Skip to content

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), Section 60CC — Best Interests Framework

TL;DR. Section 60CC of the Australian Family Law Act 1975 is the primary statutory test Australian family courts apply when determining what arrangements serve a child's best interests. The 2023 amendments (in force 6 May 2024) significantly restructured the test — removed the "equal shared parental responsibility" presumption, simplified the considerations, and re-centered safety. PA-relevant analysis happens through s60CC(2)(a) (safety) and s60CC(2)(b) (developmentally-appropriate views considering coaching).

Maintained by Alan Markson · Last reviewed: 2026-05-16 · License: CC BY 4.0

Statutory framework (post-6 May 2024 amendments)

s60CC(2) — The 6 considerations

The court must consider:

  1. (a) Safety of the child + each person caring for the child — including family-violence + abuse history
  2. (b) Any views expressed by the child, with weight appropriate to the child's maturity + understanding
  3. (c) Developmental, psychological, emotional, and cultural needs
  4. (d) Capacity of each proposed carer to provide for those needs
  5. (e) Benefit to the child of having a relationship with each parent (and significant others) where safe
  6. (f) Anything else the court considers relevant

What changed in 2024

The 2023 Amendment removed: - The "equal shared parental responsibility" presumption (Old s61DA) - The "two primary considerations / additional considerations" split - The "equal time / substantial and significant time" cascade

This simplifies the test but does NOT lower the bar for parents alleging PA — they must still show that limiting contact to the alienator serves the child's actual best interests under s60CC(2), not merely cite the alienation pattern.

How this applies in PA cases

Track 1 — Coached views (s60CC(2)(b))

When the child expresses views that appear coached, the court is required to consider: - The child's maturity + understanding - The reliability of the views (implicitly: source-of-views analysis) - The risk of treating coached views as authentic preferences

This aligns with the ECHR Solarino v. Italy doctrine — courts cannot rubber-stamp coached refusal. See case-law/echr/solarino-v-italy-2017.md.

Track 2 — Safety (s60CC(2)(a))

PA itself is increasingly recognized as a form of psychological harm (Harman/Kruk/Hines 2018 family-violence reframe). Documented PA patterns can ground s60CC(2)(a) safety findings, even absent physical-abuse allegations.

Track 3 — Developmental needs (s60CC(2)(c))

The "passage of time has irremediable consequences" doctrine (ECHR Lombardo v. Italy 2013) maps onto s60CC(2)(c): courts must weigh the developmental cost of continued alienation against the perceived disruption of intervention.

Key Australian appellate authorities

  • Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346 — pre-2024 best-interests framework; many principles survive
  • Bondelmonte v. Bondelmonte [2017] HCA 8 — High Court on child-views weight
  • U v U [2002] HCA 36 — relocation + best interests

(Watch for post-May 2024 appellate decisions interpreting the amended s60CC — emerging case law.)

Procedural notes

Step Process
Initiating application Federal Circuit and Family Court (FCFCOA) — Division 2 for most matters, Division 1 for complex
Mandatory mediation Family Dispute Resolution generally required pre-filing (s60I), with PA-relevant exemptions
Independent Children's Lawyer Court may appoint ICL under s68LA — analogous to Guardian ad Litem
Family report Court may order a Family Consultant or Family Report Writer assessment

Citing posts

# Post
17 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/pa-vs-estrangement-courts
19 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/custody-evaluators-prepare
58 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/international-custody-battles

Primary source

  • Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00275/latest
  • Family Law Amendment Act 2023: https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2023A00087/latest
  • FCFCOA: https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au

Disclaimer

Wiki entry, not legal advice. Australian family-law matters are highly procedural — engage qualified counsel.

CC BY 4.0 · antialienate.com