ABDUL & FARAH
[2021] FCCA 170
•5 February 2021
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| ABDUL & FARAH | [2021] FCCA 170 |
| Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Parenting – time children spend with father – best interest of children – allegations of family violence – risk of harm – mother to have sole parental responsibility – father to spend limited time with children – change of name. |
| Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss.60CA, 60CC, 60CG, 61DA, 65DAA |
| Cases Cited: Chapman & Palmer [1978] FamCA 86 Jepson & Fleming [2018] FCCA 400 Marsden & Winch (No.3) [2007] FamCA 1364 Mayes & Denning [2017] FCCA 1754 Mazorski & Albright [2007] FamCA 520 McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92 MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4 Salah & Salah [2016] FamCAFC 100 Sander & Hearn [2012] FMCAfam 812 Slater & Light [2011] FamCAFC 1 |
| Applicant: | MR ABDUL |
| Respondent: | MS FARAH |
| File Number: | PAC 83 of 2012 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Obradovic |
| Hearing dates: | 17 – 19 August 2020 and 27 October 2020 |
| Delivered at: | Parramatta |
| Delivered on: | 5 February 2021 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Ms Murphy |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Swifte Law |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Ms Katie |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Peter Jurd Lawyer |
| Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: | Mr Braine |
| Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer: | Ark Law Lawyers |
ORDERS
The children X born in 2009 and Y born in 2011 shall be henceforth known as X Farah and Y Farah respectively.
The mother, Ms Farah, is authorised to apply to the Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages that the children registered as X born in 2009 and Y born in 2011 be now registered as X Farah and Y Farah respectively.
Pursuant s.28(5) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW) the Registrar register the children’s names in the form specified in order (2) herein.
The Court directs that the applicant forthwith serve a sealed copy of this order upon the Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages.
The mother shall have sole parental responsibility for the children, X Farah (previously known as X) born in 2009 and Y Farah (previously known as Y) born 2011.
The children shall live with the mother.
The children shall spend time with the father during the school term only as follows:
(a)For a period of six months, on the first Saturday of each month for 3 hours from 9am to 12 noon;
(b)Thereafter and for a further period of six months, on the first Saturday of each month for 5 hours from 9am to 2pm;
(c)Thereafter, on the first Saturday of each month from 9am to 5pm; and
(d)At all other times as agreed to between the parents in writing.
Changeover shall occur at Hungry Jack’s Suburb B or such other place as nominated by the mother no later than 7 days prior to the time occurring in accordance with order (7) above.
The father shall forthwith provide to the mother’s solicitor a mobile telephone number for the father, where he may be contacted in case of an emergency and for any other communication pursuant to these orders.
The mother shall within 7 days of being provided with a mobile telephone number for the father pursuant to order (9) above, provide to the father directly a mobile telephone number where she may be contacted in case of an emergency and for any other communication pursuant to these orders.
In the event that either child suffers from serious illness or is hospitalised, the parent who is caring for her shall notify the other parent as soon as reasonably practicable of the nature of the illness or injury and the name and contact details of the health facility or health practitioner who is treating the child.
The mother shall, as soon as reasonably practicable, provide to the father copies of each of the children’s school reports as they become available, such documents to have the name of the school redacted.
Except as otherwise provided for in these orders, the father is restrained by injunction from:
(a)Communicating or attempting to communicate with the mother;
(b)Communicating or attempting to communicate with the children;
(c)Spending or attempting to spend time with the children;
(d)Attending within 100m of any place where the children may from time to time reside;
(e)Attending at any school the children may be enrolled in from time to time;
(f)Denigrating the mother within the hearing or in the presence of the children; and
(g)Permitting or encouraging any other member of his extended family from doing any of the matters referred to in sub-paragraphs (a)-(f) above.
X Farah, previously known as X, born in 2009 and Y Farah, previously known as Y, born in 2011 are permitted to travel internationally, without the need for the consent of the father to be provided to the issue of a passport to X Farah, born in 2009 and Y Farah, born in 2011. The mother shall be the only person with ‘parental responsibility’ for the children X Farah born in 2009 and Y Farah born in 2011 for the purposes of applying for, and being issued with, an Australian passport for X Farah, born in 2009 and Y Farah, born in 2011.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Abdul & Farah is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA |
PAC 83 of 2012
| MR ABDUL |
Applicant
And
| MS FARAH |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
These are parenting proceedings relating to two children, X born in 2009 and Y born in 2011.
The parties to the proceedings are the applicant father, Mr Abdul (previously known as Mr Abdul) and the respondent mother, Ms Farah.
The primary issues for determination are:
a)Parental responsibility; and
b)What time, if any, the children should spend with the father.
The father is seeking an order for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility while the mother is seeking an order that she have sole parental responsibility.
The matter was originally set down for hearing on 4 – 6 December 2019, but was marked not-reached. It was heard in August 2020, but did not conclude until late October 2020.
Relevant Legal Principles
The central enquiry is for the Court to determine the outcome that will be best for the children who are the subject of these proceedings.
Parenting proceedings are governed by the provisions of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ‘the Act’. Section 60CA of the Act provides that in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order, the Court is to regard the best interests of the children as the paramount consideration.
Section 60B of the Act outlines the objects and principles underlying Part VII of the Act.
In determining what is in the children’s best interests, the Court must consider the matters set out in s 60CC. Section 60CC outlines the primary and additional considerations that the Court is to take into account in determining what is in the best interests of the children. The Act does not mandate the discussion of considerations under s 60CC in any particular order, and it is well recognised that additional considerations may outweigh primary considerations.[1]
[1] See for example Slater & Light [2011] FamCAFC 1 at [45]
In applying the primary considerations the Court is to give greater weight to the need to protect children from harm than to the benefit to the children of having a meaningful relationship with both of their parents.
A meaningful relationship “is one which is important, significant and valuable to the child”.[2] The focus is not on the relationship as such, but on the benefit the relationship might have for the children.[3]
[2] Mazorski & Albright [2007] FamCA 520 at [26] cited with approval by the Full Court in McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92 at [121]
[3] McCall & Clark at [122]
In addition, in considering what order to make, the Court must, to the extent that it is possible to do so consistently with the children’s best interest being the paramount consideration, ensure that the order does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence. [4] The Court may include in the order any safeguards that it considers necessary for the safety of those affected by the order.[5]
[4] s 60CG (1)(b); See the brief discussion of s 60CG in Salah & Salah [2016] FamCAFC 100 at [36] (although in the context of an interim hearing)
[5] See s60CG(2), such safeguards are for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b)
Section 61DA of the Act provides that when making a parenting order, the Court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the children for the children’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility. The presumption does not apply where there are reasonable grounds to believe a parent has engaged in abuse of the child or family violence and the presumption may be rebutted if the Court is satisfied that an order for equal shared parental responsibility would not be in the children’s best interests.
In the event that the Court orders the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility, the Court must apply the provisions of s.65DAA which provide for a consideration of the children spending equal time with the parents. If the Court finds that it is not in the children’s best interests or reasonably practicable, then the Court must consider the child spending substantial and significant time with the parents. Section 65DAA is expressed in imperative terms.[6]
[6] MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4 at [13]
Evidence of the Parties
The father Mr Abdul was born in Country C in 1960 and is currently 60 years of age.
In 1977, the father immigrated to Australia.
The mother Ms Farah was born in Country D in 1983 and is currently 37 years of age.
The father was previously married to Ms E, whom he shares four children with. They divorced in 2005 but remain amicable.
The parties met over the internet in 2007. In late 2007 the father travelled to Country D to meet with the mother. The parties married in Country D in 2007.
In 2008, the mother arrived in Australia and the parties commenced cohabitation.
The parties’ first child X was born in 2009 and is currently 11 years of age.
The parties’ second child Y was born in 2011 and is currently 9 years of age.
The mother claims to have been the primary care giver since the children’s birth. The father claims that parenting responsibilities were shared between the two parents.
The mother asserts that the father exhibited abusive behaviours throughout their marriage; that he forced her to wear a headscarf, prevented her from forming friendships, controlled her finances and made regular threats that he would contact the Department of Immigration and request it to cancel her visa. She has also made allegations of physical and sexual violence.
The father denies most, if not all, of the allegations the mother makes against him. To the contrary, the father argues that he provided ongoing emotional and financial support to the mother while she adapted to her new life in Australia.
The mother states that the father isolated her on a farm in Suburb F in 2011. The mother claims she did not have access to transport, friends or finances and that she escaped with the assistance of the father’s eldest daughter Ms G. A police statement regarding this incident was not made until 23 October 2015.
The father asserts that the mother exhibited abusive behaviours throughout their marriage. The father says that the mother began to show regular irrational anger towards the father from late 2008 which continued throughout the entirety of their relationship. He asserts that her unpredictable outbursts of anger made him feel scared, anxious and reluctant to speak to her.
The father also asserts that throughout their relationship the mother routinely stole money from him. The father states that early in the marriage the mother had made representations to him that she owned property in Country D and that she required assistance from him with her mortgage repayments. He states that from 2008 to 2011 he made repayments to the value of $15,400 on the basis of an agreement that they would both share ownership of the property. The father stopped making repayments on the mortgage after the mother failed to produce the property documents despite the father’s many requests to do so.
The parties initially separated in January 2012. The mother and children resided in a refuge for three days before the mother reconciled with the father. They recommenced cohabitation for a period of 6 months. It is the father’s evidence that during this separation period the mother withdrew $10,000 from his bank account. Upon reconciliation the mother returned $9,900 to the father.
The father commenced family law proceedings on 11 January 2012 in this Court. The application was dismissed for non-appearance by both parties on 12 March 2012.
The parties separated again on 19 September 2012 and lived apart for six weeks. During this particular separation period the mother and children resided with the father’s first wife, Ms E. An incident also occurred during this time between the parties, the facts of which are disputed between them.
The father’s evidence is that in September 2012 he was informed by his eldest daughter Ms G that the mother had commenced a new relationship with another man. Upon confronting the mother about this new relationship the father asserts that the mother slapped him hard across the face. The father asserts that the mother made a false report to the police the following day and as a result a provisional Apprehended Violence Order (“AVO”) was subsequently issued. A few days later the parties reconciled and the mother withdrew that AVO.
The mother’s evidence is that an incident occurred in September 2012 where the father struck, kicked and pulled her hair. The police were notified and a provisional AVO was made. Shortly thereafter the parties reconciled and the mother withdrew her complaint. Her evidence is that she withdrew the statement as she was fearful of the father.
The mother and children, again, recommenced cohabitation with the father.
The parities separated on a final basis in October 2014 and divorced on 15 August 2015. Following the separation the children resided with their mother on a permanent basis.
The children’s time with the father after final separation has been sporadic and there have been significant periods of time when the children have not spent any time with the father.
Between March 2015 and August 2015 the father was in regular telephone contact with the children and would spend time with them every weekend.
The mother alleges that during weekend contact with the children the father would make sexual advances towards the mother, touching her inappropriately, rather than spending time with the children. The mother reported one of the alleged incidents to the police.
In August 2015 when the father was looking after the children, X disclosed to the father their residential address which until this point had intentionally been concealed by the mother. The fathers explains that X was insistent on showing him where she lived, whereas the mother believes the father tricked X into disclosing the address.
The mother alleges that after this occasion the father began sending her messages which implied that he was observing the mother in her home from the street. General messages of abuse were also sent to the mother from the father, including a video displaying Islamic punishment for adultery. The father denies the text message allegations but accepts that he sent to the mother the described video.
Following that occasion, the mother ceased contact between the father and the children.
The mother says that the father made multiple allegations that Y and X were not his biological children. Subsequently, in August 2015, the father requested the mother repay his contributions to the school fees. The mother transferred this money to the father.
On 25 May 2016, an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (“ADVO”) was issued at Suburb H Local Court for the protection of the mother from the father.
It is the father’s evidence that he was manipulated into consenting to the ADVO by the mother’s solicitor. He alleges that he was advised that contact with his children would recommence if he agreed to the orders. This is denied by the mother.
The father filed an Initiating Application at Suburb L Local Court on 16 June 2017 seeking a location order. On 22 September 2016, a Magistrate made an order transferring the matter to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.
At the conclusion of the local court proceedings the father approached the mother and her support-worker at a nearby café. The father was alleged to have said “She is a prostitute. I brang (sic) her to Australia and she cheated on me. She cheated on me with a barber”. The mother reported the incident to the police and the father was later charged and convicted for contravening the AVO restrictions.
The application was first listed before this Court on 29 October 2016. On this date an Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) was appointed. On 8 August 2017, interim orders were made for the mother to have sole parental responsibility for the children. An order was also made for the father to spend supervised visits with the children at a contact centre for no more than two hours per week.
During the supervised time at the contact centre, the centre reported that the father continuously engaged in inappropriate behaviour; discussing unsuitable topics in front of staff and children. The contact centre provided the father with a warning on 20 February 2018. The inappropriate behaviour continued and on 19 February 2019 the contact centre terminated the service agreement.
The father asserts that it was his decision to discontinue contact with his children at the contact centre as they were constantly critical of him. The father’s evidence is that he referred to the centre supervisors as “evil women” when speaking to his children at the last supervised contact centre visit in February 2019.
X and Y have not spent any time with their father since February 2019. At various points in the proceedings, after February 2019, the Court was advised that the father would not avail himself of an opportunity of spending time with the children if such time was pursuant to a further order for supervised time.
The mother says to the Court that she is frightened of the father, that he and his family will speak badly of her to the children, that his family will speak badly of her to the children, and that he has such a lack of insight into his own behaviours that there would be no benefit to them in having a relationship with him, or their step siblings when compared to the risks which they might face.
Court’s Determination
Primary Considerations
The children, if they were to have a meaningful relationship with both of their parents, would certainly benefit from having such relationships. The orders which the mother and the ICL ask the court to make, would see the children denied any relationship with the father, and may have serious long term consequences for them.
The father has been the subject of a number of apprehended domestic violence orders and has been convicted of breaching those orders. Even though the father appealed the conviction, it was upheld.
The father’s views of the mother, and his behaviour towards the mother in the past, cause the Court to have significant concerns for the children’s safety and wellbeing if they were to spend any time with the father, including supervised time.
Children’s Views and Relationships with the Parents
The Family Report writer observed in September 2018 that despite the allegations of family violence and periods of separation between the children and the father, the children have a positive relationship with their father and do not appear uncomfortable in his presence. It appears that neither child witnessed any physical violence and the family report writer opined that the children did not feel sad or scared in the family home prior to the parties’ separation. Neither child stated that she was scared in either parent’s care.
The evidence seems to suggest that even as at the time of final hearing and after not spending any time with him for almost a year and a half, the children see the father in a positive light.
That the children have such positive views of the father speaks well of both the father and the mother. It speaks well of the father as it is a positive reflection of his interactions with the children, and it speaks well of the mother in that despite her stated experience of the father she has kept the children shielded from her own negative views.
The children have a close and loving relationship with the mother, who has been their primary care giver for their entire lives.
The children have not had the benefit of spending any time with their half-siblings in the father’s household, who are much older than them. It appears from the Family Report that as at September 2018, the children were missing their father and their brother and sisters.
The children have a young half-sibling in the mother’s household. It is inferred that they have a strong and loving attachment to this baby.
Extent to which partaken in decision making, spending time and communicating with children
The father’s demonstrated unwillingness to spend time with the children in a supervised setting is problematic. Whilst the Court well understands a parent’s reluctance to spend time with their own child supervised by a stranger, in circumstances where the Court has made a decision that such supervision is necessary and the order was made for the purpose of meeting the children’s best interests, including their right to have a relationship with both of their parents, the father’s behaviour at the centre, and subsequent refusal to spend any more supervised time with the children, speak of a lack of ability to put the children’s needs first and his own pride second.
The mother has made a number of unilateral decisions in relation to the children’s residence and schooling. Given her stated fears of the father, and the relevant family violence orders which were in place from time to time, her actions were protective. In circumstances where it must have been apparent to the father that the mother did not want to know where she and the children were living, the father was able to extract such information from one of the children.
Extent to which parents have fulfilled obligation to maintain children
The father pays child support as assessed in the amount of $15 per fortnight.
The mother otherwise meets all of the children’s financial needs.
Likely effect of any change
The children have not spent any time with their father for now almost two years. It is a significant period of time. An orders, such as the one which the mother and the ICL seek, would see no change to their routine and circumstances.
An order such as the one which the father seeks, would see a significant change to their routines, albeit not immediately.
Any practical difficulty and expense
There is no evidence of any practical difficulty or expense of the children spending time with the father.
Capacity to provide for needs of the children
The father’s capacity to meet the children’s needs and to provide for their needs was called into serious questions as a result of these proceedings.
The father vigorously maintains that he is innocent of all wrongdoing, that the mother is untruthful, that the mother and her lawyer have somehow plotted against him or at least have been misleading towards him, and that he has never harmed the mother, physically or emotionally.
The father is completely unable to accept that there is a point of view which is different from his own, and which may be better for the children. He steadfastly remains stuck to his guns about his behaviour in the contact centre as being appropriate, albeit with hindsight he now tells the Court that perhaps referring to the supervisors as “evil women” to the children might not have been the best idea.
The father remains of the view that the mother’s partner may somehow harm the children and that the mother should not be exposing the children to her “new” relationship.
Concerningly, the father remains of the view that the mother is not a good parent and that she has never cared for the children.
It is clear that the father lacks insight into his own behaviours and beliefs and the impact such behaviours and beliefs are likely to have on the children.
The father has very limited capacity to meet the children’s emotional and psychological needs. However, there remains the problem of the long term consequences for the children if they are completely isolated from the father, his behaviours and beliefs. It is important for them to know both of their parents and to have an understanding of what their parents are like, as long as this is done in a manner which is safe for them.
Maturity, sex, lifestyle and background
The mother was born in Country D.
The father is of Country C heritage.
Both parents speak Arabic and English, although the mother is trilingual, also speaking Language J.
Both parents are of the Islamic faith.
Attitude to the child and responsibilities of parenthood
The father has previously questioned the paternity of the children.
While the father has been an active participant in these proceedings, he has not taken all the available opportunities of spending time with the children. This speaks rather poorly of his attitude to the children and the responsibilities of parenthood. His self-centred behaviour is a further indicator of such a poor attitude.
Family Violence and any relevant orders
Findings about family violence, and in particular about specific incidents of family violence are matters which need to be proven to the requisite standard, namely the balance of probabilities. However, without limiting the matters that the Court may take into account in deciding whether it is so satisfied, it is to take into account:
a)The nature of the cause of action or defence;
b)The nature of the subject-matter of the proceedings; and
c)The gravity of the matters alleged.[7]
[7] See for example: Marsden & Winch (No.3) [2007] FamCA 1364
The Court is satisfied that the father has perpetrated family violence, including engaging in coercive and controlling behaviour, consisting of but not limited to the following:
(a)He has threatened the mother with withdrawing his support for her visa application;
(b)He has made unwanted sexual advances, including touching the mother in a manner which was unwelcome, during times the father was spending time with the children in the mother’s presence;
(c)Hitting the mother in 2012; and
(d)He has called the mother derogatory names such as “whore” and “prostitute”.
The last ADVO, listing the father as the defendant and the mother as the protected person, expired in February 2020. This was originally an eighteen month order made in May 2016, which was extended.
The father has been convicted of breaching an apprehended domestic violence order.
Likelihood of further proceedings and any other matters
While there is some likelihood of there being further proceedings, whatever order the Court makes, the fact is that these proceedings have been on foot since 2016 and that they are now finally concluded.
The orders which the Court makes are an attempt to provide the children with the best opportunity of growing up into healthy and productive young women. As noted earlier, it is important for children to know both of their parents, and these two children have previously had a warm and loving relationship with their father, despite his shortcomings and violence towards the mother.
It may be that now as they are a little older and have not seen their father for some time, that their feelings towards their father have changed. Certainly, it is possible that they may now have moved on from missing their father in the manner they missed him at the time of the Family Report. It will also mean that as they are older and more mature, they will be more readily able to act in a manner which is protective of themselves.
The orders as are now being made by the Court provide the children with an opportunity of spending face to face time with the father in an environment that will not be supervised. This will mean that the orders will not be as objectionable to the father as the orders for supervised time had been. It is more likely that he will positively engage with the children in the time provided for in the orders than he otherwise would have if the time had been supervised.
The time which the children will be spending with the father is very limited and this in itself provides a safety mechanism for the children. It is limited time on a fairly limited frequency.
Whilst there will remain the risk that the father (or his family) may speak of the mother in the manner which is not appropriate, there are injunctive orders preventing the father from doing so. Whilst it is clear that the children’s half- sisters on the father’s side have fairly dim views of the mother, the orders as will be made provide a safety net for the children in this regard.
Given the limited time the father will be spending with the children it is hoped that he will utilise such time in a manner which is positive for the children rather than in any other manner.
The mother seeks an order that she be able to obtain passports for the children and that she be permitted to travel with them. Whilst at present, due to the world-wide COVID-19 pandemic, such travel may not be possible, the evidence does not establish that the mother is a flight risk or that the children might be taken out of the jurisdiction and not returned. The children should have the opportunity of travelling with their mother, including to the mother’s native Country D.
Parental Responsibility
The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility has been rebutted in this matter. This is not only due to there being little to no effective communication between the parties, but also due to the findings of family violence made earlier. Furthermore, the evidence is such that an order for equal shared parental responsibility is contraindicated, and indeed it would be counter-productive as far as the mother’s capacity to meet the children’s needs is concerned.
As the children will be living with the mother, it is appropriate that she have the benefit of an order for sole parental responsibility.
Change of Name
The principles regarding a change of name for children were explained by the Full Court in Chapman & Palmer. [8]
[8] [1978] FamCA 86
In a helpful summary, which the Court respectfully adopts here,[9] Judge Turner in Sander & Hearn[10] held that consideration must be given to:
(a)The welfare of the child being the paramount consideration;
(b)Any short or long term effect of any change in the child’s name;
(c)Any confusion of identity which may arise for the child of a name change if a name change does or does not occur;
(d)Any embarrassment that the child may experience if their name is different to that of the primary carer;
(e)The effect that any change of name may have on the child’s relationship with the parent whose name the child bears; and
(f)The effect of frequent or random changes of name.
[9] And which has previously been adopted; see Mayes & Denning [2017] FCCA 1754; Jepson & Fleming [2018] FCCA 400
[10] [2012] FMCAfam 812
The children have the surname K. It is a surname which is different to both their mother’s surname and their father’s surname.
The mother’s surname is Farah.
As noted earlier in these reasons, the father changed his surname from K to Abdul. He did so after he was made a bankrupt, and in the hope of being able to obtain finance. Whilst he has said that he intends to change his name back to K, there is no clear evidence as to why he has not done so already or when he intends to do so.
The father’s view is that the children should have the same surname as his other children, that is, the same as the children’s brother and sisters on the father’s side of the family. They have not spent any time with their half siblings for a number of years, who are all much older than them.
The mother seeks an order that the children’s surname be the same as hers. It is an order which would see the children being able to directly identify with their primary carer, and at least one of their parents.
The children do not understand why their surname is different to that of their mother and to that of their father. It is an unnecessary confusion for them, and likely an embarrassment.
A change in the children’s name to their mother’s surname is likely to fortify the already strong relationship they have with their mother. It will unlikely have any impact on their relationship with the father, who has a different surname.
The Court is satisfied that the orders sought by the mother in respect to changing the children’s surname are in their best interest.
Conclusion
For all of those reasons, orders as set out at the forefront of these Reasons for Judgment are made.
I certify that the preceding one-hundred and five (105) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Obradovic
Associate:
Date: 5 February 2021
0
8
2