Sole custody in NSW is a type of custody arrangement wherein one parent enjoys exclusive rights to have custody of the child. 

Sole parental responsibility means that one parent has complete responsibility for the major long-term decisions of their children until the age of 18 years. Under Section 4 of the Family Law Act 1975, major long-term decisions include the child’s:

• Education (current and future);
• Religious and cultural upbringing;
• Health;
• Name; and
• Living arrangements.

It is important to note that it is not the same as child custody and does not mean the other parent cannot spend time with their children. Sole custody means a parent wants to have sole parental responsibility and sole care of the child.

 Understanding the “Best Interests of the Child” in Australian Family LawWhat Does “The Best Interests of the Child” Actually Mean?The term "best interests of the child" is the guiding principle of Australian family law, yet the Family Law Act does not provide a strict, one-size-fits-all definition. Historically, older versions of the Act used the term "welfare." The shift to "best interests" reflects a more holistic approach to a child's life.Because every family is unique, what constitutes a child's "best interests" changes from case to case—and can even differ between siblings in the same family. The phrase is intentionally broad so courts are not restricted when evaluating a child's specific needs.A child’s best interests encompass their:

• Physical and emotional safety
• General welfare and happiness
• Mental and physical health
• Developmental and educational needs
• Cultural identity and community connections

Crucially, the law dictates that the best interests of the child are paramount. This means that a child’s fundamental rights, safety, and needs will always override the personal wishes or convenience of a parent, or any other party, when a court makes parenting orders.How Are Best Interests Determined in Family Law Disputes?Rather than defining the term, the Family Law Act provides a specific framework to guide decision-makers. The Court evaluates six core factors to determine what arrangement best serves a child:

1. Safety: How the arrangements promote the safety of the child and their caregivers, including protection from family violence, abuse, or neglect.
2. The Child’s Views: Any wishes or opinions expressed by the child, weighed according to their age and maturity.
3. Core Needs: The child’s unique developmental, psychological, emotional, and cultural needs.
4. Parental Capacity: The ability of each proposed caregiver to meet those developmental, emotional, and cultural needs.
5. Significant Relationships: The benefit to the child of maintaining a meaningful relationship with parents and other important figures (like grandparents), provided it is safe.
6. General Circumstances: Any other fact or matter relevant to the child's specific situation.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ChildrenIf the child is of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent, the Court must also consider their distinct right to enjoy their culture. This includes:

• Opportunities to connect with family, community, country, and language.
• Encouragement to explore their heritage in line with their age and views.
• The direct impact any proposed parenting order will have on these cultural rights.

Balancing the FactorsThese considerations are non-hierarchical, meaning the law does not automatically rank one above the other. The Court balances them based on the evidence. For example, in one case, a mature child's views might carry the most weight; in another, psychological needs might take priority. However, in practice, a child's physical and psychological safety is always given heavy prioritisation.Putting Your Child First After SeparationFamily law legislation and court precedents make one thing clear: separated parents must strive to act in a way that promotes their child's best interests. This requires putting personal grievances aside to prioritise your child’s safety, stability, and emotional well-being.Decades of research show that children thrive when they can maintain safe, meaningful relationships with both parents and extended family. While separation inevitably changes how time is shared, your shared goal of providing a happy, healthy future for your children should remain unchanged.How KJV Lawyers Can Help YouNavigating parenting arrangements after a separation can be emotionally and legally complex. At KJV Lawyers Pty Ltd, we provide clear, compassionate, and strategic legal guidance to help you reach a resolution that protects your children.Contact our family law team today if you need assistance with:

• Formulating comprehensive parenting plans
• Negotiating Consent Orders for living and time-sharing arrangements
• Navigating complex disputes involving family violence or substance abuse
• Representing your interests in Court recovery or relocation applications

 In short, divorce is the dissolution of a marriage. Australia has adopted the no-fault system. The only requirement for a divorce is an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. This is reinforced by the condition that the husband and wife having been separated for a minimum of 12 months, with no likelihood of getting back together.  

Some people think that you need to sign a document or register the separation. That is not the case. You are separated if all of the following apply to you and your spouse: 

• One or both of you have decided that the marriage is over; 
• The decision that the marriage is over has been communicated; 
• One or both of you must then act on that decision either by living apart or, if you remain in the same home, by acting in such a way that it is clear that the relationship is over.

 Navigating the Best Interests of the Child in Australian Family LawIn Australian family law, every single parenting decision comes back to one central, non-negotiable question: What is in the best interests of the child?This fundamental principle sits at the very heart of the Family Law Act 1975 and serves as the legal blueprint for all parenting arrangements. Rather than focusing on what parents want, Australian courts mandate a strict focus on safety, emotional needs, and stability.If you are navigating a separation or restructuring your family setup, the team at KJV LAWYERS PTY LTD is here to guide you. Contact our family law experts today on our toll-free number, 1800 788 414, to ensure your parenting goals align with legislative frameworks.Key Insights

• Paramount Priority: The child's best interests always overrule parental convenience or desires.
• Safety First: Courts heavily penalise risk factors and prioritise protection from family violence.
• The Six Factors: Section 60CC forms the foundational legal test used to evaluate child welfare.
• Children's Views: A child's perspective is considered relative to their age and emotional maturity.
• Parental Capacity: Courts explicitly evaluate each parent’s ability to cater to developmental needs.
• Meaningful Relationships: Regular, safe contact with both parents is protected and encouraged.
• Evidence Quality Matters: Judicial outcomes rely on verified evidence, not the quantity of claims.
• Professional Support: Independent Children’s Lawyers (ICLs) and family consultants heavily influence trials.
• Out-of-Court Expectations: Private agreements must still morally and practically preserve child wellbeing.
• Early Advice is Crucial: Strategic early counsel keeps your parenting objectives realistic and legally sound.

The Legal Foundation of the Child's Best InterestsUnder the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the "best interests of the child" is the paramount consideration. Whenever an Australian court assesses a dispute—whether finalising formal parenting orders or validating binding consent agreements—the welfare, physical safety, and developmental needs of the children carry the absolute maximum legal weight. Individual parental wishes, schedules, or comfort will always remain secondary to this standard.The Section 60CC Legal TestThe Family Court utilizes Section 60CC as its core analytical framework to determine a child's best interests. Following extensive legislative simplifications, the core test centers on six specific factors:

1. Safety and Protection: Arrangements that aggressively promote physical and psychological safety, focusing heavily on any history or exposure to family violence, abuse, or neglect.
2. The Child's Views: The expressed perspectives of the child, scaled by their age, maturity, and freedom from parental manipulation.
3. Developmental Needs: The core emotional, psychological, cultural, and physical needs specific to that individual child.
4. Carer Capacity: The targeted capacity and practical ability of each parent to realistically satisfy those day-to-day needs.
5. Parental Relationships: The clear benefit to the child of maintaining a healthy, stable, and fulfilling relationship with both parents and extended family, provided it is entirely safe.
6. General Circumstances: Any other unique factor or circumstantial variable specific to the child’s background.

Note: For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, the law mandates additional, specific consideration regarding the child's explicit right to experience, connect with, and enjoy their indigenous culture.Private Agreements vs. Court OrdersParents are completely permitted to build private parenting plans out of court without having a judge scrutinise them against the Section 60CC test. However, the legal system still expects everyday parents to use these exact benchmarks during private negotiations.If negotiations stall and you are forced to apply for formal court orders, the judge will look strictly through the lens of Section 60CC to determine living locations, school choices, and exactly how much time the child spends with each party.International and State InfluencesAustralia's family law infrastructure operates in complete alignment with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), ratified by Australia in 1990. Article 3 of the UNCRC underscores that child welfare must be a primary consideration in domestic legal actions, while Article 12 establishes a child's right to state their views on matters impacting their life. These global human rights benchmarks flow straight into state child protection guidelines and the federal Family Law Act.Safety vs. Shared Contact: The Practical BalanceWhile Australian family courts recognize the psychological benefits of children growing up with active, dual-parent involvement, safety outranks contact.

• Where Harm Exists: If domestic abuse, drug dependency, or psychological risks are proven, courts will immediately restrict parental contact. This includes enforcing strictly supervised visitation or cutting off contact entirely if required.
• Where Safety is Assured: If no safety risks exist, the court actively constructs modern parenting orders to protect ongoing bonds, arranging consistent schedules, school-holiday rotations, and reliable digital communication.

Honoring the Child’s Voice SafelyAustralian courts treat children as independent rights-holders who possess critical insights into their own lives. However, judges are deeply trained to spot parental alignment, coaching, or fear-based messaging.In practice, a child is never forced to sit in a witness box or choose between their parents. Instead, their voice is gathered gently and indirectly via an Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) or qualified family consultants who provide objective assessments directly to the bench.Protect Your Family with KJV LAWYERS PTY LTDFamily law disputes can be emotionally draining and legally complex. Don't leave your child’s future to chance or guesswork. At KJV LAWYERS PTY LTD, our experienced family and divorce lawyers help you build robust, legally sound arrangements that protect your children while securing your parental rights.Take Action TodaySpeak directly to our dedicated legal team. Call KJV LAWYERS PTY LTD now on our national toll-free number:

• 📞 1800 788 414

 What are consent orders?
The Family Court encourages families in dispute to reach agreement about the care arrangements for
their children, the division of property or spouse maintenance.
If you want your agreement to become an order of the Court, you can apply for ‘Consent Orders’ to be
made without having to actually go to Court. You can do this with the help of your
lawyer.
Consent Orders have the same legal effect as an order made after a Court hearing.

Financial agreements can be made under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to deal with all aspects of the division of the parties’ property, including superannuation interests.

Financial agreements for de facto couples in all states which have referred their powers to the Commonwealth are governed by the Family Law Act 1975. De facto couples residing in Western Australia are governed by the Family Court Act 1997 (WA).

Financial agreements cannot be approved by courts or registered in courts.

For financial agreements to be binding, they must comply with the formal requirements of the Act.

Grandparents are entitled to apply for parenting orders under s 65C of the Family Law Act 1975, which provides:

A parenting order in relation to a child may be applied for by:
(a) either or both of the child's parents; or
(b) the child; or
(ba) a grandparent of the child; or
(c) any other person concerned with the care, welfare or development of the child.

There are generally two circumstances where grandparents seek advice on parenting orders:

1. One of the parents cannot or does not participate in the child’s life, for example, they are deceased, drug or alcohol addicted or mentally ill, and the grandparents are seeking orders either for the child to live with them, or to spend regular time with them; or
2. Both parents participate in the child’s life, but one of them prevents the grandparents from doing so, and the grandparents are seeking time with the child.

As with any parenting order, the court will always consider an application by the grandparents through the prism of what is in the child's best interests: s 60CC.

When separating parties are unable to come to an agreement on how to divide their property, they can apply to the court for a property settlement determination. The court will make an order on their behalf. In doing so, the court follows a five-step process to decide how to split the couple’s property fairly.

The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) governs the division of assets, liabilities and superannuation following separation, whether it is in respect of a marriage or a de facto relationship. The court has wide discretion under the Act in determining the entitlements of each party based on the specific circumstances and facts of each case. Considerations of what is ‘just and equitable’ bookend the process.

The first step involves determining whether or not it is just and equitable to adjust the parties’ interests in property. It may not be considered right to alter their interests when the relationship has been short, and the parties have primarily maintained separate finances. If the court finds that it is right to adjust the respective interests, it proceeds with the next steps.

The property pool requiring division consists of the assets and liabilities of the parties, whether held in sole or joint names. Examples include ‘real’ property such as houses, land or investment properties. Other assets can include vehicles, shares, cash at bank and superannuation and liabilities can comprise of loans, mortgages, credit card debts and any outstanding tax due.

It is typically considered best to determine a settlement as quickly as possible, before either party purchases or disposes of any property. If a party wishes to prevent disposal of assets, an application can be made to the court for an injunction if it can be shown that disposals are imminent or possible.

A superannuation entitlement may not usually be thought of as ‘property’, but it is nonetheless taken into account in respect of the ‘pool’ and can generally be split between the parties.

There are several aspects of contributions. Initial financial contributions refer to the contribution each party brought into the relationship.

Contributions made during the relationship include, for example, earnings, payments towards a mortgage and living expenses.

Post-separation contributions include expenses paid such as credit card repayments, mortgage payments, and costs paid for children such as school fees.

Non-financial contributions include evaluation of work done in the home and as a parent, raising the children.

The timing of the contributions is, therefore, essential. Depending on the circumstances of these contributions, the length of the relationship and other factors, they can be treated differently to those made during the relationship.

Consideration must be given to the future needs of the parties. Any commitments that are necessary for each party to support themselves, or any other person, need to be taken into account.

This is assessed with reference to, for example, the age, the state of physical and mental health of each party, as well as any disparity between the earning capacities of the parties and the differing responsibilities for the care of any children.

The final step is to consider the practical effect of the proposed division of assets and whether it is just and equitable for a property settlement to occur. In ascertaining whether the proposed orders are just and equitable, the court will also have regard to the “clean break” principle. Where possible, orders should bring to a conclusion the financial relationship between the parties and create certainty for the future.

Although in most cases the court will find that a settlement is just and equitable, in some circumstances, the court may determine that it is not right to do so. If this happens, each party leaves the relationship with the assets and liabilities in their sole name or possession.