Stanford and Kelly and Anor

[2010] FamCA 643

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STANFORD & KELLY AND ANOR [2010] FamCA 643

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – interim orders – with whom a child spends time – best interests – orders that the children spend time with the grandparents on alternate weekends – further family report to be prepared

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs Stanford

RESPONDENT:

Ms Kelly and

Mr Page

FILE NUMBER: ADC 2089 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 16 JULY 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: ADELAIDE

PLACE HEARD: ADELAIDE

EX TEMPORE REASONS OF: BURR J

HEARING DATE: 16 JULY 2010

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:	MS PYKE QC and MR LINETON
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:	RUTH CARTER & ASSOC

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:	MR BERMAN
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:	ANGELA FERDINANDY

Orders

1. Further consideration of the proceedings be adjourned to 9.30 am on Wednesday 1 September 2010 before the Duty Judge (the Honourable Justice Burr).

2. Pursuant to Section 62G(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 as amended a family consultant provide to the Court a report on such matters as are relevant to these proceedings in respect of the care, welfare and development of the children A born … April 1999, N born … June 2003 and M born … June 2008 and that such report include:-

   (a)interviews with the parties and the children;

   (b)observed interaction between the parties and the children;

   (c)other relevant enquiries as may be necessary, including from A’s and N’s school teachers or counsellors

   and that such report be concluded and released to the parties by no later than 4.00 pm on Wednesday 18 August 2010.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, DURING THE PERIOD OF THE ADJOURNMENT, THAT:-

1. The maternal grandparents spend time with the children from 10.00 am until 5.00 pm each alternate Saturday, commencing Saturday 16 July 2010.

2. All handovers be effected by the mother and the step-father transporting the said children to and from the premises of the maternal grandparents, both at the commencement and the conclusion of each such period of time.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADC 2089  of 2010

MR AND MRS STANFORD

Applicants

And

MS KELLY and MR PAGE

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I have before me a dispute over three young children being A born in April 1999 (aged 11), N born in June 2003 (aged 7) and M born in June 2008 (aged 2). Regrettably the dispute is as between the respondent mother and the respondent step-father on the one hand and the maternal grandparents on the other hand.  It is a matter of regret that a family has presently been somewhat fractured by these proceedings over three young children whom they all clearly love.

2. The allegations made each by the other have been explored by Families SA and whilst they are in no position to make any definitive findings, their report to the Court dated 12 July 2010 suggests that they have no concerns that would require them to maintain an involvement with family members.  In fact they pointedly remark that it rather more seems to be an issue of family disputation rather than matters that will attract the serious concern of the Department.

3. I have the benefit also of a brief Section 11F family consultant’s report dated 6 July 2010.  The summary of the discussions that emerged during that meeting between the parties also supports the notion that it is very much more a dispute between the parties as to appropriate and best parenting practices than it is about issues of serious abuse.  I am aware that the maternal grandparents would probably reject that notion and they certainly are convinced that there are some matters of abuse of the children that require the Court’s scrutiny.  On the part of the mother and the step-father, their view of the matter seems rather more that they are struggling with their parenting role because of the undue and suffocating interference of the maternal grandparents.

4. Some minor level of agreement was achieved between the parties at the conference with the family consultant on 6 July 2010 in that the mother offered, and hence I assume whilst not reported as such in the report, the step father also offered, the grandparents three hours on the third Saturday of every month, between 11.30am and 2.30pm; with make-up time if such an arrangement was not convenient to all parties.  That is a long way short of what the maternal grandparents are asking the Court to order.  It does though represent some minor breakthrough in the relationship between the parties.  It clearly represents an acknowledgment by the mother and the step-father that the maternal grandparents should have a role in the children’s lives. 

5. Certainly, on the preliminary evidence available to the Court, it appears important that the children be able to enjoy time with their extended and loving family members.  The issue of how much time regrettably might be a matter for trial but if I was to remain optimistic, it may well be that after some further information is provided to the parties, they will ultimately be able to reach agreement.  It would be important for these children that they do reach agreement if they can.  My forty plus years experience in the jurisdiction and over 12 years as a Judge leads me inevitably to the conclusion that Court proceedings are the worst way to try and prepare the future for children and achieve for them the best possible family outcomes.  I therefore propose to order a full Family Report so that the Court may gain some additional insight as to what might be appropriate interim orders leading up to trial or indeed, may provide to the parties an opportunity to resolve the dispute between themselves.

6. As I said, the mother’s proposal is for three hours every third Saturday. The maternal grandparents’ proposal in the interim is for alternate weekends from the Friday evening to the Monday morning. In my view, the mother’s proposal is insufficient to enable the family consultant tasked with preparing a full Section 62G(2) report, with all relevant insights as to the nature and importance of relevant relationships. However, it is also premature, in my view, to advance the children’s time with the grandparents to that being sought by them. Things may change after receipt of the full Family Report. In fact, they probably will. However for now, doing the best I can, I believe it represents the children’s best interests to see their grandparents on a fortnightly basis but during the daytime only.

I certify that the preceding six  (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex tempore reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Burr

Associate: 

Date:  16 July 2010