Estrada & Nemes (No. 2)

In *Estrada & Nemes (No. 2)*, Hogan J of the Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders for a child, X, born in 2011. The proceedings were marked by a highly conflictual post-separation parental relationship, with the mother ceasing to participate in the proceedings and not appearing at the trial. The primary dispute concerned the future living arrangements and parental responsibilities for the child.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, X, in circumstances where one parent had withdrawn from the proceedings. This involved assessing the appropriate living arrangements, the allocation of parental responsibility for long-term decisions, and the nature and extent of the child's future contact and communication with the mother.

Hogan J reasoned that given the mother's non-participation and the history of conflict, it was in the child's best interests for X to live with the father and for the father to have sole parental responsibility for all major long-term issues. The court's decision reflected a pragmatic approach to ensuring the child's stability and well-being, while still attempting to maintain a degree of connection with the mother.

The final orders discharged all previous parenting plans and orders. The child, X, was ordered to live with the father, who was granted sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues. The child was to spend time with the mother as agreed in writing by the parents, and was to communicate with the mother weekly by telephone and at liberty by electronic means. The mother was permitted to send gifts and letters, and the father was ordered to facilitate communication and provide information regarding medical emergencies, COVID-19 diagnoses, and school reports, with certain redactions permitted. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged, and outstanding applications were dismissed, with costs to be considered further.