Ball & Ball (No 3)
[2024] FedCFamC1F 215
•14 March 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Ball & Ball (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 215
File number(s): NCC 34 of 2022 Judgment of: SMITH J Date of judgment: 14 March 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim hearing –14 year old child has unilaterally removed herself from the care of the father – child wants to live with mother – mother facing criminal charges re child exploitation material of child – inappropriate for child to live with mother – mother placed child with maternal grandmother – maternal grandmother relatively safe option – maternal grandmother traveling overseas in May 2024 – further evidence required – “interim interim” orders until further interim hearing in one month.
FAMILY LAW – INTERIM ORDERS – child to live with the maternal grandmother – Child may spend time with the father – Child may spend supervised time with the mother
Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VII s 69ZL Cases cited: B & B (1993) FLC 92-357
Ball & Ball [2022] FedCFamC1F 1068
Ball & Ball (No 2) [2023] FedCFam1CF 752
Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725; [1978] FamCA 84
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 48 Date of hearing: 13 March 2024 Place: Newcastle by Microsoft Teams Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Rugendyke Solicitor for the Applicant: Brynes Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Willoughby Solicitor for the Respondent: Hannaway Lawyers Solicitor-advocate for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms McGregor Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: McGregor Family Law ORDERS
NCC 34 of 2022 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS BALL
Applicant
AND: MR BALL
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
SMITH J
DATE OF ORDER:
14 MARCH 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The matter be stood over for resumed Interim Defended Hearing on Thursday, 18 April 2024 at 10.00 am by Microsoft Teams.
2.Vary the extant orders concerning the child, Y born 2009 (“Y”) as follows:
(a)Y is to live with Ms E (Date of birth 1974) (“the maternal grandmother”);
(b)Y may, but need not, spend time with and communicate with Mr Ball (“the father”) in accordance with her wishes.
(c)Y may, but need not, spend time with and communicate with her siblings in accordance with her wishes.
(d)Y may, but need not, spend supervised time with Ms Ball (“the mother”) as follows:
(i)When the child Z (born 2012) spends time with the mother in accordance with the existing Orders of 21 December 2022 and 21 August 2023.
(e)Y may, but need not, spend supervised time with Ms Ball (“the mother”) as follows:
(i)From after school, or 4.00pm, till 8.00pm each Wednesday.
(ii)From 1.00pm to 5.00pm each Sunday.
(iii)Y’s time with the mother shall be supervised time only:
(iv)The time that Y spends with the Mother shall be supervised by B Family Services.
(v)The Mother and the Father shall be equally responsible for the costs of B Family Services and a copy of these orders may be given to B Family Services.
(vi)The time that Y shall spend with her Mother supervised by B Family Services may occur at the following locations:
1.The Mother’s home.
2.The Maternal Grandmother’s home.
3.Any restaurant, café or fast food venue within Region F.
4.Any oval, park or nature reserve within Region F.
5.The offices of B Family Services.
(vii)Only in the event either that B Family Services is unavailable to supervise, or that the Mother and Mr Ball agree in writing, then the time that Y spends with the Mother shall be supervised by the Maternal Grandmother.
(viii)The time that Y shall spend with the Mother supervised by the Maternal Grandmother shall occur only at the following locations:
1.Any restaurant, café or fast food venue within Region F.
2.Any oval, park or nature reserve within Region F.
3.That the District Court files …, … and … from Town G Court be requested.
4.Within 7 days of these Orders, the mother is to provide to the ICL and the father copies of all electronic communications (via text message, Snapchat, Instagram, email or however received) between her and Y in the period February 2024 to date.
5.That the father be granted leave to issue subpoena upon the Town J Venue for CCTV footage from December, January and/or February.
6.Within 14 days the mother shall produce to father and ICL copies of all electronic communications (including texts messages and emails or however received) exchanged between herself and Ms E between December 2023 and March 2024.
7.Leave to issue a subpoena upon CAMHS and any other medical or allied health treatment provider of Y for the period August 2023 to 10 March 2024.
8.The parties file and or serve any supplementary affidavits or Court Books and Submissions Bundles by no later than 4.00 pm on Friday, 12 April 2024.
Subpoena
9.Leave be granted to the Independent Children’s Lawyer to issue such additional subpoena as they deem necessary.
Photocopy
10.If all parties are legally represented leave is granted to the legal representatives only to photocopy all subpoenaed documents in these proceedings.
(a)Such leave is granted on the condition that the legal practitioner undertakes to destroy all photocopies, which do not become exhibits, at the conclusion of the matter.
(b)In addition to the usual implied undertakings in respect of subpoena material, if a legal representative exercises this right they shall be taken to have given an undertaking that they will not:
(i)distribute copies of any subpoena documents to any person (including their client); and/or
(ii)allow the further copying of any subpoena documents by any person (including their client).
Save for the following exception:
(iii)Copies of subpoena documents may be distributed to counsel or other legal representatives acting in this matter, and / or to any Single Expert appointed by the Court or the parties, or to any other Expert with the written consent of all other parties.
(c)A copy of this order is to accompany any copies of subpoena documents distributed to any person and attention is to be specifically directed to this Order, and those persons shall then be taken to have given the undertakings in this Order.
(d)If a party who was represented becomes unrepresented, they shall not be entitled to copies of the subpoena documents, even if they have paid for the photocopying, and the leave granted in this Order is given on that basis.
Liberty to relist
11.Liberty is granted to the parties to approach the Court in Chambers to have the matter relisted on short notice if any urgent issues arise.
Information
12.The mother be authorised to receive copies of any school reports, newsletters, and any correspondence ordinally sent, regarding Y at her own expense.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.Where a party is granted leave to review or photocopy subpoena documents the exercise of that leave is conditional on their giving the usual undertaking. The usual undertaking includes an undertaking to the Court to keep confidential and to not disclose to other person (other than a legal practitioner retained in the proceedings) any of the information or knowledge acquired by reason of the review of the subpoenaed material. It also includes an undertaking not to show or distribute or publish any document or party of any document copied from the subpoenaed material. Any person who inspects or photocopy documents is taken to have given the usual undertaking without having to sign any further document. A person who breaches the undertaking has committed a serious contempt of Court punishable by imprisonment.
B.The provisions of s 121 of the Family Law Act “Restriction on publication of court proceedings” also applies to information obtained on subpoena. A person who publishes such information commits a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of up to 1 year.
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 the pseudonym Ball & Ball has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SMITH J:
These are short form oral reasons for decision pursuant to section 69ZL of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), concerning an interim application for parenting orders relating to the child, Y, born 2009, who is now 14.
The parties are the children's mother, Ms Ball, the father, Mr Ball, and there is an Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”).
These are complex parenting proceedings with serious allegations being made against the mother in relation to alleged child exploitation material, category two, in relation to the three children subject to the proceedings, who are X, born 2008, Yand Z, born 2012.
The mother filed the Application in a Proceeding on the 6 March 2024, and it was listed before me yesterday on my direction for urgent hearing. Having read the materials, I advised the parties that I had formed the view that I would only deal with the matter on the so-called “interim interim basis” to hold the position until further material can be obtained. I have listed the matter for further hearing on 18 April, so the matter can be heard and determined before May 2024, for reasons which will become apparent in due course. In these circumstances, the orders I put in place today are to hold the matter for about a month. In those circumstances, I will give my reasons as concisely as possible.
I note, to the extent there was discussion about Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 the decision to self-place, that is, Y’s decision to self-place from the father to the mother in the first instance, and then the placement with the maternal grandmother, given that she is 14 years old with a possible eating disorder, and making threats of self-harm, clearly meets that threshold, and I didn't understand that was genuinely in contest.
The mother relied upon:
(1)A Court Book (MFI 1)
(2)Application in a Proceeding filed on the 6 March 2024;
(3)Affidavit filed 6 March 2024;
(4)Affidavit of Ms E, maternal grandmother, filed 6 March 2024; and
(5)Outline of Case filed 12 March 2024.
The father filed:
(1)A Court Book (MFI 2);
(2)Case outline filed 12 March 2024 (MFI 3);
(3)Tender bundle (MFI 4); and
(4)Supplementary Case Outline (MFI 5).
In context of what I indicated, he relied on his case outline, in particular, paragraph 54 which I will come to, and also paragraph 38, which referred to some of the medical material I will come to in the tender bundle. The relevant factual material is as I will discuss it.
The ICL filed a Case outline on 12 March 2024 (MFI 7).
The overall background to the application presently before me is set out in my two previous interim decisions, Ball & Ball [2022] FedCFamC1F 1068 on 21 December 2022 (“the first judgment”) and Ball & Ball (No 2) [2023] FedCFam1CF 752 on 21 August 2023 (“the second judgment”). This decision should be read together with those decisions. I will not repeat what was said in them. The relevant principles that apply in interim applications are set out there, and I will not repeat those, but will continue to apply the principles as articulated.
The children live with the father, and there have been orders for supervised time with the mother. The orders of 21 December 2022 varied the extant orders of 27 July, 7 September and 7 October 2022, so that Y may, if she wishes to, but was not required to, spend time with the mother, when Z was spending time with the mother. I note what I said at paragraphs 111 and 112 of the first judgment about Y. The orders of 21 August 2023 ordered that the maternal grandmother, Ms E, be allowed to be present for Z's time, supervision by B Family Services, with the parties liable to pay equally for the supervised time, and specify the locations at which time would occur. They also made provision for the maternal grandmother to supervise if B Family Services was unavailable, and limited occasions of supervision if the maternal grandmother was supervising. I note that I've discussed B & B (1993) FLC 92-357 at some length in that decision and my reasons for that. Those reasons continue to apply. The orders made on 21 August 2023 were intended to hold the position until the mother's criminal trial, which was initially listed, as I understand it, for May of 2024, but ultimately, it was listed for February 2024.
The matter has come back before me at relatively short notice, in circumstances where the criminal trial did not go ahead, and Y has unilaterally removed herself from her father's care and expressed an intention or desire to live with the mother, and made threats of self-harm.
The mother's evidence in her affidavit of 6 March 2024 relevantly says - starting from paragraph 52 - that following the orders of December 2023, Y attended a visit of December 2023 and told her mother she was unhappy, and wanted to return to live with the mother. Y attended two of the next eight visits. The mother says that Y said that the father has stopped her from attending visits - all of these are facts in issue.
The mother's criminal trial was listed for early 2024. She says many of the charges have been dropped. In early 2024, the mother said she was the victim of a home invasion. She went to her barrister's house and given that her barrister is now a potential witness in that case, they could not appear.
The criminal trial has been delayed for about eight months. There is much controversy about the circumstances of the alleged home invasion. I will make no comment. I can make no finding.
The ICL says that the mother having received a number of concerning messages from Y, asked the ICL to speak with Y. And as I understand it from the ICL’s case outline, that contact was on 20 February 2024. The ICL spoke with Y on 23 February 2024, as noted in the case outline, and said that Y did not appear to be distressed at that time. I note that Y is seeing Dr H, a psychiatrist, who has given a diagnosis of a probable eating disorder, depression, and trauma.
Y has been prescribed medication to assist her with her mental health. In early 2024 at about 10.00 am, Y and the father met with Dr H. The father points to this as indicating that there were no issues, which as I understand it, is part of his case, that the mother has manipulated Y into changing her view. I note that that’s a rather generous reading of that consultation material. Whilst Y denied any recent self-harm or thoughts of the same it was also recorded by the doctor that it was difficult to establish Y’s cognitions, due to minimal engagement and one-word answers, as described in the consultation notes:[1]
Irritable and surly in affect. Stated she didn’t want to attend the session. Became irritable with Dad when we discussed follow up appointments, stating “you told me this would be the last time I [sic] have to corne” (to Dad) [sic]
Engaged minimally, replying “fine” to most questions as I attempted to explore mood, eating and sleep
Denied TOSH or SI
Does not want to continue engaging with CAMHS, ambivalent about taking medication for moos [sic] and sleep but willing to continue with [existing medication]. Replied “whatever” when asked about this.
No evidence of perceptual disturbances.
[1] Father’s Tender Bundle, page 41.
None of these things necessarily indicate a 14-year-old who is in a good mental state.
The ICL says that on 26 February 2024, the ICL advised the mother's solicitor that there had been no disclosure by Y. The ICL then received text messages from Y at 4.50 pm, with threats of self-harm. The ICL spoke with Y. Y advised that she would return to the father's home. The ICL made a notification for care and protectionary.
It is at that time that Y absconded from the father's home. Now, the ICL sent the parties, as set out in the mother's affidavit at Annexure A, an email about the text message. The text message was later provided to parties and read:[2]
I am really despreat to get out of dads
im afraid ill get hurt or I will hurt myself if I stay theIe
i hate it there
if I keep living there I will actually kill myself
I will slit my neck open
(As per the original)
[2] Affidavit of Ms Ball filed 6 March 2024, Annexure B.
This is obviously very troubling.
The mother sets out what she says were the events from 26 February 2024 in her affidavit commencing from paragraph 68. For reasons of which are not clear to me the mother does not address in her affidavit the number of concerning messages from Y which she, apparently, advised the ICL that she had received on 24 February 2024, and these are the matters which led the mother on that date to ask the ICL to speak with Y.
It is somewhat troubling that the mother's evidence presents as if the situation suddenly came out of nowhere on 26 February 2024, when Y contacted the ICL and, clearly, that does not seem to be a full account of what has occurred because of what the ICL says happened on the 24th. The father, in that context, is suspicious about the circumstances in which Y texted such a dire text message to the ICL when on 23 February the ICL spoke with Yand Y did not appear distressed.
The messages between the mother and Y are, clearly, important and, indeed, one might think, critical. It may be that they are on Snapchat and have disappeared but, if they are not, I understand why the father was so keen to see them. The mother says that at about 12.30 am on 27 February 2024 Y arrived at her door. She said from paragraph 72 of her affidavit that Y made threats of self-harm and suicide if required to return to the father.
The mother facilitated Y going to the maternal grandmother who, of course, as was noted in the prior judgments, has been supervising. There are no allegations of risk in respect to the maternal grandmother. The maternal grandmother filed an affidavit on 6 March 2024. In it she included a transcript of a text message from Y on 31 January 2024, which is at Annexure A and reads:[3]
hi nIn, i spoke to the dpp today and they basically Iaid i cant speak at court as the physcolighst and counsilor have adviced for me not to, but they will be playing the interview vIdeo. i tolI them i would like to be placed in the care of my Mother. to which they said they would do their best to have that happen but if that is unable to happen they will try to place me in the care of a friends family. I would not like to keep living in the custody of my faIher as i am constantly being slut shamed by him and […] which is what [X] and [Z] are now starting to pick up on and copy the same. Even […] has said that she is concerned of everything that is going on there and does nIt think i should keep living there. I would like to speak at court as they are trying to point this all at my mum whenIre is alot of stuff that should also be pointed at my father as he used to say stuff to nterviewsthe interveiws so it would get in our heads so we would repeat it. and he is always trying to make excuses up for everything that happens here at his. he uses ex“uses such as "she only does this”f“r attention" "she has behaIl issues that” why she does this" ect to get the blame off him and put Onto someone else. please help me nan dads always trying to say bad stuff about mum to get it in our heads too
(As per the original)
[3] Affidavit of Ms E filed 6 March 2024, Annexure A.
Apart from some interesting language choices, for reasons which are not clear to me, the message in Annexure A is not the actual text message. It appears to be a transcript of the text message. It is not clear why the original text message would not be annexed and why someone would, instead, have gone to the great trouble of typing it out. The father says this raised suspicions. It makes no sense to me why I would not have been given the original text message and, clearly, I need to see that original as does the father and the ICL. I will make orders about that.
The maternal grandmother sets out the fact that Y is living with her, for which the maternal grandmother and her current husband, Mr K, are to be thanked, and the maternal grandmother says she is strictly compliant with the supervision requirements of the mother. The maternal grandmother also says that while she believes Y would be best off with the mother, she is happy for Y to stay subject to the following, provided at paragraph 45 of her affidavit:
45. … Furthermore, we have 2 overseas holidays (already paid for) booked for later this year. The first is from [mid-year]. The second is [later in the year] to Europe. We could not take [Y] with us, and we will not be able to care for her whilst we are overseas.
That is why I have listed the matter before 3 May 2024.
She also said at paragraph 46:
46.On the evening of 29 February 2024, [Mr Ball] dropped [X] off outside my hom’. [X] delivered [Y's] medication. He then left. I am scared of [Mr Ball] and feel intimidated by him. I do not want him attending my home again or otherwise having any contact or communication with me.
This is troubling. The maternal grandmother is doing her best to help out, it seems. The father may not think so but, at the moment, she is providing safe harbour. I am concerned if she has concerns about the father, whether or not they are justified, it would be best if the father did not attend at her premises.
I note that Y may or may not be a witness in the extant criminal proceedings, but the fact that those proceedings remain on foot, that Y may be a witness and that Y is an alleged victim means the Court is in the same position it was in when giving the previous decisions and the same factors clearly apply. The ICL noted that Y has been with the maternal grandmother since 26 February 2024. She has remained there safely.
I note that the father has suggested to me, on bases that are not entirely clear, that this is all about Y wanting to live in a particular geographical area and not about not wanting to be in his house. Given what w’s recorded in Dr H's notes I was taken to, clearly, there are issues between the father and Y. They may relate to the fact that she is 14, and appears to be suffering from an eating disorder. That may all be compounded by the fact that she is in a very difficult position between these parties, but any child of that age with the mental health issues she has is going to have potential difficulties with any adult she lives with. I cannot say. There is just too little information to know.
The ICL referred in the submissions back to paragraph 62 of my first decision, at which time there was a change from Y’s original view that she wanted equal time with both parents, and she then decided she wanted no time with the mother. The ICL noted that I quoted the expert's opinion that Y was:[4]
A child triangulated in her parents' dispute, her wishes are likely to have been influenced and therefore caution should be given to placing weight on [Y’s] wishes in the interim. and which is unlikely to have been influenced and, therefore, caution should be given to placing weight on [Y's] wishes in the interim.
[4] Single expert report dated 23 June 2022 prepared by Ms D at [201].
That stands as true today as it was when the expert wrote it, and I know that whilst both parties seem to accuse the other of trying to influence Y, one strongly suspects that both parties are, or are trying to.
Y has now come almost full circle, starting from equal time as her wish, to all the time with the father and none with the mother as her wish, to now to all the time with the mother and none with the father. Her wishes must be given weight, particularly in this context to avoid injuring her mental health. But the possibility that she has been influenced in her present views by the mother cannot be discounted.
Given my view that there is not enough information, the ICL adopted their alternative position in the case outline. In effect, the ICL proposed Y live with the grandmother, spend supervised time with the mother when Z does; with some additional time on special occasions, which I will not deal with here, for the next four weeks. The ICL further proposed that the mother's time be supervised by B Family Services or the maternal grandmother if B Family Services is not available, and I note what I said previously about that, at locations in accordance with the current orders of 21 August 2023 and that Y spend time and communicate with the father in accordance with her wishes.
The mother pressed for a live with order, naming the risks to Y in paragraphs 31 to 43 of her summary of argument, submitting that the only real risk is Y being involved in the dispute, and that order 2.3 of the Application in a Proceeding, that the mother be restrained from discussing the criminal proceedings with Y, would be sufficient. I do not accept that submission.
In the alternative, the mother supported Y live with the maternal grandmother but sought additional time, including four hours on Sunday.
The father relied upon paragraph 54 of his case outline:
b. Pending further hearing:
i. [Y] should live with the maternal grandmother.
ii. [Y] should only spend time and communicate with the mother in a professional supervision service such as [L Family Services] or [B Services].
iii. [Y] should spend time with the father and siblings at her discretion.
c. That both parties file property materials in an expedited manner, i.e. within 14 and 28 days respectively.
d. That s245D updating materials be ordered from the NSW Police within 28 days.
e. That the District Court files be produced and released for inspection.
f. That the mother provide the details of her telecommunications providers and all relevant phone numbers to the father solicitor within 7 days and he be granted liberty to issue relevant subpoena to be returned and inspected within 35 days.
g.That the father be granted leave to issue subpoena upon the [Town J] Venue in the event they confirm that they hold CCTV footage from December, January and/or February with any such material to be returned and inspected within 35 days.
h. That the mother shall produce to father copies of all texts messages and emails exchanged between herself and Ms E between December 2023 and March 2024, with such documents to be produced within 14 days.
i. That the father shall be granted leave to issue a subpoena to [Ms E] seeking production of all emails and text messages exchanged between [Ms E] and [Y] between […] December 2023 and […] March 2024, with such documents to be returned and inspected within 35 days.
j. That all parties are granted leave to issue a subpoena upon CAMHS and any other medical or allied health treatment provider of [Y] for the period August 2023 to 10 March 2024, with such documents to be returned and inspected within 35 days.
The father's position, in effect, as I understand it, is he accepts that the appropriate place for Y, until we know more, is with the maternal grandmother. That is clearly right. He says there should only be supervised time, and that time should be supervised by B Family Services, referring to B & B (1993) FLC 92-357.
One of the issues, of course, was the father's inability to pay for supervised time, but he says he now can, as I understand it, so that will be the preference if B Family Services is available. Otherwise, having previously said that the grandmother could supervise time and noting that Y is living with her grandmother anyhow, if the grandmother wants to get involved in the unfortunate process that may be going on of people trying to influence Y, there is not much I can do about that.
I note that the father in his case outline raised a sole use and occupation case. There was no notice given. It was accepted it could not be pressed without notice. There are no property proceedings on foot. It is not at all clear to me that there would be any authority to support the idea that that is a parenting order. To the extent to which the father seeks orders which required filing of property materials, there is clearly no jurisdictional foundation, and I will not make those orders.
In terms of what he seeks at proposed order d, as I understand it, updating material, in fact, has recently been received and should be released soon from the relevant authorities, I will order the registrars to request a District Court file.
The father seeks the mother's communication provider so he can independently subpoena the material which she may have received from Y. I am bit a concerned about that now. I think it goes a bit too far. However, I am going to make an order that the mother produce, to the extent that she has things that have not disappeared, electronic communication between her and the child from about February of this year, to see whether or not there has been improper influence of the child. On the one hand, I am worried about that because it may impinge more upon Y if she knows that, as she will, her communications are being obtained. But if the mother has, in fact, done what the father has suggested or suspects, then that is a very serious matter, and, on balance, we need to know.
There is no issue about proposed order g which is the subpoena if there is any CCTV footage left. I will make order h as proposed. There is no reason the mother cannot produce electronic communications between her and the maternal grandmother. I am not at the moment going to make order i as proposed, because so long as Y is living with the maternal grandmother, she needs to be able to feel that she can communicate with her freely. That is difficult. I understand that there is lots of issues, but at the moment, I think that is the best balance in the difficult situation for her mental health. I will make order j.
So, in summary, in the present circumstance where there is an outstanding criminal trial at which Y may be a witness, with respect to which she is an alleged victim, it is just not appropriate on the material that I have before me that she live with the mother. Given her mental state, age, expressed wishes and threats of self-harm, she clearly cannot live with her father at the moment, although, as we have seen, her views are subject to significant change, having gone almost full circle during the proceedings. The maternal grandmother provides a safe location for Y to live, and it is appropriate that Y live there until further order.
I note that we are going to have to deal with what happens when the grandmother goes overseas.
Those are my reasons.
I certify that the preceding forty-eight (48) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Smith. Associate:
Dated: 3 April 2024
3