Stanbrook & Holloway

This case concerned parenting orders between Ms Stanbrook (the applicant mother) and Mr Holloway (the respondent father) regarding their child, Z. The dispute involved allegations of drug abuse, medical neglect, and child abuse, with the court finding that Z had been exposed to her stepmother’s negative views of her mother, resulting in psychological harm. The proceedings were before Hartnett J of the Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine the appropriate parenting arrangements for Z, specifically addressing issues of parental responsibility for medical and educational matters, the child's residence, and the time Z would spend with each parent. A key legal issue was whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) applied, given the allegations of psychological harm to the child.

Hartnett J found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility did not apply, as there were reasonable grounds to believe the father had engaged in conduct causing psychological harm to Z. The court reasoned that the father and his wife had engaged in a campaign to discredit the mother, showing no regard for Z’s wellbeing or the importance of her relationship with her mother. While acknowledging Z’s attachment to her father and stepmother, and the benefit of a meaningful relationship with her father, the court prioritised Z’s best interests and protection from further emotional harm. Consequently, the mother was granted sole parental responsibility for Z’s medical and educational matters, with equal shared parental responsibility otherwise. Z was ordered to live with the mother, and specific, carefully delineated time arrangements were made for Z to spend with the father, subject to strict conditions designed to protect Z from further psychological harm and to prevent the repetition of past destructive behaviours.