When parents try to work out what is in the best interests of their child after separation, they reach for whatever framework they can find. Most of what is online still describes a framework that no longer exists. The Family Law Amendment Act 2023 rewrote section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and that rewrite commenced on 6 May 2024. A second round of amendments under the Family Law Amendment Act 2024 took effect on 10 June 2025, expanding how family violence is defined. The result is a cleaner test that almost every existing online answer still gets wrong.
This post walks through the current section 60CC, factor by factor, and explains how the framework works inside Family Dispute Resolution where there is no judge applying the factors but the same considerations still govern any agreement that is eventually approved as Consent Orders.
What changed on 6 May 2024
Before the 2023 rewrite, section 60CC set out two primary considerations and thirteen additional considerations. The primary considerations under the old wording were the benefit to the child of a "meaningful relationship" with both parents and the need to protect the child from harm. The thirteen additional considerations covered everything else and sat in a lower tier.
That structure caused two persistent problems. The first was hierarchy. Courts were asked to balance "primary" considerations against "additional" considerations, and the language implied the primary ones outranked everything else. The second was duplication. Several of the thirteen additional considerations restated parts of the two primary ones.
The current section 60CC replaces both tiers with a single list of six general considerations, applied without internal hierarchy except where safety is engaged. Two further considerations apply where the child is Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. The structure is flatter, the language is plainer, and the safety rules are tighter.
The six general considerations now apply without ranking
Section 60CC(1) requires the court to consider the matters in subsection (2) when determining what is in the child's best interests. Subsection (2) lists the six general considerations:
- The arrangements that promote safety of the child and each person who has care of the child.
- The views expressed by the child.
- The developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child.
- The capacity of each person with parental responsibility to provide for those needs.
- The benefit to the child of relationships with parents and other significant people, where it is safe to have them.
- Anything else relevant to the particular circumstances of the child.
These six considerations sit at the same level. There is no rule in the Act that any one outranks any other. In practice, where safety is genuinely engaged the safety consideration carries the most weight because the Act builds extra mandatory content into it through subsection (2A). For families where safety is not in issue, the six factors operate as a checklist of equally weighted considerations against which any proposed arrangement is tested.
Safety is now the first factor, and the safety factor has teeth
Section 60CC(2)(a) requires the court to consider what arrangements would promote the safety of the child and each person who has care of the child, including safety from being subjected to or exposed to family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm.
Section 60CC(2A) then adds a mandatory layer. In considering safety, the court must include consideration of any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child, and any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child's family. Subsection (2A) uses the word "must". The court has no discretion to leave that history out of the safety analysis.
The Family Law Amendment Act 2024, which commenced on 10 June 2025, sharpened this further by expanding the definition of family violence in section 4AB to include a stand-alone list of economic and financial abuse examples in new section 4AB(2A). That list covers behaviour such as controlling a family member's money or assets including superannuation, sabotaging employment or potential employment, forcing a family member to take on a financial liability, and dowry-related coercion. Economic and financial abuse now feed into the section 60CC(2)(a) safety analysis just as physical violence does.
For separating families, this matters in two practical ways. Where there is a history of family violence, the safety factor draws on that history whether or not it is raised by the parents. And the kinds of behaviour that count as family violence are broader than many parents assume.
The child's own views, weighted by age and maturity
Section 60CC(2)(b) requires the court to consider any views expressed by the child. The Act does not put an age threshold on when a child's views start to matter. Younger children's views are routinely considered. The weight given to those views is what shifts with age and maturity.
There is no rule that says a child of a particular age can choose where to live. Courts consider the views of children of all ages and weight them according to the child's age, maturity, and the circumstances in which the views were formed. The High Court's approach in Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte [2017] HCA 8 remains good law on the principle that a child's stated views must be assessed in context, including any influence parents may have had over those views. The wording quoted in older cases referred to the pre-2024 section, but the underlying principle survives the reform.
In FDR, parents are not asked to relay what the children said. The practitioner does not interview the children. Where a child's views are likely to be central to the arrangement, a child consultant or family report may be considered, but that sits outside the FDR session itself.
Developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs
Section 60CC(2)(c) requires consideration of the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child. This factor treats the child as an individual, not a generic child of their age. A six-year-old with a chronic medical condition has different needs from a six-year-old without one.
The factor cuts both ways. It is sometimes invoked to support keeping a child in a particular school, neighbourhood, or cultural community. It is also invoked to support changes where the existing arrangement is not meeting the child's developmental or emotional needs. A teenager with established cultural and community ties may also have needs that a younger child without those ties does not.
In FDR, this factor is where most of the practical conversation about routines, school stability, extracurricular commitments, and time with extended family lands. Parents who arrive at mediation having thought separately about what their child actually needs at this stage of life tend to have a shorter, more productive joint session.
Each parent's capacity to meet those needs
Section 60CC(2)(d) requires consideration of the capacity of each person with parental responsibility to provide for the child's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs. The factor is about practical capacity, not character.
Capacity is assessed in the present, not the past. A parent who has been less involved in day-to-day care historically is not automatically lower in capacity. What counts is the parent's current ability to meet the child's needs going forward: time, stability, the quality of the existing parent-child relationship, and the practical resources to support the child.
Capacity is also assessed in context. A parent working night shifts may have lower practical capacity for school-night care without that telling the court anything about how much that parent loves the child. The framework asks what arrangement actually works, not which parent is morally superior.
The benefit of relationships, with the equal-time presumption gone
Section 60CC(2)(e) requires consideration of 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. The "where it is safe to do so" qualifier links this factor back to the safety analysis in subsection (2)(a).
Before May 2024, the Family Law Act presumed equal shared parental responsibility, and the case law gave the "meaningful relationship" factor more weight than the others. The 2023 amendments removed both. Section 61DA, which contained the presumption, was repealed. The word "meaningful" was also dropped from the Act. The factor about relationships with parents now sits as one of six equally weighted considerations.
This is the single most commonly misunderstood change. Equal time was never automatically required by the Family Law Act, but the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was sometimes read as if it created an entitlement to equal time. It did not, and it does not now. Equal time can still be the right arrangement for some families. It is not a starting point.
Anything else relevant to this child's circumstances
Section 60CC(2)(f) is a catch-all. The court must consider anything else relevant to the particular circumstances of the child. This rule exists because no closed list of factors can capture every circumstance that affects a particular child in a particular family.
In practice, this is where considerations that do not fit neatly into the other five factors are placed: the existence of half-siblings or step-siblings, the practical geography of the parents' homes, established religious or cultural practices, the impact of pets and animals on the children's emotional stability, the involvement of grandparents or other significant adults, and the realistic prospect of one parent moving locations in the foreseeable future.
Two additional considerations for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
Section 60CC(1)(b) requires that if the child is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child, the court must also consider the matters in subsection (3). Subsection (3) sets out two additional considerations.
The first is the child's right to enjoy their Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture, with the support, opportunity and encouragement necessary to connect with members of their family and with their community, culture, country and language; to explore the full extent of that culture, consistent with the child's age and developmental level and the child's views; and to develop a positive appreciation of that culture. The second is the likely impact any proposed parenting order will have on that right.
These considerations sit in addition to the six general considerations, not instead of them. The court applies all six general considerations and both additional considerations to determine what is in the child's best interests.
How the framework works inside FDR
In a contested hearing, a judge applies the section 60CC factors and makes a decision the parents must accept. In Family Dispute Resolution, no one is applying the factors to the parents. The parents apply the factors themselves, in their own arrangement, with the practitioner facilitating the conversation.
That does not mean parents in FDR can ignore the six factors. If parents reach a Parenting Plan, the plan is not a court order, but the factors still describe what a workable arrangement looks like for the children. If parents later turn the plan into Consent Orders, a Judicial Registrar reviews the proposed orders and must be satisfied the arrangement is in the best interests of the children before making the orders.
Section 60CC(4) gives the court a small exception for Consent Orders. When the court is considering whether to make an order with the consent of all parties, the court may, but is not required to, have regard to the section 60CC factors. This does not mean the factors don't matter to Consent Orders. It means the Registrar can approve consent orders without working through each factor in detail, where the proposed orders are plainly in the children's best interests. Where the proposed orders are not plainly in the children's best interests, the Registrar will look more closely at the section 60CC analysis.
Common misconceptions about the post-2024 test
Several pre-2024 framings still circulate online and in client conversations. They are wrong.
- The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility no longer applies. Repealed by the 2023 Act and not replaced.
- There are no "primary" or "additional" considerations under the current section 60CC. The six general considerations sit at the same level. The two "additional considerations" in subsection (3) apply only to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, alongside the six general considerations.
- The factor about a child's relationship with parents is no longer given more weight than the others. The word "meaningful" has been removed from the Act.
- A child of any particular age cannot decide where to live. The child's views are one of six considerations, weighted by age and maturity.
- The court is required, not merely allowed, to consider the history of family violence and any family violence orders when assessing safety. Subsection (2A) uses "must".
Working through the framework yourself
For parents preparing for FDR, the most useful starting point is to work through each of the six considerations separately, in writing, before the joint session. Six questions, one per factor:
- What arrangements would promote everyone's safety, including from family violence in all its forms?
- What views does the child hold, and how are those views being shaped?
- What does this child, at this stage of life, actually need developmentally, psychologically, emotionally, and culturally?
- What is each parent's realistic capacity to meet those needs?
- What is the value to the child of the relationships involved, given the safety context?
- What else is relevant that the first five factors do not capture?
Parents who arrive at mediation having thought through these questions separately, in advance, tend to reach workable arrangements faster than parents who arrive without that preparation. The Pre-Mediation Parenting Reflection Workbook on the Parenting page is designed for exactly this purpose.
The Family Law Act is not a manual for raising children. It is a framework for resolving disputes about how children will be raised when parents cannot agree without help. In FDR, the section 60CC factors operate as the quiet test the parents' own arrangement needs to pass.