Kadar & Doumani

This case, *Kadar & Doumani*, heard in the Family Court of Australia, concerned parenting arrangements for a child, J, born in June 1998. The dispute centred on the mother's application for sole parental responsibility and for J to live with her, against the father's significantly different proposals for shared residence and extensive contact. The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, considering the existing orders, the parents' proposals, and extensive evidence from family reports and the parents themselves.

The court was tasked with determining whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied and, if not, what parenting orders would best serve J's welfare and development. Key issues included the child's wishes, the nature of the relationships with each parent, the parents' ability to communicate and facilitate a relationship with the other parent, and the need to protect J from psychological harm. The court also considered the practicalities of schooling arrangements and the father's capacity to provide for J's needs, particularly in light of his rigid beliefs and past conduct.

Justice Monteith found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted due to the parents' complete inability to communicate and the vastly different nature of their households. The court placed significant weight on the child's expressed wishes to spend less time with his father, supported by the findings in the family reports. These reports highlighted J's stress and negative experiences during contact with his father, including allegations of hitting, restrictions on activities, and the father denigrating the mother. The court concluded that it was in J's best interests to live with his mother and for her to have sole parental responsibility, while still allowing for meaningful, albeit limited, time with the father.

Consequently, the court ordered the discharge of all previous parenting orders. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for J, with J to live with her. The father was granted specific time with J on alternate weekends from Friday after school until Sunday at 5:00 pm, and telephone contact each Wednesday evening. The mother was permitted to change J's school, provided the father contributed half the fees. Crucially, both parents were restrained by injunction from denigrating the other to J, and from removing J from Australia.