Bedford and Bedford

Case [2017] FCCA 1805


FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BEDFORD & BEDFORD [2017] FCCA 1805
Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting application by maternal grandfather – where mother and maternal grandfather estranged – where not in child’s best interests for any time with her grandfather.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA

Cases cited:

Church v S Overton & Anor (2008) FAMCA 952

MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4

Applicant: MR BEDFORD
Respondent: MS BEDFORD
File Number: WOC 719 of 2013
Judgment of: Judge Altobelli
Hearing dates:

5 and 7 December 2016,

3 April 2017 and 19 July 2017

Date of Last Submission: 19 July 2017
Delivered at: Wollongong
Delivered on: 14 September 2017

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Gillies
Solicitors for the Applicant: Robertson Lawyers
The Respondent was self-represented and appeared by telephone.
Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr Ladopoulos
Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Legal Aid NSW

ORDERS

  1. The Mother have sole parental responsibility for the child X, born (omitted) 2011 (‘the child’).

  2. The child live with the Mother.

  3. The child spend no time with the Maternal Grandfather.

  4. The Mother shall provide to the Maternal Grandfather an address to which he can send letters, gifts and cards to the child on the following occasions:

    (a)Her birthday;

    (b)Christmas; and

    (c)Easter.

  5. Upon receipt of the communications outlined in Order 4 above, the Mother shall ensure that those gifts, cards and letters are given to the child and read to her by the Mother, with the Mother to explain that they come from her maternal grandfather.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Bedford & Bedford is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

WOC 719 of 2013

MR BEDFORD

Applicant

And

MS BEDFORD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. This case is about a child, X, born (omitted) 2011.  X is currently five years old, but will turn six within a matter of months after the publication of these Reasons for Judgment.  The Application was commenced by her Maternal Grandfather, who is 74 years old.  He wants to spend time with his granddaughter.  The Respondent is X's Mother, who strenuously opposes any contact or communication between X and her Grandfather.  These Reasons for Judgment explain why the Court has concluded that it is indeed in X's best interests that there is no contact or communication with her Grandfather.  This is a very sad case and one that was difficult to decide. 

Background 

  1. When X was born in (omitted) 2011, she was living with her Mother and Father in (omitted) on the (omitted) of New South Wales.  Later that year, however, her parents separated and the Mother and X moved back to (omitted) in New South Wales to live with the Maternal Grandparents.  X's father has not had any involvement in her life, and whilst he was nominally a party in these proceedings, he played no role. 

  2. Before X was born, certain things are apparent…

Continue reading Bedford and Bedford

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bedford and Bedford [2017] FCCA 1805
Case
[2017] FCCA 1805
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Bedford and Bedford*, heard before Judge Altobelli, the dispute concerned parenting arrangements for a child, X. The proceedings involved the Mother and the Maternal Grandfather, with the court ultimately determining the nature of their relationship and the child's contact with the grandfather.

The central legal issues before the court were: firstly, whether the child should have sole parental responsibility vested in the Mother; secondly, with whom the child should live; and thirdly, whether the child should spend any time with the Maternal Grandfather. The court was also required to consider the extent, if any, of ongoing communication and connection between the child and the Maternal Grandfather.

Judge Altobelli reasoned that it was in the child's best interests for the Mother to have sole parental responsibility and for the child to live with her. Crucially, the court determined that the child should spend no time with the Maternal Grandfather. However, to facilitate a limited, indirect connection, the court ordered that the Mother provide the Maternal Grandfather with an address for sending letters, gifts, and cards to the child on her birthday, Christmas, and Easter. The Mother was further directed to ensure these items were given to the child and read to her, with an explanation that they originated from her maternal grandfather.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Mother have sole parental responsibility for the child X, born (omitted) 2011 (‘the child’).

2.

The child live with the Mother.

3.

The child spend no time with the Maternal Grandfather.

4.

The Mother shall provide to the Maternal Grandfather an address to which he can send letters, gifts and cards to the child on the following occasions:

(a) Her birthday;

(b) Christmas; and

(c) Easter.

5.

Upon receipt of the communications outlined in Order 4 above, the Mother shall ensure that those gifts, cards and letters are given to the child and read to her by the Mother, with the Mother to explain that they come from her maternal grandfather.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.