents were Mr Dembek (First Respondent) and Ms Dembek (Second Respondent). The dispute concerned the future living arrangements, parental responsibility, and time spent with the child X.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child X, considering various factors under section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to assess the child's views, the relationship between the child and each of the parties, the child's background, the capacity of each person to provide for the child's needs, the likely effect of any changes to the child's circumstances, the need to maintain a meaningful relationship with both parents, and any family violence or protection orders relevant to the proceedings. The court also considered the practicalities of travel and costs associated with maintaining relationships, the child's need for counselling, and the importance of cultural connections.

Vasta J's reasoning focused on the child's best interests, acknowledging that X had become "enmeshed" with the PGM (Ms Dembek) as a coping mechanism due to past trauma. The court found that the PGM had acted to protect X until the mother was able to resume her parental duties, and that this time had now arrived. While acknowledging the PGM's care, the court rejected recommendations for a swift and abrupt removal of X from her care, deeming it potentially harmful. Instead, the court ordered shared parental responsibility between the applicant and the Second Respondent, with a requirement to consult the maternal grandparents. The court also mandated a gradual transition for X to live with the applicant, finishing the school year in Adelaide, and ordered continued contact with a treating professional. The court noted its inability to grant parental responsibility to the maternal grandparents as they were not parties to the proceedings but included provisions for their consultation.

The final orders established equal shared parental responsibility for the applicant and the Second Respondent, with consultation required with the maternal grandparents. The child was to spend no time with the First Respondent. The child was to live with the Second Respondent until 11 December 2021, and thereafter with the applicant and maternal grandparents. Detailed provisions were made for the child's time with each party, communication methods, medical and school information sharing, and prohibitions against physical discipline and exposure to family violence or substance abuse. The court also ordered attendance at an appointment with a Family Consultant to explain the orders to the child and authorised the release of reasons for judgment to relevant professionals.