Bland and Cramer and Anor (No 2)

This matter concerned parenting proceedings before the Family Court of Australia at Townsville, involving Ms Bland (the applicant paternal grandmother), Mr Cramer (the first respondent father), and Ms Banksia (the second respondent mother) regarding their child, C. The applicant sought final parenting orders, including sole parental responsibility and orders for the child to spend time with the parents. Interim orders had previously been made, granting the applicant and the father equal shared parental responsibility, establishing a time arrangement for the child with the father, and crucially, restraining both the father from delivering the child to the mother and the mother from spending time with or taking the child into her care.

The court was required to determine whether to make final parenting orders mirroring the interim orders, particularly in light of the mother's continued failure to file material or attend court, despite being aware of the proceedings and the orders sought. The court also had to consider the statutory framework for making parenting orders under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the paramount consideration of the child's best interests, the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility between parents, and the factors to be considered when determining those best interests.

Justice Kent applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), noting that the child's best interests are paramount (s 60CA). The court considered the primary and additional considerations outlined in s 60CC, including the child's age, the applicant's close and loving relationship with the child, the need to protect the child from harm, and the capacity of the parties to provide for the child's needs. The court found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility between the parents was displaced under s 61DA(2) due to a significant risk of the child being exposed to family violence if living with the mother. The court was satisfied that the applicant, with the assistance of her partner, had the capacity to meet the child's needs and had acted to protect the child from potential harm. Given the mother's consistent failure to participate in the proceedings and her historical conduct, the court found it was in the child's best interests for the interim orders to be made final.

The court made final orders reflecting the interim orders, which included the child living with the applicant paternal grandmother, the applicant and the respondent father having equal shared parental responsibility, specific time arrangements for the child with the father, and injunctions restraining the mother from spending time with the child or taking her into her care. The court also noted that publication of the judgment under a pseudonym had been approved.