John and Chris

This case involved parenting orders concerning a child born in October 2002, with the father (applicant) and mother (respondent) as the parties. The dispute centred on the father's application to restrain the mother from relocating the child from Hobart and for orders for equal shared parental responsibility. The mother sought sole parental responsibility and permission to relocate the child to Queensland, though she did not oppose the father's proposed time with the child. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia at Hobart.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under s 61DA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) applied, and if so, whether it should be rebutted. The court also had to consider the paramount consideration of the child's best interests, as defined by s 60CC of the Act, particularly the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from harm. A significant issue was the mother's proposed relocation of the child to Queensland and its impact on the child's relationship with the father. The court also had to assess the credibility of both parties, given concerns raised about the quality of their evidence, and address allegations of past alcohol abuse by the father and the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases.

Benjamin J applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), as amended in 2006, to determine the parenting arrangements. The court found that while the father had past alcohol difficulties, his alcohol use had not impacted his parenting of the child since 2002, though orders were made to prevent him from being affected by alcohol when the child was in his care. The court found the mother's evidence to be unreliable on several key points, including allegations of physical abuse and her intentions regarding relocation. The court determined that the mother's primary motivation for relocation was to separate the child from the father, which was contrary to the child's best interests. The court concluded that it was in the child's best interests to remain in Tasmania to foster a meaningful relationship with his father, and that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility should apply, with specific orders for the child to live with the mother and spend time with the father.

The court ordered the discharge of all previous parenting orders. It was ordered that the father and mother share parental responsibility, that the child live with the mother, and that the child spend specified time with the father. Injunctions were put in place to restrain the mother from changing the child's residence beyond a 50-kilometre radius of Hobart without further court order or written agreement. Both parties were ordered to attend counselling, and neither party was permitted to denigrate the other. The father was specifically restrained from consuming alcohol when the child was in his care. The court also included particulars of obligations and consequences for contravention of the orders, as set out in an attached Fact Sheet.