Carsely and Baron & Anor

This matter concerned parenting orders for a child, X, born in 2007. The applicant, Mr Carsely, sought orders regarding X's upbringing, while the first respondent, Ms Baron, was X's mother, and the second respondent, Ms C Baron, was X's grandmother. The Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) also participated in the proceedings.

The court was required to determine the primary considerations under section 60CC(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975*, specifically the benefit to the child of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from harm. Additionally, the court had to consider various additional factors under section 60CC(3), including the child's views, his relationships with his parents and others, the extent to which each parent had participated in decision-making, spent time with, and communicated with the child, fulfilled their maintenance obligations, the likely effect of any changes in circumstances, practical difficulties, the capacity of parents and others to provide for the child's needs, the child's maturity and background including his Aboriginality, the parents' attitudes to the child and their responsibilities, any family violence, and the preference for orders least likely to lead to further proceedings. The ICL also contended that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA did not apply to the mother due to abuse or family violence, and was rebutted in relation to the father as equal shared parental responsibility would not be in X's best interests.

McClelland DCJ found that both parents had significant histories of criminality and drug abuse, with minimal and often neglectful engagement with the child. The mother had a history of drug abuse and criminality, and had made troubling disclosures to the Family Consultant, including encouraging X to steal and threatening and assaulting him. The father had a lengthy history of criminality and drug use and had had very little contact with X. The court noted that X expressed a desire to live with the first respondent, his mother, stating he did not want to go through the difficulties associated with his mother's potential relapse again, and indicated no interest in spending time with the applicant. The court also considered the positive relationship X had with his grandmother, the first respondent, and his brother, and the support he received from his maternal family. The Family Consultant expressed concern that orders sought by the applicant might cause the first respondent significant stress and negatively impact her caring role.

The court ordered that all prior parenting orders be discharged. The first respondent, Ms Baron, was granted sole parental responsibility for X, with X to live with her. X was to spend time with the applicant and the second respondent as determined by the first respondent.