Wing and Choi

In *Wing & Choi* [2013] FamCA 323, the Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders concerning a child, G, born in August 2006. The proceedings involved the child's parents, Mr Wing (the father) and Ms Choi (the mother), and the Independent Children's Lawyer. The primary dispute centred on whether the mother should have sole parental responsibility for the child and the extent of time the child should spend with the father. The court noted that the child had lived with the mother since the parents' separation in May 2008, and this arrangement was not in dispute.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, G, in accordance with Part VII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This involved considering the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under s 61DA and whether this presumption was rebutted due to allegations of abuse or family violence. The court also had to consider whether equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent was in the child's best interests and reasonably practicable, as outlined in s 65DAA. A significant aspect of the proceedings involved allegations of sexual abuse made by the mother against the father, which were later withdrawn by the mother's counsel during the trial.

Stevenson J applied the principles of the *Family Law Act*, focusing on the child's best interests. The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was not applied due to the history of domestic violence allegations, although the mother ultimately conceded that a finding of sexual abuse was not open. The court considered the evidence presented, including affidavits and oral testimony from the parents, family members, and a single expert, Associate Professor H. The court noted the father's admission of domestic violence against the mother. Ultimately, the court found that it was not in the child's best interests for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility.

The court made orders discharging all existing orders and granting the mother sole parental responsibility. The child was ordered to live with the mother. The father was granted supervised time with the child, commencing with short, supervised visits and gradually increasing in duration and decreasing in supervision levels over time, with a view to unsupervised overnight stays and significant holiday time by February 2015 and 2016 respectively. The orders also included provisions for the father to be kept informed of major long-term issues concerning the child and for each parent to refrain from making derogatory remarks about the other in the child's presence. The mother was also directed to attend a program called "Brighter Futures."