LANGLEY & LANGLEY

In the Family Court of Australia, His Honour Justice Tree considered an application by the father seeking an increase in time spent with the children, including a request for equal shared time. The mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer opposed this application. A critical factor in the father's application was his drug use, although a psychiatric report suggested an increase in time might be appropriate if this drug use was deemed a non-issue or was managed. The court noted that issues concerning the mother's personality and the parties' communication, which could support equal time, could not be determined in these interim proceedings.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether an increase in the father's time with the children, including equal shared time, was in the children's best interests, and whether the father's application for a trial period of increased time or coercive orders for the family to relocate to E Town should be granted. The court also considered the principles established in *Rice v Asplund* and the relevant factors under section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Justice Tree reasoned that the father's drug use remained a significant concern and that there were no justifying circumstances to warrant an increase in time at this interim stage. The court found that an increase in time was not in the best interests of the children, particularly given the unresolved issues surrounding the father's drug use and the limitations of the interim proceedings in fully assessing the complex dynamics of the family. The court concluded that these interim proceedings did not preclude a full consideration of the matter at trial.

Consequently, the father's application was dismissed. The costs associated with this application were reserved to be determined at the final trial of the matter.