FAIRLEY & JAGGARD

The case of Fairley & Jaggard concerned a dispute between a father and mother regarding the living arrangements and time spent with their 14-year-old son, who has Autism Spectrum Disorder. The father sought orders for the child to live with him and spend time with the mother, while the mother sought for the child to remain living with her and for any time with the father to be professionally supervised. The Independent Children’s Lawyer proposed orders for the child to live with the father and spend limited time with the mother. The matter was heard by Austin J.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child under section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), considering factors such as the child's age, his Autism Spectrum Disorder, his relationships with each parent, the mother's allegations of risk of harm from the father, the father's allegations of educational and social neglect by the mother, and the child's capacity to express a view. A further issue was whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted, and if so, who should have sole parental responsibility.

Austin J accepted the single expert's view that the father was better equipped to care for the child and found that the father did not pose an unacceptable risk of harm. The court determined that the mother's parenting capacity was affected by alcohol consumption and unstable mental health, and that she tended to neglect the child's education. Conversely, the father was found more likely to facilitate the child's relationships with both parents. The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted, and the father was granted sole parental responsibility.

The court ordered that the child live with the father, with the mother spending time with the child every third weekend, on Mother's Day, and on the child's birthday, with specific arrangements for Christmas. The mother was restrained from consuming alcohol during her time with the child and for 12 hours prior, and from approaching the father's residence or the child's school without permission. The father was to have sole parental responsibility. All other outstanding applications were dismissed.