Bickley and Wallace

In the Family Court of Australia, Mr Bickley (the Father) sought orders for equal shared care of his three children with the respondent, Ms Wallace (the Mother). The Father's application was opposed by the Mother, who sought its dismissal.

The Court was required to determine whether the Father had satisfied the onus to establish that equal shared parenting arrangements would be in the best interests of the children, particularly in light of the Father's history and circumstances. Key issues included the Father's history of contravening domestic violence orders, his unemployment, his ability to adequately care for and maintain the children, and the overall capacity of the parents to co-operate in shared parenting.

Justice Bell dismissed the Father's application for equal shared care. The Court found that the Father's extensive history of contravening domestic violence orders, including convictions and periods of imprisonment, demonstrated a disregard for the law and the welfare of the children. Furthermore, the Father's unemployment, lack of adequate accommodation, and inability to financially maintain the children were significant concerns. The Court also noted the lack of co-operation between the parents, with a family consultant indicating diminished prospects for successful shared parenting in such circumstances. The Court emphasised that parents have duties, not rights, to their children, and that the Father's conduct and attitude did not make him a suitable role model.

The Father's application in a case was dismissed, and the matter was removed from the list of cases awaiting finalisation. The Court indicated a willingness to make consent orders for modified contact arrangements if proposed by the parties, acknowledging that the children deserved at least some contact with their father.