Davis v Davis

In this matter before Young J, the proceedings concerned the welfare of a child, E, born in October 2004. The parties involved were the child's mother, the child's father, and the child's paternal grandmother. The dispute revolved around arrangements for E's upbringing, including where E would live, the extent of time E would spend with each party, and the nature of parental responsibility.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues. These included the appropriate orders for equal shared parental responsibility, the specific arrangements for E to live with the mother, and the conditions under which the mother and child would be permitted to relocate from Victoria to the Ernabella/Umuwa community. Furthermore, the court had to establish the detailed time E would spend with the paternal grandmother and father, both before and after the relocation, as well as the communication arrangements between E and these parties. The court also considered the standard of proof applicable to the allegations and evidence presented, particularly in light of the seriousness of some matters raised.

Young J applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including considerations relating to Indigenous culture and the concept of equal shared parental responsibility. The court's reasoning involved a careful assessment of the evidence presented, including affidavits and submissions from various individuals, and an observation of witnesses. The standard of proof applied was the balance of probabilities, with the court acknowledging that the seriousness of allegations can influence the strength of evidence required to satisfy this standard, as per *Briginshaw v. Briginshaw* and *Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd*.

The court made comprehensive orders discharging previous orders and establishing equal shared parental responsibility between the mother, father, and paternal grandmother. The child was ordered to live with the mother, with permission for relocation to the Ernabella/Umuwa community under specific conditions. Detailed provisions were made for E's time with the paternal grandmother and father, communication arrangements, changeover procedures, and the exchange of information regarding E's education and medical care. The court also imposed restraints on the consumption of alcohol or illicit substances by the father and alcohol by the mother during specific periods concerning E's care. All extant applications were dismissed, and the Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged.