Lynch and Taylor

The Family Court of Australia heard proceedings between Mr Lynch (the father) and Ms Taylor (the mother) concerning the parenting arrangements for their child, B Taylor-Lynch. The father sought orders for the child to primarily reside with him, with the mother having alternate weekends and half of school holidays. The mother sought orders for the child to primarily reside with her, with the father having alternate weekends and half of school holidays. The Independent Children’s Lawyer supported the mother's position. The proceedings also involved allegations of child abuse raised by both parents against each other and the mother's partner, Mr Y, and a cousin.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, which necessitated considering the allegations of abuse and the risk of future abuse. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the evidence established abuse or an unacceptable risk of abuse by the father, Mr Y, or the cousin. Furthermore, the court needed to decide on the appropriate parenting orders, considering the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and the practicalities of equal or substantial and significant time arrangements given the distance between the parents' residences.

The court found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was not rebutted. However, it determined that equal time was not reasonably practicable due to the distance between the parents' homes. The court considered the allegations of abuse and, applying the principles from cases like *Briginshaw v Briginshaw* and *M v M*, concluded that the evidence did not establish that Mr Y had abused or was likely to abuse the child. Similarly, the court found no evidence to support the allegations of abuse against the father. Consequently, the court was not persuaded that the orders sought by either party would, on balance, constitute an unacceptable risk of sexual abuse to the child.

Ultimately, the court ordered that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the child. The child was to live with the father on specific alternate weekends during school terms and for half of the July and September school holidays, the entire Easter school holiday period, and half of the Christmas school holiday period, alternating years for Christmas Day. The child was to live with the mother at all other times. The court also ordered that both parties be informed of all school, sporting, and cultural events involving the child. These orders were to commence at the beginning of the 2012 school term, with the child living with each parent on an equal shared basis until that time.