LONGLEY & DUCHAMP

In the Family Court of Australia, before Cronin J, the dispute concerned parenting orders for a very young child. The father did not file evidence nor seek an adjournment, despite a significant delay in proceedings which had hindered the development of any relationship between the father and child. Previous consent orders and other orders for supervised time had resulted in distress for the child, and there were underlying issues of drug use and violence.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child in light of the father's lack of engagement with the proceedings and the history of the matter. This involved considering the impact of the father's absence and the previous difficulties experienced with supervised contact.

Cronin J reasoned that, given the father's failure to participate and the history of distress and concerning issues, it was not in the child's best interests to continue with the father's application or to maintain existing parenting orders. The court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) concerning the best interests of the child, taking into account the specific circumstances presented.

Consequently, the court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the child and that the child live with the mother. The father's application was dismissed, the Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged, and all extant parenting orders were discharged. The court also made orders pursuant to ss 65DA(2) and 62B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) detailing the obligations, consequences of contravention, and assistance available for compliance.