ARNOLD and GREEN - [2017] FCWA 136

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

ACT: FAMILY COURT ACT 1997

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: ARNOLD and GREEN [2017] FCWA 136

CORAM: DUNCANSON J

HEARD: 8, 9, 12 JUNE 2017

DELIVERED : 25 OCTOBER 2017

FILE NO/S: PTW 4011 of 2013

BETWEEN: MR ARNOLD
Applicant
AND
MS GREEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

CHILDREN - Where it is in the best interests of the children to spend equal time with their parents - Where both parties have concerns about the welfare of the children in the care of each other - Where the parties disagree as to the children's education - Where it is in the best interests of the children for the father to have sole responsibility for the children's education and for the parties otherwise to share parental responsibility

Legislation:

Family Court Act 1997 (WA) s 7A, s 66A, s 66C, s 70A

Category: Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Self-Represented Litigant
Respondent: Self-Represented Litigant

Solicitors:

Applicant: Self-Represented Litigant
Respondent: Self-Represented Litigant

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT - PARTIES’ NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

1These parenting proceedings concern the children [Child A] and [Child B] who are aged eight and six years of age respectively. Child A and Child B are the daughters of [Mr Arnold], the father and [Ms Green], the mother.
2In February 2015 the court made parenting orders by consent concerning the children. The orders provide that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the children who are to live with both parties in a shared arrangement being nine nights with the mother and five nights with the father and half of school holidays with each parent. The orders provide that the children should attend [School C].
3In mid-2015 the father commenced these proceedings. He was concerned about aspects of the mother's behaviour and their impact upon the children. His concerns included her absences overseas and the confusion this caused to the children. He was also concerned about the mother's obstruction of the children's attendance at School C and her confrontational behaviour.
4Certain incidents took place at the school involving the mother to which I refer below. The mother believes School C would not welcome her as a parent and in any event she says the children are unhappy there and it is not in their best interests to continue as pupils there.
5The matter is complicated by the fact that the father's wife, [Mrs Arnold] and members of her family are involved with the management of School C. The mother's objections to the school are based primarily on the involvement of Mrs Arnold and her family with it. The mother also says the children are unhappy at the school. She asserts that Mrs Arnold is cruel to the children and she does not want Mrs Arnold and her family to have any contact with the children.
6The father said if the mother encouraged and facilitated the children's attendance at School C, his preferred living arrangement would be a week about arrangement so that the children have both parents significantly involved in their care. However he has no confidence that the mother will facilitate the children's attendance at the school. By reason of his concerns about that and other aspects of the mother's behaviour he considers it necessary to make a significant change to their living arrangements.
7The father's proposal of a week about arrangement was specifically put to the mother's counsel during his closing submissions. On her behalf, her counsel stated she could not contemplate taking them to and collecting them from school as one of her alternatives.
8The mother also seeks changes to the children's living arrangements and a change to their school.

The February 2015 consent orders

9On 17 February 2015 orders were made by consent providing that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the children. It was ordered that the children live with the father as follows:
•from 8.00 am to 6.00 pm on Tuesday;
•from 3.30 pm on Friday to 6.00 pm on Sunday;
•from 8.00 am on the following Tuesday to 8.00 am on the following Friday.
The children otherwise live with the mother during the school term.

10The orders provide that the children live with each party for half the school holidays. Orders were made regarding overseas travel.
11In relation to the children's education it was ordered that the children attend School C. The father was to deliver and pick up the children from school and the mother was ordered to ensure that the children were prepared for school on time. It was ordered that neither party may change the children's school without the consent of the other in writing, or by order of the court and both parties were required to ensure that the children attend school unless they are unfit to do so. Orders were made regarding the provision of school and other information.

THE ORDERS SOUGHT BY THE FATHER

12The orders sought by the father at trial are contained in a minute of proposed final orders filed 20 May 2017. The father seeks to discharge the February 2015 consent orders. He proposes that the children live with him and he have sole parental responsibility for them. He proposes that on condition the mother is residing in Perth the children spend alternate weekends and long weekends with her, together with half of the school holidays.
13The father seeks an order that the mother be restrained from changing the children's schooling from School C and he seeks non-denigration orders. The father seeks sole responsibility for liaising with the school and school authorities, but he proposes to provide the mother with information in relation to the children's educational progress. He seeks an order that the mother shall encourage, supervise and facilitate homework, home study and practice during periods of contact.
14He proposes that the children attend upon [Dr S] and he seeks orders in relation to their passports.

THE ORDERS SOUGHT BY THE MOTHER

15The orders sought by the mother are contained in a document headed Final Orders Sought by the Respondent Mother dated and filed 6 June 2017. The mother seeks to have all previous orders in relation to the children discharged. She seeks an order that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the children and that they live with her. She proposes the father may take the children on weekend outings. She seeks delivery of the children's passports which would be retained by her. The mother seeks an order enabling the parties to travel outside of the Commonwealth of Australia with the children upon provision of appropriate information to the other party.
16In relation to the children's schooling the mother seeks an order that the children be removed from School C permanently to attend a school of her choice. She proposes the father should be responsible for the children's education and health expenses. The mother seeks a non-denigration order. She seeks an order that the father's wife, Mrs Arnold and her family members are not to be in contact with the children.
17In closing counsel for the mother urged the court not to make significant changes to the existing orders other than those that "reconfigure the time" in a better way to ensure predictability for the children.
18In cross-examination the mother raised her wish to relocate the children to [Adelaide]. There is no such application before the Court.

THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE

19Much of the evidence at trial concerned the issue of the children's schooling and in particular the mother's opposition to their attendance at School C. She is opposed to their attendance at that school notwithstanding she and the father jointly enrolled the children there. The reason for her opposition centred upon the involvement of Mrs Arnold and her family in the school. The mother said she was concerned that the children were being "brainwashed" at the school.
20The mother wishes the children to attend mainstream Australian schooling. She suggested [School D] and said they should attend boarding school. She subsequently suggested they attend [a Religion A denominational] school as long as it was not School C or one connected with it. The father deposed the mother also took Child A to see [School E], [a Religion B denominational] school.
21The schooling of these children is not the primary issue for determination. The primary issue for determination is the children's living arrangements. The children's education is a long-term issue and but one aspect of parental responsibility. The court is not making a determination about the children's living arrangements because of the parties' disagreement about schooling. To do so would be to ignore the many other issues raised by both parties, including the father's concerns about the children's welfare and emotional stability. His concerns also include what he perceives to be the mother's lack of commitment to the children, her confused plans for the future and her provision for the children's needs. The mother's concerns relate to Mrs Arnold who she says is cruel to the children.
22The children's education was a highly relevant factor but only one of many.
23Both parties are [followers of Religion A] as are the children. The court does not propose to concern itself with a philosophical dispute between the parties as to religious based schools. In any event it is not necessary to do so, as the mother's position was that while she preferred the children to attend an Australian school [a Religion A denominational] school would be acceptable provided the father's wife and her family were not involved with it.
24It follows from the above that issues requiring determination include parental responsibility and the children's living arrangements. A further issue is that of overseas travel. The mother seeks to be able to take the children overseas. The father is opposed to her doing so.

FAMILY BACKGROUND

25The father was born in [Country A] [in] 1958. He is 59 years of age. He is a [consultant].
26The mother was born in Country A [in] 1972. She is a [nurse], but is presently engaged in home duties. She is 45 years of age. The parties were married in Country A [in] 2007. The father deposed they were married in a religious ceremony which is different from a civilly recognised marriage. At the time the father was and remained married to his first wife, Mrs Arnold.
27Mrs Arnold was not aware of the father's marriage to the mother until about September 2011. The father says the parties completed a "religious" divorce [in] 2012. The mother said he divorced her without her knowledge.
28The mother and the father have two children, Child A, born [in] 2008 and Child B, born [in] 2011.
29The children live with the mother and the father in a shared living arrangement pursuant to the orders referred to above.
30The father remains married to Mrs Arnold and they live together. They have two adult sons, [Mr F] and [Mr G].
31[Paragraph suppressed].

Short relevant history

32The parties agreed that the children should attend School C in [Suburb H], and Child A commenced pre-primary there.
33In 2014 the mother enrolled [Child A] at [School I] and she attended that school for about six months. By this time the mother was strongly opposed to the children's attendance at School C.
34In January 2015 the parties signed a Minute of Consent Orders in relation to parenting and financial matters. These orders were pronounced on 17 February 2015. They include an order that the children attend School C and they provide for the collection and return of the children to and from each party's care.
35The orders provide that the father or his nominee do deliver and pick up the children from school on each school day and that the mother was to ensure that the children are prepared for school on time.
36Notwithstanding her consent to the orders, the mother remained opposed to their attendance at School C.
37In May 2015 the mother informed the father she would take the children to school. He told her he would do so in accordance with the court orders. On this occasion the police were called and the father says the children were disturbed by this event. On 19 June 2015 the mother informed the father she intended to go overseas for a month. On 23 June 2015 the father took the children to school. The mother did not collect them from him. The father was subsequently informed by police that the mother had left the country on 23 June 2015. The children remained in the father's care from 23 June 2015 until the mother's return. He said Child B was upset by the mother's disappearance. Child B wet the bed, had nightmares and asked if her mother had died. The father took Child B to see Dr S, a Child Psychologist that Child A had been seeing.
38On 1 July 2015 the mother contacted the father. She said she would be back on 21 July, but did not return until 1 August 2015.
39In August 2015 incidents occurred at the mother's home when the father says the mother verbally abused him and distressed the children.
40On various days in August 2015 the mother did not comply with the orders and did not handover the children to the father to enable him to take them to school.
41On 8 September 2015 the mother removed Child B from school without informing the school. The incident was reported to the police. The father says the parties agreed the mother would care for the children between 25 September and 7 October 2015 while he travelled overseas. The mother travelled overseas herself in that time and left the children in the care of Mrs Arnold. The mother subsequently extended her holiday and the father was unsure when she intended to return.
42Pursuant to the orders the father was to take the children to school and collect them. At times he arranged for others to do so, on his behalf. In late 2015 the father arranged for a parent at the school to take the children to and from school. He subsequently arranged for other persons to do so but the mother would not cooperate with these persons and the arrangements did not last. As at the time of trial the father transports the children to and from school and occasionally he is assisted by his secretary.
43Dr S reported that Child A was worried about not knowing who would pick her up after school and not getting her homework done.
44On 6 December 2015 the mother did not collect the children from the father's home. When he contacted her she responded saying she was not well. The father did not know if she had gone overseas and he sought the assistance of the police to locate her. Child B wanted to see if her mother was home so the father took her to the mother's home. The police arrived at the same time. The mother returned on 13 December 2015. The father deposed Child A went with the mother unwillingly and Child B was confused and clingy.
45In March 2016 the mother informed the father she intended to go overseas. He asked for the dates of her trip so he could let the children know. She replied saying she would be back for the court hearing and the children were aware of her travel. The father deposed they were not aware of her travel. Upon her return on 4 April 2016 she kept the children off school on 5 and 6 April 2016 saying they were sick. She took them shopping on those days.
46The mother travelled overseas in late April 2016 having told the father she planned to live in Country A for a while.
47The father believed the mother was overseas and he instructed the school that the children were not to be collected by anyone other than himself. On 30 May 2016 the mother returned without informing the father. She went to School C with the intention of collecting the children. The mother was told to wait while the father was contacted, but she became argumentative and aggressive. The mother caused a disturbance at the school as described below.
48In June 2016 both parties met with Dr S.
49In September 2016 the mother attended the school and started recording the assembly on her phone. She recorded the students and also [Mrs Arnold’s father, Mr J] who was giving a presentation. She was asked to desist but did not do so.
50The mother again travelled overseas in January 2017, and returned in late February 2017. Upon her return she kept Child B off school.
51The mother remained opposed to the children's attendance at School C. Child B's teacher expressed concern to the father about Child B's absences from school. The father was concerned that Child B's absenteeism caused her to fall behind in her school work.
52On 10 March 2017 Child A did not attend school; instead the mother took her to the Family Court.

THE EVIDENCE

The father

53The father was a self-represented litigant. He was a polite and cooperative witness. He gave thoughtful and well‑considered replies in cross-examination. He made concessions where appropriate.
54The father was fully prepared for his cross-examination of the mother. His recollection of events was exceptionally good. He was able to remember specific dates and the events on particular dates with ease. Mostly the father was courteous and measured. At times he was very emotional when talking about the children and his concern for their wellbeing. He became upset when describing the children's distress at not knowing the whereabouts of their mother. He was very upset when the mother suggested the children might be placed in boarding school. The father is strongly attached to the children and worried about the impact of the mother's behaviour upon them.
55At times when cross-examining the mother, the father raised his voice and became loud. The mother spoke back and the parties spoke over each other. At times the father berated the mother during cross-examination. I am satisfied the father had no ill intent, nor did he mean to frighten the mother. He was endeavouring to get his point across and he became emotional when doing so. When I pointed out to him that he had raised his voice, he readily acknowledged that. The following day he had clearly accepted my rebuke and was more composed.
56Dr Watts reported:
[Mr Arnold] strikes me as the sort of person who has a strong element of 'keeping the peace' but the combination of cultural roles and also his position in life means he is quite likely to be forceful on his opinion on certain issues.

57Dr Watts also reported that the father can present as warm, friendly and sympathetic and placed a premium on harmony, such that he was uncomfortable with interpersonal conflict and would shun controversy. I agree with Dr Watts' assessment which accords with my own assessment of the father.
58The father is a loving and caring parent who has a close relationship with the children. He fears they are harmed by the actions of the mother. He sincerely wants the children to enjoy a relationship with the mother similar to his own.

Mr K

59[Mr K] is the [Principal] of School C. He confirmed the father is [a member] of the Board of School C and one other member of his family is also on the Board. Other members of the father's family are involved with School C, which is attended by the children.
60[Paragraph suppressed].
61Mr K deposed he received reports from [Ms L], the [Vice-Principal] of School C, and also [Ms M], Child B's classroom teacher in respect of an incident which occurred on 30 May 2016.

62Mr K was concerned about the effect of the mother's behaviour on other children and families and he caused a letter to be written by the school's solicitors to the mother concerning her behaviour. In their letter dated 13 June 2016, [Law Firm A] set out their instructions as to what occurred on that date and informed the mother that her actions were unacceptable. Requirements were imposed upon the mother's future attendance at School C as follows:
•not to enter [School C] grounds unless invited or having made prior arrangements with the Principal;
•while on [School C] grounds to adhere to [School C] policies and not record staff and/or students without consent; and
•treat all staff and students with respect and dignity.

63Mr K explained there is no difficulty with the mother attending school in the future provided she follows the school protocols. Had she done so on 30 May 2016, the children would have been given to her without incident. Mr K said the school received complaints from parents of terrified children. Mr K said he was impartial and he had a duty of care to the children and staff members to ensure they were not abused.
64I consider Mr K gave honest evidence which was reliable.

Ms N

65[Ms N] is a primary school teacher at School C. She spoke of an incident on 15 May 2014 when she noticed Child A had not been collected from school. Child A was distressed and crying for her mother. Other staff members tried to contact the mother to confirm she was on her way to collect Child A. The school contacted the father to find out who was responsible for collecting Child A. The mother arrived at the school at around 5.40 pm, some two hours past the required collection time. The mother did not greet the staff or offer any apology for being late.
66Ms N said the incident caused Child A anxiety and she was relieved to see her mother.
67Ms N sees the children at school daily. They are happy and often run up to her to say hello, Child A asks her to open her bottle or has shown her holiday photographs. Ms N has never seen the children bullied.
68Ms N was asked about Mr J. She explained Mr J remains well respected in their community.
69Ms N said she could be pleasant to the mother in the future. She said the mother is a parent and she deals with parents in a professional manner. In her view the children seem well-adjusted.
70I consider Ms N gave honest evidence. I accept she would be courteous and professional in her dealings with the mother in the future.

Ms M

71Ms M is an early childhood teacher at School C where she has worked since 2011. She was Child B's class teacher in 2016. She has had little to do with Child A. Ms M described the incident in May 2016 when the mother arrived at the classroom unannounced. Ms M had been advised by the front office earlier that day not to allow Child B to leave school with the mother. Ms M did not know at the time that the father had given those instructions because the mother was thought to be overseas. Her students usually sleep between 1.00 pm and 2.00 pm and were sleeping when the mother arrived.
72The mother started yelling outside the classroom for Child B. Ms M told her that she was scaring the other children and asked her to stop yelling. Ms M locked the classroom door and the mother banged loudly on it with her fist, and yelled loudly. In evidence Ms M described the mother as "over the top" and said the mother pushed her out of the way. Ms M contacted the father who told her that the mother could take Child B and Ms M unlocked the classroom and allowed her to do so.
73Ms M deposed that the incident caused her considerable distress and she broke down in tears after the mother left. The students were visibly upset. Students asked her if the mother was an intruder and whether it was a "lock down". School C had performed a lock down drill the day prior to the incident. One student was visibly distressed and did not return to the school for a week after the incident. Parents also made inquiries as to what had happened. Ms M said she felt threatened and scared, she took stress leave.
74Ms M noted the difference in Child B's preparation for school depending on whether she came to school from the mother's home or the father's home. She was well‑prepared when attending school from the father's home, but from the mother's home there were days when she did not have lunch and homework was incomplete.
75In early 2016 Child B became self-conscious. She thought the other children were laughing at her. Ms M said the children were not looking at Child B, nor was she bullied.
76Once Child B made friendships and bonds she was fine. Ms M sees the children daily at assembly and has never seen them bullied.
77In December 2016, Child B attended an excursion improperly dressed and without lunch. She brought a $20 note instead. Canteen facilities were limited, so Ms M gave her own lunch to Child B so she did not go without.
78Ms M said Mr J is a respected person at the school as is the father.
79She will treat the mother with respect should she return to the school and greet her professionally like she does with other parents.
80Ms M was an impressive witness. She gave her evidence in a balanced and measured way and I consider it to be reliable. She bore no grudge towards the mother and I accept her evidence she would behave in a professional manner should they come into contact again in the future.

Ms O

81[Ms O] is a qualified child care worker. She met the father and Mrs Arnold in their local area and they became friends. She had not met the mother prior to January 2016. She sees less of the parties, although their children attended [extracurricular classes] together.
82In June 2016, Ms O was asked by the father to collect the children from either the father or the mother's home and deliver them to school every morning. The father paid Ms O for doing so.
83Ms O said when she collected the children from the father's home they were happy, talkative and smiling, fully dressed in clean clothes and wearing their [correct uniforms]. Their lunch was prepared and they were ready for collection.
84When Ms O collected the children from the mother's home, the children were rarely ready on time and often late for school. Ms O deposed Child A was crying most days, although under cross-examination she said that occurred on two occasions. On two occasions the mother had given Child A money for lunch. On one occasion the children had no lunch and she went to the canteen and ordered lunch for them. On two occasions their water bottles had been empty and she filled them at school. On two occasions they were missing uniform.
85Ms O deposed that on an occasion the mother threw the children's lunch money at her which was disrespectful to her. On an occasion in mid-March 2016 they did not have their correct uniforms to wear and when she asked for them, the mother became aggressive. The mother's behaviour upset the children and Child A wanted to go to her father. Ms O informed the father, by reason of the mother's attitude towards her she no longer wished to assist in taking the children to school.
86In early October 2016, as Ms O came out of [ABC Street] at around 12.30 pm she saw two girls crossing the road and recognised them to be Child A and Child B. They were walking alone towards the park. She rang the father who said he would collect them immediately. She followed the children to ensure that they safely reached the mother's home. The father arrived as they did so. The father later explained that the children had been trying to reach his home, but subsequently returned to the mother's home.
87English was Ms O's second language. For the most part she understood the questions in cross-examination. I consider her evidence to be reliable.

Mrs Arnold

88Mrs Arnold is 57 years of age. She has been married to the father for 34 years.
89In July 2007 the father commenced a relationship with the mother. At the time Mrs Arnold was not aware of the relationship. She was sensitively asked about this by counsel for the mother. She said she loves her husband and she chose to save her marriage. She explained that she trusts her husband and has moved on. In re‑examination the father told her he was sorry.
90Mrs Arnold is [a member] of the Board of School C. She confirmed that other family members are teachers at the school. They are unlikely to teach Child A and Child B for several years. She said Mr J has no involvement in the school.
91Mrs Arnold was asked about her own upbringing and explained that she attended high school in Perth and she and her sibling were the only [followers of Religion A] in the school. Separately her father took her to [religious] studies.
92Mrs Arnold considers herself fortunate that her son Mr G attended a [Religion A denominational] school. She said he has done very well and has graduated as a [lawyer]. She wanted her children to have a balanced upbringing and to be in an environment in which they are comfortable in their identity. Her son Mr F [has a disability].
93Mrs Arnold warmly described the characteristics of both Child B and Child A. She said Child B is delightful and outgoing. Child A is deep and artistic. She is of the view that the children receive a balanced education at the school and said they are both doing well at school.
94When asked about the mother, Mrs Arnold said that everyone wants the best for the children and they simply go about it in different ways.
95Mrs Arnold expressed concern that the mother travels away and does not inform the father, nor does she keep in touch with the children while she is away. This causes high emotional stress for the girls.
96She said she and the father are respectful about the mother at their home and welcome the children to speak freely about them.
97In terms of parenting, Dr Watts said in his first report that Mrs Arnold presented as someone who is quite stable with a strong sense of fairness. He also said in his opinion, of the three key adults involved in the children's lives, Mrs Arnold has the best balance of disciplined parenting and warmth.
98The mother was highly critical of Mrs Arnold and I refer to those criticisms below. As stated I reject them. In my view the children are in very good hands when they spend time with the father during which time Mrs Arnold assists in their care.
99I am not sure that I completely understand the reason for the mother's animosity towards Mrs Arnold. She asserts Mrs Arnold is cruel to the children. Mr Arnold divorced the mother and remains married to Mrs Arnold. She is involved in the care of the children when they spend time with the father and is involved in the school at which the children attend. In my view it is more likely the reasons are personal to the mother, rather than relating to the welfare of the children.
100Dr Watts reported, in relation to Mrs Arnold, that her personality was such that he saw no reason why she should not see the children "on any sort of logical grounds". He said the issue centres around the mother not wanting this to occur.
101Mrs Arnold was a most impressive witness and I have no hesitation in accepting her evidence in its entirety.

The mother

102Although a number of parenting issues were raised at trial, much of the evidence concerned the children's education at School C. She remains vehemently opposed to the children's attendance at that school.
103The mother gave a number of reasons why she was opposed to the children's attendance at School C, some of which I refer to below and all of which I do not accept. By the conclusion of the mother's evidence I formed the view that the mother's opposition to the children's attendance at School C was driven by her animosity towards Mrs Arnold. The mother said if the children continue to attend School C, then the stepmother would be in charge of her children. The mother said:
Now, we all have to live to the step-mother’s orders. Is that what the court’s expecting me to suffer? … It’s about the way they brainwash my children against me, and against the Australian community altogether. I stated that in my evidence many times before, and I don’t see why the children should be isolated from the normal upbringing of the Australian children, let alone they are poisoning their minds against their own mother.

104Dr Watts reported that the mother's "biggest issue" was not so much the father, but Mrs Arnold.
105In the context of the parties' dispute as to the children's school, Dr Watts reported at paragraph 11 of his second report as follows:
The situation with the school is not one which is going to resolve because the parties have fundamental differences on core values. I would argue that [the mother, Ms Green] will only provide marginal support for the children attending the school because of her issues. I do not see her as being able to separate her feelings from acting in the children's best interests e.g. moving the children out of [School C] and putting them in the local school creates difficulty.

106The mother lacks objectivity. In re-examination, her counsel asked her to look at the issue of education objectively and consider the interests of the children. She was unable to do so.
107The mother's complaints about the school were many and varied.
108The mother deposed as to the school's "abuse". She deposed her daughter was dragged from her arms and she was locked out by the school fence, seeing her daughters "distorted and helpless".
109Annexure 1 to the mother's affidavit filed 6 June 2017 is a photograph of Child A in which she says Child A was being dragged on the floor to her classroom by the teacher and the school staff when she was trying to reach for the mother. It was put to the mother that she had suggested to Child A that she might come shopping with her rather than going to school. The mother disagreed. The mother said Child A was clearly upset, however a close look at the photograph would indicate that she was not.
110The mother says the children are scared of the school and they hate it. In fact the photographs provided by the father which became Exhibit 6, suggest otherwise. They show happy children at school.
111It is of course open to either party to produce a selection of photographs which support their case. Just as the mother annexes a photograph of Child A being coaxed into school by a staff member, the photographs tendered by the father show the children happy at school. The children's presentation in those photographs is consistent with the evidence of the teachers and the father.
112The mother was asked if she was pleased that the children looked happy. She said she was not and that the children tell her they were not happy at school.
113In relation to the father's arrangement to have the children taken to school, the mother said the children were placed in "too crowded cars like human cargo". This was a gross exaggeration by the mother.
114The mother said she had been abused by School C and school community from "throwing rocks at me to painting words of abuse next to my car". She deposes on the other hand, Mr J and his family are "glorified" by the school community. The mother deposes the children hate the school.
115The abuse referred to by the mother from School C is not substantiated on the evidence. In fact, her complaint that the abuse she received from the community included throwing rocks at her referred to an incident several years ago when a small child at the school threw a stone at her. There was no evidence to suggest that abuse had been painted next to her car.
116The school staff respects Mr J although the evidence of the father and Mrs Arnold was that he has little active involvement with the school except once or twice a year to give a presentation.
117The mother asserted the children are bullied. That assertion is not substantiated and I accept the evidence of the teachers that they are not.
118Dr S referred to the school being a safe place for Child A, which provides her with predictability and consistency.
119The mother was critical of School C's ranking and referred to the West Australian school ranking, which became Exhibit 4. In terms of that document, School C was ranked [XX] out of 100 schools. The Principal, Mr K wrote in a letter dated 9 February 2016 that School C in Perth has consistently maintained a high standard of academic quality with values. He states the NAPLAN results have over the years been much better than like schools and above state and national averages in most bands.
120He stated that the college was thoroughly reviewed by the Department of Education Services towards the end of 2015 and was granted registration for the maximum period of five years.
121On 8 June 2017 Child A's class teacher reported that Child A is a happy child and had developed a strong bond with some friends. She is working at an above average level in literacy, but struggles with numeracy.
122Child B's mid-term report was favourable. She is making pleasing progress and achieved good results in maths, but has struggled with English.
123The school reports in relation to Child A are consistent with Dr S's assessment of her dated October 2016. In that report Dr S stresses the importance of maintaining consistency, predictability and smooth transitions between parental homes so as to minimise stress. She says this is also important for Child A's social, emotional and education development.
124The mother complains she has been shunned by the school and the school community. In fact the mother's difficulties with the school are of her own making, including the incidents when she upset the children by demanding to collect Child B and when she recorded the assembly. I accept the evidence of the teachers that, if the mother attends the school and obeys protocols, she would be treated respectfully. I also accept the teachers would behave professionally and treat her like any other parent. It is possible that this may never happen and that the situation is irretrievable.
125For a period of time in 2014 the mother unilaterally removed Child A from School C and sent her to School I. She said Child A had no difficulties going to school whatsoever. Exhibit 5 is a photograph produced by the father showing Child A as clearly unhappy on that particular occasion. As stated, photographs are selective and there could be many reasons for Child A being unhappy. It suggests that Child A's attendance at School I was not entirely uneventful.
126The children are aware of the mother's views. The mother said on days the children do not wish to go to school and she cannot get them to school. This suggests the mother lacks control over the children. Dr Watts reported that the information from Dr S as well as his own observation and discussions suggested that the mother had difficulties managing the girls' behaviour at times.
127The mother is unwilling to facilitate the children’s attendance at school and they have been absent from school on various days when in her care.
128In my questions to the mother I suggested that the teachers seem to be reasonable people. The mother disagreed and her answer centred on Mrs Arnold. She said the teachers see the father as the respectful figure (person to be respected) and look up to him and will respect his wishes. She went on to say that parenting should be about the father and the mother and "[Mrs Arnold] shouldn't get to decide". The mother then said, if Mrs Arnold's family were not involved in the school that would be a different story, but that is not the case.

129This statement by the mother suggests her complaints are not about the religious aspects of the school, the standard of education, or the children's happiness. This is personal for the mother and her complaint is about Mrs Arnold.
130The father is [a member] of the Board of School C. Mrs Arnold is [also a member] of the Board. Other members of Mrs Arnold's family are teachers at the school.
131When the wife complained about this, in the husband's closing submissions, he said in all sincerity, if that was the problem both he and his wife would resign from the Board. That did not however appease the mother.
132The mother deposed the children are abused and neglected by Mrs Arnold, her sons and extended family.
133The mother said that the Mrs Arnold was cruel to the children, the children were not allowed to access the fridge nor speak to her on the phone, and they were made to do chores. My assessment of Mrs Arnold is as set out above. She is a remarkably caring woman who seems to have found a balance between her role in caring for these children as a stepmother, rather than as a parent. I reject the allegation that she has ill‑treated the children.
134It also did not appear to me as if Mrs Arnold was "taking over" the care of the children. She has her two adult sons of whom she is proud. She is devoted to the children, but readily acknowledged they are not hers and their parenting is a matter for their parents. She is a supportive wife to the father and has embraced her role as stepmother. She loves the children, but not such that she would exclude their mother.
135Notwithstanding the difficulties caused by the mother, the father and Mrs Arnold maintain that she is welcome in their home.
136The mother deposes that there has been a coordinated effort to undermine her as a mother at their school. I do not accept this. The evidence of the school personnel is to the contrary.
137Upon the evidence, it seems unlikely the mother will change her view. It seems unlikely she will cooperate with the father in the children's continued attendance at School C. The father said, and I agree that in relation to the school, the children are in a stable place. He questioned why they should be uprooted to appease the mother. The father said School C fosters academic and social success and enables personality development, fitting in to society, progressing and being happy. He spoke of School C in the following terms:
I want the children to be well adjusted, to be able to refer to their heritage and culture … I want them to have easing of [Religion A] culture within Australia, and that is the good thing about [[School C]] ... it marries Australian values with [Religion A] values. If they go to another school they will have Australian values without their heritage, without their values.

138 The children are happy and settled at school.
139The mother travelled overseas without letting the father know she intended to do so. At times the father did not know whether the mother was in Australia or overseas and when she intended to return. Consequently he was not able to tell the children when they would see their mother again. Dr Watts reported this demonstrated a lack of attachment to the children on the part of the mother.
140Child B's teacher confirmed that there were many days when Child B was upset at school and when asked, she said she missed her mother because she was away. She felt sad that she had been left behind. Her teacher comforted her and on these days Child B was hardly able to function normally, and classwork became a bigger struggle.
141It appears that the mother is a rather isolated person. I asked her about her network of friends it did not appear to be an extensive one. She says she is alienated by the community.
142At trial the mother talked of her desire to relocate interstate, preferably to Adelaide where she would get a job and where she has friends and family. She said she was considering selling her house and will move to Adelaide as soon as she has done so. When asked what would happen to the children, she said she would apply to the court "to see what can be done about that". She then said she would stay with the children until she found a way to move them.
143The mother's proposals as to schooling were varied and confusing. She said the children should go to boarding school in Year 7. Her primary suggestion seemed to be School D, although the father said he could not afford that. The mother wanted the children to attend that school as they could then grow up with Australian values, but they would remain [followers of Religion A]. She also said another [Religion A denominational] school would be "okay".
144When asked about that, she had in mind the [Country B] school which the father said is not [a Religion A denominational] school. In earlier correspondence with the father, the mother had suggested a [Religion C denominational] school.
145As stated above the mother had taken Child A to see School E which is [a Religion B denominational] school.
146The mother loves the children, although at times her commitment to them has been lacking. The children love her and are happy in her care.

Dr Philip Watts

147Dr Watts is a Clinical and Forensic Psychologist. He was appointed Single Expert. He provided two reports, the first dated 17 June 2014 and the second dated 16 December 2015.
148Annexed to Dr Watts' second report was information provided to him by Dr S, Clinical Psychologist to whom Child A had been referred in March 2015.

THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES

149These proceedings fall to be determined under Part 5 of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA) ("the Act") having regard to the circumstances of the parties' relationship.
150In reaching my decision I will be guided by the objects of that Part and the principles underlying those objects as set out in s 66.
151The orders sought by the parties are parenting orders. Section 66A provides that in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order, I must regard the best interests of the children as the paramount consideration.
152Section 66C sets out those matters which I must consider in determining what is in their best interests.

Parental Responsibility

153Pursuant to s 70A of the Act, when making a parenting order in relation to a child, the Court must apply a presumption that it is in the child's best interests for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.
154Equal shared parental responsibility imposes an obligation upon them to consult as to major long-term issues regarding the child and to make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision about such an issue. Section 7A of the Act sets out that major long‑term issues include issues about:
(a)the child's education (both current and future); and
(b)the child's religious and cultural upbringing; and
(c)the child's health; and
(d)the child's name; and
(e)changes to the child's living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with a parent.

155The presumption does not apply in circumstances where there is abuse or family violence. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence which satisfies the court that it would not be in the best interests of the child for the child's parents to have equal shared parental responsibility.

Primary Considerations

the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents

156Child A and Child B have a meaningful relationship with both of their parents and it is to their benefit that it continues.

the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence

157There is not a need to protect Child A and Child B from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence. The children are not at risk of harm in the care of either of the parties, Mrs Arnold or at School C.
158The children are exposed to conflict between their parents and Dr S described this as traumatic.
159I refer to this further below when dealing with the parties' capacity to provide for the children's needs.

Additional Considerations

any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child's maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child's views

160Child A and Child B are eight and six years of age.
161Dr Watts reported Child A liked both houses, but was confused about the days she spends in different houses causing her to feel anxious. Dr S confirmed this. Child A indicated to Dr Watts that she missed her mother when she went away and said her sister cried so much. Child A told Dr Watts that it would be very good if she were at her father's all the time, but then said she would like half time with both parents. Child B indicated to Dr Watts that she liked both houses, but gets confused about the days she goes. Dr Watts reported that the views of the children did not appear to be influenced, but the children were very aware of the conflict between their parents.
162I find the children are happy in the care of both parents and want to spend time with both of them.

the nature of the relationship of the child with -

(i)each of the child's parents; and
(ii)other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child)

163Child A and Child B have a close and loving relationship with both of their parents. Dr Watts reported that the mother's absence and lack of communication with the children caused them to suffer some genuine distress. He referred to her second reasonably large trip for the year of 2015 which to him indicated a lack of attachment for her to be leaving the children for such long periods. The children have a good relationship with Mrs Arnold who is involved in their care, but is mindful of her role as stepmother. The children enjoy school and it appears that they are well socialised while living with the father.
164The mother deposed that the children are scared of their older half-brother Mr G and that both Mr G and Mr F physically abuse the children. On the contrary the father deposes the children have a strong relationship with his sons. Dr Watts reported the children did not specifically offer a view about Mr G. Dr Watts further reported at his visit there was little interaction between the children and Mr F. Dr Watts reported he could understand if occasionally Mr F unintentionally did things which frightened the children, but he did not see him as harmful. The children have a close relationship with Mrs Arnold's family and the father's group of friends and their children, many of whom attend School C with Child A and Child B.

the extent to which each of the child's parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity -

(i)to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and
(ii)to spend time with the child; and
(iii)to communicate with the child;

the extent to which each of the child's parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent's obligations to maintain the child
165Both parties have participated in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to Child A and Child B. They have spent time with and communicated with them. They have supported Child A and Child B financially. The mother does not participate in the children's activities at school. At times the mother has travelled overseas and not taken the opportunity to communicate with the children.

the likely effect of any changes in the child's circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from -

(i)either of his or her parents; or
(ii)any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living

166The proposal of the father is that the children live with him during the school week and spend time with the mother every alternate weekend and half of school holidays. This is a significant change to the existing living arrangements for the children, although they are accustomed to spending lengthy periods of time with the father.
167As the children are happy and settled in the care of the father they are likely to adjust readily to an arrangement which increases their time with him.
168Nevertheless, the children have a close and loving relationship with the mother and they miss her and become distressed when they do not see her. A separation from their mother for extended periods of time is likely to distress the children and have a detrimental effect upon them.
169That may be unavoidable if the mother travels overseas for lengthy periods of time or moves interstate and the children are not permitted to relocate.
170The mother's proposal is that the children live with her and spend limited time with the father.
171At trial the mother said she wanted to move to Adelaide with the children. I consider any arrangement whereby the children spend less time with the father is likely to have a detrimental effect upon them. An arrangement increasing the children's time with the father is likely to be one which is beneficial as it will provide greater stability and may reduce conflict over the school and other issues between the parties.

the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child's right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis

172There is no practical difficulty and expense of the children spending time and communicating with each of their parents. The parties live reasonably close to each other.

the capacity of -

(i)each of the child's parents; and
(ii)any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child),

to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs

173I have discussed the parties' respective capacities for providing for the children's needs above when discussing the evidence of each of the parties and Mrs Arnold. I am satisfied that the father is capable of doing so, subject only to the concern as reported by Dr Watts that he is perhaps too liberal and unstructured in his parenting. He is also very emotionally involved in the children such that he may find it difficult to place appropriate boundaries for them.
174Dr Watts reported that the father is very focused on the children, gentle, sensitive and engages with them. He described him as being very limited in saying "no" and that he needs to be better at setting limits.
175The father was very emotional when talking of any harm to the children or the suggestion that they attend boarding school. The father's lack of structure is balanced by the presence of Mrs Arnold. I am satisfied she provides the structure which may be lacking on the part of the father, but as always is mindful of her role in the children's lives.
176The mother has put herself before the children's needs. I do not doubt that she loves the children and wants the best for them, but she is unable to separate her own wishes, needs and desires and strong views about others from the children's best interests. This is a failing in her provision for the children's emotional needs.
177Neither party has provided well for the children's emotional needs when they have exposed them to their conflict. Both Dr Watts and Dr S reported that the conflict has impacted negatively upon the children.
178The father undertakes the children's transport to school because the mother refuses to do so. Her behaviour towards the father is unpredictable. The father said if it is heading for confrontation when he collects the children, he will just wait in the car. At times the children are late, they are not properly dressed for school or have not had breakfast.
179[The mother] does not provide well for the children's educational needs when she keeps them off school. Her proposals as to the children's schooling in the future are varied and confusing having regard to the number of options she proposed.

the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child's parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant

180Child A and Child B were born in Australia, and their parents were born in the Country A.
181Both parties and the children follow the Religion A faith.

if the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child -

(i)the child’s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture); and
(ii)the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right

182This consideration is not relevant.

the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents

183The father has demonstrated an appropriate attitude to the children and the responsibilities of parenthood. He has provided stability for them at times when the mother has been absent from their lives.
184The mother has not consistently shown an appropriate attitude to the children and the responsibilities of parenthood. Her future in Perth is uncertain. She said she is not happy in Perth. She wants to live in Adelaide and to take the children with her. She has not applied for permission to do so and has no well-thought-out plan as to her future there.
185In 2016 the mother bought a one-way ticket overseas. It was her intention to live and work overseas. Exhibit 7 is a letter to the father from Child Support Smart Centres enclosing the details of its decision to disallow the mother’s objection to its decision on 9 June 2016 to reflect this from 28 April 2016 the father provided 365 nights or 100% care of the children. The objection decision sets out a telephone call between the Objections Officer and the mother on 21 June 2016 in which she confirmed she had not provided the father a return date.
186The mother's inconsistency and unpredictability are of concern.

any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family

187There has been family violence between the parties, in particular their conflict concerning the parenting of the children. The father says the mother is unpredictable. At times when he attended her home to collect the children she has threatened or actually applied for a Violence Restraining Order against him. At other times she invites him in for coffee. He is wary about attending her home, but would like to enjoy a relationship with her such that they could communicate and facilitate handover. The father is likely to have been overbearing at times. To an extent this has arisen from his frustration in dealing with the mother's behaviour. It is important that he continues to do as he does now, which is to walk away from any confrontation.

if a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child’s family -- any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following -

(i)the nature of the order;
(ii)the circumstances in which the order was made;
(iii)any evidence admitted in proceedings for the order;

(iv)any findings made by the court in, or in proceedings for, the order;
(v)any other relevant matter

188There is no family violence order in effect. In the past the mother has sought a Violence Restraining Order and has withdrawn her application.

whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child

189It would be preferable to make an order least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the children.

any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant

190Dr Watts reported that the fundamental differences in the parties' psychological and practical ways of dealing with issues would not disappear readily. He recommended the parties attempt family therapy to try and coordinate their relationship for the benefit of the children. He recommended [Ms P] would be a possibility in this respect. I intend to order that the parties attend family therapy with Ms P or such other practitioner as may be appropriate. The children should also continue to see Dr S as needed or in accordance with her recommendations.
191The father has travelled overseas with the children. The mother has not done so since these proceedings commenced, but she seeks to do so. Given the uncertainty as to the mother's future plans, the father is concerned that if the mother travels overseas with the children she may not return them. I agree there is a risk she would not do so. I therefore consider the father should obtain and hold the children's passports.

CONCLUSION

Parental responsibility

192There has been family violence between the parties and the presumption that it is in the best interests of the children that their parents have equal shared parental responsibility for them does not apply. The parties are, however, able to communicate with each other concerning the children. They communicate reasonably well by email. The father expressed a desire to have a good relationship with the mother and he simply wants her cooperation in their upbringing.
193The father seeks an order for sole parental responsibility. The mother proposes that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility.
194In all long-term issues with the exception of education, I consider both parties should have an input into the decision making. With respect to education, they are unable to agree and unlikely to agree in the future. It would be in the best interests of the children for the father to have sole parental responsibility for their education. With respect to all other long-term issues the parties will have shared parental responsibility.

The children's living arrangements

195The difficulties with the children's current living arrangements are apparent. They have given rise to instability and uncertainty for the children and the parties' conflict is impacting upon the children.
196It would be in the best interests of the children for the father to have a greater involvement in their care as he is able to provide security and stability which the children need. The children are happy with both parents, but their practical and educational needs are met by the father in a way that is preferable to that of the mother. Having said that, the children love their mother and want to be with her. Her unexplained and unexpected absences overseas have impacted on the children emotionally. The uncertainty in their day-to-day arrangements, that is, who is picking them up from school and where they will sleep, has also been problematic for them.
197An arrangement which I consider to be in the children's best interests is to spend equal time with their parents in a week about arrangement. This enables the children to benefit from both parents, but will provide greater stability for them and give them a greater period of continuity in each parent's home. Such an arrangement is reasonably practicable. The parties live close to each other and they are able to communicate with each other. The question is whether the parties are able to implement such an agreement by reason of the mother's opposition to the children's attendance at School C. In evidence the mother said that she would take them to school if it is ordered, although she would not enter the school. She later seemed to resile from that position. Alternatively the father may choose to continue the existing arrangement of picking up the children, taking them to school and arranging for their collection.
198The orders sought by the father are that the children live with him and spend alternate weekends and half of the school holidays with the mother. While this would resolve the difficulty of the mother taking the children to school, I am not convinced it is an arrangement which is in the children's best interests. Such a significant reduction in their time with the mother would not meet their emotional needs.
199I therefore propose to order that the children live with the parties on a week about basis. I will order the father to take the children to and collect them from school, or arrange for that to be done. It is to be hoped that with family therapy any difficulties which may arise from the arrangement can be resolved and the conflict between them reduced.
200I shall make non-denigration orders and orders for the provision of information all of which I consider to be in the best interests of the children.

THE PROPOSED ORDERS

201The orders I propose to make are as follows:
1All previous parenting orders be discharged.
Parental responsibility
2The father, [Mr Arnold] have sole parental responsibility for making decisions about the education of the children, [Child A] born [in] 2008 and [Child B] born [in] 2011 ("the children").
3Subject to order 2 above, the father and the mother, [Ms Green] have shared parental responsibility for making decisions about major long-term issues concerning the children.
4Unless contrary to the children's immediate welfare, the father and the mother shall, before making any major long-term decision about the children:
(a) consult with each other in writing setting out any major long-term decision making proposal and the reasons for that proposal;
(b) give proper consideration to the proposal and respond in writing in a timely manner, making a genuine effort to resolve any issues; and
(c) in the event any dispute is unable to be resolved, the parent making the proposal shall consult with a family dispute resolution practitioner and invite the other parent to attend in an effort to resolve the dispute.

Living arrangements
5The children live with each of the parties on a week-about basis, with handover to take place at 5.00 pm each Friday.
Living arrangements during school holidays
6The said week-about arrangement continue during the school holidays unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing.
Handover
7Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the mother shall collect the children from the father's home at the commencement of their time with her and the father shall collect the children from the mother's home at the conclusion of their time with her.
Injunctions
8The mother and her servants and/or agents be restrained and an injunction is hereby granted restraining her from removing or attempting to remove, or causing or permitting the removal of the children from:
(a) the care of the father;
(b) the children's educational facility;
(c) the State of Western Australia; and
(d) the Commonwealth of Australia.

9The mother be restrained and an injunction is hereby granted restraining her from changing or attempting to change the children's school from [School C] located in Western Australia.
10Both parties be restrained and an injunction is hereby granted restraining them from:
(a) denigrating the other party and/or the other party's family members and friends in the presence of, or within the hearing of the children; and
(b) discussing these proceedings with the children, or with any other person in the presence of, or within the hearing of the children.

Education
11The father have sole responsibility for liaising with school authorities, school teachers and receiving school reports in relation to the children.
12The father and the mother provide to each other in a timely manner:
(a) copies of all school reports, any other reports on school progress, and behavioural issues and all school circulars in relation to the said children, as soon as practicable after they are received; and
(b) copies of all notices received from school and details of all functions, parent and teacher nights and other activities to which the parents are invited.

13Each party shall be at liberty to attend school, sporting or extracurricular activities for the children and shall provide reasonable notice to the other of any special events pertaining to the children to enable both parties to attend those events.
14The mother shall encourage, supervise and facilitate homework, home study and practice during the time the children live with her.
Medical
15In the event the children suffer from a major health issue, then the party with whom the children are living shall immediately inform the other party of that health issues.
16The parties shall communicate with each other in relation to the children's medical and developmental conditions including but not limited to any appointments required and any medications or pharmaceutical treatments required or administered.
Therapy
17Both parties ensure the children attend upon [Dr S] and the frequency of same be as recommended by [Dr S].
18The parties shall attend upon [Ms P] or such other practitioner as recommended by Dr Philip Watts for family therapy in accordance with that practitioner’s recommendations.
Travel
19The mother's consent to the issue or re-issue of passports for the children be dispensed with.
20The children's passports be retained by the father.

Information
21The parties keep each other informed of their contact details, including telephone numbers and addresses, and advise the other of any changes within 24 hours of becoming aware of any changes.
22The parties inform each other of their intention to travel overseas, including their proposed departure and return dates.
Procedural
23The proceedings otherwise be dismissed.
24All documents produced by named persons pursuant to subpoena be returned or destroyed in accordance with the request from the named person on the expiration of 42 days from this order.
25In relation to material tendered as an exhibit into evidence in these proceedings:
(a) all parties must collect the exhibits tendered by them ("their exhibits"), from the chambers of Justice Duncanson, at least 28 days, and no later than 42 days, from today's date;
(b) all parties must contact the chambers of Justice Duncanson to arrange the collection of their exhibits; and
(c) in default of compliance with subparagraph (a), all material tendered as an exhibit, save and except for material produced pursuant to subpoena, will be destroyed by the court without notice to the parties.

26In the event of an appeal being lodged prior to the expiration period of 42 days, orders 24 and 25 above do not apply.

I certify that the preceding [201] paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for
judgment delivered by this Honourable Court

Associate