Dibbs and Raven

This matter concerned the parents of a child, X, and the dispute over parenting orders. The court was required to determine the living arrangements for X and the time X would spend with each parent, as well as issues of parental responsibility and communication.

The court was tasked with determining the best interests of the child, X, by considering various factors including the child's maturity, sex, and background, the likely effect of any change in circumstances, the capacity of each parent to provide for the child's needs, and the extent to which each party had sought to spend time with or make decisions about the child. The court also had to consider the issue of family violence, although it found no evidence of family violence in the relationship between the parents or of violent propensities on the part of the father. However, the court noted a violent incident involving the mother and a Mr C, which resulted in police involvement and a conviction for Mr C. The court also considered allegations made by the mother regarding alcohol consumption within the father's family, but found no substantiating evidence.

The court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), focusing on the child's best interests. It found that the father was capable of providing for X's needs and that allegations of alcohol abuse within his household were unsubstantiated. The court also noted that the parents lived a manageable distance apart, making shared time feasible. The court ultimately made orders for equal shared parental responsibility, with X to live with the father. Specific provisions were made for X to spend time with and communicate with the mother, detailing various arrangements for weekdays, weekends, school holidays, and festive periods, both before and after X commenced school. The orders also included injunctions restraining the parents from denigrating each other, discussing proceedings in the child's presence, allowing the child to be exposed to domestic violence, and physically disciplining the child. A specific injunction was also granted restraining the mother from allowing X to be supervised by Mr L.