Raider and Raider

In *Raider & Raider* [2012] FamCA 820, the Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning two children, J (aged 14) and M (aged 12½). The proceedings arose from a significant and prolonged conflict between the parents, with the children expressing a strong desire not to spend time or communicate with their father, having not done so for over a year. The mother sought sole parental responsibility, while the father sought the continuation of existing consent orders.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether it was in the children's best interests to spend time with their father, and consequently, whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) should be rebutted. The Court also had to determine the appropriate orders regarding parental responsibility, the children's living arrangements, and their time and communication with each parent, given the deeply fractured relationship between the parties and the children's stated wishes.

Murphy J found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted in the best interests of the children due to the high degree of conflict between the parents. The Court reasoned that the parents were incapable of cooperating or communicating, which was antithetical to the children's best interests. The Court noted the history of litigation, contravention proceedings, and the children's expressed opposition to contact with the father, including concerns about J's mental health. The father's lack of insight into his role in the conflict and his attitude towards the children's needs were also significant factors.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the children live with the mother and have no face-to-face time with the father, except as they might request. The mother was granted parental responsibility for all issues, with the caveat that she must consult the father in writing regarding major long-term decisions. The father was permitted to communicate with the children via email, text message, and post, and to send gifts. The Court also ordered that the mother facilitate communication by providing the father with the children's contact details.