Parenting Orders (Applicant)

Use this fork when your client is a grandparent, step-parent, or other person who is not a biological parent seeking parenting orders in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. This plan covers the additional standing requirements and the heightened evidentiary burden that non-parent applicants must meet.\n\nJurisdiction: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA), applying the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and the FAM-PARENTING Practice Direction. This fork applies nationally including Queensland registries.\n\nThe Process at a Glance: The lawyer first establishes the client's standing to apply under section 65C(ba) of the Family Law Act, which confers standing on any person concerned with the care, welfare, or development of a child. The applicant must demonstrate a genuine and significant relationship with the child. Pre-action compliance, the section 60I certificate, Genuine Steps Certificate, and all originating documents required in the main parenting plan must still be completed. Because the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility typically benefits the parents, the applicant must present clear evidence as to why the proposed parenting arrangement - which places a child with a non-parent - serves the child's best interests. The Lighthouse risk screen, First Court Event, and interim and final hearing pathway all apply in the same sequence as the standard plan. An Independent Children's Lawyer is commonly appointed given the nature of these applications. The court may also order a section 62G Family Report and require subpoenas to Child Safety and Police.\n\nKey Legislation and Case Law: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) - s 60CC (best interests of the child as the paramount consideration), s 61DA (presumption of equal shared parental responsibility - must be rebutted where both parents oppose the non-parent's application), s 65C(ba) (standing of persons other than parents to apply for parenting orders), s 65G (additional procedural requirements where orders are sought in favour of a non-parent, including possible mandatory referral to a Family Consultant before chambers approval). Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 - Rule 2.27 (service), Rule 4.01 (pre-action procedure). The Lighthouse Project risk screen and Evatt List allocation apply equally to grandparent applications involving family violence. Section 62G Family Reports are particularly influential in these matters given the absence of parental consensus.

Use this fork when a child has been removed or retained by the other party in breach of existing parenting orders or arrangements, or where there is an immediate risk of the child being taken interstate or overseas. This plan covers the compressed ex parte application for a Recovery Order, including coordination with the Australian Federal Police for physical recovery of the child.\n\nJurisdiction: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA), applying sections 67Q to 67U of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). This fork applies nationally and is not limited to Queensland registries given the AFP's national role.\n\nThe Process at a Glance: The lawyer immediately assesses the urgency and confirms the child's last known location. The standard pre-action FDR requirement is bypassed under Rule 4.01(2) of the Family Law Rules 2021 on the basis of immediate risk. An ex parte Initiating Application is drafted supported by a high-impact Affidavit detailing the circumstances of the removal or retention, the risk of flight, and the history of any parenting orders. A formal Letter of Urgency is sent to the court registry to secure an immediate hearing date. Once the court issues a sealed section 67U Recovery Order, an AFP Recovery Order Information Sheet is prepared and delivered to the Australian Federal Police for physical recovery of the child. The AFP locate and return the child to the applicant. Following recovery, the matter is channelled back into the standard FAM-PARENTING triage pathway for ongoing case management.\n\nKey Legislation and Case Law: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) - ss 67Q-67T (Recovery Orders - power to make, parties who may apply, and what the order may direct), s 67U (warrant authorising the Australian Federal Police or state police to take possession of and deliver a child), s 68B (injunctions to prevent removal of a child from Australia - often sought alongside a Recovery Order). Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 - Rule 4.01(2) (exemption from pre-action FDR procedures in cases of urgency or risk). Where international abduction is a risk, the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 and the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 may also apply. The AFP maintains a Children's Contact Service and watchlist procedures to prevent departure from Australia pending proceedings.

Use this fork when both parties have reached full agreement on parenting arrangements and want to formalise that agreement into sealed, legally binding Consent Orders without a court hearing. This on-the-papers pathway is suitable where there are no unresolved safety concerns, both parties have received legal advice, and the proposed orders clearly serve the children's best interests.\n\nJurisdiction: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA), assessed in chambers by a Judicial Registrar without a hearing. This is a fork of the main Parenting Orders Applicant plan and applies nationally, including Queensland registries.\n\nThe Process at a Glance: The lawyer takes instructions and conducts a conflict check and identity verification. The Application for Consent Orders is drafted detailing the children's history and jurisdictional background, along with the mandatory Annexure to Proposed Consent Parenting Order which each party must complete disclosing any section 60CC risk factors. The Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk is also required. The Proposed Consent Orders are drafted to be unambiguous and practically enforceable, clearly setting out parental responsibility, live-with, and spend-time arrangements. Before execution, the lawyer provides formal written advice on the rule in Rice and Asplund - that the court will summarily dismiss future applications to alter these orders unless a significant, unforeseen change in circumstances can be demonstrated. Once all documents are executed before a qualified witness, they are formatted strictly to FCFCOA portal standards (both executed PDF and identical unsigned .docx of the proposed orders), uploaded via the Commonwealth Courts Portal, and the matter enters the Registrar's chambers queue for review and sealing.\n\nKey Legislation and Case Law: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) - s 60CC (best interests criteria the Registrar applies when assessing consent orders in chambers), s 65G (additional requirements where orders favour a non-parent or child welfare authority has been involved - Registrar may decline to make chambers orders and require a Family Consultant report), s 67Z (mandatory risk reporting obligations via the Notice of Risk form). Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 - eFiling portal formatting rules (no tracked changes, security locks, or macros in the .docx). Rice and Asplund [1979] FLC 90-725 (finality principle - high threshold to vary consent parenting orders). The Statement of Truth must be filed within 90 days of signing. Filing fees apply via the Commonwealth Courts Portal unless a fee exemption or reduction is approved.