CHAPMAN & TIMMS

In *Chapman & Timms*, heard by McClelland J, the dispute concerned parenting orders for a child of the parties' relationship. The mother alleged family violence by the father, though no findings of family violence were made. The child had expressed a desire not to spend time with his father, and the court considered whether it would be in the child's best interests for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility.

The court was required to determine the appropriate parenting arrangements, specifically addressing the child's expressed wishes, the mother's allegations of family violence (which were not substantiated), and the overarching consideration of the child's best interests under section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court also had to balance the short-term risk of compelling the child to spend time with his father against the long-term consequences of the child permanently losing his relationship with his father.

McClelland J reasoned that while there was a short-term risk associated with compelling the child to spend time with his father, the long-term benefit of maintaining that relationship justified specific orders. The court ultimately made orders for the child to spend time with the father every second weekend and for block holiday time, with provisions to facilitate an increase in this time. The court also cautioned that coercive force should not be applied to enforce these orders, given the child's psychological fragility. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for the child's education and health, subject to consultation and genuine effort to reach joint decisions with the father, with the mother having the final decision if agreement could not be reached. Injunctions were also made restraining the parties from organising personal counselling for the child or changing his school enrolment without the father's prior written consent. In all other respects, the parties were to have shared parental responsibility.