Andrews and Grant and Anor

This case involved an application by Ms Andrews, the paternal grandmother, for orders regarding time spent with her grandson, D, against the first respondent, Ms Grant (the mother), and the second respondent, Mr Andrews (the father). The dispute centred on the arrangements for D's residence, time spent with his paternal grandmother, and communication with his father. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia by Benjamin J.

The court was required to determine the legal issues surrounding the best interests of the child, D, in light of the parents' circumstances. Specifically, the court needed to consider the appropriate orders for D's residence, the extent of time he should spend with his paternal grandmother, and the conditions under which he might communicate with his father. The court also had to address the father's absence from the proceedings and the implications of making consent orders in his absence, particularly concerning parental responsibility and residence.

Benjamin J's reasoning focused on the paramount consideration of D's best interests, as outlined in section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court had regard to a family consultant's report, which indicated that D was settled with his mother and had a close relationship with her. The mother described a history of violence and controlling behaviour by the father, and the paternal grandmother, while supportive of her son, conceded that any time D spent with her should be supervised to prevent contact with the father. The court found that the mother was the primary attachment figure and that the proposed orders, supported by the mother and grandmother, would not negatively impact this relationship. The court also noted the father's inconsistent engagement with the proceedings and the significant risk of harm to the child if he were to have unsupervised contact with the father.

Consequently, the court made interim consent orders for a period of three months, which would become final thereafter unless challenged. These orders stipulated that the mother would have sole parental responsibility and that D would live with her. D would spend time with his paternal grandmother according to a specified schedule, with a prohibition on her bringing him into contact with the father. Communication between D and his father was to be as agreed in writing by the mother or as otherwise ordered by the court. The court directed that a copy of these orders be sent to the father, allowing him the opportunity to return to court within the three-month period to argue issues of residence and parental responsibility, or at a later stage to argue for time and communication with the child, provided he engaged in alternative dispute resolution.