LAMONT & LAMONT

This matter concerned parenting orders between the mother and father regarding their child, X. The dispute involved allegations of family violence, excessive alcohol consumption, and racist name-calling by the mother, which the court ultimately did not find to be substantiated to the extent of posing a risk to the child. A key issue was the mother's refusal to increase the child's time with the father, despite the father's repeated requests, until she amended her response on the final day of the trial.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, X, by considering the primary considerations outlined in section 60CC(2) and (2A) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). These considerations include the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from harm, with greater weight to be given to the latter. The court also had to assess the parents' ability to communicate and co-parent effectively, the practicalities of any proposed parenting arrangements, and the child's existing relationships.

Judge Howard found that X had a close and loving relationship with both parents and the maternal grandparents, and was not at risk of physical or psychological harm from either parent. While the mother had alleged risks associated with the father's alcohol consumption, the court concluded these allegations were not substantiated to the point of posing a risk. The court noted the parents' ability to communicate in a civil and businesslike manner for the child's benefit and that the parents lived in close proximity, minimising practical difficulties. The court accepted that X would continue to spend significant time with both parents and their respective families.