Lenkov & Serada

This case involved Mr. Lenkov (the applicant father) and Ms. Serada (the respondent mother) concerning final parenting orders for their child, X. The mother alleged family violence and that the child was fearful of the father, while the father denied these claims and suggested the mother suffered from mental health issues and would not support his relationship with the child.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, specifically whether the mother's allegations of family violence and the child's fear of the father were substantiated, and how these factors, along with the existing parental conflict, should inform the final parenting arrangements. The court also considered the father's contention that the mother posed a risk to the child by not supporting his relationship with the father.

Altobelli J found that there was no objective evidence to support the mother's claims of family violence or the child's fear of the father. The court made credit findings against the mother's assertions and, based on the Family Report which indicated a meaningful relationship between the child and both parents, concluded that the child would benefit from continued meaningful involvement with both. The court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly the paramountcy of the child's best interests, and the objects of Part VII, including ensuring the child has the benefit of both parents' meaningful involvement and protection from harm.

The court ordered that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the child. The child was to live with the mother, with the parent with whom the child is living at the time responsible for day-to-day decisions. The orders detailed specific arrangements for the child to spend time with the father during school terms, school holidays, and on specific occasions such as Father's Day and the child's birthday, with provisions for communication via a parenting app and restraints on denigrating the other parent. Passports were to be held by the court, and the child was placed on the Family Law Watch List to prevent international travel. The Independent Children's Lawyer's appointment was extended for six months to monitor the implementation of the orders.