Orr & Pinter (No. 3)

In *Orr & Pinter (No. 3)*, Cleary J of the Family Court of Australia considered parenting and property settlement applications between the mother and father of a child. The primary dispute concerned with whom the child should live and spend time, and the extent of parental responsibility each parent should hold. The mother also sought a de facto property settlement.

The court was required to determine whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied, and if not, how parental responsibility should be allocated. It also had to decide where the child should live and the nature and extent of the child's time with each parent, with the paramount consideration being the child's best interests. Finally, the court needed to assess whether it had jurisdiction to, and if it would be just to, alter the property interests of the parties.

Cleary J found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility did not apply, as there was ample evidence that the parents could not share this responsibility. The court determined that the child's best interests were served by living with the father, with whom the child had thrived for five years and maintained his most meaningful relationship. The mother's motivation was found to be punitive towards the father rather than focused on the child's needs, and there was an unacceptable risk she would continue to allege the child was at risk in the father's care. Consequently, the father was granted sole parental responsibility, and the child was ordered to live with him. The mother was permitted supervised time with the child on four occasions annually, contingent on her refraining from making critical remarks about the father or his family. The mother's application for property settlement was dismissed, as the court found it would be unjust to alter the parties' property interests.