Livvy & Kash

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Livvy sought to change the interim residence of her child, X, from the paternal grandmother to herself. Kash, the paternal grandmother, opposed the change. The case arose from an earlier decision in mid-2022, which had placed X in Kash's care. Since that time, Livvy had not spent time with X for almost 12 months. The trial in November 2023 saw the legal representatives for both parties granted leave to withdraw. The court had to decide whether the interim residence of X should be changed from Kash to Livvy, and if so, what arrangements should be made for time spent with Livvy.

The court considered the evidence and determined that Livvy had not demonstrated a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a change in residence. The court also found that there was a risk that X could be exposed to harm if she were to live with Livvy. The court noted that Livvy had not spent time with X for almost 12 months, and that there was evidence that Livvy had used illicit substances when X was in her care. The court was also concerned that Livvy had not followed medical advice and had not ensured that X had her medication. The court concluded that it was in X's best interests to remain with Kash on an interim basis.

The court made orders for X to remain living with Kash and to spend substantial unsupervised time with Livvy. The court also made orders for Livvy to attend counselling for trauma and anxiety and to follow medical advice. The court ordered that X was to spend time with Livvy on specified occasions and that Livvy was to facilitate and ensure that X communicated with Kash while in her care. The court also ordered that a Child Court Expert be appointed to prepare a family report and that the report be provided to the parties and to any Independent Children's Lawyer in the proceedings.

The court adjourned the case for a Case Management Hearing and further trial directions, and set down the case for a Final Hearing. The Independent Children's Lawyer was at liberty to apply. The form of the order was subject to the entry in the Court's records, and the copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment could be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors or to record a variation to the order.