KADLEC & OLANDER

In the matter of KADLEC & OLANDER, heard before Judge Terry, the father sought a change of residence for the parties' seven-year-old child. This was the second round of litigation concerning the child's living arrangements. The primary dispute revolved around whether the child was at risk in the mother's care, whether the mother's parenting capacity issues would render the child better off living with the father, and whether the child's relationship with the father would be jeopardised if he continued to reside with the mother.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including the application of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA of the *Family Law Act 1975* and whether there was sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption. The court also had to consider the paramountcy of the child's best interests, specifically the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents, and assess the mother's capacity to facilitate such a relationship, particularly in light of past allegations made by the child.

The court reasoned that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was not rebutted. It found that the child would benefit from a meaningful relationship with both parents, noting the father's stable circumstances and the child's positive relationship with him and his extended family. Despite concerns raised by the Independent Children's Lawyer regarding the mother's handling of past allegations made by the child, the court found no evidence that these allegations were impacting the child's relationship with his father or that the mother lacked the capacity to facilitate this relationship. The court concluded that it was in the child's best interests to live with the mother, acknowledging her greater availability for care, despite potential risks of further proceedings.

Consequently, the court made orders reflecting equal shared parental responsibility, with the child to live with the mother and spend time with the father according to a detailed schedule. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility for religious instruction and liberty to enrol the child in a specific public school. An injunction was also made restraining the mother from allowing the child contact with a named individual. All other outstanding applications were dismissed.