Carey & Prescott (No 2)

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the paternal grandparents of a child, Ms L Carey and Mr M Carey, applied for orders under the Critical Incident List following the unexpected death of the child's father. The child has lived with the paternal grandparents for over a decade, and the maternal parent, Ms Prescott, had not seen the child for several years due to her sporadic contact, hospital admissions, and incarcerations. The paternal grandparents applied for orders to make major long-term decisions for the child, while Ms Prescott applied for the child to live with her. The child has expressed steadfast and long-held views against seeing the mother. The court had to determine whether there was a risk to the child that the mother would engage in anti-social behaviour or stalking, similar to her conduct towards the father when he was alive.

The court considered the extensive history of litigation between the parties, largely due to the mother's anti-social and criminal behaviour towards the paternal family. The court found that any further litigation would be harmful to the child without leave of the court. It was noted that the mother had fixated on reconciling with the father years after their separation, and her conduct had been marked by violence and harassment. The court also found that the child had a clear preference not to see the mother, and there was a risk that the mother's past behaviour could recur. Consequently, the court discharged all previous orders and made new orders that the child would live with the paternal grandparents, who were granted parental responsibility for all major long-term issues. The mother was prohibited from contacting the child, the paternal grandparents, or discussing certain topics in any correspondence with the child. The court also issued injunctions to protect the child and his paternal grandparents from the mother.

The court ordered that the paternal grandparents have sole responsibility for all day-to-day decisions regarding the child. The mother was permitted to send the child one letter per month, subject to strict conditions, and the paternal grandparents could withhold any letter that did not comply with these conditions. The court also restrained the mother from entering certain areas or communicating with the child or the paternal grandparents. Additionally, the court prohibited the mother from instituting proceedings against the paternal grandparents without leave of the court. The reasons for judgment were released to the paternal grandparents and the mother through her psychologist.