TATTON & TATTON (No.2)

The proceedings involved Ms Tatton and Mr Tatton, the parents of four children: [W], [X], [Y], and [Z]. The dispute concerned the parenting arrangements for the children. The decision was made by Brown J.

The court was required to determine the orders for the children's living arrangements, time spent with each parent, and parental responsibility, considering the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under the *Family Law Act 1975*. The court also had to address the specific wishes of the eldest child, [W], and the potential impact of differing living arrangements on the younger siblings.

Brown J applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975*, particularly concerning the best interests of the children and the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. The court acknowledged the love both parents have for their children and their aspirations for them, despite a history of suboptimal parenting. The decision recognised the difficulty in crafting orders that would satisfy all parties and avoid future litigation, given the poor parenting relationship between Ms Tatton and Mr Tatton. The court also considered the maturity and wishes of the children, especially [W], in making its determination.

The court made orders conferring equal shared parental responsibility on both parents. The living arrangements for [W] were to be as she wished, with her spending time with both parents. For the other children, the living arrangements were conditional on the mother's election to move within a 10-kilometre radius of the former family home. If she elected to move, the children would live with each parent on a week-about basis during school terms. If she did not move or did not move within that radius, the children would live with the father during school terms, with specific time arrangements for the mother. The orders also detailed arrangements for school holidays, special occasions, birthdays, and communication between parents regarding the children's health, education, and general well-being. Injunctions were granted restraining the removal of the children from South Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia without specific notice and consent. All other applications were dismissed.