GREEN & TOWNSEND

In the Family Court of Australia, Cleary J considered parenting orders concerning two children, B and C. The dispute arose after the mother unilaterally relocated overseas with the older child, B, leading to Hague proceedings and an order for B's return to Australia. Subsequently, the parents reconciled and had a second child, C. The father initially sought sole parental responsibility, while the mother sought the same, having exercised interim sole parental responsibility and excluded the father from the children's lives. The mother also failed to acknowledge the positive contributions of the paternal family.

The court was required to determine the most appropriate parenting arrangements for B and C, considering their best interests. Key issues included the older child's clear wishes to live with his father, the younger child's relationship with the father being restored through supervised contact, the poor co-parenting relationship characterised by conflict and an inability to agree on medical or educational matters, and the father's new partner's ability to provide a stable home environment. The court also had to assess the single expert's assessment that both parents were competent and that the children had meaningful relationships with both parents, with no relevant family violence.

Cleary J applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), focusing on the children's best interests. The court noted the conflict was primarily between the parents and that they had the capacity to communicate via email. Despite the poor co-parenting relationship, the court found that equal shared parental responsibility was appropriate, as the children had meaningful relationships with both parents and there was no family violence. The court ordered that the children live with the mother and spend significant time with the father, with detailed provisions for time during school terms, holidays, and special days. The court also made orders regarding the children's schooling and preschool, changeover arrangements, communication between parents and children, and restraints on changing enrolments or obtaining therapeutic or specialist medical treatment without prior consent, except in emergencies. The court also noted the parties' engagement with Unifam to improve communication.