Donalds & Donalds

Case [2024] FedCFamC1F 6

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Donalds & Donalds [2024] FedCFamC1F 6

File number(s): MLC 11505 of 2020
Judgment of: BENNETT J
Date of judgment: 12 February 2024
Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – where mother relocates unilaterally with 18-month-old child and whilst pregnant with the second child to a location hundreds of kilometres from the family home – where orders were made for her to return following the birth of the second child – where mother prosecutes three appeals unsuccessfully but secured a stay of orders for her return – where COVID-19 restrictions also precluded movement between states so that mother was not required to return children and mother and children remained in City D.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – where the children had resided with mother in City D for such a significant period of time, by the time the matter came on for final hearing, that it was not practicable or in the children’s best interests to make the mother return the children to Melbourne.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – where mother makes very serious allegations of family violence – where mother fails to understand importance of the children having a meaningful relationship with the father – where the Court does not accept the mother’s allegations of family violence perpetrated against her – where the Court accepts allegations of family violence perpetrated by the father against step-son – where Court is satisfied it is in the best interests of the children to have a meaningful relationship with the father notwithstanding possible opposition to same by mother.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – where maternal grandmother intervenes in proceedings but ultimately does not seek any specific orders – where both parents opposed maternal grandmother’s application - where her application is dismissed without any orders being made.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – where time spent between children and father should be as easy and accessible as possible – where supervision of time is dispensed with – where various restraints ordered including restraints on maternal grandmother being at or near time spent or electronic communication.  

Legislation:

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990
Cases cited:

B & B: Family Law Reform Act (1997) FLC 92-755

Donalds & Donalds [2020] FCCA 3604

Donalds & Donalds (first day) [2021] FamCA 521

Carter & Wilson [2023] FedCFamC1A 9

Martin & Payne [2017] FamCA 1041 

Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 325
Date of last submission/s: 6 November 2023
Date of hearing: 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 October 2021, 18, 19 and 20 October 2021, 25 May 2022 and 18, 19 20 and 22 July 2022
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Chislett
Solicitor for the Applicant: Pentana Stanton
Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Devries
Solicitor for the First Respondent: MMH Lawyers
Counsel for the Second Respondent: Litigant in Person
Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer:

Continue reading Donalds & Donalds

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Donalds & Donalds [2024] FedCFamC1F 6
Case
[2024] FedCFamC1F 6
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between Mr Donalds and Ms Donalds regarding the care and custody of their two children, X and Y, born in 2019 and 2021 respectively. The dispute arose after Ms Donalds relocated with the children from Melbourne to City D in New South Wales, without the knowledge or consent of Mr Donalds. The father subsequently initiated proceedings seeking orders for the return of the children to Melbourne, equal shared parental responsibility, and a week-on, week-off care arrangement. The mother, in turn, made serious allegations of family violence against the father, which were ultimately not accepted by the court.

The legal issues the court had to decide included whether it was in the best interests of the children to require the mother to return them to Melbourne, whether the allegations of family violence were substantiated, and how to ensure a meaningful relationship between the children and their father despite the geographical distance. Additionally, the court had to consider the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on the relocation and care arrangements.

The court found that it was not in the children's best interests to require the mother to return to Melbourne, given the significant time they had spent in City D. It also concluded that while the mother's allegations of family violence against the father were not accepted, there were substantiated incidents of family violence perpetrated by the father against the mother's son from a previous relationship. The court emphasised the importance of the children maintaining a meaningful relationship with their father and directed that the time spent between the children and their father should be as easy and accessible as possible, with various restraints ordered to ensure the smooth conduct of these arrangements.

The court further found that the maternal grandmother, who had intervened in the proceedings, did not seek specific orders and her application was dismissed without any orders being made. The court made detailed orders concerning the children's living arrangements, time spent with each parent, communication, and the management of changeovers and special occasions. The father was required to bear the initial costs of travel and accommodation for time spent with the children but could seek reimbursement through the Child Support Agency.

The final orders included provisions for the children to live with their mother, for the father to have substantial and significant time with the children, and for various measures to facilitate communication and ensure the children's safety and well-being. The court also imposed restraints on the maternal grandmother's interaction with the children during time spent with the father and other communication sessions. The orders reflected a balanced approach, aiming to uphold the children's best interests while addressing the complex issues presented by the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

MLC 11505 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MR DONALDS

Applicant

AND:

MS DONALDS

First Respondent

MS GREGG

Second Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

BENNETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

12 FEBRUARY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children X born 2019 and Y born 2021 (“the children”).

2. The children live with the Mother.

3. The Mother provide the father with not less than 60 days’ notice in writing if she proposes to relocate the residence of the children (or either of them) from Region C of New South Wales.

4. There be no order for the maternal grandmother to spend time or communicate with the children with the effect that the maternal grandmother does not have any enforceable rights to spend time or communicate with either or both of the children.

5. Each parent keep the other parent informed at all times of their residential address, postal address, email address, and telephone number for necessary communications and advise the other of any changes thereto not less than 24 hours prior to any change.

6. Save for in the case of an emergency, the parents communicate with each other in writing, by text message or email, regarding parenting matters.

7. The children spend time with the father as follows:

(a) for up to three (3) consecutive or non-consecutive days for six (6) hours at times to be agreed between the parents in writing, and failing agreement, from 10.00am to 4.00pm;

(b) for up to three (3) consecutive overnight periods from 10.00am on the first day to 4.00pm on the second day, and for the same times on the second and third overnight periods;

(c) after completion of time as set out in sub-paragraph 7(a) and at least one period of overnight time pursuant to sub-paragraph 7(b) hereof, from 3.00 pm on Friday to 3.00 pm on Sunday, or, if Monday is a public holiday, to 3.00 pm on Monday such time to be not more frequent than once per fortnight;

(d) Commencing 1 January 2026;

(i) the children continue to spend time with the father in accordance with paragraph 7(c); and

(ii) for one week in Melbourne, City D, Sydney or City LL as agreed between the parents during each school term holidays and, failing agreement, the first week, commencing the conclusion of school on the last school day of the term until 12pm on the middle Saturday at whichever of the four destinations the father choses; and

(iii) for one-half of the long summer school holidays with the father to have the first half in 2025 and each alternate year thereafter and the second half in 2026 and each year thereafter.

8. For the purpose of calculating one half of the long summer school holiday, and having regard to the operation of paragraph 14 of this Order in relation to Christmas Day, the first half of the holidays shall commence at 3:00 p.m. on 1 January and conclude at 3:00 p.m. on 14 January and the second half shall commence at 3:00 p.m. on 14 January and conclude at 3:00 p.m. two days prior to the commencement of school or on 28 January, whichever is the later.

9. All references in this Order to “school holidays”, “term school holidays”, “the commencement of school” or “conclusion of school” and “school term” are a reference to those days as gazetted for the school at which X attends and, until such time as X commences at school, be the dates gazetted by the New South Wales government.

10. The father give the mother fourteen (14) days’ notice in writing of what dates he seeks to spend with the children in accordance with paragraphs 7(a)-7(d)(i).

11. In the event that dates nominated by the father pursuant to paragraph 7 of this Order conflict with a commitment which the children (or either of them) have, the father be at liberty to take the children to the activity or event or to request the mother to cancel or postpone the arrangement.

12. For the purpose of the father electing whether or not he wants to take the children (or either of them) to the other commitment which falls during the father’s time:

(a) within 24 hours of the mother knowing that there is a clash between time to be spent with the father and a commitment of one or both of the children, the mother provide the father with full particulars of the event or activity in writing;

(b) the father inform the mother in writing within 48 hours of receipt by him of notice pursuant to sub-paragraph 12(a) of this Order whether he will take the children (or either of them) to the event or activity or whether the commitment should be cancelled. It the commitment is to be cancelled, as between the parents, the mother is responsible for cancelling the commitment.

13. Each parent will ensure that the children are not enrolled in any activity that occurs during regular time spent between a parent and the children unless the enrolling parent first obtains agreement from the other parent in writing cause the child to be enrolled in that activity and if that extracurricular activity occurs during the spend-time of the other parent, then that parent may attend the extracurricular activity with the child to the exclusion of the other parent.

14. The spend time provided in paragraphs 7(a) to (c) and 7(d)(i) be suspended during school holiday periods and on special occasions and unless otherwise agreed in writing and the children spend time with the father or remain in the care of the mother as follows:

(a) the children spend time with the father from 3.00pm on 22 December to 3.00pm on 26 December commencing 2024, and for those dates and times each alternate year thereafter;

(b) the children spend time with the mother from 3.00pm on 26 December to 3.00pm on 1 January 2025 and for those dates and times each alternate year thereafter;

(c) the children spend time with the father in accordance with 7(a) or (c) on the weekend of Father’s Day;

(d) the children remain in the care of the mother on the weekend of Mothers’ Day.

15. Failure by the father to attend Region C for the purpose of a scheduled visit is not in contravention of this Order provided the father gives the mother notice of his inability to attend, in writing, a minimum of fourteen (14) days prior to the commencement of time.

Changeovers

16. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, and subject to paragraph 17:

(a) if time with the children is connected with the commencement or conclusion of school, changeover is to occur at the school attended by X;

(b) otherwise, at the seating area for the McDonald’s Family Restaurant located in the MM Shopping Centre, NN Street, City D NSW.

17. If one parent requests that changeovers occur at a children’s contact centre in lieu of the premises referred to in the preceding order, then the parents do all acts and things necessary to apply for the family to be accepted into the children’s contact centre for changeovers only at the children’s contact centre situated closest to the mother’s residence and, until a place becomes available for the family at that children’s contact centre, changeovers continue at the locations provided for in paragraph 16 of this Order.

18. The parents do all acts and things to ensure each parent is entitled to attend all school events which parents are normally invited to attend, including but not limited to special assemblies, awards presentations, parent-teacher interviews, etc, with prior notice provided to the other parent.

19. The parents do all acts and things to ensure each parent is entitled to receive from school or extracurricular activities, at their own expense, all documents normally received by a parent including but not limited to memorandum, newsletters, school report and photo order forms.

20. For the avoidance of doubt, paragraphs 7 to 19 above continue to be in force if the father relocates to Region C, subject to any agreement in writing between the parents.

Audio-visual communication

21. The parents do all acts and things necessary for the children to communicate with the father by way of audio-visual communication for fifteen (15) minutes every second day or as otherwise agreed and failing agreement on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday from 6:00pm to 6:20pm.

22. The mother facilitate audio-visual communication between the children and paternal family at the request of the father on up to six (6) occasions each calendar year.

23. When the children are spending overnight time with the father, the father facilitate audiovisual communication between the children and the mother each day for between five (5) and ten (10) minutes or as otherwise agreed.

24. Either or both of the parents are at liberty to record the communication sessions provided that the children are not to be aware that they are being recorded.

Costs of spending time

25. The father be, and is hereby, responsible for the costs of travel between his residence in Melbourne and City D and for the reasonable cost of accommodation for overnight time spent. However, the father is entitled to make application to the Child Support Agency to have costs of spending time factored in to his liability to pay child support.

Health

26. The mother provide a copy of any report by a medical practitioner or allied health professional about either or both of the children to the father promptly on receipt.

27. In the event that the children (or either of them) sustain any illness or injury requiring treatment at a hospital or treatment by a medical practitioner whilst in the father’s or mother’s care (as the case may be), that parent will inform the other parent of that fact as soon as possible and in any event, within 2 hours.

28. Within seven (7) days of these Orders, each parent provide authorisation from any treating doctor or treating medical personnel to discuss with the other parent the child’s diagnosis, prognosis and treatment and both parents be entitled to be in attendance at the time of such treatment.

29. Within seven (7) days of these Orders, the parents are to ensure that the other is listed as an emergency contact person with any school, playgroups or extra-curricular activities at which one or both of the children attend.

Restraints

30. Each parent is hereby restrained from entering the other parent’s residence or being within 100m of the other’s residence (or the father’s temporary address when he visits City D) without the prior consent in writing of the other parent or as is provided in this Order.

31. The second respondent maternal grandmother be, and is hereby, restrained from entering the father’s residence or being within 100m of the father’s residence (or the father’s temporary address when he visits City D) without the explicit consent in writing of the father.

32. The second respondent grandmother be restrained from spending time with the children for 24 hours prior to any face-to-face time spent between the children and the father unless otherwise agreed between the parents in writing.

33. The second respondent grandmother be restrained from attending at changeovers for time spent and from being in the vicinity of the children during electronic communication between the children and the father.

34. Without admission for the necessity of the same, the parents by themselves, their servants and agents be and are hereby restrained by injunction from:

(a) drinking alcohol to excess whilst the children are in their respective care, or for any period up to 24 hours before the children are in their care;

(b) exposing the children to any person intoxicated by alcohol;

(c) denigrating the other or their partner or family to, or within, the presence of the children;

(d) discussing allegations and evidence in this proceeding with or in the hearing or presence of the children or allowing any other person to do so; and

(e) allowing the children to come into contact with or read the contents of any material filed in these proceedings or related to these proceedings in any way or allowing any other person to do so.

35. Both parents be and are hereby restrained by injunction from applying for and/or renewing passports for the children or either of them without first obtaining the prior written consent of the other parent or an order of the Court.

36. All parties be and are hereby restrained from removing or taking the children (or either of them) outside Australia without prior written consent of the other parent or an Order of the Court.

Other

37. The parents be permitted to provide a copy of this Order to the children’s respective schools and treating medical and allied health practitioners.

38. The Independent Children’s Lawyer cause a copy of these reasons for decision to be provided to Professor OO and Mr F and Mr B.

39. The Independent Children's Lawyer be discharged at the expiration of the Appeal period if no Appeal has been filed.

40. The mother cause the following to be provided to any psychologist treating the children and copy in the father on the relevant correspondence:

(a) a sealed copy of the reasons for judgment dated 12 February 2024;

(b) the Family Reports of Mr F dated May 2021 and August 2021; and

(c) the Psychiatric Report of Professor OO dated 24 November 2021.

41. Pursuant to s.65DA(2) and 62B, the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist the parties adjust to and comply with an Order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these Orders.

Liberty to apply

42. If a further parenting application or an enforcement or contravention application is filed before 1 February 2026, the applicant and/or the respondent are at liberty produce a copy of this Order to request that the application be listed before me as soon as possible for directions or, in the event that I am not reasonably available, to Judge Stewart, Division 2 of this Court.

43. Liberty is reserved to each parent to apply in relation to implementation and enforcement of this Order.

End of proceedings

44. The maternal grandmother’s application in a proceeding dated 27 July 2021 is dismissed.

45. All other extant applications be dismissed and the matter be removed from the list of cases awaiting determination in the docket of the Honourable Justice Bennett.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Although the hearing was truncated, the November 2023 Update provided by the parents satisfy me that the delay has permitted the parents to come to an agreement as to one period of time to be spent between the father and the boys in City D that might not have been compellable merely by orders of the Court had such orders been made when their cases were closed in July 2022. The November 2023 Update is uncontroversial and provides a positive base on which to construct parenting arrangements for the children. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The mother and father (the “parents”) are members of a religious group. The father converted to the religion when he was twenty-five and met his first wife through the community when he was twenty-seven. They were married for two years and did not have any children. She passed away from an illness. He met his second wife through the religious community and they were married for eighteen months. They had no children and he admitted he does not know why she ended the relationship. This is the mother’s first marriage. Her first child, Mr B was born in 1998 when she was 17 years old. Her parents assisted her in his upbringing. Mr B believed his grandparents were his parents and the mother was his sister until he was approximately 10 years of age. According to the maternal grandmother, Mr B learnt of his mother’s true status when the maternal grandfather told him in anger or frustration. I will return to the mother’s treatment of Mr B’s paternity below. When the mother was 27, the mother returned to the religion in which she was raised. Mr B had no relationship with his biological father and lived with his mother and maternal grandfather in New South Wales prior to the marriage. Thereafter, Mr B lived with his mother and the father. The parents married in 2012. X and Y are the only children of the relationship between the mother and the father and were conceived with the assistance of in vitro fertilisation (“IVF”). The parents separated on 16 October 2020 when the father was excluded from the family home by an ex parte interim Intervention Order obtained by the mother against him on behalf of herself and X. Within a day or two the mother left the family home in Suburb CC, Melbourne. The mother took X unilaterally and unbeknownst to the father to City D in Region C of New South Wales. The mother was raised in City D within the religious community. Members of her family still reside in City D. City D is a city in New South Wales several hours’ drive from Melbourne. At the time of relocation, the mother was pregnant with the couple’s second son, the couple’s first son, X, was 18 months old. Mr B was 22 years old and no longer living with the mother or father. On 22 October 2020 the father promptly commenced proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court (as it then was) seeking that the mother forthwith return X to Melbourne, that there be equal shared parental responsibility for X and for there to be gradually increasing time eventuating in a week-about care arrangement. It is his case, in the documents that he filed at that time, that the father was very involved in X’s care and ultimately, he would like, in due course, equal shared care of X. The father asserts he has a warm and loving relationship with X. The father strenuously denied there was any basis for the Intervention Order and denied all allegations of violence, abuse, intimidation and coercive or controlling behaviour.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The mother deposes she currently lives in a government subsidised two-bedroom townhouse about five minutes from the centre of City D. She has refused to disclose the address to the father. She claims to have a wide support network of friends and family there to assist her in caring for the children. The father continues to reside in Suburb CC but no longer at the matrimonial home.EXPERT EVIDENCE The Court was assisted by the expert evidence of Professor OO, psychologist, and Mr F, Family Report Writer. The mother and father both relied on the two Family Reports by Mr F, one filed on 5 May 2021 and an updated Family Report filed on 6 September 2021 and the report of Professor OO dated 24 November 2021. The parties also jointly relied on the s 67Z report published by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (now the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing) on 11 December 2020 November 2021. The parents were interviewed by Family Report writer, Mr F, on 4 May 2021 when X was two years old and Y was very young. When assessing for the preparation of the Family Report, the mother was observed with both children and the father was not observed with the children. Mr F's Family Report was dated 5 May 2021. The family attended upon the Family Report writer for the second time for the purposes of an updating Family Report. The father and maternal grandmother were interviewed by Mr F on 1 September 2021 and the mother and the children was also interviewed and observed with each other on 2 September 2021. All interviews were conducted electronically and the father was not observed on his interactions with the children. Mr F issued an updated report on 6 September 2021 and was cross-examined on the final day of the final hearing. I accept his evidence. Professor OO, psychiatrist, provided a report for both parents pursuant to my Order on 20 October 2021. Professor OO’s affidavit was sworn on 24 May 2022. She was cross-examined on the twelfth day of the final hearing. I accept her evidence. I have considered the evidence of both experts and address their observations, evaluations, and recommendations throughout these reasons. I have extracted the expert evidence where I consider it to be relevant. LAYWITNESSESPaternal Grandmother Ms UU, the paternal grandmother, did not make an affidavit but the father filed a proof of evidence dated 8 October 2021. The paternal grandmother is a registered care worker having worked in the field for many years as practice leader for VV Family Services. She and her husband have three children of which the father is the oldest. The paternal grandmother was cross-examined on the fifth day of the final hearing by Mr Devries and counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer and on the seventh day by the maternal grandmother. The paternal grandmother explained the father had spoken to her about the parents’ differences and that they required counselling to work through those issues. She was aware of the serious allegations of family violence made by the mother against the father.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The fact that the children live in City D makes time difficult and expensive for the father. The mother would have some capacity to contribute to costs but I would avoid a situation where non-payment by the mother undermines the arrangement to spend time. The father will have to bear the costs initially but will be entitled to make an application to the Child Support Agency to have some of his costs of the visits taken into account in calculation of child support. CONCLUSION I do not accept the mother’s allegations of family violence perpetrated by the father against her. I do accept that the father struck Mr B once and shove him three times as alleged. I am persuaded that a meaningful relationship with the father is vital for the children if they are to reach their full potential. I am very concerned about the mother’s ability to accept that the children will be safe with the father and of the mother’s ability to permit the children to have a meaningful relationship with the father. Professor OO said numerous times that the mother may benefit from some individual counselling or psychotherapy and some family-based work which looks at her role as a mother and how to better meet the needs of the children and accept the children having a meaningful relationship with the father. However, no therapy was proposed by any party. Both parents will need support. It is likely that those who support the parents would benefit from access to these reasons for decision. Accordingly, each party will be permitted to provide the reasons and orders to any legal practitioner, medical or allied health professional they retain for themselves or either or both of the children. The father can show his wife. The maternal grandmother or mother can show the mother’s father. The experts, Professor OO and Mr F should be provided with a copy of these reasons by the Independent Children’s lawyer. In due course the reasons can also be provided to the proper officer of the school attended by X and later by Y. The Independent Children’s Lawyer should provide Mr B with a copy. None are compelled to read them but they should be given access. There are no Orders made in favour of the maternal grandmother because she failed to satisfy the Court that orders were beneficial to the children or necessary. That said, I am confident she will continue to be part of the children’s lives, vocation permitting. As far as time spent is concerned, I have drawn from the Minute of Final Orders proposed by each party. I have accepted the father’s and Independent Children’s Lawyer’s position because those proposals accord more closely with the children’s best interests. I have specifically not included any differential between the time X spends with the father and the time Y spends with the father. The mother refers to having cut short the last period of time because Y is breastfed in addition to solid foods. If he is going to be hungry during a period of time, the mother should give the father whatever solid food she thinks Y would most like. In any event, the children should participate together in time with the father and that time should be as free of interruption as possible. Counsel for the mother conceded that the father need only provide seven days’ notice of his intention to see the children. However, seven days seems too short a time to me, so I have made it 14 days.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

If orders require enforcement, I am content for that matter to be sent back to me.CONSIDERATION OF EQUAL TIME OR SUBSTANTIAL AND SIGNIFICANT TIME WITH BOTH PARENTS Sub-section 65DAA(1) of the Act provides that, in making a parenting order for a child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, I must consider the following:(a)whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child;[51] and(b)whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable;[52] and(c)if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents.[53] [51] Ibid s 65DAA(1)(a).[52] Ibid s 65DAA(1)(b).[53] Ibid s 65DAA(1)(c). In making such an order, I must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.[54] Further, in determining what is ‘reasonably practicable’, I am to take into account the factors listed in s 65DAA(5) of the Act, which include the following:-(a)the parents’ current and future capacity to implement an arrangement for the child spending equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the parents;[55] and(b)the parents’ current and future capacity to communicate with each other and resolve difficulties that might arise in implementing an arrangement of that kind[56] (including the behaviour of a parent, such as their willingness and ability to facilitate and encourage a close, meaningful relationship between the child and the other parent and their attitude to the child and to the responsibilities of parenthood);[57] and (c)the impact that an arrangement of that kind would have on the child;[58] and(d)such other matters as the court considers relevant.[59] [54] Ibid ss 65DAA(1) Note 1 and 60CA.[55] Ibid s 65DAA(5)(b).[56] Ibid s 65DAA(5)(c).[57] Ibid s 65DAA(5) Note 1.[58] Ibid s 65DAA(5)(d).[59] Ibid s 65DAA(5)(e). It is impracticable for the parents to have equal time at this stage. The father lives in Melbourne, and the mother in City D. As discussed above, it is not in the best interests of the children to require the mother to relocate to Victoria. Nor is it easy for the father to relocate to City D. Sub-section 65DAA(2) of the Act provides that where parents have equal shared parental responsibility but not equal time with the child, I must consider whether it would be in the child’s best interests for the child to spend substantial and significant time with each parent.[60] I must also consider whether this is reasonably practicable,[61] with reference to the factors outlined in s 65DAA(5),[62] and if so, consider making an order giving effect to this.[63] In making this determination, the child’s best interests are the paramount consideration.[64] [60] Ibid s 65DAA(2)(c).[61] Ibid s 65DAA(2)(d).[62] Ibid s 65DAA(2) Note 2.[63] Ibid s 65DAA(2)(e).[64] Ibid ss 65DAA(2) Note 1 and 60CA. Sub-section 65DAA(3) of the Act states that the child will be taken to spend substantial and significant time with a parent only if that time includes weekdays, weekends, holidays and non‑holidays[65] and involvement of the parent in aspects of the child’s daily routine[66] and occasions of significance to both parent and child.[67] The legislation notes, however, that these factors are not intended to limit the matters to which the Court may consider in determining whether the time spent with a child is substantial and significant.[68] [65] Ibid s 65DAA(3)(a).[66] Ibid s 65DAA(3)(b)(i).[67] Ibid ss 65DAA(3)(b)(ii) and 65DAA(3)(c).[68] Ibid s 65DAA(4).