MALBURG & WHITLOCK

In *Malburg & Whitlock*, heard by Judge Harman, the dispute concerned parenting arrangements for the child X, born in 2012. The mother had relocated from Hobart to Launceston, and the father was alleged to have interfered with the mother's ability to spend time and communicate with X. The proceedings involved considerations of relocation jurisprudence, the importance of maintaining significant relationships, and the relevance of past care arrangements, all within the overarching principle of the child's best interests.

The court was required to determine the appropriate interim parenting orders, specifically addressing issues of parental responsibility, the child's living arrangements, and the time the child would spend with each parent. Further, the court needed to consider the mother's unilateral decision to enrol X in a school in a new location and the extent to which the father should be involved in that decision. The court also had to address the parties' communication and dispute resolution processes.

The court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975*, particularly concerning the child's best interests and the importance of significant relationships. While acknowledging the relevance of past care arrangements, the court found they were not determinative of the current issue. The court ordered that prior hearing orders be suspended and that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility. X was ordered to live with the mother, with specific time arrangements for the father, including alternate weekends and half of school holidays. The court also made orders for communication between parents and X, and importantly, permitted the mother to enrol X in a specific school without the father's consent, while ensuring both parents were recorded as contacts. The parties were also directed to engage in Family Dispute Resolution and family counselling.