Baires & Lagrande

[2023] FedCFamC2F 1700

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Baires & Lagrande [2023] FedCFamC2F 1700

File number(s):	HBC 1213 of 2022
Judgment of:	JUDGE TAGLIERI
Date of judgment:	1 December 2023
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – parenting – parental responsibility – orders for equal shared parental responsibility – orders for the child to live with the mother and spend progressively increasing time with the father – order for the father to have final decision making authority
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC(2), 60CC(2A), 60CC(3), 62B, 65DA(2), 68B, 68Q
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	39
Date of hearing:	30 November 2023
Place:	Hobart
For the Applicant:	The Applicant did not appear
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr T McKenna
Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Ms M A Ryan

ORDERS

HBC 1213 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MS BAIRES

Applicant

AND:

MR LAGRANDE

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE TAGLIERI
DATE OF ORDER:	1 DECEMBER 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.All prior parenting orders are hereby discharged.

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

2.The applicant mother MS BAIRES (“the mother”) and respondent father MR LAGRANDE (“the father”) (collectively “the parents”) have equal shared parental responsibility for the child X born in 2016 (“X”), subject to the following conditions:

(a)When making long term decisions about X’s health, welfare and development, the parent making the decision must give the other parent at least seven (7) days’ written notice of what they suggest should be decided and why (“Notice”);

(b)Within seven (7) days of receiving the Notice, the other parent will consider the Notice and give the parent making the decision a written response outlining their response and the reasons for it (“Other Parent’s Response”);

(c)If the parents:

(i)agree about the decision to be taken they must jointly ensure it is actioned; or

(ii)are unable to agree and the decision to be taken is not urgent, then they will participate in family dispute resolution to reach agreement; or

(iii)are unable to agree and the decision to be taken is urgent the father is authorised to make the decision and inform the mother in writing of the decision taken.

3.X will remain enrolled for his primary school education at B School, unless agreed otherwise in writing between the parents.

LIVE WITH, SPEND TIME WITH & COMMUNICATE WITH ORDERS

4.X live with the mother and spend time with the father in accordance with Orders 5 and 6 of these Orders.

5.X spend time with the father as follows:

(a)From Friday 1 December 2023 until the commencement of school on Monday 4 December 2023, being for three (3) consecutive nights;

(b)From Friday 15 December 2023 at the end of school on Friday (or from 3:00pm if X is not attending school) until the start of school on Monday 18 December 2023, being for three (3) consecutive nights, and changeover will be at X’s school;

(c)Commencing Friday 5 January 2024, each alternate weekend from 3:00pm on Friday until 10:00am on Monday, being for three (3) consecutive nights, and changeovers will be at the City C Childrens Contact Service;

(d)Commencing Term 1 2024, each alternate weekend from the end of school on Friday (or from 3:00pm if X is not attending school) until the start of school Tuesday (or 10:00am if X is not attending school), being for four (4) consecutive nights, and changeovers will be at X’s school;

(e)Commencing Term 3 2024 and for all school terms thereafter, each alternate weekend from the end of school on Friday (or from 3:00pm if X is not attending school) until the start of school Wednesday (or 10:00am if X is not attending school), being for five (5) consecutive nights, and changeovers will be at X’s school; and

(f)Other times as agreed between the parents in writing.

6.During school holidays only as follows:

(a)Commencing during the Term 1 school holidays in 2024, the father’s fortnightly time will still commence on the same day but will extend to seven (7) consecutive nights, concluding at 4:00pm on the following Friday during each of the Term 1, Term 2 and Term 3 school holiday periods.

(b)Commencing December 2024/January 2025 summer school holidays, from 28 December each year during summer school holidays, the parents will have week about care of X, with the father’s time continuing to be in week one of each rotation, starting as usual on Friday at 3:00pm and concluding at 4:00pm the following Friday.

Special Occasions

7.On the following special occasions, the time X spends with either parent is suspended and instead he will spend time with each parent as follows, with this order taking precedence over other spend time orders:

(a)Christmas 2023 and each odd numbered year afterwards: X will spend time with the father from 4:00pm Christmas Day to 4:00pm Boxing Day.  X will spend time with the mother from 4:00pm Christmas Eve to 4:00pm Christmas Day.

(b)Christmas 2024 and each even numbered year afterwards: X will spend time with the father from 4:00pm Christmas Eve to 4:00pm Christmas Day.  X will spend time with the mother from 4:00pm Christmas Day to 4:00pm Boxing Day.

(c)Mother’s Day: X will spend time with the mother from 10:00am Mother’s Day to commencement of school Monday.

(d)Father’s Day: X will spend time with the father from 10:00am Father’s Day to commencement of school Monday.

8.There will be extra spend time with X and each of his parents as agreed in writing between the parents.

Changeovers of Care

9.If any given changeover of care falls on a school day, such changeover will be held at the school X attends.

10.If any changeover of care does not occur on a school day, the changeover will be held at the City H Contact Service.

11.If changeover occurs on a day the City H Contact Service is not open and is not a school day, changeover will be held at Suburb D Library, or if it is closed outside the front entrance.

12.Both parents will comply with all directions of the City H Contact Service, complete such paperwork as requested by City H Contact Service and promptly make payment of any invoice generated by the City H Contact Service.

Involvement with X’s school and medical care

13.The mother and father may attend X’s school and extra-curricular events which parents are normally invited to but apart from that, on days X is not in their care the mother and the father are both restrained from attending X’s school - except with the express invitation of the school or the written consent of the other parent.

14.When parent teacher interviews are being held, the mother and father will attend separately if the school policy permits that.

15.The mother and father will do all things necessary to ensure both are named on X’s school or extra-curricular enrolments, and medical, health and allied health service contact and/or consent authority.

16.These Orders act as an authority for the mother and father to request and obtain at their own expense from X’s school any school photographs, reports, newsletter/bulletin, notices or information, record or file relating to the Child.

17.The mother and father will keep each other informed of all significant medical and allied health appointments for X and will give two (2) weeks’ written notice of these if possible.

18.These Orders will serve as authority to medical and allied health professionals communicate with the mother and father and provide to them at their request and at their own expense reports, information and advice relating to X’s health.

Communication between the Parents

19.For all communication between the parents, be it face to face or via email, text message or phone, they will both observe the following:

(a)The mother and the father will use civil and respectful language when communicating with each other;

(b)They will limit their discussions to child-related matters and these Orders; and

(c)Their communication will be brief and to the point.

20.Unless it is a matter of urgency, communication between the mother and father will be via text message.

21.The mother and the father are hereby restrained from:

(a)Speaking negatively, abusively, insultingly, belittlingly, or rudely to or about each other or any member of the other parent’s family (including spouses, partners or parents) in the presence of X and will remove X from being present if that is occurring;

(b)Discussing these proceedings or any future dispute with the other parent in the presence or hearing of X; and

(c)Asking X and/or placing pressure on X to disclose information about the other parent, their household or their family, and nor will they themselves start a conversation with X about their time with the other parent, other than an initial social greeting when they collect X from changeover; and the parents will each immediately remove X from the presence of any other person(s) doing so.

Other Injunctions & Responsibilities

22.Pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 and for the personal protection of the parents and X, each parent is hereby restrained by injunction from:

(a)Directly or indirectly threatening, abusing or assaulting the other parent;

(b)Entering the residential address of the other parent, unless they have the express written consent of the other parent beforehand;

(c)Being affected by alcohol to the point of intoxication in the presence of X, or taking and consuming any prescription medication for which they do not hold a prescription, or taking and consuming any illicit substances when X is in their care and for the twelve (12) hours prior to X coming into their care; and

(d)Bringing X into contact with any person that they know or suspect to be under the influence of any substance(s) during those periods that X is in their care.

23.Should any officer of the Department Children, Education and Young Persons request either parent to allow them to sight X for the purpose of a welfare check, the relevant parent will permit that officer to do so and will follow the reasonable directions of any such officer.

24.The parents will notify each other in writing of changes to their residential address, email address and telephone contact numbers within seven (7) days of any change to these.

25.Within seven (7) days of the date of these Orders the Independent Children’s Lawyer will provide the following services with a copy of these Orders:

(a)Department of Education, Children and Young People, for the records of B School and Child Safety Services;

(b)E Hospital;

(c)Tasmania Police; and

(d)City H Contact Service.

26.The appointment of the Independent Children’s Lawyer continue for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of these Orders and thereafter is discharged.

27.The father enrol in the next available parenting course or courses focusing on child-focused decision making and conflict avoidance as nominated by the Independent Children’s Lawyer and complete such course(s) as soon as practicable.

28.All extant applications are hereby dismissed.

29.The Independent Children’s Lawyer arrange for a copy of these Orders to be served on the mother as soon as practicable.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

A.Orders 11, 19 to 22, and 24 above are inconsistent with two police family violence orders made in City C in late 2022 in that they provide for the parties to communicate directly or indirectly for the purposes of making parenting arrangements and complying with these Orders.

B.The police family violence orders either prohibit the parties from coming within certain distances of 50m or 100m of the other party.

C.Pursuant to s 68Q of the Family Law Act 1975, to the extent of the inconsistency, the family violence order is invalid.

D.The Court is satisfied the parenting orders are in the best interest of the child given desirability of communicating and changeovers for parenting of the child.

E.The Court is satisfied that the orders do not subject the child or any party to any unacceptable risk of harm.

F.Pursuant to ss 65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975, 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 Attachment A and these particulars are included in these orders.

G.The ex tempore reasons for judgment delivered 1 December 2023 will be settled and placed on the Court record.

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judge Taglieri

1. This is a delivery of judgment and in those circumstances, there is no opportunity for the Mother to really provide any input in relation to what the Court should decide.  The opportunity for that was yesterday during the course of the defended hearing and at that time, Ms Lyudenko advised the Court that she had been instructed to withdraw.  In those circumstances, I have no appearance by the Mother.  I have no application to reopen or postpone delivery of this judgment and for all those reasons, I propose to proceed to deliver judgment.

2. I consider it is in the best interests of the Child to deliver the judgment, particularly because the evidence I heard yesterday concerned the deterioration of the Mother's mental health and she has had primary care of the Child.  I note that those concerns were held also by the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”), who is a very experienced ICL, and for those reasons I will proceed.

3. These parenting proceedings were listed for defended hearing on 30 November 2023, that is yesterday.  The Father appeared, represented by Counsel.  The Mother did not appear, although her solicitor Ms Lyudenko appeared for her.  The ICL appeared and participated fully in the hearing.

4. The proceedings concern X born in 2016 (“the Child”), who is now seven years old.  The ICL indicated that she proposed that, due to the vulnerabilities of both parents and broad agreement about a number of parenting issues, the Court should conduct a limited final hearing.

5. The issue in dispute was identified to be the rate of increase of the Father's time with the Child and whether it should progress to four nights or five nights per fortnight.  The ICL requested that the parties not be required to give evidence and noted that there was recent updated information that would be relevant to the Court's determination.

6. The ICL sought to adduce evidence from Child Safety Services (“CSS”), Tasmania Police and the Court Child Expert and suggested that there then be a conference with the assistance of the Court Child Expert.  This did not appear to be an option available under the provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) and its Rules and I made observations about this.

7. Following a brief adjournment and the Mother's solicitor advising the Court that the Mother was not yet in attendance, I stood the proceedings down to await the attendance of the Mother but indicated that the defended hearing would commence at 11:15AM. I also made directions as to the conduct of the defended hearing and to the order of witnesses and submissions pursuant to discretion that I have in child-related proceedings under Division 12A of the Act.

8. Neither of the parties had complied with the trial directions about filing trial affidavits however it was agreed that the previous affidavits should be read and received in evidence and they were.  I have had regard to those affidavits, being those filed by the Mother on 23 December 2022 and by the Father on 31 March 2023.

9. In the ICL’s case she adduced evidence from the Tasmania Police liaison officer and the CSS liaison officer.  The s 69ZW reports from both entities were received in evidence.  The liaison officers provided evidence about updated information they held since they had prepared their reports.  This was in the context of information given to them by the ICL, which she had obtained from the Child's school and the Mother's former integrated family support worker.  A provider, I believe, who was employed by F Centre.

10. The effect of the information obtained by the ICL was that the Child had spent limited time at school in Term 4 and his attendance had deteriorated again, and further that the Mother had disengaged from receiving integrated family support services.  The ICL gave the Court this information, information obtained from the school principal and Ms G of F Centre, without objection from any party.

11. The ICL adduced evidence from the Tasmania Police liaison officer who relevantly stated that police had had three interactions with the Mother since the date of the last s 69ZW report, those interactions being in mid to late 2023.  At these times, the Mother had contacted police and made reports related to persons attending her residence, watching her, damaging property and other concerns.  Police formed the view that there was no substance to the reports after reviewing CCTV footage and observing that the Mother presented with paranoia.

12. On one of these occasions in early 2023, the Child and another boy were present at the home and police suggested that the Mother's mental health was not good.  The Tasmania Police liaison officer stated that the incident in early 2023 had been reported to CSS.  The CSS liaison officer then gave evidence.  He said that CSS were unaware of the interactions the Mother had had with Tasmania Police in 2023 as I have described.  Further, he was unaware of the information that the Mother was no longer receiving integrated family support services.  He indicated he would pass this information onto H Centre for them to assess.

13. The CSS s 69ZW report indicated that the agency had no current investigation or involvement with the Mother.  By way of explanation as to why that was so, given the information available from Tasmania Police and the school, the CSS liaison stated that the circumstances did not appear to be urgent because there was no information about imminent risk to the Child.  He could not explain why police had stated that they had reported information about the early 2023 incident to CSS, yet he could not see any record of that in their systems.

14. By consent the Court Child Expert, Ms J, was present for the updated evidence from both liaison officers in the context of the information provided by the ICL.  Ms J was affirmed and then gave evidence in response to the ICL’s questions.  Her family report dated 17 October 2023 was also received in evidence and has been considered.

15. The effect of Ms J's evidence is that it appeared that the Mother's mental health had taken a decline and that the Child's attendance at school had deteriorated since she conducted the interviews for the family report.  Further, she stated that she had no concern for the Father's time with the Child progressing to overnight and, in circumstances where the Mother's mental health was poor, it may be preferable for that to occur sooner than recommended in the family report.

1. Ms J also stated that she did not consider that there was any real distinction in progressing to four or five nights per fortnight and suggested that the progression to this could occur within three months.  She also recommended against changing schools immediately and that any change in school for the Child should only occur in consultation between B School and K School, the latter being the school the Mother wished that the Child attend.

2. Ms J added that a change in schools to suit the Mother would not necessarily improve the Child's school attendance, depending on the cause for non-attendance.  In response to my question, she stated that there were concerns of potential neglect in the Mother's care, due to the Mother's mental health deterioration, but she did not have any concerns about care in the Father's household.  However, Ms J did caution that there did not appear to be any evidence of the Father having had an opportunity to prove himself as a regular day-to-day caregiver.  She added that her concern in respect of the Father was his lack of recognition of his denigration of the Mother and the effect of this on the Child.

3. When asked whether she had any concerns if the Court was to make an order for the Child to immediately begin overnight time with the Father on a regular basis, Ms J indicated that her concern would be for the Mother's reaction, as she had not been present in Court and heard the evidence.  This may lead to conflict between the parents, which would adversely affect the Child.  When invited to cross-examine the Court Child Expert, counsel for the Father did not seek to do so.

4. The solicitor for the Mother indicated, somewhat surprisingly, that she had received a text message from the Mother during the evidence and that the Mother would not be attending the hearing, and further that the Mother had instructed her that she could withdraw.  After satisfying myself that Ms Lyudenko had made the Mother aware of the consequences of instructing her to withdraw and that she had been made aware the Court was conducting a final hearing and would be making final parenting orders, I considered that leave should be given to Ms Lyudenko.  There was no utility in her continuing to appear if she had no instructions, particularly in relation to the updated evidence that the Court had received.

5. In circumstances where there was no explanation for the Mother's non-attendance and no guarantee that she would engage in the proceedings in the future, given her past history of sporadic engagement during these proceedings, I determined that it was in the Child's best interests to complete the hearing.  This is particularly so because of the parties' case outlines, which had been filed, and in the Mother's case because of the instructions given to Ms Lyudenko at the time, which demonstrate that the compass of the dispute was narrow and that there was agreement about a number of the orders that should be made by the Court.  I have had regard to the case outlines filed by all parties and the evidence that I heard together with the affidavits that were read.

6. By way of closing submissions both Counsel for the Father and the ICL urged the Court to make orders consistent with a memorandum of orders sought by consent, which for identification purposes I have had my associate mark as MFI-1.  The terms of the minutes of order sought largely reflected the proposed orders which were contained in the ICL’s case outline, except that it provided for immediate overnight time for two nights between the Father and the Child and then escalated to five nights per fortnight by Term 3 of 2024.

7. This reflected the effect of the updated evidence given to the Court about the likely deterioration in the Mother's mental health and consequent avoidance, including avoidance of accepting supports.  The minute of consent orders sought also reflected that the parties were in agreement about the Father's time during school holidays and on special occasions.

8. The terms of the minute of consent orders sought by the Father and the ICL are not surprising, as they were entirely consistent with the recommendations and the evidence of the Court Child Expert.  The memorandum of consent orders sought also included injunctive orders for the protection of the Child, again consistent with the ICL’s case outline, which the Mother by her own case outline had agreed with.

9. The most concerning issue for the Court, in view of the evidence it heard, was that the ICL and Father now also sought an order for equal shared parental responsibility, whereas previously the case outlines reflected agreement that the Mother as the primary carer should have sole parental responsibility, subject to consulting with the Father.

10. I now proceed to address the findings that are relevant in determining these proceedings pursuant to s 60CC of the Act and also the paramount consideration of what is in the best interests of the Child.

11. There was no challenged evidence in these proceedings.  Accordingly, I make the following findings on an uncontested basis:

    (a)The Child has a medical condition which required surgery at birth and is now regularly monitored and managed.  He attends B School but has had poor attendance, which is likely a significant disadvantage to his development and progression.

    (b)The Father is 31 years of age and lives alone.  He receives a disability support pension and lives with a medical condition.

    (c)The Mother is 25 years of age and suffers poor mental health, predating her relationship with the Father.  Her mental health has at times been quite unstable, not well managed and manifests in avoidant behaviours, which I infer is the explanation for her non-attendance for the final hearing.

    (d)The parties had a short relationship characterised by mutual conflict and violence.  The details of this are graphically displayed by the summary in the ICL’s case outline drawn from various reports identified in it.

    (e)Although final parenting orders were made in 2019, conflict continued between the parents and this has led to these proceedings.

    (f)Despite the parental conflict and the Child's awareness of and presence during conflict, the Child has a meaningful relationship with both parents, who are loving and caring of him.

12. I further find that the Mother experiences limitations in her parenting capacity due to her mental health and there is concern that at times she may neglect the Child's care and wellbeing.  An example of this is his very poor attendance at school in circumstances where she has been the primary carer.

13. Also, due to the Mother's disengagement with supports, it appears that there is a heightened risk of harm to the Child because he is not in view of persons who can report and act protectively, such as schools and the integrated family support services.  I accept the Court Child Expert's view about this.

14. The Father's parenting capacity is probably not of concern but this is in the context that he has not yet had day-to-day regular involvement and care for the Child.  However, in his evidence he stated that he was committed to focusing on the care of the Child, that he did not work and that he has comfortable accommodation for the Child.  I find the Father is likely to have satisfactory parenting capacity but it is important that he exercise that capacity thoughtfully and in a child-focused way, and that he take every opportunity to improve his skills.

15. The Father's negative attitude towards the Mother does cause some concern.  When questioned about this, he initially did not acknowledge it but then agreed that he does put down the Mother.  He also agreed that this would be adverse to the Child's emotional wellbeing.  He stated he was willing to undertake education or courses to address this.  It is important that he does so.

16. I accept all of the evidence of the Court Child Expert and her recommendations, given the benefit of her extensive expertise.  To mitigate against the risk of emotional harm from neglect, non-attendance at school and the impacts of experiencing negatively the Mother's poor mental health, the Child should spend more time with the Father than he currently does.  Further, because the Child has a good and loving relationship with the Father, it is important that he proceed to spend unsupervised and significant time with him.  This will mitigate the risk to the Child in the Mother's care due to her compromised mental health.  I accept that the Father's time should immediately increase to two nights per fortnight and gradually progress roughly according to the pathway agreed between Counsel for the Father and the ICL.

17. I note that the Mother did not oppose an increase to five nights per fortnight but suggested a slower progression in her case outline.  Slower progression of the Father's time is not in the Child's best interests as the evidence before the Court, which I have already described, collectively satisfies me that the Mother's mental health is compromised and is currently likely to be exposing the Child to a degree of unintentional harm.

18. The issue of parental responsibility has been a vexed one. I have concern that the parents cannot successfully navigate join decision-making. Given the history of conflict and violence between them, obvious from the history set out in the ICL’s case outline, there is reason to be concerned. In particular, the evidence satisfies me that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility is rebutted. Despite this, evaluating the relevant s 60CC considerations in totality, as I must, and giving consideration to the need to protect the Child and give that consideration priority over meaningful relationships, that is, the provisions of s 60CC(2) and (2A), I have been persuaded that I should make the order for equal shared parental responsibility, but subject to a caveat which I will address.

19. In arriving at this view I have also been influenced by the updated information from Tasmania Police which demonstrates that the Father has not continued to have forensic or criminal history in recent times.  A different picture emerges for the Mother, unfortunately, probably due to her mental health challenges.  I also accept that the Father has grown up and is developing insight into his behaviours but, as I have stated already, he needs assistance in this regard.

20. Unfortunately, the Mother is likely to continue experiencing fluctuating mental health, which will impact on her relationships and her parenting capacity, and unless she continually manages this and accepts supports, there will be adverse effects for the Child.  Collectively, all of those considerations have caused me to be satisfied that there should be the order for equal shared parental responsibility.  I remarked that there should be a caveat to this.  The caveat is that there is a risk that joint decision-making will stumble or be frustrated when the circumstances for the Child are such that a decision must be taken.

21. Accordingly, in my view, there needs to be a mechanism by which an urgent decision can be taken in the best interests of the Child without having to expose the parties and the Child to further proceedings. This is a consideration which I give considerable weight to being that provided for by s 60CC(3)(l) of the Act, partly so because the parents have already had previous parenting proceedings.

22. Accepting the ICL’s submission that the parties will likely agree about most major issues concerning the Child and that there will be an order that the Child remains at B School unless the parties agree otherwise in writing,  I will make an order for equal shared parental responsibility but the Father will have final veto if a decision that needs to be made urgently is not capable of being made jointly.

23. I consider that it is the Father who should make that urgent decision if the parents cannot jointly make the decision because his capacity to do so is less impaired or compromised, given the findings I have made elsewhere in these reasons.  Further, the Father will be ordered to undertake further education around child-focused decision making and conflict avoidance.  The ICL will recommend the further education and I accept that the evidence given by the Father is that he will undertake those courses.

24. In these reasons I have focused on what is relevant to the narrow issues that were to be determined and I have not delved into matters that were less relevant because it was evident that the parties were in agreement.

I certify that the preceding thirty-nine (39) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Taglieri.

Associate:

Dated:       9 January 2024