Zamora v Eastlund

In *Zamora v Eastlund*, heard by Judge W J Neville, the dispute concerned the primary residence of the child, X, born in 2012. The child had been living primarily with the mother. The father sought limited orders, and during cross-examination, conceded to lying. The child was experiencing high levels of anxiety.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child in relation to their primary residence and parental responsibility. This involved considering the father's insight into the child's best interests, his conduct during proceedings, and the impact of the parental dispute on the child's well-being, particularly the child's anxiety.

The court reasoned that the father lacked insight into the child's best interests and that his admitted dishonesty during proceedings was a significant factor. The child's high levels of anxiety were also a critical consideration. Applying the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) regarding the best interests of the child, the court made orders discharging previous orders. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility and the child was ordered to live with her. The father was to have limited, supervised time with the child, at his cost, and communication between the parents was restricted to text and email, except in emergencies. The child was also to engage with a counsellor. The issue of costs was to be dealt with by written submissions unless a further application was made within 21 days.