Facts
This was a parenting appeal about two children. The parents had been in years of Court proceedings marked by ongoing parenting decision-making disputes. The appeal challenged parts of the final parenting orders made on 2 May 2025. After separation, both parents started new relationships. Both children needed extra support, including counselling and learning help. The case involved ongoing fights about parenting decisions. Each parent said the other was controlling, and there were allegations of family violence and protection orders.
At trial, the judge accepted expert evidence showing entrenched parenting decision-making disputes harmed the children. The evidence showed the children required stability, routine, and consistent support. The judge kept a week-about care arrangement and reduced conflict by imposing a clearer plan. The younger child remained at the current school, as the father arranged. The mother took responsibility for the older child’s schooling. Each parent took responsibility for different counselling and support arrangements. For major long-term issues, the orders gave the mother final decision-making power. The orders required her to email the father and give him time to respond. She had to consider his response and then notify him of the decision, unless the issue was urgent. The father appealed that part of the order, but the appeal failed.
Introduction
If you’re separating in NSW, parenting disputes are decided under the federal Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), and it applies across Australia. Since 6 May 2024, the parenting rules have been updated, and there is no automatic rule that parents must share major long-term decisions. The Court can order shared decision-making, split it by topic, or give one parent the final say, depending on what best supports the child. Van Wyk & Van Wyk [2025] FedCFamC1A 209 shows how courts may respond when parenting decision-making disputes become entrenched and unworkable. The focus shifts to practical outcomes that protect children from ongoing conflict.
What counts as a “major long-term decision”
In family law, there’s a difference between everyday parenting choices (like bedtime, meals, and homework) and major long-term issues. Major long-term issues are the big decisions that can shape a child’s life, like schooling, major health decisions, and other long-term welfare choices. The Court can decide who makes these big calls because the goal is to protect the child’s stability and wellbeing, not to make sure both adults get an equal say every time.
Why the Court may choose one decision-maker
In a high-conflict family, decision-making often becomes a daily fight. One parent suggests an option and the other objects. Schools and health professionals can also become involved in the conflict. In Van Wyk & Van Wyk, the trial judge found the conflict was extreme and entrenched. The judge was concerned the children’s emotional and behavioural issues were worsening. The judge linked those issues to instability and ongoing parental tension. In these situations, giving one parent final decision-making authority can reduce conflict. The approach does not label one parent as good and the other as bad. It aims to prevent the child from becoming caught between the parents.
Sometimes the Court “splits” responsibility to stop repeat fights
A key feature of the orders in Van Wyk & Van Wyk was the Court’s focus on reducing day-to-day conflict arising from parenting decision-making disputes. The judge accepted a structure aimed at stability, including clear responsibility for schooling and support arrangements, so important things (like school support and counselling) could keep going without turning into a weekly argument. The judge also noted that when earlier orders gave each parent different responsibilities, there seemed to be less conflict. The simple takeaway is this: if shared decision-making keeps blowing up, the Court may split roles more clearly, so a child’s support does not get delayed by adult fights.
Why communication rules matter as much as decision rules
Even good parenting orders can fall apart if communication stays messy and heated. That’s why courts sometimes build in a calmer system: less direct contact, fewer chances to argue, and one clear channel for child-related communication. In Van Wyk & Van Wyk, the structure included handovers designed to reduce flashpoints and a communication setup that kept the focus on the children.
What “minimal direct contact” at handover really means
When the Court orders “minimal direct contact” at handover, it is usually trying to remove a common trigger: the few minutes when parents see each other and a small comment turns into a big fight. The aim is for the child to move between homes without hearing adult conflict, without tension, and without feeling responsible for keeping the peace. In high-conflict situations, these practical rules can protect a child’s emotional safety more than big promises about “co-parenting respectfully”.
Decision-making is not the same as time with the child
A common worry is: “If I don’t get equal decision-making, will I lose my child?” Not necessarily. In Van Wyk & Van Wyk, the week-about care arrangement continued, even though major long-term decision-making was structured to reduce conflict. The point for NSW parents is that courts can keep a child’s time arrangement stable while changing the decision-making structure to stop repeated fights.
Why the Court relied heavily on expert evidence
High-conflict cases often involve lots of accusations from both sides. Courts look for balanced information, and expert evidence can be important. In Van Wyk & Van Wyk, the judge placed considerable weight on expert views about the harm caused by ongoing conflict and the importance of stability and consistent support. The Court also had material from schools and treating professionals. For most people, the takeaway is simple: if professionals are involved, the Court may look closely at those records, and clear, consistent professional information can matter more than heated text message.
Practical take-away for parents: how to look “child-focused” in real life
If you want the Court to trust you with more decision-making, it’s usually not about saying “I’m the better parent.” It’s about showing steady, child-focused behaviour over time. That means calm and practical communication, following orders, supporting schooling and treatment, and not escalating fights or undermining professionals. Even if the other parent is difficult, staying calm and consistent is often the best way to protect your child and show the Court you are focused on the child’s needs.
Before you file in Court: most people need to try FDR first
In most parenting cases, you are encouraged to try Family Dispute Resolution before starting court proceedings. You usually file a section 60I certificate, unless an exception applies. This matters because many families reach workable arrangements without a judge. Even if court proceedings become necessary, evidence of a sensible process can assist. If Family Dispute Resolution is unsafe or inappropriate, exemptions may apply. Serious safety concerns can justify an exemption. Early advice can help you choose the safest and correct option.
Conclusion
When co-parenting turns into an endless fight cycle, the Court may redesign the system to protect the child, sometimes by choosing one decision-maker (or splitting topics), and often by tightening communication rules. Van Wyk & Van Wyk is a practical example: keep the child’s routine and supports running, protect their relationships where possible, and reduce the day-to-day chances for adult conflict to spill into the child’s life.
Jake McKinley notes that this article is written for the purpose of providing generalised information and not to provide specialised legal advice. If you require qualified legal advice on anything mentioned in this article, our experienced team of solicitors at Jake McKinley are here to help. Please get in touch with us on 02 9232 8033 today to make an enquiry.
By Ferdavis Fan
