Equal Time Parenting Despite Conflict: What the Court Said in Jefferson & Hooper (No 2)

In August 2025, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia delivered an important parenting decision in Jefferson & Hooper (No 2). The judgment provides clear guidance on a question parents regularly ask:

Can equal time parenting still be ordered where parents are in conflict?

The Court’s answer was unequivocal: there is no rule preventing equal shared care simply because parents do not get along.

The Background

The case involved parents of a three-year-old child. The child had been spending equal time with each parent prior to trial.

• The father sought continuation of equal shared care.
• The mother argued that the level of conflict between the parties made equal time unworkable and contrary to the child’s best interests.

The central issue was whether parental conflict alone was enough to justify reducing one parent’s time.

No Legal Rule Against Equal Time in High-Conflict Cases

A key submission was that courts do not make week-about or equal time orders where parents are in conflict.

The Court firmly rejected this argument, making clear that:

• There is no authority establishing a prohibition on equal time where conflict exists
• Judicial discretion under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) cannot be limited by alleged “common practice”
• Each parenting case must be decided on its own facts and evidence, not assumptions

The Court emphasised that the absence of equal time orders in some cases does not mean they are legally unavailable in others.

“Good Enough” Parenting and Expert Evidence

Both parents were assessed as capable, loving and appropriate caregivers.

The Court accepted expert family report evidence that:

• Both parents were “good enough” parents
• The child had strong attachments to each parent
• There were no safety concerns or family violence findings
• The child was meeting developmental milestones

Importantly, the expert recommended equal shared care, even after considering the parents’ conflict and communication difficulties.

The Court confirmed that while it is not bound to follow expert recommendations, a proper basis must exist to reject them. No such basis was established in this case.

Conflict Did Not Justify Reducing Time

The Court accepted that the parents’ communication was strained and, at times, toxic. However, it found that:

• The conflict existed regardless of the care arrangement
• Reducing one parent’s time would not resolve communication issues
• Similar difficulties would arise under a 5–9 arrangement as under equal time

The Court accepted the expert’s view that parallel parenting, rather than reduced parenting time, was the appropriate response where cooperation is limited.

Stability and Predictability Were Key

The child had been living in an equal care arrangement for a significant period.

The Court placed weight on:

• Continuity of care
• Stability and routine for a young child
• The absence of evidence that the arrangement was harming the child

Normal age-related behaviours such as clinginess, fatigue or separation anxiety were not considered sufficient to justify changing the existing arrangement.

What This Decision Means for Parents

Jefferson & Hooper (No 2) is an important reminder that:

• Equal shared care is not ruled out by conflict alone
• Courts focus on the child’s experience, not parental hostility
• Expert evidence carries significant weight when carefully reasoned
• Reducing time is not the default solution to poor communication

In many cases, better structure — not less parenting time — is the answer.

Need Advice About Equal Time or High-Conflict Parenting?

If you are being told that equal time “won’t happen” because there is conflict — or you are concerned the other parent is using conflict to limit your relationship with your child — this decision shows that the law is more nuanced than that.

At Powell Family Law, we regularly advise parents in:

• high-conflict parenting disputes
• equal time and week-about arrangements
• parallel parenting structures
• cases involving young children where stability and routine are critical

If you want clear, practical advice about your options — or help presenting a child-focused proposal that will stand up in court — we’re here to help.

• Book a confidential appointment
• Speak with an experienced family lawyer
• Get advice grounded in how the Court actually decides parenting cases

You don’t need to navigate this alone — and you don’t need to accept assumptions that aren’t supported by the law.