De Vries and Booth

In *De Vries and Booth*, O’Ryan J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications for final parenting orders concerning a child born in December 2002. The mother sought to discharge previous parenting orders and have sole responsibility for the child, with the father having "significant time". The father sought to dismiss the mother's application. The proceedings were consolidated with related proceedings concerning another child.

The court was required to determine the most appropriate parenting orders for the child, considering the paramountcy of the child's best interests. This involved assessing the primary considerations of the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from harm, as well as numerous additional considerations outlined in the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). A key issue was whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied and, if so, whether equal or substantial and significant time with each parent was in the child's best interests and reasonably practicable.

O'Ryan J applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. The court found that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that child abuse or family violence had occurred, and the presumption was not rebutted. Consequently, the court was required to consider orders for equal time or substantial and significant time. Due to the geographical distance between the parents (Canberra and Sydney), the court determined that equal time was not reasonably practicable. While substantial and significant time was considered in the child's best interests, the distance also rendered this impractical for regular involvement in the child's daily routine during school terms. The court noted the importance of the child maintaining regular and significant time with both parents, particularly given the child's age and the history of the proceedings.

The court discharged all previous parenting orders and made new orders. These orders established equal shared parental responsibility for the child, with the mother having responsibility for the child's day-to-day care, welfare, and development when the child resided with her, and the father having the same responsibility when the child resided with him. The orders detailed specific arrangements for the child's residence with the father during school terms and holidays, including provisions for public holidays, birthdays, and telephone communication. The court also made orders regarding changeovers, the facilitation of communication, and prohibitions on derogatory comments about the other parent. Further orders addressed medical information, vehicle safety, and restrictions on approaching within one kilometre of the other parent's residence or place of employment. The court also noted that the PASS order would remain in force until December 2007.