Seldon and Seldon

The Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning two children, D and J, with the Mother, Ms Seldon, as the applicant and the Father, Mr Seldon, as the respondent. The dispute centred on the parental responsibility for the children and the terms of their time spent with the Father, particularly in light of the Father's alleged non-compliance with court directions and his attitude towards one child's mental health treatment. The proceedings were heard in Brisbane by Kent J.

The court was required to determine whether to make parenting orders on an undefended basis, given the Father's failure to file material or attend hearings despite having notice. It also had to consider the best interests of the children, particularly D, who had significant psychological conditions requiring ongoing treatment, and the Father's alleged interference with this treatment. The court needed to assess the extent to which each parent had fulfilled their parental responsibilities and whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied, or if it should be rebutted.

Kent J reasoned that the Father had been afforded ample opportunity to participate in the proceedings and comply with court orders, but had failed to do so. The court found that the Father's non-compliance, coupled with his expressed views regarding D's mental health and his interference with prescribed treatment, necessitated making orders on an undefended basis in the best interests of the children. The court applied principles from the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the paramount consideration of the children's best interests and the need to protect them from harm, noting that the Father's attitude posed a risk to D's well-being. The court also considered the Father's own application, which sought to significantly limit his time with the children, and his failure to avail himself of existing contact arrangements.

The court ordered that previous orders be discharged, that the Mother have parental responsibility for all major long-term issues, and that the children live with the Mother. Specific arrangements were made for the children to spend time and communicate with the Father, including supervised contact if he returned to Australia, with all costs to be borne by him. The court also ordered that the Father's application for variation be dismissed, but granted him liberty to show cause why the orders should be varied or set aside. Costs were reserved pending any such application.