WABLE & WABLE

The Family Court of Australia heard a dispute between Mr. Wable (applicant) and Ms. Wable (respondent) concerning parenting orders for their child, B. Both parties and the child are Australian citizens but have resided in Country C since 2007. The father sought orders for the child to live in Sydney, Australia, to commence primary education, while the mother sought to continue the current arrangements in Country C, with the child living with her and spending substantial time with the father. The court had jurisdiction as the mother submitted to it, and neither party disputed the court's authority or the enforceability of its orders.

The court was required to determine the legal issues of parental responsibility, the child's living arrangements, and the time the child would spend with each parent. Specifically, the court had to consider whether an order compelling the child to live in a particular geographical location constituted a parenting order under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The court also needed to assess the child's best interests, including the maintenance of meaningful relationships with both parents and the child's need for protection from harm, in light of the father's assertions about the child's health and educational needs in Australia.

The court reasoned that an order dictating a child's residence in a specific geographical location is not a parenting order under section 64B of the Family Law Act. Applying the principles of the child's best interests, the court found no proper basis to conclude that the child's welfare warranted a return to Australia for primary education, particularly given the child's existing meaningful relationships with both parents and the absence of any need for protection. The court noted that the current parenting regime, which involved the child living with the mother for eight days and the father for six days per fortnight, had proven reasonably practicable and served the child's best interests.

The court ordered that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the child. The child was ordered to live with the mother. The court then stipulated detailed arrangements for the child to spend time with the father, which varied depending on the geographical proximity of the father's residence to the mother and child, including provisions for school terms, school holidays, and communication between the child and the non-resident parent.