Croggard and Howe

In *Croggard and Howe*, Kent J of the Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning the child, B. The dispute centred on the appropriate arrangements for B's upbringing, including parental responsibility, living arrangements, and time spent with each parent.

The court was required to determine whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted in the child's best interests. Further, the court had to decide where the child should live, whether the child should spend time with the father, and the extent of the mother's obligations regarding the child's therapeutic counselling and understanding of the court's orders.

Kent J found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted, concluding that it was not in the child's best interests for this presumption to apply. The court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for all major long-term issues concerning the child. The child was ordered to live with the mother and was not to spend time with the father unless the child requested it. The mother was directed to ensure the child continued therapeutic counselling and attended Child Dispute Services to have the orders and reasons explained by a Family Consultant. The court also incorporated a Fact Sheet detailing obligations, consequences of contravention, and sources of assistance, pursuant to sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).