Bauer and Bauer

This case concerned parenting orders for a child, [X], born in 2005. The dispute involved the father and mother, with the court required to determine the most appropriate living arrangements and parental responsibility for [X], as well as the nature and extent of the mother's future contact with the child.

The court was tasked with determining several legal issues, including the primary considerations under section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), such as the child's maturity, sex, and background, and the views of the child. It also had to consider additional factors, including the nature of the relationship between the child and each parent, the child's background, any family violence, and the likelihood of any proposed order leading to further proceedings. The court also had to assess the extent to which each parent had taken opportunities to spend time with or communicate with the child and be involved in decision-making, and the likely effect of any change in the child's circumstances.

In its reasoning, the court considered the child's clear preference to live with her father, as evidenced in a 2014 family report, and found this preference likely remained. The court noted the good relationship between [X] and her father, as well as her paternal grandmother and other paternal family members. While acknowledging the mother's desire to guide [X] through adolescence, the court found the mother's oppositional and combative attitude towards the father, and her tendency to pester the child about her living arrangements, were significant concerns. The court also noted the difficulties and risks associated with long-term supervised time, including the potential for disputes over supervision providers and the child's potential resistance. The court found no evidence of current issues with the father's alcohol consumption or post-separation relationships impacting the child.

The court ordered that all previous parenting orders concerning [X] be discharged. The child was to live with the father, who was granted sole parental responsibility. The mother was to have supervised time with the child on four occasions annually: near Christmas, Mother's Day, the child's birthday, and one other occasion, to be organised by an appropriate supervision service nominated and arranged by the father. The mother was to bear the costs of this supervised time. The mother was also restrained by injunction from discussing court proceedings or the child's living arrangements with [X], and from questioning her about her desire to spend more time with her mother. Further orders addressed school reports, notification of serious accidents or illness, change of address, respectful communication, and an injunction preventing the mother from approaching the father's or child's residence or the child's school. The father was to make [X] available to the Independent Children's Lawyer to explain the orders. The Independent Children's Lawyer's application for costs was dismissed.