A Family Court judgment that ordered the parents of a six-year-old to refrain from smoking around their son reflects an increasing tendency of the court to make specific orders in the interests of children's health, researchers say.
Judge Jenny Hogan made 42 parenting orders, including that the parents do not drink to the point of intoxication in the boy's presence, after the mother made a series of complaints about the father's behaviour, hygiene and parenting style.
The father did not contest the mother's application for him to refrain from smoking in the presence of the child, nor that both parents endeavour to stop him being exposed to cigarette smoke.
He was awarded sole responsibility in respect of all long-term major issues involving the boy.
Amendments to the Family Law Act in 2006 required courts to come down more strongly in favour of protecting children from harm when that principle came into conflict with respecting the right of children to have a meaningful relationship with both parents.
Australian Institute of Family Studies senior research fellow Rae Kaspiew said courts were required to pay more attention to safety and risks to children.
They were also dealing with complex families, whose issues ranged from drug addiction to family violence and alcohol abuse.
"There's greater complexity in the court caseloads now and I have seen orders become more specific," Dr Kaspiew said.
"Things like restraints on smoking, restraints on alcohol and drug use, requirements for compliance with drug testing regimes and requirements for children not to be in the presence of particular people in a parent's household."
Some orders required parents to comply with different health regimes, for example a regime to address autism spectrum disorder when one parent disputed that a child suffered from that condition.
Family lawyer Ben O'Sullivan said it was not unusual for the Family Court to make non-smoking orders, and he was bringing an application to the court on behalf of a client next week.
But if the other party contested the application, there needed to be evidence before the court.
Curtin University health policy professor Mike Daube said the harms of passive smoking were well-documented and removing children from cigarette smoke was uncontroversial.
"The evidence is overwhelming, people should do everything they can to protect children from passive smoking and that's why legislation on smoking in cars with children was developed," Professor Daube said.
"We also know that most smokers now try not to smoke when their kids are around."
Between 1995 and 2013, the proportion of people with dependent children who smoked inside the home fell from 31 per cent to 3.7 per cent, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
