Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Equal shared parental responsibility: Eddington and Eddington (No 2) (2007)

Effect of an order for equal shared parental responsibility and the concepts of "Equal Time" and "Substantial and Significant Time" and "Reasonable Practicality".

Eddington and Eddington (No 2) (2007)

FLC 93-349

Effect of an order for equal shared parental responsibility and the concepts of "Equal Time" and "Substantial and Significant Time" and "Reasonable Practicality".

An appeal by the husband against a parenting order relating to the time he would spend with his children and an appeal against an order for property settlement.
The crux of the challenge to the order with respect to the time the children spend with the husband during school term was that, notwithstanding that the trial judge concluded that the children should spend substantial and significant time with the husband, what was ultimately ordered could not be considered substantial and significant time spent with him.

The husband submitted that, on the trial judge's own findings and conclusions, the orders he made did not provide substantial and significant time spent with the husband and that, to the extent that there may have been countervailing factors, such as one child's preference for preparing for school at the wife's home, the trial judge had, as was open to him, not declined to order such time with the husband despite such evidence.

Held: Appeal allowed.

1. The trial judge's orders for time spent with the husband did not, in the exercise of an undoubtedly broad discretion constitute substantial and significant time in the circumstances of the case.

2. The time the children would spend with the husband pursuant to the trial judge's orders, the duration of such periods and the frequency at which they would occur were likely to impact adversely upon the significance of the time which the children would spend with the husband. There was a nexus between the substance and the significance of the time which the children would spend with the husband.

3. The legislative requirements are conjunctive.

4. The case turned on its own particular facts and circumstances, and the roster of the husband impacted on what may constitute substantial and significant time spent with the husband.

Full text of judgment below:

Attachment
EDDINGTON and EDDINGTON (NO 2) - (2007) FLC 93-349

What is done for you, let it be done, what you must do, be sure you do it, as the wise person does today that what the fool will do in three days - Buddha
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets