When families break down, the emotional fallout often extends beyond parents and children. For many Australian grandparents, separation or divorce can suddenly mean being cut off from their grandchildren, sometimes with little or no warning. These relationships, once central to a child’s sense of stability and belonging, can vanish overnight. It raises an increasingly relevant question: should Australian law give grandparents automatic visitation rights?
Under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), grandparents are recognised as important figures in a child’s life, but they do not have any automatic legal right to spend time with their grandchildren. Instead, the law focuses entirely on the best interests of the child, not the rights of adults.
Section 60B of the Act states that children have a right to know and be cared for by both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development, which includes grandparents. This means grandparents are entitled to apply to the court for visitation or contact arrangements, but there is no presumption that they will be granted access.
In practice, this means that if a parent refuses to allow their children to see the grandparents, the grandparents have no immediate legal recourse. Their only option is to seek mediation and, if that fails, take the matter to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA).
Family separations can create complex emotional landscapes. Sometimes, grandparents are caught in the middle of parental conflict. In other cases, they are perceived as having “taken sides”, which can lead to strained relationships with one or both parents.
According to Relationships Australia, disputes over grandparent contact are one of the most common issues raised during post-separation mediation. For grandparents who have played an active caregiving role, from providing daily childcare to emotional support, being abruptly excluded can be devastating.
“Many grandparents describe it as a kind of living grief,” says family law mediator Janice Miller. “They lose contact not because of anything they’ve done, but because adult conflicts are being played out through access to the children.”
Before grandparents can apply to court, they must generally attempt Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) through an accredited mediator. If an agreement cannot be reached, the mediator issues a section 60I certificate, allowing them to take the matter before a judge.
The court then assesses the case based on what is in the child’s best interests. Factors may include:
The nature of the relationship between the child and the grandparent.
The capacity of the grandparent to provide for the child’s emotional and developmental needs.
The likely effect on the child of changing or removing the relationship.
The child’s own views, depending on their age and maturity.
In many cases, courts acknowledge that maintaining relationships with grandparents is beneficial. However, if the relationship between the parents and grandparents is highly conflictual, judges may decide that forcing contact would expose the child to ongoing stress, which is not in their best interests.
Advocates for stronger legal recognition argue that grandparents play an increasingly vital role in modern Australian families. Many provide regular childcare while parents work, contribute financially, and serve as emotional anchors in times of instability.
As Dr Susan Carney, a family law specialist at the University of Newcastle, explains: “We have grandparents who are effectively secondary parents. Yet when a separation occurs, they can be erased from a child’s life overnight. The law should reflect the reality of their contribution.”
Supporters of reform suggest that automatic visitation rights, subject to exceptions where contact would be unsafe, could provide children with greater continuity and emotional security. They argue that removing grandparents from a child’s life can cause harm, particularly when they have been consistent, loving figures.
In some other jurisdictions, including parts of Canada and the United States, legislation provides a legal presumption that grandparent contact is in the child’s best interests, though this can be rebutted if there are safety or welfare concerns.
Opponents of automatic visitation rights caution that family law must prioritise children’s wellbeing, not adult expectations. They argue that automatic rights could complicate already difficult custody disputes and increase the emotional and financial burden on separating families.
Family lawyer Mark Redding notes that “automatic rights could lead to more litigation, not less. If every grandparent had a guaranteed legal right to contact, courts would be forced to intervene in a far greater number of cases.”
There are also concerns about situations involving family violence, neglect or abusive behaviour. Granting automatic visitation rights could inadvertently expose children to harmful environments or undermine the protective decisions of a parent.
Critics also emphasise that relationships between parents and grandparents vary widely. Some are deeply supportive, while others are conflict-ridden. Automatically granting access ignores the complexity and uniqueness of family dynamics.
Rather than introducing automatic rights, many experts advocate for reforms that make it easier for grandparents to seek and maintain contact when appropriate. This could include streamlined mediation processes, better public education about existing options, and increased judicial training on the value of intergenerational relationships.
In some cases, family courts already recognise grandparents as key figures in a child’s stability, especially when they have been part of daily caregiving. However, each decision is made case by case, with the guiding principle always being the child’s best interests.
For many families, reaching an informal agreement remains the most effective path. Mediation and open communication can often preserve relationships without the need for legal intervention.
Behind every legal argument lies a personal story. For grandparents who have lost contact, the experience can be deeply painful. Many describe feeling helpless and heartbroken, particularly when they have no idea why the relationship ended.
At the same time, for parents managing separation, new partners or safety concerns, the decision to limit contact may come from a genuine desire to protect their children’s wellbeing. The law’s challenge is to balance these competing realities.
Whether Australia should give grandparents automatic visitation rights ultimately comes down to what society values most in family relationships. Is it the primacy of parental authority, or the preservation of intergenerational bonds that enrich children’s lives?
While automatic rights may not align with the child-centred approach of current legislation, there is growing recognition that grandparents matter. The question is not only whether they should have legal rights, but how the system can better support families to maintain loving, stable connections, even when relationships between adults falter.
