LUNA & GOLDBERG

This case concerned parenting orders for a child, [X], born in 2006, between the mother, Ms Luna, and the father, Mr Goldberg. The dispute involved the child's residence and the nature and extent of her relationship with each parent, particularly given the child's age of nearly 13 and a history of protracted court proceedings spanning 11 years. The court was required to determine the orders that would best serve the child's welfare and best interests, considering her maturity, sex, and background, and the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents.

The court's reasoning focused on the paramount consideration of the child's welfare. It acknowledged the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents but weighed this against the significant history of conflict and the child's expressed wishes. The judge considered the father's past difficulties, noting that while he appeared to be functioning well currently, there was a serious question as to whether the court could restore a positive relationship given past incidents. The judge rejected the mother's assertion of parental alienation, finding that she had made efforts to support the child's relationship with the father, including providing access to photographs and contact details. The court also considered expert evidence which highlighted the stark choice between the child losing contact with her father or resuming contact with the attendant risks of increased anxiety and parental conflict during a sensitive developmental period.

Ultimately, the court discharged all previous orders relating to the child. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility, and the child was ordered to live with her. The father was permitted to send cards, photos, and gifts, and the mother was to facilitate the child's response. Both parents were restrained from denigrating each other in the child's presence. The father was granted liberty to obtain educational and health information and liaise with professionals regarding the child's progress and welfare, but was restrained from attending the child's school. The court also ordered that if the child expressed a desire to spend time with her father, the mother was to use her best endeavours to encourage and facilitate this.