Edwards and Tiem

This case concerns final orders made by Hogan J in relation to the parenting of a child, B, born in 2011. The dispute involved the mother and father of the child, with the court required to determine the living arrangements for B, parental responsibility, and the time B would spend with each parent. The court also addressed communication between the parents and the child, as well as provisions for the child's education, health, and general welfare.

The legal issues before the court included the allocation of parental responsibility for major long-term issues concerning the child, such as education, religious and cultural upbringing, and health. The court also had to determine the specific time the child would spend with each parent, including during school terms, school holidays, and on significant dates like birthdays and public holidays. Further issues involved the communication protocols between the parents and the child, and the responsibilities of each parent regarding the child's daily care, welfare, and development. The court also considered the implications of the father's employment status, his ongoing WorkCover claim, his medication, and past drug convictions, as well as inconsistencies in his evidence regarding his other children and potential future relationships.

Hogan J ordered that the child, B, would live with the mother from 24 September 2016. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues, with specific procedural requirements for the father to be informed and consulted before decisions are made. The court detailed an extensive schedule for the child's time with the father, encompassing weekends, school holidays, and specific public holidays, with provisions for changeovers and communication. The court also made orders regarding communication between the parents and the child, the privacy of each parent, and the sharing of information about the child's health and education. The father's evidence regarding his intentions for future relationships and his past conduct was found to be unreliable, with the court preferring the evidence of the Family Report author.

All previous orders were discharged, and outstanding applications were dismissed. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged. The orders included a fact sheet detailing the particulars of the obligations and the consequences of contravention, pursuant to sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).