Sarti and Sarti and Anor

[2020] FCCA 2101

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SARTI & SARTI & ANOR [2020] FCCA 2101

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – application by grandfather to spend time with grandson – grandfather suffering terminal illness – poor relationship between parents and grandfather – whether the decision about the child spending time with his grandfather is an exercise of parental responsibility with which the court should not interfere.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60B, 60B(2)(b), 60CA, 60CC(2), 60CC(3), 61B, 61C, 64B(2)(b).

Cases cited:

Bemert & Swallow [2009] FamCA 5

Cook & Compton and Compton [2010] FMCA fam 1112

Valentine & Lacerra & Anor [2013] FamCAFC 53

Applicant: MR SARTI

First Respondent: MR B SARTI

Second Respondent: MS SARTI

File Number: CAC 1154 of 2020

Judgment of: Judge Hughes

Hearing date: 13 July 2020

Date of Last Submission: 13 July 2020

Delivered at: Canberra

Delivered on: 31 July 2020

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Haddock

Solicitors for the Applicant: Kennedy & Cooke

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Bak

Solicitors for the First Respondent:	Farrar Gesini Dunn
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	Mr Bak
Solicitors for the Second Respondent:	Farrar Gesini Dunn

ORDERS

1. Until further order the child, X born in 2015 (“the child”), shall spend time with his paternal grandfather as agreed between the parties but, failing agreement, every second week to occur from 10am until 2pm on Sunday in one fortnight and on Friday in the alternate fortnight and for the purpose of this order:

   (a)X’s time with his grandfather shall occur in the time the child would otherwise be in the care of his father;

   (b)if X is currently in the care of his father, the time shall commence on Sunday 2 August 2020; and

   (c)if X is currently in the care of his mother the time shall commence on Sunday 9 August 2020.

2. Changeover for the purposes of these orders shall occur at the home of the father or, if preferred by the father, at the C Service Station, D Highway, Suburb E, ACT.

3. Without admission or any finding by the Court at this stage as to its necessity, the grandfather is hereby restrained from speaking in a derogatory manner about either of the child’s parents, or members of their extended families, to the child or in his presence, or allowing any other person to do so.

4. In the event that there is a decline in the grandfather’s health such that he is unable to effectively supervise the child, the grandfather shall ensure another adult is substantially present during his time with the child and shall notify the child’s parents of the name and contact details of that person prior to the time commencing.

5. Otherwise, the interim application filed by the grandfather on 10 June 2020 is dismissed.

6. The proceedings are adjourned to 21 October 2020 at 9.30am for mention and directions.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Sarti & Sarti & Anor is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT CANBERRA

CAC 1154 of 2020

MR SARTI

Applicant

And

MR B SARTI

First Respondent

And

MS SARTI

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. These are interim parenting proceedings in which the applicant paternal grandfather seeks orders to spend regular time with his grandson, aged five.

2. The child has a positive relationship with his grandfather but the relationship between the grandfather and each of the child’s parents is strained.  The parents are separated but they are united in their application for a summary dismissal of the grandfather’s application and that he pay their costs.

3. There has been no testing of the competing allegations.  The matter was heard on the affidavit material and submissions.  Each party was legally represented.

Background

1. The applicant grandfather is aged 78.  He lives on a seven acre property at Town F , NSW, with his de facto partner, Ms G, who is aged 68.  The grandfather and Ms G have been in a relationship for about five and a half years.

2. The grandfather has inoperable liver cancer.  He produced a medical certificate from his general medical practitioner dated 26 May 2020 that indicates he is receiving palliative treatment only and, at that time, had a life expectancy of approximately three months.[1] The father was apparently unaware of his father’s state of health until advised by the grandfather’s solicitor on 3 June 2020.

   [1] Grandfather’s affidavit filed 10 June 2020 at Annexure I

3. The respondent father is aged 42. He is a professional and lives in the ACT. The respondent mother is aged 34. She is a professional and lives in the ACT.

4. The child’s parents separated in late 2017.  They are not yet divorced.  They have one child together, X, born in 2015.  X lives week-about with each of his parents, with handovers occurring usually on Wednesdays. The parents agree they have worked hard to establish the current cooperative co-parenting agreement.

5. The grandfather’s evidence is that, prior to March 2019 when he and his son had a falling out, the parents brought X to visit him at Town F on about four occasions.  Given X’s age, that would be about once a year on average.  The father said that he and his former wife visited his father at Town F with X about twice a year. It appears from correspondence between the parties on 5 August 2019 that X had spent two of his first four Christmases at Town F.

6. The grandfather said that, prior to March 20019, when he travelled to Canberra, he generally stayed with the parents at their home and spent time with X.  It is not clear on the evidence what happened between the time of the parental separation and March 2019 but I assume the grandfather stayed with the father rather than with the mother in that period.  After the falling out in March 2019, the grandfather continued to travel to Canberra but would stay elsewhere and negotiated to spend time with X.  He said he generally spent time with him at parks or took him out for lunch or dinner.

7. The father said that he and his father had never been close.  He refers to his father by his first name, Mr Sarti.  He said he and his brother have maintained a business relationship with their father and, at times, have discussed business dealings with him.  He said he argued with his father a lot.  He agreed that his father stayed with him and his former wife when he came to Canberra for appointments and, during his visits, he interacted with X.  He said that his father had another place to stay and only stayed with the family about half the time he came to Canberra.

8. The falling out in March 2019 occurred when the father and grandfather had an argument while they were driving in the car with X in the back seat.  The father said his father became frustrated and aggressive and raised his voice.  He said he told his father he did not want to keep talking about the issue in front of X but his father refused to end the conversation and continued to berate him. 

9. The father said he was very upset about the incident, especially because he felt his father did not respect his desire not to expose X to the conflict.  He told X’s mother about the incident and told her he no longer wanted to see or speak to his father.  She persuaded him that X should still have the opportunity to have a relationship with his grandfather.  The father relented but told the mother she would have to organise it with his father.  She agreed to do so.

10. The father said he did not speak to his father for two weeks, between 14 and 28 March 2019, during which time X’s mother dealt with all interactions with the grandfather. 

11. It is clear on the evidence that the grandfather can be impatient and brusque in his communication.  He seems to be easily offended about his perceived treatment by his son and daughter in law, frequently drawing comparisons with the access to X enjoyed by the mother’s family.  At the same time, he seems to expect his son and daughter in law to be robust about dealing with his own cantankerous behaviour. 

12. The mother said that on about 14 March 2019 the grandfather telephoned her and was quite aggressive.  She said he asked, “Why don’t I get to see X anymore?”  She said she told him that she and the father had both agreed the previous day that X could spend time with him.  She said the grandfather told her it was unfair that her family see X more often than he does.  She said he then said, “Why do I get treated like this?  You and Mr Sarti don’t trust me.  Do you think I’m going to kidnap him?  You treat me like a paedophile and a criminal.”  She said he told her he wanted to take X to Town F for three or four days and did not want either parent coming because X focuses on them if they are present.  The mother said she told the grandfather that he could not take X to Town F but he could contact her to organise a visit in Canberra.  She said the grandfather said he would agree to that for the time being but, if the situation did not change, he would take them to court.

13. In the second half of March 2019, the grandfather sent several text messages asking to spend time with X.  The mother said she did not reply immediately because she needed time to consider the requests.

14. On 28 March 2019, the grandfather attended at the mother’s home.  He left a handwritten note asking her to call him and saying he had sent her text messages that she seemed to be ignoring.  He said he would like to see X. 

15. The mother said that, around the same time, staff at X’s childcare centre had told her that the grandfather had been in contact with them, asking for information about X.  They told her he had enquired about X’ days of attendance and when “grandparents’ day” was.  The mother said that she and the father had invited the grandfather to grandparents’ day the previous year.  The mother said she became concerned that the grandfather would find a way to collect X from childcare without the parents’ permission.  She wrote to the childcare centre confirming that no one other than the parents were to receive information relating to X.

16. On 29 March 2019, X’s mother told both the grandfather and the father that she no longer felt comfortable seeing or speaking to the grandfather.  She asked the grandfather to arrange any visits directly with the father.  She also told the father about the grandfather’s contact with the childcare centre.  The father sent his father a text message asking him to stop contacting the centre.  His father replied “No problem”.

17. On X’s birthday, in 2019, the grandfather attended at X’s childcare centre to deliver a birthday present.  He ran into the mother and X as they were coming out of the centre.  The mother said X recognised his grandfather and greeted him.  She said the grandfather wished X a happy birthday and gave him the birthday present.  She said they chatted briefly before she put X in the car and shut the door.  She said the grandfather started asking when he could see X.  She said she told the grandfather to talk to his son about it.  She said the grandfather replied “This is your problem to sort out too” and “You’d better get some legal advice”.  She said the interaction and conversation caused her to feel rattled, threatened, anxious and upset.

18. The mother told the father about what had happened and that she had felt ambushed by the grandfather at the childcare centre.  The father sent his father a text message in which he said that if his father continued to harass his ex-wife, he would apply for a restraining order against him.  His father replied, “Are you serious?  If you are, then you need help”. 

19. On 10 April 2019, the grandfather sent the mother a text message in which he apologised for his behaviour the previous day.  She did not respond.

20. The following week the grandfather sent the mother a text message asking if he could see X to give him some Easter eggs.  The mother told the grandfather to contact his son. It is not clear on the evidence whether this occurred.

21. There was then a series of testy exchanges between the father and grandfather about X spending time with his grandfather. 

22. On 27 May 2019, the father sent an email to his father proposing that he spend time with X once a month for up to four hours at a time, supervised by someone agreed by the parents.  The grandfather responded by asking whether “these ridiculously stupid conditions” also applied to the wife’s parents.  He asked what he had done to warrant supervision.  He added, “Ms G also misses X very much and finds this situation hurtful and intolerable.  Like me she is completely at a loss as to why this is happening”.[2]  The father responded to say that he and the mother did not need to explain themselves and that these were the conditions if the grandfather wanted to be involved in X’s life.  He said the arrangements would be reviewed in the future with a view to increasing the frequency of the visits and relaxing the conditions. 

    [2] Father’s affidavit filed 29 June 2020 at annexure A

23. The father and grandfather continued their tense communications through June and July 2019.  The grandfather copied in the mother to his emails, contrary to the specific request of the father that he not do so.  He was antagonistic in his communication, saying to the father, for instance, “I really feel sorry for you!  You go on being right sunshine if it makes you happy or, warm all over like when you piss your pants!!!!!!![3]  He also referred to the father as “vindictive, narcissistic, threatening and blackmailing”.[4]

    [3] Father’s affidavit filed 29 June 2020 at annexure B.

    [4] Ibid at Annexure C

24. Despite these provocations, the father offered the grandfather time with X on a choice of 71 separate dates between 12 July 2019 and 15 January 2020.  The grandfather selected 12 dates between 8 August 2019 and 10 January 2020.  Six visits occurred in Canberra with the grandfather taking X to an activity.  The father provided a bag with everything X would need for the duration of the visit.  The grandfather cancelled three visits for various reasons, including illness.  X also spent time with his grandfather in Town F on 3 and 4 October 2019.  The father delivered X to the home of the grandfather and Ms G on both days but stayed elsewhere with X overnight.  A further planned trip to Town F in early January 2020 did not occur because of bushfires in the area at that time.

25. On 18 March 2020, the father sent his father an email advising that, because of the risk of the spread of the coronavirus, all further visits were cancelled until further notice.

26. In 2020, the grandfather sent the father an email asking to speak with X on X’s birthday, and for Easter.  The father checked with the mother who was due to be caring for X on those days.   He then confirmed with his father that the mother was happy for him to telephone X on both days. The grandfather responded that he was quite capable of speaking to the mother himself and did not need the father to do that for him.   The father replied, reiterating that the mother did not want to have direct communication with the grandfather.  The grandfather responded, “Let Ms Sarti speak for herself”.

27. The grandfather rang to speak to X on the morning of his birthday.  He said X was distracted and he asked to call back later in the day.  The father said the mother told him that X briefly walked away from the phone in order to show his grandfather how his remote-controlled buggy worked and the grandfather impatiently ended the call without trying to further engage X.  The grandfather said that he tried to call back later in the day but got no response and that he subsequently discovered X was involved in a celebration via Zoom with the mother’s extended family, to which he was not invited.

28. In 2020, the grandfather sent his son an email expressing his frustration and hurt about what occurred on X’s birthday.  The father said he regarded the email as aggressive and sarcastic.  There certainly were elements of sarcasm in the email.  The father said he spoke to the mother and they decided jointly to cease their communication with the grandfather altogether.  On 19 May 2020 the father sent his father an email which read as follows:

    Your relentless vindictive attacks against our family whilst we try to provide you with options for access to our son are of no benefit to anyone and have caused significant stress for our family.  This behaviour has only hindered any resolution that may have been reached and we are no longer comfortable engaging with you directly.  We both feel very strongly that it is not in X’s best interest to spend time with you at the moment or while there is such a degree of conflict between us.

    As such, we have now decided to cease all communication and interactions with you and we will not reply to any further correspondence on this matter.

    We have engaged the following lawyer to represent us.  If you wish to discuss this matter further, please direct all correspondence to them.  We have also instructed our lawyer to only acknowledge and respond to correspondence from your legal representative, rather than anything received directly from you.

    [Contact details of solicitors]

    This instruction comes into place immediately.  You should not reply to this email other than by way of formal legal correspondence.

29. The last contact X had with his grandfather was a telephone conversation lasting 5 to 10 minutes during the Easter period in April 2020.

30. After some further brief and unsuccessful communication in person and through solicitors, the grandfather filed his application in this Court on 10 June 2020. 

The legal principles

1. Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”) deals with children’s matters. Section 60B of the Act sets out the objects of part VII and the principles underlying those objects. One of the principles is:

   Children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development (such as grandparents and other relatives).[5]

   [5] Section 60B(2)(b)

2. This principle does not give grandparents particular rights but, rather, recognises that people other than parents can be important to a child’s welfare.  Grandparents and other relatives are cited as examples of people who might be in that category.  The principle is that children have a right to maintain relationships with people important to them unless it would be contrary to their best interests.

3. The grandfather relies on this principle in support of his application.

1. There are other relevant provisions of the Act. The grandfather’s application to spend time with X is an application for a parenting order. [6]  Whenever a court makes a parenting order, it must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.[7] In determining what is in the child’s best interests the court is required to consider the matters set out in section 60CC(2) and (3) of the Act. However, most of those matters relate specifically to a child’s relationship with its parents. The primary considerations in section 60CC(2) are as follows:

   (a) the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents; and

   (b) the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.

   [6] Section 64B(2)(b)

   [7] Section 60CA

2. X clearly has a meaningful relationship with both of his parents and there is no evidence to suggest he is in need of protection from harm arising from abuse, neglect or family violence.  The father was upset that his father exposed X to their argument in March 2019 but there is no evidence of any adverse impact on X of that event or that X was even aware of the disharmony between his father and grandfather.  The father said he did not trust his father not to say negative things to X about his parents. However, X has spent time with his grandfather since March 2019 and there is no evidence of anything similar occurring. The grandfather filed a minute of orders sought in which he proposed an order be made, without admission, that he be restrained from speaking in a derogatory manner about either parent to or in the child’s presence. This seems a reasonable way of addressing that issue. There is no basis for any finding of a risk of psychological harm from continued involvement of the grandfather in the child’s life.

1. There are additional considerations set out in section 60CC(3) of the Act which include some matters relevant to people other than parents. The most significant in this case is the nature of the child’s relationship with his parents and other people.[8]  X’s relationship with his parents is secure, entirely positive and not in issue in the proceedings.  I am satisfied on the evidence that X has an affectionate and loving relationship with his grandfather.  The grandfather and Ms G both gave evidence that X usually greets his grandfather by running to him, calling “Nonno” and hugging him.  

   [8]  S.60CC(3)(b)

2. Ms G often accompanies the grandfather on the visits and, on the evidence, I am satisfied X also has a positive relationship with her.  X’s visits with his grandfather have not been extensive but they have been sufficient for X to develop the positive relationship he now enjoys. 

3. Another relevant consideration is the capacity of the child’s parents and other relevant people to provide for the needs of the child.[9]  The parents argued that their continued involvement with the grandfather would cause them great stress, which, in turn, may cause an adverse impact on their capacity to parent the child, and was not, therefore, in the child’s best interests.  I do not accept that.  On the evidence before me, both parents are child focused and highly attuned to X’s needs.  I have no doubt they find dealing with the grandfather stressful and difficult a lot of the time but there is no evidence that this has ever negatively impacted on their care of the child or that it is likely to do so in the future. 

   [9] S.60CC(3)(f)

4. The father expressed some concern about the impact of the grandfather’s illness on his capacity to care appropriately for X.  He said he did not know what medication his father was taking or its side effects.  In his affidavit in reply, the grandfather said he was taking no medication and would only be having palliative treatment when necessary.  This is consistent with the medical certificate supplied. The father said the grandfather had lost a lot of weight and once fell asleep when spending time with X.  The grandfather said that, despite the severity of his illness, he is currently feeling well and is not on any medication.  He said he had changed to a vegan diet, which caused him to lose weight, but he is currently feeling better than he has for years.  He said his illness has no present effect on his physical or mental capacity to care for X. 

5. Ms G said she is aware of the grandfather’s diagnosis and prognosis but confirmed that he appears to be outwardly fitter and healthier than ever.  Given she usually accompanies the grandfather on his visits with X, she will provide a level of safety in the event the grandfather’s health rapidly deteriorated.

6. The grandfather proposed orders that, in the event he is unable to supervise the child effectively, he is to have another adult in substantial attendance during his time with the child and to advise the parents of the name and contact details of that person.  I am satisfied that such an order would provide an appropriate safety mechanism.

7. Section 60CC(3)(m) of the Act provides for the court to take into consideration any other fact or circumstances the Court thinks is relevant. A relevant consideration is the fact that the grandfather’s life expectancy is very short so any inconvenience to or irritation of the parents is also likely to be short lived.

The exercise of parental responsibility

1. There have never been parenting orders relating to X, which means both of his parents retain parental responsibility for him. This means they jointly and severally have all of the duties, powers responsibility and authority that, by law, parents have in relation to children.[10]  The parents argued that the decision about whether or not X spends time with his grandfather is part of the exercise of their parental responsibility with which the court should not interfere. 

   [10] Section 61B and 61C of the Act

2. During submissions, counsel for each party relied on various cases in which time between children and grandparents was either ordered or not. 

3. Counsel for the parents relied on Bemert & Swallow[11] in which Justice Watts summarily dismissed an application by a grandfather to spend time with his four grandchildren.  The children did not know the grandfather and had never spent any time with him. The mother in that case alleged the grandfather had sexually abused her between the ages of 3 and 14 years.  The grandfather denied the allegation but accepted that the mother subjectively believed it.  Justice Watts found that there was a high probability that a hearing in relation to the issue would involve the mother being cross-examined by the grandfather and that such a process would be destructive for the mother with whom the children had a primary attachment.[12]   His Honour also took into account the delay of more than 10 years before the grandfather brought his application and that there was no attachment between the children and their grandfather.  He also found that part of the grandfather’s motivation was to obtain orders that would effect an apprehended violence order in force at the time.  The facts of that case easily distinguish it from the present case in which the child has an established and positive relationship with his grandfather which has, until now, been fostered by the parents. Given the grandfather’s illness, there is unlikely to be any trial in which the parties will be cross-examined and, in any event, there is not the same level of parental vulnerability as was evident in that case.

   [11] [2009] FamCA 5

   [12] Ibid at paragraphs 132 to 133

4. Counsel for the parents also relied on Cook & Compton and Compton[13] in which Federal Magistrate Lapthorn (as he then was) dismissed an application by a grandmother to spend time with her granddaughter. His Honour said in his reasons for decision that he was satisfied that any litigation between the grandmother and the parents was likely to be a source of high stress for the mother and possibly her husband and there was a potential for that to have a flow on effect to their parenting.[14]  His honour said at paragraph 23:

   The parents have a made a decision in the exercise of their parental responsibility for the child that she will not have a relationship with her grandmother.  In the absence of any evidence to suggest that the parents’ ability to make decisions for the benefit of the child are in any way compromised, they should not have to justify their decision making through litigation.

   [13] [2010] FMCA fam 1112

   [14] Paragraph 25

5. This case, too, can be distinguished on its facts.  The mother in Cook and Compton was completely estranged from her mother.  The estrangement was long-standing and the parents together formed the view that it would not be in the child’s best interest to commence a relationship with her grandmother.  That was an exercise of their parental responsibility.  In the present case, the parents exercised their parental responsibility in deciding that X was to have a relationship with his grandfather.  They facilitated, supported and encouraged that relationship.  The relationship is now well established and X has a right to continue to enjoy that relationship.

6. In Valentine & Lacerra & Anor [2013] FAM CAFC 53, the Full Court of the Family Court dealt with an appeal from parenting orders made by Federal Magistrate Harman (as he then was) which provided for the children to spend time with the maternal aunt and grandmother. In that case, the mother was deceased and the father had sole parental responsibility for the children. He argued that it was part of the exercise of his parental responsibility to determine with whom the children spent time. That was not accepted by the Full Court. Their Honours said at paragraph 41 of the decision:

   The fact that one party has sole parental responsibility does not create a primacy in relation to the making of other parenting orders.  Certainly that person has the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority set out in the definition, but it does not dictate what other orders might be made in accordance with what is in the best interests of that child.

7. The Full Court upheld the trial judge’s conclusion that a parent having sole parental responsibility does not prevent a court making orders that impact on the exercise of that responsibility if it is necessary to do so to satisfy the best interests of the child.

Determination

1. X’s parents have, for all the right reasons, actively facilitated, supported and encouraged X to develop a meaningful relationship with his grandfather which is now well established and which is of benefit to X.  For their own reasons, the parents do not now want to continue their own relationship with the grandfather.  They also do not want to be compelled to continue X’s relationship with him.  They want to determine whether, and when, X spends time with his grandfather.  Given the illness of the grandfather and his current life expectancy, this might mean that X never sees his grandfather again. X is old enough to remember his grandfather and may, in the future, enquire about the circumstances that led to the end of his relationship with him.  He may regret having been deprived of the opportunity to spend time with him and to say goodbye.

2. I am satisfied that X’s parents are each child focused and very responsible.  However, in my view they have allowed their own frustration and irritation with the grandfather to cloud their understanding of the benefits to X of maintaining his relationship with his grandfather.  X has a different experience of his grandfather to that of his parents.  He has an uncomplicated and happy relationship with his grandfather from which he is likely to continue to derive a benefit and he has a right to do so.

3. I am satisfied it is in X’s best interests for specific orders to be made for him to spend time with his grandfather.  

4. The Grandfather sought orders for X to spend time with him for eight hours on three occasions each week during school term, on at least 24 hours’ notice by way of text message to the parents.  In my view, this is excessive and not warranted, despite the terminal illness of the grandfather.  It would be a dramatic increase in the amount of time X spends with his grandfather and would require a lot of negotiation.  This has led to high levels of tension in the past.  The extent of the time is also likely to interfere with the everyday activities of the child in each parent’s care.  In my view, it would be better for the time to generally reflect the pattern established between the parties prior to litigation.  I am satisfied that an arrangement in which X spends four hours every second week with his grandfather is appropriate.  This would not prevent X spending extra time with his grandfather by agreement.

5. The grandfather sought orders for X to spend up to four days with him during each school holiday period.  Again, this is much longer than X has ever spent with his grandfather and, in my view, is not warranted.  The better course is for the fortnightly time to continue throughout the school holidays unless otherwise agreed. 

6. Given the greater difficulties the mother has had dealing with the grandfather, unless otherwise agreed, the time X spends with his grandfather should occur when X is with his father.  It was submitted on behalf of the father that this would mean X would never have a full weekend with his father as he spends every second weekend with each parent.  I agree that is potentially problematic, notwithstanding that the time with the grandfather is unlikely to continue for long into the future.  To address this, it would be better for the visits to alternate between a weekend day and a week day. This is achievable as X is not yet at school.  In default of an alternative agreement, I will specify that the visits alternate between Sundays and Fridays when X is with his father.

7. The grandfather sought an order requiring the parents to bring the child to visit him in hospital in the event he is admitted. He sought that occur three times a week if he is hospitalised in the ACT or once a fortnight if he is hospitalised in Town H. I do not intend to make that order. The child seeing his grandfather in hospital may be confronting. He may cope well with it; he may not. In my view, this is an appropriate exercise of parental responsibility and should be left to the parents to decide.

8. The grandfather sought orders for the handover location to be at the home of the father or at the C service station in Suburb E, ACT.  It is not clear to me that it is necessary to specify a handover location but, to avoid any further disputes, I will made that order subject to any other agreement between the parties.

I certify that the preceding sixty (60) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Hughes

Associate:

Date: 31 July 2020