Bronson and Rodolfo

This matter came before Dessau J of the Family Court of Australia concerning parenting orders for a ten-and-a-half-year-old daughter. The dispute involved allegations by the father that the mother was alienating the child from him, while the mother claimed the child was terrified of the father. The court had previously made orders for therapeutic counselling and a family report, but the case had been adjourned multiple times due to various procedural issues, including the mother's attempt to relocate the child and the intervention of the maternal aunt and uncle. A significant development occurred when the mother ceased to act as a party to the proceedings, indicating her intention to move and leave the child's care to the Independent Children's Lawyer.

The court was required to determine interim parenting orders, considering the child's best interests in light of the amended Part VII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), as interpreted in *Goode v Goode*. Key legal issues included whether to rebut the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, the appropriate living arrangements for the child, the extent of contact with both parents, and the role of the maternal aunt and uncle in the child's care. The court also had to consider the child's views, her relationship with her parents and other significant people, and the impact of any changes to her current stable environment.

In her reasoning, Dessau J applied the principles outlined in *Goode v Goode*, which emphasise a structured approach to interim hearings, focusing on less contentious matters and avoiding findings of fact where possible. The court noted the legislative intent favouring substantial involvement of both parents, subject to the child's protection and best interests. Applying section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975*, the court found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility should be rebutted, as it would be contrary to the child's best interests to impose it at this stage. The court was satisfied that the child was safe and content living with her maternal aunt and uncle, and that this arrangement provided necessary stability. The court also considered the child's expressed views, noting a potential disconnect between her words and demeanour regarding her father, and the significant disruption she had already experienced.

The court made orders discharging previous parenting orders and, until further order, granted equal shared parental responsibility to the maternal aunt and uncle, with the child to live with them. The child was to spend time and communicate with her father as agreed between the aunt, uncle, and father, guided by recommendations from a parenting program. Contact with the mother was to be supervised. The court also made orders restraining the mother's husband from contact with the child, mandating participation in a parenting program, and ceasing current therapeutic counselling. The mother was required to file a notice of address for service and a response outlining her sought orders within six weeks, with all existing applications adjourned for a five-day hearing in approximately four months.