Canton & Leconte

In the matter of MLC 9365 of 2015, Ms Canton (the applicant mother) and Mr Leconte (the respondent father) presented a dispute concerning parenting orders for their child, X. The proceedings were before Burchardt J of the Federal Circuit Court.

The court was required to determine the appropriate parenting arrangements for X, specifically addressing issues of parental responsibility, the child's living arrangements, and the time X would spend with each parent. A key legal issue was whether to grant the mother sole parental responsibility, and if so, with what conditions regarding the father's involvement in significant decisions. The court also had to consider the specific details of the time X would spend with the father, including during school terms and holidays, as well as communication arrangements and special occasions.

Burchardt J reasoned that an order for equal shared parental responsibility was not in X's best interests due to the high level of toxicity in the parents' relationship, which was unlikely to improve. The court found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted. The judge considered the child's age, her strong relationship with her mother, and her liking for spending time with her father, despite the mother's expressed concerns. The court adopted a time regime proposed by the Independent Children's Lawyer, which it considered a sensible compromise, balancing the child's need for preparation for school with opportunities for time with her father. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility, with specific provisions requiring her to keep the father informed of and seek his input on significant long-term decisions. The court also varied an existing restraint on the mother relocating X's primary residence, limiting it to 20 kilometres from her current residence.

The court ordered the discharge of all previous parenting orders. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for X, with the proviso that she must keep the father informed of and actively seek his input on significant long-term decisions, following a defined email consultation process. X was ordered to live with the mother. Specific arrangements were made for X to spend time with and communicate with the father, including alternate weekends, school holidays, and special occasions, with detailed provisions for changeovers. The parents were ordered to communicate important information regarding X's welfare via a specific platform, in a respectful and child-focused manner, and to notify each other of significant medical issues. Both parents were authorised to obtain medical and academic information about X and were restrained from negative comments about the other parent, physical discipline, or communicating decisions through the child. The mother was restrained from relocating X's primary residence more than 20 kilometres from her current residence without prior agreement or court order. Neither party was permitted to file further applications without leave of the court.