MRR v GR

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal concerning parenting orders made under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The dispute involved the mother's challenge to an order requiring the child to spend equal time with each parent, an order made on the premise that both parents would reside in Mt Isa. The mother opposed living in Mt Isa.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether spending equal time with each parent was "reasonably practicable" in the circumstances, particularly given the mother's wishes regarding her residence, and how this assessment related to the paramount consideration of the child's best interests. The court also had to determine the validity of the original parenting order in light of these considerations.

The High Court reasoned that the concept of "reasonably practicable" in section 65DAA of the *Family Law Act 1975* requires a practical assessment of the circumstances of the parents and child. It found that the original orders had been made on an assumption about the parents' future residence that was contrary to the mother's wishes and thus not reasonably practicable. The court emphasised that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA(1) is subject to the overarching requirement that any order made must be in the best interests of the child, which includes considering what is reasonably practicable.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia, and remitted the matter to the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia for a rehearing.