High conflict relationships after separation are unfortunately common, particularly where children are involved. Emotions often run high, and communication can become strained or even hostile.
A common concern for parents is whether conflict will affect the amount of time they spend with their child. Many assume that high conflict automatically leads to reduced parenting time. However, the Family Court’s primary focus is always the best interests of the child, not the level of conflict between parents.
A recent decision, Jefferson & Hooper (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2F 1170, provides important guidance on how the Court approaches high conflict parenting matters and whether equal time arrangements can still be appropriate.
Case Overview: Parenting Arrangements in a High Conflict Relationship
This case involved parenting arrangements for a three year old child. Following separation, the child has been spending equal time with both parents.
The father sought orders to continue the equal shared care on a week-about basis. Whereas the mother opposed equal time, arguing that the parties’ high conflict and poor communication made the arrangement unworkable and contrary to the child’s best interests.
Accordingly, she sought for the child to remain living with her and spending five nights per fortnight with the father.
In essence, the focal question for the Court was whether parental conflict alone was sufficient to justify departing from an equal shared care arrangement, especially in circumstances where such arrangements have been in place for some time.
What Counts as “High Conflict” in Parenting Matters?
The mother relied on several factors to demonstrate high conflict, including poor communication between the parties.
An expert report confirmed that:
- There was a level of conflict between the parents
- The father had displayed some “unhelpful behaviours” at times
- However, both parents provided stable environments and were actively involved in the child’s life.
As a result, the expert’s view was that an equal share care arrangement would be most appropriate, and suggested that rather than diminishing the father’s time, as proposed by the mother, ‘parallel parenting’ was the preferred mechanism to mitigate the conflict between the parties.
Court Findings: Does Conflict Prevent Equal Shared Care?
Indeed, the Court agreed with the expert and rejected the proposition that equal shared care is unavailable or inappropriate merely because the parties are in conflict.
It held that there is no authority establishing a prohibition on equal time parenting in high-conflict matters. Further, judicial discretion cannot be constrained by alleged “common practice” or assumptions about what the Courts typically do. Each case must turn on its own facts and merits.
The Court ultimately found that each parent was a “good enough” caregivers and that:
- Each had a strong attachment to the child
- There was no finding of family violence, abuse, or safety concerns
- The child was developmentally on track
It is worth noting that the Court placed significant weight on the family report, which recommended that equal shared care was appropriate despite acknowledging the parents’ strained and sometimes toxic communication.
How the Court Views Ongoing Parental Conflict
While the Court accepted that conflict existed, it made several important observations:
- The conflict existed regardless of the parenting arrangement
- Reducing one parent’s time would not resolve the communication issues
- Similar tensions would likely arise under any proposed arrangement
This reinforces that reducing time with a parent is not a solution to conflict unless it directly impacts the child’s safety or well-being.
The Statutory Framework for Care Arrangements
When determining what parenting orders should be made in parenting matters, the Court must determine what is in the child or children’s best interest. This framework is enriched under Section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), and the factors the Court must take into consideration are:
- The safety of the child and caregivers (including safety from being subjected to family violence, abuse, neglect or other hard).
- The child’s views, where appropriate
- The child’s emotional, psychological, and developmental needs
- Each parent’s capacity to meet those needs
- The benefit of maintaining relationships with both parents where safe
- Anything else that is relevant to particular circumstances of the child.
Practical Takeaways for Parents in High Conflict Situations
This case highlights several important lessons for parents:
- High conflict alone does not determine parenting time
- Engaging in unnecessary conflict can negatively impact children
- Communication challenges do not automatically justify reducing time with a parent
- Parents will often still need to interact at changeovers or regarding the child’s needs.
Research has also shown that where parents are able to effectively co-parent with one another, the child is able to better navigate the emotional minefield that separation results in.
If you are trying to resolve parenting arrangements, alternatives to Court such as mediation or dispute resolution, can help you reach an agreement. These can later be formalised through Consent Orders or a Parenting Plan.
Speak to a Family Lawyer About Your Parenting Options
If you are navigating a separation or parent dispute, seeking legal advice early can make a significant difference to the outcome of your matter.
At Ramsden Family Law, an experienced team, including family law accredited specialists in this area, can help you:
- Understand your parenting rights and obligations
- Navigate high conflict situations
- Explore options outside of court
- Formalise parenting arrangements that protect your child’s best interests
We offer a free 30 minute initial consultation, completely confidential, to help you take the first step. During this consultation, we will listen to your circumstances, provide clear guidance, and help you understand the practical steps available to move forward in a way that protects your child’s best interests.
The content of this article is intended to provide general guidance to the subject matter and must not be relied on as legal advice. Specific advice should be sought about your circumstances.
