Bobal & Bobal

In the matter of *Bobal & Bobal*, heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Justice Spelleken made orders concerning the parental responsibilities and living arrangements for the child, X. The dispute involved Mr Bobal (the applicant father) and Ms Bobal (the respondent mother), with the court determining the best interests of their child born in 2015.

The court was required to determine several key issues, including where the child X should live, the allocation of parental responsibility, and the specific arrangements for the child's time with each parent, including during school holidays and special occasions. Additionally, the court considered provisions for telephone communication, overseas travel, and the exchange of essential information between the parents. The court also addressed the need for injunctions and restraints, particularly concerning the removal of the child from Australia and the conduct of the parents towards each other in the child's presence.

Justice Spelleken's reasoning was guided by the paramount consideration of the child's best interests, as stipulated by section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975*. The court accepted expert evidence that a stable environment was crucial for X and that a move to the father's primary care or equal time between parents would be unsettling. The court found that the mother's allegations of family violence were a true reflection of her experience, which, along with the father's concession regarding equal shared parental responsibility, rebutted the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. Consequently, the court ordered that X live with the mother and that the mother have sole parental responsibility, with specific provisions for the father to be consulted on major long-term issues.

The court made detailed orders regarding the child's time with the father, including alternate weekends and a division of school holidays from 2022 onwards. Provisions were also made for telephone communication, special days, and changeovers. Significant emphasis was placed on overseas travel, with stringent conditions including surety payments and authenticated consent from both parents, and an injunction was issued restraining the removal of the child from Australia without such consent until the child turns eighteen. The court also ordered that the child's name be placed on the Family Law Watchlist. Finally, the court ordered that all previous parenting plans and orders be discharged and that all outstanding applications be dismissed.