Boy, 3, has alternate months in Dubai

A THREE-YEAR-OLD boy has been living one month in Dubai, one month in Sydney and back again, in a roundabout arrangement because his parents cannot come to an agreement on custody.

A THREE-YEAR-OLD boy has been living one month in Dubai, one month in Sydney and back again, in a roundabout arrangement because his parents cannot come to an agreement on custody.

The Family Court admits the deal is far from ideal -- the flying time is 15 hours, and the child has been making the trip monthly since December -- but neither parent has been willing to concede in the long, legal battle over their son.

The matter has been before the courts four times. At the most recent hearing on September 1, the mother, who is based in Dubai, complained that "the child is finding the travel between two countries stressful".

Family Court judge Michelle May said this was "unsurprising" but allowed the arrangement to continue, while yet another appeal is heard.

The case is one of the most extreme examples of "shared parenting" to come before the Family Court since new laws were introduced by the Howard government in 2006.

Under those laws, the Family Court must presume that a child's best interests are served by having a relationship with both parents after divorce.

The case, known in court documents as Collu and Rinaldo (2009), concerns a couple who met in 2002 and had their only child in December 2005.

So bitter is the relationship between the parents that they cannot agree on how long they were together, before or after the child was born. In December 2006, the Family Court ordered the child, then an infant, to live with the mother, 35, and spend "reasonable time with the father, as agreed by the parties".

In March 2007, the mother took the child to Dubai to live, with the court's permission. It was to be for an 18-month period, so the mother could take up a contract. The father, 41, did not immediately object, because the mother told him he would be able to visit.

There was a scuffle at the airport on the day the mother tried to leave. The father later apologised, saying he was stressed at the idea of losing his son, and was starting to think the mother had duped him and would not be coming back in 18 months. The father, who runs a global business, visited the child in Dubai twice in 2007. He also visited China four times, and Italy. The Family Court believes he had, until recently, believed there was a chance the mother would come back to him, and the mother may have manipulated his continuing emotional involvement with her.

When the contract expired, the mother signed an extension; the father then went to court to get better access to his son.

In December, the court ruled that the child should live with each parent on a month-about basis, first in Dubai, then in Sydney, while the couple fought itout.

The matter came before the court again in July. Judge Janine Stevenson said she was "firmly of the view that the father and the mother should have equal shared parental responsibility for their son" as required by the shared parenting laws.

She said there was no doubt the child had a "meaningful relationship with both of his parents" and "clearly, he will benefit from an ongoing, meaningful relationship with each of his parents".

The child was described as a "healthy-looking, well-developed, handsome young boy".

Justice Stevenson acknowledged the "obvious practical difficulties and expense in the child spending time with his father".

"The flight between Sydney and the United Arab Emirates is of 14 to 15 hours' duration and is unlikely to be an enjoyable experience for a young child," she said. But she accepted the father's evidence that the child "quickly settles after changeovers".

She ordered the mother to move back to Sydney with the child, saying it was clearly in the child's best interests for both parents to be living in the same country. If she refused, the child would live with the father.

The mother appealed, and so the child continued shuttling between parents, while their legal teams prepared for the next round.

At the most recent hearing, on September 1, the mother asked the court to drop the arrangement, at least while the appeal was under way. The court refused. The appeal has now been heard, and a decision is pending.