Best Interests of the Child: How Australian Courts Decide Parenting Matters

The Post–6 May 2024 Framework

The Family Law Amendment Act 2023 (Cth) reshaped Part VII of the Family Law Act with effect from 6 May 2024. Three structural changes matter most to the best-interests inquiry.

• A single list of considerations. The former division of section 60CC into "primary" and "additional" considerations was repealed and replaced with one list of general considerations in section 60CC(2), together with the additional considerations for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in section 60CC(3).
• No presumption about parental responsibility. The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was repealed, along with the pathway that required the court to consider equal time or substantial and significant time where that presumption applied. Nothing replaced them.
• An express statutory basis for reconsidering final orders. Section 65DAAA now sets out how a final parenting order may be reconsidered.

Commentary written before May 2024 — including material suggesting equal time is a starting point, or that shared parental responsibility is presumed — does not reflect the current law. Where an older judgment is still relevant, it is usually for its reasoning about children's needs, risk or the assessment of evidence rather than for the repealed statutory pathway it applied.

Section 60CA: What "Paramount" Means

Section 60CA provides that, in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, the court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. Two points follow.

• Paramountcy is directed to the parenting-order outcome. It governs the question of which order should be made. It does not automatically resolve every procedural or collateral question that arises along the way — for example questions of admissibility, disclosure, costs or procedure are decided under the rules and principles that govern them, even though the child's interests remain relevant context in a Part VII case.
• Paramount does not mean sole or mechanical. The court weighs the considerations in section 60CC to reach a view about what arrangement best serves this child. It is an evaluative exercise on the evidence, not the application of a checklist score.

A common misconception is that the paramountcy principle means the child's wishes, or a parent's view of the child's interests, controls the outcome. It does not. The court forms its own view of the child's best interests on all the material before it.

Overview of Section 60CC

Section 60CC(2) requires the court, in determining what is in the child's best interests, to consider:

1. what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect or other harm) of the child and each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child);
2. any views expressed by the child;
3. the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child;
4. the capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs;
5. the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child's parents, and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so; and
6. anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child.

Section 60CC(2A) directs what must be included when the court considers the safety consideration. Section 60CC(3) adds considerations for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. In a contested determination the considerations are mandatory in the sense that the court must consider them; their significance and the weight they carry vary with the evidence and the circumstances of the case.

Consent orders are different. Section 60CC(4) provides that, when the court is considering whether to make a parenting order by consent, it may, but is not required to, consider all or any of the matters in section 60CC(2) or (3). The court is not conducting the same evidentiary inquiry it would conduct after a contested final hearing. That discretion does not displace paramountcy: section 60CA governs the decision whether to make the order and section 65AA requires the court, in making a parenting order, to regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. The practical work of negotiating and formalising agreed arrangements is covered in parenting arrangements after separation and consent orders in family law.

Factor 1: Arrangements Promoting Safety

Section 60CC(2)(a) asks what arrangements would promote the safety of the child, and of each person who has care of the child, including safety from being subjected to or exposed to family violence, abuse, neglect or other harm. It appears first in the list. That does not make it a statutory hierarchy: the Act does not describe it as a primary, leading or presumptively dominant consideration. Where there is evidence of risk, however, it will usually be central to the analysis, because an arrangement that exposes a child to unacceptable risk is unlikely to serve the child's best interests.

Note that the consideration is framed prospectively and practically — what arrangements would promote safety — rather than as an abstract inquiry into blame. Practical questions the court may examine include:

• whether a proposed arrangement removes, reduces or perpetuates identified risk, and whether any protective condition (supervision, a neutral changeover location, no direct contact between the adults, communication through an app) is realistic and sustainable;
• whether the child has been exposed to conflict, coercion or violence between the adults, and what effect that exposure has had on the child;
• whether an adult's conduct, substance use, untreated illness or living circumstances presents an unacceptable risk in the context of the care proposed for them;
• the safety of each person who has care of the child, not only the child, because protecting a carer can be important to the child's own safety and stability — the practical effect of the proposed arrangements is assessed on the evidence, and a person's exposure to family violence is not evidence of deficient parenting capacity; and
• whether risk can be managed at all, and if so at what cost to the child's other needs and relationships.

Potentially relevant evidence may include family violence orders and their supporting material, police records, child-protection records, medical or hospital records where properly obtained and admissible, contemporaneous messages, a Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk, family reports, and evidence of engagement with treatment or behaviour-change programs. Facts and weight vary; nothing in this area operates as a formula, and safety findings do not follow automatically from allegations.

This article deliberately keeps family violence at the level of the best-interests framework. For the detailed guide to allegations, risk evidence, notices and protective orders, see family violence and parenting orders in Australia.

Section 60CC(2A), Family Violence Orders and Section 60CG

When considering the safety consideration in section 60CC(2)(a), section 60CC(2A) requires the court to include consideration of:

• any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child, whether or not that person had parental responsibility for the child; and
• any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child's family.

Two features of that provision are often misunderstood. First, the history is not confined to people with parental responsibility — a grandparent, step-parent or other carer can be within it. Second, the reference is to an order that applies or has applied. A family violence order that has expired, been revoked or been replaced is still within the consideration; it is not limited to a current order.

Separately from the best-interests analysis, section 60CG requires the court, in considering what parenting order to make, so far as it is possible to do so consistently with the child's best interests being the paramount consideration, to ensure that the order is consistent with a family violence order that applies, and in all cases does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence. An expired order is relevant to the section 60CC(2A) safety consideration, but a parenting order is not required to conform operationally to an order that no longer applies. In practice that means a Victorian Family Violence Intervention Order and parenting orders should be able to operate together, and the terms of each should be put before the court that is making the other. Our guide to family violence intervention orders in Victoria explains the Victorian scheme.

Factor 2: The Child's Views

In a contested determination, any views expressed by the child are a mandatory consideration under section 60CC(2)(b), subject to the discretion in section 60CC(4) when the court makes an order by consent. The court must consider them; it is not bound by them.

The weight given to a child's views is fact-specific and may be affected by the child's age, maturity and level of understanding, the strength and consistency of the views over time, the depth of the child's understanding of what is being proposed, and the circumstances in which the views were formed — including whether the child has been exposed to adult conflict, pressure or a loyalty bind. There is no fixed age at which a child chooses their arrangements, and a stated preference is not treated as a decision.

How the views reach the court matters as much as their content:

• Section 60CD permits the court to inform itself of the child's views by having a report prepared, by an Independent Children's Lawyer, or by such other means as the court thinks appropriate.
• Section 60CE provides that nothing in Part VII permits the court or any person to require the child to express a view. A child may decline.
• Children generally do not give evidence. Direct evidence from a child is exceptional and subject to the court's control. It is not a routine pathway and should not be planned for as one.

Practically, the most useful material about a child's views tends to come from a professional whose role is to speak with the child in a structured way, rather than from a parent's account of what the child said. Recording a child, coaching a child, or repeatedly questioning a child about their preferences may undermine the reliability of the views or the weight given to them, and may raise concerns about parenting capacity, depending on the evidence.

Factor 3: Developmental, Psychological, Emotional and Cultural Needs

Section 60CC(2)(c) directs attention to the child's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs. This is where the analysis becomes specific to the actual child rather than to children in general.

Practical questions the court may examine include:

• the child's age and stage — an infant's need for predictable primary care and short separations differs from a teenager's need for autonomy, friendships, study and part-time work;
• any disability, health condition, learning need, developmental delay or diagnosed mental-health condition, and what care, therapy, routine or supervision it requires;
• the child's attachment relationships and their experience of separations, transitions and changeovers;
• schooling, continuity of education, extracurricular and peer connections;
• cultural, linguistic and religious identity and practice, including in bicultural or multilingual families; and
• the child's need for stability and for freedom from exposure to adult conflict.

Relevant evidence may include school reports and communications from the school, treating practitioners' records where properly obtained and admissible, NDIS or therapy documentation, evidence about routines and day-to-day care, and family reports. The point is to identify the child's needs concretely and then to show how each proposal meets them — not to assert generally that one household is better.

Factor 4: Each Proposed Carer's Capacity

Section 60CC(2)(d) concerns the capacity of each person who has, or is proposed to have, parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs. It is a forward-looking, child-focused inquiry into capability, not a comparison of personal merit.

Practical questions may include:

• insight — does the carer understand this child's particular needs, and can they describe them without reframing everything as a complaint about the other parent?
• practical arrangements — housing, work patterns, care during work hours, school transport, health appointments, food, sleep and routine;
• support available from family, community or services, and its reliability;
• capacity to facilitate the child's relationship with the other parent and other significant people, where safe, and to insulate the child from adult conflict;
• capacity to prioritise the child where there are competing pressures, including health, substance use or new-relationship dynamics; and
• willingness to engage with treatment, programs or supports where the evidence shows they are needed.

Capacity can change, and can be supported by conditions in an order. A carer's limitation in one respect does not determine the outcome. Equally, an assertion that a parent lacks capacity carries little weight unless the evidence shows an effect on the child or on the care actually proposed.

Factor 5: Relationships, Where Safe

Section 60CC(2)(e) concerns the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child's parents, and with other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so. The words "benefit" and "where it is safe to do so" both matter: the consideration is about the value of the relationship to the child, and it is qualified by safety rather than expressed as an entitlement of an adult.

"Other people who are significant to the child" can include grandparents, siblings and half-siblings, step-parents, aunts and uncles, kin and long-standing carers. The court may examine the quality and history of each relationship, what the child gains from it, whether the proposed arrangement supports or erodes it, and whether time can be structured so that important relationships are preserved without overloading the child with transitions.

Evidence about relationships is often best shown rather than asserted: a history of involvement in school and health matters, sustained care, contemporaneous communications, and observations recorded in a family report. Weight varies with the facts, and no relationship is guaranteed a particular quantity of time.

Factor 6: Anything Else Relevant

Section 60CC(2)(f) allows the court to consider anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child. It is deliberately open, and it is not a closed alternative list. Depending on the case, it may accommodate:

• sibling and household relationships, including step-siblings and the composition of each household;
• practical travel time, distance, handover logistics and the effect of repeated transitions on the child;
• stability and the existing arrangement, where continuity is meeting the child's needs;
• the workability of each proposal — whether it can actually be performed given work, school, travel and support;
• special circumstances such as health crises, disability supports, immigration or geographic constraints; and
• a party's conduct, but only to the extent that it bears on the child's welfare or on the orders proposed — for example conduct affecting the child's exposure to conflict, or a party's reliability in performing an arrangement.

This is not a licence for general criticism of the other parent. Material that does not bear on the child or on the proposed orders adds length without adding weight.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children

Section 60CC(3) requires the court, in the case of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child, to also consider:

• the child's right to enjoy their Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture, by having the support, opportunity and encouragement necessary to connect with, and maintain their connection with, members of their family and with their community, culture, country and language; to explore the full extent of that culture, consistently with the child's age and developmental level and the child's views; and to develop a positive appreciation of that culture; and
• the likely impact any proposed parenting order under Part VII will have on that right.

This is a substantive consideration about the child's identity and connection, not a background or ornamental matter. In practice it invites concrete evidence: who the child's family and kin are, which community and country the child is connected to, what cultural participation looks like in the child's life, who supports it, and how each proposed arrangement would support or interrupt it. Section 61F also requires the court to have regard to any kinship obligations and child-rearing practices of the child's Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture when applying Part VII to such a child.

No Presumption of Equal Time or Equal Shared Parental Responsibility

From 6 May 2024 the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was repealed, together with the pathway that required the court, where that presumption applied, to consider whether equal time — or substantial and significant time — was in the child's best interests and reasonably practicable. Those provisions are repealed history and no longer describe the law.

• No presumption replaced them. There is no statutory starting point in favour of equal time, or of any other quantum of time, and none against it.
• Parental responsibility and time are separate questions. An order about who makes long-term decisions is distinct from an order about where a child lives and who the child spends time with. One does not dictate the other.
• Nothing follows automatically. Neither equal time nor sole parental responsibility is an automatic consequence of any fact, including a finding of family violence, a long absence or the age of the child.
• Each is determined on the orders sought. The court considers the particular orders proposed and applies the best-interests analysis to them on the evidence.

Because outcomes now depend so directly on the specific proposal, the way a proposal is framed matters. A workable, detailed and child-focused proposal — covering school terms, holidays, changeovers, communication and decision-making — gives the court something it can evaluate, and if appropriate make orders in those terms.

Parental Responsibility and Joint Decision-Making

Section 61B defines parental responsibility as all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which, by law, parents have in relation to children. Under the current framework the court may allocate parental responsibility jointly, or to one person, and may allocate it differently for different issues — for example joint decision-making about education but sole decision-making about a particular medical issue — where that fits the child's circumstances.

Where an order provides for joint decision-making about major long-term issues, section 61DAA requires the parties to consult each other in relation to each such decision and to make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision. The statutory definition of major long-term issues includes issues about the child's education (both current and future), religious and cultural upbringing, health, name, and changes to the child's living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with a parent.

That last limb is precise and is often paraphrased inaccurately. The statutory question is whether the proposed change to living arrangements has the specified effect on the child's ability to spend time with a parent. A move is therefore not generically a major long-term issue: a relocation across a city may not have that effect, while a shorter move might, depending on the existing arrangement. Relocation law and the evidence it requires are dealt with in relocation of children after separation.

Decisions about issues that are not major long-term issues — day-to-day matters arising while the child is in a person's care — are generally made by that person without a need to consult. An order for joint decision-making is not an order that every decision be agreed.

Interim and Final Hearings

The best-interests framework applies at every stage, but the evidence available and the nature of the decision differ markedly between an interim and a final hearing.

• Interim hearings commonly proceed on affidavit and documentary material, usually without cross-examination and often on limited material filed quickly.
• Disputed facts may not be resolved. The court is generally not in a position to make final findings about contested allegations at an interim stage, and will be cautious about doing so.
• Holding and protective arrangements. The court may adopt an arrangement that protects the child and preserves future options pending fuller evidence, rather than one that pre-empts the final outcome.
• Final hearings involve evidence being tested — cross-examination of the parties, family report writers and any expert — and findings being made, on which the final orders are based.

Safety does not become a separate or "leading" legal test at the interim stage. What changes is the evidentiary position: where the material discloses risk that cannot be resolved without a hearing, the court may need to make a protective decision on the basis of unresolved allegations, weighing the possibility of harm against the consequences of restricting a relationship. That is an application of the same statutory framework in conditions of factual uncertainty, not a different rule.

Evidence the Court May Consider

A best-interests case is decided on evidence. Evidence is assessed for relevance, admissibility, reliability, contemporaneity, consistency and probative value — not by category or volume.

• Affidavits are evidence. A party's sworn account is evidence in the case. At an interim hearing, however, disputed assertions in an affidavit may remain untested, which affects what the court can safely conclude from them.
• Professional evidence is not automatically decisive. A report or expert opinion is not superior merely because it is professional. Its value depends on the material the author had, the questions asked, the reasoning disclosed, the author's expertise and how the opinion withstands testing.
• Protective decisions may precede findings. The court may have to make interim decisions to protect a child without finally resolving disputed facts.
• Effects matter more than labels. Demonstrated effects on the child, or on a person's capacity to parent, carry the argument. Diagnoses, labels and moral criticism of the other parent, without evidence of effect on the child or on the proposed arrangement, generally do not.

Material that may be relevant, subject to admissibility, includes:

• affidavits of the parties and of witnesses with direct knowledge;
• contemporaneous communications — messages, emails, communication-app records and diaries kept at the time;
• police and child-protection material;
• family violence orders and their supporting material;
• school and medical or treating-practitioner records, where properly obtained and admissible;
• family reports, child impact reports and properly admitted single-expert evidence; and
• practical documentary material about the proposal — school zones, travel times, work rosters, housing and care arrangements.

Where a parent's or a child's psychological or psychiatric functioning is genuinely in issue, the mechanics of assessments, subpoenas and expert evidence are covered in mental health and psychological assessments in parenting proceedings. Parke Lawyers provides legal advice; family reports and clinical assessments are the work of qualified professionals appointed or engaged for that purpose.

Family Reports and Independent Children's Lawyers

Two mechanisms most often bring child-focused material before the court.

Family reports and court child experts. A report writer may meet with the parties and the child, consider the material and provide observations and, where appropriate, opinions relevant to the section 60CC considerations, including any views the child expresses. The court manages this evidence proportionately to the issues in dispute. For detail, see our guide to assessments and reports in parenting proceedings.

Independent Children's Lawyers. The court may appoint an Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) to represent the child's interests independently. An ICL is not the child's ordinary instructed solicitor and does not act on the child's instructions. Section 68LA requires the ICL to form an independent view, based on the evidence available, of what is in the child's best interests and to act in accordance with that view; to act impartially in dealings with the parties; to ensure that any views expressed by the child are fully put before the court; and to minimise the trauma to the child associated with the proceedings. The ICL is also required to perform the duty of meeting with the child and giving the child an opportunity to express any views, subject to the statutory exceptions — which include circumstances where the child is under five years of age, where the child does not want to meet with the ICL or express any views, and exceptional circumstances. Under section 68LA(5C), exceptional circumstances include that performing the duty would expose the child to a risk of physical or psychological harm that cannot be safely managed, or would have a significant adverse effect on the wellbeing of the child. Detail on appointment, meetings and procedure is in our dedicated guide to Independent Children's Lawyers in Australia.

Reconsidering Final Orders — Section 65DAAA

Where final parenting orders exist, section 65DAAA governs whether the court will reconsider them. The provision is often mis-stated as an independent threshold that an applicant must prove before anything else can happen. That is not what it says.

• The court must consider whether there has been a significant change of circumstances since the final parenting order was made.
• The court must be satisfied that, in all the circumstances and taking that question into account, reconsideration of the order is in the child's best interests.
• Section 65DAAA(2) sets out non-exhaustive matters the court may consider, including the reasons for the final order and the material before the court that made it, any material submitted that was not before that court, the likelihood that the court would make a new order that materially affects the existing arrangements, and the potential benefit or detriment to the child of reconsidering the order.
• Under section 65DAAA(3), the court may reconsider a final parenting order with the agreement or consent of all the parties to the order.

It remains a real filter — final orders are not reopened because a child has grown a little older, or because a party is dissatisfied with the result. The process for seeking variation, and the enforcement of existing orders, are dealt with in our parenting orders guide.

Family Dispute Resolution and Agreements

Most parenting matters are resolved without a contested hearing, and the statutory scheme encourages that.

• Section 60I certificates. Before commencing proceedings for a Part VII order, an applicant generally must file an appropriate certificate issued by an accredited family dispute resolution practitioner.
• Exceptions exist. They include, among others, applications for consent orders, urgency, family violence, child abuse or a risk of either, incapacity of a party to participate effectively, specified contravention circumstances, and other prescribed circumstances. Exceptions are assessed on the evidence put before the court, not merely because a party asserts one.
• Attendance is not an absolute precondition. A certificate may record that the other party did not attend, that the practitioner considered family dispute resolution not appropriate, or that a party did not make a genuine effort. Participation and genuine effort are therefore not universal preconditions to filing, although a party's conduct in this area may be relevant later.
• Agreed arrangements. Families commonly record arrangements in a parenting plan or apply for consent orders. Where the court makes an order by consent, section 60CC(4) applies as described above.

The practical detail of negotiating, mediating and formalising arrangements is covered in parenting arrangements after separation.

Three Illustrative Examples

The following simplified hypotheticals show how the considerations interact. They are illustrative only. They are not predictions of outcome and not advice about any particular family.

Example 1 — a shared-care proposal, distance and development. A parent proposes week-about care of a six-year-old. The households are a 50-minute drive apart and the child attends school near one home. There is no suggestion of risk. The considerations pull in different directions: the benefit of a substantial relationship with both parents, against the child's developmental need for a manageable routine, the daily travel involved in school terms, and the workability of each proposal given work patterns. The analysis is likely to focus on the child's needs at this age and stage, the practical detail of each proposal, and whether an alternative structure — for instance a different division within the week, or a term-time and holiday-time distinction — meets the same relationship objective with less strain on the child. Nothing in the framework makes equal time a starting point or rules it out.

Example 2 — a strong view and a possible loyalty bind. A 13-year-old tells a report writer she wants to live with one parent and reduce time with the other. The view is clear and consistently expressed, and she can explain it by reference to her friendships, study and activities. The report writer also records that both adults discuss the litigation with her and that she appears anxious about disappointing either. Her views are a mandatory consideration, and her age and reasoning are relevant to their weight; so are the circumstances in which the views were formed. The court would also consider the benefit to her of the relationship she proposes to reduce, the emotional cost of continued exposure to adult conflict, and whether an arrangement can respect her voice without treating her as the decision-maker. She cannot be required to express a view, and it would be exceptional for her to give evidence.

Example 3 — disputed allegations at an interim hearing. A parent alleges family violence and seeks supervised time. The allegations are denied. There is a family violence order that has since expired, some police material, and messages relied on by both sides. At an interim hearing the court is unlikely to be able to resolve the dispute: the material is untested and there is no cross-examination. Section 60CC(2A) requires consideration of the history alleged and of the family violence order even though it has expired, because that provision extends to an order that applies or has applied. The consistency requirement in section 60CG operates in relation to a family violence order that applies, so an expired order is not something the parenting order must conform to operationally; section 60CG separately requires, in all cases, that the parenting order not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence. The court may adopt a protective or holding arrangement — for example supervised or graduated time, or a neutral changeover — that manages the possibility of harm while preserving the relationship and the options available at a final hearing, when the evidence is tested and findings are made.

Practical Preparation Checklist

This checklist is about preparing the best-interests material. It is not a substitute for advice on your matter.

1. Describe the child, not the dispute. Set out age, stage, schooling, health, routine, activities, cultural and language connections, and anything specific this child needs.
2. Identify safety issues concretely. What happened, when, what the child saw or experienced, what the effect has been, and what arrangement would address it. Collect any family violence orders (current or past), police or child-protection references and contemporaneous records.
3. Write out the actual proposal. School terms and holidays, changeover times and places, communication between the child and each parent, decision-making on major long-term issues, and how special days are handled.
4. Test the proposal for workability. Travel times, work rosters, school zones, before- and after-school care, costs, and who does the driving.
5. Assemble supporting material. Contemporaneous messages, school and medical documentation where you are entitled to it, evidence of your involvement in the child's care, and any engagement with services or programs.
6. Address the other proposal fairly. Identify what would work in it and what would not, by reference to the child rather than the adult.
7. Leave the child out of the adult conflict. Do not question, record or coach the child. It harms the child and reduces the value of the child's views.
8. Get advice early. The framing of the orders sought, and the evidence gathered at the start, shape the case.

Key Takeaways

• Section 60CA makes the child's best interests the paramount consideration in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order; it does not automatically decide every procedural or collateral question.
• Section 60CC(2) contains one list of general considerations. The Act does not rank them. Safety appears first and is mandatory in a contested determination — section 60CC(4) gives the court a discretion concerning the listed considerations when it makes an order by consent — and section 60CC(2A) directs what must be included in considering it.
• Family violence orders that apply or have applied are within the consideration, and section 60CG separately requires consistency with a family violence order that applies and, in all cases, that the order not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence, so far as possible consistently with best interests being paramount.
• A child's views are a mandatory consideration in a contested determination under section 60CC(2)(b); they do not bind the court and are not determinative merely because they are expressed, though the weight given may be substantial. There is no age at which a child chooses, no one may require a child to express views, and children rarely give evidence.
• There is no presumption of equal time and none of equal shared parental responsibility; parental responsibility and time are separate questions determined on the orders sought and the evidence.
• Interim and final hearings apply the same framework on very different evidence; protective holding arrangements are a response to factual uncertainty, not a separate test.
• Evidence is assessed by reference to its relevance, reliability and connection to the statutory considerations — not by volume, labels or professional origin alone.
• Section 65DAAA requires the court to consider whether there has been a significant change of circumstances and to be satisfied that reconsideration is in the child's best interests, and permits reconsideration by consent of all parties.

Sources

• Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) — current compilation, including sections 60CA (paramountcy), 60CC (best-interests considerations), 60CD (how a child's views are conveyed), 60CE (no requirement to express views), 60CG (family violence orders and unacceptable risk), 60I (family dispute resolution certificates), 61B (parental responsibility), 61DAA (joint decision-making on major long-term issues), 65DAAA (reconsidering final orders) and 68LA (duties of an Independent Children's Lawyer).
• Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia — Family law changes from 6 May 2024 — the Court's explanation of the amendments made by the Family Law Amendment Act 2023 (Cth).
• Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia — Applying to the Court for orders (family law) — official guidance on commencing parenting proceedings, including pre-action procedures.
• Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia — Independent Children's Lawyer.
• Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia — Family Reports FAQs.

Frequently Asked Questions