Mohammad Ahsan
When parents separate, working out how much time a child should spend with each parent becomes one of the most emotionally charged parts of the process. I’ve guided hundreds of families through this, and what I’ve learned is that it’s never purely about logistics. It’s about what genuinely serves your child’s emotional and developmental needs at their particular stage of life.
Upon the separation of parents, determining the appropriate amount of time for a child to spend with each parent can be incredibly emotionally charged. Having personally assisted numerous families in this matter, I have come to understand that it extends beyond simply organizing schedules. Rather, it is essential to prioritize what truly benefits your child’s emotional and developmental well-being during their current stage of life.
The application of Australian family law does not involve inflexible formulas. The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), specifically in Section 60CA, states that the primary concern in any parenting order must be the best interests of the child. However, what constitutes these “best interests” changes as children continue to develop.
Babies and young children (0–2 years)
Infants and young children require stability in their lives. They do well with a set schedule, recognizable faces, and constant support from their main caregiver. This does not lessen the significance of the other parent, but the manner in which they interact is crucial during this developmental stage.
I typically recommend the following for infants:
- Regular, brief meetings with the secondary caregiver (a few hours, multiple times a week)
- Initially, daytime interactions took place, which later progressed to longer stretches of time.
- Staying overnight will be delayed until the child is emotionally prepared for extended periods of separation.
The objective is to establish a connection without overburdening a child who has not yet grasped object permanence, the concept that individuals continue to exist even when not visible.
Preschoolers (2–5 Years)
Children at this age become more adaptable. They’re forming stronger attachments with both parents and can handle slightly longer visits, including some overnight stays. Routine still matters, but there’s more flexibility.
What tends to work well:
- Alternate weekends with each parent
- One or two midweek visits
- Occasional overnights, gradually increasing as comfort grows
Communication between parents becomes critical here. Bedtime routines, mealtime habits, discipline approaches—when these stay consistent across households, children feel more secure. Experienced children’s law custody Brisbane lawyers can help you structure agreements that address these details without creating unnecessary conflict.
Primary School Children (6–12 Years)
By school age, most children can spend longer stretches away from either parent. Their world expands to include friendships, sport, hobbies, and school commitments that need to be factored into any custody arrangement.
Common arrangements include:
- Alternating weeks between households
- A 5-2 or 4-3 split to maintain regular contact with both parents
- Midweek dinners or after-school visits
The challenge at this age is coordinating logistics while keeping school and social life stable. Children shouldn’t feel they’re constantly packing bags or missing activities because changeover days don’t align with their commitments.
Teenagers (13–18 Years)
Teenagers want input. They’re balancing friendships, study, part-time work, and their own developing sense of independence. Rigid schedules often create resentment.
Arrangements that tend to work better:
- Flexible structures that acknowledge the teenager’s social life
- Some choice in where they spend time (within reasonable boundaries)
- One primary residence during school terms, with holidays spent at the other household
Even though teenagers project independence, they still need reassurance and emotional support. I’ve seen too many parents assume a 16-year-old can handle adult-level flexibility when what they actually need is clear boundaries combined with a genuine voice in decisions affecting their lives.
What Courts Actually Consider Under Section 60CC
The Family Law Amendment Act 2023, which commenced on 6 May 2024, simplified the factors courts must weigh when determining a child’s best interests. Under the amended Section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), courts now consider six core factors:
- Safety first: Protection from family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm—including the safety of anyone caring for the child
- The child’s views: Weighted according to their maturity and understanding
- Developmental needs: Psychological, emotional, and cultural requirements
- Parental capacity: Each person’s ability to meet those needs
- Relationship benefits: The value of maintaining connections with parents and significant others, where safe
- Any other relevant circumstances: A catch-all for the specifics of each case
Safety now explicitly takes priority. If protecting the child from harm conflicts with maintaining a parental relationship, protection wins. That’s a significant shift from earlier versions of the legislation.
Examples of Legal Rulings That Altered Court Approaches to Custody
Familiarizing oneself with a few key rulings can greatly enhance one’s comprehension of how parenting disputes are handled in Australian courts. This results in a better understanding of the criteria judges consider important.
The case of Rice v Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725
According to Chief Justice Evatt, the Full Court of the Family Court concluded that it is not advisable to reopen final parenting orders unless there is evidence of a significant change in circumstances. This principle was put in place to prevent children from being subjected to repeated court battles and instability. Therefore, if one wishes to modify an existing final order, they must demonstrate a substantial shift in circumstances rather than simply changing their mind.
The case of Goode v Goode [2006] FamCA 1346
The initial Full Court ruling to evaluate the connection between equal shared parental responsibility and the child’s best interests after the 2006 changes specified a decision-making protocol for judges when issuing parenting orders. It clarified that equal shared parental responsibility does not necessarily equate to an equal division of time. The courts must follow a structured approach, starting with determining responsibility and then assessing whether equal or substantial time is in the child’s best interests and feasible.
The case of MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4 was heard by the High Court of Australia
The High Court’s decision to overturn orders for a mother to stay in Mount Isa, solely for the purpose of ensuring equal time between both parents and their daughter, marked a significant shift in the evaluation process for shared care arrangements. While the Federal Magistrate had focused on the child’s best interests, they failed to consider whether such an arrangement was actually feasible according to the legislation’s definition of “reasonably practicable.” The High Court emphasized the importance of assessing real-life practicalities, such as distance between homes and each parent’s ability to carry out agreed-upon arrangements. Additionally, it highlighted the potential negative impact on a child’s wellbeing if one parent is forced into a living situation that may not be ideal. This ruling fundamentally altered the approach taken by courts when evaluating proposals for shared care.
The Family Law Amendment Act of 2023 has been updated with the recent reforms that came into effect in May of 2024
The recent major legislative changes, implemented on 6 May 2024, removed the long-standing “equal shared parental responsibility” presumption that had been in place since 2006. This presumption was commonly misunderstood as granting parents the right to equal time, which was never the intention. Instead, the updated guidelines now encourage parents to collaborate on significant long-term decisions in a safe manner, without assuming a specific allocation of responsibility. Furthermore, the revised best-interests checklist outlined in Section 60CC explicitly prioritizes safety.
Other Factors That Shape Your Arrangement
While a child’s age provides useful starting points, every family situation differs. Courts weigh multiple factors beyond developmental stage:
- Emotional attachment to each parent
- Distance between households and school location
- Parents’ capacity to communicate and resolve disagreements
- Any history of family violence or risk to the child
- Cultural and religious considerations
Sometimes parents reach agreement privately or through mediation, avoiding court entirely. In more complex cases, working with MK Law ensures your parenting plan reflects your child’s evolving needs while meeting the legal requirements of Australian family law.
If you’re navigating custody arrangements and want advice tailored to your circumstances, reaching out to experienced children’s law custody Brisbane lawyers can help you understand your options and protect what matters most—your child’s wellbeing.
References
- Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/
- Section 60CA (Best interests paramount) – https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s60ca.html
- Section 60CC (How court determines best interests) – https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s60cc.html
- Rice v Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 – https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedLawRw/2006/15.html
- Goode v Goode [2006] FamCA 1346 – https://www.swiftlylegal.com.au/custody-and-parenting-orders/
- MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4 – https://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2010/HCA/4
- Family Law Amendment Act 2023 (Factsheet) – https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/news-and-media-centre/fla2023
- Attorney-General’s Department, Family Law Amendment Act 2023 – https://www.ag.gov.au/families-and-marriage/publications/family-law-amendment-act-2023-factsheet-parents
