Ditcher and Fetzer

In *Ditcher & Fetzer* [2014] FamCA 175, the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute between the mother, Ms Ditcher, and the father, Mr Fetzer, concerning the parenting arrangements for their young child. The primary issue before the court was the amount of time the child would spend with each parent, with the mother seeking equal time and the father seeking longer periods with him. The court also addressed the matter of parental responsibility and the mother's ongoing psychiatric treatment.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, specifically whether equal time with both parents was reasonably practicable and in the child's best interests, or if a different arrangement was more appropriate. Additionally, the court considered whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied, given allegations of family violence, and whether proposals for one parent to hold ultimate decision-making power in the event of deadlock were appropriate. The court also had to decide on an application to invoke specific provisions of the Family Law Act relating to evidence.

Applying the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly sections concerning the best interests of the child and parental responsibility, the court found that equal time was not reasonably practicable or in the child's best interests. The court reasoned that while the child had a meaningful relationship with both parents, and had lived primarily with the father since separation, the mother's ongoing need for psychiatric treatment necessitated a carefully structured arrangement. The court upheld the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, finding that allegations of family violence did not render it inapplicable in this instance, and rejected proposals for one parent to have final decision-making authority. The application to invoke section 69ZT(3) of the Act was dismissed.

The court ordered that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the child. The child was to live with the father, with specific, progressively increasing periods of time allocated to the mother. These arrangements were conditional upon the mother continuing her therapeutic relationship with a psychiatrist, and she was required to provide information and authorisations regarding her treatment to the father. The court also made orders restraining denigration of either parent in the child's presence and requiring parties to keep each other informed of their contact details.