Family Law Act 1975 s. 60CC — Best interests of the child (verbatim, post FLAA 2023 / 6 May 2024)¶

Jurisdiction: Australia · Citation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s. 60CC (as amended by Family Law Amendment Act 2023, effective 2024-05-06) · Authoritative source: legislation.gov.au — Family Law Act 1975

The best-interests determination framework of Australian family law, as substantially reformed by the Family Law Amendment Act 2023 (effective 6 May 2024). The reform replaced the pre-2024 two-tier "primary considerations" + "additional considerations" structure with a single streamlined list of factors at s. 60CC(2), removed the rebuttable presumption of equal shared parental responsibility (formerly s. 61DA), and refocused the welfare-paramountcy framework around safety + meaningful relationships.

The provisions parallel: - UK Children Act 1989 s. 1 + s. 1(3) welfare checklist - New Zealand Care of Children Act 2004 + 2025 amendments - Canada Divorce Act s. 16 (best interests post Bill C-78) - Ireland Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 s. 3 + Part V

Australia is doctrinally distinctive among Commonwealth jurisdictions because the 2024 reform expressly removed the equal-shared-parenting presumption (formerly s. 61DA) — making Australia operationally different from Canada's Divorce Act and UK CA 1989 s. 1(2A) frameworks. The 2024 framework prioritizes safety as the first factor and PA-pattern analysis operates through the (b) views, © developmental-needs, (d) capacity-to-provide-for-needs, and (e) family-violence-history factors.

Verbatim text (current consolidated, post-2024 reform)¶

s. 60CC FLA — How a court determines what is in a child's best interests¶

(1) Subject to subsection (4), in determining what is in the child's best interests, the court must consider the matters set out in subsections (2) and (2A).

(2) General considerations. In determining what is in the child's best interests, the court must consider the following:

(a) what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of:

(i) the child; and

(ii) each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child);

(b) any views expressed by the child;

© the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child;

(d) the capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs;

(e) the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child's parents, and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so;

(f) anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child.

(2A) Considerations for safety determinations. In considering the matters set out in subsection (2)(a) the court must include consideration of:

(a) any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child (whether or not the person had at the relevant time, or has, parental responsibility for the child); and

(b) any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child's family.

(3) If the child is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child, in determining what is in the child's best interests, the court must also consider:

(a) the child's right to enjoy the child's Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture, by having the support, opportunity and encouragement necessary:

(i) to connect with, and maintain their connection with, members of their family and their community, culture, country and language; and

(ii) to explore the full extent of that culture, consistent with the child's age and developmental level and the child's views; and

(iii) to develop a positive appreciation of that culture; and

(b) the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right.

(4) Independent children's lawyer. If an independent children's lawyer is appointed for the child, the views of the child are to be put before the court by the independent children's lawyer.

Why this matters for PA¶

The safety-first prioritization (s. 60CC(2)(a)). The 2024 reform repositioned safety as the first consideration — a structural change from the pre-2024 framework where "meaningful relationship" and "protection from harm" were both "primary considerations" without ordering. The (a)(i)+(ii) framing extends safety consideration to each person who has care of the child, not just the child — providing structural protection where the targeted parent is also subject to alienating-parent abuse.
The views consideration (s. 60CC(2)(b)). Any views expressed by the child. This is the doctrinally distinctive Australian framework — the views factor is unqualified (no age/maturity threshold in the statute itself). In PA-pattern cases this requires the court to engage with the autonomy of the child's expressed views — the Ralton & Ralton (2016) line + post-2024 jurisprudence on testing for alienation-induced views applies.
The developmental/psychological/emotional needs (s. 60CC(2)©). The developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child. In PA-pattern cases this provides structural anchor for treating sustained alienating conduct as engaging the child's psychological needs — alienation produces measurable psychological harm engaging this factor.
The capacity-to-provide-for-needs factor (s. 60CC(2)(d)). The capacity of each person … to provide for the child's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs. This is the friendly-parent factor in Australian framing — sustained alienating conduct demonstrates structural incapacity to provide for the child's psychological needs, particularly the need for a relationship with the other parent. The pre-2024 facilitate and encourage factor (former s. 60CC(3)©) was operationally folded into this capacity assessment.
The benefit-of-relationship-where-safe factor (s. 60CC(2)(e)). The benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child's parents, and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so. This is doctrinally distinctive — the meaningful-relationship factor is preserved but expressly qualified by the where it is safe to do so clause. The qualifier:
Operates bidirectionally — does not foreclose relationship-protection where safety is established
Requires concrete safety-evaluation, not speculative allegation
In PA-pattern cases, the alienating parent's safety framings must be evaluated against the s. 60CC(2A) considerations
The catch-all (s. 60CC(2)(f)). Anything else that is relevant. Preserves court discretion for considerations not enumerated. In PA-pattern cases this can engage alienating-conduct findings as a residual welfare factor where the (b), ©, (d), (e) factors do not fully capture the conduct.
The s. 60CC(2A) safety-determination framework. Subsection (2A) directs that safety considerations under (2)(a) must include:
Any history of family violence, abuse, or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child
Any family violence order that applies or has applied
The (2A)(a) extension to a person caring for the child is doctrinally important — DV against the targeted parent (which sustained alienating conduct can constitute) engages the safety consideration. In PA-pattern cases this provides structural foundation for treating coercive-control patterns by the alienating parent as engaging safety considerations.
The Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander considerations (s. 60CC(3)). Where the child is Indigenous, the court must also consider the child's Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander cultural rights. The provision codifies UNDRIP-adjacent rights — connection with family, community, culture, country, language. In PA-pattern cases involving Indigenous children, alienating conduct that severs the child's connection to the targeted parent's Indigenous community engages s. 60CC(3) directly.
The Independent Children's Lawyer mechanism (s. 60CC(4)). Where an ICL is appointed, the child's views are put before the court by the ICL. This is operationally important — provides expert-mediated child-voice channel rather than direct adversarial questioning. In PA-pattern cases ICL engagement is doctrinally significant because the ICL can assess and report on the autonomy of the child's expressed views.
The 2024 removal of equal-shared-parenting presumption. The pre-2024 s. 61DA presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was removed by the 2023 reform. This is doctrinally distinctive among Commonwealth jurisdictions — Canada, UK, and NZ retain functional shared-parenting presumptions/preferences. The Australian framework after 2024 operates on a clean welfare-checklist basis without structural pre-disposition toward shared responsibility.
The implications for PA-pattern cases under the post-2024 framework. The removal of the s. 61DA presumption means PA-pattern argument cannot rely on a default toward shared responsibility — but the s. 60CC(2)(d) capacity factor + s. 60CC(2)(e) benefit-of-relationship factor still provide structural pathways. The doctrinal shift requires PA-pattern argument to engage more directly with the developmental/psychological needs framing.

Procedural application¶

The competent court is the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA, merged 2021) — Division 1 (Family Court) for complex cases; Division 2 (Federal Circuit Court) for first-instance
Family Reports under s. 62G provide multidisciplinary welfare assessment
Independent Children's Lawyer under s. 68L provides child-voice representation
Child interviews follow the Child Inclusive Practice guidelines
Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) under s. 60I is structurally mandatory pre-litigation (with safety carve-outs)
Appellate review to the FCFCOA Division 1 Full Court + High Court via special leave

Use in alienating-conduct cases¶

The Full Court has applied the post-2024 s. 60CC framework in PA-pattern cases — see jurisprudence developing from the Ralton & Ralton line and subsequent FCFCOA Full Court decisions
Where alienating conduct is established, Australian courts can:
First-tier: order Family Dispute Resolution under s. 60I
Second-tier: fix specific parenting orders under Part VII Division 5
Third-tier: change child's primary place of residence under s. 65DAA
Apex-tier: restrict parental responsibility under s. 65D + s. 65DA
The s. 60CC(2)(d) capacity to provide for psychological needs factor + s. 60CC(2)(e) benefit of relationship factor are operationally engaged in PA-pattern cases
The Cth specific-issue jurisdiction allows orders for therapeutic intervention, structured contact resumption, and specific issue orders tailored to alienation-pattern remediation