Babich and Ireland
[2010] FMCAfam 1102
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BABICH & IRELAND | [2010] FMCAfam 1102 |
| FAMILY LAW – Parenting – interim – comprehensive parenting orders made on 1 August 2008 – father relocates to Canberra from Sydney in December 2009 – altering final parenting orders – spend time dispute. |
| Family Law Act 1975, ss.60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA |
| Goode v Goode (2006) FLC 93-286 Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 |
| Applicant: | MS BABICH |
| Respondent: | MR IRELAND |
| File Number: | SYC 4277 of 2010 |
| Judgment of: | Monahan FM |
| Hearing date: | 26 August 2010 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 26 August 2010 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 26 August 2010 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Givney |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Stuart Lawyers |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Levy |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Elrington Boardman Allport |
ORDERS
All extant applications be adjourned to this Court on 15 March 2011 at 9:30am for mention (“the mention hearing”).
All extant applications be adjourned to this Court on 25 July 2011 at 10:00am for final hearing (“the Final Hearing”) with an estimated hearing time of two (2) days.
Pursuant to s.62G(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”), the parties and [X] born [in] 2002 (“the child”) attend upon a Family Consultant nominated by the Dispute Resolution Co-ordinator of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia, Sydney Registry (“the Family Consultant”) for the purposes of the preparation of a Family Report to be given to the Court by the end of February 2011.
AND FURTHER:
(a)The Family Report address the issues in this dispute relevant to ss.60cc, 61da and 65daa of the Act and any other matters that the Family Consultant considers important to the welfare or best interests of the child;
(b)The parties comply with all reasonable directions and requests of the Family Consultant;
(c)The Family Consultant have leave to inspect the subpoenaed material produced to the Court;
(d)In the event that the Family Consultant is one appointed under reg.7 of the Family Law Regulations, then within seven (7) days of being notified of the Family Consultant, the legal representative for each of the party deliver to the Family Consultant copies of all relevant applications, responses and affidavits and Court orders filed by or on behalf of the party in the proceedings AND copies of any intervention or restraining orders currently in force;
(e)The Applicant and Respondent’s legal representative confirm with the Family Consultant no later than seven (7) days prior to the scheduled interviews that the interviews will proceed on the dates allocated; and
(f)If either party proposes to have the Family Consultant available for cross-examination purposes at the Final Hearing, then such party’s legal representative will notify the relevant Family Consultant well in advance of the Final Hearing and ensure that the Family Consultant is available to attend Court on the first morning of the Final Hearing at 11:00am.
The Applicant make file and serve any further affidavits or other material to be relied upon by the applicant not later than 21 days prior to the Final Hearing and no further affidavits are to be filed without leave of this Court.
The Respondent make file and serve any further affidavits or other material to be relied upon by the respondent not later than 14 days prior to the Final Hearing and no further affidavits are to be filed without leave of this Court.
In the event of any applicable filing, setting down, hearing, mediation or enforcement fee or fees (“the fees”) not having been waived, the party responsible for the payment of the fees or any of them pay or cause to be paid such of the fees as shall be payable by that party in accordance with, and within the time specified in, the Federal Magistrates Court Regulations 2000.
On or before 4:00pm two (2) business days prior to the Final Hearing the solicitors for each party (or if unrepresented, the party themselves) make file and serve:
(a)a minute of the precise orders sought; and
(b)an Outline of Case Document not exceeding five (5) pages in the following format:
(i)a list of the documents to be relied upon;
(ii)a brief chronology listing significant events;
(iii)an outline of contentions with respect to:
1. whether the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applies (s.61DA);
2. the considerations relevant to equal time and substantial and significant time (s.65DAA);
3. each of the considerations relevant to determining the best interests of the child(ren) (s.60CC factors); and
4. other relevant considerations (including, ss.60CG, 61F, 65DAB, 65DAC, etc); and
(iv)any other matter relevant to the decision.
THE COURT ORDERS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER THAT:
Paragraph 3 of the Orders made by the Family Court of Australia by consent on 1 August 2008 be suspended.
The child spend time with the Respondent as follows:
(a)during school terms commencing 3 September 2010 each alternate weekend from after school, or 3:00pm Friday until 6:00pm Sunday with every third such alternate weekend to be spent in the Sydney metropolitan area;
(b)during the forthcoming September/October 2010 school holidays from 10:00am 27 September 2010 until 4:00pm 5 October 2010;
(c)during the forthcoming summer school holidays 2010/2011 from 10:00 4 December 2010 until 4:00pm 11 December 2010 and from 3:00pm 26 December 2010 until 44:00pm 9 January 2011;
(d)during the April 2011 school holidays from 12 noon 16 April 2011 until 3:00pm 24 April 2011; and
(e)at such other times that the parties agree in writing.
The Respondent’s time pursuant to paragraph 9(a) be suspended during the periods in paragraphs 9(b) through (d) herein and the Respondent’s time in paragraph 9(a) recommence on the Friday of the first week that school term resumes in 2011.
The Respondent collect the child from school, or the Applicant’s residence if the child is not at school, and the Applicant will collect the child from the Respondent from Sydney airport at the conclusion of all times. In the event that the Respondent returns the child to Sydney by car then he will return the child to the Applicant’s residence.
The Respondent is to provide the Applicant with at least 7 days written notice of all relevant flight details and the location of any accommodation the child spend with the Respondent whilst he spends time in Sydney.
That each party facilitate liberal telephone and online communications between the child and the other parent at reasonable times whilst the child is spending time with the other parent. During periods when the child is not spending time with the father, the child shall communicate with the father by telephone every second day, including at least one video call per week.
AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:
(A)Pursuant to ss.65DA(2) and 62B of the Act, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in Annexure A and those particulars are included in these orders.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Babich & Ireland is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYC 4277 of 2010
| MS BABICH |
Applicant
And
| MR IRELAND |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application filed 7 July 2010 by MS BABICH (“the mother”) against MR IRELAND (“the father”) seeking various parenting orders in relation to the child, [X] born [in] 2002 (“[X]”). More specifically, the mother is seeking to discharge the existing orders made by consent in the Family Court of Australia on 1 August 2008, and have new orders to the effect that:
·the parties have equal shared parental responsibility;
·[X] live with the mother; and
·[X] spends time with the father for defined alternate weekend and holiday times, but that during school term, that alternate time occur in Sydney, save for one weekend which may occur in Canberra.
The mother’s application is supported by her affidavit sworn 1 July 2010 and filed 7 July 2010 and she is legally represented by Mr Givney today.
The father, in his response filed 4 August 2010, opposes some of the orders sought by the mother, and is seeking some different parenting orders in relation to [X]. More specifically, he is seeking orders:
·for [X] to spend alternate weekend time with him in Canberra, as well as half of all school holiday times; and
·changeovers occur either at Sydney airport if [X] flies, or [S] McDonald’s if [X] travels by car. This proposal has changed somewhat for these interim proceedings, and I will canvass that shortly.
The father relies on his affidavit sworn 29 July 2010 and filed 4 August 2010. He is legally represented by Mr Levy today.
Background
The parties commenced cohabitation upon their marriage [in] 1994, and they separated on 8 September 2005. They were divorced on 28 November 2006.
Both parties have re-partnered since separation. The mother is now married to Mr T, and they have a child of their marriage, [Y], born [in] 2008. The father has re-partnered to one Ms P. Ms P has a child from a previous relationship, namely, [Z], who is aged five (5) years.
[X] is currently seven (7) years old and turns eight (8) in late October 2010. The parenting orders made on 1 August 2008 (“the 2008 Orders”) are quite comprehensive, and provided for:
·the parties to have equal shared parental responsibility for [X];
·[X] to live with the mother; and
·[X] to spend “114 nights per annum with the father”. These periods included from the end of 2008, during school term, from Thursday afternoon until Monday morning, and for approximately half of the school term holidays, slightly less of the Christmas school holidays, and other special days.
The 2008 Orders also resolved property matters between the parties.
The parties also appear to have entered into a child support agreement in respect of [X], whereby the father pays:
·[X]’s tuition and compulsory fees for [S] School; and
·half of any extraordinary school fees and/or medical expenses.
These proceedings have arisen from a dispute between the parties as to what changes to the existing orders are needed as a consequence of the father’s decision to relocate to Canberra in late 2009, to cohabit with his partner, Ms P.
At this point, I would note that paragraph 15 of the 2008 Orders states:
“The terms of these parenting orders are not to be reviewed before the expiration of four years from the date of the child’s next birthday on 31 October 2008.”
Clearly that paragraph is under challenge.
Child dispute conference
When the matter came before me on 11 August 2010, I determined that the matter was suitable for a child dispute conference. The Court was able to accommodate such a conference on a duty basis that day with family consultant, Ms K (‘the Family Consultant”). The Family Consultant subsequently provided the Court and the parties with a memorandum to the Court (“the memorandum”).
Under the heading, “Summary of Agreement Reached”, the Family Consultant wrote:
“The parties were unable to agree as to how the current parenting order should be changed to account for the fact that the father and his family now reside in Canberra. The parties anticipate that [X] will resume speech pathology through [S] School, in September, and will also be assessed by the school psychologist. They agree that he has language and literacy problems, for which the school has put in place a specialised program.”
Under the heading “Issues Remaining in Dispute/Issues Impeding Resolution”, the Family Consultant notes:
“The parents cannot agree as to how many of the father’s weekends [X] should spend in Canberra. The father wants him to travel to Canberra and back every weekend, as he has him (he acknowledged that [X] may not be ready to travel by plane unaccompanied). The mother initially proposed that he only travels to Canberra once a term, but would consider twice a term in the interim. [X] is likely to be expected by his school to participate in Saturday sport, possibly from 2011 onwards. His parents’ communication has broken down, and he is being drawn into the dispute between them. The parents described his personality as somewhat introverted and naive. There is a dispute between the parents about who gets to make decisions regarding [X], and the lack of communication of relevant information between them about [X].”
The Family Consultant made the following recommendations:
·further dispute resolution is unlikely to assist the parties;
·the matter may benefit from the preparation of a family report for a final hearing; and
·the matter needs an interim hearing to determine interim parenting arrangements.
As a consequence of the memorandum, I acceded to the parties’ request for an interim hearing, which proceeded before me today.
The issues
The dispute today focuses on the spend time arrangements for [X] and his father during school terms, and now, the spend time arrangements for [X] and his mother and father during all school holiday periods, and more precisely, given the likely listing of this matter in July 2011, the forthcoming October and summer school holiday periods. The April holiday periods in 2011 will be considered in due course.
Agreed and disagreed facts
As previously mentioned, there are extensive final parenting orders currently in place affecting the parties and their child. I note, however, that both parties appear today to have agreed that, despite the decision of the Full Court in Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725, some variation to the 2008 Orders will be required. Based on the evidence before me, and the submissions made during this interim hearing, I would agree.
The parties agree, or are not in significant disagreement, in relation to the following:
·each of the parties should retain an equal shared parental responsibility for [X];
·[X] should spend alternate weekend time with his father during school terms, including one period in either Canberra or Sydney;
·[X] should spend half of all school holiday periods with each parent, although they disagree on which half, or which days;
·[X] will continue to be collected by his father at the commencement of all spend time periods; and
·on the days that [X] spends with the father in Canberra, the mother will collect [X] from the father at Sydney airport.
The parties also indicated that they were in disagreement today in relation to the following matters:
·whether the school term time that [X] should spend with his father should primarily take place in Sydney or Canberra;
·whether the school holiday times should be increased, particularly in the long summer school holidays; and
·whether the father should be able to spend time with [X] on Christmas Day despite sub-paragraph 2(b) of paragraph 15 of the 2008 Orders.
As previously stated, the father is not seeking that the mother deliver and collect [X] to and from [S] McDonald’s, given the father’s preference in the interim period is to have [X] fly to and from Canberra on the majority of weekends.
The parties’ submissions
Each of the parties’ counsel provided the Court with lengthy oral submissions. Mr Givney, for the mother, also provided the Court with a case outline document.
Mr Levy commenced by indicating to the Court that the father was presenting a revised proposal today. He sought during school terms for [X] to spend time with him each alternate weekend from after school on Fridays until 6.30 pm on Sundays. The father would collect [X] from school and then fly him on most weekends to Canberra. Then he would fly with [X] back to Sydney, with changeovers at Sydney airport.
The father proposes that no more than two weekends would involve the father driving to and from Canberra with [X]. As to holidays, the father is now seeking half of all school holiday periods, more specifically the end of third term school holidays 2010, from 12noon Saturday,
2 October 2010 until 12noon Monday, 11 October 2010, that date being a non school day. And regarding the long summer school holidays, from 12noon Saturday, 4 December 2010 until 12noon, 1 January 2011.
Mr Givney, for the mother, submitted that caution was needed in today’s decision, because the matter has not, as yet, had the benefit of a child inclusive family report.
The father’s proposal is likely to be unworkable next year when [X] is required by his school to undertake compulsory sport, most likely cricket, in the first term of 2011. Mr Givney asked the Court to seriously consider the mother’s concerns as outlined in her affidavit and amplified in the Family Consultant’s memorandum that [X] has some speech development issues and appears fatigued by the travel he has been required to undertake given the father’s relocation to Canberra in late 2009. [X] is a child who, apart from regular school activities, is also involved in speech pathology and academic coaching on Monday evenings and tennis and swimming on Tuesday and Wednesdays, presumably after school.
Mr Givney stated that it is highly likely that [X] will be involved in school cricket from term one 2011 and that there is at least one “bye weekend” that may be relevant.
Mr Givney also asked the Court to consider what I will describe as the “factual matrix” underpinning the 2008 Orders. They are very comprehensive orders and were prefaced on the parties remaining in close proximity. The changes needed now relate to the father’s decision to relocate himself.
Mr Givney submitted that caution is needed, because no expert evidence is yet before the Court that supports either party’s view about the potential difficulties [X] may suffer from extensive travelling, as the mother asserts.
Mr Givney described the mother as “hyper concerned about [X]’s development” and stated that she has genuine concerns that [X]’s education and development may suffer if he is required to spend a considerable amount of his time travelling.
Whilst there was agreement between the parties that they have difficulties in communication, Mr Givney pointed to the various email communications between the parties that demonstrated that the mother had been trying to accommodate the father’s wishes.
In addressing the relevant considerations under s.60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”), Mr Givney asked the Court to err on the side of caution because the father, as the non-primary carer parent, is currently unable to see the negative impacts that this travelling between the parties is causing [X]. As to the school holidays, Mr Givney noted that these arrangements were also comprehensively covered in the 2008 Orders, and quite clearly, [X] was to spend time with the mother on Christmas Day 2010 and beyond.
It was also submitted that [X] also has an obligation to attend a “multi-lit program”, a program to assist learning, speaking, and reading, from 9 January 2011 for approximately 14 days.
In his submissions for the father, Mr Levy asked the Court to note that the father’s proposals for holiday times were needed, because they would facilitate [X] being able to spend time with his Canberra-based friends, given that the father’s revised proposal will try and organise his time with [X] in the ACT school holiday periods.
Mr Levy pointed to the reality that the father has not spent Christmas Day with [X] for over four (4) years, and if [X] was able to spend time with his father this forthcoming Christmas, [X] would also be able to spend time with the father’s partner and her daughter.
As to the mother’s concerns, Mr Levy asked the Court to accept that there was no evidence of any effect to substantiate the mother’s fears. He asserted that some eight (8) months had now elapsed since the father had relocated to Canberra, and that [X] had travelled to and from Canberra during that period.
Mr Levy also asked the Court to accept that the retention of the current order for equal shared parental responsibility was appropriate in the circumstances, and thus triggered a consideration of whether the various proposals provided [X] with substantial and significant time with the father.
As to the primary considerations in s.60CC(2) of the Act, there was a need to promote a meaningful relationship with both parents, and there was no material evidence before the Court that [X] had been harmed in any way or exposed to abuse.
Mr Levy also made submissions in respect of several of the additional considerations contained in s.60CC(3) of the Act.
As to [X]’s views, Mr Levy submitted there was no evidence of any resistance to travel by [X] and there was no evidence of any practical difficulties in him travelling between Sydney and Canberra. However, there was evidence that the mother wasn’t facilitating a relationship between the father and [X].
As to “any other circumstances”, the father was no longer financially able to pay the cost of serviced accommodation to spend time with [X] in Sydney. In addition, there was no proper evidence before the Court about [X]’s sporting obligations in 2011. In any event, if [X] were to play cricket in 2011, there were, he understood, a number of “bye weekends” that could be utilised.
In his reply, Mr Givney again highlighted the email correspondence between the parties, and the mother’s attempts to accommodate the father’s change in proposals. He asked the Court again to accept the mother’s concerns.
Law and discussion
The Full Court of the Family Court decision of Goode v Goode (2006) FLC 93-286 (“Goode”) guides this Court’s approach in making interim decisions and interim orders in relation to parenting disputes. In Paragraph 81 of that decision, the Full Court stated:
“In making interim decisions the Court will still often be faced with conflicting facts; little helpful evidence in disputes between parents as to what constitutes the best interests of the child.”
This matter is clearly such a case. More specifically, this raises the reality that the Court cannot fully determine issues of credit today, as the evidence being presented by the parties to the Court is not being tested by cross-examination.
That said, also at paragraph 81 of the Goode decision, the Full Court went on to say that the legislative pathway must still be followed. Hence the relevant provisions of the Act, post the 2006 shared parenting amendments, must be followed in an interim hearing.
There is no issue of equal shared parental responsibility to determine today. The parties are in agreement that each should have equal shared parental responsibility for [X], and there is an existing order to that effect.
The dispute today is simply limited to the issue of [X]’s time with his father, and under what circumstances it will be spent. Regardless, I would note that pursuant to s.61DA, there is a presumption favouring equal shared parental responsibility, unless the Court considers it inappropriate in circumstances when it is considering an interim order.
If the presumption applies, then the Court is required, under s.65DAA of the Act, to consider whether [X]’s best interests would be served by making an order that he spend equal time, or in this case, substantial and significant time, with each of his parties. Either outcome requires the Court to consider whether [X] spending equal time, or substantial and significant time in lieu, with each of the parties would be in his best interests, and is also reasonably practicable given the circumstances.
The Act provides guidance as to substantial and significant time, in that it should provide time for a child to:
·spend times with the other parent on days that fall on weekends and holidays and days that don’t fall on weekends and holidays;
·allow the child and the other parent to interact in respect of the child’s daily routine; and
·spend time with the other parent on occasions that are of particular significance to the child.
In considering the reasonable practicality issue, the legislation guides the Court to consider issues such as:
·how far apart the parties live from each other, which is clearly an issue in this case;
·the parties’ current and future capacity to implement arrangement for the child spending substantial and significant time;
·the parties’ current and financial capacity to communicate with each other;
·the impact that such an arrangement would have on the child; and
·any other matters it considers relevant.
In this case, both the parties are seeking orders for [X] to spend, in my view, substantial and significant time. The mother, by implication, asserts that the father’s proposal is not reasonably practicable. The father would disagree.
Returning to the Goode decision, the Full Court, at paragraph 82 sets out the approach that Courts such as this must take in determining interim cases. Clearly, the Court is required to:
·identify the competing proposals;
·identify the issues in dispute; and
·identify any agreed and uncontested relevant facts.
These have already been noted above.
At this point, it is noted that s.60CA of the Act provides:
“That in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, the Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.”
Both advocates referred the Court to the relevant considerations in s.60CC of the Act as the Court must consider those in determining the best interests of the case.
Primary considerations: s.60CC(2)
The Court is required under s.60CC(2)(a) of the Act to consider the benefit of a child having a meaningful relationship with both of his or her parents. At this point, let me note that meaningful does not mean equal, but it clearly signifies that both parents should be involved with their child, and it clearly signifies an expectation of time to be spent. The right of a child to spend time with each parent and any extended family is the right of the child. Consequently, the Court will, in all likelihood, need to give some considerable weight to this factor at the final hearing, should such be needed.
The Court is then required under s.60CC(2)(b) of the Act to consider the need to protect a child from physical or psychological harm, and being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence. There is no doubt that it would be in [X]’s best interests to develop a meaningful relationship not just with the mother, but with the father. That needs to be balanced in respect of protecting [X] from any harm, and the like. Given the nature of the allegations here, the Court is satisfied there is a need to test the issues as to whether [X]’s welfare would be impacted by the travel required to spend regular time with the father in Canberra, or by spending less quality time with the father overall.
There are issues here warranting investigation, and, consequently, the Court needs to tread cautiously in the interim arrangements that will be necessary today.
Additional considerations: s.60CC(3)
With respect to issues such as “any views expressed by” [X]; the “nature of the relationship of” [X] with the parties, and the “willingness of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between” [X] and the other party, these will all be issues that will be flushed out in the fullness of time at a final hearing. A family report will clearly be crucial in the Court reaching a decision which will finally determine these matters for the parties. That being said, the Court notes at this stage that there is an issue about each party’s willingness and ability to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between [X] and the other party.
The Court also has to consider issues such as the “capacity of each of the parties to provide for the needs of” [X], and the “extent to which each of the parties has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, his or her responsibilities as a parent” and the like. These are also issues that will be determined at the final hearing of the matter. As to the “likely effect of any changes on” [X]’s circumstances, there is an acknowledgement by the mother that [X] will need to spend some time during school terms with his father in Canberra, and certainly during school holiday time.
As to “any other matter” the Court does consider the relatively recent email exchanges between the parties relevant. It would appear that the father has dramatically altered his wishes for the summer school holidays, and there is also evidence that the mother has considered an option of offering an additional weekend during school terms for [X] to spend in Canberra.
Conclusion
Having considered the parties’ submissions in light of the available evidence and structured discretion of the Act, I am satisfied that aspects of both parties’ proposals for [X] would be in his best interests.
Firstly, there is no issue in respect of the existing orders for equal shared parental responsibility for [X], or for [X] to primarily reside with the mother. However, in the long-term, any spend time arrangement for the parties to achieve 114 nights per annum, should that be their desire, is going to have to contemplate extended school holiday time. That is not an unusual outcome in family law disputes.
Secondly, in relation to the spend time arrangements during school term, I am satisfied that a cautious result is needed until the issue of the travel affecting [X] can be examined. Consequently, paragraph 3 of the 2008 Orders will be suspended until further order, and during school terms, [X] will spend time with his father from after school, or 3:00pm Friday, until 6:00pm Sunday, with every third such alternate weekend to be in Sydney. It is difficult for the Court to assess the outcome of such an interim arrangement on [X]’ school sport obligations in 2011, however the objective is to facilitate such, if possible. This issue can be fully addressed at the final hearing.
As to school holidays, as stated, in the long-term I suspect the parties will need to seriously consider more time to be spent with the father during school holidays and less during school terms. As to the October 2010 school holidays and the 2010/2011 summer school holidays, the Court is persuaded by the mother’s argument that the parties had reached an early agreement about this time, and consequently, the mother’s proposals will apply with respect to these holiday periods.
Given the reality that the final hearing cannot be accommodated until at least mid-2011, one issue that arises is the April 2011 school holiday period. The Court considers the father’s proposal for time to be spent in the second half of that school term period is appropriate in these circumstances. However, given that the April school holiday period in 2011 ends with the Easter weekend, the Court considers it appropriate for [X] to be returned by 3:00pm Easter Sunday. Consequently, in default of agreement between the parties, [X] will spend time with the father in the April 2011 school holidays from 12noon Saturday,
16 April 2011 until 3:00pm Sunday, 24 April 2011.
There also needs to be a tweaking of the orders to ensure that [X] spends time with his father on Father’s Day this weekend. However, I note from the mother’s proposal that she was suggesting that the school term orders commence on 3 September 2010, and I assume that fits the current pattern between the parties. Consequently, alternate weekend times will commence on 3 September 2010.
As to changeovers, the father will collect [X] from school, or the mother’s residence if [X] is not at school, and the mother will collect [X] from the father at Sydney airport at the conclusion of all times. In the event that the father returns [X] to Sydney by car, he will return [X] to the mother’s residence.
The father is to provide the mother with at least seven (7) days written notice of all relevant flight details, and the location of any accommodation that [X] will be at with the father whilst in Sydney.
The Court will now make the following:
·Firstly, the matter is set down for final hearing on 25 and 26 July 2011;
·Secondly, the matter is listed for a mention on 15 March 2011 to coincide with the release of the Family Report;
·Thirdly, an order seeking a Family Report be prepared, with a request for that report to be released by the end of February 2011;
·Fourthly, there will be the usual trial direction orders made today; and
·Lastly, there will be interim parenting orders as outlined in this decision.
The right to settle the reasons for this interim decision is reserved.
I certify that the preceding seventy (70) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Monahan FM
Associate:
Date: 20 October 2010
0
0
0