Amador and Amador
[2008] FMCAfam 1407
•23 December 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| AMADOR & AMADOR | [2008] FMCAfam 1407 |
| FAMILY LAW – Parenting – mother seeks to relocate to Serbia – child has autism. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60CC (2), (3) & (4) |
| A & A: Relocation Approach (2000) FLC 93-035 |
| Applicant: | MR AMADOR |
| Respondent: | MS AMADOR |
| File Number: | PAC 3619 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Henderson FM |
| Hearing dates: | 22 & 23 September, 1 December 2008 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 1 December 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Parramatta |
| Delivered on: | 23 December 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Ms Gillies |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Harper |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Jennifer Weate & Associates |
ORDERS
The mother to have sole parental responsibility for the child, [X], born in 2005.
The child to live with the mother.
The mother be and is hereby permitted to relocate the residence of the child to Serbia on a permanent basis by giving the father twenty-eight (28) days written notice of her intention to travel to and live with the child in Serbia.
To facilitate Order 3 the child’s name to be removed from the Airport Watch list forthwith.
The mother to advise the father twenty-eight (28) days prior to her travel to Serbia of the address where the child will be living, a contact telephone number, and email address.
The mother is to return with the child to Australia during January or February each year commencing 2010 for a period of not less than four weeks for the purposes of facilitating the child spending time with the father in Australia at her cost.
The mother to notify the father in writing twenty-eight (28) days prior to her arrival in Australia and provide to him details of her living arrangements whilst in Australia and a contact telephone number.
The child spends with his father in 2010 and each year thereafter as agreed but failing agreement:
(a)For the first five (5) days commencing the second day after the child’s arrival in Australia:
(i)If the father is working, for no less than three hours on the 1st , 3rd and 5th day at times which accommodate the father’s work roster;
(ii)If the father is not working in the first week then each alternate morning from 9am to 12noon on the 1st, 3rd and 5th day.
(b)Thereafter the child to spend from 9am to 4pm on the 7th, 9th and 11th days in his father’s care or with his paternal grandparents if the father is unable to take annual leave.
(c)On the 13th and 17th day the child to spend two periods of three days and two nights in the father’s care at the home of the paternal grandparents.
(d)From the 22nd day to the 27th day with the father at the home of the paternal grandparents.
Upon the child reaching 5 years of age, in the absence of agreement between the parties, the child spend time with his father over the period of time in Australia as follows:
(a)In accordance with order 8 (b) for the first 5 days;
(b)In accordance with order 8(c) commencing on the 7th day and continuing for the next eight days;
(c)Commencing on the 18th day and continuing until the 27th day.
The parents each obtain a computer connection within 28 days of the mother’s arrival in Serbia such that they can use webcam or skype to communicate with each other and with the child.
The mother to send to the father a photograph of the child on three occasions each year.
The mother is to advise the father of all preschool, kindergartens, speech therapists, occupational therapist, and other treating specialists the child will attend or be treated by from time to time.
The mother forward to the father copies of all the child’s pre-school and school reports, medical reports and other assessments with such reports to be translated into the English language if not already in that language prior to sending them to the father.
The mother to ensure that all health professionals and educational professionals who are involved with the child permit the father to contact them on any occasion to discuss the child’s progress with them.
Where necessary the mother to translate any written requests the father makes into the Serbian language and forward on the translated request on behalf of the father. The mother to translate any written answer into the English language if necessary and forward same to the father.
The father may spend time with the child at any occasion he is able to travel to Serbia by giving the mother twenty eight days notice of his intention to travel and a copy of his itinerary. Provided the father stays at the accommodation provided by the maternal grandparents the father’s time with the child will be as follows:
(a)Two days and one night on two occasions;
(b)Thereafter three days and four nights on three occasions;
(c)At other times as agreed.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
The maternal family will make a unit available for the father and his parents when they are able to travel to Serbia.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Amador & Amador is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA |
PAC 3619 of 2007
| MR AMADOR |
Applicant
And
| MS AMADOR |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The matter of Amador is a parenting matter in which the mother of the parties’ young son, [X] born in 2005, seeks to return to Serbia with the child to live on a permanent basis.
The matter was part heard from 22 and 23 September 2008, to Monday 1 December 2008 when the hearing was completed.
The father is the applicant and was represented by Ms Gillies of Counsel. The mother is the respondent and was represented by
Mr Harper of Counsel.
The father’s application, amended on 23 November 2007, seeks orders that if I did not permit the mother to take the child to Serbia and she left the child in Australia that:
a)the child live with the father;
b)the father have sole parental responsibility for the child;
c)the child spend time with the mother during the June/July school holidays and the Christmas school holidays and communicate with the mother by webcam, telephone and the like.
The father sought orders that the child’s name be placed on the airport watch list.
From the family report prepared by Mr Goodsell, marked Court Exhibit 1, and the mother’s response, it became clear that if I did not permit the mother to return to live with the child in Serbia the mother would remain in Australia with her son.
The father conceded that in those circumstances the child should live with the mother and he would spend significant and substantial time with the child.
The mother’s response filed 25 October 2007 sought:
a)Sole parental responsibility for the child;
b)The child live with her;
c)She be permitted to relocate to Serbia with the child, that the child’s name be removed from the airport watch list to permit this;
d)She and the child return to Australia for a period of not less than two weeks and no more than three weeks each year, the child communicate with the father by webcam, telephone and the like, and the father be permitted to spend time with the child in Serbia if he was able to fly to that country by giving the mother twenty eight days notice.
At the hearing the mother’s evidence was that she would come to Australia for a period of four weeks each year with the child and that the money paid to her by way of child support would be used for the purpose of funding that trip.
This matter is complicated even further in that [X] has been diagnosed with autism. Thus he is a child with disabilities and specific needs over and above the needs of a child with no such difficulties.
No matter what decision I make one parent will be disappointed and grief stricken by the outcome.
Evidence
The evidence is as follows:
For the father:
a)Amended Application filed 23 November 2007;
b)Affidavit filed 4 September 2008;
c)Affidavit of his mother filed 4 September 2008;
d)The father and his mother were examined and cross examined.
The father tendered the following exhibits:
a)Husband’s Exhibit 1: A document from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trading relating to travel advisory information on Serbia.
b)Husband’s Exhibit 2: A document entitled “Children in Serbia 2006” published by UNICEF and in particular the page headed “Children with disabilities”.
c)Husband’s Exhibit 3: Letter to the paternal grandparents from the maternal grandfather dated 20 November 2008.
d)Husband’s Exhibit 4: The notes of Dr S, the mother’s therapeutic counsellor.
e)Husband’s Exhibit 5: Fourteen photographs of his son with various family members.
f)Husband’s Exhibit 6: The Children’s Hospital at [W]’s medical and psychological report dated March 2008.
For the mother:
a)Her Response filed 25 October 2007;
b)Affidavit filed 5 September 2008;
c)Affidavit of the paternal grandfather filed 5 September 2008
d)Affidavit of Dr S filed 5 September 2008
e)Affidavit of Ms S sworn 23 October 2008. The father did not seek to cross-examine Ms S. The father accepted the mother and [X] will have accommodation with Ms S in Australia.
f)The mother, her father and Dr S were cross examined.
The mother tendered the following:
a)Wife’s Exhibit 1: A letter to the Federal Magistrates Court from her solicitors.
The Report of Mr Norman Goodsell was marked Court Exhibit 1.
Mr Goodsell was examined by telephone link.
Competing proposals
This is a relocation matter and I am, consistent with the decision in A & A: Relocation Approach (2000) FLC 93-035 and many others since that time, obliged to set out the competing proposals of the parties, assess the consequences of those competing proposals by reference to the evidence and the Family Law Act to come to a determination of what order I should make in the child’s best interests.
The competing proposals are as follows:
a)That the mother and the child live in Serbia and the father remain in Australia.
b)That I permit the mother and the child to remove permanently to Serbia and the father relocates and lives in Serbia.
c)I do not permit the mother to remove the child from Australia and the resulting arrangements to be put in place to enable the child to spend time with the father.
d)A fourth option being the child remaining in Australia and the mother moving to Serbia is not before me.
Short Chronology
The father was born in 1970.
The mother was born in 1971.
The parties met on the internet in June 2002.
On 7 September 2004 the father travelled to Serbia and the parties first met face to face.
The parties married one month later in October 2004 in Belgrade, Serbia.
On 10 October 2004 the father returned to Australia.
[X] was born on 20 June 2005.
On 27 February 2007 the mother and [X] arrive in Australia and the parties commenced living together.
The parties separated on 25 June 2007. Thus cohabitation was only five months.
Interim Orders were made on 1 November 2007.
The mother makes serious allegations of physical and sexual abuse perpetrated against her by the father during their very short period of cohabitation to which she says the child was exposed which is a primary consideration under section 60CC(2)(b) of the Act .
The father says that if the child is taken to live permanently in Serbia this will effectively mean the end of any relationship between he and the child including the right of the child to a meaningful relationship with him pursuant to s.60CC(2)(a) of the Act which is also a primary consideration.
Since the father commenced to spend time with the child in November 2007 all parties agree that the father and the child have a relationship which extends to the paternal family. Mr Goodsell observed this relationship to be friendly. The father has participated in decision making, spending time with his son and involvement in his autism spectrum therapies.
The mother agrees that the child knows his father and appears to enjoy his time with him and his family. Mr Goodsell noted the child behaved in a friendly manner towards his father. Thus although [X] has the disability of autism, he has been able within the last twelve months to form a relationship with his father and his paternal family.
The child’s primary attachment is to his mother.
The child is non verbal and socially immature and thus communication other than face to face will be particularly difficult.
The mother’s evidence
Family violence
The mother describes quite horrific physical and sexual abuse by the father against her.
The mother says that whilst she remained in Serbia, and prior to her arrival in Australia in February 2007, the father would often telephone sounding drunk and say words such as:
Go cancel our marriage.
I don’t ever want to see you again.
I’ll forget about you and the baby.
The mother says he once compared [X] to his dogs.
The mother said she had misgivings about their relationship. However despite these misgivings she came to Australia when [X] was twenty months of age.
The mother said she found the father’s conduct when she first arrived in Australia with the child strange as he did not pick him up out of the stroller. I make nothing of that.
The mother asserts that almost immediately she and father began to argue. He would call her names such as “bitch”, “cunt”, “small-minded”, “shallow”, “stupid”, “ignorant”, “fucking migrant”. He would say “You’re not a woman you’re a fucking defect” and “This child belongs to another woman! You don’t deserve to have this child.”
In March 2007 they opened a special bottle of wine. The father had drunk almost all the bottle, conversation became heated and he said “Don’t try and fuck around with me because where I come from people do not fuck around with us. Do you understand bitch?”
The mother responded “I wish you could see your face now [Mr Amador]” and pointed at him. The father bit the mother’s finger. It bled and caused her pain.
The father would say to her on many occasions “you can fuck off but [X] stays here”. He would scare the mother with those comments.
The father would try and have sex with her by force and say “it is your duty and obligation to do it. If you don’t I’ll have to go elsewhere”. The mother said she would succumb to the sexual advances but she would be crying as the father was on top of her. The father called out once:
Cut out the shit and stop behaving like an innocent girl, you’re a grown woman! Start behaving like that! I can’t do it while you are crying!
In April 2007 the parties had an argument, the father ripped of her
t-shirt and ripped of her clothes and said to her in an aggressive manner “you always accuse me of being a villain so I may as well behave as one”. At that time he pushed her onto to the bed:
I was lying on my stomach faced down. He was holding my shoulder. He raped me.
The mother said she felt paralysed, she could not believe it was happening. The father’s comment was:
Oohh! That felt good.
After this incident in April 2007 the mother said she lost any sexual attraction for the father.
The mother said the father again had sex with her against her will in May 2007. He had been out with friends in May 2007. He came home the next morning drunk. He touched the mother between her legs, rolled his eyes and said “Do you want a repeat of the other night?” That is the second allegation of rape the mother makes. The mother said she was terrified and said “if you ever touch me again I am out of here”. The father said “As God is my witness, I promise I won’t touch you again if you don’t want me to”.
On 12 May 2007 the parents and child were in the car returning from dinner at the father’s parent’s home. The father said “I want to have sex with you”.
The mother said “I can’t. I just started my period”. He became angry:
When we stopped the car in the garage the father locked all the doors undid his seatbelt reached over to me and started choking me around the neck… I was unable to move as my seatbelt was still on. I tried to scream but had no voice... I was frightened and I thought I was going to die.
At that time the mother said she felt vulnerable, she felt changed and that the father could easily have killed her and she needed to do something urgently if she was going to survive.
The mother said she wanted to telephone someone for help but she could not. She did not have a home phone and the father checked her mobile. The father took the mother’s key card and left her basically without any money or access to funds.
The mother said she did ring a solicitor from a public phone the next day but she did not take any action to leave after that call.
In late May the mother and the father were still living together. They had another argument. The father said “I’ll fuck you whenever I want bitch”. Later that night the father said “You can go back to your mummy and daddy, to your lonely life, but you have to leave [X] here”.
In June 2007 the father said:
I’ve been thinking [X] is still too young, he needs a mother but in a few years he won’t need you anymore, so you can stay here until then.
On another occasion the father said:
Thank you for bringing [X]… my offspring, to Australia. Now you can leave.
The mother cried and was upset. Her doctor had advised her not to wait until he killed her but leave.
It was not until 25 June 2007 that the mother left despite saying that she was fearful for her life on 12 May 2007.
To the mother’s credit she did not return to Serbia with her child at separation but has remained in Australia and has gone through the proper legal process. The mother could have removed herself and the child to Serbia as they are both citizens of that country. The mother has acted appropriately in this regard.
An Apprehended Violence Order was made against the husband on
16 July 2007.
Mother’s health issues
The mother has had her own significant health issues. In November 2007 she was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. She was treated at the [R] hospital, had surgery, radioactive treatment, and her mother came from Serbia to assist in the care of [X]. The mother did not tell the father of this event and he only found out about this when the proceedings commenced.
The mother seems to have recovered from this cancer and her health is good.
The mother is due for carpal tunnel operation to her left hand. That was put on hold when her cancer was diagnosed. However she will now follow through with that operation.
The mother should have told the father about her cancer because it has clearly impacted upon her care of the child. Her failure to do so bespeaks the poor relationship between the parties and the mother’s mistrust of the father.
[X]’s Autism
The mother said she had become concerned about [X]’s development even when she and the father were living together.
The report of 25 March 2008, Husband’s Exhibit 6, confirms that the child has autism. He was referred to the [W] Clinic by Dr L who is his paediatrician. That report says that:
[X]’s mother had concerns about his lack of speech and language as well as his overall development and behavioural obsessions. She was concerned that he had developed some spoken language up till 18 months of age, but has since stopped using words. [X]’s mother felt that he had become withdrawn, and was throwing tantrums, because of his lack of communication abilities.
…He uses less than 5 words to communicate.
The report continues to say:
[X] reportedly has a number of concerning behaviours especially when routines are change. He will scream and cry… he will head bang during these tantrums…will open and close doors… for no apparent reason.
He likes to look at the television out the corner of his eye and will scan his head in front of the TV whilst doing this. He also likes to look at or stare at lights for prolonged periods of time…
[X] reportedly makes unusual use of people’s elbows…He likes to rub the elbow over his face and into his neck.
[X] has good local motor skills. His personal-social skills were rated at 10-14 months of age level though he was 2 years and 9 months at the date of the assessment. His hearing and speech is at about a 6-10 month level, his eye and hand coordination at a 19-23 month level, and his performance was around 2 years of age. His presentation met the formal diagnostic criteria of DSM-IV-TR Autistic Disorder.
The mother has been taking [X] to a speech pathologist and a particular pre-school in [A], [H] School, which has specific programmes for children with autistic and other disabilities.
All parties agree that [X] has made significant progress since early 2008. This is due to his mother’s clear capacity as a competent, caring and capable parent who has, despite living in a foreign country, managed to have her son treated most appropriately. The father is also supportive of his son’s treatments.
To his credit the father has no complaint of the mother’s care of the child. His Counsel submitted that the mother has demonstrated a high level of parenting capacity and that [X] has benefited from that capacity.
However, [X] is autistic and his lack of communication at this age is of real concern to his mother, his father and his treating professionals.
The mother asserts there are facilities available for [X] in Serbia of a comparable if not, as she asserts, better standard than is available here in Australia. It is clear that [X] has benefited from the therapies and interventions the mother has obtained for him in Australia.
In paragraph 30 of her affidavit the mother says she has contacted Vesna Trovic who is the President of the Autism Society of Serbia which Society is a member of the European Autism Association. Annexure H to the mother’s affidavit is a letter she received from this organisation. The letter says:
In Belgrade, there are three institutions- clinics for early diagnostic for children, families can get all kinds of consultations with experts in this field. Few institutions of this kind are found in Serbia out of Belgrade
The mother proposes to live in Belgrade. Her parents live in Belgrade. The letter continues:
Capacity to those institutions is satisfactory, so there are no waiting lists of any kind.
When the diagnosis is made, children (age 2 to 8) with autism have a right to haunt nursing and preschool institutions.
After pre-school institutions, children have right on primary education. There are four special schools, with classes for pupils with Autism in Belgrade. Team of experts, give their recommendations if child should go to mainstream education or to these special schools. By the Law, one class consists of not more than 4-6 pupils with autistic specter disorder.
During education child has speech and psychological therapy free of charge during their education...
There are also secondary schools for people with autism.
In Belgrade, there are four daily centres for people with Autism, which also function as work centres for people with severe autism. Individual transport to and from those centres provided.
…all above-mentioned institutions, programs are based on TEEACH and/or the ABBA methods which are recognized across the world.
As [X] was born in Belgrade he has no problems being accepted into the schools, programs and institutions.
The mother has always lived in Serbia in Belgrade. [X] was born and lived in Belgrade for the first twenty months of his life. The mother says if she returns to Serbia her old job is still available. Her hours of work will be flexible as she is involved in the publishing industry and works with a computer. The mother has extended family in Serbia and will live with her parents in their apartment in Serbia where she and [X] lived prior to arriving in Australia.
The mother says it has been recommended by [X]’s speech therapist that he learn one language which she says is Serbian as that is her native tongue and [X]’s first language. Of course, the child speaking Serbian makes it very difficult for the father to communicate with him as he does not speak Serbian. However, at this stage the child barely speaks at all.
The mother does not believe she can purchase a home or a car in Australia. She did say to Mr Goodsell that if she does have to remain in Australia she will need to retrain so that she can get a job to provide for herself and her son.
There is no doubt that the mother’s connections, ties, history, language and culture are Serbian not Australian. It is clear she came to Australia to enable her son to have a relationship with the father and to see if her marriage to the father could work which unfortunately it did not.
There is no doubt that the mother’s family will provide her comfort and assistance with the care of the child and his special needs. It will also be a comfort to her to be in a familiar environment surrounded by people who love her. Unfortunately she does not have the same relationship with the father’s family as she does with her own. She will feel much more comfortable with her own family assisting her.
The father’s evidence
The father’s evidence is that he found out his wife was pregnant after he returned to Australia. He says that he was happy about this. He says that the mother was less than satisfied with the hospital staff after [X]’s birth and said something to him like:
The hospital staff shows little compassion… I was left alone…I felt that [X] and I were left to die alone.
The father said she was also critical of the way the nurses treated [X] because he had some renal complications after his birth which are now resolved.
The father said he sent money to the mother whilst she was overseas and that they exchanged photographs of each other.
The father does not explain the delay in the mother coming to Australia. He says in paragraph 16:
On or about 30 August 2006, Ms Amador’s application to Australia was successful.
However she did not arrive in Australia until 27 February 2007.
The wife’s explanation of the delay is the only reason I have and I accept her evidence on this issue.
The father said he was very excited when his family arrived in Australia.
Family violence
The father admits in paragraph 27 of his affidavit that the mother was unhappy living in Australia. She said to him:
I don’t like living here. I don’t like how people live behind closed doors minding their own business. In Serbia, people invite their neighbours for coffee.
The father says he and the mother began to argue in March 2007. He says it was because the mother was very particular about things such as whose cheese it was in the fridge and if there was hair on the soap. The father paints a picture of an obsessive mother complaining about the father not washing dishes, not tidying up after himself, complaining of the clothes he wore, that she said to him “you are a small brain arsehole” because of a particular pair of socks he wore on one occasion.
The father said the mother smokes and that she promised she would stop smoking. He said that when she did not that became another source of conflict and argument. The mother did not like Australian television channels and was disappointed with Australia as the streets were “full of rubbish”.
He said they argued between eight to ten times a week about petty things. The father agreed the arguments escalated to shouting at each other and pushing and shoving. However, he says they always did their best to ensure that [X] was not involved.
The father said there were financial pressures as he was paying off debts. I accept that neither of these parents have much money.
The father agreed that when they argued they raised their voices, called each other “stupid”, she would call him a “mother fucker” and say to him “you are not half the man I want” and he would call her a “fucking bitch” and say to her “you have mental issues”.
The father then said the mother would push him in arguments and he would retaliate and give her a little push back. He said the mother intentionally hit her head on the dining table and punched her head on three occasions with a closed fist. The father said he had to stop the mother from hurting herself.
The father said the separation came as a complete shock to him. He says that on 23 June 2007 they visited his parents for four hours, had lunch, came home, played with their son, watched television, chatted, and two days later the mother left the home.
The father denies being physically aggressive or abusive or violent to his wife, and denies physically or sexually assaulting her.
The father said he consented to the AVO because he could not afford to defend the proceedings.
The father did not spend time with his son from separation until 10 November 2007 despite his repeated requests. The father describes in great detail his initial time with his son, slowly increasing in both time and activities engaged in.
It is clear the child is comfortable at the home of the paternal grandparents and he was observed by Mr Goodsell to have a friendly relationship with his father and his paternal grandparents.
[X]’s Autism
[X] has been spending time with his father as follows:
a)Commencing on 19 April 2008 each Saturday from 10am to 7pm, and each Tuesday;
b)Then for four weeks commencing June 2008 each weekend from 11am Saturday to 12pm Sunday and each Thursday from 5pm to 7:15pm; and
c)From 12 July each weekend from 11am Saturday until 4pm Sunday.
The father describes the child watching television, playing video games, and behaving in a manner consistent with a normal three year old.
This is in stark contrast to the mother’s description of the child and that described in the report of [W] Hospital in about March 2008. In that report the mother describes a child who does not watch television, he watches from the side of his eyes, he moves his head up and down, rubs his forehead with his fist and with adult’s hands. The father said the child plays with his toy trucks. The [W] Report describes the child moving trucks but not in what would be regarded as imaginative play but rather a repetitive action. The father said the child loves the action of sports game on the Playstation and that he grabs his grandmother’s hand and rubs his forehead with it.
The father agrees the child has been diagnosed with autism. He agrees he has difficulties with communication and social skills, that he is a fussy eater, and he has behavioural problems due to his lack of language. The father says he does have tantrums, throws things on the floor and bangs his head.
The father was not aware of the Medical and Psychological Assessment the child underwent in March 2008 and did not attend. When he became aware the father visited the Disability Special Unit at [suburb omitted] and spoke to Dr T and to Ms C who explained the outcome of the child’s intervention to him at [W] Hospital.
The father was unable to attend the next assessment at the mother’s home on 3 July 2008. However, consistent with his commitment to his son, he contacted Ms T to find out the results of the home visit.
The father has been closely involved with his son’s professionals and has shown a commitment to his son’s treatment. The mother was derelict in not telling the father of the important assessment at [W].
[X] has been referred for speech pathology, occupational therapy, counselling and case management services. These services and interventions have all been arranged by his mother. [X] is due for further reviews by the Disability Special Unit in March- June 2009.
The father has kept in contact with Dr L, [X]’s paediatrician, and the [H], the pre-school in [A], where [X] attends three days a week. The father has read books on Autism being:
a)“The World of the Autistic Child – Understanding and Treating Autistic Spectrum Disorder” by Dr Bryna Siegel; and
b)“The Australian Autism Handbook – The Essential Resource Guide for Autism Spectrum Disorders” by Benson O’Reilly and Sienna Smith.
I am satisfied the father is switched into his child’s autism and provides a good regime of care for him. I am satisfied that he would continue to seek and maintain specialist care for his son.
There is no doubt that if [X] is taken to Serbia by his mother the change in his circumstances would be significant. Most significant is that he may lose his relationship with his father and the paternal family. That this is probable rather than possible is due in part to [X]’s age but mostly due to the consequences of his disability. He has few social skills and lacks the language and ability to communicate, which are all severely limited due to his disability.
Husband’s Exhibit 1 was a document from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on the smarttraveller website. Under the heading “Health Issues” it states:
Medical facilities in Serbia are below Australian standards.
The father’s evidence that the mother was critical of her medical treatment when giving birth to [X] is agreed by the mother.
The father has obtained many reports from the web and other sources concerning the discrimination against disabled people in Serbia, that living conditions are much more difficult than in Australia and the concerns expressed by UNICEF in their publications of children’s rights in Serbia.
The father said the mother told him during their relationship that standards of living in Serbia are much lower than Australia. The father said that when was in Serbia in 2004 he saw children on the streets begging and that Belgrade was a poor city.
The evidence of Dr S
The evidence of Dr S was contained in her affidavit filed 5 September 2008 which attached a report dated 4 September 2008 along with her oral evidence.
Dr S’s evidence causes me difficulty in that she has only ever seen the mother and, consistent with established practices, has accepted the history as told by the mother. Thus forensically disputed issues cannot be determined on the basis of her one sided report.
However what I can take from her report is as follows.
The mother was referred to her for counselling due to a claim she has made under the Victim’s Compensation legislation. Dr S is not seeing the mother as part of her claim but in a therapeutic role.
The mother has been consistent in her attendances for counselling.
Dr S has seen [X] on two occasions as she has a specific interest in the Autism Spectrum.
The mother has consistently spoken of her desire to return to Serbia to from when they first met in July 2007. Her reasons were she has no family in Australia; the failure of her marriage; she does not see herself as having a future in Australia; she can return to her professional position in Serbia as an [occupation omitted]; she has family to assist in the day to day care of her son; and his disabilities make family support all the more important.
Dr S said it is likely that [X] will require life long additional support. In order to meet [X]’s needs the mother must have emotional and practical support. She will not only require professional support but also, more importantly, family support which can be called upon
24 hours a day.
The last sentence of Dr S’s report is:
It is my opinion that [X]’s long term welfare is critically interlinked with his mother’s welfare.
Cross examination of the father
It became clear from cross examination that the father’s limited finances would not permit him to visit his son even once a year in Serbia. The best that can be achieved is [X] seeing his father once a year when his mother brings him to Australia and his father perhaps being able to travel to Serbia once each second or third year.
It also became clear that the father will not relocate to Serbia. He does not speak the language nor has he any introductions for work in that country. He has no connections to Serbia.
The father had a drink driving charge in 2004 and lost his licence for four years. He is not due to have his licence resumed until 2010 as he was caught driving whilst disqualified when returning [X] for a contact visit and had two years added to his suspension. The father said he took this foolish step because he said he was running late returning his son and he hopped into the car thinking nothing would happen.
This loss of licence has impacted on his ability to perform the duties of his employment as a [occupation omitted].
The father denied he consumed alcohol whilst speaking to the mother on the telephone when she was in Serbia. However, he has been convicted of driving whilst under the influence.
The father also denied they had arguments about whether she would come to Australia. Having regard to the length of time between the mother receiving her visa and coming to Australia, it appears to me there must clearly have been issues concerning the mother’s doubts as to whether she would ultimately move to Australia which the father was not prepared to admit to in cross examination.
The father denied under cross examination calling the mother a “bitch”, “cunt”, “small-minded”, “shallow”, “stupid”, “ignorant”, “fucking migrant”.
The father did admit that he told the mother she had “mental issues”.
However, in his affidavit the father said he called the mother a “fucking bitch”. In further cross-examination he said he may have called her this name a couple of times.
I accept he used those words to the mother and on more than a couple of occasions.
The father denied aggressively telling the mother not to “fuck around” with him in March 2007 when they drank a bottle of wine. He denies biting the mother. He denied telling her “it is your duty and obligation to do it ( have sex ). If you don’t I’ll have to go elsewhere”. He denied ripping the mother’s clothes off in April 2007. He denied ever raping his wife.
The father said he only went out once with his friends during the five months of their cohabitation. He denied going out on most Saturday nights.
The father denied the incident in the car where the mother said she feared for her life when she asserted he was trying to strangle her. He denied saying the words “I’ll fuck you whenever I want bitch”.
The father admitted he accused the mother of having mental issues. He knew she was unhappy in the relationship and in Australia. He was asked whether he thought in June 2007 that there may not be a future for them. He said:
I just kept trying. It is a huge change for her to come over from there and what not. But you know you just keep trying. You get over it. You know all the pressures and you just keep trying.
From the father’s own affidavit evidence the parties were arguing eight to ten times a week which is more than once a day. He said he thought they would eventually be able to work it out as they were petty arguments.
Despite the father seeking to minimise any violence in the home, on his own evidence he describes a high level of conflict and the tension which would have had a negative impact on the child.
It was put to the father that he was lying about the violence. He said he was not.
The father denied checking the mother’s mobile phone. He denied pushing the mother around with the palm of his hand but he agreed that they had both pushed each other when they were arguing. That is, he asserts the pushing was mutual.
It became clear that the father kept the mother’s key card which meant she was unable to access any money from any bank. His evidence that she never had the card as she did not know how to use the machine was unbelievable. This is an intelligent, educated woman who would clearly be able to use an Automatic Teller. Such machines are throughout the world and the father had to admit he had seen such machines when in Serbia. That evidence did the father no good.
The father then said the mother never asked to use the card and she never wanted to use the card. When it was put to him that the mother would be able to use the card he said:
Well she might have but she didn’t ask for the card and I provided whatever money was there. I mean we used all the money, so.
The father gave the mother what he could. He said he might have given her $50 as money was tight.
It was put to the father that the way he dolled out small amounts of money to the mother and retained her key card was his attempt to control her. He said:
No. I mean money was tight and I just had to make the most of it.
The father then said the mother:
did not know how to spend and what not.. did not how much we could afford to spend and that is why I kept the card…well she didn’t know how much to use, she would buy things we did not need and then we are short for things.
The only thing the mother was in charge of during the relationship was caring for the child and keeping the home clean. It is clear the father controlled her by way of money. She was isolated in Australia. It can only have been a most unhappy and dreadful time for her and him.
From the father’s affidavit he was under financial pressure and was paying off debts and as such he clearly controlled the mother’s access to money.
The mother admitted that she did hit her head on the dining room table on one occasion of her own free will due to her severe distress and unhappiness. She denied doing so on the three occasions the father asserted. The father admitted that when she did this she was unhappy and distressed.
The father agreed that the child has a closer relationship with his mother than he but he added the word “circumstantially”. This was explained to be:
he spends more time with the mother than he does with me and that’s all. I wish I could spend more time with him. And be with him longer.
The father did accept that [X]’s mother was very important to him.
Initially in questioning the father did not accept that the mother would be a better parent to their child if she returned to Serbia. He agreed that if she returned she would feel more loved, less scared, more supported and less alone than she does in Australia. However, he could not understand how that could make her a better parent.
He was questioned on this opinion and said :
Because life is better in Australia than it is in Serbia in the long term. Here he has both parents… he would only have one parent there.
I then asked the father:
Do you think your wife would be a better mother from her point of view if she went home?
The father answered “Yes”. I was satisfied that the father did accept that from the mother’s point of view she believed she would be a better parent in Serbia but that he did not accept this to be the case.
The father agreed that the speech pathologist had said that in the short term it was best for the child to have one language which at this time is Serbian.
The father pays $45 a month child support.
Cross examination of the mother
The evidence supported a finding that the mother has had a very difficult time living in Australia. She has had to deal with the break down of her relationship, living in a new country and adapting to a new culture, her cancer operation and treatment, carpal tunnel syndrome and resultant pain and her son’s disability and diagnosis of autism.
The parents have had very little experience of living together and certainly no happy experiences of living together.
The mother was quite firm, despite being pressed to the contrary, that she did not believe she had been forced to remain in Australia. She believed she was doing the right thing in staying and that although she knew she could have returned to Serbia with [X] at separation there would have been consequences for her son and herself. Thus she chose to stay and press her clear need and desire to live in Serbia in the appropriate and proper way. Ms Gillies’ cross examination did not sway me from the mother’s evidence that doing things in the most appropriate way was and will always be her intention and approach.
The mother admitted there is no single parent benefit in Serbia as there is in Australia.
The father brought up the war in Serbia in 1992 and 1993 and the food shortages. That has little if any relevance to the matter. The father was quite content to leave the mother and child in Serbia after the marriage and she did not arrive in Australia until [X] was twenty months of age. I see no persistent agitation or exhortations by the father during that period for the mother to come to Australia.
I was satisfied from the mother’s cross examination that she would obtain work in Serbia, consistent with the work she had prior to coming to Australia, and that she has her parents to assist her in the care of the child which assistance is not available to her in Australia.
The mother has significant carpal tunnel problems resulting in nerve damage in her left hand and she will have an operation to correct this problem early in the New Year. The mother said she has no carpal tunnel symptoms in her right hand now.
The mother was in the process of having her carpal tunnel problems dealt with when she found out she had thyroid cancer which of course took priority. Thus I accept this is why that medical issue has not yet been dealt with despite her pain.
The mother said she would use the money paid to her by way of child support to bring the child to Australia once a year. The mother said she would come to Australia with the child and would slowly introduce the child to the father so that by the end of the four weeks he would be spending most of his time with the father. The mother believed that provided the time was slow at the beginning and she was with [X] this arrangement to spend time with his father would be possible and appropriate for him.
It is true that she and the father do not communicate. It will be difficult for the mother to arrange a graduated regime of time with the father and the child in Sydney having regard to their present poor communication. However, that is a matter for me, by way of order, to determine if I decide the mother moving with the child to Serbia is an order in his best interests.
The mother gave much detail in relation to [X]’s problems. He does not follow instructions like a typical kid; he does not understand concepts like slow, fast, rough, smooth, in, out. However he is learning and he is improving. He can concentrate. It really depends on his mood.
All parties agree that since January 2008 his general behaviour has significantly improved due to the treatments and therapies he is undergoing and that have been put in place by the mother and also carried out by the father.
The mother agreed routine was important to the child and if his routine is to be changed, she has to explain this to him. This was consistent with the maternal grandfather’s evidence and his letter to the paternal grandparents referred to later.
The mother said:
When we have to go somewhere [X] has not been and he does not know the way, that’s fine. But if we change our way to the child care centre, if I take a different path to a place he knows. That is a problem.
That is a classic symptom of the Autism spectrum.
The mother said the child is unpredictable. He can sometimes get distressed or not get distressed one does not know. It was put to the mother that she chose to speak Serbian to the child when she could have spoken English. What the mother said is a child with Autism feels safer in using and being spoken to in the language spoken at home which for this mother is Serbian.
I do not criticise the mother for speaking to her autistic child in her mother tongue. It was particularly unfair to criticise the mother as was attempted to be done for speaking to him in Australia in Serbian when he lived in Serbia for the first twenty months of his life where everyone around him spoke Serbian. [X]’s first language is Serbian.
That criticism demonstrated the scant understanding or disregard by the father of the difficult position the mother found herself in after her marriage broke down in Australia.
It is undeniable that if the child remains in Australia surrounded by English speaking people and as he grows older he will have a better chance of communicating with his father than if he goes to Serbia where he will be surrounded by the Serbian language. It is also clear from the evidence that due to his autism [X] will need to become competent in one language first before attempting to learn another.
The mother agreed that the father loved his child and cared for him well but she could not say if [X] loved his father but he certainly cared for his father.
The mother was asked about the progress that [X] has made since he has been going to speech pathology and his other activities. The mother said this:
In October 2007 [X] was without speech, I was not able to read books with him, he would reject that, he would not tolerate me sitting next to him and turning pages, he would just wanted to do it by himself. He was not interested in other kids whatsoever, he had strong reticent behaviour. If I left him at any child care centre, I would come back and find him alone in a corner playing with a microwave, opening and closing the door or spinning the plate or other objects and would not sit with the other children watching television.
He made just small steps until early 2008 when he started to see his speech therapist in January this year and I did the work I was advised to at home with him. The occupational therapist at the [H] home provided me with sensory guides and charts with different activities I could do with him to fulfil his sensory needs - perceptive, visual, auditory, and tactile.
After I started working at home with [X], he started to make progress. He has slowly started saying single words. He has stopped, not completely, his rubbing. He does not stand in the middle of the room and spin anymore, he does not stare at lights anymore or not as often as he used to. He tolerates, not only tolerates me playing next to him, he brings me toys, he brings me books, he points out objects in books, he pronounces name of this objects, when he does not know the name, he wants me to tell him and immediately tries to repeat it. [X] does tolerate children playing next to him or playing around him and sometimes he wants to take turns with other kids.
He wants me to look at him when he talks to me. He grabs my chin and turns my chin his way, if I do not look at him he will do it until I look at him. Sometimes I play dumb in order to let him know he needs to ask me something because he tends to grab and take everything he wants for himself. We have stopped him from going into the kitchen, so he can not just go to the refrigerator. He uses simple words, he can follow directions like, come to change nappy, or we are going out or lets go to bed now, turn off the television or turn off the light.
So I tried to speak to his new speech therapist and she was impressed with his progress and she was impressed because she said her main role is to assist staff in the [H] to help [X] cope with his problems. I asked if she could work directly with [X] but she cannot, so that is why I do these things at home with him.
The mother said he will sit at a table at the [H], but she cannot get him to sit at a table at her home. [X] needs continued consistent professional assistance. The mother asked [X]’s speech therapist if she would work with him at home so he could make better progress. The speech therapist said to her “he will not necessarily make better progress because you are the one he is going to listen to; you are more than anyone else”.
It was put to the mother that her proposal to go to Serbia with [X] and he see his father once a year could not possibly foster a relationship and that ultimately he would have no relationship with the father. The mother agreed that is possible.
However it does not follow, as was suggested by the father, that the mother therefore does not want the child to have a relationship with the father. What follows is that the mother’s need to return to Serbia is intertwined with the child’s best interests and is part of the balance I must asses in the risk to [X] of having no relationship in the long term with his father or his paternal family if [X] and the mother do return to Serbia.
The mother was cross examined on the allegations of violence. It was put to her that if the father bit her finger she would have screamed. I do not accept that position. Everyone reacts differently to pain.
It was put to the mother the police never came to the apartment after these arguments. That is true. However the mother was in a foreign country and I am not satisfied she would have even known at that time of her ability to have the police act on her behalf. I accept the mother is now aware of her rights.
It was put to the mother that she completely made up the extreme violence set out with great particularity in her affidavit. The mother denied this.
Ms Gillies posited that if she was frightened for her life on 12 May 2007 when she said the father attempted to strangle her in the car her not leaving the home until 26 June 2007 was inconsistent with her alleged fear.
Ms Gillies submitted that the mother’s expressed fear and her actions were inconsistent. There is some force in that argument.
The mother said she put up a façade to the world and his parents that she and her husband were happy because she did not know what else to do being so isolated and without support. She said she left without telling the father because she was in fear of her life and in fear of his reaction if she told him what she wanted to do.
At this time the mother had only been living in Australia for five months and it was for her at that time a foreign country. The mother was completely on her own with no friends or family and a young dependant child. The mother was totally dependent on the father for money and her isolation at this time was extreme. Her actions and stated fears, although at face value inconsistent, can be seen as consistent in this context.
This conduct of the mother’s raises squarely two important issues. The lack of communication between the parents and the lack of respect the mother believes the father has shown her as a woman and a mother.
The mother admitted going back to Serbia would be a big interruption to the child’s regime but she said if she goes back to Serbia:
I will have a lot more to offer [X] than I have here. We have to sacrifice something.
Ms Gillies pressed as hard as she could to convince me that the mother did not see that the child’s relationship with his father is important. I was not convinced by the cross examination. I accept that the mother did not provide the child to the father until November 2007 when orders were made, but I also accept she was in fear of the father at that time.
Although I am not tasked with making positive findings whether or not the father behaved as asserted by the mother, I accept that the mother is fearful of the father and cannot communicate with him. She is in a foreign country on her own with a disabled child with very little money or support. Her actions in not facilitating time with the child and the father for many months in these circumstances have a basis in reality. Since the orders were made she has facilitated the child’s relationship with his father.
The mother did not tell the father she had cancer because she was fearful of what he might do if he knew. Although that was not a child focussed approach, I accept the mother does not trust the father and did not trust him to look after [X] full time and that this is as a consequence of her fear of him.
It was put to the mother that the UNICEF documents tendered by the father conclude that parents in Serbia often hide children with disabilities. The mother said she agreed this occurred in the rural areas of Serbia but not in the capital cities such as Belgrade.
It was also put to the mother that this same document concluded that there was a deficit in counselling services and day care centres for children with disabilities because teachers, children, and parents showed great resistance to including children with disabilities in normal school. The mother said she has never witnessed anything like that in Belgrade.
The mother agreed that if the UNICEF report was correct, she would be concerned about taking [X] to live in Serbia as he is a child with disabilities.
The evidence of the Family Consultant Mr Norman Goodsell
Mr Goodsell stated there was no parental dispute in terms of residence as the mother stated she would stay in Australia with the child if she could not take him to Serbia.
The father said he did not have any intention of removing [X] from the primary care of the mother if she were to remain here. Thus, the relocation dispute was the main issue.
It became clear that Mr Goodsell was most concerned that there were a comparable range of treatment programs in Serbia for [X] as there are in Australia.
The mother’s annexure to her affidavit is the only evidence I have of the availability of autism services in Serbia. It is a compelling document none the less. That document satisfies me that there are appropriate day care centres and pre schools for the child, and mainstream and specials schools for the child. It satisfies me that there are sufficient facilities such as counselling, speech and other therapies available for the child. As [X] was born in Serbia, he will have no problem accessing those resources.
Although the UNICEF report does cause concern regarding the attitude in Serbia to children with disabilities, it is a general report and not specific as is the letter from the Autism Society of Serbia. The mother’s evidence is precisely on the issue of services available in Belgrade for a child with autism. The UNICEF report is a broad general document.
Ms Gillies submitted the mother’s evidence regarding the services available in Belgrade for autistic children was not first hand. However, the mother is unable to take [X] out of the country and she cannot leave him for any lengthy period in anyone else’s care at this time and thus I am at a loss as to how she could return to Serbia and obtain this information first hand.
The mother said to Mr Goodsell that she delayed bringing [X] to Australia because she was not sure about the future of her relationship with the father. They had experienced many arguments when they spoke on the telephone. The mother’s concerns were born out as the relationship was unhappy and broke down only five months after she came to Australia.
The mother told Mr Goodsell that she was shocked by the father’s behaviour. He was abusive. He raped her on two occasions and attempted to strangle her. She did not report these matters to the police. She did not want the father charged at the time but she did report them after separation.
She said the father argued loudly with her when the child was present. The father admits as such in his material. He said he and the mother argued eight to ten times a week and they pushed each other. Clearly the child would have seen and witnessed these arguments and this physical behaviour between his parents.
Mr Goodsell observed her reasons for wanting to return to Serbia are clearly child related and personal. Foremost she considered she had few if any supports in Australia. She had only come here to be with
Mr Amador and now their relationship was at an end, no other reason remained. All her family and friends resided in Serbia and she still had a job she could return to. Her parents were retired and she envisaged them playing an active role in helping her with [X]’s care.
The mother believed she would receive comparable professional treatment in Serbia for [X] and that there was no waiting list for intensive autism services. She said there was a waiting list here in Australia for a one on one service with which Mr Goodsell agreed.
The mother became very emotional when asked what she would do if the court ordered [X] remain in Australia. She said she would stay no question. She would have to start a new life including doing further study in order to obtain employment.
Mr Amador said the reason the mother took twenty months to come to Australia after [X]’s birth was for financial reasons only. I do not accept that evidence. There were clearly real misgivings and doubt from the mother and perhaps the father about the viability of a long term relationship between them.
The father said they argued about money when living together in Australia. That is obvious as the mother had neither money nor any access to money. The father controlled the money. The father agreed that they argued loudly and there was pushing and shoving but he had never done to her what she said he had done.
The father wanted [X] to remain in Australia because life is better here than in Serbia. He believes it is a poor war torn country. He believes Serbia does not have similar treatment facilities regarding autism and his son would receive substandard care and, of course, they would not be able to develop a normal father son relationship.
The father was of the view that the mother was adaptable and could settle in Australia if she had to. However, the father has no proposal to go to Serbia and settle in Serbia if he has to. The father takes a very one sided view.
Cross examination of the maternal grandfather
The grandfather was asked about his grandson’s autism. He gave his evidence through an interpreter. The grandfather said the problems with [X] and his autism would vary and were dependant upon on his environment and surroundings. If [X] feels safe and is prepared for events his behaviour will be okay and his symptoms will reverse.
One of [X]’s problems at the moment was expressing himself. He has wishes that he cannot communicate. With lots of patience and trying to understand what he is trying to say, he will calm down. If you do not, if you are not patient, he cannot express himself and he shows this in disturbing ways, in different ways.
One aspect of another problem is when he is looking at something he does not look straight at it, he only turns his head or his eyes, trying to direct or show you what he is about to say. The grandfather said when he is looking at something he does not focus and look directly at things, he sort of turns and then rather than responding he looks at it from the side of his eyes, not directly. This is consistent with the Report of the [W] Hospital in March 2008.
The grandfather said that [X] also has a need to rub his forehead, he makes a fist. The grandfather demonstrated this. The grandfather said:
He does this with his fist as well but he often grabs my hand and he makes me do a fist with my hand and try to rub it on his head.
He is lacking a little bit of self discipline, you cannot make a plan in order for him to follow, and he will not eat or have meals how you plan or organise for him. He will only eat when he is feeling like it. As for his sleeping, that is not a problem, he sleeps well. He likes to touch a person when he goes to sleep, he likes someone to lay and be next to him, he likes to hold and sort of have a touch of skin.
He has to feel safe, that is his only way. When he lies on the bed, I put my hand on him to keep it on his head and then he will put his hand up to make it double secure. When he is playing with his cars he likes to organise them and put them in order that suits him, he doesn’t like me to do anything, he likes to put them how he likes.
The grandfather’s description of his grandson took some time. He was asked, “Have you finished?” He said “Yes I can tell you stories and stories”.
I am satisfied the apartment the maternal grandparents own and where the mother proposes to live with the child is large enough to accommodate the mother and the child. The grandfather said the mother could move out on her own if she wished, but she would not as it was better to be with them as it was more financially viable.
It was put to the grandfather that there was still trouble in Belgrade and demonstrations in the street. He said yes it is about Radovan Karazich. I accept that is true however it does not convince me that Belgrade is a city that regularly suffers such unrest. This was a particularly painful episode for the people of Belgrade and Serbia and some unrest may have been inevitable.
Ms Gillies put to the grandfather “You don’t think it is in your grandson’s interest to remain here?” He said “Yes” and it is from clear the letter he sent to the paternal grandparents in November 2008 he maintains that view.
Ms Gillies asked “You believe his father is not necessarily a good person for him to have in his life”. The grandfather said:
No I would not agree with that. I think every child needs both parents, their father as well. I would not say that about his father, but in this situation and I think it is very important the child sees his father, but in this situation, I think they need help. My daughter and my grandson. My grandson is the priority.
The grandfather said in his evidence that when his daughter told him what the father had done to her his opinion of the man decreased but not as a father because he never witnessed him as a father. The grandfather admitted that he does not like the father after what he has heard about him.
The mother agreed she told her father of the husband’s alleged sexual and physical assaults upon her during the relationship. The maternal grandfather wrote a letter to the paternal grandparents dated November 2009, though it is accepted it was sent in November 2008. The letter says:
When Ms Amador and Mr Amador told me they wished to get married, I accepted Mr Amador as another son…
When Mr Amador was in Belgrade, he could see how we lived. I guess he is aware that Ms Amador did not go to Australia to look for a better life, but to make a happy family in love with her husband. She showed her respect towards Mr Amador at the very beginning when she did not allow us/ her parents/ to attend the wedding ceremony because you/ his parents/ could not attend…
[X] is a highly sensitive child (a child feels every quiver of his mother). Therefore he needs a healthy, peaceful and warm family atmosphere; otherwise he is very unhappy and nervous.
The grandfather referred to the allegation the mother makes that the father told her prior to coming to Australia that he felt the same way about his dogs as he did about [X]. The letter continues:
[X]’s health is very delicate and he needs attention and support in his development…I see the autism that showed as something that can be controlled and overcome. Imagine [X] as a boat in shallow waters, with underwater rocks (autism). In calm waters it will sail its journey (child development) with only minor or no scratches, but in stormy waters it will hit the rocks and be severely damaged.
It is our duty to help [X] to grow up in a peaceful atmosphere, surrounded by love, and become a healthy person and fit for an independent life, to the great joy of all of us.
My duty before God…is to make full contribution to his healthy development. By this I do not mean to say that I am a greater grand parent than you are, nor that you love [X] less than I do, but I am trying to see what the best is for [X]. If he comes to Belgrade, you will not be denied in any way keeping in touch with him or seeing him whenever you wish to do so. It is his right as well. [X] cannot be blamed for anything in all this.
With his behaviour Mr Amador denied himself the joy of bringing up a child. He can show his love and greatness as a father by allowing [X] to grow up in peace (not in a disturbing and disrupted environment). He should be ready to help [X] if one day he expresses his desire to study in Sydney and he should be aware of a student’s needs.
If I had thought only of my affection to [X] and his affection to me, he would not go to Sydney at all. However, I thought that it was right that he grows with his mother and father. My love for him would be satisfied by his happy childhood and by talking with him and seeing him from time to time.
As a mother Ms Amador deserves high respect as, even at the moments when she was personally jeopardized, she did not desert her child. I am certain that she will continue doing all the best for [X]…
…It would be a crime to separate [X] from his mother. In order to help [X] develop normally his mother needs to be undisturbed, free from any worries or fears, and this will ensured if they come to Belgrade. [X] would grow in a loving family atmosphere that would be beneficial for his development, which I could see during my stay in Sydney. His condition improved significantly between my arrival and departure.
I beg you as parents to help Mr Amador to overcome his vanity and selfishness and allow [X] to grow into a healthy person. It is difficult to make good tomorrow from what has been done badly today.
I hoped I would never contact you with this request, but I believe you will what the best is for [X] and advise tour son to make the best decision for the benefit of his son.
The maternal grandfather has a negative view of the father as a husband to his daughter. He believes his daughter cannot make a happy life for herself in Sydney and that in those circumstances her only option is to return to Serbia with her son.
However the thrust of the letter is what he sees as best for [X]. The primary theme is that [X]’s well being and his mother’s happiness are intertwined. This opinion is consistent with Dr S’s opinion that [X]’s well-being is connected to his mother’s well-being.
Ms Gillies submitted this letter would cause me concern because if [X] lived in Serbia with his maternal grandfather the negative view of the father would be passed on to the child and thus impact upon the child’s well-being. I do not share the same concerns as Ms Gillies. Rather, I see a maternal grandfather appealing to paternal grandparents to see the shared grandchild’s best interests the same way as he does.
This view of the letter was further confirmed after hearing the maternal grandfather give evidence. The letter is filled with quite lovely word pictures of the child, great understanding of the child’s particular needs including an acknowledgment of the importance of the paternal family in [X]’s life.
The paternal grandfather’s oral evidence was in the same vein.
The maternal grandfather will make accommodation available for the father and the paternal family if they came to visit [X] in Serbia.
The observations of the child by Mr Goodsell.
When seen with his father and grandparents, [X] was excited, running up and down the room and touching objects. The father said this was [X]’s usual behaviour.
Mr Goodsell asked the father to show him the child’s sensory exercises. The child was happy, he did not resist, but the exercise made him more excited.
The father seemed used to this and displayed much patience with his son. [X] had little direct interaction with his grandparents. [X] resisted putting his shoes back on, he writhed around and refused to get back into his stroller. He was told he was going to see his mum and the child walked down the corridor with his father hand in hand.
When the child saw his maternal grandmother he smiled and ran to her and she picked him up. The grandmother and the mother brought the child back into the room.
The session between the child and his mother and his grandmother were notably different in mood than it had been with the father and grandparents. At his mother’s request, [X] sat back in his stroller, quietly allowed the mother to replace his shoes and sat peacefully holding his mother’s hand whilst she spoke to him. She stroked her son’s arm applying firm pressure which he seemed to like.
The mother was asked if he was always so quiet with her. She replied that he would often be active but she had been taught ways of helping him settle. She only did sensory exercises when he was settled, otherwise they were less effective. The maternal grandmother continuously smiled at the child and he smiled back at her.
Mr Goodsell observed him as a robust, physically capable three year old but lacking expected language development. He displayed immature awareness of his social and physical boundaries in keeping with his diagnosed disorder. His behaviour indicated his primary attachment was to his mother, he acted in a friendly manner towards his father but with less behavioural restraint.
He demonstrated affectionate familiarity with the maternal grandmother. His early formative years included living with the mother’s family in Serbia and in the assessment of Mr Goodsell he showed he had secure trust of the maternal grandmother.
His relationship with his father does seem to have grown.
Mr Goodsell posed the question whether the current secure attachment between the mother and child would be impaired if the mother was forced against her will to remain in Australia. Whilst the mother said she would build a new life in Australia if she had to, she expressed the view she would struggle emotionally with the prospect of rarely seeing her family who had been so strongly involved in [X]’s care for the first twenty months of his life.
Of major concern to Mr Goodsell was the lack of purported professional service in Serbia to deal with autism. I am satisfied by the enquiries the mother has been able to make and the letter from the Autism Society of Serbia attached to the mother’s affidavit that there are services available in Serbia for [X].
I cannot make a positive finding that the Serbian services are comparable or superior to those available in Australia. However, I do not say I need to make such a finding.
What has most satisfied me on this issue is the mother’s parenting capacity. The mother has parented this child to a high level despite considerable obstacles being her isolation in living in Australia, her cancer and her child’s significant disabilities. This mother will never place her own interests above what is in her son’s best interests. The mother has displayed this attitude and conduct time and time again whilst living in Australia. [X] has and will always come first in her priorities.
The mother did not leave Australia when she could have at separation, she has taken up every available option to maximise her son’s development, and she has ensured he has begun a relationship with his father despite her real fear of the father. She has put her needs on hold for his needs. Merely because she wishes to remove the child to her home country and where he was born does not mean she is putting her needs before her sons. That would be a far too simplistic approach in this matter.
I have no doubt the mother will continue to put her child’s interests before her own whether she lives in Australia or Serbia and would not propose to take him to Serbia unless she was satisfied his needs would be met as they have been met in Australia. To find otherwise would be inconsistent with her hitherto exemplary parenting role with this difficult child.
If [X] lives in Serbia with his mother, it is in his interests to have regular visits with his father as well as, when he is able, to communicate via a webcam or telephone. Although it is agreed [X] may never have a normal relationship with either parent due to his disability he is entitled to have the best relationship he can with each of them having regard to all the circumstances surrounding his need for better than average care.
If [X] remains in Australia his time with his father would be expected to increase over time and be consistent with his ability to spend periods away from his mother. Any increase in time would occur in consultation with his treating professional.
Dr S described the mother as resourceful, confident, capable and caring. Ms Gillies made a similar submission.
Mr Goodsell agreed in cross examination that [X] needs better than average care and that his mother is the most important person in his life. This is consistent with his observations of the child with his mother and father, consistent with Dr S’s opinion, the opinion of [X]’s speech pathologist and the maternal grandfather’s observations.
Mr Goodsell was asked if in time the mother’s capacity to care for [X] would be compromised if she had to remain in Australia close to the father because of her view of him. He said:
Yes, perhaps, there has been no conflict in the last twelve or eighteen months so I would not automatically assume that her capacity would be compromised by being in close proximity. It is more important for [X] to have consistency and stability in his life. It is very important to him and that includes the professionals who work with him.
Dr S had said that [X] would require lifetime support from his mother. Mr Goodsell was asked to comment and said:
Yes for the first ten or so years it is most important there be significant and consistent support for an autistic child, and until ten years or so of age it is difficult to predict whether support at that level will need to be continued and maintained as they reach adolescence and adulthood, but he will need significant intervention for all his childhood.
Mr Goodsell agreed it was very important for the mother to feel supported in her role as a mother and that she would require professional support and family support. He agreed that the mother’s proposal for [X] was not ideal because she wanted to change his routine, his professional carers and remove him to Serbia.
Mr Goodsell agreed that on balance the mother would be more supported at home in Serbia than she is at present because that is what she wants and that is the support she would feel most comfortable with.
It was put to him that this balance falls in favour of [X] going to Serbia. Mr Goodsell said “I agree with you in so far as [X] remaining with his mother that she will be a better mother in Serbia”.
As Mr Goodsell had no knowledge of the services in Serbia he would not say if that balance would be better.
I have found there are appropriate services available Serbia for [X]. Thus the distillation of the issues has come to down to a balancing of the clear evidence that the mother will maximise her parenting capacity over his childhood by living in Serbia with [X]’s right to the benefit of a meaningful relationship with his father which can be maximised only if he remains in Australia.
Thus I must weigh up the impact on the mother of being forced to remain in Australia to ensure the benefit to [X] of having a meaningful relationship with his father and the resulting impact on her parenting of the child and any consequent impact upon [X].
The converse is the impact on the child of not having the benefit of a meaningful relationship with his father which is a probable outcome if he returns to live in Serbia with the benefit to him of his mother’s parenting capacity in the long term being maximised.
Mr Goodsell agreed that the mother is a woman who has followed through on her own treatment as well as her son’s treatment and has been a very effective parent for the last fifteen months and she has a plan if she has to remain in Australia.
Mr Goodsell agreed that there was nothing to persuade him that the mother would fall apart if the court did not let her return to Serbia. He said she is a capable parent, but he added a rider - She may have been able to maintain this capability and resourcefulness for the last fifteen months because she knew the question of whether she was ultimately able to return to Serbia was still at large.
It is a finding available to me on the evidence that the possibility she could return to Serbia is what has sustained the mother and enabled her to manage. If she cannot return to Serbia that may cause her real emotional difficulties in the long term and any diminution in her parenting capacity will have a negative impact on the child. There is no such risk if she returns to Serbia.
I am dealing here with long term issues.
Findings
Violence
I am unable to make a finding that the father perpetrated the specific acts of violence alleged by the mother upon her, particularly the two incidents that she said were rapes.
What I do find is that the mother believes this is what the father has perpetrated upon her by his actions and conduct and she has told this story consistently to her psychologist, the police, other health professionals, her family and in her affidavit.
It is clear that there was a significant degree of physicality in the parties relationship both as to verbal abuse, yelling, calling each other names such as “Mother Fucker” and “Slut”, the mother hit her head in the table on one occasion which caused bruising and there was, at minimum, pushing and shoving.
The father admits he pushed and shoved the mother. He says this was mutual. The mother denies she perpetrated violence on the father. The father should never have pushed and shoved the mother no matter the circumstances. It is inappropriate and abusive behaviour of a man towards a woman. [X] has been exposed to inappropriate behaviour from his parents’ behaviour and may well have suffered psychological and emotional harm because of their poor behaviour during the relationship.
There was clearly physical violence in the relationship and it was at times perpetrated by the father against the mother.
Presumption of equal shared parental responsibility
I now must assess the parties competing applications having regard to the matters in section 60CC (2)(3) and (4) of the Act.
The first issue I must determine is whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility ought to be rebutted. If it is to be rebutted then I need not consider the issue of equal time or substantial and significant time as orders in the child’s best interests but will make an order I believe to be in his best interests.
This is a matter that unfortunately having regard to the poor level of communication between the parents, their poor relationship and conduct towards each other during the marriage, the mother’s allegations of significant violence perpetrated on her by the father and the father’s admission of a significant degree of physicality during the relationship causes me to find that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility should be rebutted.
These parents cannot communicate, they cannot come to a joint decision and this child with his autism spectrum disorder requires decisions to be made that are only made with his interests in mind and no other matter. That responsibility will rest with the mother.
The mother will be required to advise the father of the decisions made, including details of his medical appointments, ongoing therapies and the like, places of preschool and school. The decision making must reside with one parent as these parents had no real or positive relationship, continue to have no relationship and the mother is fearful and not trusting of the father. Their only connection is their son.
Having so found I need not consider equal time or substantial and significant time but must consider the matters under sections 60CC(2) (3) and (4) of the Act to make an order in the child’s best interest having regard to the competing proposals of the parties.
The first option - the mother’s primary proposal that she and [X] relocate themselves to Serbia
The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents
I accept the father’s opinion that if his son moves to Serbia to live there is strong possibility that the child will loose the current friendly relationship he has with the father. Due to his disability [X] has a more limited capacity than other children to form attachments which can be maintained over a distance. He is only three years old and a normal three year old would struggle to maintain a relationship over such a distance. Thus the disturbance in his usual care regime of frequent and regular time with his father will cause difficulties.
However from the evidence, and Mr Goodsell’s observations, [X] has a closely attached relationship to his maternal grandmother which he has been able to maintain over a distance. He lived with her for the first
20 months of his life and thus although he has autism he has some capacity to maintain a relationship over distance.
However, his relationship with his father is not as close as the relationship with his grandmother. His lack of communication and speech are a real concern. If and when he does speak it will be Serbian as that is his first language. The father does not speak Serbian.
Until he has some English, Skype, video cam, webcam, and telephone will not assist [X] to maintain a relationship with his father and there is a serious risk the relationship will not be maintained.
[X] has yet to develop a beneficial relationship with his father. It is at best friendly. He has a beneficial and close relationship with his mother. [X] will never have a normal parent child relationship with either of his parents. However he has a right to the best relationship he can experience with his parents and will no doubt benefit from a relationship with his father over time.
There is no doubt his relationship with his mother will be maximised if he returns to Serbia permanently.
The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence
It is clear that the mother believes that the father sexually assaulted her, behaved abusively towards her and was controlling of her. I find the father did attempt to control the mother in doling out small amounts of money whilst she was isolated in Australia. I find the father did perpetrate physical violence upon her during the relationship.
The mother moving to Serbia will stop any further exposure of [X] to his parents’ poor behaviour, other than the time they come to Australia for four weeks. For eleven months of the year [X]’s life will be safe, secure and happy without the friction that is clearly evident between the parents.
However, as Mr Goodsell observed, there have been no incidents of poor behaviour or violence since separation and thus this threat has been minimised.
I have already found that the mother has a high capacity to promote her child’s needs which she has done despite living in a foreign country and suffering significant health problems herself. She has ensured [X] has received the best possible treatment and carried out much of it herself.
The mother has promoted the child’s relationship with the father. I accept there was a period when the father wanted to see the child, from separation in July until November, and he did not. However, I also accept that the mother was fearful of the father and living in a foreign country, had no support systems and in this context her conduct at that time may be understandable. She has also had significant health issues.
Since the orders were made the mother has not missed a beat and neither has the father. The mother has demonstrated a capacity to put the needs of the child before her own by the much focused evidence that she did not choose to leave the country in July 2007 when they separated because she did not believe this was best for her son and that [X] did have a right to a relationship with his father. That is one of the reason she came to Australia in the first place.
I accept her evidence that the reason it was twenty months before she came to Australia to be joined with the husband and father of her child was she was having significant doubts about the relationship and whether it could work.
The mother came to Australia not only to see if her marriage would succeed but also for the benefit of her child. I accept the mother’s evidence when she says she wanted her son to know his father and his paternal family. Unfortunately the marriage was not successful.
The father has demonstrated his high standards as a father, his capacity to care for his son and understand the limits his disabilities impose upon him in his everyday life.
Effect on the child of a change to his living circumstances
The change for the child if he returns to Serbia will be a significant disruption and upheaval to his usual care regime including a change to his current host of professional therapists.
Of most importance will be the loss to him of weekly time with his father and the paternal family.
[X] has already suffered the loss of contact with his maternal family when the mother came to Australia. His return to Serbia is more profound as he will lose weekly contact with his father.
However, [X] will be returning to Serbia where he was born and to the very home he lived in for the first twenty months of his life and will be reunited with his maternal grandparents and his maternal grandmother with whom he has a close bond. The strength of that relationship is evident from Mr Goodsell’s report. [X] continued to smile at his grandmother and make facial contact with her throughout the interview process in contrast to his effectively ignoring his paternal grandparents.
Thus although there will be a profound change for [X] in returning to live in Serbia he will be retuning to a familiar environment and will resume living with his grandparents with whom he already has a comfortable relationship and attachment.
In these circumstances it is possible the change for [X] may not be as traumatic as it might otherwise have been.
Wishes of the child
The wishes of the child are not a relevant matter in this case. He is too young and has no communication skills.
Relationship of the child to each of his parent’s and significant others
The child’s relationship with his mother is his closest emotional, psychological and physically close relationship. Mr Goodsell noted a real difference in the quality of his relationship with his mother and father. With the mother he was calm, compliant and followed her directions. With the father he was more robust and excitable. This is no criticism but an observation of the difference. He made no contact with his paternal family but engaged with his maternal grandmother.
The child has a very close relationship with the maternal grandmother and although he had not lived with her for some many months after his arrival in Australia he was happy to greet her and he ran into her arms at the family report interview. This demonstrates the strength of his relationship with his maternal family with whom he lived in Serbia for the first twenty months of his life.
The child has, as Mr Goodsell describes it a “secure trust” of the mother and he acted in a friendly manner towards his father but with less behavioural restraint. He demonstrated affectionate familiarity with the maternal grandmother.
I find both parents are willing to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship of their child with each other and their extended families.
Practical difficulties of the child spending time and communicating with each parent
There are significant practical difficulties and expense for the child’s relationship with his father to be maintained if he returns to live in Serbia.
Neither parent has much money. It is costly to travel overseas from Australia and the reality is, at best, it can be achieved once a year. I do not see at this time that the father has the financial capacity to travel to Serbia other than perhaps every second or third year.
The only way the child’s communication with the father will be maintained on a weekly basis is by webcam, telephone, Skype and the like. Given his poor communication skills at this stage, it is difficult to see that occurring for some time although he can certainly see his father on a webcam and his father can also see him. Further his first language is Serbian and the father does not speak this language. Living permanently in Serbia [X] will be surrounded by the Serbian language only. Due to Serbian being his first language and his disability it may be many years before he can communicate in English.
It is difficult to gauge when the father and [X] will be able to communicate in English. [X] has few words. His treating speech pathologist says that only one language should be spoken to him and that is Serbian which is he and his mother’s first language.
The mother has exhibited a high level of parenting capacity. She is a capable, competent, caring mother who has parented her child to a very high standard despite significant difficulties with her own health, living in an unfamiliar environment and dealing with [X]’s disabilities.
The father’s capacity has not been tested but I have no reason to doubt that he would be other than a capable, competent and caring parent. He agrees that the mother’s standard of care for his child is of the highest order.
The child cannot live permanently with anyone other than his mother and neither party has contended for any order other than this.
The child has a very close relationship with his maternal grandmother which was demonstrated at the family report interviews. The letter written by the maternal grandfather to the paternal grandparents in November 2008 demonstrates a close relationship and understanding of the needs of the child. The grandfather’s description of the child in his oral evidence before me demonstrates the grandfather is well aware of what this little boy’s difficulties are and how to deal with them. It is clear that having lived with him for the first twenty months of his life and having come to Australia to visit him, his maternal family are very closely attached to him and he has an attachment to them.
The attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents
Both parents have a proper child focused attitude to their child. They take their responsibility as a parent seriously and care for their child to a high level.
I was most impressed by the father’s capacity for finding out information concerning his son’s autism, his speech pathology, his contacting the child’s health professionals and discussing his son’s needs even at times when the mother had not informed him of assessments and the like. This demonstrates to me that this father takes an active approach in his child’s development and his capacity to assist his son to reach his potential.
Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family
There has been family violence in this matter. That is clear on the evidence. Whether it is as described by the mother or something less I am unable to make a specific finding on the evidence. The mother was clear in her evidence; she was firm, as was the father.
At minimum there was pushing, shoving and yelling to which the child was exposed at times.
Any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant
The other factors are as follows.
The child suffers a disability, autism. He requires better than average parenting and will require this high level of parenting for the whole of his childhood. He may require this high level of parenting in adolescence and adulthood. It is too soon to tell.
His mother is his closet emotional attachment and demonstrates a capable and calm parenting style with him. In these circumstances [X]’s welfare is totally dependant upon his mother’s physical and emotional health. [X]’s welfare is intertwined with his mother’s welfare. They cannot be separated at this time and on the evidence for the next 10 years or so.
I accept on the evidence that mother has been able, in difficult circumstances, to make a life for herself and [X] in Australia. However she has done that knowing that her application to move to Serbia was yet to be decided and the prospect of returning to Serbia was a possibility. To then merely say, as Ms Gillies submitted, that as the mother has done so well in the last twenty months she will continue to do so well in the next 18 years is not a finding I can make on the evidence.
Her parenting capacity in the last twenty months must be seen in the context of her hope she would be permitted to return to Serbia. I must look at the mother’s capacity in the last twenty months in this light before I address her ongoing capacity.
If I make an order that the mother is not to return to Serbia, I am most concerned that this will significantly impact on her hitherto high standard of parenting as she will suffer emotional trauma from the dashing of her hopes to return home, for Serbia is her home.
The mother has no connection to Australia. She only came to this country to see if her marriage would work and for her son to commence a relationship with his father. It ended for both parents in disaster and tears.
Her son is disabled with autism. He is closely attached to her and cannot live with anyone other than his mother. Her needs and his are at this time in an emotional and physical sense inseparable. Any deficit the mother suffers will be suffered by the child. It is imperative for [X]’s wellbeing that his mother is in the most supported, appropriate and child focused place she can be.
That is, on all the evidence, in Serbia not Australia.
She has virtually no connection to this country and Serbia is her home. [X] was born in Serbia. The parties were married in Serbia. The connections and supports for the mother are Serbia.
The father has no intention of moving to Serbia because he would have to relocate and leave his family. It is precisely the same for the mother.
The second option - the mother and [X] returning to Serbia and the father following
The father has said he has thought about living in Serbia but it would not work for him.
I accept that is his position. He would have to leave his family and his job. He does not speak the language. Such a move would be very difficult.
The third option - the mother returning to Serbia without the child
There is no question of the mother returning to Serbia without the child.
The final option – the mother and child remaining in Australia
The final option is the mother remaining in Australia with [X] and [X] continuing with his regime of speech therapy, occupational therapy and the like, and his time with his father being slowly increased.
[X] remaining in Australia will of necessity maximise the benefit to him of a meaningful relationship with his father and paternal family.
It will negatively impact on his current comfortable and secure relationship with his maternal grandparents and in particular his grandmother.
There will be minimal disruption to his day to day living regime if he remains in Australia.
I find that there will be significant change to [X]’s well being by an order that he remain in Australia as a consequence of the negative emotional impact of such a decision on his mother.
The mother’s feelings of isolation and being trapped will be compounded and real. Such a result will have a significant impact on her hitherto high level of parenting of this chid, which has resulted in the child making significant progress over the last year.
The mother will pine for her family, she will feel unsupported, isolated and she cannot rely on the paternal family to the same extent or feel as comfortable relying on them as she can with her own family. It is clear that the mother’s parents, particularly the grandmother, have a close relationship with this little boy and have significantly supported the mother at his birth.
There will be no practical difficulties in the child spending time with his father if he remains in Australia.
There will be no change to the attitude of the responsibility of parenthood if the mother remains in Australia. However her emotional wellbeing may deteriorate.
Family violence is more likely to occur here in Australia than if the mother is in Serbia. I accept Mr Goodsell’s position that there have been no incidents of same since the orders were made in November 2007. Perhaps that is something that is no longer an issue but [X] will be exposed to the poor level of communication and the complete lack of trust his parents have with each other as he was during their short relationship.
Weighing up the evidence and distilling down to what I see as the most important considerations.
The need for [X]’s mother to maintain her high level of parenting capacity for the next 10 or so years which will be maximised if she lives in Serbia and the likely prospect or the probable prospect of [X]’s relationship with his father being severed let alone being maintained and he thus obtaining no benefit of a meaningful relationship with his father over time.
I am satisfied that the services available for autistic children in Belgrade are commensurate with those in Australia.
The real competing issues are the ability of the mother to continue to maintain her high standard of parenting which she must do at a minimum for the next 10 years if not longer and the child’s right to the benefit of a meaningful relationship with his father.
On balance it is [X]’s mother’s health, her emotional wellbeing and her capacity to parent this child in the future to at least the same level she has in the past that I find is the most significant and overwhelming consideration in this matter.
From my findings and analysis of the evidence in this matter, I find to make an order in the child’s best interest, [X]’s right to the benefit of a meaningful relationship with his father is secondary to the need for [X]’s mother to maximise her parenting capacity, although the balance is as always a fine one.
On the basis of that finding the mother’s application that she remove the child to Serbia permanently is an application that I find is in the child’s best interest and I will order accordingly.
I certify that the preceding three hundred and forty-four (344) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Henderson FM
Associate: A. Morris
Date: 23 December 2008
0
0
1