CALVERT & MERCER

This case concerned parenting proceedings in the Family Court of Australia between Mr Calvert (the father) and Ms Mercer (the mother) regarding their child, C, born in April 2008. The proceedings involved a series of interim applications concerning the child's living arrangements, which had been repeatedly altered since the parents' separation in May 2009. The court was asked to determine appropriate interim orders for C's care.

The central legal issues before the court were the best interests of the child, C, given the history of unstable living arrangements and poor parental communication, and whether to appoint an Independent Children's Lawyer. The court was required to consider the impact of the frequent changes in living arrangements on a young child and the challenges posed by the parents' inability to communicate effectively about C's welfare.

Justice Ryan noted that the child's living arrangements had been consistently altered since separation, often unilaterally by the mother, and that these arrangements rarely appeared developmentally appropriate for a young child. The court considered evidence from a Family Consultant in 2009 highlighting the parents' lack of understanding of young children's developmental needs and the potential impact of prolonged separation from either parent. Despite this, the parents had continued to implement arrangements that were not child-focused, such as a four-night/three-night split. The court found that communication between the parents was poor and that this significantly complicated any arrangement involving substantial time with each parent. Ultimately, the court determined that reducing the child's time with the father to two nights per week (every weekend) was sufficient to maintain their relationship pending a final hearing, and that further changes to living arrangements were contrary to the child's best interests.

The court ordered that the previous parenting orders be discharged and that the father have time with the child every weekend from Friday 5:00 pm to Sunday 5:00 pm, with changeovers at a police station. The parties were also ordered to establish a communication book to record significant matters relating to the child's welfare. Crucially, an Independent Children's Lawyer was appointed to represent the child, pursuant to section 68L of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The father's application for a return to more extensive time with the child was otherwise dismissed.