Parenting Disputes and Sole Parental Responsibility: Insights from Reina & Oates [2025] FedCFamC2F 519

Parenting disputes in family law often involve complex considerations about what arrangements are in the best interests of the child. The recent case of Reina & Oates [2025] FedCFamC2F 519 in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) provides valuable insights into how courts approach these matters, particularly when one parent seeks sole parental responsibility.

This case revolved around parenting arrangements for X, a five-year-old child born in 2020. The parents, Mr Reina and Ms Oates, had separated under contentious circumstances, including allegations of family violence. Interim parenting orders had been in place, allowing the father to spend five nights per fortnight with X. However, the father sought primary care of X and sole parental responsibility for major long-term decisions, citing concerns about the mother’s ability to provide a stable and safe environment.

The mother’s conduct in this matter raised significant concerns for the court. Evidence presented highlighted her failure to maintain a safe and hygienic home environment, with expert reports describing the conditions as "putrid" and unsafe for a child. Expert evidence presented by Dr G, a specialist in mould and air quality, revealed that the home was in an unhygienic and unsafe state. The inspection found extensive mould growth, urine stains, pet hair, and an overwhelming odour of urine throughout the property. The carpets were described as dirty, with visible mould and pet hair, while the lounge suite was similarly unclean. Dr G concluded that the surface hygiene was unacceptable and posed a risk to anyone coming into contact with the contaminated areas. The court noted that the mother had failed to address these issues, instead offering various explanations, including financial limitations and physical challenges, but did not provide evidence to support her claims. The state of the home was deemed to be a risk to the child’s health and well-being, further supporting the decision to grant primary care to the father.

Additionally, the court noted her tendency to pathologise the child by seeking unnecessary assessments for developmental issues, such as ADHD and autism, despite expert observations that X was a healthy and thriving child. The mother’s lack of engagement in co-parenting discussions, including her failure to respond to the father’s communications regarding schooling and other important matters, further demonstrated her inability to prioritise X’s best interests. Her negative narrative about the father and refusal to foster a positive relationship between X and her father were also key factors in the court’s decision to grant sole parental responsibility to the father.

The mother’s lack of representation and failure to file trial material further undermined her position in the proceedings. Despite being repeatedly informed of her obligations, including the requirement to file a trial affidavit and apply for legal representation under the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme, the mother failed to take the necessary steps. The court noted that she had been given ample notice and guidance, including reminders from the Independent Children’s Lawyer, the father’s solicitor, and the court itself. Her failure to engage with the process resulted in her being unable to cross-examine the father or provide evidence to support her case. The mother was not able to give evidence. This lack of participation not only disadvantaged her but also highlighted her ongoing disengagement with the proceedings and her responsibilities as a litigant, which the court found to be inconsistent with prioritising the best interests of the child.

The Judge highlighted the father to be impressive witness who demonstrated insight into the child's needs and in particular the child's need to have an ongoing relatinship with the mother.

The father's completion of a parenting after separation program and Tuning into Kids was evidence he was able to display insight into the best interest of the child.

If you are facing a parenting dispute or concerns about parental responsibility, it’s important to seek timely legal advice. Every family’s situation is unique, and professional guidance can help you understand your rights and options while keeping the best interests of your child at the centre of every decision.

Contact Kennon Lawyers today to speak with our experienced family law team about your parenting matter and get the support you need to move forward with confidence.

Read more about this case: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FedCFamC2F/2025/519.html