THURSTON & CARDEN

This matter came before Judge Scarlett concerning the parenting arrangements for a child, X, born in 2005. The dispute involved the suspension of previous consent orders made on 29 September 2011 and the establishment of new orders regarding the child's care, welfare, and development.

The court was required to determine the extent of shared parental responsibility for long-term decisions, including medical treatment, education, surname, and religious upbringing. Additionally, the court needed to define the day-to-day care arrangements, specifying where the child would live and the time the child would spend with each parent, including detailed provisions for school holidays and special occasions. The court also had to consider injunctions to restrain parental denigration and the discussion of court proceedings with the child, as well as orders for communication, information sharing, and attendance at school events.

Judge Scarlett ordered that the previous consent orders be suspended. Equal shared parental responsibility was ordered for the long-term care, welfare, and development of the child, encompassing major medical decisions, educational choices, surname, and religious upbringing. Each parent was granted sole responsibility for day-to-day issues when the child was in their care. The child was ordered to live with the mother, with specific, detailed provisions outlining the time the child would spend with the father, including alternate weekends, half of each school holiday period, and specific arrangements for Christmas/New Year holidays, Father's Day, and the child's and father's birthdays. The court also stipulated that the father's time with the child would be suspended on the weekend of Mother's Day, during specific times on the child's birthday if it fell on a weekend or public holiday when the child was with the father, and on the mother's birthday. Changeovers were to occur at the child's school or a mutually agreed location. Further orders addressed telephone contact, privacy during telephone calls, injunctions against parental denigration and discussing proceedings with the child, notification of illness, mutual entitlement to attend school events, and the exchange of contact and address details. Both parents were permitted to obtain information regarding the child's health and school performance. The application was adjourned for further mention.