Vinkov & Mertiglio (No 2)

The Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning a ten-year-old child, C. The applicant father, Mr Vinkov, sought orders for equal shared parental responsibility and for the child to live with him, with specified time spent with the mother, Ms Mertiglio. The respondent mother sought orders for her to have sole parental responsibility, with the child living with her and spending limited, supervised time with the father, with conditions on the father's psychological assessment.

The court was required to determine several key issues, including allegations of physical abuse of the child by the mother, the risk of such abuse, the alleged alienation of the child by the father against the mother, and the capacity of each parent to meet the child's physical, emotional, and intellectual needs. The court also had to consider the child's best interests, as mandated by the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the child's views, the likely short-term and long-term effects of any change in the child's primary care, and the benefits of interim versus final orders.

Justice Rose applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly sections 60CA and 60CC, in assessing the child's best interests. The court considered the evidence presented, including the affidavit evidence of the parties and the advocacy of the independent children's lawyer. The judgment reflects a careful balancing of the competing claims and concerns, aiming to establish a stable and supportive parenting arrangement for the child. The court noted the less adversarial trial process employed and acknowledged the efforts of counsel involved.

The court made orders discharging all prior parenting orders and establishing equal shared parental responsibility. The child was ordered to live with the father, with detailed provisions for the child to spend time with the mother, including alternate weekends, half of school holidays, and specific days such as birthdays and Christmas. The orders also included provisions for communication, the exchange of the child, the transfer of clothing and homework, and specific arrangements for holidays. Furthermore, the court made orders restraining both parties from denigrating the other parent or discussing proceedings in the child's presence, and prohibiting the use of physical force. The parties were ordered to attend counselling and family therapy with a clinical psychologist, Ms O, and to share the costs equally. The court also made orders regarding the father's authorisation for the school to provide information to the mother and for the father to ensure certain individuals did not communicate with or represent him in matters concerning the child. The proceedings were stood over for mention for directions, with liberty to apply to set aside, vary, or suspend the orders.