Grinnyway and Looper and Anor

This case, heard in the Family Court of Australia, involved an application by Ms Grinnyway (the maternal grandmother) concerning the parenting arrangements for three children, A Birkan, J Birkan, and K Birkan. The dispute centred on with whom the children should live and spend time, and who should hold parental responsibility, given the risks posed by both parents. The mother, Ms Looper, did not participate in the proceedings, and the father, Mr Birkan, withdrew from the proceedings prior to the final hearing.

The court was required to determine the most appropriate parenting orders that would protect the children from harm and promote their best interests. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the children should continue to live with the maternal grandmother, the extent of parental responsibility she should hold, and the nature and extent of any contact the children should have with their mother and father. The court also needed to address the children's need for psychological counselling and impose necessary restraints on the parties to ensure the children's safety.

Justice Austin applied the paramount principle that the best interests of the children are the primary consideration, as enshrined in the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court found that both parents posed risks of harm to the children, necessitating significant protective measures. Given that the children had resided with the maternal grandmother for approximately two years and she had demonstrated her capacity to protect them, the court ordered that the children live with her and that she have sole parental responsibility. The court also ordered that the children attend psychological counselling and imposed restraints on the parents, preventing them from spending time or communicating with the children, except for postal communication on special occasions. Further orders restrained the maternal grandmother from allowing the children to be in the presence of a specific extended family member and from administering corporal punishment.

The court ordered that all former orders relating to the children be discharged. The maternal grandmother was granted sole parental responsibility and ordered to ensure the children's attendance at psychological counselling. The children were to live with the maternal grandmother, and both parents were restrained from spending time or communicating with the children, save for postal communication on birthdays and Christmas. The parents were also restrained from approaching the maternal grandmother's residence or the children's schools. The maternal grandmother was further restrained from allowing the children to be in the presence of a particular individual and from administering corporal punishment. The Independent Children's Lawyer was discharged upon the expiration of the appeal period, and all outstanding applications were dismissed.