JANOME & JANOME

This matter concerned parenting orders for a child born in 2015, with the proceedings brought before Judge Terry. The dispute involved allegations of family violence by the mother against the father, including shouting, throwing objects, verbal abuse, and physical intimidation through the installation of CCTV cameras in the family home. The father denied these allegations, asserting the cameras were for his protection. The mother also alleged the father restricted her food, called her names, and took photos and videos of her after the child's birth. The court was required to consider the primary considerations under the *Family Law Act 1975*, including the benefit to the child of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from harm.

The court's reasoning focused on the paramount consideration of the child's best interests. Judge Terry found that while the father had not spent time with the child between late 2015 and late 2016, he had since demonstrated a genuine desire to be part of the child's life and had spent time with the child regularly. The mother was found to have been consistently committed to the child's care. The court considered the Independent Children's Lawyer's submission that a change in primary care might protect the child from psychological abuse by the mother, stemming from her repeated hospital visits for the child. However, the court ultimately determined that the child would benefit from having a meaningful relationship with both parents, and that the mother did not denigrate or disrespect the father, mitigating concerns about the child's relationship with her being undermined. The court also noted the proximity of the parents' residences, minimising practical difficulties in shared time.

The court discharged all previous parenting orders and made new orders establishing equal shared parental responsibility. The child was ordered to live with the mother, with specific provisions for the child's time with the father, varying based on whether the child had commenced school and including detailed arrangements for school holidays and public holidays. The father's application for an order restraining the removal of the child from Australia was dismissed. The orders also included provisions for notification of medical emergencies, access to school information, and the exchange of contact details.