LEWIS & GASPER

In the matter of *Lewis & Gasper*, Austin J of the Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning three children. The dispute involved the father's limited and inconsistent engagement with the children, his failure to participate in the litigation, and the mother's proposed relocation to Darwin. The mother sought sole parental responsibility and orders that would allow the father an opportunity to re-engage with the children, albeit with some reservations about his potential to withhold them.

The court was required to determine whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted, and consequently, what parenting orders were in the best interests of the children. Specifically, the court had to assess the father's capacity to meet the children's needs, his ability to cooperate with the mother, and the potential risks associated with his care, including the mother's fear of him withholding the children. The court also considered the impact of the mother's proposed relocation on the children's existing relationships.

Austin J found that the father's inability to cooperate or compromise with the mother, coupled with instances of withholding a child, rebutted the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. The court reasoned that while the children were not exposed to risk of harm in the father's care, his engagement had been inconsistent and he did not demonstrate the same capacity to meet their needs as the mother. The proposed relocation to Darwin was not considered to impinge upon the children's current relationships with the father, as the timing was uncertain.

Consequently, the court discharged all former parenting orders and made orders that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children, with the children to live with her. The court also made detailed orders for the children to spend time with the father, which were to be unsupervised and varied depending on the father's proximity to the mother and children. These time orders were to be discharged if the father failed to comply on three successive occasions. The court also made orders regarding communication, non-denigration, medical emergencies, and the exchange of information.