Merritt & Bruckner (No. 3)

In *Merritt & Bruckner (No. 3)*, Berman J of the Family Court of Australia considered interim parenting arrangements for two children, X and Y. The proceedings were part-heard, and there had been a recent significant change in the children's interim care, with them living with the father. The mother sought orders for the children to live with her and spend time with the father, while the father sought for the children to remain in his primary care with limited time spent with the mother. Both parties agreed that the children should maintain a meaningful relationship with each parent.

The central legal issues before the court were to determine the interim parenting arrangements that would best serve the children's interests, particularly in light of their expressed upset at not being able to spend time with their mother. The court was required to consider the primary and additional considerations outlined in section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the children's right to a meaningful relationship with both parents and the impact of any further changes to their living arrangements. The court also had to address the parties' ongoing disagreement regarding handover arrangements.

Berman J reasoned that while the father had not yet had an opportunity to formally respond to the mother's recent submissions, the Independent Children's Lawyer's (ICL) confirmation that the children were upset about not seeing their mother was a significant factor. The court acknowledged the complexity of the situation, including the protracted nature of the litigation and the recent shift in interim care. Despite the father's proposal for the children to live primarily with him, his final orders contemplated significant time with the mother, indicating an acceptance that the children should spend time with her. The court found that the children's best interests would be served by resuming time with their mother, rather than another disruptive change in their primary care. The mother's concession regarding the importance of court orders and compliance was also noted as a positive development. The court also identified the need for a different handover venue due to ongoing issues between the parties, ultimately favouring the father's proposal for handover at the Suburb O Police Station.

Consequently, Berman J ordered that the previous interim orders be discharged. The children were to live with the father, but also live with the mother on alternate weekends from Friday school conclusion to Monday school commencement, and on alternate Fridays from school conclusion to Saturday 10:00 am, commencing from specified dates. Handover arrangements were to occur at the Suburb O Police Station or another mutually agreed location.