This is easily one of the most common misconceptions in family law.
A parent hears “equal shared parental responsibility” and immediately assumes it means equal time with the children.
Fifty fifty. Week about. Perfect symmetry.
In New South Wales, that assumption is legally incorrect under the family law framework.
Equal shared parental responsibility and equal time are two completely separate concepts under the Family Law Act 1975, which governs family law in Australia.
Understanding the distinction early in a family law matter can prevent unrealistic expectations, unnecessary conflict and costly litigation.
Let’s unpack how the court actually approaches this in practice.
Step One: Parental Responsibility Is About Decision Making
Equal shared parental responsibility refers to major long term decisions about a child’s life.
It includes decisions about:
- Education
- Major medical treatment
- Religious upbringing
- Significant changes to living arrangements
It does not determine how much time a child spends with each parent.
That’s a separate assessment.
You can have equal shared parental responsibility even if the child spends most of their time living with one parent.
This is where confusion often begins.
Step Two: The Court Then Considers Time
If a court makes an order for equal shared parental responsibility, it must then consider whether equal time is:
- In the child’s best interests
- Reasonably practicable
Both elements must be satisfied.
If equal time is not appropriate, the court then considers whether substantial and significant time is suitable.
Equal time is never automatic.
It is assessed carefully.
What Does “Reasonably Practicable” Actually Mean?
Reasonably practicable is not just about fairness. It’s about logistics.
The court looks at:
- Distance between homes
- Parents’ work schedules
- The child’s schooling location
- The child’s age
- Communication capacity between parents
- Impact on the child’s routine
For example, if parents live 120 kilometres apart and the child attends school in one location, equal time during the school week may not be realistic.
Stability and routine matter.
The court prioritises what works for the child, not mathematical balance.
The Best Interests of the Child Test
The overriding principle in parenting matters is the best interests of the child.
The court considers factors including:
- The benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents
- The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm
- The child’s views where appropriate
- The capacity of each parent
- The practicality of arrangements
Equal time might support a meaningful relationship in some cases.
In others, it may create instability or conflict.
The analysis is case specific.
When Equal Time Works
Equal time can work well when:
- Parents live close to each other
- Communication is cooperative
- Work schedules are flexible
- The child is adaptable
- Conflict is low
In such cases, week about arrangements or structured rotations may support continuity.
The court is not opposed to equal time. It simply refuses to assume it is always appropriate.
When Equal Time Does Not Work
Equal time is often rejected where:
- Parents live far apart
- High conflict exists
- Communication is poor
- The child is very young
- Work patterns make exchanges impractical
For example, in FIFO or shift work situations, equal time may not provide consistent care.
The court focuses on stability, predictability and the child’s developmental needs.
Practicality beats symmetry.
A Practical NSW Scenario
Consider a separated couple in regional NSW.
They share equal shared parental responsibility.
The mother lives near the child’s school. The father relocates 90 kilometres away for work.
The father seeks equal time.
The court assesses:
- Travel time
- School attendance
- Impact on extracurricular activities
- Work schedule demands
The court may determine that equal time is not reasonably practicable during school weeks but could occur during holidays.
Equal responsibility does not guarantee equal time.
Substantial and Significant Time Explained
If equal time is not appropriate, the court considers substantial and significant time.
This means time that allows a parent to:
- Be involved in the child’s routine
- Participate in school events
- Share weekends and holidays
- Engage in meaningful activities
It is more than alternate weekends.
It may include mid week overnight stays or structured holiday time.
The goal is maintaining meaningful involvement without destabilising the child’s life.
The Emotional Dimension
Parents often equate time with value.
Less time can feel like less importance.
But the court does not measure parental worth by hours.
It measures arrangements by the child’s needs.
Understanding this distinction helps parents approach negotiations more strategically.
How the Law Has Evolved
Recent legislative reforms have placed stronger emphasis on:
- Child safety
- Practical parenting structures
- Reducing high conflict arrangements
Courts are increasingly cautious about rigid equal time models in high conflict situations.
The focus is on workable, stable arrangements.
Frequently Asked Questions
If we have equal shared parental responsibility, can I demand 50/50 time?
No. Equal shared parental responsibility gives both parents a say in major decisions. It does not entitle either parent to equal time. Time is assessed separately based on best interests and reasonable practicality. Demanding 50/50 purely on principle is unlikely to succeed without supporting practical factors.
Is equal time the default in Australia?
No. There is no automatic default of 50/50 time. The law requires the court to consider equal time only if equal shared parental responsibility is ordered and if equal time would be in the child’s best interests and reasonably practicable.
Does the court prefer one parent over the other?
The court does not favour mothers or fathers. It assesses each case individually based on the child’s needs. Parenting capacity, stability and safety are more influential than gender.
Can equal time be trialled?
Yes. Parents may agree to trial arrangements informally or through interim court orders. However, practicality and the child’s response are key. Trial arrangements must still prioritise the child’s wellbeing.
What if one parent refuses equal time even when practical?
If equal time is reasonably practicable and in the child’s best interests, the court can order it. However, forced equal time in high conflict cases may not serve the child. Each case depends on evidence and context.
Focus on What Works, Not What Sounds Fair
Equal shared parental responsibility does not mean equal time.
Time arrangements are determined separately based on practicality and the child’s best interests.
Understanding that distinction prevents misplaced expectations and unnecessary conflict.
If you’re navigating parenting negotiations and want clarity about how courts actually assess time in NSW, informed advice can make the difference between assumption and strategy.
Visit Ignify Legal to get practical guidance tailored to your circumstances and move forward with confidence.
Please call us today at (02) 8319 1032 or submit an online enquiry.
