Pryor and Judd

In the matter of *Pryor and Judd*, heard before Cleary J, the dispute concerned parenting orders for a child, B. The mother, Ms Pryor, sought orders for sole parental responsibility, that the child live with her, and that the child spend no time with the father, Mr Judd. The mother also sought orders restraining the father from entering or remaining at the child's residence and places of education.

The court was required to determine whether it was in the child's best interests to discharge all prior parenting orders and make new orders granting the mother sole parental responsibility, with the child living with her and having no contact with the father. A further issue was whether the father should be restrained from attending the child's residence and educational facilities.

Cleary J applied the principles of the *Family Law Act* concerning the best interests of the child. The decision to grant sole parental responsibility and order no time spent with the father, along with the restraining orders, indicates the court found that such arrangements were necessary to protect the child's welfare. The specific nature of the restraining orders, prohibiting the father from the child's residence and educational settings, suggests a finding of risk or concern for the child's safety or well-being in the father's presence.

The court ordered the discharge of all prior parenting orders. Ms Pryor was granted sole parental responsibility for the child, and the child was ordered to live with her. The father was ordered to spend no time with the child. Furthermore, pursuant to s 68 of the *Family Law Act*, the father was restrained from entering or remaining at any residence of the child and any place of education of the child. The father was also ordered to file and serve any written response to the mother's application for costs within 28 days.