Dunleavy& Anor andSchaller

In the matter of *Dunleavy & Anor and Schaller*, heard before Faulks DCJ, the applicants, identified as grandparents, sought to institute proceedings concerning a child, B, born in 2009. The dispute involved parental responsibility and the child's residence, with the applicants seeking to have existing orders discharged and to obtain sole parental responsibility for B. The respondent is the child's father, Mr Schaller.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the grandparents leave to institute proceedings under section 60I of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), notwithstanding the absence of a mediation process or its equivalent. Further issues before the court included the discharge of existing orders, the allocation of sole parental responsibility, the child's residence, the time the child would spend with his father, and the ability of the applicants to remove the child from Australia for a holiday and to obtain an Australian passport for the child without the father's consent. The court also considered whether to restrain the respondent from removing the child from Australia.

Faulks DCJ reasoned that dispensing with further service on the respondent was appropriate and granted the grandparents leave to institute proceedings under section 60I of the *Family Law Act*, acknowledging the lack of mediation. The court discharged existing orders and made new orders granting Ms Dunleavy and Mr Dunleavy sole parental responsibility for B, with the child to live with them. The child was to spend time with his father as agreed with the applicants. The applicants were granted liberty to remove the child from Australia for a holiday not exceeding six weeks and to obtain an Australian passport for B without the father's consent. The respondent was restrained from removing B from Australia without further order. The matter was otherwise removed from the pending cases list.