Stylianos & Blagoslav
[2023] FedCFamC1F 1071
•14 December 2023
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Stylianos & Blagoslav [2023] FedCFamC1F 1071
File number(s): SYC 3272 of 2019 Judgment of: BERMAN J Date of judgment: 14 December 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child spends time with – Where the applicant maternal grandparents seek orders to spend time with their grandchildren – Where the respondent parents oppose any time spending – Where the parties have been involved in interpersonal conflict for 20 years – Where the grandparents do not currently have a relationship with the grandchildren – Where all parties lack insight – Best interests – Consideration of s 60CC(M) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the Court finds that there is an advantage to the children in having a relationship with the maternal grandparents – Consideration of whether the benefit outweighs the potential for detriment – Where the evidence supports a relationship continuing once a foundation has been established – Orders. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Div 12A, ss 60B 60CA, 60CC, 69ZN,69ZT. Cases cited: Baglio & Baglio [2013] FamCA 105 Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 237 Date of hearing: 20 – 22 November 2023 Place: Heard in Sydney, delivered in Adelaide Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Hodgson Solicitor for the Applicant: O’Sullivan Legal Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Wallace Solicitor for the Respondent: Santo Family Lawyers ORDERS
SYC 3272 of 2019 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MR STYLIANOS AND MS STYLIANOS
Applicant
AND: MS BLAGOSLAV AND MR BLAGOSLAV
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
BERMAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
14 DECEMBER 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Mr Stylianos and Ms Stylianos (“the maternal grandparents”) be permitted to send X born 2013 and Y born 2015 (collectively “the children”) cards and/or gifts on the following occasions:
(a)The children’s birthdays;
(b)Religious holidays;
2.For the purpose of order 1, the maternal grandparents shall cause cards and gifts to be delivered to the address nominated by the mother and father.
3.Ms Blagoslav (“the mother”) and Mr Blagoslav (“the father”) shall do all acts and things necessary to provide cards and gifts delivered or forwarded by the maternal grandparents to the children in a manner that encourages the children to receive same with the positive reinforcement and support of the mother and father.
4.The mother and father do ensure that the children and each of them acknowledge receipt of gifts and cards to the maternal grandparents in writing, email or other audio visual communication.
5.The maternal grandparents are restrained from including in cards any words that:
(a)Denigrate or criticise the mother and father;
(b)Make reference to the mother and father;
(c)Refer to any adult issue;
(d)Make any arrangements to spend time with the children or invite the children to spend time with them; or
(e)Refer to court proceedings.
6.Each parent and the maternal grandparents do all acts and things necessary as required by the Contact Centre or such other centre as may be agreed to enable the children to spend supervised time with the maternal grandparents.
7.As and from one (1) year from the date of this order:
(a)For a period of six (6) months, the children spend supervised time with the maternal grandparents on the last Sunday of each calendar month from 1.00 pm to 2.00 pm at the B Contact Centre at C Street, Suburb D, Sydney (“the Contact Centre”) or such other supervised contact service as the parties may agree.
8.At the conclusion of the six (6) month period as referred to in order 6, the children spend time and communicate with the maternal grandparents on the last Sunday of each calendar month from 1.00 pm to 5.00 pm with changeover to occur at the commencement and conclusion of such time at the agreed contact centre or such other place as may be agreed between the parties.
9.After the commencement of the children spending supervised time with the maternal grandparents, the children shall be at liberty to communicate with the maternal grandparents via Skype/Facetime from 6.30 pm to 7.00 pm on the second Sunday of each calendar month to be effected by the maternal grandparents telephoning such landline or mobile telephone number as provided by the parents to the maternal grandparents with the parents to facilitate the children receiving telephone calls from the maternal grandparents.
10.Within seven (7) days of the date of these orders the parents shall provide to the maternal grandparents an address at which they may be at liberty to send cards and gifts to the children in order to give effect to these orders.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Berman J
INTRODUCTION
Mr Stylianos presently aged 70 years (“the maternal grandfather”) and Ms Stylianos presently aged 67 years (“the maternal grandmother”) are the maternal grandparents of X born 2013 and Y born 2015 (collectively “the children”).
Mr Blagoslav presently aged 46 years (“the father”) and Ms Blagoslav presently aged 40 years (“the mother”) are the biological parents of the children.
The maternal grandparents and the parents have been engaged in ongoing interpersonal conflict and since 2019, entrenched litigation as to the extent, if at all, the maternal grandparents are able to spend time with the children.
It is not controversial, but for distressing reasons that will be considered, the maternal grandparents have only met X on two occasions in March and August 2014. The maternal grandparents have never met Y.
The maternal grandparents seek that for a period of four months, they spend supervised time with the children on the last Sunday of each calendar month from 1.00 pm to 2.00 pm and that thereafter they spend unsupervised time with the children on the last Sunday of each calendar month from 1.00 pm to 5.00 pm. In addition, the maternal grandparents seek to communicate with the children on the second Sunday of each calendar month via Skype/FaceTime or by telephone and that they be able to forward cards and gifts to the children to celebrate their respective birthdays and other special days in the religious calendar.
The clear response of the parents is that the proceedings be dismissed and there be no orders that would enable the children to either communicate or spend time with the maternal grandparents.
It is a necessary corollary of the position adopted by the parents that they do not wish for there to be any relationship between the children and the maternal grandparents.
A further unfortunate consequence is that the parents actively oppose the children coming into contact with the extended maternal family including, the mother’s two siblings and their six children.
The position of opposition to the maternal family is in stark contrast to what is purported to be a close relationship with the paternal family and the overt encouragement and support for the children to have a loving relationship with them.
There is little doubt that the maternal grandparents and the parents are deeply entrenched in their respective positions. It is apparent from the presentation of the parties that they are each not prepared to give ground or concede that what motivates their dislike of each other are deep seated family issues leading to a dysfunctional relationship between the mother and her parents in addition to the maternal grandparents’ subsequent and overt dislike of the father and a refusal to support the mother’s relationship with him.
A surprising and perhaps confounding aspect of the presentation of each of the parties is that the maternal grandparents are highly regarded within their religious community with each of them having obtained public recognition for his services to the community.
The parents are the Directors of a business that provides a range of family services. The parents have been engaged in the business since 2007.
The mother holds relevant tertiary qualifications. She has practiced in the profession for 15 years and brings to her business considerable skill and expertise.
The maternal grandmother has a tertiary qualification and has worked with children as an educator, a consultant for a related organisation and provides volunteer services. Similar to the maternal grandfather, the maternal grandmother has received a public award for invaluable service to the community.
It is surprising therefore, that the considerable experience and expertise of each of the parties has not resulted in any appreciable insight as to the inevitable and likely detrimental consequences that the proceedings will have on the children.
BACKGROUND
The parents commenced a relationship in 2003 and started living together from 2005.
The parents married in 2008.
X was born in 2013 and Y was born in 2015.
The unhappy differences between the mother and the maternal grandmother were demonstrably in evidence by the mother receiving a photograph of herself at aged 3 years which had been ripped into several pieces by the maternal grandmother and then taped together.
The mother’s evidence is that she was deeply affected by what she considered was a deliberately hurtful and inconsiderate act by the maternal grandmother.
The torn photograph was emblematic of the irreconcilable differences experienced by the mother (and later by the father) and her parents.
The maternal grandparents considered that the father was controlling and abusive and for reasons that they were not able to understand, considered that their daughter was in his thrall.
For his part, the father understood the level of hostility directed to him by the maternal grandparents and responded with anger and aggression.
The mother presents as strongly supportive of the father and considers that her parents’ attitude towards him is a manifestation of her poor relationship with them from her early teens.
Each of the parents and the grandparents became hypervigilant for any conduct that might be considered as a slight criticism or corroboration of the fixed views of each of the parties.
From the engagement of the parents to the date of their marriage, efforts were made to reconcile the parties’ differences.
For their part, the parents ceased further contact with the maternal family which resulted in the grandparents seeking the intervention of the local religious leader to mediate a resolution.
There is controversy as to the circumstances of the grandparents being invited to the wedding of the mother and father.
The grandparents attended their daughter’s wedding although there remains contention as to how it occurred. There was a suggestion that they were invited to the ceremony but not the wedding reception.
Unfortunately, the propensity of the parties to delve into detailed dissection of what occurred, what was said and what adverse conclusion could be reached, continued with unrelenting fervour.
In 2014, the parties attended a family event. An altercation ensued involving the father and the maternal grandmother. There is no agreement as to how the unpleasant incident arose however, the maternal grandmother considers that she was reacting to verbal aggression and provocation by the father whereas the father says that the maternal grandmother was intoxicated and resorted to verbal abuse.
The altercation involved the maternal grandmother throwing a glass at the mother and then in the fury of the moment, hit the father’s shoulder with a glass object.
Whilst the parents present with a level of outrage and even a suggestion that they suffered injury and upset (albeit minor), a consideration of the video evidence (exhibit “1”) highlighted that the father retaliated with anger and considerable aggression.
It is a moot point whether the father’s actions can be categorised as self-defence, but it does not detract from the consequences of the incident which was to further widen the chasm between the grandparents and the parents.
The situation was further inflamed by a complaint being made to the police, the maternal grandmother being charged with offences to which she pleaded guilty, albeit with only minimal penalty, and a consent to an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (“ADVO”) being made for a period of twelve months.
As an indicator of the tragic depth to which the parties had arrived at, the maternal grandmother sought an ADVO against the father which was dismissed with costs.
Y was born in 2015. It is likely that the parents did not inform the maternal grandparents that the mother was pregnant.
The maternal grandparents and the parents sought legal advice and an attempt was made to mediate their differences in particular, with respect to a proposal by the maternal grandparents that they have monthly contact with the children and be able to communicate at the midpoint of each calendar month. The parties were unable to reach a resolution and the maternal grandparents commenced proceedings on 24 May 2019. It is an unfortunate observation that the parties have been engaged in litigation for four and a half years.
The parties underwent a Family Assessment conducted by Family Consultant Ms E in October 2021 which resulted in a recommendation that the maternal grandparents spend no time with the children but that they be able to send cards and gifts to the children on certain specified occasions.
It is a reasonable summary of the underlying rationale of the Family Consultant’s recommendations that the exchange of cards and gifts would establish a relationship between the children and their grandparents when ultimately it might be considered in their interests that they spend time with the maternal grandparents.
On 2 February 2023, the maternal grandparents filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking orders in line with the Family Consultant’s recommendations namely, that they be permitted to send cards and/or gifts to the children on specified occasions including the children’s birthday and religious holidays.
Orders were made by consent on 1 March 2023 enabling the grandparents to send cards or gifts to the children on special occasions and further orders were made which required the parties to attend family therapy sessions with Mr F.
It is common ground that the maternal grandparents provided gifts and cards however, the parents say that X and then Y refused to receive them.
Whilst there is no assertion by the parents that the gifts and cards provided by the maternal grandparents were inappropriate, they were not received by the children which then resulted in further disharmony when the maternal grandparents required video or photographic evidence that the children had received their gifts.
The parent’s explanation is that the children have picked up on the nature of the conflict and have decided that if the conduct of the maternal grandparents has made the parents and in particular the mother unhappy, then they will decline to receive any gifts or cards.
In respect of the order made that the parties attend upon Mr F for family therapy sessions for the purpose of discussing the introduction of time between the children and the maternal grandparents and the potential of repairing the fractured relationship as between the parties, following a report from Mr F dated 13 November 2023, it was ultimately determined that family therapy was not suitable.
DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON
The maternal grandparents rely upon the following documents:-
(1)Initiating Application filed 24 May 2019.
(2)Trial affidavit of the maternal grandmother filed 10 October 2023.
(3)Trial affidavit of the maternal grandfather filed 10 October 2023.
(4)Reply affidavit of the maternal grandfather filed 14 November 2023.
(5)Affidavit of Mr G filed 11 October 2023.
The parents rely upon the following documents:
(1)Response to Initiating Application filed 19 July 2019.
(2)Trial affidavit of the mother filed 8 November 2023.
(3)Trial affidavit of the father filed 8 November 2023.
The Court was assisted by comprehensive Outline of Case documents filed prior to the commencement of the proceedings.
The Court also received a Family Assessment Report prepared by Court Child Expert Ms E dated 19 October 2021.
Following the joint instruction to Mr F, family therapist, the Court also received a Family Therapy Assessment Report dated 13 November 2022.
THE EVIDENCE
At the commencement of the trial the Court highlighted the provisions of Division 12A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) and in particular, whether the Court should dispense with the provisions of s 69ZT of the Act and apply the excluded parts of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) (“the Evidence Act”).
Each party filed extensive affidavit material, substantial annexures to affidavits and tender bundles containing documents that were largely irrelevant to the issues requiring determination.
I considered that the principles as set out in s 69ZN of the Act will be better served by receiving the evidence of each of the parties relied upon but exercising my discretion pursuant to s 69ZT(3) of the Act as to the weight which would be given to the evidence.
Neither counsel challenged the stated approach to be taken.
The maternal grandfather
The maternal grandfather was disarmingly forthright in his condemnation of the father. He considered that the father was responsible for the conflict between the mother and the maternal grandparents.
The position of the maternal grandfather is self-evident from the following paragraphs of his affidavit filed 24 May 2019 in support of the orders sought:
30.I am concerned, amongst a lot of other things, with what [the mother]’s son [X] will think one day when he will invariably see a copy of his public birth notice, which appeared in our local [community] newspaper, where his maternal grandparents' names ([Ms Stylianos] and me) and maternal great-grandparents' names are omitted.
31.The omission disturbed me greatly because [the mother] and [the father] would have known what effect it would have on [the maternal grandmother] and me. This was a truly spiteful act.
32.Similarly, I am concerned with what [the mother]’s daughter, [Y], will think when she sees a copy of the public announcement of her birth that appeared in our local [community] newspaper where [the maternal grandmother] and my name are not even mentioned.
33.It seems clear to me that [the mother] and [the father] have created their personal 'genealogical [exclusion]' for their own benefit, which in turn will be to the detriment of their children. It also baffles me that [the mother] and [the father] cannot envision the likely negative reaction that their children may have against them for depriving them for so many years of the other half of their family unit.
34.I would have thought that [the mother] […] would be aware of the inevitable repercussions of her actions on her children. To deny them of their history and family continuity will certainly affect her children's sense of security and belonging.
Given the prominence placed on the event by each of the parties, it was inevitable that the maternal grandfather would be asked about the incident in 2014 at the family event.
There is little doubt that there was a serious altercation between the maternal grandmother and each of the parents. The parties are not agreed as to who should be considered responsible for the incident. Even though the maternal grandmother entered a plea of guilty to the offences, the position adopted by the maternal grandfather is that the maternal grandmother was not the aggressor and, in his opinion, he did not consider that there was anything that would merit or warrant an apology.
It is uncertain whether if an apology had been offered it would have been accepted by the mother enabling what was already a damaging and dysfunctional relationship between the grandparents and the parents to improve.
In his trial affidavit filed 10 October 2023, the maternal grandfather summarises his history with the father as from the commencement of his relationship with the mother in 2004.
It is apparent from the maternal grandfather’s evidence that he considered the father to be a poor influence on the mother and that it was his contention that the father set about to separate the mother from her family for his own malicious and Machiavellian purposes.
The maternal grandfather summarises his assessment of the relationship between the mother and the father at paragraph 70 of his trial affidavit:
70.I found the developing behaviour of [the father] towards [the mother] to be a demanding, testing and controlling one, and this was subsequently borne out by the text messages between them (refer to excerpts below at paragraph 75).
The issue of text messages, as between the parents in the early period of their relationship, is vexing.
It appears that the mother diarised her communication with the father. It would be a reasonable assessment that there were areas of disagreement between the mother and the father in the early stages of their relationship as to the extent to which the father supported the mother’s relationship with her family and the consideration of the father that the mother’s family, in particular her parents, were not accepting of him.
The maternal grandparents found the mother’s handwritten transcript of communication with the father upon her departure from the family home to commence cohabitation with the father.
Those documents were given careful consideration by the maternal grandfather and some excerpts of the transcribed text messages appear at paragraph 75 of his trial affidavit. During the course of cross-examination, the reliability of the extracts was put into question. The original transcribed text messages appear in annexure “MS-3” to the maternal grandfather’s trial affidavit.
There is considerable uncertainty as to what was intended to be achieved by reference to the transcribed text messages.
The chronology of events is that the transcriptions were made in or about 2004. The likely relevance of these documents, some nineteen years later, was a matter that does not appear to have been given much weight or consideration.
At even the most superficial level, the documents were likely to be more prejudicial than probative.
The consequence of the maternal grandparents disclosing these documents has further inflamed the already diminished relationship between the parties.
The mother considers that the use of the documents was a manifest breach of her privacy and trust.
It is apparent from the evidence of the maternal grandfather that he considers the documents to be of high relevance as it underpins the view held by the maternal grandparents that the father is the cause of the breakdown in their relationship with the mother.
An unfortunate thread through the warp and weft of the proceedings is the focus by all parties on their own personal animosity with scant regard for the best interests of the children.
The maternal grandfather, whilst highly motivated in his assessment that the children would benefit from a relationship with the maternal family and to deny them that opportunity would be to their detriment, is nonetheless determined to show that it is the father who is the source of the family relationship breakdown.
It is not likely that the attitude of the maternal grandfather will change.
The maternal grandmother
The evidence of the maternal grandmother was similar to that of the maternal grandfather. She has no doubt that the problem at the heart of the relationship breakdown and their inability to have a relationship with the grandchildren lies with the father and his desire to control the mother, a feature of which is to keep her separate from her family.
The maternal grandmother was asked to reflect on her motive for tearing up the picture of the mother at aged three years and sending it to her. Whilst admitting that it was hurtful, she was not prepared to resile from her reasons for doing so namely, to send a message to the mother that she was rejected.
What is not apparent is the extent to which the maternal grandmother should have anticipated the upset and distress likely to be caused to the mother.
The maternal grandmother was questioned closely as to the circumstances of the altercation at the family event in 2014.
Part of the cross-examination involved the Court being shown a video of the altercation between the parties (exhibit “1”).
There was no suggestion in circumstances where the maternal grandmother entered a plea of guilty that the Court would be asked to come to a different assessment.
I doubted the utility of receiving detailed evidence as to the incident in circumstances where all parties acknowledged that the altercation occurred, that it was distressing and added to the already appalling relationship between the maternal grandparents and the parents.
Having considered the vision of the altercation, it is apparent that the maternal grandmother was not alone in her aggressive conduct. The response by the father toward the maternal grandmother was shocking in its aggression.
It is not a matter for me to decide whether the father’s actions could be considered as a proper response or that he was acting in self-defence. What is obvious is the level of anger and aggression on display.
Whatever relationship may have existed before the altercation, it ceased to exist thereafter.
I accept that the maternal grandmother considers very deeply the loss of a relationship with the children. X and Y would not have any knowledge of the maternal grandparents.
At the conclusion of the evidence of the maternal grandmother, I am unable to find that she is able to look beyond her own dislike of the father and as such, the mother finds herself effectively having to choose between her husband or the maternal family.
Mr G
Mr G is the mother’s brother. His affidavit of 11 October 2023 is before me without the need for him to be called for cross-examination.
The evidence of Mr G is of limited assistance however, it does highlight the tragedy of the situation in which the children find themselves namely, that they have no relationship and may not necessarily even be aware of the mother’s two siblings and their cousins.
The evidence of Mr G is a convenient summary of the gravamen of the proceedings namely, the extent to which the children will or will not be disadvantaged by spending time with the extended maternal family.
The mother
The mother summarised her relationship with her parents and in particular, the maternal grandmother as difficult, manipulative and controlling. The mother’s relationship with the maternal grandmother has always been tenuous and redolent with argument and dispute.
A particular focus has been on the mother’s perception that the maternal grandparents were not accepting of her various relationships and in particular, that they were highly critical and disparaging of the father.
Since the mother left the home of the maternal grandparents in or about 2005, she has had very limited relationship with them.
As an indication of the toxic nature of the relationship, the mother complained about the attendance by her parents at her wedding given that they were not welcome.
Much evidence was given as to whether the maternal grandparents were or were not invited to the wedding which again, misses the point that the inability of the parties to reconcile their differences, even at the wedding of the mother and the father, is another milestone in the continuing deterioration of the family relationship and the potential benefit that might inure to the children having a relationship with both the paternal and maternal families.
The mother was forthright in her opposition to either her having a relationship with the maternal grandparents or her being prepared or able to support a relationship as between then and the children.
The very nature of these proceedings has caused the mother considerable stress.
The mother’s position is summarised in trial affidavit as follows:-
32.[The father] and I have made the decision together that we do not want my parents involved with our children's lives. This was a very considered decision based on my relationship with my parents. I have struggled with this decision over many years and on occasion, have made attempts to re-establish my relationship with my parents however, after countless failed attempts, I have come to the conclusion that I no longer wish to pursue any relationship with my parents.
33.The situation with my parents has caused me irreversible trauma and stress and I am fearful that my parents will continue harassing me through every means possible.
34.I believe it is in my children’s best interests not to have any relationship with my parents. I believe there is a risk of harm to both myself and the children if my children were to have contact with my parents.
The mother did concede that at one point in time her family was important to her but that the continued stress and demands made of her, particularly in relation to the attitude of the maternal family towards the father, was a bridge too far.
The mother was asked to consider the contents of a letter sent by her to the religious leader who was to solemnise her marriage to the father. The content of the correspondence is self‑explanatory and is set out as follows:[1]
Dear […],
As you have requested, I am writing to you an email to pass on to my parents. [The father] and I agree that it is time to move on with our lives.
There will be no further coffees or communication. We are extremely happy in our lives and are very much looking forward to being married by you in just under 12 weeks time and celebrating […] with those who are close to us.
In light of this, I extend a warm invitation to my parents and those around them to attend [a wedding event], should they wish to be present […], however it is my choice, that they not participate in our happiest of moments, but only be spectators to it. As for the reception, it is a private function generously paid for by my future in‑laws, and so is exclusively for our friends and [the father]'s family and their friends.
[The father] and I pray that time and further help brings my parents to better mental health. I wish that they should find the happiness in their lives that [the father] and I have in ours, a happiness I looking forward to sharing with him in our marriage.
[The mother]
[1] Annexure “MS-2” to the maternal grandfather’s affidavit filed 14 November 2023.
The mother conceded that the communication was completely unnecessary and moreover was designed to be hurtful and disingenuous.
Annexure MS-6 to the trial affidavit of the maternal grandfather is a Facebook page of a local community leader who was congratulating the maternal grandfather on receiving a community service award.
The public notice highlighted the involvement of the maternal grandfather in the local religious community and considered that he was “an inspiration to the community through his decade long volunteering efforts to [H Organisation]”.
For reasons that could only be explained by a malicious intent, the father posted the following comment in response to the public notice, on the Facebook page:
This gentleman, [the maternal grandfather], stood by after his wife assaulted their daughter (for which she plead guilty in local court) and did so without care or humility. To give a community honour to a person who volunteers his time to children but is unable to care for his own makes a mockery of this award.
The mother agreed that the father’s language used towards the maternal grandmother which allegedly provoked her response was as follows:[2]
How is your father, when is he going to die…we know your mother is dead and we are happy about that.
[2] Maternal grandmother’s affidavit filed 10 October 2023, paragraphs100-101.
The mother accepted that the father’s language at times could be described as appalling.
Consequent upon recent orders made, the parties agreed that they would explore the potential to resolve their differences by engaging in family therapy. Mr F was the agreed family therapist.
It is accepted that after four sessions to assess the ability of the parties to engage in more detailed and ongoing therapy, the process came to an end.
Whilst there is some disagreement as to whose conduct might be considered the more egregious, the mother accepted that the father’s language in describing the maternal grandparents as ‘revolting human beings’, that the children did not give “a shit” about the maternal grandparents and a further flow of appalling, objectionable and humiliating language in regards to the maternal grandparents, was not acceptable.
The mother’s reaction to being reminded of the language used by the father in describing the maternal grandparents was unconvincing.
So extreme was the language that the mother accepted that the only proper response was that the behaviour of the father was inappropriate. The mother’s evidence on the topic was given without conviction.
As discussed, the parents run a business of high note and reputation.
The mother was reminded of the “Mission Statement” attached to their business.
Orders were made on 1 March 2023, by consent, that required the parents to provide to the children any gifts or cards from the maternal grandparents to celebrate certain special occasions and religious holidays.
The mother contends that when a gift was presented to X in 2023 to celebrate his birthday, X rejected the gift and the mother did not press that it be opened. Similarly, when the children were given gifts from the maternal grandparents to celebrate a religious holiday, Y at age eight, rejected the gift.
It is apparent that neither of the children have had any direct relationship with the maternal grandparents. All that they could possibly know must emanate from the home of the parents.
If the gifts and cards were rejected by the children, it could only be as a result of the narrative created by the parents and not from their direct knowledge or understanding of the internecine conflict between their parents and the maternal grandparents.
The mother was not able to adequately explain why there had not been compliance with the Court order which, was made by consent.
I am easily able to find that the rejection of gifts and cards by the children could not have been an informed position and that if pressed to do so, with appropriate support from the parents, the gifts and cards would have been received.
An example of one of the gifts was revealed by the father when he opened it to be an age‑appropriate chemistry set for X.
The mother’s evidence was unconvincing that the basis upon which the gifts were not received by the children was as a result of their refusal.
If the children did refuse the gifts, I find that their refusal was convenient for the mother. The mother’s position became clear towards the conclusion of her evidence when she properly conceded that there was no circumstance where she welcomed the involvement of the maternal grandparents in her family and the lives of the children. In particular, she considered it an afront that her decision as to how her family should be managed and the relationships that the children should have would be challenged by the maternal grandparents.
The evidence of the mother as to the conversations purportedly had with the children is unreliable. Given it is the only evidence of the wishes and views of the children, little weight can be given to the purported refusal of the children to receive gifts and cards and the implied rejection of a relationship with the maternal grandparents.
Given the mother’s involvement with children and separated parties, it is surprising that the mother would not have more regard to the terms and conditions of the Consent Order to enable the maternal grandparents to provide gifts and cards to the children with the further consequential obligation on the parents to promote the order.
It is to be remembered that the concept of gifts and cards arose as part of the strategy inherent in the recommendations of the Family Consultant that there needed to be a foundation for a relationship to be developed between the children and the maternal grandparents before there was any physical contact. The terms of the Consent Order were also in anticipation of the parties attending upon Mr F for therapeutic assistance with the hope of reconciling their differences. Whilst I accept that there are deep-seated relationship issues between the mother and the maternal grandparents however, the readiness by which the mother has allowed those issues to impact upon the children such that she could not be considered child focused and lacking real insight as to the damage that is likely to be occasioned to the children by matters that are outside of their control.
The father
The father did not admit that all of the inappropriate language attributed to him occurred, but he did concede that he had referred to the maternal grandparents as “revolting human beings” and that they “gained sexual gratification from viewing their daughter’s distress”.
The father did concede that there would be a potential benefit to the grandchildren if a relationship could be fostered but in the current circumstances and emotional climate, that was unlikely.
The father railed against the conduct of the maternal grandparents and considered that he and the mother were the subject of constant harassment and that their relationship was not supported.
A matter of significant concern to the father was the application by the maternal grandparents to seek to annul their marriage in the eyes of their religious faith.
Both he and the mother engaged in strategies to control anxiety and trauma arising out of the litigation and the prospect of the maternal grandparent’s application meeting with success and orders being made that would bring them into contact with the children.
The father referred to the family therapy that arose out of the Consent Orders of 1 March 2023. The father’s contention was that he found the therapy sessions uncomfortable and quickly came to the view that the maternal grandparents did not have any intention to try and effect a repair of the relationship but rather only to focus on the grandchildren.
It is a reasonable observation that any concessions that were to be made by the mother and the father could only occur if there was some level of reconciliation of the relationship between the parties.
The following extract appears in Mr F’s report dated 13 November 2023:-
27.[The father] feels that he has never been welcomed into the [Stylianos] family, that he has been treated with suspicion and that they have weaponized his admission that he sought help for his anger. He is concerned about the ongoing impact of the [maternal grandparent]’s decision to pursue this through the court which feels like a form of harassment of himself, [the mother], and their family.
28.The emotional environment during these sessions may be described as intensely anxiety provoking. Accusations and counter-accusations were felt to be intensely persecutory and were reacted to with defensiveness and/or aggressive counter-attacks.
29.Despite his stated intentions, which I thought to have been genuinely held at the time they were expressed, [the father] was reactive and provocative during the sessions; he goaded and provoked the [the maternal grandparents] and when they reacted, he attacked them. This suggests that when feeling threatened, he is inclined to feel persecuted and to react with hostility-aggression. Under such conditions, it appears difficult for him to hold a more reflective stance and a more benign, trusting position towards the [maternal grandparents]. However, he was observed to oscillate between these extremes over the course of our meetings.
The father accepted that the therapeutic assessment came to an end when the mother and the father did not consider that the maternal grandparents had shown appropriate remorse for harmful actions and the father retaliated with high level of verbal abuse.
The father conceded that he had held a belief that the maternal grandparents were “mentally unhealthy”.
Of greater moment arises from the father’s evidence as to the intentions of the parties to the Consent Order of 1 March 2023.
The father’s evidence was unimpressive and readily allowed a finding that he had no positive intention at the time of entering into the Consent Order to comply with it and that the children were never likely to see the maternal grandparents.
It is difficult to understand the motivation of the father in circumstances where his complaint about the behaviour of the maternal grandparents is overshadowed by his lack of insight and inability to self-regulate his emotional lability resorting to verbal abuse that was intended to cause hurt and upset.
Whilst not directly relevant to the issues as between the parties, the father was asked to refer to annexure MS-26 to the trial affidavit of the maternal grandfather which is correspondence passing between the father and his mother conveyed on the letterhead of the parents’ business.
To the extent that the correspondence relates to the children albeit in respect of a dispute between the father and the paternal grandparents, the content of the communication is relevant:
Hi Mum,
Just following on from our conversation this morning concerning my fathers latest psychosis (I’ve attached the picture below), I wanted to reiterate that my last email to you both was no idle threat. Whilst I’ve no intention to stop the kids from seeing you, I will have no compunction about placing restrictions on seeing the children that you and my father will find highly unpleasant.
[The mother]’s well founded concern is that my father seems to believe that disconnection and lack of control are synonyms. I can only assume that he uses his [social media] account as a forum to get a reaction from [the mother] – which he got. However, [the mother] loses nothing from this transaction, nor do I. You, despite seemingly being blissfully unaware, will lose much as a result of my fathers inability to control himself.
The next time I receive a reasonable complaint from [the mother] in relation to my fathers approach to my family, I will be introducing you to a lovely woman called [Ms J]. [Ms J] is a […] social worker with around 20 years of counselling experience who has been a contact worker for [K Family Services] for the last 18 months. She has agreed (should the need arise – and it does seem to be rising) to be your allocated contact worker. She’s really quite lovely and I’m sure it wont take long before you forget she is even there.
Now we both know that you would never accept these conditions. In which case, you will be disconnected from your grandchildren until you do.
Test me if you must.
Kind regards,
[the father]
(As per original)
It is notable that the father sought to emphasise the message to the paternal grandparents by including a photograph of his mother and X presumably to emphasise what she will be missing.
The reference to the paternal grandfather’s social media account also has relevance initially included excerpts copied from online correspondence between the father and the paternal grandfather as set out at paragraph 151 of the maternal grandfather’s trial affidavit.
Whilst the background is unimportant, it appears that the father and the paternal grandfather had a commercial dispute over premises that were leased from the paternal grandparents and such was the hostility generated by the dispute that the following exerts of the exchange sent by the father to the paternal grandfather assumes relevance:
8 September 2015
"You have no credibility. No integrity. Just a greedy little […] mummy's boy who bully's people. Dumb Fuck. You can't win. Even if you evict me you lose. You've lost. You 're a loser. For the rest of your life. Dumb. Fuck."
And then on 9 September 2015:
"I'll be paying the rent. But you will always be a greedy little mummy's boy […] with no relationship with my family. Dumb. Fuck. "
And then by way of further communication on the same day:
"You better get used to two dimensional images of your grandson. Because you are only in rare circumstances going to be seeing him in real life. You lose. You've lost. You're a loser in a ute for the rest of your life […]. GREEDY LITTLE […] MUMMAS BOY. DUMB. FUCK. "
The father did not resile from the detail of the communication with his parents.
The concern highlighted by the father’s admitted communication is not the hurt and upset that were likely caused to his parents but rather the possibility and potential for the father to weaponize the children if that is what he considers will achieve the desired outcome or be likely to cause the most distress and hurt.
I do not bring to account the historically dysfunctional relationship between the father and his parents as similar fact evidence but to raise the concern that the focus of the father, and likely the mother, is not necessarily centred upon a real belief that if the maternal grandparents spent time with the children for a few hours once a month that there would be any risk occasioned to them.
It is possible the maternal grandparents will never be supportive of the father’s relationship with the mother but that is qualitatively different to the advantages and disadvantages that would be experienced by the children following a consideration of the separate proposals of each of the parties.
The father’s evidence was given with little remorse for the consequences of his ill-considered behaviour and raises the very real risk that the children will be told a false narrative of why it is that they have a relationship now with the extended paternal family but no relationship with the maternal extended family.
The father’s evidence was devoid of insight and he did not impress as sincere or prepared to focus on the best interests of the children.
He was resolute in his intention steadfast against the maternal grandparents and presented as being scornful of their application to spend time with the children.
An aspect of concern is that the father’s admitted verbal abuse directed towards the maternal grandparents would constitute evidence of family violence. Given the interest of the father in the business that he conducts with the mother, such behaviour would seem to be the very antithesis of their business ethos.
The father did not present as an impressive witness.
The family therapist
Consequent upon Consent Orders made 1 March 2023, the parties agreed to jointly instruct Mr F to undertake a therapeutic assessment to ascertain whether the parties may be able to resolve their relationship issues and establish a civil and courteous basis enabling the children to develop a relationship with the extended maternal family.
Following a joint letter of instruction dated 6 September 2023, Mr F prepared a Family Therapy Assessment Report dated 13 November 2023 ("his report").
Mr F confirmed that the initial sessions were only for the purpose of assessing the family’s suitability to engage in therapy. Joint appointments via zoom were conducted on 13, 20 and 27 June 2023 and 15 August 2023.
Consistent with long history of dispute and conflict, Mr F recorded that the maternal grandparents were distressed at not being able to have a relationship with the grandchildren in circumstances where the mother and father are determined that such a relationship should not occur.
For their part, the mother and father consider that the maternal grandparents are not prepared to take any responsibility for the hurt and distress that they have caused in particular, arising out of their vitriol towards the father.
It is reasonable to summarise the evidence of Mr F by reference to paragraph 32 of his report:
32.Such a rigid stance enraged [the mother and father] and confirmed their fears about [the maternal grandparents] either not having insight into and/or failing to take responsibility and show appropriate remorse for their harmful actions towards [the mother and father]. This in turn gave rise to the name calling and verbal abuse which resulted in [the maternal grandparents] deciding not to participate in any further sessions.
Whilst Mr F did his best to keep the parties on track, it is apparent that his best endeavours were unsuccessful and the parties were not prepared to engage in any compromise of their entrenched positions.
Mr F was expansive in his attempt to explain the psychology behind the conduct of the parties and their apparent inability to reach any consensus.
Whilst not the remit of Mr F to provide an opinion other than as to whether there would be utility in future therapy being undertaken, I accept his concern that the children would remain the centre of the conflict if there was an order that they spend time with the maternal grandparents and that this concerns is broadly corroborative of the evidence presented. Mr F’s evidence highlights three significant issues:
(1)That if the children spent time with the maternal grandparents they may communicate (not necessarily intentionally) to the children their view of the mother and in particular the father;
(2)The father may well suffer an extreme reaction if time spending is ordered such that their ability to properly parent the children may be affected; and
(3)That it is difficult to envisage a process by which the parties could reconcile their differences.
Family Consultant
Ms E conducted a Family Assessment in September and October 2021 and delivered a Family Assessment Report dated 19 October 2021.
Ms E correctly identified the risk factors and issues in dispute. It is an unfortunate observation that the matters that confounded the parties in 2021 had not abated over the two years leading up to the final hearing.
Ms E summarised her concerns for the children in the following paragraph:
60.The Court Child Expert suggested that as [X] and [Y] mature, they will, inevitably, become increasingly conscious of only seeing one side of their family. [The parents] agreed and said that they intend to answer any questions the children may have and that they also plan to consult with professionals (such as a manager of their [business], who is also a psychologist, and a psychiatrist who also provides a service to the [business]) about how they talk to the children. In a later phone conversation, [the father] said that they may consult more widely, such as with their family doctor and with a therapist they have been seeing intermittently over the last ten years.
As at 2021, Ms E observed that the mother’s position had hardened and was now resolved that any further attempts to mediate or resolve her differences with the maternal grandparents was futile.
Ms E recorded that the mother and father considered they should be able to exercise their decision that the children have no relationship with the maternal grandparents. They were not able to understand how or why the maternal grandparents would seek to challenge their decision. The evidence of the mother and the father confirmed that the position adopted by them in 2021 remains consistent up to the trial.
An important consideration was the potential for the children to be deprived of a relationship with the maternal grandparents and also, the extended maternal family. The potential for trauma, distress and upset being occasioned to the children is not restricted to their minority years but rather has the potential to impact adversely on their ability as young adults to form relationships and to navigate family dynamics.
The potential for the children to seek an understanding about the extended maternal family is heightened by the evidence of the mother and father that the children now have a good relationship with the paternal grandparents and extended family.
At the time, Ms E considered that it would be premature for there to be orders made that would bring the children into contact with the maternal grandparents. She did consider that eventually it should occur in order to normalise the children’s ability to understand their position in the world and the issues in respect of their extended paternal and maternal families.
Ms E recommended that there be a period of two years during which the maternal grandparents could send gifts, cards and letters to the children so that when the time came for the children to be introduced formally to the maternal grandparents, they would not be complete strangers but rather there will have been developed a level of familiarity.
In evidence, Ms E did not resile from her opinion that the children would benefit from an understanding of their paternal and maternal families but that the groundwork needed to be done as was considered appropriate by the Consent Order promoting the giving of gifts and cards to the children on nominated occasions.
An interesting aspect of Ms E’s evidence was her consideration that as the children get older, they necessarily become more robust in their ability to compartmentalise the conflicted emotions of the parties and the point is likely to be reached when they can self-protect.
Ms E did not agree that it would be in the interests of the children to not have any relationship with the maternal grandparents or the extended family.
The difficulty is how to navigate the unyielding attitude of the maternal grandparents and the refusal of the mother and father to accept that they should be the subject of any order that would reinstate the relationship.
Ms E was surprised that the mother has remained so aggrieved and still experiences cumulative stress after 20 years. The mother should be able to shield the children from her anxiety.
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
I consider it necessary that I adopt the approach that considers the practical reality of the separate parenting proposals of the parties.
Section 60CA of the Act requires that I have the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. The best interest test is to be considered by the application of the objects of s 60B(1) of the Act and the underlying principles in s 60B(2) of the Act.
I am cognisant of the primary and additional considerations in respect of the matters as set out in s 60CC(2) and (3) of the Act noting that not all of the statutory provisions apply in circumstances where the dispute is as between the parents and the maternal grandparents.
I propose to adopt the following approach:
(1)Give consideration to the separate proposals put by each of the parties as they were identified and presented to the Court;
(2)Have regard to the objects expressed in s 60B(1) of the Act and the underlying principles in s 60B(2) of the Act;
(3)Have regard to the provisions of s 60CC of the Act in order to determine in each case what is in the child's best interests;
(4)Have regard to the primary considerations under s 60CC(2) of the Act namely, the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents and the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm;
(5)Have regard to additional considerations under s 60CC(3) of the Act; and
(6)The evidence adduced by each of the parties in respect of the particular considerations pursuant to s 60CC(2) and s 60CC(3) of the Act are to be considered and if more weight is to be given to one or more of the matters raised, then it must be the subject of delineation and comment.
PARENTING CONSIDERATIONS
I bring to account that the primary considerations pursuant to s 60CC(2) of the Act that relate to the benefit to a child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents.
Whilst the subsection does not apply in circumstances where the consideration of the best interests of the children is focussed on the extent to which, if any, the children should have a relationship with the maternal grandparents, the breadth and scope of subsection 60CC(M) of the Act enables a consideration of the advantages and disadvantages to the children of having a relationship with the maternal grandparents.
As Murphy J said in Baglio & Baglio [2013] FamCA 105 at [111] "a chance of a meaningful relationship…which is beneficial to" the child was likely to be to the child's advantage and that the absence of such a relationship had "the potential to cause [the child] harm in the long term".
The Court is required to focus on the practicality of each of the party's proposal and to consider the factors in s 60CC of the Act (or to the extent that they are applicable) in relation to the circumstances of each case.
At present, the children do not have a relationship with the maternal grandparents. The mother and father see no utility in the relationship, or if there is, do not consider that it outweighs their entrenched position that if there is to be a relationship, it should be determined by them.
In respect of the proceedings, the maternal grandparents are committed to pursuing a relationship and consider that the advantages to the children of re-establishing a relationship with them and by necessary implication, the extended maternal family outweigh the disadvantage of the opposition of the parents and the potential for the children to become more directly enmeshed in the twenty year conflict ongoing between the parties.
The evidence supports a finding that each of the parties considered there would be an advantage to the children having a relationship with the maternal family if the relationship conflict could be dealt with.
The maternal grandparents want a relationship. The mother and father conceded in evidence that all other things being equal, a relationship with the maternal grandparents would ordinarily be to the children’s best interests. They recognise the benefit to the children of a relationship with extended family by the promotion of such a relationship with the paternal family.
The father went to some length to explain why the level of dysfunction in his relationship with the paternal grandparents was able to be resolved so that theirs and the children’s relationship with them could be normalised.
The parties consented to Consent Orders on 1 March 2023 which had as their foundation, a desire to explore a potential resolution to the relationship conflict with the maternal grandparents expressly for the purpose of providing a proper basis for the children to be reintroduced to the maternal extended family.
The Consent Orders of 1 March 2023 were built on the recommendations of the Family Consultant in 2021.
The evidence of Ms E both as contained in her report but updated in her oral evidence supported a relationship being developed on the basis that it is generally considered in a child’s best interest to have a rich and generous relationship with extended family and that as the subject children age they will naturally become more inquisitive as to their extended maternal family given what appears to be now an intact and beneficial relationship that they have with the paternal extended family.
I find that there is an advantage to the children in having a relationship with the maternal grandparents. The question for determination is whether the likely benefit in doing so outweighs the potential for detriment.
Children’s wishes
The only indication of the children’s wishes is as a result of the evidence of the discussion and conversation purportedly between the children and the parents.
The evidence of the mother and the father on the topic of the children’s views, particularly in the context of whether they should receive gifts and cards from the maternal grandparents, is unreliable.
The children could have had no direct contact with the maternal grandparents.
If the evidence of discussion and conversation between the children and each of the mother and the father is accurate, then their perceived refusal to accept gifts and cards is as a result of the environment created by their parents.
The concern for these children is that there is a false narrative developed by the parents which is fuelled by a personal dislike not an objective consideration of where these children find themselves with their relationship with their extended maternal and paternal families.
It is apparent from the evidence that each of the maternal and paternal extended families have the potential to offer much to these children. There is a richness of culture and beneficial relationships available to these children if they are allowed to have an opportunity to benefit from a greater level of involvement.
The evidence of the Family Consultant does not suggest that significant weight should be placed upon the wishes of the children but rather a cautious approach should be adopted hence the recommendations in 2021 that the foundation of the relationship with the maternal grandparents should be commenced by the giving of gifts and cards before physical contact commences.
The mother also gave evidence that she had prepared a family tree so that the children could gain some understanding of the maternal extended family.
Significant caution must be exercised in circumstances where the evidence supports a finding that any views expressed by the children must of necessity be ill informed.
The nature of the relationship of the child with other persons
At present, the children have no relationship with the maternal grandparents. There is no evidence to suggest that but for the ongoing relationship conflict between the parties, there are other factors that would not allow the relationship to develop.
I do not ignore the potential for the children to be placed at some level of risk by the rigid position that appears to be adopted by the maternal grandparents in respect of the mother and the father. The lack of insight by all of the parties that puts aside the benefit that could flow to the children of a relationship with the maternal grandparents in favour of ongoing and enmeshed conflict is stark and should give each of the parties cause to reflect upon what could only be described as selfish conduct.
The capacity of each of the child’s parents and any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child) to provide for the needs of the child including emotional and intellectual needs
The level of time spending sought by the maternal grandparents is limited to a few hours on one occasion in each calendar month. The initial introduction is to be by way of supervised time.
For reasons that are not clear, the maternal grandparents appear unable to reconcile their differences with the mother and the father. The proceedings were litigated on the basis that each party sought a finding that vindicated their view or belief of the conduct of the other party.
It is a window into the motivation of the parties that there was scant evidence provided that assisted the Court in determining what would be in these children’s best interests in terms of the competing orders sought by the parties.
The paternal grandparents are people of high intellect, long experience in the community with each of them having gained public recognition. It is reasonable to find that each of the maternal grandparents would have the requisite capacity to provide benefit to the children without the detriment of their deep-seated conflict with the children’s parents.
For reasons that have their genesis in the early years of their relationship with their daughter, they appear to be incapable at this moment in time of putting their own interests above those of the children.
The position adopted by the parents is in many respects more surprising given they run a seemingly successful business that provides family services.
Moreover, the mother and father both referred to the considerable support that they would have from therapists and psychologists that they either employ or utilise under contract.
Whilst none of the parties impress as being child focussed at this stage, I am able to find that each of the parties have the capacity to provide a nurturing and beneficial environment in which the children can thrive and develop if they are only able to put aside their differences.
Culture and tradition
The parties are strong adherence to their religious faith.
The maternal grandfather was given public recognition for his services to the religious community. His endeavours are strongly supported and supplemented by the maternal grandmother.
I have already discussed the deep engagement of the mother and father in the religious community particularly as to the importance of their wedding being conducted consistent with traditional principles and practices.
The children would find support in their religious faith and culture in the homes of the maternal and paternal grandparents supported by the parents.
Family violence
Historically, the conduct of the parties that descends to family violence is difficult to reconcile with the high functioning, intellect and practical skills of each of the parties.
I acknowledge that the altercation which occurred at the family event in 2014 was an appalling example of unnecessary aggression.
I do not diminish the poor conduct of the maternal grandmother in striking the father with a table ornament. I also accept that the father was keen to express hurtful remarks designed to cause upset and distress.
The reaction of the father to the assault of the maternal grandmother was disproportionate.
The very fact that the incident, now ten years old, features so prominently in the presentation of each of the parties is telling.
Whilst a button pressed faintly, the father conceded with some reluctance that his language used towards the maternal grandparents was appalling. I do not find that the nature of the father’s vitriolic attack on the maternal grandparents is as a result of spontaneous outburst but rather language designed to upset, offend and cause hurt.
There is an unfortunate pattern as to the father’s conduct in considering the evidence of his relationship in 2015 with the paternal grandparents.
The very idea that the father would attempt to weaponize the children in order to gain an advantage over his parents in what appears to have been a commercial dispute is difficult to reconcile with the nature of his business.
The parties have each behaved without any appreciable level of insight but if a conservative approach is taken, I find the parties have the capacity to focus on the needs of these children rather than their own self-absorbed conflict.
Any other relevant matters
The evidence of the family consultant confirms that which is instinctively apparent namely that where there is extended family that is able to present with a richness of culture and an ability to support and allow children to develop and achieve their maximum potential, such an opportunity should not be denied to them unless it would place them at significant risk.
I do not consider that the disadvantages to the children resuming a relationship with the maternal grandparents, albeit on a very limited basis, outweighs the advantages to the children of a further opportunity to benefit from establishing a relationship with them.
In order to balance the competing interests of the parties, but also to provide them with an opportunity to reassess how they are to go forward, I propose to put in place an order that enables the maternal grandparents to provide gifts and cards on the same basis as the Consent Order for a period of one year.
I do not accept that the parents used their best endeavours to promote the children receiving gifts and cards that had been sent by the maternal grandparents. As such, the order will require the parents to forward communication and correspondence from the children acknowledging that they have received the gifts and cards.
It is a simple and straight forward exercise consistent with common courtesy. If the children perceive that the mother and father are supportive of gifts being received, then the evidence supports a finding that they will have no separate and independent opposition to doing so.
Thereafter orders will be made in terms of the maternal grandparents’ application.
The evidence of the Family Consultant supports a relationship continuing once a foundation has been established. I also note the evidence that as time passes, the children will be able to self-protect and better deal with the relationship dispute not of their making.
An advantage arises as the children age in that they are able to report egregious conduct should it occur when they spend time with the maternal grandparents.
It is an essential aspect of the orders that are to be made which has the potential for the children to resume a relationship with the maternal grandparents that they create an environment where the children would understand that their relationship with their parents is supported. If the maternal grandparents are unable to resile from their current position of opposition and open hostility, that is likely to be a sufficient basis for the orders to be reconsidered.
I make orders as appear at the commencement of these reasons.
I certify that the preceding two hundred and thirty-seven (237) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Berman. Associate:
Dated: 14 December 2023