Sorrel and Cutten

In the matter of *Sorrel and Cutten*, heard by Cronin J, the court considered applications concerning the parenting of a child, B. The proceedings involved the father and the mother, Ms Cutten. The father sought sole parental responsibility and orders for the child to live with him, while the mother's application for final orders was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The central legal issues before the court were the determination of parenting orders for the child B, including the allocation of parental responsibility and the child's residence. Additionally, the court was required to consider the father's application for an injunction against the mother and the implications of the mother's failure to prosecute her own application. The court also had to address the father's application filed on 1 May 2018 and his amended response and outline of case.

Cronin J discharged all extant parenting orders. The court ordered that the father have sole parental responsibility for the child B and that the child live solely with the father. Crucially, pursuant to s 68B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), the mother was restrained by injunction from approaching, contacting, or being in possession of the child. The father was granted the sole right to apply for a passport for the child. The father's application filed on 1 May 2018 was dismissed, as was his application for final orders as reflected in his amended response and outline of case. The mother's application for final orders was dismissed for want of prosecution. The court also directed that Exhibit F(1) remain on the court file and not be returned to the mother, and the order appointing an Independent Children’s Lawyer was discharged.