Calley & Calley

In the matter of *Calley & Calley*, Stevenson J considered an application concerning parenting arrangements for two children. The dispute centred on the father's proposed parenting orders, which involved the children spending three nights per week and half of the school holidays with their mother, and the mother's counter-arguments regarding the children's established routine and the father's capacity to meet their needs.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the children under section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Specifically, the court considered the likely effect of any changes in the children's circumstances, including separation from either parent, the capacity of each parent to provide for the children's needs (emotional and intellectual), the attitude of each parent towards the child and their parental responsibilities, and any family violence. The court also had to consider whether to make an order for sole parental responsibility.

Stevenson J reasoned that the father's proposal represented a significant change to the children's current care arrangements, as they were accustomed to being with their mother during the school week. The court found that the children's need was for weekend leisure time with their father, which he claimed he could not provide due to work commitments and his "semi-professional" involvement in the arts. The judge expressed doubts about the father's capacity to meet the children's needs due to his refusal to organise his life to spend weekends with them, noting the Family Consultant's observation that the father appeared to disregard the children's expressed wish for weekend time and suggested they would be "minded" if forced to have them on weekends. The court found no independent evidence to corroborate the father's allegations of family violence by the mother, and noted that his own proposal was inconsistent with genuine concern about such matters.

The court concluded that neither party had sought an order for sole parental responsibility, and there was no evidence to warrant such an order. Stevenson J considered it appropriate to apply the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in these interim proceedings.