Hope and Kingston (No 2)

In *Hope & Kingston (No 2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning a six-year-old child, J, who has autism. The dispute involved J's parents, Mr Hope (the applicant) and Ms Kingston (the respondent), both of whom expressed attachment to their child. The court's primary task was to determine parenting arrangements that would best serve J's needs, moving away from a purely mathematical calculation of time spent with each parent and focusing instead on what would be most beneficial for the child, particularly in light of his behavioural issues and the involvement of a multi-disciplinary team of professionals.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate parenting arrangements for J, considering the impact of his autism and the ongoing conflict between his parents. The court was required to assess the evidence presented by both parents and the Independent Children's Lawyer, as well as the recommendations of various professionals involved in J's care. A significant aspect of the case involved addressing the parents' inability to agree on decisions concerning J's health and well-being, and how to manage their interactions to minimise further distress to the child.

The court's reasoning emphasised the importance of a child-centred approach, acknowledging that J's autism and the parental conflict had profoundly affected his behaviour. The court found no evidence to support allegations of sexual abuse or that either parent was responsible for the child's broken arm, though it noted concerns regarding the sequence of events leading to the initial court orders. The court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly concerning the best interests of the child and the concept of equal shared parental responsibility. The court's reasoning highlighted that the focus should be on practical arrangements that support J's development and treatment, rather than on assigning blame or dwelling on past disputes.

The court made comprehensive orders discharging all extant parenting orders and establishing a new shared parenting arrangement for J. This included equal shared parental responsibility, with a specific mechanism for resolving disagreements on major long-term health decisions by deferring to the recommendation of the multi-disciplinary team. J was ordered to live with each parent in a shared fortnightly cycle, with specific provisions for school terms, school holidays, and special occasions. The orders also mandated continued engagement with the multi-disciplinary team for J's health issues, with both parents required to follow their recommendations. The court also made provisions for communication between J and his parents, and for the exchange of information regarding J's routine and care.