MEYER & DARA

In the Family Court of Australia, Justice Hartnett considered an application by the biological father for parenting orders concerning his child, opposed by the mother. The parties met online via a co-parenting website, and the child was conceived through artificial insemination. They had never been in a romantic relationship. The father asserted an agreement for co-parenting existed prior to the pregnancy, while the mother denied this, claiming no such agreement was made. The child had an eight-month relationship with the father, but had not spent time with him for five years, and the mother opposed any further contact. The Independent Children’s Lawyer supported the father's application.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, specifically whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) should be rebutted. The court also had to consider whether it was in the child's best interests to spend time with the father, and if so, the nature and extent of that time, including the necessity for supervised contact and therapeutic intervention.

Justice Hartnett found that it was not in the child's best interests for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility, and therefore rebutted the presumption. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility, with the child to live with her. However, the court determined that it was in the child's best interests to spend time with the father, albeit commencing with supervised contact and requiring therapeutic intervention. The court outlined a detailed, phased schedule for the child to spend time with the father, gradually increasing the duration and decreasing the level of supervision over time, commencing in March 2021. The father was ordered to bear the costs of supervised contact.

The court made orders for the parties to undertake family therapy, with the mother to inform the father of decisions regarding major long-term issues for the child. Further orders addressed communication, school and medical information, geographical restrictions on the mother's residence, and an airport watch list order to prevent the child's removal from Australia. The parties were also restrained from discussing the proceedings with the child or denigrating each other. The Independent Children’s Lawyer's appointment was to be discharged after 90 days.