Gosper & Anor & Noles-Thompson & Anor

In the Family Court of Australia, Cleary J considered an application by the maternal great aunt and great uncle of a child, who sought orders for the child to live with them. The respondents were the child's mother and father. The father had not participated in the proceedings and had not seen the child since 2011. The hearing proceeded with the applicants present in court and the mother attending by telephone from New Zealand.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child, specifically whether the child should live with the applicants, and the extent of parental responsibility the applicants should hold. The court also had to consider the child's relationship with her mother, the mother's capacity to parent, and the need to protect the child from harm.

Cleary J reasoned that the child had been living with the applicants since late 2012 and had formed a secure attachment with them, which would be significantly disrupted by removal. While the child maintained a meaningful relationship with her mother, the court found a need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm in the mother's household. Although the mother had an acquired brain injury impacting her parenting capacity, the extent of this impact was not fully evidenced. However, the court concluded that the mother lacked the ability to prioritise the child's needs over her own. Consequently, the court ordered that the child live with the applicants and that they have sole parental responsibility. Provisions were made for the mother to be informed of and consulted on long-term issues concerning the child, and for regular communication and supervised time with the child.