Rappel and Rappel

In *Rappel and Rappel*, Murphy J considered applications concerning the parental responsibility and time arrangements for a child named K. The proceedings involved disputes between K's parents regarding her upbringing and welfare.

The court was required to determine whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility should be rebutted, and if so, to make specific orders regarding K's schooling, medical and psychological treatment, co-parenting time, and communication between the parents. The court also had to address the dismissal of other extant parenting applications and the return of subpoenaed documents and exhibits.

Murphy J found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted due to the best interests of the child. The court ordered that the mother would be solely responsible for decisions regarding K's psychiatric or psychological reports, consultations, treatment, counselling, or therapy, provided she sought the father's agreement and notified him in writing of any decisions made solely, including details of practitioners and consultation dates, and provided an unrestricted authority for practitioners to discuss K's treatment with the father. K was ordered to attend her current pre-school and attached school, or the geographically closest school if none was attached. The court also made detailed orders regarding K's living arrangements and time with each parent during term time, non-term time, birthdays, Mother's Day, Father's Day, and Christmas, specifying changeover arrangements and communication protocols.

All other extant applications for parenting orders were dismissed. The court also ordered the return of subpoenaed documents and exhibits. Furthermore, pursuant to sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the relevant Act, the particulars of the obligations created by these orders, the consequences of contravention, and details of assistance for compliance were to be included in a Fact Sheet attached to the orders.