Stracchi and Anello

In the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne, Justice Cronin presided over competing applications for residence orders between Ms Stracchi (the applicant mother) and Mr Anello (the respondent father) concerning their two children, a son born in July 1995 and a daughter born in March 2001. The dispute arose from the parties' separation, with diametrically opposed accounts of their relationship history and the circumstances surrounding the mother's departure from the family home and subsequent separation from the children. The proceedings were initiated by the mother's urgent application seeking a recovery order for the children.

The court was required to determine the immediate living arrangements for the children and the nature of their contact with each parent, given the significant factual disputes and serious allegations of drug use by both parties. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether to make interim residence orders, the extent of the mother's time with the children, and the role of the grandparents in facilitating contact. A central legal issue was the application of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and whether this presumption should be rebutted based on the best interests of the children.

Justice Cronin found himself unable to make definitive findings of fact due to the conflicting evidence presented by the parties, particularly concerning the timeline of their separation and the circumstances surrounding the children's departure with the father. However, the court expressed significant concern regarding the potential impact of drug use on both parents' capacity to care for the children. Applying the principles of the *Family Law Act*, the court determined that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility should be rebutted, as it would not be in the best interests of the children to make such an order at that stage. The court then considered the factors under section 60CC of the Act, noting a lack of evidence regarding the children's views and the limited recent involvement of the maternal grandparents, although they had offered to assist with facilitating contact.

Consequently, the court made interim orders for the children to live with their father until further order, with specific periods of time allocated for the mother to spend with the children during the upcoming school holidays. These arrangements were to be facilitated by the paternal and maternal grandfathers to manage the handover of the children. The mother was ordered to reside with her parents, and the court also made orders for the appointment of an independent children's lawyer, supervised drug screenings for both parents, and restrictions on the mother attending the children's school. The further hearing of all outstanding applications was adjourned to a later date.