GARROD & HARBIG

In *Garrod & Harbig*, heard by Judge Terry, the dispute concerned parenting arrangements for a six-year-old child. The child resided with the respondent, Ms Harbig, and the applicant, Ms Garrod, sought an order for the child to live with her. The matter proceeded on an undefended basis due to the applicant's conduct.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child in circumstances where the applicant had recently provided synthetic urine when ordered to undergo a drug test, had failed to keep her solicitor instructed, and was absent from a court mention. The primary legal issue was whether to grant the applicant's request for the child to live with her, or to make orders favouring the respondent.

Judge Terry reasoned that the applicant's behaviour demonstrated a lack of commitment to the legal process and raised serious concerns about her capacity to care for the child, particularly in light of the drug test issue. The court applied the paramount consideration of the child's best interests under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Given the applicant's absence and prior conduct, the court made final orders on an undefended basis.

The court ordered that the child live with the respondent, Ms Harbig, and that the respondent have sole parental responsibility. The applicant, Ms Garrod, was ordered to have no time with or communication with the child. Further orders were made pursuant to s.68B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to restrain the applicant from removing the child, and pursuant to s.11(1) of the *Australian Passports Act 2005* (Cth) authorising the respondent to apply for a passport for the child. The respondent was also at liberty to travel overseas with the child without the applicant's consent, pursuant to s.65Y of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court noted that if the applicant wished to seek orders for time with the child, she would need to file an affidavit addressing her drug use, housing, mental health, and aggression/family violence.