The Family Law Act (and similarly adopted in the Family Court Act) was substantially amended in 2006 with a view to ensuring that children benefit from both parents playing a significant role in their lives, where to do so is appropriate and presents no obvious risks.
Specifically, the Family Court must now apply a presumption that it is in a child’s best interests for the parents to have Equal Shared Parental Responsibility (i.e., joint input into major decision-making).
This initial presumption can, however, be rebutted or dispensed with if it can be established that there has been (or there exists an unacceptable risk of) family violence or child abuse; or an Order for Equal Shared Parental Responsibility is not otherwise in the child’s best interests.
If the presumption does apply, the Court must firstly consider whether equal time (e.g., a “week-about” or a 3/4/4/3 arrangement) would be in the child’s best interests and, if not, the extent to which “Substantial and Significant Time” should be awarded to the parent not having majority care.
Accordingly (and broadly speaking) equal time arrangements for children are much more common than they once were, and in practical terms fathers are the principal beneficiaries of this legal and cultural change.  At the very least, the non-resident parent is able to spend far more time with the child (provided there are no risk issues) than they were previously.