Joint parental responsibility

With­out any court orders and usu­al­ly with court orders (unless it is deter­mined by the court that it is not in the best inter­ests of the chil­dren), both par­ents have joint parental respon­si­bil­i­ty. This means that it is both par­ents’ respon­si­bil­i­ty, not that of a new part­ner of either one of them, to make deci­sions about the long-term issues that will affect the children.

Long-term deci­sions and day-to-day matters

Long term deci­sions involve such things as which schools the chil­dren will attend, what reli­gion the chil­dren will be brought up in, any med­ical deci­sions, the liv­ing arrange­ments of the chil­dren and the names of the chil­dren. How­ev­er, the day to day deci­sions about the chil­dren, such as their rou­tines and who the chil­dren will see and spend time with, are usu­al­ly deter­mined by each par­ent at the time that the chil­dren are in their care. It is not nec­es­sary to dis­cuss such day-to-day mat­ters with the oth­er parent.

Lim­its of your influence

Gen­er­al­ly, you will not be able to decide whether the child will see or spend time with your for­mer partner’s new part­ner unless there are safe­ty con­cerns. Ulti­mate­ly, it is the chil­dren that mat­ter and if your for­mer partner’s new part­ner is mak­ing an effort with them and being kind to them, that is the most impor­tant thing. 

It is rec­om­mend­ed that you accept your for­mer partner’s new part­ner and work through your emo­tions with close friends or a coun­sel­lor. If at all pos­si­ble, try to reach an agree­ment with your for­mer part­ner about what is rea­son­able and unreasonable.

Gen­uine safe­ty con­cerns for your children

If you have gen­uine con­cerns about the safe­ty of your chil­dren or the adverse impact of your for­mer partner’s new part­ner on them, you should seek imme­di­ate legal advice. If you do have such con­cerns, it is pos­si­ble to seek court orders restrain­ing your part­ner from let­ting the chil­dren spend time with that per­son. A court will only grant such a restraint in cir­cum­stances where there are real con­cerns about the wel­fare of the children. 

For fur­ther infor­ma­tion please contact:

If you would like to repub­lish this arti­cle, it is gen­er­al­ly approved, but pri­or to doing so please con­tact the Mar­ket­ing team at marketing@​swaab.​com.​au. This arti­cle is not legal advice and the views and com­ments are of a gen­er­al nature only. This arti­cle is not to be relied upon in sub­sti­tu­tion for detailed legal advice.

Publications

10 year long stop on build­ing defect claims rein­forced for con­tri­bu­tion claims

The recent deci­sion in For­tius Broad­way No 1 Pty Ltd V ACN 103 211 141 Pty Ltd (for­mer­ly known as Wat­pac Con­struc­tion…

A High­er Evi­den­tiary Bur­den for Work Orders: The Prac­ti­cal Impli­ca­tions of The Own­ers – Stra­ta Plan No 102171 v Ceerose Pty Ltd [2025] NSW­CATCD 137

The deci­sion in The Own­ers – Stra­ta Plan No 102171 v Ceerose Pty Ltd; Zone Q Mil­sons Point Devel­op­ment Pty Ltd v Ceerose…

Impor­tant Work­place Rela­tions Changes Effec­tive 1 July 2026

Employ­ers and employ­ees alike should be aware of impor­tant changes in the work­place rela­tions are­na, effec­tive 1 July 2026. From that date:the…

In the News

Roger Corn­forth Retires Fol­low­ing 45 Years of Dis­tin­guished Legal Practice

Roger’s career has been defined by trust­ed rela­tion­ships, prac­ti­cal advice and an unwa­ver­ing com­mit­ment to his clients. Begin­ning his legal…

Protest group los­es appeal to obtain gov­ern­ment documents

The cas­es — Mudgee Region Health Alliance v Min­is­ter for Finance, Domes­tic Man­u­fac­tur­ing and Gov­ern­ment Pro­cure­ment and Nat­ur­al Resources [2026] NSW­CATAD…

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, The PM v work­place stan­dards”, pub­lished in HR Leader on 8 July 2026

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“The PM v work­place stan­dards”, pub­lished in HR Leader on 8 July 2026To read the…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information