HARDING & CRAWLEY

In the matter of Harding & Crawley, Kent J considered a dispute between the parents of a child, J, concerning parenting arrangements. The mother sought to relocate with J to New Zealand, while the father sought that J remain in Australia, with or without the mother. The court also had to consider the relevance of the likelihood of the mother’s partner being able to relocate with her and the enforceability of any parenting order in New Zealand.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted by allegations of family violence, and how to determine the child’s best interests in the context of a proposed relocation to New Zealand. The court was required to consider the factors outlined in section 60CC(3) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) in making its determination.

Kent J ordered that previous orders be discharged and that the parents have equal shared responsibility for J concerning major long-term issues, including education, religious and cultural upbringing, health, name, and significant changes to living arrangements. The court found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was not rebutted. The mother was made responsible for J’s daily care and welfare while J lived with her in New Zealand, and the father was responsible for J’s daily care and welfare while J was with him. The court made detailed orders regarding J’s time with each parent, including provisions for communication and travel between Australia and New Zealand, and ordered that the parties share the costs of J’s flights. The mother was ordered to establish and maintain an email account for J and to make J available for Skype communication at least three times per week, in addition to other communication provisions.