Souter & Meagher & Anor

This case involved applications for parenting orders concerning a child, R, born in October 2000. The proceedings were brought by R's mother, his father, and his maternal great grandmother. R had been living with his great grandmother since early 2003, and both his mother and father sought to change this arrangement, with the great grandmother seeking the continuation of the existing orders. The matter was heard by Justice Cronin of the Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were: firstly, whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility between the mother and father should apply, and if so, whether R should spend equal or substantial and significant time with each parent; and secondly, what final parenting orders would best serve R's best interests, considering his relationship with his parents and his long-term primary carers, the great grandparents. The court was required to consider the extensive list of factors outlined in section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents, the need to protect R from harm, R's views, the nature of his relationships with all parties, the parents' ability to facilitate a relationship with the other parent, the likely effect of any changes, practical difficulties, the parents' capacities, and their past and present attitudes to parenthood.

Justice Cronin applied the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA of the *Family Law Act 1975*, finding no grounds to rebut it. However, the court determined that it was not reasonably practicable for R to spend equal time with each parent due to the geographical distance and the parents' respective circumstances. Consequently, the court considered whether R should spend substantial and significant time with each parent, again finding practical difficulties. The court then proceeded to assess R's best interests under section 60CC, weighing the evidence presented by all parties, including the mother's improved stability, the father's capacity and commitment, and the great grandparents' long-standing care. The court noted the psychologist's view that R would not be adversely affected by a transition from his great grandparents to either parent. Ultimately, the court found it appropriate for R to be cared for predominantly by his mother, with significant time allocated to his father and continued involvement from his great grandparents, aiming to facilitate a handover of primary care while maintaining important relationships.

The court made detailed orders regarding R's living arrangements, time spent with each parent and the great grandparents, and communication. These orders included equal shared parental responsibility for major long-term decisions, R living with the mother, and a structured schedule for R to spend time with his father and maternal great grandparents during school terms and holidays. The court also made orders concerning the mother's dogs and restrained her from allowing R contact with them unless under specific conditions. All other extant proceedings were dismissed.