Wa and Lin and Ors

[2014] FamCA 681

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WA & LIN AND ORS [2014] FamCA 681

FAMILY LAW – Oral application for parenting orders – young child who has been in primary care of third party – best interests – continuity of care in some respects – s 11F assessment – consider transfer to Federal Circuit Court after determination of interim applications

APPLICANT: Ms Wa

RESPONDENT: Mr Lin

SECOND RESPONDENT: Mr A Lin

THIRD RESPONDENT: Ms B Wa

INTERVENOR:

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: MLC 6923 of 2014

DATE DELIVERED: 11 August 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Bennett J

HEARING DATE: 11 August 2014

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Leeton

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Taussig Cherrie Fildes

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Ben-Simon

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Longton Legal

COUNSEL FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT: In Person

COUNSEL FOR THE THIRD RESPONDENT: In Person

Orders

BY CONSENT IT IS ORDERED:

1.That the service and hearing time of the Applicant’s Wife’s Amended Application in a Case dated 10 August 2014 be abridged to this day.

2.      That until further order, save as required in compliance with paragraph 3 of these Orders and paragraph 7 of the Orders made by this Honourable Court on 7 August 2014 (“Orders”), the Second and Third Respondents be and are hereby restrained by injunction from disposing of, or alienating, transferring or in any manner dealing with the funds which were removed by the Respondent Husband from Westpac account BSB … account number … (“Joint Account”), being the $150,000 or similar sum paid by the Respondent Husband to them or on their behalf and deposited into the Westpac Choice account styled in their name and numbered BSB … account number … (“Account”) or the proceeds thereof. For the avoidance of doubt, this injunction pertains to any withdrawals from the said account of the Second and Third Respondents made whether by cheque signed by or on behalf of either of them or otherwise.

3.      That the Second and Third Respondents forthwith sign the letter addressed to the Westpac Banking Corporation and marked “Annexure B” to the Amended Application in a Case filed on 11 August 2014 and otherwise do all such further acts and things and sign all such further documents as may be required to pay the sum of $150,000 being the funds paid by the Respondent Husband to them or on their behalf and deposited into the Account, to the solicitors for the Applicant Wife, to be in held in trust in an interest-bearing account for the parties and to be disbursed only in accordance with joint written instructions from all parties or by further order of this Honourable Court, the wife, husband, Second Respondent and Third Respondent to forthwith do all such acts, and sign all such documents, as are required to establish said interest-bearing account.

4.      In the event that the Second and Third Respondents fail, or refuse, to sign the letter addressed to the Westpac Banking Corporation or any other documents necessary to give effect to paragraph 3 of these Orders, a Registrar or Deputy Registrar of this Honourable Court be authorised, and hereby appointment pursuant to section 106A of the Family Law Act1975, to sign any document for, and on behalf of, and in the name of the Second and Third Respondents, at their expense.

5.      That the solicitors for the Applicant Wife notify the Proper Officer of the Westpac Banking Corporation of the effect and content of these Orders and serve a sealed copy of these Orders upon the Proper Officer of the Westpac Banking Corporation as soon as practicable.

6.      That within twenty one (21) days, the Respondent Husband file a Response to Initiating Application, Financial Statement and Affidavit.

7.      That within twenty one (21) days, the Second and Third Respondents file a Response to an Application in a Case and any Affidavit upon which they seek to rely.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY CONSENT:

8.That the applicant wife retain the sum of $19,400 withdrawn from the Joint Account by the wife and such amount be characterised by further Orders by the Trial Judge.

9.Within seven (7) days, the wife and the husband do all such acts, and sign all such documents, as are required to give all necessary and proper instructions to Morton & Morton, managing agents, as may be required to cause the rental income received with respect to the real property situate at, and known as, C Street, Sydney, more particularly described as the whole of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Folio …, in accordance with the authority annexed to these Orders and marked Annexure “B”.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

10.These proceedings be adjourned to 18 September 2014 in the Senior Registrar’s Duty List at 10.00 am (“the adjourned date”) for a further determination of interim parenting issues concerning the child D born …2011 (“the child”).

11.In anticipation of the hearing before the Senior Registrar, each party exchange with the other parties a minute of the Orders which he/she seeks be made on the adjourned date and have such minute available to be handed up to the Senior Registrar at 10.00 am on the adjourned date.

12.In anticipation of the interim and adjourned hearing, each party file and serve all affidavit material or proofs of evidence in support of his/her case, as follows:-

a)      The applicant wife by 15 September 2014;

b)      The respondent husband by 15 September 2014;

c)      The paternal grandparents by 15 September 2014 including a description by them of the extent to which they want to continue to participate in this proceeding;

d)      independent children’s lawyer by 17 September 2014;

and by 17 September 2014 the independent children’s lawyer publish to the parties his/her preliminary view of what orders should be made at the hearing before the Senior Registrar.

13.Each party has leave to contact Registrars Riddiford or Sikiotis – email - to arrange to have this matter listed for mention before himself or herself or before me, on notice to all other parties, to seek any further directions as any party considers are necessary to ensure that the matter is ready for trial or to narrow the issues in dispute.

14.Each party produce a complete copy of his/her passport(s) current at any stage over the last three years, from which his/her departure from and return to Australia for the last three years will be apparent, and the mother be responsible for producing the child’s passport, all such copies to be sent by email to my Associate – email … – and, when received, a hard copy be placed on the Court file as an exhibit and any party who searches the Court file be at liberty to inspect and copy those documents.

15.Until further order, each party is at liberty to cause subpoena(s) to issue returnable in any subpoena list until the final hearing or on any date appointed by Registrars Riddiford or Sikiotis for the return of subpoena or on any date notified to the parties by my Chambers for the return of subpeoana(s).

16.Pursuant to section 68L(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 the interests of the child D born … 2011 be independently represented by a lawyer AND IT IS REQUESTED that Victoria Legal Aid arrange such representation and the independent children’s lawyer be appointed in sufficient time to be able to make recommendations about what further interim parenting orders would be in the best interest of the child on the adjourned date and, in the meantime, to attempt to verify the care arrangements for the child since birth and to prepare an aide memoire, to be checked for accuracy by all parties, of where the child has been located since birth in relation to the location of the parents (as indicated by the passport records of all parties and the child) and to make that aide memoire available to the family consultant prior to the s 11F assessment.

17.Forthwith upon appointment by the said Victoria Legal Aid or otherwise the independent children’s lawyer file a Notice of Address for Service.

18.Within 48 hours of notification of such appointment the solicitor’s for the respective parties provide to the independent children’s lawyer copies of all relevant documents relied upon.

19.Pursuant to section 11F of the Family Law Act 1975 the parties to the proceedings attend an appointment/series of appointments with a family consultant of this Registry of the Court and for that purpose:-

a)      The wife is to attend at Level 5 of this Registry of the Court at 9.00 am on 26 August 2014;

b)      The husband attend at 11.00 am on 26 August 2014;

c)      The husband and the wife be responsible for bringing their parents with them to the Registry on the same date and time of his/her own appointment:

d)      If necessary, the child the child be observed on a separate day but be brought to the Court on 26 August 2014 in any event although she will not be observed with the parties on that day;

e)      The sequence and organisation of interviews is a matter within the sole discretion of the family consultant;

f)      A place be reserved in the child-minding section of the Court for the child and it be maintained for her throughout the day;

g)      The family consultant may appoint further interviews for the parties and the children; and

h)      It is requested that the Family Consultant prepare a Children and Parents Issues Assessment in writing and that it be made available to the parties, their practitioners and the Court prior to the adjourned date and by not later than Friday 12 September 2014

20.The family consultant may, at the direction of the learned Senior Registrar, be required for cross-examination on the adjourned date.

21.For the purpose of the Children and Parents Issues Assessment in this matter the family consultant be and is hereby authorised to have reference to all documents filed in these proceedings as well as to any documents produced on subpoenae and released for inspection by all parties.

22.IT IS DIRECTED that any party wishing to cross examine on a document or tender a document into evidence at the hearing before the Senior Registrar, ensure that his or her counsel has a minimum of 5 copies of any such document available at the time of cross examination, evidence or proposed tender (being a copy for counsel for each party, a copy for the witness and two copies for the Court).

23.IT IS REQUESTED that the learned Senior Registrar consider whether the proceedings should be adjourned to a Conciliation Conference or Case Assessment Conference or transferred to the Federal Circuit Court after the matter has been dealt with on the adjourned date.

24.IT IS FURTHER DIRECTED that appropriate arrangements be made for an interpreter (1) for the second and third respondents for the s 11F interviews and on the adjourned date.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT:

25.Until further order, the applicant wife and the respondent husband share parental responsibility for the child D born … 2011 (“the child”).

26.Until further order, the child D live with the applicant wife.

27.Until further order, the changeover for residence and time spent occur at McDonalds Family Restaurant in E Street, Suburb F (opposite Suburb F station) with the paternal grandmother to attend the changeover on behalf of herself and the respondent husband and the mother or, if she is not available, the maternal grandmother to attend on behalf of the mother.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

28.Until further order, the child the child spend time with the respondent husband as follows:-

a)      From 10.00 am on Tuesday 12 August 2014 until 6.00 pm on Thursday 14 August 2014;

b)      From 17 August 2014 until further order, each week from 10.00 am on Sunday to 6.00 pm on Tuesday;

c)      As may otherwise be agreed between the parties from time to time and evidenced in writing.

29.During time spent between the husband and the child, the husband and the child continue to reside at the home of the second and third respondents in Suburb G.

30.The third respondent paternal grandmother spend time concurrently with the respondent husband provided that, if the husband is not available to spend time with the child, the second respondent is entitled to spend time with the child on the days and times provided in paragraph 28 of this Order.

31.In the event that the second and third respondents, or either of them, instruct a solicitor to represent them in these proceedings that solicitor file a Notice of Address for Service as soon as possible so as to draw the attention of the other parties and the independent children’s lawyer to the fact that the grandparents are now represented in the proceedings and will seek orders in their own right.

32.There be liberty to apply generally.

33.For the avoidance of doubt, paragraph 8 of the Order made on 7 August 2014 is not extended and the husband is at liberty to depart from the Commonwealth of Australia AND IT IS REQUESTED that the Australian Federal Police remove the name of the husband MR LIN born … 1982 from the Airport Watch List AND IT IS DIRECTED a copy of this order be sent electronically to the AFP Operations Coordination Centre and to the Marshall of the Family Court of Australia by the Melbourne Registry of the Family Court of Australia.

34.Paragraph 5 of the Order made on 7 August 2014 be and is hereby varied so that until further order the child D, female, born .. 2011 is not to be removed from the Commonwealth of Australia by any person and is to remain on the Watch List pending further order of the Court and AND IT IS REQUESTED that the Australian Federal Police amend their records accordingly.

35.That the reasons for judgment this day be transcribed and when settled copies be made available to the parties.

36.That pursuant to Sections 65DA(2) and 62B the particulars and the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and those particulars are included in these orders.

37.That the costs of this day be reserved.

AND IT IS DIRECTED:

38.That the signed minute of consent be marked Exhibit “A” and remain on the Court file.

IT IS CERTIFIED BY CONSENT:

39.That this matter reasonably required the attendance of Counsel.

AND THE COURT NOTES

A.That upon the solicitors for the Applicant Wife receiving the sum of $150,000 in their trust account pursuant to paragraph 4 of these Orders, there will be compliance with paragraph 7 of the Orders of this Honourable Court on 7 August 2014 and the solicitors for the wife shall immediately provide the solicitors for the husband with a letter confirming compliance with paragraph 3 hereof.

B.In the event that a party fails to attend a hearing or defaults in the filing of documents or things required of him/her, the Court may proceed to determine the matter without any input by the non-attending or defaulting party.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Wa & Lin and Ors has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 6923 of 2014

Ms Wa

Applicant/Mother

And

Mr Lin

Respondent/Father

And

Mr A Lin
Second Respondent/Paternal Grandfather

And

Ms B Wa
Third Respondent/Paternal Grandmother

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

EX-TEMPORE

1. This matter comes before me as an oral application in circumstances where there is agreement on a number of financial and children’s issues but the parties require a decision about how much time the young child D born in 2011 spends with the father and the paternal grandmother. 

2. The parties, who are the wife, the husband and the husband’s parents, are before the court primarily in relation to financial matters, and the withdrawal by the husband of some $150,000 in liquid assets which he then paid on to the grandparents and which pursuant to orders that all parties now seek by consent and I have be made will be held in interest-bearing trust deposit.  Notably, the wife has some $19,000 which she withdraw from the parties’ joint accounts which does not appear in her statement of financial circumstances either as moneys that she has at her disposal or as moneys that she has disposed of in favour of her daughter or otherwise within the last 12 months.  I am at a loss to know why that nondisclosure has taken place, particularly given the onerous duties under which an applicant seeking ex parte relief must operate. 

3. Today Mr Leeton represents the wife, who is at court.  The husband is at court, and he is represented by Ms Ben-Simon of counsel.  The second and third respondent attend at court.  The paternal grandmother speaks fairly good English but nothing like what is necessary to conduct proceedings properly and fairly, and without disadvantage to her.  The paternal grandfather speaks considerably less English.  There was no arrangement made for an interpreter to attend court to assist the second and third respondents, and that was most regrettable.  It was thought before lunch that the matter could proceed without an interpreter, but it became apparent after the parties had signed minutes of orders that I could not responsibly make them without them being translated professionally to the second and third respondents.  That has occurred, and they are content for those financial orders to be made. 

4. Ms Ben-Simon for the husband then made an oral application for some parenting orders.  This was without objection by the wife, and indeed that was a sensible course, as the way that the proceedings have come to court have really precluded the paternal grandparents and the father from preparing a case in relation to the child. 

5. The paternal grandparents have not sought to make an application.

6. Pursuant to orders which I have made ex parte, the child was to live with the wife until today. There is no contest about that between now and when the matter goes to the Senior Registrar on 18 September.  The husband sought that he have time with the child for two consecutive nights each week.  The mother’s proposal was that he have two non-consecutive periods of time, one being overnight from 10 am on Tuesday until 10 am on Wednesday, and then from  10 am to 4 pm on Saturday and then for such other times as is agreed.  It is a matter of agreement that the paternal grandmother will do all of the transport associated with the time being spent because the mother does not drive.  The mother is staying with her parents in Suburb F, whereas the paternal grandparents and the husband live in Suburb G.  Changeovers are to take place at McDonalds Family Restaurant in Suburb F.

7. The husband is due to leave Australia on Wednesday for a period of one week, during which time he will be spending time with friends in Japan.  He will then return to Melbourne and reside with his parents in Suburb G.  The paternal grandmother does not work outside the home.  The paternal grandfather operates a garment business in Country H and travels backwards and forwards.  My impression is that the family have two established homes, one in Suburb G and one in Country H.  The dwelling in Suburb G is a property worth, according to the paternal grandmother, $1.5 million, subject to a mortgage securing approximately $100,000.  The paternal grandmother is an Australian citizen, and the paternal grandfather is, as indicated, a permanent resident of Australia.   

8. I should note that there has been no objection to the matter proceeding by way of submissions only.  When this case started, it was asserted on behalf of the husband that his parents have been the primary carers for the child.  This does appear to have been the case for all but the first three months of the child’s life. 

1. As I understand it, the child was born in Australia in 2011.  Early in 2012, the mother and the father returned to Country H and the child remained in the care of the paternal grandparents in Suburb G.  In the next 12 months, the paternal grandmother made two trips to Country H with the child when she and the child stayed with the father and the mother.  Those trips were of somewhere in the duration of six to 11 weeks.  It seems that the significance of six weeks is that if the child is out of Australia for more than six weeks, there might be some implications for social security benefits. 

2. In 2013 the paternal grandmother took the child to Country H for two periods of some six weeks each, during which time she and the child stayed with the parents.  This was a period referred to by the mother in her evidence which is already filed in the court as being a time when she wanted to return to Australia but felt constrained to stay in Country H because of alleged threats to her safety and that of her family by the father.  The father denies having threatened the mother.

3. In 2014, the mother (but not the father) came to Australia for three months between January and March.  The mother stayed for some short time with her parents because she arrived from Country H being particularly unwell and running a temperature.  She then went to stay with the paternal grandparents, and significantly, with the child for some four to five days.  The mother then went to Sydney for three or four days to meet with some former official associates, and then returned to Melbourne and stayed with the paternal grandparents until she returned to Country H in March 2014. 

4. In May 2014, the paternal grandmother took the child to Country H, and the mother and the father stayed with the paternal grandparents and the child in the paternal grandparents’ Country H home, which is an apartment of some four bedrooms.  Thereafter the paternal grandmother and the child returned to Australia, and the father and mother followed on 25 July 2014.  They took up residence, as deposed to by the mother in her earlier affidavit, with the paternal grandparents in Suburb G.

5. On 31 July, the mother and the child left that home and went to stay with her parents in Suburb F.  Accordingly, the child has only been in the care of the wife since 31 July 2014, some 11 days.

6. At the commencement of this case, it was stated that the maternal grandparents have had a significant relationship with the child.  The relationship of grandparent and grandchild is significant, but it does appear that the maternal grandparents have played a significantly lesser role as carers of the child than have the paternal grandparents or the paternal grandmother at least. 

7. I am informed by the paternal grandmother that the maternal grandparents have seen the child regularly, but that is somewhere between once a week or once a fortnight and once every three weeks, and then only at the home of the paternal grandparents.  Until the child and the mother went to reside with them in the end of July, they have not seen the child overnight or at least significantly overnight. 

8. Notably, this matter is before the Court because the wife has made urgent applications about money.  Even though the child has been out of the care of the paternal grandparents for 11 days, neither they nor the husband have made application for urgent orders to get her back or otherwise about the child’s care arrangements.  I do not know, but I can infer, that the application the husband now makes, orally, may not have been made today or before now had it not been for the hearing date consequent on the wife’s ex-parte application for financial relief.  The paternal grandparents do not speak English adequately but they are obviously intelligent and are well resourced financially.  It is a little surprising, therefore, that they have not made a formal application about the child or joined or supported one made by the husband.  That said, the paternal grandmother has become increasingly upset during the course of the day and that upset is clearly attributable to the child having been removed from her care. I don’t doubt that the paternal grandmother is very upset that the child is out of her care but I am puzzled as to why nothing, like an application to the Court, has been undertaken to address the situation.

9. I am required to make a decision about care arrangements for the child between now and 18 September 2014, when the matter is listed before the Senior Registrar when he will be assisted by an 11F report which is being prepared by Ms I, family consultant.  That assessment will include the paternal grandparents and may even include the maternal grandparents, but certainly it has to include the primary carer of the child which, it appears, has been the paternal grandmother.

10. As with any parenting order, I must make an order based on the child’s best interests being the paramount consideration.  That is not the only consideration, but it is the paramount one.

11. In determining where the child’s best interests lie, I follow a legislative pathway which observes two primary considerations, being a prospective analysis of what is needed to keep the child safe from psychological or physical harm, and secondly to assess the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents.  There are numerous additional considerations which I take into account if they are relevant.  One of those is the extent to which the parents have taken the opportunity to be involved in the child’s day to day care and to make major long-term decisions for her, and the nature of the child’s relationship with each of the parents and other parties.  In this respect, the child obviously has a very significant relationship with the paternal grandparents.  That is an historical matter and it may not continue into the future given that the mother and the father are now back in Australia and the mother proposes to remain here.  However, historical matters do weigh quite heavily on my considerations, on my deliberations, given that I have to decide what happens for the next four or five weeks.  For a child as young as the child, it is a very significant step to remove her from her constant carer even in favour of a mother who is prepared to care for her full time.  This is a matter in which the child’s attachments must be considered by a suitably qualified person.  That will be Ms I.

12. Before I make any interim parenting order, I must consider whether it is in the best interests of the child and reasonably practicable for her to spend equal time and, if not, then substantial and significant time with each parent. The parameters of the dispute, as set by the two parties who seek orders, is more narrow than s 65DAA of the Family Law Act 1975 contemplates. Notwithstanding, I will take into account the practicability of time spent and that time include weekend time and non-weekend time and that each parent is involved in the child’s daily routine.

13. It was submitted by counsel for the mother that the standard of healthcare available in Australia was one of the primary reasons that the husband and the wife have permitted the child to reside here with the paternal grandparents.  This statement prompted me to ask if the child has any special needs.  I was told that she has no special medical needs.  She has received vaccinations and inoculations consistent with her age from a maternal healthcare centre in or near Suburb G, and she goes to a reading group, a children’s reading group, at the Suburb G Library each Monday from 10 am.

14. It’s the paternal grandmother’s intention to maintain the child’s attendance at the Suburb G Library.  It seems to me that it would be of assistance if the paternal grandmother could provide a copy of the maternal health centre book to the independent children’s lawyer for his or her attention, and the independent children’s lawyer has some time to verify the attendance at the Suburb G Library.

15. I was informed by the paternal grandmother that the child’s habit was to have an afternoon sleep from 2 pm to 4 pm, and for that reason, the paternal grandmother seeks that any changeover which occurs in the afternoon be at 6 pm rather than 4 pm.  The mother, on the other hand, says she would like the child back by 4 pm because the child’s sleeping hours have changed.  It seems to me that that is unfortunate.  The mother has only had care of the child, alone, for 11 days.  The parties should do everything they can to maintain as little disruption for the child as possible, and that a basic aspect of that is when she has a sleep.

16. I will, for the time being, observe the child’s afternoon sleep time as it was whilst she was primarily cared for by the paternal grandmother, and therefore make the time at which the child is to return at 6 pm instead of 4 pm.  At 6 pm, the child should not have had her evening meal.  The mother will give it to her immediately on her return to the mother’s home (which is the home of the maternal grandparents).

17. I am satisfied that it is in the child’s best interests that there be as little disruption to her life as possible.  Whereas I had considered tentatively that there may be some merit in having two non-consecutive overnight periods, I am now convinced that one block period is better for all concerned because there will be lesser transport, fewer changeovers, and less break in routine for the child.  The father seeks two consecutive nights.  The mother seeks non-consecutive and shorter days and only one night.  I am satisfied that the father’s application, which is really an application whereby the paternal grandmother resumes some care, is more consistent with the child’s best interests than the mother’s proposal.  It provides for the child to be with the paternal grandmother for about 30 per cent of the nights between now and the adjourned date.  The 11F assessment will inform the determination by the Senior Registrar as to whether that is insufficient having regard to the child’s attachments and the mother’s limited experience as the child’s sole carer up until 31 July this year.

18. There is an issue in this case around the extent to which the mother has been forced or coerced not to care for the child, that is, has been excluded form the child’s life.  The mother is obviously upset and protests that the settled arrangement in favour of the father’s family has been built up against her will.  Come what may, the adults must realise that parenting orders will be crafted with regard to the child’s best interests and not as punative measures to punish anyone for past behaviour or to redress something which has been unfair between adults.

19. The time which I will order will be in favour of the first respondent.  I interrupt the reasons for judgment. 

RECORDED  :  NOT TRANSCRIBED

1. The time should be expressed as being in favour of the first respondent, although he should be residing with his parents when he exercises that time.  I do note the wife’s serious allegations against him and the common ground that the child has been in the home of his parents for a very extended period and the child’s accustomed to being cared for by the paternal grandmother and not the father.

2. During any period of absence by the father, the paternal grandmother should be entitled to any time that the first respondent would ordinarily have, so I will be making an order that is in favour of the first respondent, because he is the applicant, but saying that the second respondent will spend time with the child for whatever time the father is entitled.  That means if the father is not in Australia, or isn’t caring for the child during designated periods, the second respondent will be.

3. It does seem to me unnecessary to include the third respondent.  Although I note that he is the paternal grandfather, the fact is that he travels in and out of Australia, and it is his wife who provides the home base for the child.

4. As indicated, these parenting arrangements are not set in stone.  They are temporary.  I have suggested to the paternal grandparents that if they seek orders in their own right, they really will need to approach and retain the services of specialist family lawyers, because they have a significant case to prepare in a relatively short period of time.  The hearing on 18 September will be an interim hearing which is likely to last until a final hearing.  It won’t continually be reviewed every few weeks or months so, if they’re going to make an application, they need to have that application filed and served in sufficient time prior to 18 September so that it can be considered by the Senior Registrar on that date together with any response upon which she relies.

5. I am satisfied that the parenting orders I make are in the child’s best interests for the short period until expert evidence is available to the Court and the position of the paternal grandparents into the future is known.

6. Once the interim parenting dispute is determined, I would be grateful if the Senior Registrar would consider the next step for case management purposes.  Counsel for the mother and father suggest that some conciliation event, such as a case assessment conference, would benefit the parties.  I don’t know what, if any, role the paternal grandparents will take in the financial proceedings.  This seems to be a matter which will fit easily into the time constraints under which the Federal Circuit Court operates.

I certify that the preceding thirty three (33) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Bennett delivered on 11 August 2014.

Associate: 

Date:  20 August 2014