Shelford& Tahoke

In *Shelford & Tahoke*, heard in the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne, the applicant husband and respondent wife were in dispute regarding parenting arrangements for their two children, L (born September 1993) and J (born March 1998). The parties had separated in 2000, with the wife having had primary care of the children. An incident had recently occurred, leading to L residing with the husband. The primary dispute before the court concerned the time the husband should spend with the younger child, J, pending further determination.

The court was required to determine interim parenting orders for L and J, considering the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). However, given the limited material and the interim nature of the hearing, the court found it inappropriate to apply this presumption and instead focused on making orders in the best interests of the children, as mandated by section 60CC of the Act. Key issues included the children's relationship with each parent, the need to protect them from harm, the children's views, and the importance of maintaining the sibling relationship.

Justice Cronin reasoned that, in the absence of findings of violence or other factors that would preclude the presumption, the court's primary obligation was to consider the benefit to the children of having a meaningful relationship with both parents. The court noted the established pattern of the husband spending alternate weekends with J for several years and determined that disrupting this relationship, particularly given J's age and potential confusion, would not be in her best interests. The court also emphasised the importance of the sisters maintaining contact with each other. The judge acknowledged the need for further expert reports and the appointment of an Independent Children's Lawyer, but concluded that interim orders were necessary to provide stability for the children during the interim period.

The court ordered that L live with the husband and J live with the wife until further order. Specific arrangements were made for J to spend time with the husband on alternate weekends and communicate by telephone. The court also ordered the separate representation of both children by an Independent Children's Lawyer, the preparation of a Family Report by a psychologist, and attendance at family dispute resolution counselling. The parties were restrained from discussing the proceedings with the children. The matter was adjourned for further hearing.