Minchini and Stacey

This case concerned parenting orders for a young child, B, born in November 2009, whose parents separated when he was approximately nine months old. The child had continued to reside with his mother, Ms Stacey, who was the primary carer and had raised concerns about the father's, Mr Minchini's, parenting capacity. The mother alleged family violence, stating the father was physically violent and abusive towards her, and expressed fear for the child's safety. The father denied the allegations of violence, attributing the mother's claims to manipulation. The proceedings were heard in the Family Court of Australia by Ryan J.

The court was required to determine several key issues, including whether the mother should have sole parental responsibility or if equal shared parental responsibility was appropriate, the continuation of supervised time, the commencement of overnight stays, the venue for changeovers, and the configuration of future time arrangements. A further issue was whether the child's surname should be changed to include the mother's surname. The court was also tasked with assessing the parenting capacity of both parties and considering the impact of any alleged family violence on the child's best interests.

Crucially, immediately prior to the delivery of oral reasons, the parties indicated a significant improvement in their ability to co-parent, having engaged in discussions and adopted a forward-looking approach. This change in circumstances led the court to reconsider the necessity of detailing all factual disputes. The court applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration under section 60B and the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA. Findings of fact were determined on the balance of probabilities, pursuant to section 140 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth).

By consent, the court ordered that all prior parenting orders be discharged. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility regarding the child's school attendance. Subject to this, the parties were ordered to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, with the child to live with the mother. A detailed transitional regime for the child spending time with the father was established, commencing with supervised time and progressively increasing to unsupervised overnight and alternate weekend time, with specific provisions for holidays and special occasions. The court also ordered that the child be known as B Stacey-Minchini.