The High Court ordered a staged arrangement for an applicant to meet his son, H.L., who had relocated to Australia with the respondents. The order followed a Supreme Court decision that the applicant should have access, with the High Court determining how that access would work.
In a judgment delivered on 27 April 2010, Mr Justice Hedigan rejected the respondents’ submission that direct access could be postponed for about two years. He interpreted the Supreme Court judgments as requiring personal contact where possible. The dispute before him concerned whether the applicant could travel to Australia to meet H.L.
The applicant told the court he wanted to develop a relationship gradually. He was prepared to be introduced as “John” and initially treated as a “favourite uncle”, with the respondents deciding when to explain his biological relationship to the child. He proposed correspondence and electronic communication, quarterly progress reports and photographs, and three meetings during a proposed visit. He did not seek a parenting role.
The respondents opposed direct contact, citing fears that the applicant might disclose his paternity and cause emotional upset, and concerns about their family unit and lack of trust. They agreed to provide reports and photographs. Although they had obtained permission to provide documents to a psychiatric expert, they did not submit a report; the applicant submitted none. The judge said a psychiatric report was unnecessary in light of the Supreme Court’s access decision, while recognising both sides’ concerns.
The court directed the respondents’ solicitors to provide their email address, and the applicant to contact them with proposed travel dates. The visit was to take place between the last week of June and the last week of August 2010. During it, the applicant was to meet H.L. three times, accompanied by either or both respondents and an independent social worker chosen by the respondents. The meetings were to be arranged at least two weeks before departure, evenly spaced if possible, and held in child-friendly public places. They were to last at least 30 minutes, one hour and 90 minutes respectively. H.L. could be taken out of school for an afternoon if needed to space the meetings.
The applicant could bring a gift and take photographs with the respondents’ permission. The respondents were to provide emailed reports and photographs two weeks before the first visit and quarterly thereafter. The order also provided for seasonal and birthday cards, later encouragement of email and video communication, and notice at least a month ahead if the respondents travelled to Europe with H.L. Future Australian visits were covered by the same arrangements, except that each meeting was to last at least an hour.
These arrangements were conditional on the applicant giving undertakings to maintain the “favourite uncle” role until the respondents considered disclosure age-appropriate, not reveal his paternity himself, seek no parental role, and respect the respondents’ family unit. The excerpt ends after listing those undertakings; it does not state whether they were given or record any further order.