Chranley and Smart (No 3)

In *Chranley and Smart (No 3)*, Dawe J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application concerning parental responsibility and the child's time with the father, in circumstances where previous consent orders for equal joint parental responsibility and for the father to spend time with the child were in place. The matter had a difficult history, and the child had expressed clear views against spending time with or communicating with the father.

The court was required to determine whether to continue with the existing orders for equal joint parental responsibility and for the father to spend time with the child, or to make new orders, having regard to the best interests of the child as prescribed by the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Key considerations included the child's expressed views, the risk of negative outcomes if the child were forced to spend time with the father, and the parents' demonstrated inability to communicate effectively.

Dawe J reasoned that the child's expressed views against spending time with the father were significant and that forcing such contact carried a risk of negative outcomes. The court also noted the parents' lack of ability to communicate, which hindered their capacity to co-parent effectively. Applying the principles of the *Family Law Act*, particularly those relating to the best interests of the child, the court concluded that it was in the child's best interests for the mother to have sole parental responsibility.

Consequently, the court ordered that the previous order for the child to spend time with the father be discharged. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for the child. Certain paragraphs of the previous consent order, including those relating to the child living with the mother and injunctions restraining certain behaviours between the parents, were continued. The court also permitted the mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer to inform the child of the particulars of the new orders.