Potts & Bims

The applicants, Mr and Mrs Potts (the grandparents), sought orders for the three children of their daughter and her former husband, Mrs and Mr Bims (the parents), to live with them. The parents, who presented a united front, opposed the grandparents' application. The proceedings involved extensive evidence, including affidavits from the parties and a third party, reports from a social worker, and oral evidence from various professionals.

The central legal issue before the court was to determine the parenting arrangements for the children that would be in their best interests, as mandated by Part VII of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This required the court to consider the paramount consideration of the children's best interests, including primary and additional considerations outlined in section 60CC of the Act. The court also had to navigate the complexities arising from the fact that the proceedings were between parents and non-parents, which limited the application of certain statutory provisions.

The court's reasoning focused on the evidence presented regarding the children's welfare, their relationships with both the parents and the grandparents, and the capacity of each party to provide for the children's needs. The court found that while the grandparents had played a significant role in the children's lives, particularly during times of parental difficulty, the current circumstances indicated that the children's best interests would be served by remaining in the shared care arrangement established between their parents. This conclusion was heavily influenced by the clear and consistent views expressed by the children themselves, who indicated a strong preference to live with their parents and a reluctance to spend time with their grandparents. The court also considered the history of conflict between the parents and grandparents, noting that the grandparents' unwavering belief in the parents' continued dysfunction, despite evidence to the contrary, was likely to perpetuate conflict and be detrimental to the children.

Ultimately, the court made orders for the mother and father to have equal shared parental responsibility for the children, with the children to live with each parent at times agreed between them, and specific alternating arrangements during school terms and holidays. The orders also provided for the children to communicate with each parent when in the care of the other, and for communication with their maternal grandparents at times agreed between the grandparents and the parent in whose care the children were. The court also included orders for the parents and grandparents to keep each other informed of contact details and for neither party to criticise or denigrate the others in the presence of the children.