GRAEME & FAWCETT

This matter concerned an application for parenting orders regarding the child M GRAEME, born in 2008. The dispute involved determining with whom the child would live and spend time, and the nature of parental responsibility. The case was heard by Cleary J.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child under section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), specifically considering the meaningful relationship the child had with both parents, the mother's reflection on past instability and attribution of blame, the child's significant time living with the father, and the father's demonstrated capacity to care for the child. Additionally, the court had to assess whether to grant equal shared parental responsibility, given reasonable grounds to believe family violence had occurred, particularly at the time of separation.

Cleary J found that while the child had a meaningful relationship with both parents, the mother had not adequately reflected on the impact of past instability, including changes of residence, school, and homelessness, often attributing blame to others. The court gave considerable weight to the father's willingness to support the child's relationship with the mother, a value not demonstrably shared to the same extent by the mother. The father's capacity to understand the child's full range of needs was considered greater than the mother's. Furthermore, due to concerns about family violence, the court was not satisfied that equal shared parental responsibility was in the child's best interests.

Consequently, the court ordered that the father have sole parental responsibility for the child and that the child live with the father. The child was to spend time with the mother on alternate weekends, half of all school holidays, and specific public holidays and birthdays, with detailed provisions for collection and communication. The mother was also restrained from permitting the child to remain in the presence of two named individuals unless she or another responsible adult was present. Further orders addressed communication, school enrolment, notification of addresses and cohabitants, medical information, and a prohibition against denigration.