Gill and Ronald and Ors

This matter concerned the child B, born in 2010, and involved the father, Mr Gill, and the mother, Ms Ronald, as parties, with the Minister for Family and Community Services (the Minister) acting as an intervenor. The dispute centred on the future care and contact arrangements for the child, who was subject to previous court orders.

The court was required to determine the extent of parental responsibility for long-term issues concerning the child, the specific arrangements for the child to spend time with each parent, and the conditions under which such contact would occur. Additionally, the court needed to address communication between the child and his mother and siblings, and to establish prohibitions on the parents' behaviour during contact. The court also considered the role of the maternal grandmother in the child's life and the terms of her contact and communication.

Hogan J ordered that all previous orders concerning the child be discharged. The Minister was granted sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues, including education, religious and cultural upbringing, health, and living arrangements that might impede contact with parents. The child was to spend time with his mother on four occasions annually, with each occasion involving multiple visits of at least two hours, subject to agreement or nomination by the Minister, and potentially supervised. Contact with the father was to be by written agreement or nomination by the Minister, and was also subject to supervision. The child was to have monthly telephone communication with his mother and siblings, again subject to agreement or nomination by the Minister and potential supervision. Both parents were restrained from specific behaviours during contact, including being under the influence of illicit drugs, excessive alcohol consumption, abusing or denigrating the child or others, discussing proceedings with the child, exposing the child to domestic violence, physically disciplining the child, or questioning the child about others' behaviour. The father was also ordered to undergo random drug testing upon request. By consent between the second respondent, intervenor, and independent children's lawyer, the maternal grandmother was to have contact with the child on no less than four occasions annually, with specific durations and locations, and monthly communication. The maternal grandmother was restrained from involving the mother during her contact time and was permitted to send items to the child via the Minister. The Minister was to ensure the maternal grandmother's participation in case plan meetings and notify her of any decision to move the child from foster care. The maternal grandmother was also authorised to contact the child's school for information and to attend school events.