Jakiemiec and Buckingham

In *Jakiemiec and Buckingham*, heard by O’Ryan J of the Family Court of Australia, the dispute concerned final parenting orders for a child born in October 1995. The proceedings were initiated by the Father, with the Mother seeking various orders in response. The Independent Children’s Lawyer also sought orders, largely reflecting the recommendations of a court-appointed psychiatrist, Dr R. The central issue was the living arrangements and time spent between the child and each parent, particularly in light of the child's expressed resistance to spending time with the Father and the parents' geographical separation.

The court was required to determine the most appropriate parenting orders that would serve the child's best interests, considering the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. This involved assessing the primary considerations under section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), namely the benefit to the child of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from harm, as well as thirteen additional considerations. The court also had to consider the practicability of various arrangements, the child's stated views, the nature of her relationships with each parent, and the parents' ability to facilitate a relationship with the other parent.

O’Ryan J applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975*, including the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, which was found to apply and not be rebutted. The court found that while the child expressed a strong desire not to see the Father, these views were child-like, unfounded, and likely influenced by the Mother. Dr R’s expert evidence indicated that the child was overly attached to her Mother and that a continued close relationship with the Father was crucial for her healthy adolescent development and to provide balance in her life. The court determined that the geographical distance between the parents, with the Mother residing in K and the Father in W, made equal or substantial and significant time arrangements impractical. Consequently, the court concluded that it was in the child's best interests to reside in the W area, facilitating a meaningful relationship with both parents and reducing the risk of harm.

The court discharged all previous parenting orders and made new orders, effective from 16 July 2007. These orders stipulated that the child would live with the Father in the W area, with provisions for the Mother to have significant time with the child, including during school holidays and weekends. The orders also established equal shared parental responsibility, detailed communication arrangements between the parents and the child, and mandated parental participation in family dispute resolution and therapeutic interventions to re-establish the child's relationship with the Father. The court also ordered that the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the court expert be borne by the parties.