Anais and Anais

[2013] FamCA 128

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ANAIS & ANAIS [2013] FamCA 128

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best interests – Substantial and significant time – With whom a child lives – With whom a child spends time – Child’s views – Where the child is a teenager – Where the child wishes to live with the father and spend time with the mother – Whether the father can facilitate a relationship between the child and the mother

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CA, 60CC, 65AA, 65DAA, 65DA

B and B: Family Law Reform Act 1995 (1997) FLC 92-755

APPLICANT: Mr Anais

RESPONDENT: Ms Anais

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Tracey Geysen

FILE NUMBER: BRC 7878 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 5 March 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Forrest J

HEARING DATE: 2, 3 & 4 November 2011

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Ashcroft

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Family Law and Mediation Services

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Hodges

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Kerry Barnes Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms McArdle

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Couper Geysen
Family and Animal Law

Orders

(1)That all previous parenting orders are discharged.

(2)That the mother and the father have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, J born … March 1998 (“the child”).

(3)That the child shall live and spend time with and communicate with each of her parents as agreed but in default of agreement:

(a)she shall live with her mother as follows:

(i)for the first half of each of her school holiday periods in even numbered years;

(ii)for the second half of each of her school holiday periods in odd numbered years;

(iii)from after school on the first Thursday in school term in even numbered years until before school the following Monday, to be repeated every two weeks of the school term

(iv)from after school on the second Thursday in school term in odd numbered years until before school the following Monday, to be repeated every two weeks of the school term; and

(b) she shall spend time with her mother as follows:

(i)         on Mother’s Day each year;

(ii)        on the mother’s birthday each year;

(iii)       on her own birthday each year; and

(c)she shall live with her father at all times outside those set out in 3 (a) hereof; and

(d)       she shall spend time with her father as follows:

(i)          on Father’s Day each year;

(ii)        on the father’s birthday each year;

(iii)       on her own birthday each year.

(4)That for the purposes of Order 3(a) hereof, school holidays shall be considered to commence at midnight at the end of the last day of school term and to conclude at midnight at the beginning of the first day of the next school term and transition of the child between households for the school holidays should occur after school on the last day of school term, on the morning of the first full day of the second half of the holidays and before school on the first day of the next school term.

(5)That the mother and the father shall keep the other parent informed at all times of their residential and postal addresses and their contact telephone numbers – landline and mobile if they have both.

(6)That the mother and the father shall keep the other parent informed of the names and addresses of any medical and allied health practitioners who treat the child and they shall authorise all those practitioners to provide the other parent with any information that the parent may request about the child that they are lawfully permitted to provide.

(7)That the mother and the father shall authorise the school the child attends to give each parent any information about the child’s educational progress and sporting, cultural and religious development that the school gives out to parents of its pupils and each parent shall be entitled to attend at any event or function at the school that parents of its pupils are welcome at.

(8)That the mother and the father shall not question the child about the personal life of the other parent and shall not denigrate or insult the other parent or other parent’s partner in the presence or hearing of the child and each parent shall use his and her best endeavours to ensure that third parties do not denigrate or insult the other parent or other parent’s partner in the presence or hearing of the child. 

(9)That in the event that there is a dispute about the child or about the interpretation, implementation or enforcement of these orders, the parents shall participate in family dispute resolution with a family dispute resolution practitioner as defined in s 10G of the Family Law Act 1975 before making any further application to a Court.

(10)The Independent Children’s Lawyer is discharged after conveying the outcome of the case to the child.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 7878 of 2007

Mr Anais

Applicant

And

Ms Anais

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1.The parents of J, (“the child”), who has just turned 15, separated in 2006 when the child was 8 years old. Their relationship, both during their marriage and since their separation is, I consider, fairly described as tempestuous.

2.Their inability to be able to resolve their disagreements over finalising their financial affairs and about the parenting of the child led them to court in the year after separation. After a few years of litigation that involved a family assessment and reporting process conducted by a Consultant Social Worker, the parents consented to court orders being made that regulated their parenting of the child.

3.They agreed to an equal shared parental responsibility order. They also agreed that the child live with her mother most of the time, living with her father from after school on Thursday to before school on the following Monday over each second weekend during school term and also during half of her school holidays.

4.Although they agreed to those court orders, the child’s parents continued to have disagreements about various aspects of parenting the child. These difficulties culminated in a very unfortunate and regretful incident in August 2010 when the child was being dropped back home at her mother’s place by her father’s partner. I do not consider it necessary to set out the detail of that incident in these reasons. It is sufficient to say that it caused a serious fracture in the child’s relationship with her mother. I am satisfied the mother greatly regrets what happened that night and is very sorry for her actions.

5.However, the immediate consequence of that incident was that the child remained in the care of her father and his partner and did not return to live with her mother. The father immediately recommenced court proceedings to have the existing parenting orders changed to provide for the child to live with him and to spend a lot less time with her mother than she had been spending. The mother did not agree to such changes.

6.The Federal Magistrate managing and hearing the proceedings made changes to the existing orders to reflect the changed circumstances. He reinstituted the family assessment and reporting process with the same Social Worker who was previously involved. He put in place arrangements to facilitate the child’s speedy reintroduction to her mother and a reconciliation of their relationship without ordering the child to return to live with her mother for most of the time. He appointed an Independent Children’s Lawyer and transferred the matter to this Court.

7.The child’s mother and father continued to disagree about where the child principally lived and the amount of time she was to spend in the care of each of them. Unable to reach an agreement that resolved the dispute between them, the proceedings came to trial before me over three days in November, 2011.

8.At the end of the trial I reserved my decision. Around fifteen months have passed since then. That is unfortunate and I regret the fact. I acknowledge that the delay in delivering this judgment and reasons will have caused distress to the parties in this case. That distress would be additional to that which they would already have been experiencing through the problems they have had in their parenting relationship and their involvement in court proceedings.  The responsibility of hearing and deciding so many other trials has, unfortunately, prevented me from finalising this judgment before now. However, I have concluded that the child’s best interests require there to be no change to the substance of the parenting arrangements that were put in place following the incident that happened in August 2010.

9.The child was twelve and a half years old at that time. She was thirteen and a half years old at the time of the trial. She was, at the time of the trial, living with her mother from Thursday after school until Monday before school every second weekend. I am satisfied that is how she wanted it to be. I am satisfied that she did not want that to change. I am satisfied that her relationship with her mother was such that her best interests did not dictate putting her back into her mother’s principal care. The child is now fifteen years old. I do not consider it to be in the best interests of this young adolescent woman to be making a decision that tells her she has got it wrong and that she must go and live most of the time with one parent when, by her own actions and words, she has made it clear she wants to live most of the time with the other parent.

10.I am also satisfied that at the time of the trial both the child’s parents accepted that each of them had behavioural and attitudinal issues, particularly in how they related to and dealt with each other but also with the child, that needed to be improved for the child’s sake. I was left, at the end of the trial, with a sense that improvement was happening and also with a sense of optimism and confidence that continued improvement could be expected. I was left with an expectation that the child’s relationship with her mother would be maintained and given every chance to improve and develop as the child moves through what can be challenging years in a person’s life. I was satisfied of that despite there being some concerns, on the evidence that was before me, that each parent had issues that affected those chances. I was satisfied of that notwithstanding counsel for the mother forcefully submitting that the father would “kill” the child’s relationship with her mother if the child was left to continue to live principally with him.

11.At the end of the trial, despite accepting that there would be a risk that the child’s relationship with her mother might be further damaged, or even destroyed by her father’s inappropriate conduct if she continues to live principally with him, I determined that the risk of the child not coping with a forced transition back into her mother’s principal care was greater. I considered the potential negative consequences of that for the child and her long term relationship with her mother and determined that the child’s best interests would be served by leaving her in her father’s principal care and providing for her to spend four nights in her mother’s care each other week during school term.

What are the principles to be applied in determining the outcome of this particular dispute?

12.The child’s parents ask this Court to make parenting orders. Such orders must be made with regard to the best interests of the particular subject child as the paramount consideration.[1]

[1]          s 60CA and s 65AA of the Act

13.The Family Law Act 1975 (the FLA) expressly sets out how the Court is to determine what is in the best interests of children who are the subject of proceedings in the Court. Determination of what is in the best interests of a child requires consideration to be given to the expressly listed “primary” and “additional” considerations.[2] The process of determination is a broad one as the list of considerations is lengthy and one of the expressly listed “additional” considerations, namely s 60CC(3)(m), lists “any other fact or circumstance that the Court thinks is relevant”, as a matter to be considered.

[2]          s 60CC(1), (2) and (3) of the Act

14.The ultimate obligation of the Court is to apply, in a commonsense way, the individual sections of the FLA so as to achieve the best interests of the children in the particular case. The actual weight to be attached to the individual components of the statutory provisions will vary, sometimes significantly, from case to case.[3]

[3]B and B: Family Law Reform Act 1995 (1997) FLC 92-755

15.With which parent a child lives, where the child lives, how much time the child spends with the other parent and in what circumstances the child spends that time are matters to be determined in each particular case having regard to the evidence that is presented. That evidence is to be considered with regard to the paramountcy of the best interests of the subject child, against the Objects and Principles set out in Part VII of the FLA, and in accordance with the statutory pathway also provided for in that Part.

16.When making a parenting order in relation to the child, I must apply a presumption that it is in her best interests for her parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for her.[4] Although the FLA sets out circumstances in which the presumption does not apply[5], in this particular case, the parents and the ICL each contended that an equal shared parental responsibility order should be made. Although the Court is not bound thereby to simply make such an order, I accept, in the circumstances of this case, having regard to the common position of all three parties on the point, that such an order should be made.

[4]s 61DA(1) of the Act

[5]s 61DA (2) of the Act

17.That brings s 65DAA of the FLA into consideration. Where an equal shared parental responsibility order is to be made, as it is now in this case, I have to consider whether the child spending equal time with each of her parents would be in her best interests and whether it is reasonably practicable for her to spend equal time with each parent. If I am satisfied that each of those pre-requisites is met, I have to consider making an order for the child to spend equal time with each of her parents. If I determine not to make such an order, I must go on to consider whether the child spending substantial and significant time (as defined in the FLA[6]) is in her best interests and is reasonably practicable. Again, if I am satisfied that each of those pre-requisites is met, I have to consider making an order for the child to spend substantial and significant time with each of her parents. 

[6]s 65DAA(3) of the Act

18.In this particular case, each parent also presented their case based on acceptance that if the child lived principally with him or her she should live with the other from after school Thursday to before school Monday each second week during school term and for half, of each school holiday period. Such time meets the statutory definition of substantial and significant time. Clearly, neither parent was arguing that it was not reasonably practicable[7] for the child to do so. Having regard, particularly, to the proximity to each other within which the parents live, that is easily understood.

[7]As that term is defined in s 65DAA(5) of the Act

19.Accordingly, this case effectively became one in which the decision to be made came down to whether the child should live with her father most of the time and with her mother from Thursday to the following Monday morning each second week during school term (as she had been doing since a little after August 2010) or with her mother most of the time and with her father from Thursday to the following Monday morning each second week during school term (as she had been doing before August 2010) or whether she should begin to live week about with each parent during school term.

My consideration of the evidence and my findings

20.The evidence presented a picture of a highly conflictual relationship between the child’s parents, the responsibility for which, I was satisfied, could not simply be laid at the feet of one or the other. The Social Worker observed, when answering a question about the merits of future therapeutic counselling of the parents with a view to improving their relationship, that it would take a counsellor with miraculous abilities to achieve improvement in their relationship. I do not doubt that. Just as importantly, the Social Worker said at the trial that there were different qualities in the relationships that the child had with each of her parents and “different concerns in each.” I accept that too. 

21.There was evidence that the father believed the mother had a problem with abuse of alcohol which impacted on her relationship with their daughter. There was evidence that the child herself had concerns about her mother’s level of alcohol consumption and its impact on their relationship. The mother denied general allegations of excessive alcohol consumption and even more specific allegations of particular incidents. However, I am satisfied that the incident that was the catalyst to the changed living circumstances for the child in August 2010 was, most probably, alcohol fuelled. I am also satisfied that the mother herself, on her own evidence, acknowledged that she had issues in her life and in her relationship with the child that needed addressing, including her level of alcohol consumption and anger management. She conceded in evidence that the child had complained to her about her alcohol consumption.

22.After that August incident, the mother attended counselling regarding parenting issues and her relationship with the child. She attended a psychological strategies course addressing anger management and self-awareness and she attended a Positive Lifestyle Program conducted by the Salvation Army. The mother said that course dealt with lifestyle issues including alcohol management. She put into evidence a letter from the program facilitator who noted that the mother commenced the program in March 2011, “recognising that she needed assistance to make positive changes in her life.” She noted the mother’s positive commitment to the course and good progress through it. The mother’s attendance at the courses was actually ordered by the Federal Magistrate but that does not mean I should disregard the evidence that the mother herself recognised the need to make positive changes in her life or that she made good progress with the courses. I record at this point my satisfaction that any residual issues the mother may have in respect of these matters should not stop the child from living with her for the period that I will order.

23.On the other hand, there was ample evidence that the father had a fairly rigid, almost unforgiving personality and that he was quite unrestrained in what he spoke with the child about and the things he said to her about her mother.

24.It was clear from the Social Worker’s reports, the last of which was prepared in February 2011, that he was quite troubled by the potential damaging impact on the child’s relationship with her mother that the father’s behaviour might have if it continued unabated. He considered this, as I understand the evidence, the biggest risk to the wellbeing of the child if she remained in the father’s care. However, he accepted that there had been trouble and difficulties in the child’s relationship with her mother, culminating in the August 2010 incident, that explained how the child came to be living with the father.  In his reports, he acknowledged the child’s expressed wishes to continue living with the father and not to return to her mother’s principal care, but he went on to express the opinion that if the court accepted that the mother had “genuinely reconciled her behaviour… [the child] should be returned to her care, despite her opposition.”

25.I am satisfied that the Social Worker’s opinion about that, expressed in February 2011 (ten months before the trial), was primarily based on his concerns about the risk of the father’s damaging impact on his daughter’s relationship with her mother. However, by the time of the trial, the Social Worker had modified his view and was recommending against returning the child to her mother’s care.

26.Records from the High School the child began attending in 2011 were tendered into evidence at the trial. They included notes from the file of the counsellor employed at the school to provide counselling and pastoral assistance to the students as required. The notes reveal that the father spoke to the school in May that year about concerns for the child’s emotional wellbeing, citing a belief that the child “needs to talk” to someone about her feelings with regard to the parents’ conflict about her living arrangements.

27.Arrangements were made for the child to see the counsellor and that began in May 2011. The sessions were one on one – counsellor and the child.  Notes of the first session in May 2011 reveal the child told the counsellor about the August 2010 incident and that she had, since that night, decided she would prefer to stay with her father and see her mother less than she had been. The child is noted to have remarked that her mother had anger management issues for some time which had resulted in some physical confrontations between them. She is also noted to have said her mother listened in on her phone calls and to have expressed some concerns about her mother’s alcohol consumption. She is noted to have expressed concerns about her communication with her mother and their relationship and her own efforts to try and improve it.  In respect to living with her father, the child was noted to have said that she likes being part of a bigger family (her step-mother having two younger children who live with them) and she is not as lonely at her father’s as she is at her mother’s place.

28.The child is recorded as being very sad about the suggestion that her mother might win this court case and “gain full custody”. She is recorded as saying she did not want this to happen. She is recorded to have been expressing feelings of neither being listened to nor understood in this court process.

29.The notes reveal that the counsellor remained in communication with the child and that the child then began contacting the counsellor directly on occasions that she wanted to speak with her. Email notes from the child to the counsellor are included. It appears that the child and the counsellor developed a rapport and the child felt comfortable talking with the counsellor about issues which concerned her. 

30.The counsellor’s notes about their second face to face meeting reveal that the child’s father apparently sat her down and spoke to her about the court proceedings, including telling her that it looked as if her mother would win the case and that he would not even get any “access” to her. The child is recorded as having reported that she became stressed by that possible outcome and had trouble sleeping that night. I am satisfied that this could only have been reported by the child. The next morning, during a Sport B event, she had a panic attack. It is really not clear how closely linked that was to the notion that her father told her those things, but the child was obviously feeling very anxious around that time and her emotional state clearly did not help her in the Sport B event. 

31.The father denied talking to the child in those specific terms. I must say I do find that he had to have had some form of discussion with the child in which information like that was conveyed to her. That said, whilst it was  seriously inappropriate for the father  to talk about the proceedings like that with the child, demonstrating that he was still behaving in the manner that the Social Worker had found so concerning, the child’s apparent reaction, reported to the counsellor, certainly reflected her level of feeling about the prospect of going back to her mother’s principal care. I do not accept that such reaction can solely be explained by inappropriate manipulation of the child by her father.

32.The notes also record a level of concern on the child’s part about the immediate past weekend’s events whilst in her mother’s care. She was troubled about a Saturday evening visit to the home of friends that, unexpectedly, turned into an overnight stay and an inability to attend to all of the schoolwork she was meant to do, thus putting her a bit behind in her work.

33.The counsellor’s notes about their next face to face meeting, requested by the child to discuss some issues she had experienced again with her mother, reveal that the child reported still being troubled about aspects of her relationship with her mother and some difficulties they had recently experienced. She is recorded as expressing the feeling, sometimes, that her mother is “emotionally blackmailing” her. The counsellor noted her own opinion that the child’s anxiety appeared to have decreased as the “threat of only living with” her mother “has not occurred.”  The child is also noted to have reported, when asked, that things with her father and his partner were good.

34.The counsellor’s notes of the fourth face to face meeting with the child, again requested by the child, reveal they met about one month before the trial and that the child spoke again about her feelings about the court case. She is recorded as being happier, believing that a new person representing her was listening to her and acting supportively. She is recorded as continuing to want to live with her father and again expressing some concerns about her mother’s consumption of alcohol and care for her.

35.The “new person representing her” referred to was a psychologist who the child had been to see. She was not representing the child as the child apparently thought, but rather had been re-engaged by the father in May 2011, to see and counsel the child after having first been appointed in late 2010 by the Federal Magistrate to facilitate and supervise the reintroduction of the child and her mother after the break in their relationship that occurred with the August 2010 incident.

36.In what I consider was a rather unfortunate misunderstanding of appropriate boundary setting by that psychologist, she provided a report to the father about her time spent in counselling sessions with the child which he put into evidence. She reported matters, including as to the child’s wishes, that I gave very little weight to in the ultimate consideration and determination of this parenting dispute.

37.The Social Worker who had written the family reports that were in evidence gave evidence at the trial that he had, between the writing of his last report and the trial, read that psychologist’s report. He said that he too had given it very little weight. However, he gave evidence that he had also read the child’s school counsellor’s notes. Clearly, and in my view, quite appropriately, he had been moved by the contents of those notes.

38.He expressed the opinion in his oral evidence at the trial that the child had apparently settled somewhat during the course of 2011, since he had last seen her. However, he observed that the school counsellor’s notes reflected the child experiencing anxiety arising from the fear of returning to live in her mother’s principal care. He went on to express the view, referencing it to the length of time that the child had at that time been living with the father (fifteen months), and her own apparent determination to maintain her relationship with her mother, that if there was a reassurance that the father would comply with orders and facilitate the child’s relationship with her mother in the longer term, that the child’s best interests would be served by respecting her wishes and maintaining the existing arrangements rather than exposing her to the trauma and distress that he believed she would experience if she was returned by order to the principal care of her mother.

39.The Social Worker conceded to counsel for the mother that he was still concerned about the father’s behaviour, such as demonstrated by him inappropriately involving the child in the dispute as he had, but that his major concern was that if the child was now moved back to her mother’s principal care that it just would not work. He appropriately explained that he based his opinion on facts such as the mother’s authority with the child having been weakened, the mother’s own insecurities in the relationship with the child and the child showing increasing signs of opposition to her mother. He expressed grave concerns as to the outcome for the child in the event that she was made go back into her mother’s principal care and it did not work. He was not moved from his position, even by persistent probing and challenging by counsel for the mother around the issue of the Social Worker’s previous firm views about the father.

40.Having seen and heard the evidence, I fully understood and appreciated the Social Worker’s position. I consider his views were quite soundly based and I accept them as correct. Even though the father continued to inappropriately involve the child in the adult issues surrounding the Court case, I am quite satisfied that the child had sound grounds of her own for feeling as she did about where she wanted to live. I have no doubt as to the strength of her views as to what arrangements she wanted to live in. I am satisfied, on the evidence before me, that her views were experientially based. I refer, in this regard, to the evidence that came out about the father’s attempts to resolve the matter on an amicable basis without having to commit to the substantial expense of a trial.

41.With a view to saving estimated expenditure of $20,000 for the trial, the father made an offer to settle the matter with the mother on the basis of equal shared time on a week about basis. He had, again inappropriately in my view, engaged the child in that process by asking her could she live with such an arrangement if it could be agreed. I accept the evidence that she initially said she could, principally to help her father save $20,000, but that when she came home from spending a weekend at her mother’ place she told her father, apologetically, that she could no longer agree to live week about with him and her mother, but wanted to spend less time at her mother’s than that. I accept that the father then determined to borrow the money to pay for the trial and to continue with the proceedings. That is a good example, in my view, of the depth of the then 13 year old girl’s feelings on the point.

42.As inappropriate as the father’s conduct and attitudes to the responsibilities of parenthood might have been demonstrated to be, there were a number of pieces of evidence that gave me reassurance about the father’s likely compliance with the Court’s orders and optimism that he will facilitate the child’s relationship with her mother, as the Social Worker spoke of being necessary to support a decision to leave her living principally with her father. Those included:

(i)the mother’s evidence that her relationship with the child had steadily improved in 2011;

(ii)the evidence that the child had been spending time with her mother in accordance with existing orders up to the time of trial and an absence of complaint from the mother that she was missing any or that it was being interfered with in intolerable ways;

(iii)evidence of the father inviting the mother to attend the child’s first day of high school at the beginning of 2011;

(iv)evidence of the attendance and involvement of both parents as parent supporters at the child’s school Sport B events without report of any overt manifestation of serious or embarrassing conflict;

(v)evidence of the father’s attendance at a parenting program in the lead up to trial;

(vi)the father’s ready agreement at trial to undertake an anger management course soon thereafter;

(vii)evidence that the child did generally enjoy time she spent with her mother and her clear determination to continue to spend time with her;

(viii)opinion evidence of the Social Worker that the child had, particularly as an only child, displayed real resilience to present as she does, notwithstanding being exposed to years of high conflict between her parents;

(ix)evidence that the child has photographs of her mother in her bedroom at her father’s place;

(x)admissions by the father at trial as to previously denied poor behaviour, accompanied by apparent remorse and an expressed acceptance of a need to appropriately address such behaviours in future.

42.I am satisfied that the child’s views, though perhaps somewhat influenced by her father, were principally experientially based and founded in her own feelings about her relationships with her mother and with her father and his new partner and her children, as those feelings actually were understood by her. I consider that as the child was a teenage girl who was 13 going on 14, and in her first year of high school at the time of holding to those strong views, significant weight must be given to them.

43.I am as optimistic about the prospects of the child’s relationship with her mother being maintained, and continuing to improve as she matures through her adolescence, as I am concerned about the potentially negative outcome of making her, against her strong wishes,  go back to live principally with her mother or even for half of the time with her mother. On balance, I do not consider it to be in the child’s best interests to spend equal time with each of her parents unless that is something that she chooses to do herself.

44.That is why I have determined not to interfere with the child’s living arrangements. Keeping the child’s life in balance at this time, when she has been through so much parental conflict and consequential turmoil, in my view, gives the child a better chance to now develop into the healthy, happy, well-adjusted adult that I have no doubt both of her parents dearly want her to become. As the Social Worker said in the witness box in this trial, the child’s parents hold the keys to that outcome. The child needs to see them jointly making the important parenting decisions for her and she needs to see and hear them both clearly respecting the role of the other in her life. I am optimistic that she will. I also expect that the child will play a major role in determining her own parenting arrangements from here on as she moves between childhood and adulthood and that both of her parents will respect their daughter’s wishes and respond to them appropriately as circumstances dictate. As such, I expect the Orders that I will make will merely provide the underlying framework around which the child and her parents will together regulate the child’s parenting needs over the next few years.

45.I make the orders that are set out at the outset of these reasons for judgment.

I certify that the preceding forty five (45) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Forrest delivered on 5 March 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  4 March 2013