RIDLEY & RIDLEY

This matter concerned parenting orders for the child M Ridley, born in 2010, between the applicant mother and the respondent father. The dispute ultimately involved the court determining the future living arrangements and time spent between the child and each parent, as well as the nature of their parental responsibility. A key procedural issue arose from the mother's failure to attend the final hearing.

The court was required to determine whether procedural fairness had been afforded to the mother, despite her absence from the final hearing, and if it was appropriate for the proceedings to continue in her absence. Furthermore, the court had to consider the best interests of the child, particularly in relation to the child living with the mother and the significance of the child's relationship with the father. The court also needed to address the issue of parental responsibility, specifically whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied, given past family violence, and the parties' agreement on this matter.

Austin J found that the mother had been afforded procedural fairness and that it was proper for the hearing to proceed in her absence. The court noted that it was uncontentious that the child should continue living with the mother, and that the child's relationship with the father was valuable and significant. The parties had agreed that the child's relationship with the father needed to be re-established and promoted without undue delay, and that an "equal time" or "substantial and significant time" arrangement was not practicable due to the distance between the parties' households. The court also acknowledged that despite the occurrence of past family violence, which would ordinarily mean the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility does not apply, the parties had agreed to have equal shared parental responsibility.

Consequently, the court ordered that all former parenting orders be discharged. The mother and father were to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, and the child was to live with the mother. The orders then detailed a phased approach for the child to spend increasing amounts of time with the father, commencing with specific dates and times and transitioning to a regular pattern of time during school terms and holidays. Provisions were also made for communication between the child and the non-resident parent, and for the parties to refrain from denigrating each other in the child's presence.