CALDERA & MATEO

In the matter of *Caldera & Mateo*, heard by Judge Harman, the dispute concerned competing parenting proposals where both parents sought the children to live with them. The father also sought that the mother have supervised time with the children. The proceedings involved allegations of family violence, and the court considered social science literature on its impact, as well as the concept of unacceptable risk. The court also addressed the issue of "effective communication" between the parents to determine parental responsibility, and the *Makita & Sprowles* issue was raised with the family report, with the recommendations of the family report not being accepted.

The court was required to determine the most appropriate parenting orders for the children, [X] and [Y], born in 2005, considering the allegations of family violence and the impact on the children. Key issues included whether to grant sole parental responsibility to one parent, the living arrangements for the children, the nature and extent of the time the children would spend with the non-resident parent, and the practical arrangements for communication and handover. The court also had to consider the children's ongoing therapeutic needs, including speech pathology and psychological support, and their educational requirements, specifically regarding access to an IM class.

Judge Harman ordered that the mother, Ms Mateo, have sole parental responsibility for the children and that they live with her. The father, Mr Caldera, was granted specific time with the children, including alternate weekends, half of the school holidays, and Father's Day weekend, with detailed provisions for handover and communication. The court mandated the provision of a mobile telephone for the children to facilitate communication between the parents and the children. Further orders addressed the parents' involvement with the children's school, the exchange of information regarding the children's health and treatment, and restrictions on sharing personal details and posting on social media. The court also directed Ms Mateo to facilitate the children's enrolment in a suitable school program, potentially an IM class, or an alternative special education program if they were not assessed as suitable. The children were to continue attending speech pathology and psychological services as recommended by their treating professionals, and regular paediatrician reviews were ordered. The court also requested the appointment of a Family Consultant to assist in the implementation and supervision of the orders for a period of 12 months.