IBRAHIM & TEMPLEMAN

The Family Court of Australia, in the matter of *Ibrahim & Templeman*, considered a dispute between a mother and father concerning parenting orders for their child, S, born in April 2003. The proceedings also involved an application for divorce. The parties had been separated since July 2011, with the child living predominantly with the mother since February 2012. Interim parenting orders had been made in March 2012, providing for the child to live with the mother, spend time with the father on alternate weekends and during school holidays, and for liberal telephone communication. The matter was transferred to the Family Court due to potential international relocation issues, although this ultimately did not become the central dispute.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, it needed to decide on the final parenting orders regarding the child's living arrangements and the time the child would spend with each parent, considering the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. Secondly, the court had to determine the date of final separation for the purposes of the divorce application, which the father opposed. Thirdly, the court addressed applications for injunctions, specifically concerning the removal of the child from Australia and the child's placement on an Airport Watch List. Finally, the court considered an application for the appointment of an Independent Children's Lawyer, which was dismissed.

In its reasoning, the court found that it was in the child's best interests and reasonably practicable for her to spend substantial and significant time with the father, acknowledging a meaningful relationship with both parents. The court determined that the child was not at risk of harm from either parent. However, it noted that the mother was better able to meet the child's emotional needs, while the father struggled to separate his emotions from the child's and had inappropriately involved the child in the parenting dispute. The court applied the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, finding that the parties had equal shared parental responsibility for the child. Regarding the divorce, the court made findings on the balance of probabilities regarding the date of final separation, noting that the parties had lived under the same roof for short periods following this date, and that the mother had misled the father about reconciliation to facilitate interaction with the child. The court also noted the father's previous threats to remove the child from Australia, leading to the discharge of orders placing the child on the Airport Watch List and the imposition of an injunction restraining international travel without consent.

The court granted the divorce and dissolved the marriage. It ordered that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, and that the child shall live with the mother. Specific orders were made detailing the time the child is to spend with the father, including during school terms and holidays, with provisions for collection and communication. The court also made orders restraining each party from denigrating the other in the child's presence and from leaving the child unsupervised. Furthermore, the court discharged all former orders that caused or permitted the child's name to be placed on the Airport Watch List and ordered the removal of the child's name from it. Crucially, pursuant to s 65Y of the Family Law Act, neither party was permitted to remove the child from Australia without the express written consent of the other. The child's passport was ordered to remain in the mother's custody, except when the child was travelling internationally with the father. The father's application for the appointment of an Independent Children's Lawyer was dismissed.