Chatterjee and Woodby-Chatterjee (No. 2)

In *Chatterjee and Woodby-Chatterjee (No. 2)*, Baumann J considered parenting orders concerning two children, E and F. The dispute involved the arrangements for the children's living arrangements, parental responsibility, and communication between the parents and the children. The court was tasked with determining the most appropriate orders for the children's welfare and best interests, discharging all previous parenting orders.

The court was required to determine the extent of equal shared parental responsibility for long-term issues, establish a detailed schedule for the children's living arrangements during school terms and holidays, and set out provisions for communication between the children and the non-resident parent. Further issues included the allocation of day-to-day decision-making responsibility when the children were with each parent, arrangements for special days, and protocols for communication regarding the children's schooling, medical emergencies, and social events. The court also addressed the children's travel arrangements, including overseas travel, and the issuance of passports.

Baumann J applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly focusing on the best interests of the children. The court ordered equal shared parental responsibility for long-term issues and established a week-about living arrangement for the children during school terms from the commencement of the 2019 school year. Specific provisions were made for the remainder of the 2018 school year, including a detailed schedule for the 2018/2019 school holidays to accommodate overseas travel. The court also allocated day-to-day decision-making responsibility to the parent with whom the children were residing at any given time, while mandating joint decision-making for specific matters such as schooling and therapeutic counselling. Provisions were also made for regular communication between the children and the non-resident parent, and for the exchange of information regarding the children's welfare and education.

The court discharged the Independent Children's Lawyer and granted the mother leave to make an oral application for a change of school for E, with specific directions for the filing of affidavits and a hearing date. The parents were encouraged to seek the assistance of an educational psychologist to reach a joint decision on E's schooling. The orders also included provisions for the issuance and holding of the children's passports and outlined conditions for overseas travel, including notice periods, destination restrictions, and communication arrangements.