Dunbar and Rourke

In the Family Court of Australia, Mr Dunbar (the applicant father) and Ms Rourke (the respondent mother) sought parenting orders concerning their child, E, born in December 2001. The primary dispute centred on where the child would live and the arrangements for time spent with each parent, with the father seeking orders for the child to live with him and the mother seeking orders for the child to live with her. The proceedings involved significant historical conflict between the parties, including issues of alcohol consumption, alleged abusive behaviour, and difficulties in facilitating communication and time between the child and each parent.

The court was required to determine the paramount consideration of the child's best interests, as mandated by sections 60CA and 65AA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This involved assessing the primary considerations under section 60CC(3), namely the benefit to the child of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from harm. The court also considered additional factors outlined in section 60CC(3), including the child's views, the child's relationship with each parent and other significant persons, each parent's capacity to provide for the child's needs, the child's maturity and background, each parent's attitude to their parental responsibilities, and the potential for further proceedings.

Justice Rose found that the father was a more credible witness than the mother, particularly regarding instances of obstruction to communication and time between the child and father. The court noted the mother's history of alcohol consumption and its adverse effects, her unilateral decisions regarding relocation of the child without consultation, and her disruptive behaviour during telephone calls. Conversely, the father was found to have provided evidence in a frank and straightforward manner and demonstrated a willingness to facilitate the child's relationship with the mother. The court accepted the family consultant's evidence that the child would likely adjust to living with the father and his partner, Ms H, and would benefit from the stability of their household. The court concluded that the presumption of shared parental responsibility was rebutted, and it was in the child's best interests to live with the father.

The court ordered that the father have sole parental responsibility for the child, subject to specific consultation requirements with the mother regarding the child's schooling and medical procedures. The child was ordered to live with the father, with detailed provisions for the mother to spend time with the child during school holidays and by telephone. The father was also ordered to provide the mother with advance written notice of air travel arrangements for himself and the child between Darwin and Sydney. The court also made orders prohibiting derogatory comments about either parent and requiring prompt notification of serious illness or injury to the child.