Grant and Aiden (No 7)

In Grant and Aiden (No 7), Cronin J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications made by the father, Mr Grant, and the mother, Ms Aiden, concerning their child, V. The proceedings involved a contravention application by the father and other substantive applications by both parties, as well as applications by the mother that were subsequently struck out. The court was required to determine the best interests of the child in light of various applications and a Family Violence Order made by the Magistrates’ Court of Queensland.

The central legal issues before the court were whether to adjourn the extant applications, the appropriateness of striking out the mother's applications for want of prosecution, and how to best facilitate an assessment of the child's best interests, particularly concerning compensatory time with the father. The court also had to consider the implications of its orders in relation to a temporary protection order issued by the Magistrates’ Court of Queensland and the separate representation of the child.

Cronin J reasoned that the mother's applications should be struck out for want of prosecution. The court ordered that the child V be delivered to the father for the purpose of attending a family consultant in Brisbane, as soon as practicable and by arrangement with the registry. This order was made to enable a family consultant to prepare a report under s 11F of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to address whether compensatory time with the father would be in V's best interests. The court also ordered that V be separately represented by an Independent Children’s Lawyer, requesting Victoria Legal Aid to arrange this. The court noted that its recovery order, which involved the father collecting V and delivering her to the Child Dispute Services Section in Brisbane, was inconsistent with the temporary protection order, and provided reasons for this inconsistency, including the mother's refusal to return the child to Melbourne and non-compliance with a parenting order. The court further ordered that the mother attend personally at the Family Court in Melbourne on 29 April 2016, with the father having leave to seek a warrant of apprehension for her arrest should she fail to attend.