NIXON & WOODWARD

In the matter of Nixon & Woodward, Judge Jones of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia was required to determine parenting orders concerning the child X, born in 2008. The dispute involved the arrangements for X's living arrangements, time spent with each parent, and communication between the parents and X.

The court was tasked with determining the extent of equal shared parental responsibility, where X would live, the specific time X would spend with the Father, and the nature of communication between X and the Father. Additionally, the court needed to address the supervision of the Father's time with X, the commencement and conclusion times of alternate weekends, and the suspension of the Father's time on specific occasions such as Mother's Day. The court also had to consider arrangements for changeovers, the exchange of information between parents regarding X's schooling and health, and restrictions on parental conduct in X's presence. Further issues included the parents' attendance at counselling and X's attendance at counselling and psychiatric assessment, as well as the provision of family reports to relevant professionals.

Judge Jones discharged all previous parenting orders and made new orders establishing equal shared parental responsibility for X. X was ordered to live with the Mother, with specific, detailed provisions for X to spend time and communicate with the Father. These provisions included a phased approach to the Father's time, commencing with supervised contact and gradually increasing in duration and frequency. The orders also stipulated supervised changeovers for an initial period, the use of a communication book for health matters, and restrictions on parental behaviour, such as criticising each other in X's presence and consuming alcohol to excess. The court also mandated that both parents attend counselling, X attend counselling and psychiatric assessment as nominated by the Independent Children's Lawyer, and authorised the release of family reports to these professionals. The court also made orders regarding the exchange of school and health information and noted that these orders were inconsistent with a previous Intervention Order but agreed to be in X's best interests.