Sydney Office

Level 35
201 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000

Melbourne Office

Level 13
575 Bourke Street
Melbourne VIC 3000

Brisbane Office

Level 5
231 North Quay
Brisbane QLD 4000

Canberra Office

Level 5
1 Farrell Place
Canberra ACT 2601

Perth Office

Level 10
111 St Georges Terrace
Perth WA 6000

Armstrong Legal Logo

Privacy Policy  |  Terms & Conditions

Copyright © 2019 Armstrong Legal. All rights reserved.

Phone 1300 168 676

What is Substantial and Significant Time?

When an Order is made for parents to have equal shared parental responsibility of a child, the Family Law Act then requires a Court to consider whether an Order for the child to spend equal time or substantial and significant time with each of the parents is in the child’s best interest and reasonably practicable.

But what does the term ‘substantial and significant time’ mean? In the recent decision of Ulster & Viney [2016] Fam CAFC 133, the Full Court of the Family Court had an opportunity to answer this question. The case involved a father’s appeal against Orders made by Judge Bender allowing a mother and the parties’ two children aged 9 and 7 to relocate from Melbourne to Gippsland, 85 km away. At Final Hearing, the mother argued that she had secured employment in Gippsland, that the move would allow her to purchase a property, which she could not afford in Melbourne, and be close to family. In allowing the mother’s application, Orders were made for the children to spend time with the father on alternate weekends, special days and during school holiday periods.

One of the major points of appeal by the father was that an order for alternate weekends, special days and school holidays was not ‘substantial and significant time’ as it did not involve him in the ‘daily routine’ of the children as required by s.65DAA(3) and qualified by s. 65DAA(4) of the Family Law Act:

Section 65DAA(3) provides:

For the purposes of subsection (2), a child will be taken to spend substantial and significant time with a parent only if:

  • the time the child spends with the parent includes both:
    • days that fall on weekends and holidays; and
    • days that do not fall on weekends or holidays; and
  • the time the child spends with the parent allows the parent to be involved in:
    • the child’s daily routine; and
    • occasions and events that are of particular significance to the child; and
  • the time the child spends with the parent allows the child to be involved in occasions and events that are of special significance to the parent.

Section 65DAA(4) further provides:

Subsection (3) does not limit the other matters to which a court can have regard in determining whether the time a child spends with a parent would be substantial and significant.

During the appeal, Senior Counsel for the father argued that by giving the words ‘daily’ and ‘routine’ their ordinary meaning, the above provision required involvement in ‘routine occurring or done each day or week day’ and that unless the father was involved in the children’s attendance at school, preparation for school, supervision of homework and the like, the requirements of s.65DAA(3)((b)(i) could not satisfied. Ainslie-Wallace & Ryan JJ did not agree and said that first, the provision did not limit the question of involvement in daily routine to school weeks. Nor did it require involvement in each and every aspect of a child’s daily life. However, the dissenting Judge, Justice Strickland, agreed with the father’s submissions and accepted the following as accurate:

“…Substantial and significant time is that time sufficient to enable children to feel that their parents are involved in all aspects of the care flowing from them being exposed to their parents in a variety of settings. Such settings may include activities on holiday and weekend as well as the day to day reality of the child’s life such as supervising homework and bedtimes, imposing day to day discipline, collection and delivery to school and sports training – essentially spending time with parents in more mundane situations….Under that proposal, he ceases to be an active participant in their lives as ordinarily lived by them. He becomes a person whom they visit when they take time out from their lives.”

So, whilst the father’s appeal was disallowed, Judge Strickland’s dissenting comments may well be used in future cases for those parents trying to convince a Court that ‘substantial and significant time’ means a lot more than each alternate weekend, special days and school holiday periods.

Image Credit – Olegdudko ©

Written by Michelle McDermott on March 8, 2017

Michelle prefers a pragmatic approach to resolving matters and pays particular attention to ensuring that her clients not only feel supported in the process but also that they understand, and are involved in, the decision making throughout. If, however, Court proceedings are required, Michelle has the skills and strategies to litigate cases efficiently. View Michelle’s profile

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Contact Armstrong Legal:
Sydney: (02) 9261 4555
Melbourne: (03) 9620 2777
Brisbane: (07) 3229 4448
Canberra: (02) 6288 1100