McCall and Clark (No. 2)

The case of *McCall and Clark (No. 2)* concerned parenting orders for a child, G, born in 2005, where the mother resided in Canada and the father in Australia. The dispute centred on the arrangements for the child's living situation, parental responsibility, and time spent with each parent, with a significant change in circumstances justifying re-litigation under the principles of *Rice & Asplund*.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, specifically whether equal shared parental responsibility was appropriate, given the geographical distance and the mother's perceived unlikelihood of facilitating a meaningful relationship with the father. The court also considered the weight to be given to the child's expressed wishes to live in Canada, and the admissibility of evidence from a Family Report writer, which was deemed admissible by virtue of section 69ZT of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Tree J found that it was not in the child's best interests to have equal shared parental responsibility, nor was it in the child's best interests to continue the present arrangement of living in Australia. The court ordered that the child, G, shall live with the father, with each parent having day-to-day parental responsibility when the child is in their care. However, the father was granted sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues, subject to a requirement to consult with the mother in writing regarding education and health decisions. The orders also detailed specific arrangements for the child to spend time and communicate with the mother, including periods in Australia during school holidays and regular video calls, with the mother to provide six weeks' written notice for any time spent with the child in Australia. The father was also permitted to remove the child from Australia with prior notice to the mother, and the mother was restrained from applying for or obtaining a passport for the child.