Gibbs and Starling

In the matter of Gibbs and Starling, heard before Judge Small, the court was asked to determine parenting orders concerning the child X. The dispute involved the allocation of parental responsibility, the child's living arrangements, and the nature and extent of the child's time with each parent.

The court was required to determine the extent of sole parental responsibility for the mother, the specific major decisions requiring the father's consultation, the child's primary residence, and a detailed schedule for the child's time with the father, including provisions for school terms, holidays, birthdays, and other significant dates. Additionally, the court needed to address communication protocols between the parents, restrictions on their conduct in the child's presence, and limitations regarding substance use.

Judge Small discharged all previous parenting orders and made new orders. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility, with the caveat that she must inform the father in writing at least 21 days before making decisions on significant matters such as changes in schooling, religious instruction, non-emergency medical treatment, name changes, or relocation exceeding 20 kilometres. The child was ordered to live with the mother. A comprehensive schedule was established for the child's time with the father, detailing specific periods throughout the remainder of 2014, 2015, and subsequent years, including provisions for school terms, holidays, and special occasions. The orders also included injunctions restraining both parents from abusing or denigrating the other in the child's presence, discussing proceedings with the child, and from ingesting or being under the influence of alcohol or drugs (with exceptions for prescribed and over-the-counter medications) for specified periods around the child's time with them. Further orders mandated the use of a communication book, notification of serious illness or injury, and specific arrangements for hospitalisation and school communications. The father was also restrained from arranging the child's formal religious membership without the mother's written consent.