Stott and Stott

In the matter of *Stott and Stott*, heard in the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne, the applicant (wife) and the respondent (husband) presented a dispute concerning the welfare arrangements for their two sons, born in 1996 and 1998. The proceedings had been ongoing since 2003, with the case listed for a final hearing.

The court was required to determine the parenting orders for the children, specifically addressing issues of parental responsibility, residence, and the time the children would spend with each parent. This determination was to be made in light of recent amendments to the *Family Law Act 1975*, particularly concerning the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and the consideration of children's best interests.

Justice Carter applied the principles outlined in *Goode v Goode*, which clarified the effect of the amendments introduced by the Shared Parental Responsibility Act 2006. The court noted that while joint parental responsibility for long-term issues is presumed unless rebutted, the primary consideration remains the best interests of the children. In this instance, the court found that equal time with each parent was neither in the children's best interests nor reasonably practicable. Consequently, the court considered orders for substantial and significant time with each parent.

The court ordered the discharge of all previous parenting orders and established joint parental responsibility for long-term issues. The children were to reside with the husband, with specific provisions for the wife to spend time with them on alternate weekends, alternate Wednesdays during school terms, half of all school holidays, and on significant dates such as Mother's Day, Father's Day, birthdays, and Christmas. The court also made orders regarding the children's schooling, communication between parents, and a prohibition against denigrating the other parent in the children's presence. The appointment of the Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged.