Randell and Reilly

In *Randell & Reilly*, the Family Court of Australia considered interim parenting orders concerning the time spent by the child, B, with his father. The child resided with the mother, and the father sought to vary existing consent orders to increase his time with B. The mother opposed the father's application but was prepared to consent to some extensions of time.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, B, in accordance with the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This involved considering the primary and additional considerations outlined in section 60CC of the Act, including the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents, the need to protect the child from harm, the child's views (though not significantly expressed by B due to his age), the parents' willingness and ability to facilitate a relationship with the other parent, and any practical difficulties or expenses in spending time with each parent. The court also had to consider the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA, although the parties agreed to continue with equal shared parental responsibility.

Justice Fowler applied the principles of the *Family Law Act*, emphasising that the child's best interests were paramount. The court noted the ongoing conflict between the parents as a significant risk of psychological harm to the child and commended their movement towards agreement. While acknowledging the father's desire to increase time with B before he commenced school, the court considered the evidence of a need for gradual extension of time. The court found that both parents demonstrated a willingness to facilitate a relationship with the other parent, despite past difficulties, and that the child benefited from relationships with both parents and extended family. The court also noted the mother's significant financial support of the child.

The court made consent orders regarding the child's time with the father, passport arrangements, and telephone contact. Additionally, the court made orders for the child to spend time with the father from 22 July to 31 July 2011. The court also noted undertakings from both parties not to speak negatively about the other parent in the child's presence or discuss the proceedings with the child. The court ordered that all affidavits be filed and served by 15 August 2011 and included particulars of obligations and consequences of contravention of the orders. The court determined that the orders would operate until the hearing in September, after which further orders would be made, aiming to provide substantial and significant time for the father.