Michael Tiyce in Lawyers Weekly on why equal time doesn’t always mean equal parenting

Tiyce & Lawyers Principal Michael Tiyce was published in Lawyers Weekly this week. The article challenges the common assumption that a 50–50 parenting arrangement automatically leads to fair outcomes after separation.

Michael explains that while “equal time feels like the most just solution” for many parents, it “does not always translate to equal parenting, nor does it necessarily serve the best interests of the child.”

Equal time is not the default

Contrary to popular belief, Australian family law does not start from a presumption of equal time. Instead, the law prioritises “the best interests of the child,” with courts increasingly focused on how parenting arrangements function in real life rather than how time is divided on paper. Equal time may be appropriate in some cases, but it is always assessed alongside practical factors such as a child’s age, emotional needs, schooling, stability, and each parent’s capacity to meet those needs consistently.

Michael highlights that rigid 50–50 arrangements can sometimes conceal unequal burdens, noting that “equal overnights do not necessarily mean equal decision making, preparation, or follow-through.” Courts are therefore looking beyond calendars to identify who actually provides day-to-day stability and emotional support.

Stability over symmetry

The article also emphasises that “stability matters more than symmetry,” particularly for children who may struggle with frequent transitions between households. Meaningful involvement, Michael notes, can take many forms, and “quality, reliability, and emotional availability often matter more than strict equality of hours.”

Ultimately, the article urges parents to move away from formulaic ideas of fairness and instead adopt a more realistic, child-focused approach. As Michael concludes, equal time “is not the default that it can often be thought of as,” and in family law, “fairness is rarely found in simple formulas.”