Case Studies
Shared care arrangement
Daniel is 40 years old and has been married to Emma for 12 years. They have two children aged 10 and 7.
The couple separated after ongoing disagreements about finances and parenting styles. Emma works part-time as a teacher, and Daniel runs his own small business.
The mother in this matter was seeking that the children live with her on a full-time basis and spend little time with their father, arguing that she has been the primary carer for the children all of their lives. The father, who we represented, requested shared care, where we emphasised his flexible work schedule and strong bond with the children, and more importantly, the strong bond the children have with their father.
The court will always focus on the best interests of the children. It will consider the stability, continuity of schooling, and maintaining strong relationships with both parents.
In this matter, the court ordered what the father was seeking, which was a shared care arrangement whereby the children continue to live primarily with the mother but spend alternative weekends and one mid-week night with their father.
Relocation by the mother
Michael and Sarah have been divorced for 3 years, and they have a daughter, Lilly, who is 9 years old.
Lilly lives primarily with Sarah in Sydney and spends alternative weekends and half school holidays with her father.
Sarah was offered a job in Brisbane and advised the court that she would be receiving better pay and family support nearby. She applied to the court for a relocation order with Lilly. We represented Michael and opposed this order, arguing that it would severely limit the relationship between Lilly and her father.
The mother argued that the move would provide financial stability, proximity to her parents, who can help her with childcare, and better schooling options.
We argued that relocation would significantly reduce the child's time with her father and disrupt their close bond.
The court will always consider the best interest of the child, and in this case, consideration of Lilly’s emotional ties to both parents, as well as the impact of changing schools and leaving her established social circle. The court considered the practicality of maintaining meaningful contact with her father if relocation was permitted.
It was argued that Lilly remaining in Sydney provided her with the ongoing stability and continuity of relationships with both her father and extended paternal family, and minimised disruption to her life.
The father was successful. The court denied Sarah’s relocation request, finding that Lilly’s best interests are served by remaining in Sydney, where she has strong ties to both parents. The court provided an alternative whereby Sarah was free to move to Brisbane, but Lilly would remain living in Sydney with her father as her primary residence.
This case highlights how the relocation of children often pits a parent’s right to move against the child’s right to maintain strong and consistent relationships with both parents and extended family.
False allegations of domestic abuse
James and Laura were married for 8 years with one child, Mia, who is 6 years old. The couple separated after ongoing conflict. During the proceedings, Laura alleged that James had been physically abusive towards her. She sought a protection order and that Mia live with her on a full-time basis and spend limited time with her father.
Laura claimed multiple incidents of abuse but provided no corroborating evidence, no police reports, no medical reports, and no witness testimony. James denied the allegations and argued that they are fabricated to influence the outcome of the current court proceedings.
The court, once again, acts in the best interests of the children and has to determine whether the allegations were credible and whether Mia’s safety was at risk. Initially, there were interim orders restricting the time that Mia spent with her father to be supervised time until the allegations could be tested.
An independent children’s lawyer was appointed to represent Mia’s best interests, and the family report prepared by a court-appointed psychologist was ordered. During the proceedings and under cross-examination, it was revealed that there were several inconsistencies in Laura’s account.
Primarily, the court prioritised Mia's safety but also her right to have a meaningful relationship with both of her parents. The absence of supporting evidence and contradictions in Laura’s testimony undermined her claims. The court considered whether Laura’s actions demonstrated poor judgement that could affect her parental responsibility.
The court found that the allegations made by the mother were not substantiated.
Shared parental responsibility was granted, and an order was made where Mia was to live primarily with her mother but spend substantial and regular time with her father on an unsupervised basis.
In this matter, the judge cautioned Laura that making false allegations could harm her credibility in future proceedings and negatively impact Mia’s well-being.
This case study shows false allegations can complicate custody disputes, but also how courts carefully investigate claims to protect children while ensuring fairness to both parents. While this is often extremely frustrating for fathers, the process is a necessary one to ensure the children are always protected.
Other matters that have included false allegations made by the mother to prevent the developing relationship between the child and their father, once established as false or vexatious, have resulted in a cost order made against the mother for the legal fees of the father.
Rights of Paternal Grandparents
Mark and Anna are separated parents of Oliver, who is 8 years old. Mark’s parents, Peter and Margaret, have been heavily involved in all of his life since he was born, providing weekly childcare, school pickups, and holiday care. After the separation, Anna limited Oliver's contact with Mark’s parents, citing tension and disagreements about parenting styles. She argued that Oliver needed stability and less interference.
The paternal grandparents applied to the court for orders allowing them to spend regular time with Oliver, in addition to the time that the father has with his son. They argued that they had a strong, established bond with him and that cutting off contact would be harmful and not in Oliver’s best interest.
While Anna claimed the grandparents undermined her authority and the visits caused conflict, she did not allege any risk of harm, but she said the relationship was disruptive. Mark supported his parents' application, emphasising that Oliver thrived in their care and that they provided continuity and cultural traditions important to the family.
The family courts of Australia recognise that children have a right to maintain relationships with significant people in their lives, including grandparents.
The court weighed Oliver’s emotional attachment to his grandparents against the conflict between Anna and the paternal family. They considered whether contact could occur in a way that minimised parental conflict, understanding the importance of preserving Oliver’s sense of identity and extended family connections.
In this matter, the court ordered Oliver to continue living primarily with his mother and spend alternate weekends and one mid-week visit with his father, but also granted time with his paternal grandparents, being fortnightly Saturday visits plus additional time during school holidays.
This case highlights how grandparents can apply for parenting orders when they play a significant role in a child’s life. Courts focus not on grandparents' rights but on the child’s right to maintain meaningful relationships with extended family, provided it is in their best interests and safe to do so.