One of the most common misconceptions in Australian family law, and a logical assumption for those outside of the legal profession too, is the idea that a 50-50 parenting arrangement automatically delivers just outcomes after separation, writes Michael Tiyce.
For many parents, “equal time” feels like the most just solution, understandably so. A clean split that divides responsibility and involvement straight down the middle makes sense; unfortunately, this isn’t always the case, and equal time does not always translate to equal parenting, nor does it necessarily serve the best interests of the child.
Despite this, many separating couples enter negotiations firmly anchored to the belief that equal time is the default position, or that the law somehow favours a week-about arrangement. When that expectation fails to live up to reality, prolonged disputes, frustration, and unjust arrangements can all come into the picture.
What the law actually prioritises
Australian family law does not start from a presumption of equal time, something important to understand when examining outcomes. While the Family Law Act promotes meaningful involvement by both parents, the guiding principle is, and remains, the best interests of the child.
In determining what those interests look like in practice, courts are increasingly focused on how parenting arrangements function in real life, not just how time is divided on paper. This is a particularly important factor that has become increasingly relevant in the modern legal landscape, with evolving gender roles, work patterns and caregiving responsibilities impacting how families function in reality.
Equal time may be appropriate in some circumstances, but it is never assessed in isolation. Courts look closely at factors such as a child’s age, emotional needs, schooling, family support networks and each parent’s capacity to meet those needs consistently.
When equal time creates unequal outcomes
One of the challenges of a rigid focus on 50-50 arrangements is that it can mask significant imbalances in responsibility. In many cases, parents may technically share time equally, but one parent continues to shoulder the bulk of the invisible labour, from managing school communications to medical appointments, extracurricular activities, emotional regulation, and daily routines.
Equal overnights do not necessarily mean equal decision making, preparation, or follow-through. Courts aren’t putting their head in the sand of this reality and are looking beyond calendars and time spreadsheets to examine who actually provides stability in a child’s life.
Stability matters more than symmetry
Frequent transitions between households can be disruptive, even when both parents are loving and well-intentioned – different rules, routines, and expectations can create confusion and anxiety for children who thrive on predictability.
This does not mean one parent must be marginalised; more, it’s a recognition that meaningful involvement can take many forms, and that quality, reliability, and emotional availability often matter more than strict equality of hours.
Common mistakes parents make
One of the most common mistakes parents make is negotiating parenting arrangements based on fairness to themselves, rather than focusing on how the arrangement will operate for their child over time.
It should also be understood how parenting arrangements will evolve over time, as what can be agreed upon in the immediate aftermath of separation may become far more complex as children grow older, schedules change, or new partners and blended families enter the picture.
A more realistic approach
A more effective approach is one that starts with an honest assessment of each parent’s capacity, availability, and willingness to meet a child’s needs, not just now, but into the future.
Courts are increasingly favouring arrangements that reflect how families actually function, rather than how they think they should function. Equal time can work, but it is not the default that it can often be thought of as, or a shortcut to just outcomes. In family law, as in parenting itself, fairness is rarely found in simple formulas.
Michael Tiyce is the principal of Tiyce & Lawyers Family Law Specialists.
