IANNELLO & IANNELLO (No.2)

In this interim decision, Kirton QC J considered a dispute between a Husband and Wife concerning parental responsibility for their children. The Wife sought sole parental responsibility for one child's attendance at counselling, while also seeking equal shared parental responsibility for the children generally. The Independent Children's Lawyer agreed with the Wife's proposal. The Husband opposed these orders, seeking to maintain the existing orders for equal shared parental responsibility for the children.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was inappropriate in the circumstances, specifically in relation to the child's counselling. This required the court to consider the primary considerations under section 60CC(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), according to which greater weight was accorded to the child's best interests and the need to protect them from harm. The court also considered the additional considerations under section 60CC(3) of the Act.

Kirton QC J reasoned that the Husband's inaction and opposition to the child attending counselling, despite the Family Report recommending it and existing court orders requiring compliance, demonstrated unsatisfactory behaviour. The court found that the Husband's explanation for his lack of involvement was not accepted and that his conduct had prevented the commencement of the child's counselling. Applying the principles from *Marvel v Marvel* and *Goode v Goode*, the court adopted a conservative approach to protect the children.

Consequently, the court made an interim order for sole parental responsibility in favour of the Wife regarding the child's attendance at counselling. The court also ordered that the parties otherwise have equal shared parental responsibility for the children, as agreed by the Wife and the Independent Children's Lawyer.