Eyton & Eyton & Ors

The Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning eight children of the applicant father and first respondent mother. The paternal grandparents were also parties to the proceedings, as the eldest child had resided with them for approximately ten years and all parties agreed to equal shared parental responsibility for this child. The primary dispute concerned the living arrangements for the seven younger children, who were residing with the mother, and whether they should continue to do so, given the paternal grandparents' limited capacity to provide long-term residential assistance to these children.

The court was required to determine the appropriate living arrangements and parental responsibility for all eight children, taking into account the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and the impact of family violence. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied, given evidence of family violence by the father. Further issues included the extent of time the children should spend with each parent, and whether any orders were necessary to protect the children, including an injunction regarding the mother's older son. The court also had to address the potential inconsistency between the proposed parenting orders and an existing apprehended violence order protecting the mother and children from the father.

Justice Austin found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility did not apply to the seven youngest children due to incontrovertible evidence of the father's family violence. Consequently, the mother was granted sole parental responsibility for these seven children, who were ordered to live with her. The eldest child was to live with the paternal grandparents, with equal shared parental responsibility to be shared between the parents and the paternal grandparents. The court made detailed orders regarding the time the children would spend with the father, including specific conditions for overnight stays with the seven youngest children until they reached the age of ten, requiring the presence of a paternal grandparent in their home. An injunction was also made restraining the mother's older son from associating with the children due to allegations of sexual assault.

The court made orders discharging all former orders and establishing new arrangements for the children's living situations and parental responsibility. The orders specified that the eldest child would live with the paternal grandparents and have equal shared parental responsibility between the parents and paternal grandparents. The seven younger children were ordered to live with the mother, who was granted sole parental responsibility for them. The court also made detailed provisions for the father's time with the children, including specific conditions for overnight stays with the younger children and an injunction preventing the mother's older son from associating with any of the children. The court noted that these orders prevailed to the extent of any inconsistency with an existing apprehended violence order.