KRAWIEC & HAYKAL

This matter concerned parenting orders for a 13-year-old child, N, before Johnston J of the Family Court of Australia. The dispute involved longstanding hostility and conflict between the parents, with the court finding it probable that both had engaged in family violence. The mother had been the primary carer since separation, and there was no prospect of the parents making joint decisions regarding N's care. The court also considered the child's maturity and her clear expressed wishes not to spend time with the father.

The court was required to determine the most appropriate parenting arrangements for N, specifically addressing parental responsibility, with whom N would live, spend time, and communicate. Key issues included whether equal shared parental responsibility was in N's best interests, given the parental conflict and the mother's perceived inability to support a relationship between N and the father. The court also had to consider the father's lack of participation in family therapy and N's expressed wishes. Furthermore, the court was asked to rule on applications for costs concerning the Independent Children's Lawyer and the mother's own costs, as well as an application for a vexatious proceedings order against the father.

Johnston J reasoned that it was not in N's best interests for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility due to their ongoing conflict and the mother's limited capacity to foster a relationship between N and the father. The court gave significant weight to N's expressed wishes, noting her maturity and clear desire not to spend time with the father. Applying the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975*, the court concluded that N living with her mother and the mother having sole parental responsibility was the most appropriate arrangement. The father was to have contact with N in accordance with her wishes, and specific orders were made to restrain the father from attempting to arrange time with N and from attending at her home, school, or business premises without invitation.

In relation to costs, the court dismissed the Independent Children's Lawyer's application for costs against the mother, deeming it unjust. The father was ordered to pay part of the mother's costs, acknowledging that she had been unable to recover substantial costs previously owed by him. The mother's application for a vexatious proceedings order against the father was dismissed. Consequently, N was ordered to live with her mother, who was granted sole parental responsibility. The father was to spend time and communicate with N as she wished, with specific limitations and restraints imposed on his contact and attendance at certain locations.