Father Opposes Sole Parental Responsibility Sought by Mother
Canton & Leconte [2021] FCCA 1138 (28 May 2021)
Mother and father of X were in a toxic parenting conflict after conceiving X after a brief relationship. Mother sought sole parental responsibility, which was strongly opposed by the father, each parent having a negative view of the other leading the Independent Children’s Lawyer to making recommended spend time orders accordingly.
Facts:
The parties had met only three times when X, the child was conceived. The mother actively hid this fact from the father. The mother seeks sole parental responsibility and for the father’s time with X to be limited to two nights until the latter gets older and to minimize conflict.
The father strongly objects this in fear of obstructionist behaviour and failure to cooperate on the mother’s end. Both parents have extremely negative opinions of the other and the present situation is stressful for X and joint parental responsibility seems unworkable. The Independent Children’s Lawyer believes that X should live with the mother and that the mother should have sole parental responsibility for the child provided that the father is informed of long term decisions involving the child.
Issue:
Whether or not the order should be for sole parental responsibility for the mother or should it be joint;
Whether or not the child’s time with the father each alternate weekend finish on Sunday at 3.30pm or on Monday at start of school or 9.30am; and,
Whether or not the time that the child spends with the father on holidays should be in blocks of five days or seven days.
Applicable law:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss. 60CC - the child’s best interest should be considered.
Goode v Goode [2006] FamCA 1346 - parenting orders presume that equal shared parental responsibility of the parents are in the best interests of the child unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent or a person who lives with a parent engaged in family violence.
Analysis:
Since X is too young to express views on what she may desire, other factors provided for in Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss. 60CC should be considered like her strong relationship with her mother, how she likes spending time with her father, and increasingly affectionate relationship with her step siblings. As per the expert evidence of Ms K, X can cope with up to seven nights. Ms K also recommended three nights per fortnight, albeit with a different configuration of days. This is regardless of the mother’s views as to the amounts of time X can sustain in pursuant to Goode v Goode [2006] FamCA 1346 which held that the child’s best interests remain the overriding consideration.
Conclusion:
The court ordered sole parental responsibility granted in favor of the mother with the qualifications as to consultation urged by the Independent Children’s lawyer. The reduced time regime should be that proposed by the latter. Such spend time orders involve a sensible compromise balancing the best interest of the child and the assent of the mother. An order is made allowing for the child’s return time to be at 3:30 on Sundays, save that on the last weekend of each month that time is to occur at 9.30 on Monday or commencement of school, and that the holiday time be in blocks of seven days.
