Bowles and Gillen

This matter concerned parenting orders for a child, [X], born in 2007, between the father and the mother. The court was required to determine the living arrangements for the child and the nature of parental responsibility, considering the child's best interests.

The legal issues before the court included whether to apply the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and if so, how to best ensure the child had a meaningful relationship with both parents. The court also had to consider allegations made by the mother against the father, and the father's concerns regarding the child's welfare in the mother's care, including potential neglect of medical and psychological needs.

The court applied the primary consideration of the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents. It found that the child would have a meaningful relationship with the father if she lived with him, and that the father could be trusted to comply with orders for the child to spend time with the mother. Conversely, the court had considerable concern about the child having a meaningful relationship with the father if she continued to live with the mother, citing the mother's past actions, including leaving the father off the child's school enrolment form and making unfounded allegations. The court also noted a risk of neglect in the mother's care due to a lack of will or means to address the child's pressing needs. While the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was considered, the court found it could be declined if not in the child's best interests, particularly in light of the mother's past conduct and the father's concerns.

The court ordered that the child shall live with the father. The father was granted sole parental responsibility for decisions concerning the child’s education, medical treatment, and counselling, with an obligation to keep the mother advised of these decisions. Otherwise, the parents were to have equal shared parental responsibility. Detailed orders were made regarding the child's time with the mother, including specific weekends, school holidays, and telephone communication. The court also made provisions for changeovers, notification of accidents or medical emergencies, and the exchange of school-related information. It was noted that if the mother permanently relocated to Sydney and sought to vary the time orders, any application would not be dismissed pursuant to the Rule in *Rice & Asplund* without inquiry into its merits.