Southey and Pitman

In *Southey and Pitman*, heard in the Family Court of Australia at Albury, Brown J considered parenting orders for two children, a daughter born in May 1994 and a son born in April 1997. The proceedings had a lengthy history, commencing in 2000, and involved significant parental conflict. The court was asked to determine final parenting orders following a period of interim arrangements that had seen the daughter live with her mother in Melbourne and the son with his father in Albury, after an allegation of assault by the daughter against her stepmother.

The central legal issues before the court were to determine the best interests of the children in light of their ages, the geographical distance between their parents, the parents' financial circumstances, and the history of parental conflict. Specifically, the court had to consider the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and, in light of the children not spending equal time with each parent, whether they should spend substantial and significant time with each parent. The court also had to determine appropriate arrangements for the children's time with each parent during school terms and holidays, including the frequency and duration of contact, and provisions for communication and changeovers.

Brown J applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975*, particularly concerning the best interests of the child and the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. The court noted that while equal time was not practicable or in the children's best interests due to geographical distance, substantial and significant time with each parent was appropriate. The court acknowledged the parents' joint proposal for final orders, viewing it as a positive step towards reducing future litigation and demonstrating cooperation for the children's welfare. The court ultimately made orders discharging previous parenting orders and establishing equal shared parental responsibility. The children were ordered to live with the husband, with specific arrangements for the wife to spend time with them on alternate weekends during school terms, and defined periods during school holidays. Provisions were also made for telephone communication, changeovers, and notification of medical issues.

The court also made orders restraining both parties from consuming alcohol to excess in the presence of the children or denigrating the other party. Crucially, the parenting orders were to be supervised by a family consultant for 12 months, with the supervision reportable in certain circumstances. The court noted that the parties consented to most orders, with some specific points of contention raised by the independent children's lawyer, particularly regarding the frequency of weekend contact. The court ultimately adopted the parents' proposed arrangements for weekend contact, while incorporating elements of the independent children's lawyer's advice regarding holiday time and telephone communication.