Devlin and Barta

This matter concerned parenting orders for two children, a son born in March 2001 and a daughter born in August 2002, before Guest J of the Family Court of Australia. The proceedings arose from a dispute between the mother (applicant) and the father (respondent) regarding the children's welfare and living arrangements. The court was presented with Minutes of Proposed Consent Orders, which were largely agreed upon by the parties, with the exception of certain orders concerning the children's surname.

The court was required to determine the terms of parenting orders that would best serve the interests of the children, considering the principles of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006. Specifically, the court had to address issues of equal shared parental responsibility, the children's residence, the father's time with the children, communication arrangements, and the facilitation of a meaningful relationship with both parents. A key contested issue was the mother's application for a change of surname for both children to a hyphenated version, which the father did not oppose but also did not consent to.

Guest J applied the paramount consideration of the children's best interests, as mandated by section 60CA of the Family Law Act. The court considered the primary considerations under section 60CC(1), namely the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the children from harm. The court also had regard to the objects of the Act, including the children's right to know and be cared for by both parents, and the joint responsibility of parents for their children's welfare. The court was significantly influenced by a report from a Family Consultant, Mr S, which indicated that both children had a good relationship with each parent and that there were no valid reasons to curtail their time with the father. The court also considered established legal principles regarding surname changes, including the balancing of factors and the paramountcy of the children's best interests, drawing on cases such as *Chapman v Palmer* and *Beach v Stemmler*.

The court made orders by consent for equal shared parental responsibility, with the children to live with the mother and specific arrangements for the father's time with them, including school holidays and Christmas. The court also made orders, not by consent but by the court, for the children's surname to be changed to a hyphenated version, finding this to be in their best interests, drawing on the reasoning in *Mahoney v McKenzie*. Injunctions were granted restraining denigration of a parent and specifying distance requirements at school events. The court also ordered the discharge of the Independent Children's Lawyer and the dismissal of extant applications. The court expressed a strong expectation that the parties would abide by the orders in good faith and wished them well for the future.