Goodall and Anor and Kearns and Anor

This matter concerned parenting orders made by consent between the applicants, Ms Goodall and Mr Goodall, and the first and second respondents, the child's mother and father respectively. The Independent Children's Lawyer also consented to the orders. The proceedings were undefended by the respondents.

The court was required to determine the final parenting arrangements for the child, X, born in 2012. This involved establishing parental responsibility, the child's living arrangements, and the specific time the child would spend with each parent. The court also needed to address various conditions and restrictions relating to the parents' time with the child, communication between the parties, and the child's welfare and education.

The court's reasoning was based on the consent of all parties involved, including the Independent Children's Lawyer. Pursuant to sections 62B and 65DA(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), the court made final parenting orders. These orders discharged all previous parenting orders and established equal shared parental responsibility for the child. The child was ordered to live with the applicants. The orders detailed specific, supervised, one-hour monthly time with each respondent parent, with strict conditions regarding confirmation of attendance and consequences for non-attendance. Further orders included injunctions restraining the respondents from discussing proceedings with the child, denigrating other parties in the child's presence, swearing, smoking in the child's presence, or sharing food from their mouths with the child. The respondents were also enjoined from being under the influence of alcohol or drugs for 24 hours prior to and during their time with the child, with exceptions for prescribed and over-the-counter medications. The applicants were permitted to obtain an Australian passport for the child without the respondents' consent and were required to provide notice for interstate or overseas travel. The second respondent was restrained from attending within 200 metres of the applicants' home or workplace.

The court ordered that all previous parenting orders be discharged and that the applicants have equal shared parental responsibility for the child. The child was to live with the applicants, with specific, supervised, monthly time allocated to each respondent parent under strict conditions. The court also made various injunctions and directions concerning communication, the child's education, and the respondents' conduct and health. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged, and all extant applications were dismissed.