BAMPTON & KERNICK

[2021] FCCA 1224

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BAMPTON & KERNICK [2021] FCCA 1224

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – where the father has spent no time with his daughter since she made allegations about him in July 2019 – where the mother seeks the discharge of orders made in 2013 for the father to spend time with the child – where the father seeks an order that the child live with him or alternatively that orders be made for her to resume spending time with him – where the child is 15 ½ and is strongly opposed to spending time with the father – where the court cannot make a finding on the balance of probabilities  that the allegations are true but where it would not be in the child’s best interests to order either a change of residence or for her to spend defined time with the father - 2013 orders discharged – child to spend no time with and have no communication with the father unless she expresses a wish to do so.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60CA, 60CC, 61DA

Cases cited:

Bampton & Kernick & Ors (2013) FCCA 2248

Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725

Applicant: MS BAMPTON

Respondent: MR KERNICK

File Number: NCC 1075 of 2010

Judgment of: Judge Terry

Hearing date: 4 March 2021

Date of Last Submission: 4 March 2021

Delivered at: Newcastle

Delivered on: 15 April 2021

REPRESENTATION

Solicitor Advocate for the  Applicant: Ms O’Rourke

Solicitors for the  Applicant: Legal Aid Town B Family Law

Respondent: Self Represented

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr Taylor

Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Emalene Gemmell Family Law

ORDERS

1. All previous orders are discharged.

2. The mother shall have sole parental responsibly for the child Y born in 2005 (“the child”).

3. The child shall live with the mother.

4. The child shall spend no time with and have no communication with the father unless the child expresses a wish to do so.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Bampton & Kernick is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT NEWCASTLE

NCC 1075 of 2010

MS BAMPTON

Applicant

And

MR KERNICK

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. These reasons for judgment were delivered orally and have been corrected from the transcript. Grammatical errors have been corrected and an attempt has been made to render the orally delivered reasons amenable to being read.

2. This matter concerns Y, who was born in 2005, and who is 15 ½. She has not spent time with her father since July 2019, and the issue in dispute is whether an order should be made either for her time with him to resume or for her to live with him.

3. I conducted a hearing in respect of a dispute about parenting arrangements for Y in 2013. She was then eight years old and the hearing also concerned parenting arrangements for her brothers X, who was then 11, and Z, who was then six.  They are also the mother’s children but they are not the father’s children.

4. During that hearing the father was seeking orders that all three children live in a week-about arrangement with him and the mother.  However X and Z’s respective fathers also took part in the hearing and sought orders about spending time with their children, and the orders I made on 24 December 2013 provided for all the children to live with the mother, and for them each to spend time with their respective fathers only.[1]

   [1]Bampton & Kernick & Ors [2013] FCCA 2248.

5. The orders in respect of Y provided for her to spend time with her father from Friday to Monday on the first and third weekend of each month during school terms, for half of the school holidays and on special days.

6. An order was also made for telephone communication and it was ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for Y. 

7. Between December 2013 and July 2019 Y spent time with the father in accordance with those orders.  The orders were varied on 12 November 2014 following a finding that the father had contravened the orders but the variation did not affect the order about the time she spent with him.

8. On 13 July 2019 Y returned from spending a week of the school holidays with the father and made disclosures about him allegedly perpetrating some physical and sexual abuse. The mother reported the disclosures to the police and ceased facilitating Y spending time with or communicating with the father.

9. Y and the father were both interviewed by the police. Y maintained her allegations. The father vehemently denied them and the police did not charge him, but on 24 September 2019 a final ADVO was made for 12 months in terms of condition 1, which restrained the father from doing things such as assaulting, abusing or intimidating Y. 

10. The father consented to an ADVO being made in those terms after insisting that the ADVO not include a restraint on him contacting the child.

11. The father did not in fact attempt to contact her to any great degree and on 12 November 2019 the mother filed an application seeking to discharge the 2013 orders and seeking an order that Y spend no time with and have no communication with the father.

12. At some point after his time with Y ceased, the father moved from Town B where he and the mother were both living to City M.  He did not keep the mother advised of his address and he was not served with her application until March 2020 after the Court made an order for substituted service.

13. On 7 April 2020 the father filed a response. He has been a self-represented litigant throughout and the orders he sought included orders that the matter be referred to the AFP for investigation, that a finding of severe parental alienation and abuse be made against the mother in relation to the child, that a finding be made that the child had been encouraged and trained to make a false report to the police and that relationship counselling take place between him and Y.

14. On 10 June 2020 a Child Inclusive Child Dispute conference took place. Y was by then 14. She maintained her allegations in conversation with the family consultant and she was adamant that she did not want to see the father.

15. The father remained adamant that he had done nothing wrong and that Y had made false allegations. He alleged that the mother was behind the allegations and had trained Y to make them. He alleged that Y and/or the mother had fabricated the allegations to cover up the fact that Y had commenced a sexual relationship with her 17 year old boyfriend when she was 13 which had been facilitated by the mother allowing the boyfriend to sleep at her home.

16. The father continued to insist that Y should resume spending time with him, and as a result the matter was listed for trial.

17. At trial the mother continued to propose that the existing orders be discharged and that Y spend no time with and have no communication with the father. 

18. The father proposed that Y live with him and that there be a moratorium on her spending time with her mother. In the alternative, he sought an order that Y resume spending time with him.  He also sought an order for equal shared parental responsibility in place of the existing order for the mother to have sole parental responsibility.

19. During closing submissions Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer handed up an order in which it was proposed that Y live with the mother and spend no time with and have no communication with the father unless she expressed a wish to do so, and the mother then adopted that proposal.

20. There are existing parenting orders in this matter, and I have to bear in mind the rule in Rice v Asplund, which is designed to prevent people repeatedly bringing applications to the Court.[2]  However both parties sought a change to the 2013 orders, and given the July 2019 disclosures and the break which has occurred in Y and the father spending any time together, it is appropriate for parenting arrangements for Y be considered afresh.

    [2] Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725.

The evidence

1. In the mother’s case evidence was given by her and her partner Mr Bampton, and they were both cross-examined. 

2. The father gave evidence in his case and he was cross-examined. 

3. The father filed affidavits by a number of witnesses.

4. His sister Ms AA said in her affidavit that the father and Y had stayed with her during the child’s time with the father in July 2019 and that she saw no inappropriate behaviour.  She said she observed that Y had a clicky jaw. 

5. The father’s adult nephew Mr BB, who is Ms AA’s son, said that he saw the father and Y at his mother’s house on occasions during this period and that at no time did he observe Y to be afraid of the father, to have any injuries or to be in any distress.

6. Ms CC said that she had known the father and Y for about four years. She said she had never seen anything which suggested that Y had a problem with her father. She said that the father and Y had dinner with her and her partner, Mr DD, on two occasions during the July school holidays and they seemed happy together. Ms CC spoke highly of the father’s support for her when she had some issues in her life, and for his character. 

7. Mr DD said that he had known the father and Y for about eight months and had met them after he formed a relationship with Ms CC. He said they always seemed happy together and that Y did not seem to fear the father and had no marks on her face when he saw her.

8. Ms CC filed two affidavits. In her first affidavit she mentioned Y’s relationship with her boyfriend and in her second affidavit she detailed a Facebook messenger conversation she had with Y in 2019.  She attached the pages setting out that conversation.  During it Ms CC pressed Y for information about her boyfriend but there is nothing of moment or concern in the conversation.

9. None of those witnesses were required for cross-examination which for the father’s information, means that their evidence was not challenged.

10. The Child Inclusive Child Support memorandum was in evidence.  Ms EE, the family consultant who prepared it, was not required for cross-examination.

Y’s best interests

1. Pursuant to section 60CA of the Family Law Act any orders I make about Y must be determined by treating her best interests as the paramount consideration, and section 60CC(2) and (3) of the Family Law Act contain the matters to which I must have regard in order to determine her best interests.

2. I am not going, as I sometimes do, to go sequentially through the section 60CC (2) and (3) matters. I am going to weave consideration of the relevant ones into the discussion which follows.

3. Y has lived with her mother for her entire life.

4. I noted in my 2013 judgment that the mother and father had a rocky relationship and a number of separations before their final separation in May 2008 when Y was two and a half.  She spent time with her father after separation but there were interruptions in that time, including some quite significant interruptions due to the father’s actions, and I am talking about his decision to live in South Australia for a period of time.

5. However after the December 2013 orders were made the father spent time with Y for the next five and a half years pursuant to the orders, and also, according to the mother, pursuant to some variations which were made by agreement from time to time.

6. The mother commenced a relationship with Mr Bampton in 2009 and they later married. They were married at the time of the first hearing and the mother continues to live with Mr Bampton.

7. Z is still living with the mother. X is 18 and is living with his girlfriend.

8. Y is happy and settled with the mother in Town B. She talked about that to the family consultant who said as follows in the memorandum:

   Y is the 14 year old subject child. She is currently in Year 9 at FF School. Y presented as a friendly, engaging and bright child. Y reported that she is achieving academically and is in the school’s “Da Vinci” classes for achieving students. Y reports that she attends an Agricultural Technology High School and has opted to participate in agricultural activities rather than sport. She reports that she has represented her school across state competitions in agriculture. Y also reported that she is involved in a “Coaching in Community” program where she coaches younger children in a variety of sports activities, which is a 200 hour commitment and will result in her achieving a certificate in coaching. She reported that she likes sports and hobbies in her spare time. Y also works casually.

9. The Independent Children’s Lawyer spoke to Y on 12 February 2021 to obtain some updated information about how she was feeling about things and she provided information about that interview in a document which was tendered at the trial. 

10. Y spoke enthusiastically to the Independent Children’s Lawyer about high school and her part-time job at McDonald’s. 

11. She told the Independent Children’s Lawyer that she had always wanted to be a health care worker and had decided to enrol in a school-based traineeship to become an assistant in health care and then attempt to gain high enough marks to study health care after she finished year 12, and perhaps go on to study health care.  She told the Independent Children’s Lawyer that she was happy at home and that her self-confidence was improving.

12. I am satisfied that Y is very happy in her current situation.

13. Y has not spent any time with her father since July 2019 and apart from some text messages he sent her which I will refer to later and a  couple of parcels he sent her there has been no communication between them.

14. Y told the family consultant that she did not want to have a relationship with or have any communication with the father.

15. The father’s case was that the mother had alienated Y from him but that is not supported by the evidence.

16. The mother complied with the December 2013 court orders for five and a half years. Y told the family consultant in April 2020 that she had not had a good relationship with her father for some time prior to time ceasing in July 2019.  I cannot be sure whether that is true or whether it is a statement coloured by the events which have occurred since then, but if it is true, Y nevertheless spent time with the father on every occasion that it was ordered, and the father gave no evidence of Y saying anything to him during either visits or telephone calls to suggest the mother was denigrating him to Y. He in fact maintained that until the events of July 2019, he and Y had a warm and close relationship.

17. There is simply no sign of the mother having had a long-held plan to alienate Y from the father or of having taken any steps to carry such a plan into effect.

18. I must consider at this point the disclosures Y made on 13 July 2019 and their aftermath. 

19. The mother gave the following evidence in her affidavit about what happened on 13 July 2019 after Y came home from spending time with the father during the school holidays:

    When Y came home she seemed a bit off and wasn’t really herself.  We were having a BBQ with friends and family.  At about 7pm Y was in the kitchen and I saw that she started crying.  I saw her run into my ensuite bathroom and was crying.  I went into the bathroom to find out what was going on.  All she said to me was words to the effect: “He touched me”.  I went and got my husband Mr Bampton (hereafter referred to as “Mr Bampton”).

    I knew that Y was talking about Mr Kernick.

    I went and got Mr Bampton.  I said to him words to the effect: “Y said that he touched her”.  We then both went to the bathroom where Y was.

    I heard Mr Bampton say words to the effect: “What’s going on mate?”  Y said words to the effect: “he touched [i]me”.  Mr Bampton said words to the effect: “How did he touch you?”  Y said words to the effect: “On the boob, on the bum and on the thigh.”  She then said words to the effect:  “He hit me with a steel egg lifter, the handle end.”[3]

    [3] Paragraphs 7 to 10 of the Affidavit of Ms Bampton.

20. Mr Bampton said as follows about what happened on the day Y returned:

    She told me words to the effect: “Mr Kernick smacked me in the face with the back of an egg flip”

    She also told me words to the effect: “He grabbed me on the boob and bum and touched me on the inner thigh while we were driving around”.

    Y was shaking and crying while she was telling me what happened.  She was very distraught.[4]

    [4] Paragraphs 9 to 11 of Mr Bampton’s Affidavit.

21. The mother reported the matter to the police immediately and on 17 July 2019 she took Y to the doctor. She said as follows in her affidavit:

    On 17 July 2019 I took Y to our doctors to have her jaw looked at as it was sore and making a clicking/popping noise.  Y told the doctor that her jaw was sore from where Mr Kernick hit her with the egg lifter.  The doctor looked at Mr Bampton and Mr Bampton said words to the effect: “It wasn’t me.” 

    Y also told the doctor that Mr Kernick had touched her.

    Y also said to the doctor words to the effect:  “He forced me to have sex”.  The doctor said words to the effect:  “What, your father?”  Y said words to the effect: “No, not him.” [5]

    [5] Paragraphs 27 to 29 of the Affidavit of Ms Bampton.

22. On 18 July 2019 Mr Bampton sent the father a text message saying that due to what had happened in City M, Y had decided to cease all contact with him, and at some point Y blocked the father on her phone and on social media.

23. Y was interviewed by the police on 1 August 2019 and the father was also interviewed by the police.

24. No charges were laid against the father by the police but they did apply for an ADVO for her protection. An interim ADVO was made on 20 August 2019 and a final ADVO was made on 24 September for 12 months and it expired in September 2020.

25. On or about 15 August 2019 Y’s boyfriend said something to the mother and asked the mother to speak to Y.  The mother said as follows:

    I went and spoke to Y in her bedroom.  I said to her words to the effect: “GG said that we need to ask you about January”.  She was reluctant to say anything to me.  We started talking and she told me words to the effect:  “Her father was not at home and she was home alone and went for a shower.  Whilst she was getting out of the shower she heard the front door.  Because she was home alone she did not take clothes into the bathroom so she wrapped the towel around herself and went to her bedroom.  HH (hereafter referred to as “HH”) followed her into her bedroom.  She told him to get out.  He forced her onto the bed.  She would not tell me anymore than this. [6]

    [6] Paragraph 25 of the Affidavit of Ms Bampton.

26. The father vehemently denied that there was any truth in the allegations which were made about either him or HH. It was his case that Y and the mother had conspired to make the allegations to deflect attention from the fact that the mother had been allowing Y’s 17 year old boyfriend to sleep in the house and that Y was having a sexual relationship with her boyfriend.

27. The allegation that Y had a sexual relationship with her boyfriend has at all times been denied by Y, but the father maintains the belief that she is lying about that. 

28. The allegation that Y and her mother conspired to make false allegations simply has no foundation in the evidence. The mother has no history of gatekeeping or of failing to comply with orders or of persistently denigrating the father, and even if the father’s allegations about the nature of Y’s relationship with her boyfriend are true, and I cannot find that they are, there was no evidence that prior to the allegations about the father being made some issue had been raised about Y’s relationship with her boyfriend which might have motivated an attempt to cover up what was happening.

29. Y has calmly and consistently repeated the allegations without hysteria or embellishment. However I cannot find on the basis of the evidence available to me, on the balance of probabilities, that the father has done the things Y has alleged.

30. I cannot find on the balance of probabilities that he deliberately hurt Y with the egg flip or that she suffered an injury as a result. There was no medical evidence that her jaw was dislocated due to anything the father had done.

1. The mother’s Solicitor Advocate asked me to have regard when assessing the disclosure about the father hitting Y to the following passage from my 2013 judgment:

   Mr Kernick denied that he had pushed Y into a wall but admitted that he had pushed her in the back around the rib cage area. I am not prepared to find that Mr Kernick abused Y as defined in the Family Law Act on this occasion as there could have been an accidental element in what happened to her but its genesis was Mr Kernick manhandling Y and it is concerning that Mr Kernick used physical force on Y.[7]

   [7] Bampton & Kernick (2013) supra paragraph 153.

2. All that finding does is suggest that there is a possibility that the allegation Y made about being deliberately hit is true and that is not necessarily in the realm of fantasy. However I cannot simply because I made that finding in 2013 find on the balance of probabilities that the father deliberately hurt Y in 2019. It could be true but it could also involve an accidental element for example.

3. The allegations Y made about the father touching her on the bum and the boob could similarly be true but not be evidence of sexually inappropriate behaviour in that the touching might have been inadvertent or accidental. I cannot rule out that possibility, even though the father denies it happened at all. People can brush past each other, touch each other, and perhaps not even remember that it occurred. I cannot rule out the possibility that something of that nature happened here.

4. The father denied walking in on Y in the shower, but even if he did, as the Solicitor Advocate for the mother conceded it cannot automatically be assumed that this was sexually inappropriate behaviour.

5. Y was very circumspect about providing any details about the incident with HH and I cannot, on the state of the evidence, make a finding he behaved inappropriately to Y.

6. The father gave some odd answers in cross-examination when he was asked about this allegation. He agreed that HH had sometimes lived at the house. He denied that he was living there at the time Y alleged the incident with him occurred but he did say that when HH was in the house he would sit on the lounge until Y came out of the shower.

7. When he was asked why he did that, he said it was to make sure Y and HH were not the subject of allegations, but the incident involving HH allegedly occurred six months before the allegations were actually made.

8. The father also said that he insisted that Y and HH were never left alone together.  One has to wonder why he would go to the trouble of making sure that did not happen if there was no reason to be concerned about HH, and I cannot be sure his memory about that is accurate anyway.

9. So there were some oddities in the father’s answers, but that does not change the fact that on the state of the evidence I cannot make a finding on the balance of probabilities that HH was sexually inappropriate with Y.

10. As a result I cannot make a finding that Y would be at unacceptable risk of harm if she spent time with the father, but the problem for the father in terms of his case to be able to spend time with Y is the events which followed the allegations being made.

11. The father reacted very aggressively to the allegations. He sent Y some very unfortunate text messages. One of them read as follows:

    Why would you ever behave so badly towards your father who has given up everything to be with you.  You have lied in the worst way possible and degraded me so dishonestly you’ve broken my heart and taken our relationship and thrown it away over lies and deceipt…For what?  Why gave destroyed my life for a lie?..Its not Ok and my life is worth nothing to you…I don’t understand why a 13 year old child would destroy her father like you have…I hope you are proud of yourself.  I have only ever loved and cared for you done my best..and you treat me like this?..I have never been ashamed of you…until now.  I think its time you tell the truth don’t you?..[8]

    [8] Text messages from Affidavit of Ms Bampton.

12. Y suffered socially with her friends following making the disclosures and she believes that this was the result of the father’s actions when he found out about the allegations. The family consultant said as follows:

    Y alleges that the father has told people that he thought that she had made up the allegations to hide that she had been sexually active and possibly pregnant to her boyfriend.  Y reports that this is untrue and that she had not been sexually active.  She reported that because of the allegations, a child of the father’s friend who she attends school with, sent a ‘snapchat’ saying “Y is pregnant” to people that attended her school.  She stated that the consequences were that she was called a “slut” by her peers and rumours circulated around the school until an assembly as called amongst her year group to address the issue.  She reported that this emotionally impacted her. [9]

    [9] Paragraph 28 of the Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum.

13. The mother said that Y was adversely impacted on for some time by what happened after she made the disclosures. She said that she did not want to leave the house and catch a bus to school because she was concerned that the father would be there. She said that Y asked her to pick her up from a different place at the school and that for a long time she stopped going downtown in Town B. 

14. This is credible evidence, and I accept it because Y said similar things to the family consultant during the interviews in 2020. The family consultant said as follows:

    As previously stated, Y maintains her version of events about the assault and sexual harm allegations against the father.  Y reports that this has had a significant impact on her life.  She reported that she broke up with her boyfriend for fear of consequences for him, including concerns about harm from the father.  She reported that she fears going out in public in case she becomes in a situation that is unsafe or sees the father.  She reported that this has impacted her ability to have a relationship and described feeling uncomfortable with intimacy. [10]

    [10] Paragraph 27 of the Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum.

15. The Solicitor Advocate for the mother submitted that it was a real problem that the father had branded Y a liar and had been unable to empathise with her.

16. I responded to that during submissions by noting that these type of allegations are very difficult for an alleged perpetrator to deal with.  The best of people can struggle with that situation. However that does not alter the fact that the father’s aggressive response to Y after she made the disclosures in now the real problem in the case.

17. Y suffered considerably as a result of the father’s response to the allegations. She suffered at school as the result of information getting out about her and her alleged sexual relationship with her boyfriend, and the difficulty for the father is that his aggressive response to the allegations and his insistence that Y had been trained to lie has damaged his relationship with her to a point where it is unlikely the Court can do anything to repair it.

18. The father still maintains the view that Y is a liar. During submissions he said that his aim was to bring her back to reasonable honesty and repair their relationship, but it would be too much for Y to bear to be confronted by her father in this fashion.  It would cause her significant emotional harm.

19. An associated difficulty with the way the father responded to the allegations was referred to by the Solicitor Advocate for the mother in submissions. Y made an allegation about HH, not just about the father. The father dismissed this also as a lie.  He said that he was so sure it was a lie that he did not even speak to HH about it. There is a potential risk of harm for Y if the father is not willing to entertain that she may be telling him the truth if she comes to him making an allegation of sexually inappropriate behaviour by a third party.

20. I could not consider making an order for Y to live with the father, let alone an order that she live with him and spend no time with the mother for three months. She is 15 and a half years old. It would mean her removal from the home where she has lived all her life and where she is happy, from the school where she is happy and from the town where she has lived all her life, and it would place her with the father who she has strongly and consistently said that she does not want to see and who lacks empathy for her.

21. The father left Town B after his time with Y ceased and he is now living in City M. His current accommodation would be unsuitable for her and he would have to find alternative accommodation.  He had not thought about where Y would go to school and to top it all off, she is old enough to decamp from his home, which would place her at immediate risk of harm.

22. So there are those practical issues with Y coming to live with the father, but the biggest concern is the psychological harm to her of anyone attempting to force her to do so given the father’s attitude to her and her disclosures. 

23. It would be strongly contrary to Y’s best interests to make an order that she live with or spend time with the father. I accept the opinion of the family consultant that weight should be placed on Y’s views. She said as follows:

    Y’s physical and emotional safety needs to be prioritised.  Unless the Court was to find upon cautious review of the subpoenaed materials that the mother has coerced Y to make false allegations against the father, it is suggested that Y’s view be strongly considered in respect of the nature of the trauma she alleges that she has experienced and the maturity of her presentation and views.[11]

    [11] Paragraph 39 of the Child Inclusive Memorandum.

24. It is impossible for the Court to do anything to repair the relationship. Y is strongly opposed to spending time with or speaking to the father.  She has been consistent in those views for two years. She is 15 and a half years old. She is at an age when children like to order their own world as much as they can, and where it can be very difficult to force them to do what they do not want to do.

25. Y has not seen or spoken to the father for nearly two years. He would need to have a high level of sensitivity and empathy to make anything work if he and Y were put in the same place, and there is nothing to suggest he is capable of that empathy or sensitivity. He made clear at trial that he continues to strongly believe that she is a liar.

26. Y has spent time with her father for most of her life. She spent time with him for five and a half years pursuant to the orders I made in December 2013.  If she wishes to reconnect with him when she is older she will be able to do so and she will not be reconnecting with a stranger.  She has had the opportunity to get to know him.  But I am not prepared to make an order which would require her to do that at present, let alone require her to live with the father.

27. The Court frequently does not have a solution to situations like this and I do not have a solution in this case. There has been too much water under the bridge. If the father had taken a different tack in the beginning perhaps it would have been different but I cannot even say that in this particular case.

28. In relation to parental responsibility, in my judgment in the first proceedings I considered the relationship between the parties at length and made a number of findings about it.

29. I noted that the relationship had been volatile and I was satisfied there had been three incidents of family violence.[12] As a result the presumption in section 61DA of the Family Law Act did not apply and I was satisfied in light of the evidence about the nature of the parties’ relationship that it was not appropriate for me to make an order for the parties to share parental responsibility.

    [12] Bampton & Kernick & Anor (supra) paragraph 305.

30. The father asked me to reconsider the order giving the mother sole parental responsibility but in circumstances where I am not going to make an order for Y to spend time with him, where his attitude to the mother remains as strongly negative as it was during the first trial, and where the parties simply do not communicate, it would not be in Y’s best interest for me to consider changing that order.

31. Added to that, given everything that has happened Y would deeply resent the father being involved in making decisions about major long-term issues for her.

32. During the final submissions the Solicitor Advocate for the mother indicated that the mother supported the orders proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer and I am therefore going to make those orders.

I certify that the preceding ninety two (92) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Terry

Associate: 

Date:   3 June 2021