HOGARTH & SCRIVENS (No.2)

In this matter before Judge Small, the dispute concerned parenting orders for a child, X, born in 2016. The mother sought sole parental responsibility and that the child spend no time with the father, citing concerns about the father's personality traits and behaviour negatively impacting her mental health and parenting capacity. Conversely, the father sought extended time with the child. The court was also required to consider whether to make a vexatious proceedings order against the father under section 102QB(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The court was tasked with determining how parental responsibility should be shared and whether the child should spend time with his father, given the high level of conflict between the parents. A key consideration was the mother's assertion that the father's conduct adversely affected her mental health to the point of impacting her parenting capacity. The court also had to assess the primary considerations under section 60CC(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975*, namely the benefit to the child of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from harm.

In its reasoning, the court applied the principles of "meaningful relationship" as established in cases such as *Mazorski v Albright* and *Tait & Dinsmore*, emphasising the qualitative nature of such relationships over mere quantity of time. The court found that the child's relationship with his mother was undoubtedly meaningful, given her role as primary carer. While acknowledging that the child's relationship with his father had developed and could be considered meaningful, the court retained concerns about the father's ability to provide an appropriate role model. Regarding the protection from harm, the court noted the mother's allegations of persistent harassment and abuse by the father, which she claimed had severely impacted her mental health.

The court ordered that all previous parenting orders be discharged. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility, and the child was to live with her. Specific, limited time and communication arrangements were ordered for the child to spend with the father, including alternate Sundays, specific holiday periods, and Father's Day. The orders also included detailed provisions regarding changeovers, communication restrictions, notification of illness or injury, and prohibitions against denigrating the other parent or discussing proceedings in the child's presence. The father was also restrained from influencing third parties to act contrary to the orders.