Percy and Denzel (No 2)

In *Percy and Denzel (No 2)*, Faulks DCJ made orders concerning the parental responsibility and time spent with a child born in November 2003. The dispute involved the father and mother, Ms Denzel, regarding the arrangements for their child.

The court was required to determine the extent of sole parental responsibility for the father, including specific information the father must provide to the mother concerning the child's medical issues, schooling, and significant life events. The court also had to establish the conditions under which the mother could seek to vary the time spent with the child, and the specific requirements for her to demonstrate compliance with expert recommendations. Further issues included the child's primary residence, the nature and frequency of the child's time with the mother and maternal grandmother, and the mother's attendance at school functions. Finally, the court addressed orders regarding the parents' conduct in the child's presence and the payment of existing costs.

Faulks DCJ ordered that the father would have sole parental responsibility for the child, with specific qualifications requiring him to inform the mother about the child's serious medical issues, practitioners, schooling progress, and major life events. The father was also directed to authorise relevant professionals and the child's school to provide information to the mother upon request. Notwithstanding these information-sharing provisions, the father retained the right to make decisions regarding the child's long-term care, welfare, and development. The child was to primarily live with the father. The mother was granted limited, supervised time with the child at a family centre, with a provision allowing her to apply to vary these arrangements after a specified date, contingent on her demonstrating compliance with expert recommendations, particularly regarding abstinence from opiate drugs. The child was also permitted to spend time with his maternal grandmother, with the mother potentially present, and the father was to arrange for annual Christmas Day contact with the maternal grandmother and mother. The mother was permitted to attend school functions but was restrained from removing the child from school premises and required to arrange separate parent-teacher interviews. Both parents were prohibited from speaking negatively about the other in the child's presence. The court also made orders for the payment of an existing costs order by monthly instalments and directed the return of subpoenaed material.