Botterill & Aarden

Case [2024] FedCFamC1F 369

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Botterill & Aarden [2024] FedCFamC1F 369

File number: MLC 8882 of 2019
Judgment of: MCNAB J
Date of judgment: 29 May 2024
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Parental responsibility – Where the parents are not cooperative – Where the mother has mental health issues -Where the mother is adamant the child will not have overnight time with the father – Where the maternal grandparents submit an application to intervene and are granted permission to intervene – Where the maternal grandparents are granted sole parental responsibility – Where the matter is re-opened for new evidence which brings to light family violence – Where there is a high level of conflict between the father, mother and maternal grandparents – Where the child has lived with the grandparents and they have been her primary carer – Where it is in the best interests of the child for the grandparents to have sole parental responsibility – Where supervised time with the mother is in the best interests of the child – Overnight time with the father.
Legislation:

Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) s 11

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4(1), 4AB(2), 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61B, 61DA, 64B, 65AA, 65DAA

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)
Cases cited:

Botterill & Aarden [2020] FCCA 3242

Chapman & Palmer (1978) FLC 90-510

Flanagan and Handcock [2000] FLC 93-074

Marriage of B & B (1993) FLC 92-357
Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 129
Date of hearing: 13–16 June, 23 June 2023
Place: Melbourne
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Howe
Solicitor for the Applicant: RM Commercial & Family Lawyers
Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Bartfeld AM KC with Ms Byrnes
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Hannigans
Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents: Mr O’Grady
Solicitor for the Second and Third Respondents: Landers & Rogers
Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr Allen
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Melanie Wyatt Family Law

ORDERS

MLC 8882 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:

MR BOTTERILL

Applicant
AND:

MS B AARDEN

First Respondent

MS C AARDEN

Second Respondent

MR HAMPSON

Third Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

MCNAB J

DATE OF ORDER:

29 MAY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.All previous orders made in the proceeding be discharged.

Live With

2.The maternal grandmother Ms C Aarden and the maternal step-grandfather Mr Hampson (“the grandparents”) have sole parental responsibility for the child X born 2019 (“the child”) save that prior to making any non-urgent major decisions concerning the child the grandparents will give the applicant father (“the father”) 14 days written notice of the proposed major decision and then allow the father 7 days to respond in writing, save that ultimately the major decision is for the maternal grandparents to make.

3.The child live with the grandparents.

4.The respondent mother (“the mother”) is not to live with the grandparents.

Spend Time

Mother

5.The child…

Continue reading Botterill & Aarden

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Botterill & Aarden [2024] FedCFamC1F 369
Case
[2024] FedCFamC1F 369
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter between Mr Botterill and Ms Aarden involved complex family dynamics and disputes over parental responsibility and time arrangements for their child, X. Mr Botterill sought sole parental responsibility, citing concerns over Ms Aarden's mental health and drug use. The maternal grandparents intervened in the proceedings and were ultimately granted sole parental responsibility. The case was reopened for new evidence which highlighted issues of family violence. The court had to navigate high levels of conflict between the parties and determine the best interests of the child, who had been primarily cared for by the maternal grandparents. The court concluded that sole parental responsibility with the grandparents was in the child's best interests, with supervised time for the mother and overnight time for the father.

The court was required to decide several key issues, including the allocation of parental responsibility, the appropriateness of time arrangements for the child with each parent, and the impact of the maternal grandparents' intervention. The court also had to consider the child's best interests in light of the new evidence of family violence and the high level of conflict between the parties. The court had to determine whether the presumption of shared parental responsibility should be rebutted and whether supervised or unsupervised time with each parent was appropriate.

The court found that the child would benefit from having meaningful relationships with both parents and the maternal grandparents. The mother's intractable opposition to the father spending any time with the child, coupled with her drug addiction and mental health issues, made it difficult to manage. The court observed that the child had only recently begun to develop a robust attachment relationship with the father. The court noted that the grandparents had played a major role in the child's day-to-day parenting due to the mother's issues. The court concluded that it was in the child's best interests for the grandparents to have sole parental responsibility, with supervised time for the mother and overnight time for the father. The court also ordered that the mother seek professional help for her mental health and drug dependency issues.

Orders

Orders of the court

MLC 8882 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MR BOTTERILL

Applicant

AND:

MS B AARDEN

First Respondent

MS C AARDEN

Second Respondent

MR HAMPSON

Third Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

MCNAB J

DATE OF ORDER:

29 MAY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. All previous orders made in the proceeding be discharged.

Live With

2. The maternal grandmother Ms C Aarden and the maternal step-grandfather Mr Hampson (“the grandparents”) have sole parental responsibility for the child X born 2019 (“the child”) save that prior to making any non-urgent major decisions concerning the child the grandparents will give the applicant father (“the father”) 14 days written notice of the proposed major decision and then allow the father 7 days to respond in writing, save that ultimately the major decision is for the maternal grandparents to make.

3. The child live with the grandparents.

4. The respondent mother (“the mother”) is not to live with the grandparents.

Spend Time

Mother

5. The child spend time and communicate with the mother as agreed between the grandparents and the mother during times where the child is living with grandparents subject to:

Professional Supervision

6. Such time being supervised by a professional agency such as the Family Contact Service with the grandparents to meet the costs of such professional supervision and supervision to continue until the mother provides to the grandparents and the father:

(a) a report from her treating psychiatrist that the mother has regularly attended and engaged in psychotherapy over a period of 12 months;

(b) a report from her drug counsellor that the mother has attended drug counselling regularly over a period of 12 months; and

(c) the mother produce in accordance with these orders three clear hair follicle drug tests over a period of 12 months.

Supervision By Grandparents

7. Upon the mother producing evidence to the grandparents and father pursuant to Order 6 herein, the mother’s time with the child be supervised by the grandparents with such time to only occur when the maternal step-grandfather is present and until the mother provides to the grandparents and father:

(a) three clear hair follicle drug tests conducted in a 12-month period from the time supervision by the grandparents begins in accordance with these orders.

Unsupervised Time

8. Upon the mother producing evidence to the grandparents and father pursuant to Order 7 herein, supervised time between the child and the mother will be suspended and the mother shall spend unsupervised time with the child as agreed with the grandparents SAVE THAT if the mother produces a hair follicle test that is positive for illicit substances or fails to undertake a hair follicle test in accordance with these orders, the requirement for professionally supervised time in the terms of Order 6 will be reinstated.

Father

9. The child spend time with the father as follows:

(a) From June 2024:

(i) each alternate weekend from 5.00pm Friday until 5.00pm on the Sunday commencing Friday 7 June 2024;

(ii) each Wednesday from 9.30am until 5.30pm.

(b) From September 2024:

(i) Each alternate weekend from 5.00 pm Friday to 4:00pm Monday commencing 13 September 2024;

(ii) Each Wednesday from 9.30am to 5.30pm.

(c) From the commencement of the school year in 2025, during school term each alternate Thursday from the conclusion of school (or if a non-school day 3pm) until the commencement of school Monday and if the Monday is a non-school day for students until the commencement of school on the Tuesday with alternate week time to commence in 2025 on the second Thursday after school commences for the year;

(d) From the commencement of the school year in 2025, during school term each alternate Thursday from the conclusion of school (or 3pm if a non-school day) until the commencement of school the next day and if not a school day 4pm, with such time to take place on the Thursday directly after the weekend the child has spent time with the father;

(e) Upon the child commencing school, during school term holidays and Christmas school holidays on a week about basis as agreed between the grandparents and father and failing agreement, the child spend time with the father from conclusion of the last day of term/year with changeover occurring seven nights later at 5.00pm and from the Christmas school holidays in 2027/2028 the child spend half the Christmas school holidays with the father as agreed in writing between the father and the grandparents and failing agreement the first half in the 2027/2028 and each alternate year thereafter and the second half in 2028/2029 and each alternate year thereafter and when the child is spending the second half with the father the father will return the child to the grandparents’ care two days before students are to attend school for the new school year;

(f) In 2024 and each alternate year thereafter from 2.00pm Christmas Eve until 2.00pm Christmas Day;

(g) In 2025 and each alternate year thereafter from 2.00pm Christmas Day until 5.00pm Boxing Day;

(h) If not already in the care of the father, on Father's Day from 5.00pm the night prior until 5.00pm Father's Day;

(i) On the child's birthday:

(i) for up to three hours if the child's birthday falls on a weekday when not in the father's care as agreed between the father and grandparents and otherwise failing agreement from 3.00 pm (or the conclusion of school) until 6.00 pm; and

(ii) for up to four hours if the child's birthday falls on a weekend when not in the father's care as agreed between the father and grandparents and failing agreement from 10.00am until 2.00pm.

(j) If the child is not already in the father’s care on the father’s birthday then for 3 hours as agreed between the father and the grandparents;

(k) Video calls once a week at times as agreed between by the father and the grandparents with the father to initiate the call on days and failing agreement each Tuesday between 6.00pm and 6.30pm with the child to be afforded privacy when communicating with her father;

(l) At other times as otherwise agreed between the father and grandparents in writing;

(m) On the child commencing school holiday time with the father in 2025 the father's fortnightly time during school term recommence after any holiday period in the same fortnightly sequence that had been taking place prior to the particular school holiday period as if the school holiday had not occurred;

(n) The father have parental responsibility for making day to day decisions that are not decisions concerning "major long-term issues" as defined by section 4 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), concerning the child's care welfare and development when the child is spending time with the father in accordance with these orders.

10. The father's time is suspended as follows:

(a) On Mother's Day for 3 hours subject to professional supervision being available;

(b) On the mother's birthday for 3 hours subject to professional supervision being available;

(c) From 2.00 pm Christmas Day 2024 to 5.00 pm Boxing Day and each alternate year thereafter;

(d) From 2.00 pm Christmas Eve 2025 until 2.00 pm Christmas Day and each alternate year thereafter;

(e) If the child's birthday falls on a weekend or school holidays when in the father's care the child spend up to 4 hours with the grandparents as agreed between the father and the grandparents.

Communication and Changeovers

11. Other than when changeover takes place at the child's school or as otherwise agreed in writing between the father and grandparents, changeover occur at the father's residence at the commencement of time with the maternal grandmother and/or the maternal step‑grandfather to deliver the child and the father or his nominee to return the child to the grandparents' home at the conclusion of time.

12. The mother is restrained by injunction from being present at spend time changeover including being at the child's kinder/school when the father is taking the child to kinder/school or collecting the child from kinder/school.

13. The father, grandparents and mother communicate via a parenting App such as 2Houses with such communication to be child focused.

14. The father and grandparents may enrol the child in extracurricular activities that take place when in their care, it being deemed that such extracurricular activities are not major decisions.

15. The father is not under an obligation to take the child to extracurricular activities arranged by the grandparents that fall within the child's time with the father.

16. The grandparents are not under an obligation to take the child to extracurricular activities arranged by the father that fall when the child is in their care.

17. The grandparents shall by no later than 1 June 2024 advise the father in writing of the school they are considering enrolling the child to in 2025.

18. The father be at liberty to attend the child’s first day of school and otherwise engage in school activities that other parents with a child at the school would normally be involved in.

Medical

19. The father and grandparents shall advise the other immediately in the event X suffers any serious illness or injury.

20. The grandparents shall advise the father of the name/s and professional contact details of any medical professional, allied health professional, mental health professional or counsellor ("medical professionals") the child consults or attends upon and the maternal grandmother shall authorize the said professionals to disclose to the father any information the father may seek concerning the child's treatment or condition.

21. The father and the grandparents make available to the other party any medication prescribed for the child.

Education

22. The grandparents shall authorise the principal of the child’s school(s) to provide to the father and mother, at their expense if any, copies of all school reports, school newsletters, photograph order forms and any other documents or notices normally provided to parents by the school/s including any password required to access the school portal.

23. The father, grandparents and mother are permitted to attend all parent/teacher interviews, sports carnivals and any other school activities which parents/caregivers normally attend.

24. Each party be at liberty to provide a copy of these orders and Reasons for Judgment to any school or medical professionals attended upon by the child.

The Mother’s Mental Health

25. The mother shall forthwith seek a referral to a psychiatrist to undertake psychotherapy in an effort to address the mental health issues raised by Dr H and Dr J in their reports.

26. The mother shall provide to the psychiatrist, prior to the first consultation with the psychiatrist, copies of the two Family Reports prepared by Dr H, the two psychiatric reports prepared by Dr J regarding the mother, the DFFH section 91B Response dated late 2021 and a copy of these orders and Reasons for Judgment.

27. The mother shall forthwith do all things necessary to undertake drug counselling and attend upon the drug counsellor until the drug counsellor advises the mother drug counselling is no longer required.

Restraints

28. The grandparents, mother and father are and hereby restrained by themselves, their servants or agents from denigrating the other party and/or allowing their partners or extended family members to denigrate the other party in the presence of or hearing of the child or allowing any third person to engage in such a conduct in the presence of or hearing of the child.

29. The mother is restrained from ingesting, consuming or using or being otherwise under the influence of alcohol or any illicit drug or substance when spending time with the child.

30. Within 14 days of a request from the father or the grandparents, the mother shall do all acts and things to make an appointment and attend for hair collection at an Australian Workplace Drug Testing Service (AWDTS) Clinic or nominee for hair illicit drug testing purposes save that the grandparents or father may request no more than three hair follicle tests in a 12-month period. Collection is to be conducted by a qualified and certified collector. Chain-of Custody procedure is to be applied to the sample. Testing is to be conducted at an approved laboratory, accredited to conduct hair illicit drug and alcohol testing to the recognized International Standard ISO/IEC 17025:2005 by the relevant national accreditation body for that laboratory. Either head or body hair may be collected for testing. To give effect to this order:

(a) The mother is required to maintain their head hair at a length of not less than four centimetres; neither head hair nor body hair is to be cut, bleached or dyed between the date of this Order and the time of collection of hair;

(b) The mother shall provide AWDTS with a copy of these Orders and the father be at liberty to do so.

(c) The mother is to attend at an AWDTS Clinic or nominee and submit to the supervised collection of a hair sample from the party at the earliest available appointment within seven (7) days of receiving written notice to undertake hair collection for hair illicit drug and alcohol testing purposes from the father.

(d) The mother to provide the collector with photographic identification to be recorded before each hair collection and authority, with this order also hereby authorising AWDTS or nominee to provide the results of all testings to the father and the maternal grandparents;

(e) The hair drug test may screen for alcohol and drugs of abuse including amphetamine-type substances and metabolites, cannabis and metabolites, cocaine and metabolites, opioids and metabolites and any other drug specified in this order as required.

(f) AWDTS is required to utilise the testing services of an appropriate laboratory accredited to conduct hair drug testing to the recognised International Standard ISO/IEC 17025:2005 by the relevant National Accreditation body; AWDTS' selection is to be based on the type of test required, the specific drug or drugs to be tested, the laboratory's compliance level with international Society of Hair Testing (SoHT) guidelines, cost, and time required for results to be made available.

31. The mother is to provide the drug screen results to the father and grandparents within 48 hours of receipt of same.

32. The mother is to meet the cost of all hair follicle testing.

Travel

33. Subject to Orders 34 and 35 the father and maternal grandparents after the child’s 8th birthday may travel with the child internationally during their time with the child with such international travel to take place during the school holiday time with them.

34. If the father or maternal grandparents propose to travel internationally with the child in accordance with Order 33 they will give the other party 30 days written notice of their intention to do so with such notice to include the name of the country or countries the child shall be travelling to.

35. 14 days prior to the child’s departure to travel internationally the party proposing the travel shall provide to the other party with the following information with supporting documentary proof:

(a) A travel itinerary;

(b) Proof or return travel tickets for the child; and

(c) Proof of travel insurance for the child.

36. That pursuant to section 11(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth). the child be issued with an Australian Passport and the child be allowed to travel internationally in accordance with these orders.

37. On an Australian Passport being issued to the child in accordance with these orders, the grandparents shall keep the child’s Australian Passport in their possession for safe keeping and shall provide the child’s Australian Passport to the father when requested by him to allow the child to travel internationally with him in accordance with these orders including providing the Australian Passport to the father for the granting of a travel visa for the child and on the child returning to Australia the father will return within 7 days the child’s Australian Passport to the father for safe keeping.

38. If the child is to be treated by a mental health professional, the mental health professional before the child’s first appointment shall be provided with, by the father or grandparents, the Family Report, updated Family Report a copy of these orders and Reasons for Judgment.

39. The appointment of the Independent Children’s Lawyer be discharged.

40. All extent applications be dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

The Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) relied upon:(1)Section 67z Report dated 21 August 2019.(2)Section 91B Response dated 9 February 2021.(3)Affidavit of Dr J assessment of both parents filed 4 June 2021.(4)Affidavit of Dr H filed 25 June 2021 with Family Report dated 21 June 2021.(5)Affidavit of Dr H filed 3 May 2023 with Updated Family Report dated 29 April 2022.(6)Affidavit of Dr J assessment of both parents filed 30 May 2023(7)Victoria Police subpoenaed documents filed 16 February 2024.(8)Submissions and Proposed Final Parent Orders emailed to Chambers 15 March 2024.(9)Outline of Case filed 16 April 2024.BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS The mother deposes of growing up in loving relationships with her parents and subsequently with her stepfather, Mr Hampson, who assumed that role when she was 8 years old. The mother did well at school and graduated after achieving a high score in her final exams and was accepted into tertiary studies. She commenced study in 2007 and subsequently, after a semester, deferred her studies and entered the workforce for several years, working in a business from 2007 to late 2009. The father worked at the same business although they were not in a relationship at that time. The mother enrolled in further tertiary study in 2010 and, according to her evidence, did well in those studies. She met up with the father again in 2013 at which point she says he introduced her to drugs. He denies that and there is no allegation made in the proceedings that the father has ever had a problem with drugs, in that his capacity to parent is not in any way affected by illicit drug use either in the past or present. The mother's use of drugs became problematic in about 2016 after the demise of a relationship (with a person other than the father) and upheavals in her family because of the closure of a family business where she had worked. The parties resumed contact in late 2017 and began a romantic relationship in March 2018, which the mother says ceased in May 2018.[1] The father gives evidence that the relationship ceased in about November 2018 when the mother left his home. This is in the context of the mother having been arrested in late 2018 for a drug-related offence.[1]Mother’s trial affidavit filed 6 June 2023 at [71] – [75]. The child of the relationship, X Aarden, now X Botterill-Aarden by Interim Orders of 17 April 2024, is currently aged 5 years. The matter commenced by way of an Initiating Application on 8 August 2019 filed by the father seeking a declaration of parentage. A parentage test established the father’s paternity in late 2019 and the father states he wrote to the mother seeking time with the child “as soon as was practicable” but that it was not until 2020, when the child was 10 months old, that he had the opportunity to meet her.[2] [2]Father’s trial affidavit filed 1 May 2023 at [42] - [44]. The father subsequently filed an Amended Initiating Application on 13 November 2019 seeking graduated time with the child to a 9/5 spend time arrangement by the time she commenced school. He made further applications for shared parental responsibility before eventually seeking orders for sole parental responsibility with the mother to spend supervised time with the child. As part of his application for sole parental responsibility he cited issues with the mother’s mental health, illicit drug use and non-compliance with Court-ordered spend time arrangements.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The grandparents have been in a long-term relationship of around 27 years they are a cohesive and functioning unit and the child is meeting her milestones and this arrangement provides the best opportunity for X to have a relationship with both of her parents, whilst ensuring she remains safe and well cared for. For these reasons the presumption of shared parental responsibility between the father and grandparents is rebutted on the grounds that it would not be in the best interest of the child (s 61DA(4)). Sole parental responsibility is granted to the grandparents and is subject to them consulting with the father prior to making major long terms decisions about the child.CONCLUSION I have made orders for the father’s time, including overnight time, to be gradually increased as the child gets older. I adopt the spend time arrangements submitted by the ICL as appropriate and in the best interests of the child. There is no evidence before the Court that the father is incapable of parenting and the restrictions on time that are sought by the grandparents are not justified or in the best interests of the child. Orders that were proposed by the grandparents had the effect that the mother would spend no time with the child unless she presented 4 clean hair follicle tests. This could have the effect of the mother not spending time with the child for an extended period and would operate regardless of if the mother was not acutely drug affected but had drugs in her system which would be reflected in hair follicle testing. The orders provide that the mother’s time is professionally supervised to allow her time with the child, and for her behaviour to be observed by a suitably trained person. The grandparents sought orders that the father undertake a further Men’s Behaviour Change Course, I do not see the efficacy in that. The father has already attended a Men's Behaviour Change Course. Unfortunately, in his evidence, he struggled to identify what benefit if any he had obtained from that course. He seems rigid in the view that he does not need to change and that his responses to the grandparents and the mother are reasonable having regard to the way that he has been treated and because many of the issues that he raised regarding the mother’s drug use and behaviours have been found to be well founded. Ordering a further course is unlikely to assist the father or the child and the best way for there to be some de-escalation of tension is for this matter to be taken out of the Court system and to allow the child to spend time with the father until the mother receives proper assistance to deal with her mental health and drug dependency.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

In the event an order is made allocating equal shared parental responsibility to the child’s parents, the Court is then obliged to consider both the advisability and practicability of the child living for equal time with both parents, or alternatively, living primarily with one parent and spending substantial and significant time with the other parent (s 65DAA). If parental responsibility for the child is allocated in some other way, then the exercise of the Court’s discretion about the child’s care arrangements is at large, though the discretion must still be exercised in the context of the child’s best interests being the paramount consideration.BEST INTERESTS – PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONSSection 60CC(2)(a) The Benefit of the Child having a Meaningful Relationship with Both Parents and the Grandparents The evidence in this case supports a finding that the child would benefit from having a meaningful relationship with both parents and the maternal grandparents. The issue in the case now is how to best manage the child having a relationship with her mother. The mother’s now intractable position in opposition to the father spending any time with the child, coupled with her drug addiction and mental health issues, makes this very difficult to manage. The child enjoys spending time with each parent and each parent wishes to be involved in the child’s life. At the time of the first Family Report of Dr H of 21 June 2021 it was observed by the Court Child Expert at [72] that, because the time that the father had spent with the child had only been consistent since February 2021, this had not been sufficient time to “establish a robust attachment relationship”. At the time of the observations, which were the subject of the second Family Report of Dr H dated 29 April 2022, it was observed that the child’s body language and verbal tone towards her father suggested she was comfortable in his company.[5] [5]Dr H, second Family Report dated 29 April 2022 at [44]. Since the child was born the father has sought to have a meaningful relationship with the child and has had to contend with hostility from the mother and what has been significant opposition from the grandparents, with the father forming the view that they have supported their daughter and have downplayed her ongoing problems with drugs. In response, the father has presented to the grandparents and mother and consequently the Court as hostile, embitteredly angry and unable to acknowledge the difficulties faced by the grandparents in dealing with the mother. It is, however, accepted by all the parties that the grandparents have had a major role in the day-to-day parenting of the child because of the mental health and drug issues faced by the mother. The mother has lived in their house with the child until recently, however, she no longer lives there because of the IVO that has been ordered protecting the grandparents and the child. The orders made seek to find a way for the mother to get assistance so that she may be able to have a meaningful relationship with her daughter without exposing the child to risk.