Heath & Pascall (No 4)

In *Heath & Pascall (No 4)*, Monahan J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia made final orders concerning the parenting arrangements for a child, X, born in 2018. The dispute involved Mr Heath (the applicant father) and Ms Pascall (the respondent mother), who had separated in May 2018. The proceedings concerned the primary residence of the child, parental responsibility, time spent with each parent, and various ancillary matters including communication, travel, and relocation.

The court was required to determine several key issues, including whether the parties should have equal shared parental responsibility, or if sole parental responsibility should be allocated to one parent. It also needed to decide on the primary residence of the child, the arrangements for the child spending time with and communicating with the non-resident parent, and the locations for changeovers. Further issues included whether specific restraints or conditions should be imposed on the parties' parenting, and the conditions under which the child could travel internationally, including who should hold the child's passport. The court also considered relocation arrangements for the mother and child and the father's residence.

Monahan J applied principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly concerning the best interests of the child. The court's reasoning led to orders that X would live with the mother, with specified times for living with and spending time with the father. The parties were to have day-to-day care of X when X was in their respective care. Equal shared parental responsibility was ordered for most decisions, with the father having sole responsibility for health and education decisions, subject to a detailed process of consultation with the mother. The orders also stipulated specific arrangements for X to spend time with the father, including detailed schedules for weekdays, weekends, school holidays, and Christmas, which were to evolve over time.

The final orders also included provisions for communication between the parents and with the child, including the use of an electronic communications book and telephone/FaceTime contact. Injunctions were imposed restraining the parties from approaching within 100 metres of each other, except in specific circumstances. The mother was ordered to relocate within a 30km radius of the father's residence, and the father was restrained from relocating from his current suburb. The court also made orders regarding the child's passport, international travel, name, and enrolment in extracurricular activities, and provided specific directions for communication regarding the child's health and education. The Independent Children's Lawyer's appointment was discharged, and extant applications were dismissed, subject to any applications for costs.