Thomsett and Schroffler

This matter concerned an application before Judge Howard regarding the parenting arrangements for two children. The dispute centred on the children's living arrangements and the extent of contact the mother should have with them, given the significant animosity between the parents and the mother's limited recent contact.

The court was required to determine what parenting orders would be in the best interests of the children, having regard to the primary considerations outlined in section 60CC of the relevant Act. These considerations include the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm. The court also considered whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA was rebutted by findings of family violence, and if so, whether an order for equal time would be in the children's best interests under section 65DAA.

Judge Howard accepted the recommendations of the Independent Children’s Lawyer, Mr B, that the children ought to live with their father long-term and that the father should be released from geographical restrictions. The court found that the mother's explanations for her failure to attend supervised contact, including claims of illness, were not convincing, particularly in light of her partner's willingness to drive her and the numerous occasions contact was cancelled by her. The court noted the significant distress caused to the children by the mother's non-attendance, especially on Mother's Day. Consequently, the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was rebutted due to findings of family violence, and the court concluded that sole parental responsibility in favour of the father was in the children's best interests, with no order for equal time. The court also declined to order the father to disclose the mother's surname or the children's address, citing the animosity between the parties and the potential for the father's life to be disrupted.

The court made orders for the Independent Children’s Lawyer to provide a proposed Final Order to the parties, requiring them to attempt to reach an agreed position on its wording. In the event of an inability to agree, the matter was to be listed for mention, with personal attendance required by both parties and their legal representatives.