Parenting Orders in Australia: A Complete Guide for Separating Parents

Direct Answer

A parenting order in Australia is a Part VII order dealing with arrangements for a child. It is made by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, except in Western Australia, where family law matters may be dealt with by the Family Court of Western Australia. It can be made by consent, or after contested litigation. The Court's paramount consideration is the best interests of the child, assessed against the factors in section 60CC(2). In assessing safety, section 60CC(2A) directs the Court to any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child, and to any relevant family violence order. An additional consideration applies for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children under section 60CC(3). There is no presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and no obligation to consider equal or substantial and significant time. Family Dispute Resolution is (subject to exceptions) a precondition to filing. Orders can regulate residence, time, communication, parental responsibility, specific long-term decisions, overseas travel and any other matter concerning the care, welfare or development of the child. Orders are enforceable by contravention proceedings under Division 13A. Where a final parenting order is already in place, section 65DAAA governs reconsideration: the Court must consider whether there has been a significant change of circumstances since the order was made, and may reconsider the order only if satisfied, taking that change into account, that reconsideration is in the child's best interests — or if all parties consent.

The Current Legal Framework

The Family Law Amendment Act 2023 (Cth) commenced on 6 May 2024 and reshaped the parenting provisions of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The change was structural, not cosmetic. Three features of the pre-6 May 2024 framework have been removed or fundamentally recast.

First, the presumption in favour of equal shared parental responsibility in the former section 61DA has been repealed. Parental responsibility for major long-term decisions is now allocated by the Court, on a case-by-case basis, by reference to the best interests of the child. The Court may allocate joint decision-making for all major long-term issues, joint decision-making for some, or sole decision-making to one parent for particular issues or generally. Where joint decision-making is ordered, section 61DAA requires the decision-makers to consult and make a genuine effort to reach a joint decision on each major long-term issue as it arises.

Second, the obligation in the former section 65DAA to consider equal time or 'substantial and significant time' where the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applied has been repealed. There is no default time allocation. Time arrangements are decided by reference to the best interests of the child. Older orders, older commentary and older calculators that treat equal or substantial and significant time as a starting point no longer reflect Australian law.

Third, the best-interests factors in section 60CC have been simplified. The former list of two primary and thirteen additional considerations, with a statutory obligation to give greater weight to protection from harm, has been replaced with a single list of six considerations, of which safety appears first in the statutory list. The remaining considerations are the child's views, the child's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs, the capacity of each proposed carer to provide for those needs, the benefit of a relationship with parents and other significant persons where safe, and anything else relevant. In assessing safety, section 60CC(2A) requires the Court to consider any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child, and any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child's family. A dedicated additional consideration in section 60CC(3) applies for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, and section 60CC(4) allows the Court, when making an order by consent of all parties, to have regard to all, some or none of those matters. Separate provisions continue to apply to family violence orders: section 60CF requires a party who is aware of a family violence order applying to the child or a member of the child's family to inform the Court, and section 60CG requires the Court, so far as consistent with the child's best interests, to make orders that are consistent with any family violence order and do not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence, including by adding safeguards.

The reforms also introduced changes elsewhere in Part VII: a statutory obligation on Independent Children's Lawyers to meet with the child (subject to defined exceptions), a restructured contravention regime under Division 13A that emphasises graduated responses, and reforms to information-sharing between family courts, child-protection agencies and police. The overall effect is to reorient the framework around the child, around safety, and away from the presumption-driven structure that had guided the previous framework since 2006.

A second tranche of reform, made by the Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth), largely commenced on 10 June 2025. For parenting matters its most practical effects are a consolidated costs regime in Part XIVC (sections 114UA to 114UE), which replaced the repealed section 117 and now governs costs orders and the costs of an independent children's lawyer; a regulatory framework for children's contact services; and further changes to case management and the protection of sensitive information. The substituted best-interests framework applies to proceedings on foot at the time it commenced, subject to the transitional provisions in the amending Acts, so orders made and reasons given under the former provisions remain valid even though the current provisions govern decisions made now.

Comparison of Parenting Arrangements

Separated parents in Australia have four broad options for regulating parenting arrangements. The table below summarises the practical differences.

What Parenting Orders Can Cover

A parenting order can regulate any matter concerning the care, welfare or development of a child. The subject-matter categories are set out in section 64B.

Best Interests under Section 60CC

The paramount consideration when making a parenting order is the best interests of the child (s 60CA). Section 60CC (as substituted from 6 May 2024) is the structured framework by which the Court makes that assessment.

The former statutory ranking of considerations, the former primary/additional distinction and the former obligation to give greater weight to protection from harm have been removed. The Court weighs the section 60CC(2) considerations on the evidence in the particular case; safety appears first in the statutory list and is emphasised by the surrounding reforms, and the weight of the other considerations is case-specific. For a deeper analysis of how the Court assesses a child's best interests under the current framework, see our specialist guide.

The Application Process

The application pathway for parenting orders is structured around pre-action procedures and mandatory dispute resolution, followed by staged court events.

Evidence Checklist

The evidence needed to prepare a parenting case can be broad. The following checklist is a working list rather than an exhaustive statement.

• The parties' own affidavits — a chronological, factual account of the relationship, the separation, the parenting to date and the proposal
• Independent lay witness affidavits (family, friends, teachers, coaches) directed to specific, observed facts
• School records — attendance, incident reports, welfare and counselling records
• Medical records — the child's general practitioner, treating specialists, paediatrician, mental-health clinicians
• Child-care records
• Police records — narratives, LEAP printouts (Victoria), incident reports
• Family Violence Intervention Order material — applications, affidavits, orders, breach records
• Contemporaneous communications — text, email, messaging, co-parenting apps, voicemail
• Photographs, video and audio — dated and sourced
• Family Report or Child Impact Report
• Expert reports — psychiatric, psychological, addiction, developmental, cultural (see our guide to mental health and psychological assessments in parenting proceedings)
• Financial evidence — where financial capacity, housing, geographic or work-pattern issues are in play
• Housing and household evidence — accommodation for the child, sleeping arrangements, safety features
• Social-media evidence — public posts and (with proper permission) private posts
• Child-protection agency records — subject to release protocols
• Any prior court orders — parenting, family violence, child protection or migration

Order-Drafting Checklist

A common source of post-order dispute is poor drafting. A parenting order must be capable of operating without further agreement, without reinterpretation, and without any ambiguity that a hostile reader can exploit. The following checklist addresses drafting elements that commonly fail in practice.

• Named parties and children: full legal names, dates of birth for children, addresses for service
• Parental responsibility clause: allocation for major long-term issues, either joint or sole; if joint, mechanism for disagreement
• Live-with clause: primary residence, or defined week-about pattern, or a specified rotation
• Spend-time clause: days, times, start and end points, changeover location, transport responsibility
• Communication clause: means, frequency, duration, initiation, and boundaries on times
• Holiday and special-day schedule: school holidays, public holidays, birthdays (child and parent), Mother's/Father's Day, cultural or religious days
• Overseas travel clause: conditions, notice, itinerary, Hague Convention countries only, bonds, passport arrangements
• Interstate travel clause: notice, itinerary
• Change of school, name or religion: mechanism if joint responsibility
• Medical decisions: mechanism for major decisions; emergency treatment override
• Information sharing: both parents to be recorded with school and medical providers; both parents entitled to communicate directly with those providers
• Third-party attendance: restrictions on attendance of specified persons at changeover, at school events, at the child's residence
• Communication protocol between parents: written channel, tone, subject-matter limits
• Family violence measures: supervised changeover, exclusion conditions, no-contact save through nominated channel
• Review mechanism: automatic review upon defined events (school entry, adolescence, relocation)
• Recitals and background: concise; used only where necessary for interpretation
• Enforceability: every obligation drafted so a Court could grant a contravention finding without further evidence

Parenting Plans and Consent Orders

A parenting plan is a written, signed and dated agreement between the parents about arrangements for the children. It is defined in section 63C and can cover any of the subject-matters that a parenting order can cover. It is not enforceable as a court order but it is admissible in later proceedings as evidence of what the parents intended. A parenting plan does not itself change an earlier parenting order — changing the order requires a further order of the Court — although section 64D may affect the enforcement of an existing order to the extent of any inconsistency with a valid later parenting plan entered into free from threat, duress or coercion. Parenting plans are useful for cooperative parents who want a flexible, evolving framework and do not need enforceability. A good parenting plan reads like a workable set of arrangements; a poor parenting plan reads like a set of aspirations.

Consent orders are parenting orders made by the Court without a contested hearing. The parents file an Application for Consent Orders together with the proposed orders. A Registrar reviews the material and, if satisfied that the proposed orders are in the best interests of the child, makes the orders. Once made, consent orders have the force of court orders as between the parties, are enforceable by contravention application, and can be varied only by a further court order. A later parenting plan does not itself vary the earlier order; section 64D may affect the enforcement of the order to the extent of any inconsistency with a valid later parenting plan, but changing the order itself requires a further order.

Which mechanism is suitable in a particular family — the certainty of consent orders, or the flexibility of a parenting plan that depends on continuing cooperation — depends on the parties' circumstances and should be the subject of specific advice.

Parental Responsibility

Parental responsibility, defined in section 61B, is 'all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which, by law, parents have in relation to children'. It covers long-term decisions about the child's education, religion, culture, name, health and (as part of the residence framework) where the child lives. It is distinct from time — a parent may spend little time with a child and retain joint parental responsibility, or may spend substantial time while another person holds sole parental responsibility.

Before 6 May 2024 the Act presumed equal shared parental responsibility save where the presumption was rebutted by evidence of family violence or child abuse. That presumption has been repealed. Parental responsibility is now allocated by the Court, or by the parents' agreement recorded in consent orders, on a case-by-case basis by reference to the best interests of the child. The available allocations include: joint parental responsibility for all major long-term issues; joint responsibility for some issues and sole responsibility for others; sole parental responsibility to one parent generally; sole parental responsibility to one parent for specified issues; and parental responsibility to a person other than a parent (typically a grandparent or long-term carer).

Where the Court orders joint decision-making for major long-term issues, section 61DAA requires the decision-makers to consult and to make a genuine effort to reach a joint decision. Consent orders should specify a workable mechanism for resolving disagreement — mediation, review by an agreed professional, or referral back to the Court — because joint decision-makers may not always agree.

Family Dispute Resolution and Exceptions

Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) is, with limited exceptions, a precondition to filing a parenting application. The stated object of section 60I is that everyone with a dispute about matters that may be dealt with by a Part VII order makes a genuine effort to resolve it by family dispute resolution before applying to the Court. Section 60I(7) gives that object procedural force: an application for a Part VII order must not be accepted for filing unless the applicant files a certificate given by a registered FDR practitioner under section 60I(8) with the application, or the Court afterwards grants an exemption under section 60I(8A). A failure to comply with section 60I(7) does not invalidate the proceedings or any order made in them (section 60I(11)), but it will ordinarily stall the filing. Communications made in FDR are generally confidential and, as a general rule, are not admissible in court. That protection is subject to statutory exceptions — most importantly for disclosures about child abuse or a risk of harm to a child — so it should not be assumed that nothing said in FDR can ever be used. Advice should be obtained about how the exceptions apply in a particular case. The purpose of FDR is not merely to filter out avoidable litigation but to allow the parents to construct arrangements that reflect their own knowledge of the child.

There are five kinds of certificate under section 60I(8): that the applicant did not attend because the other party refused or failed to attend; that the practitioner considered FDR inappropriate; that the parties attended and all made a genuine effort to resolve the issues; that the parties attended but a party did not make a genuine effort; and that FDR began but the practitioner considered it inappropriate to continue. The kind of certificate matters, because the Court may take it into account in deciding whether to refer the parties to FDR under section 13C and in deciding whether to award costs.

Where FDR is not appropriate, the Court may grant an exemption under section 60I(8A), but only if satisfied that one or more of the grounds in section 60I(9) exist. Those grounds are that the order is sought by consent of all parties or in response to another party's application; reasonable grounds to believe there has been abuse of the child or family violence by a party, or a risk of either; a defined recent contravention scenario, where a Part VII order about the issue was made within the previous 12 months and the Court is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe the person has shown serious disregard for their obligations under it; urgency; inability of a party to participate effectively (including because of incapacity or physical remoteness); and other circumstances specified in the regulations. Where an exemption is granted on the basis of abuse or family violence, section 60J generally prevents the Court hearing the application until the applicant has indicated in writing that they have received information from a family counsellor or FDR practitioner about the services and options available, unless there is a risk of abuse through delay or a risk of family violence. Evidence supporting the factual basis for an exemption (typically an affidavit) should accompany the Initiating Application in accordance with current FCFCOA rules and practice directions.

The choice of FDR provider matters. Court-connected services (Family Relationship Centres) are free or low-cost and appropriate for many disputes. Private FDR — including 'Legally Assisted Dispute Resolution' with both parties represented — is more expensive and can be considered in higher-conflict matters, particularly where a settlement would need to be immediately reduced to consent orders. Choice of provider is a strategic decision and warrants advice.

Family Violence, Safety and Risk

Family violence is a substantive consideration in parenting matters, not a procedural aside. The statutory definition in section 4AB is broad: it captures violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a family member, or that causes the family member to be fearful. Examples in section 4AB(2) include physical assault, sexual assault, threats, stalking, repeated derogatory taunts, intentional damage to property, harm or threats of harm to animals, unreasonably denying financial autonomy, unreasonably withholding financial support, preventing family or cultural contact and unlawful deprivation of liberty. A child is exposed to family violence when the child sees, hears or otherwise experiences its effects (s 4AB(3)).

A Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk must be filed and served with every Initiating Application, Response to Initiating Application and Application for Consent Orders seeking parenting orders, regardless of whether risk is alleged. Where the Notice accompanies an Initiating Application or a Response seeking parenting orders and makes an allegation of child abuse, family violence or risk, an Affidavit—Family law and child support setting out the evidence must also be filed (FCFCOA Family Law Rules 2021 r 2.04). The position differs for an Application for Consent Orders: the Notice is still mandatory, but the Court states that an affidavit does not need to be filed with that form. Where family violence is alleged or the Court considers there is a risk of family violence, additional consequences may follow: the section 60I FDR exception may apply; the Court may consider whether an Independent Children's Lawyer should be appointed under section 68L where it appears that the child's interests ought to be independently represented; information-sharing obligations can engage state child-protection and police agencies; and the section 60CC(2)(a) safety consideration is engaged in the best-interests assessment.

The Court has a broad suite of protective orders available. Time can be supervised, suspended or prohibited. Communication can be limited, monitored or excluded. Changeover can occur through a supervised contact service, at a police station or at a neutral third-party premises. Injunctive orders under section 68B can restrain the parties' conduct and prohibit attendance at defined locations. Family violence orders are directly connected to the parenting outcome in three ways. Section 60CF requires the Court to be informed of any family violence order that applies to the child or a member of the child's family. Section 60CC(2A) makes current and past family violence orders, together with any history of family violence, abuse or neglect, part of the safety assessment. Section 60CG requires the Court, to the extent it is possible to do so consistently with the child's best interests, to ensure that a parenting order is consistent with any family violence order and does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence. In practice that means a Victorian Family Violence Intervention Order in force must be considered when framing parenting orders, and the drafting must expressly accommodate the intervention-order terms so the two operate together rather than in conflict. Practical detail is set out in our Victorian guide on family violence intervention orders in Victoria, and how family violence affects parenting orders more generally under Part VII.

Children's Views

The child's views are a mandatory consideration under section 60CC(2)(b), but they are not determinative. The weight given depends on the child's age, maturity, understanding, and the context in which the views were expressed — spontaneously, in response to a professional interviewer, in response to a parent's questioning or in an environment of coaching or alienation. Children do not give evidence and do not attend court in the ordinary case. The child's views may be communicated through a family report writer, a Child Impact Report, the Independent Children's Lawyer or, in some cases, a judicial interview.

The Court is alert to the risk that a child's stated preference reflects the influence of a parent rather than the child's independent view. Where alienation dynamics are alleged, expert evidence may be relevant: a specialist family report or a discrete alienation report by a court-approved expert can identify indicators of coaching, enmeshment and rejection. The child's views are a factor; they are neither the case nor the reason to conclude the case.

Interim and Urgent Orders

Interim parenting orders are made pending final hearing to regulate arrangements in the intervening period. They are commonly determined on affidavits and other available material, often without cross-examination. In that setting the Court may be unable to finally resolve serious factual disputes, although it may make findings where the evidence and procedural fairness permit. The Court must still apply section 60CA and the section 60CC considerations, and must address safety, including section 60CG where relevant, so it may frame interim arrangements that manage an alleged risk without deciding the allegation. The arrangements actually operating at the date of the application are among the matters the Court may consider. They may be practically relevant at the final hearing, but they do not determine the final outcome.

An applicant may request urgent consideration of a parenting matter. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia maintains duty registrar capacity, and the Court decides listing, notice, priority and procedure on the material filed and the applicable rules. Situations for which urgent listing may be sought include: threatened international removal of a child; unilateral removal of a child from an agreed residence; imminent unsupervised contact with a demonstrated risk; urgent medical decisions; imminent breakdown of accommodation; and disclosure of abuse. Urgent applications should be supported by concise, focused affidavit evidence identifying the specific risk and the specific orders sought. Manufactured urgency can damage credibility and attract costs.

Evidence and Expert Material

Parenting cases are decided on evidence, not on positions. Common sources of evidence in a contested parenting case include the parties' affidavits and any family report. Well-drafted affidavits are chronological, factual, dated and confined to the matters in issue. They avoid argument, generality and characterisation ('always', 'never', 'clearly abusive', 'obviously'). They attach contemporaneous documents rather than paraphrasing them. They deal with the actual allegations in the other party's material rather than with a competing narrative.

Expert evidence takes several forms. A family report, where ordered, is prepared by a family consultant appointed under the Court's processes. A Child Impact Report is a shorter, earlier-stage report used to inform interim decisions and to guide case management. A single expert report — psychiatric, psychological, addiction, developmental — may be sought where an issue turns on professional opinion. A report on capacity, on alienation or on cultural connection can be commissioned where the issue warrants it. Expert reports are opinion evidence: the Court is entitled to give them weight, to prefer one expert over another, or to reject expert evidence.

Third-party evidence can be important. School reports and welfare records, medical files, child-care observations, police narratives, family-violence intervention material and child-protection notifications can be produced under subpoena and, subject to release and use conditions, become admissible. Contemporaneous electronic communications — text, email, messaging, co-parenting-app logs — may be relied on because they are dated and unedited.

Independent Children's Lawyer

An Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) is a lawyer appointed under section 68L to represent the best interests of the child, independently of both parents. The ICL is not the child's lawyer in the ordinary sense: the ICL does not take instructions from the child. The ICL forms and advances an independent view of the arrangements that best serve the child, based on the whole of the material available in the proceedings.

Since 6 May 2024 the ICL has a statutory obligation, subject to defined exceptions (age, safety, refusal), to meet with the child and to provide the child with an opportunity to express any views. The ICL reviews the court file, participates in interlocutory hearings, cross-examines witnesses at trial, engages with the family report writer, arranges expert evidence where necessary and makes final submissions on the appropriate orders. ICL appointments may be made in cases involving allegations of family violence or child abuse, entrenched conflict, mental illness, addiction, cultural or religious complexity, high-conflict relocation and allegations of alienation. Funding arrangements for ICL work depend on the applicable Legal Aid guidelines and eligibility criteria; parties may be ordered to contribute where they have capacity. For the full treatment of appointment, statutory duties, the post–6 May 2024 meeting requirement, evidence, confidentiality and complaints see our specialist guide to the role of an Independent Children’s Lawyer.

Family Reports

A family report can be a form of expert material in a contested parenting case. It is prepared by a family consultant. The scope of the report, the persons interviewed and the process depend on the order appointing the writer and the applicable Court processes. A report describes the writer's observations and professional opinion on the matters in the referral.

Family reports are not binding. The Court weighs the report against the whole of the evidence and is free to depart from the writer's recommendations where the evidence justifies departure. The Court determines best interests on all admissible evidence; a family report does not determine the case. Cross-examination of the report writer at trial is available in appropriate cases and warrants careful preparation. Parties should not coach children before report-writer interviews; the practice is easily detected, damages the coaching party's credibility and undermines the reliability of the child's expressed views.

Relocation

'Relocation' in family-law usage means a proposed move that would materially affect the ability of the other parent (or, in some cases, significant others) to spend time and communicate with the child. Interstate moves, moves to remote or regional areas, and even significant intrastate moves may qualify. There is no separate 'relocation' test — relocation cases are decided under the ordinary best-interests framework in section 60CC. In practice, the Court examines the reasons for the move (employment, family support, safety, financial capacity, new relationship), the child's current relationships, the practicality and cost of continued time and communication if the move proceeds, the impact on the moving parent if the move is refused, the impact on the non-moving parent if the move is permitted, the child's own needs and views, and any safety considerations.

Relocation cases can be complex and fact-specific. Blanket 'no move' orders are unusual. Conditional orders — permitting the move on specified time, communication and travel arrangements, or refusing the move for a defined period tied to a milestone in the child's life — are common. A unilateral move made without consent or court order can be reversed by a recovery order and can influence the ultimate best-interests assessment. Advice should be obtained before announcing an intended move, before packing, and certainly before moving. For a dedicated treatment of relocating or moving interstate with a child after separation, see our specialist relocation guide.

Recovery and Location Orders

Section 67Q defines a recovery order as an order requiring the return of a child to a specified person or place, or authorising or directing a specified person (which may include the Australian Federal Police or state or territory police under section 67R) to take appropriate action to find and return the child. Section 67U gives the Court the power to make a recovery order, subject to section 67V, which requires the Court to regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. Recovery orders are used where a child has been retained contrary to orders, has been taken from an agreed residence or has failed to be returned. They may be brought urgently and are supported by affidavit evidence of the applicant's standing, the child's usual arrangements, the removal or retention and any immediate risk. Ancillary orders — for example surrender of passports, restraint on further removal, interim parenting relief or location information — may be sought at the same time where appropriate. See our specialist guide to recovery orders when a child is not returned for the detailed urgent-application framework.

Location and Commonwealth information orders under sections 67J–67N may require a specified person or agency to provide information about a child's location to the Court. They are used where a parent has moved without disclosure or a child has been retained in unknown circumstances. Information provided under these orders is subject to the disclosure restrictions in section 67P and is used for the purposes of the proceedings; broader dissemination is not permitted.

Overseas Travel and the Family Law Watchlist

Four offence provisions govern taking, sending or retaining a child outside Australia. Section 65Y applies where a parenting order to which the Subdivision applies is in force: a party to the proceedings in which the order was made (or a person acting on that party's behalf or at their request) must not take or send the child from Australia except with the written consent, authenticated as prescribed, of each person in whose favour the order was made, or in accordance with a court order made at or after the time the parenting order was made. Section 65YA creates a corresponding offence of retaining the child outside Australia otherwise than in accordance with such a consent or order, even where the initial departure was lawful. Sections 65Z and 65ZAA apply the same structure where parenting proceedings are pending, by reference to the written consent of each other party to the proceedings or a court order. There is no general rule that every person with parental responsibility must consent — what is required depends on which provision applies and on the terms of any order.

Each offence carries a maximum penalty of three years' imprisonment, so travel that would otherwise be uncontroversial can be a criminal offence if it is undertaken without the required consent or order. Each is subject to a narrow exception where the person believed the conduct was necessary to prevent family violence and the conduct was reasonable in the circumstances as the person perceived them; the defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to that exception. The ancillary offence provisions of the Criminal Code, including attempt, also apply. Specific advice should be obtained before any overseas travel with a child, and written consent should be obtained and retained in the prescribed form rather than by informal message.

The Family Law Watchlist (formerly the Airport Watchlist) is administered by the Australian Federal Police. When a child is on the Watchlist, the child is flagged at Australian international departure points and will not be permitted to leave Australia. A request to place a child on the Watchlist must be supported by an appropriate legal basis — commonly a court order or injunction restraining removal of the child from Australia, a qualifying pending application for such an order, or an appeal. Watchlist relief is often combined with orders restraining departure and requiring surrender of passports, and may be sought at short notice where the evidence supports a genuine risk of international removal. Removal of a child from the Watchlist depends on the basis on which the child was listed and on the status or outcome of the relevant order, application or appeal; it is not always a matter of obtaining a further court order, and the AFP's current requirements should be checked in each case. Where limited overseas travel is appropriate, the Court can permit travel only to specified Hague Convention countries with a bond in place, with confirmed accommodation and travel details, and with defined return arrangements.

Grandparents and Other Significant Persons

Section 65C expressly permits a grandparent of a child — along with the child's parents, the child, and any other person concerned with the care, welfare or development of the child — to apply for a parenting order. The current best-interests framework does not single grandparents out: section 60CC(2)(e) refers, more generally, to 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. A grandparent will usually need to show that they fall within that description on the evidence. Grandparent applications may arise where the parents have separated and one parent is restricting contact, where a parent has died, where a parent is incapacitated by mental illness, addiction or family violence, or where the grandparents have been the child's primary carers.

Success turns on the demonstrated relationship, the benefit to the child of preserving or restoring it, the parent's position and reasons and the practicability of the proposed arrangements. Applications by other significant persons — aunts, uncles, step-parents, long-term family friends, and (in appropriate cases) former same-sex partners — proceed on the same basis. Non-parent applicants should obtain advice before commencing proceedings, including on the evidence that will need to be marshalled.

Compliance, Contravention and Enforcement

A parenting order is enforceable. Breach without reasonable excuse can be met by a contravention application under Division 13A of Part VII. The Family Law Amendment Act 2023 restructured the contravention pathway to emphasise graduated responses. Section 70NAC defines contravention: a person contravenes a parenting order if they intentionally fail to comply with it, make no reasonable attempt to comply with it, or (being bound by it) intentionally prevent compliance by a person who is bound, or aid or abet a contravention by such a person.

Where a contravention is established, section 70NBA allows the Court to vary the primary order, and section 70NBB allows make-up time orders where a child did not live with, spend time with or communicate with a person as the order provided. Section 70NBC allows the Court to vary or suspend an order in defined circumstances, and section 70NBD allows an order that a person attend a post-separation parenting program. Section 70NBF sets out the further orders available: requiring a person to enter into a bond; a fine of up to 10 penalty units where a person fails without reasonable excuse to enter into a bond they were required to enter; and compensation for reasonable expenses lost as a result of a child not living with, spending time with or communicating with a person. Where the Court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person committed the contravention, it may impose a fine of up to 60 penalty units or, as a last resort, a sentence of imprisonment. There is no community-service order in the current Division 13A regime.

Section 70NAD sets out when a person is taken to have had a reasonable excuse for contravening a parenting order. The circumstances it identifies include that the person did not understand the obligations imposed by the order, and that the person believed on reasonable grounds that the contravention was necessary to protect the health or safety of a person (including the child) and the contravention was not for longer than was necessary. Section 70NADA deals with the burden of proof and section 70NAE with the standard of proof. Reasonable excuse is not a general answer to a contravention application, and it must be established on the evidence. Where a parent believes safety requires departure from an order, prospective advice — a variation application, an urgent interim application or a formal record of concern — is safer than self-help.

The Court's costs power under Part XIVC (section 114UB) may be enlivened in contravention proceedings. A contravention finding also shapes the Court's approach to any future application to vary the order and can influence future best-interests assessments. Contravention is a serious step and should not be commenced casually; conversely, persistent low-level contravention corrodes arrangements and should not be tolerated. Advice should be obtained before filing a contravention application and before responding to one. For a specialist walk-through of the enforcement process, reasonable-excuse defence, evidence and the Court's available responses see our guide to contravention and enforcement of parenting orders.

Variation of Existing Orders

Where a final parenting order is in force, section 65DAAA governs any application to reconsider it. The Court must consider whether there has been a significant change of circumstances since the final order was made, and may reconsider the order only if it is satisfied, taking that change into account, that reconsideration is in the child's best interests. The Court may also reconsider a final order where all parties to the order consent. The provision reflects, in statutory form, the long-standing approach associated with Rice v Asplund (1979) 6 Fam LR 570 — historical background rather than the operative test — and serves the same purpose of protecting children from repeated litigation. Change of circumstances examples include: family violence not previously evident; incapacity; substantial relocation; breakdown of the arrangements in practice; developmental milestones (school entry, adolescence); emergence of the child's own settled views; and evidence that the existing arrangements are causing harm.

A change of opinion is not, without more, a significant change of circumstances. The formation of a new household, standing alone, is not, without more, enough. Where variation is genuinely warranted, it should be attempted first by consent (via a subsequent parenting plan or fresh consent orders) and only by contested application where consent cannot be obtained. Legal advice should be obtained before filing a variation application — an unsuccessful application can attract costs and can entrench the very order the applicant sought to change.

Jurisdiction and Court Structure

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCoA), established from 1 September 2021 by the merger of the former Family Court of Australia and the former Federal Circuit Court, hears virtually all parenting applications. It comprises Division 1 (the former Family Court, exercising primarily appellate and complex-trial jurisdiction) and Division 2 (the former Federal Circuit Court, exercising primary jurisdiction). The FCFCoA operates under the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021.

Western Australia retains a separate Family Court of Western Australia which exercises equivalent jurisdiction under the Family Court Act 1997 (WA). Prescribed state and territory courts of summary jurisdiction can exercise limited Part VII jurisdiction, most commonly in consent or interim matters or where a contested case is transferred to the FCFCoA, so they do not determine substantive contested parenting applications in the ordinary case. Appeals from Division 2 lie to Division 1; appeals from Division 1 at first instance lie to the Full Court of the FCFCoA (Division 1); appeals from the Full Court lie to the High Court by special leave. Case management is active: parties should expect early conferences, structured dispute-resolution events and firm trial-listing dates.

Practical Action Plan

The following is a working action plan for a parent considering parenting orders. It is not legal advice and does not substitute for a conference with a family lawyer.

1. Obtain advice. An early conference after separation can be helpful. It sets the direction and identifies the risks.
2. Assess safety. Address any family-violence issues first. Intervention orders, safety planning, and secure accommodation come before parenting arrangements.
3. Stabilise the arrangements. Establish a workable, temporary pattern of care, communication and changeover.
4. Document. Keep a dated, factual note of relevant events. Preserve text, email, messaging and co-parenting-app communications.
5. Update authorisations. School enrolment, medical authority, emergency contacts, pickup lists.
6. Estate planning. Update wills, powers of attorney, superannuation binding nominations and life-insurance beneficiary designations. Separation does not automatically revoke these.
7. Consider FDR. Choose a provider. Consider Legally Assisted Dispute Resolution where the matter is complex or high-conflict.
8. Attempt consent orders. If agreement is reached, reduce it to consent orders; do not leave a lasting arrangement as an oral or informal agreement.
9. Prepare for litigation only if necessary. Litigation is expensive, slow and stressful. It is the mechanism of last resort, not the default.
10. Review as the child grows. Arrangements suitable for a young child may not remain suitable for an adolescent. Build review points into any long-term arrangement.

Issues the Court May Need to Assess

The following is a working list of issues that can arise in parenting matters. It is not legal advice and does not describe actual clients or predict outcomes. Every matter turns on its own facts and the applicable law.

• Whether the parents can reach agreement and, if so, whether the agreement should be recorded in a parenting plan or in consent orders.
• Whether the section 60I certificate requirement applies or a ground for exemption under section 60I(9) is available.
• Whether a Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk must be filed (it is mandatory with any Initiating Application, Response to Initiating Application or Application for Consent Orders seeking parenting orders) and whether an accompanying Affidavit—Family law and child support is required under r 2.04, which applies where the Notice accompanies an Initiating Application or Response and alleges abuse, family violence or risk, and not to an Application for Consent Orders.
• Whether interim orders are required to regulate arrangements pending final hearing.
• Whether an application for urgent consideration is warranted and, if so, what specific orders should be sought.
• How parental responsibility for major long-term issues should be allocated in the particular family, and how any disagreement will be resolved.
• How the child's schooling, medical treatment, cultural connection and other long-term matters will be addressed.
• Whether overseas travel is proposed and, if so, whether restraint, passport orders or Family Law Watchlist relief may be relevant.
• Whether a proposed move materially affects existing arrangements and should be addressed as a relocation matter.
• Whether an application under section 67U for a recovery order or under section 67J for a location order is appropriate.
• Whether an Independent Children's Lawyer should be appointed.
• Whether a family report or other expert evidence is needed and, if so, its scope.
• Whether contravention or variation of an existing order should be considered, and what evidence is available.
• How the child's views will be obtained and considered.
• Where the child is Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, how the section 60CC(3) additional consideration will be addressed.
• How the estate-planning consequences of separation — wills, powers of attorney, superannuation nominations, insurance — will be reviewed alongside the parenting outcome.

Common Mistakes

• Filing without a section 60I certificate where no exception applies. The application may not be able to proceed until the requirement is met or a valid exception is established.
• Vague or unenforceable drafting. 'Reasonable time' and 'as agreed between the parents' collapse under any disagreement. Every obligation should be enforceable on its face.
• Not filing the mandatory Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk. The Notice must be filed with any Initiating Application, Response to Initiating Application or Application for Consent Orders seeking parenting orders, regardless of whether risk is alleged. Where the Notice accompanies an Initiating Application or a Response and makes an allegation, an Affidavit—Family law and child support under FCFCOA Family Law Rules 2021 r 2.04 is also required; the Court states that an affidavit does not need to be filed with an Application for Consent Orders. Non-compliance is a procedural risk.
• Using affidavits for advocacy. An affidavit is a sworn record of admissible fact, not a submission; argumentative material may be objected to or given less weight.
• Discussing the litigation with children, or preparing children for family-report interviews. These practices raise concerns under the section 60CC(2)(a) safety considerations and may be a relevant factor in the Court's assessment.
• Secretly recording the other parent. The legality and admissibility of recordings depend on the jurisdiction, the circumstances and applicable evidence law; advice should be obtained before recording or using any recording.
• Ignoring the estate-planning consequences of separation. Wills, powers of attorney and superannuation nominations are not automatically revoked and should be reviewed alongside the parenting outcome.
• Underestimating the cost of contested litigation. Contested proceedings can be substantial in cost; fees vary widely with the number of court events, expert evidence and the involvement of an ICL.
• Delaying advice. Delayed advice can narrow the options available.

How Parke Lawyers Can Help

Parke Lawyers advises separating parents across Australia on parenting arrangements from first advice through to consent orders, contested interim and final proceedings, contravention, variation and appeals. Our approach is to work towards the appropriate outcome for the child while managing cost, time and stress — through negotiation and consent orders where possible, and contested proceedings where they are necessary.

Our family-law team is led by Julian McIntyre. The estate-planning consequences of separation are handled by our wills team alongside the family-law matter so that the will, powers of attorney and superannuation nominations move in step with the parenting outcome. For the firm's broader family-law practice see our Family Law service page.

Frequently Asked Questions

Sources and Further Reading

• Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) — current compilation on the Federal Register of Legislation
• Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 — current compilation
• FCFCOA guidance on parenting proceedings and the court process
• FCFCOA guidance on the Notice of child abuse, family violence or risk
• FCFCOA guidance on family dispute resolution
• Australian Federal Police — Family Law Watchlist