WALLER & CASSON

The case of Waller & Casson involved applications concerning parenting orders for a child, B. The primary dispute revolved around the child's residence, the change of the child's surname, and various arrangements for the child's care, including holidays, special days, changeovers, communication between parents, schooling, and overseas travel. The matter was heard by Johnston J in the Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine a range of issues, including whether to grant the mother's application for a change of the child's surname, and to establish comprehensive parenting orders. These orders needed to address the allocation of parental responsibility, the child's living arrangements on an alternating weekly basis, specific provisions for Christmas and school vacations, arrangements for Father's Day and Mother's Day, protocols for changeovers, communication methods between the parents, decisions regarding the child's schooling, and procedures for overseas travel. Additionally, the court needed to consider restraints on the parties' conduct and the implications of contravening the orders.

Johnston J made detailed parenting orders, discharging all previous orders. The mother's application to change the child's surname was dismissed. The court ordered that the mother and father have equal shared parental responsibility for the child. The child was ordered to live with the mother and father on an alternating weekly basis. Specific provisions were made for the Christmas school vacation, including alternating halves of the vacation and specific arrangements for Christmas Eve and Boxing Day, with defined changeover times. Further orders addressed Father's Day and Mother's Day, stipulating time with the relevant parent if the child is not residing with them. Changeover arrangements were specified to occur at a particular location, with provisions for nominees and a restraint on the mother nominating a specific individual. Communication between the parties was restricted to SMS or email, with a requirement to notify by SMS if an urgent email was sent. Both parents were granted liberty to attend school and other functions, and to attend parent-teacher meetings individually. Enrolment at the child's current school and any future high school required the written consent of the other party. The child's passport was to be held by the Registry Manager, with specific procedures outlined for its release for overseas travel, including notice periods, itinerary details, and the return of the passport. The court also imposed restraints on both parties from denigrating each other in the presence of the child and ensuring third parties do not do so. Finally, the court referenced provisions of the *Family Law Act 1975* regarding contravention of orders and assistance available to parties.