Chiao and Wen (No 2)

In *Chiao and Wen (No 2)* [2014] FamCA 268, the Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning a child, C, born in 2002. The proceedings were initiated by the father, Mr. Chiao, who sought orders for the child to live with him and for him to have sole parental responsibility. The mother, Ms. Wen, had a history of non-attendance and limited involvement in the proceedings, ultimately not appearing at the final hearing.

The primary legal issue before the Court was to determine the final parenting orders in the best interests of the child, C, given the mother's absence and the father's application for sole parental responsibility. The Court was required to consider the provisions of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly section 60CC regarding the best interests of the child, and to ensure that the principles of natural justice were upheld despite the mother's non-participation. The Court also had to consider the child's history, including previous recovery orders and periods of residence with the father.

Justice Berman applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and relevant case law, including *Allesch v Maunz* (2000) 203 CLR 172, to determine the best interests of the child. Despite the mother's non-attendance, the Court did not proceed on an undefended basis without proper consideration. The Court noted the mother's history of non-attendance and her expressed frustration with the proceedings, but also her statement that she would be happy with an arrangement where the child lived with the father if the child was happy. The Court considered the Independent Children's Lawyer's report and the father's evidence, concluding that it was in the child's best interests for the child to live with the father and for the father to have sole parental responsibility.

The Court ordered that all previous parenting orders be discharged. The father was granted sole parental responsibility for decisions concerning the child's long-term care, welfare, and development, and the child was ordered to live with the father. The mother was to spend time with the child as agreed between the parties, and the father was to facilitate telephone contact. The parties were restrained from making disparaging remarks about each other in the child's presence. Further orders were made to place the child on the Airport Watch List and to restrain either party from removing the child from Australia. The appointment of the Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged.