> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://help.rytz.com.au/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
# Best-interests analysis
> How RYTZ maps your parenting plan against the post-2024 s60CC framework — six general considerations, plus s60CC(2A) family-violence-history, plus the standalone Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural-connection consideration.
import { Card, CardGroup, Note, Tip } from '@mintlify/components'
Inside the Parenting Planner is a **best-interests analysis** surface that maps every clause of your plan against the considerations the court must apply under section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). It is one of the most-distinctive features of the platform and the one that connects your drafted plan to the legal test the court actually applies.
## The s60CC framework (post-2024)
Section 60CC sets out how the court determines what is in a child's best interests. The framework was substantially restructured by the Family Law Amendment Act 2023 (Cth), in force from **6 May 2024**.
The framework has three layers:
### Six general considerations (s60CC(2))
The court must consider:
| s60CC(2) | Consideration |
| -------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| (a) | What arrangements would promote the **safety** (including from family violence, abuse, neglect or other harm) of the child and each person who has care of the child |
| (b) | Any **views** expressed by the child |
| (c) | The **developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs** of the child |
| (d) | The **capacity** of each person who has, or is proposed to have, parental responsibility for the child to provide for those needs |
| (e) | The **benefit** to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child's parents, and other people significant to the child, where it is safe to do so |
| (f) | **Anything else** relevant to the particular circumstances of the child |
### Mandatory family-violence-history consideration (s60CC(2A))
The court must also consider any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child, and any family-violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child's family.
### Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural connection
A standalone best-interests consideration of an ATSI child's right to enjoy their culture, and the support each parent gives to that connection.
See [Key statutes — s60CC](/family-law/key-statutes#s60cc-how-the-court-determines-best-interests-post-2024) for precise statutory wording.
## What the analysis does
The platform reads each of your plan's clauses and maps it to the s60CC considerations it most addresses. The output is a structured matrix:
| Clause | s60CC(2)(a) safety | (b) views | (c) needs | (d) capacity | (e) relationships | (f) other | s60CC(2A) FV | ATSI |
| -------------------------- | ------------------ | --------- | --------- | ------------ | ----------------- | --------- | ------------ | ---- |
| 1. Parental responsibility | weak | — | strong | strong | medium | — | — | — |
| 2. Live with / spend time | strong | medium | strong | strong | strong | — | medium | — |
| 3. Communication | weak | strong | medium | weak | strong | — | — | — |
| 4. Changeover | strong | weak | medium | medium | medium | — | strong | — |
| ... | | | | | | | | |
Cells indicate the strength of the clause's coverage of each consideration. Together, the matrix shows you whether your plan addresses each consideration somewhere, or leaves a consideration uncovered.
## Common findings
A few patterns the analysis commonly surfaces:
Many plans focus heavily on time arrangements (clauses 2, 3, 5) but say little about each parent's capacity to meet the children's needs (clause 1, clause 6 schooling, clause 7 medical). The analysis flags this and suggests strengthening the capacity-relevant clauses.
For matters with FV disclosure, the safety overlay is often well-handled but cultural-needs (s60CC(2)(c) cultural component, ATSI consideration if applicable) can be under-addressed. The analysis surfaces gaps.
Many plans don't address how children's views are taken into account — particularly important for older children. The analysis suggests adding a clause or sub-clause.
Plans that assert capacity ("the parties can both provide for the children's needs") without supporting evidence in the Portfolio. The analysis flags for the [Strategic briefing](/parenting-planner/strategic-briefing) to consider.
## How to use the analysis
The analysis is a structured second look at your plan. Three patterns:
**Read for gaps, not for confirmation.** The matrix shows which considerations your plan addresses; the gaps are more actionable than the strengths.
**Treat 'weak' as a prompt, not a judgment.** A weak rating on a particular consideration in a particular clause is the platform asking "should this clause say more about X?". Sometimes the answer is yes; sometimes it's no, because the consideration is addressed in a different clause. The analysis is informational.
**Cross-check with your evidence.** A clause that maps strongly to (d) capacity should be supported by Portfolio evidence on capacity — schooling continuity, medical engagement, work pattern. The analysis flags claim-evidence gaps.
## When the analysis is most useful
| Moment | Value |
| ------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Before solicitor review | Solicitor's hour focuses on subtle issues, not basic mapping |
| Before filing as Consent Orders | Last quality gate — court applies s60CC, you've already mapped to it |
| Mid-FDR | Mediator-style framing — "here's how this proposal lines up against what the court applies" |
| Before any future variation | The analysis re-runs against the same framework, showing whether the case for variation aligns with s60CC |
## What the analysis will not do
* **It will not predict outcomes.** The court applies s60CC; the platform does not. Your plan can map well to s60CC and still fall down on factual contests.
* **It will not assess whether the considerations support the orders you want.** The analysis maps your plan to the framework; it doesn't tell you whether your plan is the right plan for your matter.
* **It will not replace lawyer review.** A senior family-law solicitor reading the same plan will catch nuances the analysis doesn't.
## How the analysis updates
The analysis regenerates automatically when:
* You edit any clause
* You change FV disclosure or ATSI status in your Master Case File
* The platform's underlying s60CC reasoning is updated (rare; happens with material legislative or case-law shifts)
## What's next
The s63C framework + the May 2024 amendments + how parenting plans operate.
The post-2024 six-considerations + s60CC(2A) FV-history + ATSI consideration.
Wider strategic synthesis that incorporates the best-interests analysis.
Overall completeness scoring framework.