Leisa and Tait

This matter concerned an application before the Family Court of Australia, brought by Ms Leisa against Mr Tait, concerning interim parenting arrangements for their child, J. The dispute arose from the child's increased attendance at preschool, which prompted the mother to seek varied parenting arrangements.

The court was required to determine whether to vary the existing interim parenting arrangements, considering the paramount consideration of the child's best interests as stipulated by section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to assess the mother's proposed increased time with the child, including time on a Wednesday, against the expert opinion that significant changes to the current arrangements might not be in the child's best interests.

Justice Aldridge reasoned that while the mother's desire for more time with the child was understandable, particularly given the child's preschool schedule, the existing interim arrangements had been in place since October 2011 and provided a degree of stability. The court gave weight to the expert opinion of Dr A, who suggested that further changes at that interim stage were not in the child's interests, provided the father was personally caring for the child. Although the mother sought significant changes, including time on Wednesdays, the court ultimately decided against such substantial alterations on an interim basis, anticipating a final hearing. However, acknowledging the increased preschool attendance, the court did permit some extended time for the mother with the child.

The court ordered that the existing interim parenting arrangements be discharged and replaced with new arrangements. These new arrangements provided for the mother to spend specific extended periods with the child, commencing on 3 March 2013, with alternating weekend arrangements thereafter. The court also made orders regarding communication between the child and mother, changeovers, and the facilitation of therapy for the child and parents with Dr C. Furthermore, the court requested an updated report from expert Dr A, with the father initially to bear the costs of this report, to be addressed at the final hearing. The matter was adjourned for directions.