Michaels and Farber and Anor

This matter came before the Family Court of Australia concerning parenting orders for a child named D. The parties involved were Ms. Michaels (the applicant), Ms. Farber (the first respondent and mother), and Mr. O’Dwight (the second respondent and biological father). The Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL), Jean Forster, also participated. The dispute centred on the living arrangements and parental responsibility for the child, with Ms. Michaels having previously lived with the child. Mr. O’Dwight took no part in the proceedings.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, D, in circumstances where the applicant, Ms. Michaels, had ceased to participate in the proceedings. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether to approve consent orders proposed by the first respondent, Ms. Farber, and the ICL, which were unopposed by the applicant and the second respondent. These orders sought to discharge all previous parenting orders, establish that the child live with Ms. Farber, grant her sole parental responsibility, and prohibit Ms. Michaels from spending any time with the child.

Justice Dessau applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly section 60CC concerning the best interests of the child. The court was satisfied that the proposed orders were in the child's best interests, supported by a comprehensive Family Report and evidence presented by Ms. Farber. The court noted the importance of certainty for the child, the need for him to live with the parent better able to protect him, and the necessity of preventing further conflict between the parties. Given the unopposed nature of the application and the extensive information before the court, a detailed item-by-item consideration of section 60CC was deemed unnecessary.

The court made orders by consent, discharging all previous parenting orders. The child, D, was ordered to live with his mother, Ms. Farber, who was granted sole parental responsibility. Ms. Michaels was prohibited from spending any time with the child. All other existing applications were dismissed, and the appointment of the ICL was discharged. Ms. Farber's solicitor was directed to serve a copy of the order on Ms. Michaels. Publication of the judgment under a pseudonym was approved by the Chief Justice.