Cartner and Ross-Cartner

In the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne, Mr Cartner (the applicant husband) and Ms Ross-Cartner (the respondent wife) sought parenting orders concerning their two children, a son born in September 2000 and a daughter born in July 2002. The dispute centred on the amount of time the children would spend with each parent, with the husband seeking increased time and the wife expressing reservations about a substantially shared regime until the daughter was settled in school. Religious differences, particularly concerning the observance of the Sabbath, also formed a significant point of contention.

The court was required to determine the appropriate parenting orders, considering the children's best interests in light of recent amendments to the *Family Law Act 1975*. Key legal issues included the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, the extent to which children should spend equal or substantial and significant time with each parent, and how to balance the parents' differing religious practices and views on parenting. The court also had to consider the impact of any changes on the children and the parents' capacity to facilitate a meaningful relationship between the children and the other parent.

Watt J applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975*, particularly sections 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, and 65DAA, which emphasise the paramountcy of the children's best interests and the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. While the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was not contested, the court considered that an interim approach to time-sharing was appropriate, with a staged increase in the time the children spent with the husband. The court noted the ongoing conflict between the parents but found that neither parent could be criticised for their attitude to parenthood and that both had demonstrated a willingness to facilitate the children's relationship with the other parent. The court ultimately made orders for equal shared parental responsibility for long-term decisions and sole responsibility for day-to-day care while the children were with each parent.

The court ordered that all previous parenting orders be discharged. The husband and wife were to have equal shared parental responsibility for long-term decisions regarding the children's care, welfare, and development, including education and health. They were to have sole responsibility for day-to-day decisions while the children were in their respective care. The children were to live with the husband on a progressively increasing schedule, moving towards substantial and significant time, with specific arrangements for weekdays, weekends, public holidays, and birthdays. The wife would have the children at all other times, with specific provisions for Mother's Day and birthdays. The orders also detailed communication protocols, changeover arrangements, and the requirement for both parents to attend a "Stand by Me" program. A Family Report was ordered to assess the children's experiences under the new regime, and the matter was adjourned for a case management mention and a further hearing.