Removal of the presumption of Equal Shared Parental Responsibility: A step towards a safer Family Law System?

We have previously examined the presumption of ‘equal shared parental responsibility’ in the horrific case of the Edwards family in our blog, The Presumption of Equal Shared Parental Responsibility: The Horrific Case of Olga Edwardson 18 September 2020.

We looked at the appalling murder of Hannah Clarke and her children in our blog, Another Tragedy: the murder-suicide of Hannah Clarke and her three children which was the catalyst for the private member’s Bill which proposes to remove the Family Law Act presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and the court’s associated consideration of equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent.

We now take a deeper look into whether the presumption for ‘equal shared parental responsibility’ should be amended or removed.

Quick refresh: what is the presumption of ‘equal shared parental responsibility?

  • The court will presume that parents have equal decision-making power and responsibility in making major decisions for their children such as:
    • education;
    • health; and
    • living arrangements.
  • The court will not apply the presumption if it believes on reasonable grounds that either parent has engaged in abuse of the child or family violence.
  • The presumption does not always apply. The presumption is rebutted if the court forms the view that it is not in the child’s best interest to do so.
  • The presumption does not mean the child spends equal time with each parent.

What does the Australian Law Reform Commission say about removing the presumption?

The Australian Law Reform Commission (‘ALRC’) is an independent statutory body that reviews Australian laws.

In March 2019, following an inquiry into the Family Law System, the ALRC produced a report with 60 recommendations for law reform within family law.

One of the recommendations was to amend the presumption of ‘equal shared parental responsibility’ to a presumption of ‘joint decision making about major long-term issues’.[1]

The ALRC reasoned that this would remove confusion for parents. It has been commonly misinterpreted by parents to mean a presumption of equal shared care. The unfortunate rippling effect of this, is that parents may agree to equal shared care by assuming that this what the court would have ordered anyway.

Equal Shared Parental Responsibility – should it stay, or should it go?

The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility is beneficial to encourage parents to co-parent and put the best interests of their children forward. The presumption only refers to an equal decision-making power of major long-term issues relating to the child and not to the time a parent spends with the child.

It is easy to understand that the presumption can be confused to equal time. Rather than the removal of the presumption, it is perhaps best if it is reworded following the ALRC recommendation to make it clear the presumption only refers to joint decision-making for long-term issues.

Can the Family Court predict such high levels of violence?

It is very difficult for the Family Court to predict whether the level of family violence committed by John Edwards or Rowan Baxter will occur.

The court relies on the evidence provide by the parties as well as the Independent Children’s Lawyers (‘ICL’). Often this comes in the form of child protection reports, known as section 67Z reports, by Department of Health and Human Services, material that has been subpoenaed by the police, statements by the parties, assessments by medical practitioners including psychologists and the family report.

Parties can subpoena material by the police of their notes on events that they have been called to. In some circumstances, the police will use the Common Risk Assessment Framework tool (‘CRAF’) to assess the chance of recidivism. The CRAF outlines certain offending behaviours, such as choking a victim, that can indicate an increased risk re-offending or escalating behaviour.

In the case of John Edwards, the ICL did not deem Edwards a risk to the children and actively advocated for the children to spend time with Edwards. In the matter of Baxter, family law proceedings were not yet before the court.

If you would like more information on the Bill’s proposed removal of the requirement for the court to consider equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent in certain circumstances, keep your eyes peeled for our next blog.


If you require assistance with your parenting arrangements or want to discuss your options in regards to child custody, please contact Rowan Skinner & Associates Lawyers. We are LIV Accredited Family Lawyers in Melbourne.

You can also read our blog about the rules on child custody and access if you want to learn more about this topic.

[1] Australian Law Reform Commission, Family law for the future – An Inquiry into the Family Law System (Report No 135, March 2019), 172-176. https://www.alrc.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/alrc_report_135_final_report_web-min_12_optimized_1-1.pdf

Rowan Skinner

About Rowan Skinner

Rowan Skinner is a highly skilled family lawyer with over 35 years of experience across various legal roles and jurisdictions. Rowan specialises in resolving family law disputes such as divorce, financial settlements, child custody and domestic violence cases. Through his diverse and extensive experience, Rowan has a deep understanding of the complexities and nuances involved in family law. Rowan is a skilled negotiator and litigator who follows a compassionate and client-focused approach which prioritises helping you navigate what can be an emotional and challenging time.

Seraphinite AcceleratorOptimized by Seraphinite Accelerator
Turns on site high speed to be attractive for people and search engines.