Baxland and Vincent

The Family Court of Australia considered an application concerning parenting arrangements for a child, N, born in 2004. The father sought sole parental responsibility and orders for the child to live with him, which would have fundamentally altered the existing arrangements where the child had always lived with the mother and had limited overnight time with the father. The mother alleged the child was at risk of harm in the father's care, and the child had experienced significant distress during contact.

The court was required to determine whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted, and if so, what parenting orders would be in the child's best interests. A central issue was the nature, frequency, and extent of time, if any, the child should spend with the father, given the child's anxiety and the history of prolonged conflict between the parents. The court also considered proposals for ongoing family therapy and the role of professionals in determining future arrangements.

Justice Murphy found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted in the child's best interests, and that the child living with the mother was also in his best interests. The court noted the significant and ongoing conflict between the parents, which had adversely affected the child, and the failure of previous attempts to resolve their "adult issues." The court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for long-term issues, with a requirement to consult the father in writing, and that the child live with the mother. Crucially, the court ordered that both parents and the child attend family therapy with a clinical psychologist, Dr T, and that any time the child spent with the father would occur in accordance with Dr T's recommendations.

Consequently, no specific orders for time between the father and child were made at this stage, with such time to be agreed upon in writing by the parents during or consequent to the therapy process. The court also made orders regarding the confidentiality of the therapy sessions and the provision of information about the child's health and education. The mother was restrained from facilitating the child's further attendance upon a Dr H.