Dennett & Norman

This appeal concerned competing applications for the residency of a child between the appellant mother and the paternal grandparents. The primary dispute revolved around the role the grandparents had played in the child's upbringing and allegations of deceptive conduct by the step-grandmother. The appeal was brought before the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues. These included whether the trial judge had erred by failing to apply a presumption in favour of the child residing with the parent, as opposed to other parties, and whether there was a presumption of parental responsibility in favour of the mother. Further issues concerned the admissibility and use of expert evidence from a school guidance counsellor, including allegations of bias, and the admissibility of the child's wishes, specifically a diary and a letter to the judge, in light of public policy and exceptions to the hearsay rule under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The Full Court held that there was no presumption of parental responsibility in favour of the mother as the biological parent in this context. The court found that the trial judge had not acted on a wrong principle and that the admission of the guidance counsellor's evidence was not supported by the facts of bias. Furthermore, the court determined that the admission of the child's diary and letter was not contrary to public policy and that the judge had an obligation to consider such matters. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.