Bradbury & Lander

[2019] FamCA 1129

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BRADBURY & LANDER AND ORS [2018] FamCA 1129

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting – Time with maternal grandparents.

APPLICANT: Mr Bradbury

RESPONDENT: Ms Lander

SECOND RESPONDENTS: Ms B Lander & Mr Lander

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Yeend & Associates

FILE NUMBER: CAC 239 of 2017

DATE DELIVERED: 21 December 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Canberra

PLACE HEARD: Canberra

JUDGMENT OF: Gill J

HEARING DATE: 20 December 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr J Haddock

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Infinity Legal

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Self-representing (no appearance for the delivery of judgment)

SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENTS: Ms B Lander appearing at the interim hearing, no appearance by Mr Lander (no appearance by either party for the delivery of judgment)

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms M Burgess

Orders

1. In the event the Mother and Maternal Grandmother are in Brisbane during the period 23 December 2018 to 14 January 2019 then:

   a)Y (“the child”) shall spend half of such period with her Mother and Maternal Grandparents and half such period with the Father as agreed in writing, or failing agreement as follows:

   i)With the Mother (and accordingly the Maternal Grandmother) from 3pm 23 December 2018 until 3pm 25 December 2018;

   ii)With the Father from 3pm 25 December 2018 until 3pm 27 December 2018;

   iii)With the Mother (and accordingly the Maternal Grandmother) from 3pm 27 December 2018 until 3pm on 29 December 2018;

   iv)With the Father from 3pm 29 December 2018 until 3pm 31 December 2018;

   v)With the Mother (and accordingly the Maternal Grandmother) from 3pm 31 December 2018 to 3pm 2 January 2019;

   vi)With the Father from 3pm 2 January 2019 to 3pm 4 January 2019;

   vii)With the Mother (and accordingly the Maternal Grandmother) from 3pm 4 January 2019 to 3pm 6 January 2019;

   viii)With the Father from 3pm 6 January 2019 to 3pm 8 January 2019;

   ix)With the Mother (and accordingly the Maternal Grandmother) from 3pm 8 January 2019 to 3pm 10 January 2019;

   x)With the Father from 3pm 10 January 2019 to 3pm 12 January 2019;

   xi)With the Mother (and accordingly the Maternal Grandmother) from 3pm 12 January 2019 to 3pm 14 January 2019.

2. The child will then spend time with the Father and Mother in accordance with the current orders pending delivery of judgment for the balance of the interim proceedings.

3. Handovers in respect of the Christmas period are to occur at a mutually agreed public place that is proximate to the residences of each of the maternal and paternal grandparents.

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

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Bradbury & Lander and Ors has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CANBERRA

FILE NUMBER: CAC 239 of 2017

Mr Bradbury

Applicant

And

Ms Lander

Respondent

And

Ms B & Mr Lander

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The judgment today concerns the immediate arrangements for the child of the relationship, the child, across the Christmas holiday period which is shortly to commence.

2. This matter was the subject of an interim hearing which took place yesterday.  That interim hearing covered a number of other aspects for which judgment is unable to be delivered today.  However, the urgency of dealing with the child's school holiday arrangements mean that the hearing of the matter, or rather the delivery of the judgment, will be split such that there is an answer for the parties for the Christmas holidays. 

3. The context for the dispute about what is to happen across this holiday period for the child is one where both of the parents and both of the sets of grandparents will be proximate to each other during the Christmas period in Queensland.  The Mother and the maternal grandmother seek an equal time, or approximately equal time arrangement, for the child during the period in which the child is present in Queensland with her parents.  The maternal grandmother seeks to extend that time after the parents leave Queensland such that the child would remain behind in Queensland and spend time with the maternal grandparents and, she says, the paternal grandparents, although I note that the paternal grandparents are not part of these proceedings. 

4. In contrast, the Father says that there should be four 24 hour block periods across the span of approximately six weeks that the child would spend time with her Mother and the maternal grandparents at the same time.  It may be observed that this would mark a sharp reduction in the time that the child regularly spends with her Mother. 

5. The Independent Children’s Lawyer (the ICL) during the hearing of the matter suggested that there be an order for equal time.  Her suggestion for the structure of that is that there would be alternate two day block periods to commence in a manner that would mean that Christmas would be spent with one parent and the child's birthday would happen with the other parent.  This position articulated by the ICL provoked sharp disagreement from the maternal grandmother on the expressed basis that in some manner it conflicted with another agreement that she said was extant, although it was not clear with whom that agreement had been reached.  The maternal grandmother also said that such an order, which I took to mean an order that would split one party having Christmas and the other having the birthday, was not in either the Father's interest, nor in anybody's else's interest. 

6. The nature of the agreement and precisely with whom the agreement had been reached was not explained to me at that time.  If there is an agreement arrived at between the parties, which does not represent what is to be set out in these orders, I will make provision in the orders which will allow the parties to accommodate such an agreement. 

7. At present the orders will provide for the parents, and thereby the grandparents, to share the period of time in Queensland equally.  The orders will do so despite the Father's concern of exposure of the child to the hostility to him in the maternal grandparent’s residence.  He says that that is a risk which is apparent from the maternal grandmother's involvement in the proceedings, from the comments that she has made in her material about the Father (and it may be interpolated, comments made in submissions about the Father) and by reason of the fact that she assisted another child, X (the child of the Mother, but not the child of the Father) to prepare an affidavit purportedly for filing in these proceedings, albeit that filing was refused.  In answer to this the maternal grandmother submitted that she has had an adverse view of the Father for a considerable period of time and despite holding that view, which perhaps was not apparent until the steps were taken that I have identified above, was thought of by the Father as being acceptable as an appropriate supervisor of the Mother at the first set of interim orders made in approximately March of last year.  During that period of time the maternal grandmother supervised the Mother’s time over a considerable period.

8. It may be observed that the child has had a significant involvement with the maternal grandparents, not least because of these periods of time of supervision.  She of course has very important relationships also with her Mother.  It is important to foster as much as possible those relationships as well as the relationships with the other parts of her extended family, being her Father's family and her Father across the Christmas and birthday period. 

9. It is important to observe that the maternal grandmother was considered to be fit to supervise the time in March 2017.  I accept that her involvement in the proceedings might have reduced the confidence that the Father feels in her but it does not erode the inference absent specific evidence in relation to her conduct towards the child that it is okay for her to spend time with the child and for significant time be spent with her.  Despite this assessment I do not view it as being in the child's interest to extend the Queensland time absent agreement by the parents in Queensland to a time post when the Father remains in Queensland.  It might be thought generally beneficial to foster time with the extended family, but such time is sufficiently catered for in the orders that I will make.  I do see an adequate advantage of the extension of such time in Queensland for the child in the context of what is already a disrupted relationship for her with her parents. 

10. The orders will provide for a splitting of Christmas Day itself and also a splitting of the child's birthday.  I do this despite some concerns expressed on the part of the ICL as to the disruption that this might cause the child.  On the flipside it gives the child the opportunity to spend each of those special days with a number of different people who are special in her life. 

11. If the parties together find these arrangements unacceptable, then the structure of the orders will permit them to come to another arrangement.

I certify that the preceding eleven (11) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Gill delivered on 21 December 2019.

Associate: 

Date:  21 January 2019