Parenting Orders in Australia After the 2024 Reforms — What Has Changed

What was removed

The 2024 amendments removed the previous statutory presumption that 'equal shared parental responsibility' was in the best interests of the child. The presumption had been widely criticised on two grounds: it was often misunderstood by separating parents as a presumption of equal time, and it created a structured starting point that the Court had to work against in cases involving family violence.

The removal does not mean equal shared parental responsibility is now disfavoured — only that there is no longer a starting presumption. The Court decides parental responsibility on the facts of each matter.

What the Court now focuses on

The Court must decide what is in the best interests of the child. The Family Law Act sets out the factors that go into that assessment. The two primary considerations are: the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents; and the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, including from being exposed to family violence.

Where those two primary considerations conflict, the need to protect the child from harm prevails. This is a significant shift in emphasis — though many practitioners would say it codifies what the Court was doing in practice anyway.

Beyond the primary considerations, the Court looks at the views of the child (with weight depending on age and maturity), the relationship between the child and each parent and other significant people, the practical effects of any proposed arrangement, family violence history, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander cultural considerations, and a range of other matters.

Equal time and substantial-and-significant time

The Court no longer has a presumption-driven obligation to consider equal time or substantial-and-significant time. Those concepts still exist as practical descriptions of arrangements, but the Court is no longer required to consider them in a particular sequence as it was previously.

Practically, equal time arrangements still exist and are still made in appropriate cases. The shift is one of emphasis — the Court considers what works for the child rather than working through a statutory checklist.

What this means for separating parents

If you are separating and trying to work out parenting arrangements, the changes mean two things. First, you cannot start with the assumption of equal shared parental responsibility — you and the other parent are starting on a blank page, and what you agree to is binding once it is in a parenting plan or parenting orders. Second, where there is any family violence history, that history will be given significant weight by the Court.

Practical, child-focused arrangements that take account of schooling, friendships, extended family, and religious or cultural observance are now arguably easier for the Court to make — and the same is true for arrangements involving potential international relocation. The framework supports tailoring rather than templating.