Bell and White

In *Bell & White* [2014] FamCA 258, the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute between Ms Bell (the applicant mother) and Mr White (the respondent father) concerning the living arrangements and parental responsibility for their child, B, who was 12 years old at the time of the proceedings. The mother sought orders for the child to live with her, while the child had consistently expressed a strong desire to live with his father and stated he wished to spend no time with his mother. The father did not participate in the proceedings beyond the first day of the hearing.

The court was required to determine the parenting orders that would be in the best interests of the child, B, in accordance with the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This involved considering the child's expressed wishes, the history of the parents' conflict, the mother's allegations against the father, and the father's limited participation in the proceedings. The court also had to assess the extent to which each parent had fulfilled their parental responsibilities and consider the primary and additional considerations outlined in section 60CC of the Act.

Justice Macmillan noted the child's consistent view to live with his father and his expressed desire to spend no time with his mother, as well as the child's previous behaviour of absconding to the father's care when in the mother's care. The court found that the mother's presentation of evidence was often taken out of context and lacked balance, and that she appeared to have a singular focus on the dispute rather than the child's needs. While acknowledging the father's decision not to participate further in the proceedings might have been driven by his own needs, the court ultimately found that the child's best interests were served by orders reflecting his expressed wishes. The court applied the paramount consideration of the child's best interests, as set out in section 60CA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and considered the objects and principles of Part VII of the Act.

The court ordered that all previous parenting orders be discharged, that the father have sole parental responsibility for the child, and that the child live with the father. The child was to spend time with the mother in accordance with his wishes. The Independent Children’s Lawyer was authorised to make arrangements for the child to attend counselling, and the father was to facilitate this. The court also ordered that the Independent Children’s Lawyer and/or a Family Consultant meet with the child to explain the effect of the orders. All extant applications were dismissed, and the matter was removed from the list of pending cases.