Royce & Royce (No 4)

In the matter of *Royce & Royce (No 4)*, Cronin J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife for sole parental responsibility and sole residence for the parties' child, D. The husband had notice of the proceedings, and the wife sought to proceed on an undefended basis.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the wife should be granted sole parental responsibility for long-term decision-making concerning the child, and whether the child should live with the wife. The court also had to consider the discharge of a previous order made on 12 July 2012 regarding the child's living arrangements.

Cronin J reasoned that it was in the child's best interests to grant the wife sole parental responsibility for long-term decisions and for the child to live with the wife. The court discharged the previous order concerning the child's residence and dismissed all other applications made by the husband and the wife. The court also made orders regarding the return of exhibits and subpoenaed documents, and included a Fact Sheet detailing the obligations and consequences of the orders pursuant to sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the relevant legislation.