Carlson & Fluvium

In the matter of Carlson & Fluvium, Kent J of the Family Court of Australia considered a highly litigious and protracted dispute between the parents concerning their child, D. The central issue was determining with whom the child would live, given the parents' intractable conflict, the Mother's residence in Canada, and the Father's residence in Queensland. The court also had to navigate complex factual issues, including the Father's prior deportation from Canada and the Mother's role in excluding the Father from the life of a second, younger child.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, D, in circumstances where both parents exhibited personality vulnerabilities and narcissistic traits. Key legal issues included whether findings of credit were necessary in parenting matters, the application of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in the context of family violence, and the practicalities of allocating parental responsibility and time when neither parent could reasonably relocate. The court also had to address the separation of siblings and the Mother's demonstrated unwillingness to facilitate a relationship between the Father and their second child.

Kent J reasoned that a determination of contested facts was necessary to apply the statutory considerations for the child's best interests. Neither party's evidence was definitively preferred, with both being found to be neither frank nor forthright. The court noted the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility did not apply due to findings of family violence. The orders ultimately allocated parental responsibility to the Father for major long-term issues, while each parent retained sole responsibility for day-to-day matters when the child was in their care. The orders provided for the child to live with the Father, with significant time to be spent with the Mother in Canada, subject to stringent conditions on the Father undertaking psychotherapy. These conditions included authorising a psychiatrist to provide information regarding his therapy and submitting to further psychiatric examination, with the Independent Children's Lawyer playing a role in facilitating these processes. The court also made detailed provisions for travel arrangements, communication between parents and the child, and the registration of the orders in Canada.