Holley and Harper

In the matter of *Holley and Harper*, heard before Murphy J, the court considered an application to discharge existing consent orders and make new orders concerning the parental responsibility and living arrangements for two children. The dispute centred on the father's ability to exercise time with the children, with the mother seeking sole parental responsibility.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, as ordinarily applied under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), was rebutted in this case. This determination was to be made by reference to the best interests of the children. The court was also required to consider the appropriate arrangements for the children to live with one parent and the conditions under which the other parent might spend time with them.

Murphy J found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted due to the best interests of the children. Consequently, the mother was granted sole parental responsibility, and the children were ordered to live with her. The father was required to complete a recognised parenting course and provide a urine drug analysis report indicating he was free of illicit drugs before he could commence spending time with the children. Initially, this time was to be supervised for one hour at a contact centre, with any subsequent proposals for time to be submitted in writing to the mother's solicitor. All supervised time was to be subject to the mother's written agreement or further court order. The court also ordered that particulars of the obligations and consequences of contravening these orders, along with information on assistance, be included in a fact sheet attached to the orders, pursuant to ss 65DA(2) and 62B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).