Fahri & Kocak

In the matter of *Fahri & Kocak*, Mr Fahri (the Applicant) sought orders from the Family Court of Australia concerning the parenting of his child, X, and the finalisation of property division. Ms Kocak (the Respondent) did not participate in the proceedings. The Court was asked to consider discharging previous parenting orders, granting the Applicant sole parental responsibility for X, and making specific orders regarding X's living arrangements, time with the Respondent, communication, and international travel. Additionally, the Applicant sought restraining orders against the Respondent and orders to facilitate obtaining a passport for X.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether to grant the Applicant's requests for sole parental responsibility and specific parenting arrangements for X, given the Respondent's non-participation and history of unsubstantiated allegations. The Court also had to determine the appropriateness of the requested restraining orders against the Respondent, the authorisation for the Applicant to obtain a passport for X, and permission for international travel with X. Furthermore, the Court was required to make final property orders to give effect to previous court decisions.

McGuire J determined that the matter could proceed undefended due to the Respondent's prolonged non-participation and failure to comply with procedural and interlocutory orders, including those related to psychological assessments. The Court found that X had an established and flourishing relationship with the Applicant, who had assumed the role of sole carer. Concerns were raised regarding the Respondent's unaddressed mental health issues and her capacity to meet X's needs, particularly in light of her previous unsubstantiated allegations. Consequently, the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted, and the Court found it was in X's best interests for the Applicant to have sole parental responsibility. The Court considered the Applicant's proposed orders, including supervised time for X with the Respondent and continued communication, to be objective and altruistic, demonstrating a lack of mala fides. The restraining orders were deemed appropriate given the Respondent's history of serious, unsubstantiated allegations, and the passport and travel orders were considered in X's best interests.

The Court made final orders granting the Applicant sole parental responsibility for X, establishing specific supervised time and communication arrangements between X and the Respondent, and authorising the Applicant to obtain and hold a passport for X. Restraining orders were made against the Respondent, and the Applicant was permitted to travel internationally with X, subject to providing prior written notice to the Respondent. Final property orders were also made, requiring the Applicant to make a payment to the Respondent and transfer property interests, with the Respondent to vacate a specified property. The Respondent was granted liberty to apply to vary these orders within 14 days upon filing an application and affidavit explaining her non-compliance and non-attendance.