CAFARELLA & ROGERS

In the matter of *Cafarella & Rogers*, heard by Hogan J, the dispute concerned parenting orders for a child, C, born in 2007. The applicant father had a history of incarceration for a violent offence, and had spent limited time with the child since the parents' separation. While the child maintained a good relationship with the paternal family, the father had been consistently absent from the child’s life for a significant period. The mother, conversely, had demonstrated a willingness to foster a relationship between the child and the father.

The court was required to determine with whom the child, C, should live and spend time, and how parental responsibility should be allocated. A significant procedural issue was the applicant father's lack of meaningful participation in the proceedings since late 2013, his failure to file substantive documents since initiating the proceedings in 2010, and his non-appearance at the hearing, which proceeded on an undefended basis.

Hogan J reasoned that the father's prolonged absence and previous violent offending were significant factors in determining the child's best interests. The court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) concerning the paramountcy of the child's welfare and best interests. Given the father's lack of engagement and the child's established life with the mother, the court made final orders.

On a final basis, it was ordered that the child, C, live with the mother and that the mother have sole parental responsibility for all major long-term issues concerning the child. The child was to spend time with the father as agreed between the parents in writing. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged.