Bane and Thompson

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BANE & THOMPSON

[2018] FamCA 263

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child lives and spends time – With whom a child communicates – Parental responsibility – Presumption of equal shared parental responsibility – Where the litigation has been ongoing for a number of years – Best interests of a child – The weight to give to the child’s expressed views – Where there is significant acrimony between the parties – Where it is unlikely that the parties could effectively co-parent – Where there have been difficulties with handover arrangements – Meaningful relationship

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60B(1), 60B(2), 60CA, 60CC, 60CC(2), 60CC(2A), 60CC(3), 61DA

Baglio & Baglio [2013] FamCA 105

APPLICANT:

Mr Bane

RESPONDENT:

Ms Thompson

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Services Commission of South Australia

FILE NUMBER:

ADC

593

2010

DATE DELIVERED:

27 April 2018

PLACE DELIVERED:

Adelaide

PLACE HEARD:

Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF:

Berman J

HEARING DATE:

19, 20, 21 and 22 March 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Ms P

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:	Black & Wood Divorce & Family Lawyers
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:	Ms Lee

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Georgina Parker Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Roberts

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Services Commission of South Australia

Orders

That all previous parenting orders be discharged.
That the mother have sole parental responsibility for B (“B”) born … 2006, C (“C”) and D (“D”) both born … 2008 (collectively “the children”).
That the children live with the mother.
That the mother inform the father in writing within seven (7) days of any decision impacting the long term care and welfare of the children including but not limited to the following:-
(a) The children’s education (both current and future); and
(b) The children’s religious and cultural upbringing; and
(c)The children’s health and treatment by any medical practitioner including medication that may be prescribed to any of the said children; and
(d)Changes to the children’s living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the children to spend time with the father.
That the mother be permitted to action the current or any future NDIS Plan for C and shall inform the father of any current or any future proposed treatment plan for C pursuant to the NDIS Scheme or otherwise.
That the mother do keep the father informed of all treating and allied health professionals for the children and do all things necessary to enable the father to be permitted to communicate with and receive information from all such treating professionals.
That the parties be restrained from:-
(a) Discussing the Family Court proceedings with the said children;
(b)From denigrating the other parent or members of the other parents’ families in the presence of or within the hearing of the said children;
(c)Discussing these proceedings or allegations made in these proceedings with staff or parents at the children’s school (SAVE AND EXCEPT to notify the school staff about the arrangements provided by this order);
(d)Communicating with each other by telephone or SMS text message SAVE AND EXCEPT as may be permitted by this order or in respect of urgent parenting arrangements that may arise from time to time.
That the father shall be at liberty to communicate with the children by way of letters, cards and gifts to coincide with the children’s respective birthdays, Christmas and other special occasions.
That the father spend time with the children as follows:-
(a)       As to the child B:-
(i)At any time subject to B’s wishes including overnight time should the said child request same, with the mother to advise the father forthwith of any expressed wish and to facilitate such request as soon as is practicable;
(ii)As and from 19 October 2018, each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school on Friday, or 3pm if a non-school day, until 6pm Saturday;
(iii)That order 9(a)(ii) shall be suspended during school holidays;
(b)       As to the children C and D:-
(i)As and from 6 July 2018, each Friday from 3.30 pm until 7pm for a period of eight (8) weeks;
(ii)As and from 19 October 2018, each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school on Friday, or 3pm if a non-school day, until 6pm on Saturday;
(c)       As to B, C and D:-
(i)Commencing in 2019, the time that the children spend with the father shall be suspended during the short term school holidays with the children spending time with him from the conclusion of school on the last day of term until the middle Saturday of the short term holidays at 6pm;
(ii)Commencing in the 2018/2019 long term school holidays and thereafter in each long term school holiday period for a period of six (6) days in each fourteen (14) days commencing from the conclusion of school on the last day of term at 3.30 pm until 6pm six (6) days thereafter (SAVE AND EXCEPT for Christmas Day) and thereafter for a period of six (6) days in each fourteen (14) days at times to be agreed and failing agreement from Friday at 3.30 pm until a period of six (6) days thereafter;
(iii)Commencing in 2019 from the conclusion of school on Maundy Thursday until 6pm Easter Monday and Easter thereafter in odd numbered years;
(iv)From 3.30 pm on 24 December 2018 until 3.30 pm on 25 December 2018 and thereafter in even numbered years;
(v)From 3.30 pm on 25 December 2019 until 3.30pm on 26 December2019 and thereafter in odd numbered years;
(vi)From 9am until 6pm on Father’s Day PROVIDED that if the children are in the father’s care on Mother’s Day THEN his time shall conclude at 6pm on the evening preceding Mother’s Day;
(vii)Such other times as the parties may agree or as B may request.
That handover shall be effected from the children’s school at the commencement of the father’s time with the children being returned to the mother’s home at the conclusion of his time PROVIDED:-
(a)That the mother will take all necessary steps and give all authority and direction as may be required to the school principal of the school at which the children may attend from time to time, on any Friday that coincides with the father collecting the C and D from school, that B at the conclusion of her school day shall attend at the school office and not approach, interact with or interfere with the father collecting C and D from school as provided by these orders unless B is to accompany C and D;
(b)That the father will not enter upon any premises in which the mother and children reside nor any part of the property on which the mother’s residence is situate, nor will he engage in any conversation with the mother other than as she may permit or request;
(c)That the father will remain in front of the mother’s residence for only so long as is required to ensure the children pass from his care to either the mother or another adult at the premises from time to time;
(d)That any handover that is not able to take place at the children’s school or at the mother’s residence is to be conducted at the Suburb H Police Station.
That the father be permitted to telephone the children and each of them on one occasion each week upon such day and time as may be agreed between the parties but in default each Wednesday between 5.30 pm and 6.30 pm with the duration of any telephone call with each child to be not more than ten (10) minutes unless agreed.
That the father will initiate the call to the children and each of them at his expense PROVIDED that the mother shall facilitate the said call and provide the father with the relevant telephone number to be called as may be applicable from time to time.
That as and from 19 October 2018 the father be at liberty to attend all school and sporting events and any other events to which parents would ordinarily attend PROVIDED that if it is his intention to do so, the father shall provide notice to the mother PROVIDED that the parties shall be restrained and an injunction granted restraining each of them from approaching the other or in any way attempting to communicate with each other unless otherwise agreed in writing prior to such event.
That if a medical emergency arises THEN the parent with whom the child or children are currently resident shall advise the other party as soon as practicable of all details relating to the emergency and shall allow the other party appropriate time with the child or children during their recovery.
That the parties be at liberty to obtain at their own expense copies of school reports, school newsletters and school photographs of any school or educational institution which the children from time to time may be enrolled.
That if any of the children are required to attend upon any psychologist, social worker, counsellor (or any other agency employing such health professionals) or psychiatrist, the parties or either of them shall provide to the said heath professional a copy of the family report dated 5 December 2017 and a copy of these reasons.
That the parties shall utilise a communication book in order to inform each of them as to any specific appointments or medication requirements that any of the children shall have from time to time PROVIDED that if the parties consider electronic communication to be more appropriate in which case the communication between the parties shall be as they otherwise agree.
The appointment of the Independent Children’s Order be discharged.

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

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADC 593 of 2010

Mr Bane

Applicant

And

Ms Thompson

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

The proceedings between Mr Bane (“the father”) and Ms Thompson (“the mother”) related to the future parenting arrangements for B born in 2006 (“B”), C (“C”) and D (“D”) both born in 2008 (collectively “the children”).
By Amended Initiating Application filed 22 February 2018 the father seeks parenting orders summarised as follows:-
(a)That the mother do have sole parental responsibility for the children;
(b)That the mother inform the father within 7 days of any decision that impacts upon the long term care and welfare of the children;
(c)That the mother be permitted to seek financial assistance for C via the National Disability Insurance Scheme (“NDIS”);
(d)That the mother keep the father informed of the identity and contact details for the treating medical and allied health professionals engaged in the children’s care;
(e)That the mother obtain a Mental Health Plan for each of the children;
(f)That B engage in therapeutic counselling to generally assist her ongoing anxiety, but also directed towards the re-establishment of a relationship with the father;
(g)That C and D spend time with the father each Tuesday from the conclusion of school to 7pm, after eight weeks additional time each Friday from the conclusion of school until 7pm and after six months the time is extended from the conclusion of school to Saturday at 6pm;
(h)That the mother collect B from school 20 minutes prior to the conclusion of school time to enable C and D to be collected by the father without interference from B;
(i)That the father be at liberty to seek an increase of time with the children following the release of the report of the therapist;
(j)That all handovers that do not take place at school shall take place at the Suburb H Police Station;
(k)That the mother be restrained from the following:-
(i)Changing any of the children’s names;
(ii)Changing the children’s primary place of residence greater than 10 kilometres from Suburb J;
(iii)From denigrating the father in the presence of the children or allowing anyone else to do so;
(iv)From discussing the proceedings with the children in their presence or allowing any person to do so;
(v)Attending at the handover without the consent of the father;
(vi)From removing C or D from school for any reason on a day that the father is to spend time with them;
(vii)From offering B “special attention” or outings on the occasions when C and D are with the father.
At the conclusion of the proceedings, counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) tendered a detailed Minute of Order which generally supported the orders sought by the father save and except for the following:-
(1)That as to the child B, any time spent (including overnight time) with the father should be subject to the child’s wishes, but if so expressed then the mother shall facilitate B spending time with the father.
(2)That as to C and D:-
(a)Each Tuesday from 3.30 pm until 7pm;
(b)From 27 April 2018 each Friday from 3.30 pm until 7pm for a period of eight (8) weeks;
(c)From 22 June 2018 the father’s time shall be extended to 6pm on Saturday evening and thereafter each alternate weekend from Friday at 3.30 pm until Saturday at 6pm;
(d)For the first half of the short school holidays commencing at the conclusion of school on the last day of term until 6pm on the middle Saturday;
(e)Commencing in December 2018/January 2019 long school holidays for a period of six days in each 14 day period;
(f)For the Easter period commencing 2019 in each alternate year thereafter;
(g)From 3.30 pm on 24 December 2018 until 3.30 pm on 25 December 2018 and thereafter in even numbered years;
(h)From 3.30 pm on 25 December 2019 until 3.30 pm on 26 December 2019 and thereafter in odd numbered years;
(i)From 9am until 6pm on Father’s Day should the children not be in his care provided that the father’s time will be suspended on Mother’s Day from 6pm on the preceding evening.
(3)That until there have been 10 successful completed changeovers between the parties at the Suburb H Police Station, changeover thereafter shall be to and from school, but where not at school then from the carpark adjacent to the maternal grandparents home.
(4)That the father shall ensure that the child or children shall attend each and every appointment that has been made on their behalf with any medical or allied health professional.
(5)That the parties be at liberty to attend all school and sporting events.
(6)That in the event of medical emergency the parent in whose care the children reside shall inform the other party of the emergency as soon as possible.
(7)That the parties be at liberty to obtain all necessary information from the children’s school provided that if there is a charge it shall be borne by the requesting party.
(8)That if the children are required to attend upon any psychologist, social worker, counsellor or other allied health professional or psychiatrist then either of the parties shall be at liberty to provide a copy of the family report dated 5 December 2017 to the said professional.
(9)That the parties shall utilise a communication book.
(10)That if a party intends to take a child or children out of the State of South Australia then the other party shall be given 14 days’ notice together with details of the children’s travel arrangements.
As a result of the father giving consideration to the orders sought on behalf of the ICL, with some minor modification, the father was prepared to accept the thrust of the orders with the important concession that he would now accept any time that B was to spend with him would be subject to her request to do so.
That concession was tempered by an order that there be regular telephone communication between B and her father and that each of them be permitted to forward text messages to the other.
Given the father’s pessimistic view of the mother’s preparedness to support C and D’s time with him and his concern that they have developed a baseless fear of him, he seeks that they spend a period of 14 days with him without physical contact with the mother.
The ICL was not in support of B being removed from the school 20 minutes prior to the father’s attendance to collect C and D. He promotes an alternative proposal that B not be permitted to approach the children and should go to an area within the school grounds such as the front administration office, but in any event significantly distant from where the father is to pick up C and D.
The father does not consider that there is any advantage to the mother being present at handover.
By her Amended Response filed 16 March 2018 the mother seeks that there should be no time spent between the children and their father for at least a period of six months and thereafter only subject to the recommendations of a nominated therapist following successful therapy to promote the children’s relationship with him.
As the evidence progressed and following the submissions of the mother’s counsel, I was able to find that the mother showed no commitment to supporting the children’s relationship with their father and was likely to thwart any orders that provided for C and D to spend time with him.
The final hearing proceeded and was heard over four days. It concluded with final submissions on 22 March 2018.
The proceedings were conducted pursuant to s 69ZN of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). While the certain sections of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) did not therefore apply, nonetheless by reference to s 135 of the Evidence Act and r 15.13 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) I considered and made rulings in respect of certain specified objections by the father’s counsel to the affidavits of evidence relied upon by the mother.
The father relies upon the following documents:-
(1)Amended Initiating Application filed 22 March 2018
(2)The father’s Trial Affidavit filed 22 February 2018
(3)Case Outline document prepared by the father’s counsel
The mother relies upon the following documents:-
(1)Amended Amended Response filed 16 March 2018
(2)Mother’s Trial Affidavit filed 16 March 2018
(3)Affidavit of Mr K (the mother’s partner) filed 16 March 2018
(4)Case Outline document prepared by the mother’s counsel
At the commencement of the proceedings the ICL relied only upon the most recent family report prepared by Ms E (the family consultant) dated 5 December 2017.
Counsel for the ICL declined to identify orders sought at the commencement of the proceedings. While the orders eventually sought by the ICL at the conclusion of the proceedings were helpful, I did not consider that the Court gained significant assistance by the involvement of the ICL in the proceedings. The issues raised by each of the parties and contained in their trial affidavits were clear and I indicated certain areas of reasonable enquiry that should have been undertaken by the ICL in circumstances where:-
(a)B presented as a child displaying a level of anxiety that warranted treatment with anti-depressant medication for a period of nearly two years;
(b)That C presented with Autism Spectrum Disorder (“ASD”) and that his care, management and presentation had the potential to impact upon the likely orders to be made, therefore requiring some expert evidence to be called;
(c)That each of the parties sought some form of “reunification counselling” with no effort having been undertaken to call evidence from a proposed therapist as to whether given the circumstances and the issues that impact upon the children individually, such intervention was likely to assist the children or have the potential to place them at greater risk;
(d)That the mother had been generally non-compliant with Court orders, in particular had failed to facilitate the most recent orders made 2 August 2017.

Unless the ICL intends to champion the interests of a child and where necessary to provide the Court with evidence not presented by either of the parties, there is little assistance likely to be presented to the Court where the parties are represented and the only expert evidence is that of the family consultant.

BACKGROUND

The father was born in 1972 and was 45 years of age at trial. The father is a professional but has not been in employment for a number of years even though he holds significant qualifications. He had some part time employment in 2017 and is at present currently seeking fulltime employment.
The mother was born in 1977 and at the date of trial was 40 years of age. She holds a professional qualification and has maintained her employment in the associated industry subject to the requirements of the needs of the children. C apparently requires significant supervision and one on one management. B suffers from high anxiety, D less so.
The parties commenced their relationship in 2005, were married in 2007 and separated in October 2009. The relationship between the parties is poor. The father describes it as “toxic”. Each of the parties consider that they had been the subject of physical and emotional abuse. It is likely that a long history of anxiety and depression suffered by the mother manifested itself following the birth of C and D.
While each of them make complaint about the other, neither party seeks to allege that the other presents as an unacceptable risk by reason of family violence, physical or sexual abuse.
The father considers that the mother’s refusal to comply with Court orders for the children to spend time with him is likely to constitute an emotional or psychological risk to the children, particularly where they present with complex needs.
The father has re-partnered with Ms G. Their relationship commenced in 2013 and they have a child, L born in 2014 (“L”). L assumed some relevance by his inclusion in the most recent family assessment. The father’s partner was not called to give evidence. It is likely that little would turn on her evidence in any event. The father’s partner and the mother have had little or no constructive communication with each other. There is nothing to suggest that given the limitations of the orders sought by the father, she would present as a risk to the children.
The mother re-partnered with Mr K in 2015. He has two adult daughters from a previous relationship and it is his evidence that he has a close and beneficial relationship with the children. He is currently in fulltime and long term employment and provides significant ongoing financial support for the mother and the children.
It is an aspect of the proceedings that the parties are in dispute over the alleged non-payment by the father of child support arrears in excess of $40,000.
The father did not appear to have much regard to his child support obligations and there is some support for the mother’s pessimism that the child support arrears will ever be reduced nor that the father is likely to provide significant financial contribution for the children’s care.
The issue of child support was not relevant to the orders that each of the parties seek but provides at least some explanation for the hostility displayed by the mother towards the father.

THE PROCEEDINGS

With a clear lack of insight, the parties did not appear to place any significance in terms of the current presentation of the children as a possible consequence of litigation that commenced on 17 February 2010.
Final orders were reached by consent on 23 November 2010. Following contravention proceedings, a further Initiating Application was filed by the mother on 22 August 2012. That application resulted in the parties reaching a consent order on 9 April 2013 with litigation recommencing by the father on 24 March 2014 and a final consent order being agreed on 9 July 2014.
The current proceedings were commenced by the father on 13 January 2015. As at the date of trial the father had filed five applications alleging contravention of orders.
The current orders which provide for C and D to spend time with the father are explained by reference to orders made 2 August 2016 which provided that the children spend time with the father every Saturday from 10am until 5pm and every Tuesday from after school until 6.30 pm. Handovers were to take place at a children’s contact service, but if not available then the children were to be returned to the mother at the Suburb H Police Station.
The interim proceedings on 11 May 2017 considered the difficulty in the children spending time with the father. The mother considered that the father’s conduct had caused embarrassment to the children and exacerbated B’s already overt anxiety.
The mother relied upon a report of a psychologist who had provided therapeutic assistance to B in 2016 and early 2017. The involvement of the psychologist was made necessary following a reference by B’s general practitioner to assist in the management of her anxiety disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder (“OCD”) traits.
The Court accepted that at that time B was clearly a troubled child and it was unlikely that she would easily reconcile with her father.
The father argued that there was no basis to explain his fractured relationship with the children. There was no allegation of abuse or overt conduct by him which could provide a satisfactory explanation for the exaggerated oppositional conduct of the children. The suggestion that attempts to restore the children’s relationship with the father had resulted in B developing high anxiety, psychological symptomology and an exacerbation of C’s ASD led to the father’s assessment that in the absence of any other cause, the explanation must be that the mother has coached the children to resist spending time with him.
I was persuaded that it would be in the best interests of C and D to continue spending time with the father but that the order in relation to B should be suspended.
The arrangements for handover were also changed to provide a fast food restaurant as an alternative to a police station or a children’s contact service.
Notwithstanding the orders made on 2 August 2016, as at the date of the orders made 19 May 2017 the father had not seen the children since October 2016.
At trial, the father had still not seen or spent any effective time with B and the mother conceded that she had determined it was not in the children’s interests to see their father and had unilaterally taken steps to frustrate the orders from 26 August 2017.
The mother’s evidence is that she does not intend to comply with the current order for C and D to spend time with their father and by implication it can be assumed that she is unlikely to voluntarily promote the children’s relationship with their father.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The mother seeks orders that would enable information about the children to be made available to the father but strongly opposes any order that would bring the children into physical contact with him.
The affidavit material of the parties provides some historical context but does little to illuminate the matters that currently influence the children’s conduct and behaviour.
The mother’s trial affidavit was replete with evidence that was either inadmissible or of such little weight as to be of no assistance.
It was difficult to glean any understanding from the mother’s trial affidavit that provided some support for the dramatic orders that she sought. To some extent her trial affidavit provided historical context but could provide only limited assistance in circumstances where he has had little to do with the children for many months in relation to C and D and for 18 months in relation to B.
The issues for the Court to consider are as follows:-
(a)Whether B should be the subject of an order that she spends time with her father or whether any future relationship with him should be at her wish and determination;
(b)Whether C and D should spend time with the father irrespective of whether an order is made in relation to B;
(c)If an order is to be made in favour of C and D spending time with the father then how should handover be effected;
(d)Should C and D forthwith upon the making of any order spend an extended period of 14 days with the father before returning to the primary care of the mother;
(e)The extent to which the parties and the children should engage in “reunification therapy”;
(f)The extent to which the father should maintain an involvement with the children and in particular whether he should be permitted to attend at the children’s school and to school based events to which parents would normally be invited or encouraged to attend.

THE EVIDENCE
The father

The father relied upon his Trial Affidavit filed 22 February 2018. The father had initially proposed by way of a final order that B “engage in therapeutic counselling with Ms M in relation to coping strategies for her anxiety generally and also directed towards establishing her relationship with the father”.
There was nothing in the father’s trial affidavit that provided any detail of how the therapeutic intervention as proposed by him would operate.
Under cross examination, the father conceded that he had not made enquiries of his proposed therapist and realistically was uncertain as to how the process would eventuate. He was unsure as to how long the intervention would take but considered that if any progress was made he would want to return to Court to consider the ongoing parenting orders.
Whilst hopeful of the reunification process, he conceded that the ongoing litigation had been detrimental to the children to date and there remained the potential for the mother to continue to disrupt any positive advancement made.
He agreed that leading up to 26 August 2017 the children had been exposed to quite dramatic events at school handover. B was clearly a negative influence on C and D and it could be assumed that she would actively dissuade them from attending with him.
The father considered that if C and D could be presented to him without the detrimental influence of B, he did not foresee any significant difficulty in them attending with him.
The father had alleged inappropriate conduct between Mr K and D. The allegation was based upon his observation that Mr K had placed his hand on D’s bottom purportedly to assist her into the backseat of a motor vehicle.
The allegation was raised during the interim proceedings and was the cause of much distress and angst by the mother and Mr K. The allegation was without substance and was not pressed by the father in his trial affidavit. He was prepared to concede that Mr K did not present as a risk to the children, but in doing so seemed oblivious to the distress that such an allegation had caused and the resultant refusal by Mr K to assist in handover arrangements in the absence of the mother.
The father denied that there was any validity to the assertion that his relationship with his partner was volatile or that their interaction was demonstrably aggressive. He did not consider that his partner was in any way opposed to the children spending time with him and considered that she was highly supportive.
If B had formed an adverse view of the father’s partner then it was his view that it was without substance and she was in error.
He denied the more florid allegations purportedly expressed by B that the father had videotaped the children and asked that they say bad things about their mother.
He denied that there had been any attempt by him to denigrate the mother in the presence of the children.
The father and his partner have a child L who is almost four years of age.
The children are apparently interested in L and during the observed interaction conducted by the family consultant, the children expressed an interest to see him.
The mother had proposed that the three children be involved in relationship counselling with Ms N. The father was aware of the therapist’s reputation and was prepared to engage in the reunification process.
It is understandable that the father would seek to promote a willingness to engage in any reasonable process that might see a relationship with his children restored. In circumstances where B presents with possible significant psychological distress and C with ASD, it remains surprising that the father had not sought to explore the viability of his own proposal.
The father was aware that B had been taking anti-depressant medication for more than a year. He was asked whether B’s apparent need for medication was of concern to him. His response was that he would like to know why the child needed the medication. He conceded that she had had a few issues and was prepared to accept that if medication was required then he would follow medical advice. He noted that in his most recent contact with B in 2016 he observed heightened anxiety.
He acknowledged that he had not spoken to any of the professionals involved with C’s management even though he was aware of C’s diagnosis for a number of years. He did not know the full extent of C’s mobility issues but was aware that C wore splints at night time. He had some information as to the medication regime for C but had not contacted C’s paediatrician or other allied health professionals.
C has been diagnosed with muscular dystrophy, Tourette’s syndrome, ASD and Attention Deficit Disorder. The father did not have much medical advice in relation to C’s presentation, but considered him to be a “dynamic beautiful kid”.
The mother had taken B to Mr O, a psychologist. At one point in her sessions the father was invited to attend. The father has steadfastly refused to engage with Mr O and holds the strong view that he is biased against the father’s involvement with the children.
The father is not employed although he said that he is looking for fulltime employment. He was not challenged as to what efforts he had made or if there was any reasonable prospect of successful employment.
The father agreed that there were significant child support arrears, but there was no evidence as to whether he considered the arrears unreasonable and proposed to challenge any attempt at enforcement or collection.
While the father gave no evidence as to his current financial position, it was reasonable to find that his financial position was precarious.
There had been no investigation undertaken as to whether the costs of further counselling for the father and the children could be met either from the resources of the father or together with the mother.
Some enquiry had been made as to whether a Mental Health Plan might provide assistance and the father thought that there may be some opportunity to cover some of the costs by reference to his family health insurance.
The father was generally a truthful witness but did not impress as having given careful consideration to the complex presentation of the children in respect of the orders that he seeks.
There was no attempt to present evidence in relation to a psychological assessment of B or how C’s complex presentation might require a more careful approach to any orders that the Court may make.
The father was prepared to concede that the relationship with the mother is beyond repair and accordingly he is to be given credit for the concession that the mother should have sole parental responsibility for the children.
The more vexing observation is of the lack of insight by the father that the process of further family therapy and the potential for subsequent litigation could be anything other than detrimental to the children.

The mother

The mother remained suspicious of the father’s concession of sole parental responsibility. She presented as litigation weary and was resigned to future litigation.
The mother was asked whether she really wanted any of the children to spend time with the father and agreed that she would support the father spending time with the children at a contact centre. She was asked whether she currently supported that idea and responded that it had been always a concession that she was prepared to make but it was the father’s reluctance that was the problem.
She conceded that when there had been time at a contact centre in the past it had not been successful. Her initial presentation was to support the children attending Ms N to receive counselling and therapy in relation to the father.
While she agreed that it was important for D and C to have a relationship with their father, the relationship between them had now deteriorated to such a point where she did not consider she would be able to effect a handover.
The mother felt threatened by the father, in particular because of the ongoing litigation. She advised that she was not legally aided and was fast reaching the point where she did not know how she was going to conduct future litigation. At present her fees were being paid by her family, but she did not expect that level of support would be without limit.
The mother accepted the proposition that the children should be protected from the proceedings. It was for this reason that the mother had terminated the children spending time with the father from 26 August 2017. The mother agreed that she had taken steps that she considered were necessary to thwart compliance with the orders and the father spending time with D and C.
She agreed that she decided to break Court orders and that she would not force the children to go with the father. In particular, there is no suggestion in her evidence that she did anything consistent with promoting the children’s relationship with him. The mother’s evidence is that she is currently opposed to any contact between the children and their father during the week and while not fundamentally opposed to time on Saturday, she considers that she has explored all the options and none exist for a successful handover.
The mother agreed that during an attempted handover at a McDonald’s restaurant on 20 May 2017 she had told the father that given she had sole parental responsibility it was a matter for her to decide when and if the children should spend time with him. She denies that she was aggressive in her interaction with the father and asserts that she was reacting appropriately to the presentation of the children. C was crying and D was upset. She determined that she could not leave the children in a state of distress. The father was uncooperative and refused to allow her to stay to assist in the children’s transition to their father’s care.
She rejected counsel’s contention that she remained with the intention to disrupt the handover.
The handover at the restaurant was of sufficient acrimony to warrant police attendance. She admitted that she told the police officer she did not have to let the children go with the father. She refused the offer of the police officer for the family to attend at the police station and explore a satisfactory outcome.
The mother maintains that the concept of parental responsibility had not been explained to her until during the trial. She considered that it gave her the unfettered discretion to decide whether and in what circumstances the children would spend time with the father.
The circumstances of the handover to occur at the children’s school on 30 May 2017 warrants further consideration.
The mother agreed that she approached the father outside of C’s classroom. Whilst she did not consider that she had yelled at the father, she told him that she had had enough of the conflict and the father’s attempt to spend time with the children and admitted that she told him that the children “don’t need you” and that they now have a father “who does everything for them in ways that you don’t do.” She also reminded the father that he was in arrears of child support of $50,000 and as such he did not deserve to have the children.
The mother conceded that the outstanding child support was a significant issue. She explained that she is not in receipt of legal aid, that her legal bills are significant and she receives no financial assistance from the father whatsoever.

Under cross examination by the father’s counsel, the mother acknowledged that her presentation was aggressive, that she was angry, that she did not consider him to be a satisfactory father and as such he was not going to have the children. When C exited the classroom the mother took his hand and told him that he would not see his father on that occasion. When D exited the classroom the mother placed her backpack on her and directed D to come with her.
The distressing circumstances of the attempted handover was exacerbated by B telling D and C that it was their choice whether they went with the father on that occasion.
It is of note that the mother took no action to restrain B from her involvement and it is likely that B understands that she is able to involve herself in the dispute without sanction from the mother. B’s conduct on this occasion was not atypical.
The father issued proceedings for contravention of orders and agreed to withdraw the application following the consent order made on 2 August 2017. The mother was represented. A focus of the orders was to put in place a handover arrangement that required the mother to be absent.
The mother did not comply and it is an important consideration that she did not consider herself to be bound by the orders if she did not think that they served the children’s interests. Her consent to orders made on 2 August 2017 was not sincere. The mother suggested that she had agreed to the orders following a forceful suggestion of either counsel or her solicitor.
When asked whether the Court could have confidence that the mother will ever obey an order, the following exchange appears:-
Counsel: But Madam you understand that you agreed to that order, don’t you?
Mother:I agreed to the order.
Counsel:That orders have some force in this Court, do you understand that?
Mother:I understand that.
Counsel:What confidence can the Court have that you will ever obey a court order for the children to see their father?
Mother:That’s quite a hard question isn’t it? Because I am prepared to fight as hard as possible to make sure that my children are safe against a – another parent who I believe is a risk for my children.
Counsel:In other words, you will disobey a court order if you think it is, from your opinion, in the children’s best interests to do that??
Mother:Yes I will.
The mother frankly admitted that from late August 2017 she decided to breach the consent orders and would not facilitate or force the children to go with their father.
The mother put in place a practice of removing the children from school prior to the father’s attendance. The consequence of her actions was that the children were not able to be collected by the father.
The mother remains opposed to the children spending time with the father during school week. She considered that a contact service might be of assistance for handovers and whilst she is not opposed to the children seeing their father on Saturday, she had explored all of the options for a successful handover and could not see a way forward. If she is not able to attend and her partner or members of her family will not participate whatever attitude might be displayed by the children towards their father, there is no realistic likelihood of the children seeing him.
The following exchange provides a helpful understanding of the mother’s opposition to the children seeing their father:-
Counsel:[Ms Thompson], just try to address this carefully, because it is – it is an important issue. You are saying you are aware of the order that requires you not to be present to handover the children to their father for the current orders, and that a third party, another person, is to conduct that, those handovers without you being present. Are you prepared to comply, will you comply with that order from today onwards?
Mother:I’d have to say no. I won’t comply because there hasn’t been a possible avenue of how to move forward to make sure that, that, that happens. There has been no, no clear direction as to how it can happen when at the moment every option has been explored.
His Honour: What happens next Tuesday [Ms Thompson]? The order still continues, will you be sending the children to school on Tuesday or not?
Mother:I send the children to school and I’ve just been picking them up at quarter past three and [the father] hasn’t been present in the school yard. His Honour: So, next Tuesday, I’m able to find, that next Tuesday and possibly every Tuesday thereafter until something changes, you will attend at the school and pick up the children before the handover could occur?
Mother:Yes, your Honour.
…
Counsel:Ms Thompson, you’re saying, or are you saying, you should be the one that is allowed to handover the children to the father henceforth?
His Honour: No, that’s not what [Ms Thompson] is saying. [Ms Thompson], look, maybe it’s me, this has got nothing to do with whether you’re there or your partner’s there or your mother’s there, has it? Nothing to do with it at all – am I right about that?
Mother:I guess.
His Honour: The position on Tuesday is that you do not think these children should go to their father irrespective of who is permitted to effect the handover? It’s as simple as that isn’t it?
Mother:That is what I have said.
…
Counsel:[Ms Thompson], from August/September last year that has been your attitude, hasn’t it?
Mother:Yes it has.
Counsel:It would be fair to say from at least October 2016 that was your same attitude?
Mother:I just feel that the situation has completely broken down, and it just became far too difficult to try and manage.
The mother did not impress as creating an environment in her home conducive to the children either seeing their father or even maintaining a relationship with him.
The evidence of the family consultant is that the mother and/or members of her family have engaged in negative and disparaging discussion with the children about their father. The mother acknowledged that the maternal grandmother has strong views about the children’s relationship with the father. She is opposed to any ongoing orders. When asked about the maternal grandmother the mother agreed that hitherto she had not sought to restrain or control the children being exposed to the denigration of the father. The following exchange appears:-
Counsel:[Ms Thompson], in – you’ve freely acknowledged that your mother has some strong views about the children having a relationship with the father, haven’t you?
Mother:She’s certainly got her own, I mean, probably no different view to my own views or a lot of other people in the immediate family as well. Counsel: The children would know that your views, your mother’s views, your father’s views, your partner’s views are all pretty much one, wouldn’t they?
Mother:We believe we just are being honest and speaking the truth.
Counsel:So that’s a yes?
Mother:Yes.
Counsel:And both you and your partner [Mr K] have acknowledged that perhaps your mother speaks a bit too much in the presence of the children? Mother: She, she has done in the past, and she’s been pulled up on it, particularly since the family report it was questioned whether her involvement has been too much. We certainly have been very cautious around the area and you know, been telling her that she has to be very, very careful.
Counsel:You have been telling her not to speak at all whatsoever about these proceedings in the presence of the children or nearby? Is that what you’ve been saying?
Mother:That’s correct.
Counsel:When did you last say that to her?
Mother:Last night actually.
Counsel:So you have been talking to your mother about these proceedings during the course of your cross-examination, is that right?
Mother:No, not to that extent, not about evidence given or anything like that, I’ve just been saying she has been asking how are you feeling, how is it going and I’ve simply said well I can’t talk to you about it while the children are in presence.
Counsel:And, she is paying for the proceedings? You’ve freely acknowledged that, haven’t you?
Mother:I am paying for the proceedings as well.
Counsel:Yes. She, she is very much invested, financially and emotionally, in [the father] not having a relationship with the children, isn’t she?
Mother:I think we are all invested in the emotional health of the children.
Counsel:And if that means no relationship with their father, that’s what you and your mother would support?
Mother:It’s quite a very sad situation when you think about it, isn’t it? But yes it is.
Counsel:The – your daughter [B] has referred to, in the family report, your mother making comments that she has taken on board, do you acknowledge that?
Mother:Yes, I do
Counsel:and your mother and father live, what, a few houses up from you?
Mother:A couple of streets away.
Counsel:A couple of streets. So you moved from where you were before?
Mother:I relied, I had nothing when I separated from [Mr Bane] and I moved in with my parents for 12 months to be able to get back up on my feet again and due to the heavily reliance on needing support, I moved locally - near them.
Counsel:And, um, that was to the house you are in now, the two streets away?
Mother:Yep.
Counsel:so, do the children see your parents nearly every day?
Mother:Not, no, since I’ve been in a relationship with [Mr K], their support has, has ceased but, they certainly have a very close relationship.
Counsel:Well that doesn’t quite answer the question, how often do you see them?
Mother: Well, there’s circumstances where particularly with [C], I’m having to take him to appointments outside of school hours and the girls are needing to be looked after by my mother so there will be periods after school where you know, they need to be supervised by my mum or vice versa where um, you know might need something the daughters where she’ll need to look after another one.
Counsel:So you’ve said that your mother is in her 70s and has some mental health issues, such as a bit of dementia, is that right?
Mother:No, more depression and anxiety.
Counsel:Right, and your father suffers from a genetic inclination to depression as well?
Mother:That’s right - early onset dementia could possibly be present in my father plus he has had ill health, of a heart attack only two years ago
Counsel:And I think that you suggested in your evidence earlier that you can’t easily control what comes out of your mother’s mouth because of the mental health issues that she has, is that right?
Mother:I think she is certainly very scarred by what has happened over the course of these proceedings.
Counsel: [Ms Thompson] that’s not what I am asking you. So she personally feels scarred by the father and his behaviour, is that what you are saying?
Mother:That’s correct.
Counsel:And she can’t stop herself from talking about it to you, can she?
Mother:No, it’s very hard for her.
Counsel:And she does so in circumstances where the children hear it, from time to time?
Mother:Unfortunately yes, yes she has in the past but as I’ve said, we’ve been very conscientious of it, certainly in the last couple of years you know, to try and avoid it as much as possible.
Counsel:But you, you understand that [B] was seen in November last year by [Ms E] and she is apparently talking about it in the present tense, that it’s still happening that people around her, five, five people including your mother, yourself presumably, are saying things about her father. How is that if it hasn’t happened for two years?
Mother:As I expressed yesterday and I think it came to a conclusion I think that [B] very much has this protectability of me and the situation, and, and as much as we try to avoid placing her in an environment where this is going on it is also very difficult to be living full time with your children and having such a diabolical situation around them, without them witnessing the situation.
The mother accepted that B had told the family consultant that members of the mother’s family were openly disparaging of the father.
During the course of the assessment conducted by the family consultant, B was observed to initiate the game of “hangman” with C and D. The secret phrase B had for them to guess was “daddy is a meanie”.
The mother was not surprised by the children’s conduct. While she sought to intervene, it is a reasonable conclusion that in the mother’s home disparaging the father is not considered worthy of reprimand or comment.
Counsel explored the issue as follows:-
Counsel:And, [Ms E] appropriately says that you said not to do that phrase and [B] then replaced it with “I love you mum”, but [Ms E] does comment that the fact that [B] felt comfortable or that it was appropriate to have a game with that as the words in front of you and the other children suggests that she doesn’t get reprimanded for that sort of thing in your home, by you, can you comment on that?
Mother:I guess it is a little bit of, of what your Honour has spoken of is that is a little bit out of sight out of mind because it’s such a tense situation and, and we do find sometimes of, although acknowledging that you know, this she has a father and she you know, he’s someone that’s never going to go away. It’s a very tense situation that affects us all and sometimes it’s better to try and avoid the situation rather than trying, making it worse.
Counsel:But playing games?
Mother:We don’t play games in the home where we’re actually you know, whatever you call it, not acknowledging him and stuff like that. There’s no - there’s no animosity in our home towards him all the time, it’s more a case of just trying to get on with life.
Counsel:Well the children, I think you would acknowledge, all used the word “mean” in relation to their father during the assessment didn’t they?
Mother:Yes they did, but isn’t that they’re entitled to use their own words, these children are not little children that are two or three any more, they’re nine and going on twelve.
Counsel:But what I’m hearing is that you don’t ever reprimand or correct them if they use that in your home?
Mother:I’m sorry, I don’t.
His Honour: [Ms Thompson], the problem seems to me to be this and I’m happy for you to tell me I’m wrong about this. It is likely that I will find, I’m not completely certain yet, but it is likely that I will find that much of what the children complain about and the manner in which they describe their father is not necessarily from their own experience but from the environment in which they find themselves. Mother: I’d have to deny that, your Honour.
His Honour: Well, that’s fine, but I can tell you that there are some matters which I will find could not have been the children’s own lived experience because they occurred at a time and in circumstances where it was not their experience. So their knowledge or their view of the financial arrangement between you and their father are matters about which that comes from environment, it doesn’t come from their own lived experience. So what that says is, those beliefs that the children have formed may be right or they may be wrong. The difficulty that I suspect [Ms E] will talk about when she gives her evidence, or at least I expect that she will, is, what is the potential consequence to a child or children in terms of their long term development of going through life with an erroneous belief. Now, that’s the problem, is it not?
Mother:I completely understand where you’re coming from on that and could I ask has it been examined in how [Mr Bane] has actually perceived me as a relationship with the children as well?
His Honour: I don’t know and I can’t go beyond the evidence and the parties have chosen to present the case, and the ICL, in the way that they have, and I’m defined and confined by the evidence that I hear, not by, perhaps any intuition that I may have about the matter. But you see that’s going to be the problem. It’s often said by family consultants, experts in this court that an erroneous belief is potentially as damaging to a child as the lived experience, were it to be true. It happens in cases of physical abuse and sexual abuse. A child going through life with an erroneous belief that they have been subject to physical or sexual abuse or that they have been in some way subject to circumstances of risk as presented by a parent, um, an erroneous belief is as damaging to a child as if it had actually occurred. And that’s one of the difficulties in this case, you see. Whilst I accept that you would say certainly the children have an entitlement to a view about certain things, I’ve indicated yesterday that there are aspects of the children’s presentation, particularly to [Ms E], which I am going to find could not have been their own experience. It’s something that they have gleaned either from you, or the environment, from overhearing discussions, seeing your distress, from understanding matters from your mother, I don’t know how they’ve got the idea but I can tell you, that at least in significant areas, they’ve got the wrong idea.
The mother agreed that at time she was not in control of her mental health issues. The physical scars heal but the emotional scars do not. The mother unreservedly blames the father for her predicament and at times her poor mental health.
On 22 December 2017 the father dropped some Christmas presents for the children to the mother’s home. He advised her by text message that he had delivered presents and asked to speak to or see the children for Christmas.
The father received a message from the mother on 24 December 2017 advising that the family were away on holiday.
The father telephoned the mother on 25 December 2017 seeking to speak to the children. The father was not permitted to speak to the children on Christmas day and sent a Christmas message for the children to the mother’s phone.
Agreement was reached that the father could speak to the children by phone on 31 December 2017.
The father sets out his recollection of the telephone call with the children at [155] to [157] of his affidavit.
He asserts that he had a lengthy conversation with each of the children including B. He considered that the interaction “was positive and happy. The children were telling me all about their recent holiday away with the mother and their Christmas events.” B is reported to have referred to the father as “Dad” and not “[Mr Bane]”. The father’s evidence is that the children thanked him for the presents, that he told them how much he loved them and was looking forward to seeing them as soon as possible.
He records that the children were keen to catch up with him for a short visit at a McDonald’s restaurant.
As a result the father sent a text message to the mother asking to catch up with the children for an hour or so on 2 January 2018. He records that the mother replied “[t]hat can be arranged. I will stay at the restaurant too though while you see them”.
The father received the following text message the next day:-
Giving it thought? I don’t feel comfortable in agreeing to any meet up with the children without legal advice and representation. I will speak with my lawyer and you will hear in due course.
In response to the father’s further request for telephone time with the children the mother responded on 16 February 2018 in the following terms:-
No further communication until I know if your (sic) proceeding with trial.
The mother did not dispute that the father had a telephone conversation with each of the children on 31 December 2017. She was not prepared to agree that the telephone calls were without acrimony but conceded that the telephone calls had at least taken place.
The mother responded to the father’s evidence at [278] of her trial affidavit:-
I refer to paragraphs 153 to 160 of the father’s affidavit and say as follows. With respect to the telephone communication between the children and the father on 31 December, each of the children spoke to the father for approximately two to three minutes. I encouraged the children to speak to the father. [B] told me that the father referred to her as his “favourite”. [B] made it clear to me that the father’s statement made her feel very uncomfortable and she did not understand why the father had referred to her as his “favourite”. When the father asked the children if they would like to meet with him at McDonalds the children looked panicked and looked at me. I encouraged the children to respond to the father. As referred to at paragraph 160 of the father’s affidavit, I later contacted the father and advised him that I did not think it was a good idea to meet with him in the circumstances that the father and I were to prepare for a trial.

Under cross examination the mother admitted that her response was inaccurate. She conceded that the telephone conversation between the father and B had occurred in the privacy of B’s room. There was also no opportunity for D or C to be panicked at the suggestion that they would meet with the father at McDonald’s restaurant.
The mother could provide no explanation for the significant inaccuracy in her trial affidavit.
The issue is not without significance. The father’s evidence is that not having seen B since October 2016 and C and D since 26 August 2017, he was still able to have a civil and pleasant telephone conversation with the children. B was prepared to take his call and I accept that it occurred in the privacy of her room. C and D were not panicked by a discussion with their father and it is likely that the father’s assessment of the telephone interaction namely, that the children were pleased to speak to him and expressed an interest in a short visit at a McDonald’s Restaurant is accurate.
The mother is not able to concede that there is any advantage to the children having a relationship with the father and is prepared to misrepresent any circumstance that might suggest the children are not as opposed to their father as promoted by her.
The family consultant did not have the advantage of the evidence of the telephone conversation and while its significance cannot be overstated, it is nonetheless an important indicator that there is advantage to the children in maintaining a relationship with the father.
The mother was challenged as to the viability of her proposed order that the children engage in relationship counselling. Her nominated therapist is prepared to undertake the therapy but at the rate of $245 per hour. For reasons not explained, the mother’s order considers that the therapeutic intervention would need to extend beyond a six month period. The cost of the process is beyond her. She concedes that she could not even afford half the fee. I raised with the mother that the father says he is not able to afford it either. There is therefore a practical difficulty with the mother’s proposal and unless the parties are able to find a way of jointly funding the therapeutic intervention, the stark reality is that it cannot happen.
There is no evidence to suggest that the parties had genuinely explored their separate proposals for relationship counselling. That lack of consideration ignores whether the process may well be to the children’s detriment.
The mother’s evidence was unimpressive. I accept that she is weary of the litigation and is psychologically fragile. She was forthright in her opposition to the children spending time with the father and was unable to recognise that there was any advantage to the children spending time with him.
The Court can have no confidence that the mother will promote the children’s relationship with the father or provide an environment other than one of open hostility towards him.
The mother has been prepared to abrogate her parenting responsibility to impose her will on the children to modify their conduct, in particular that of B, towards the father in circumstances where it serves her purpose for the children to do her bidding in proposing the children have a diminished or non-existent relationship with the father.

Mr K

Mr K is the mother’s partner and has lived with her for a period of two years.
He provides financial support to the mother and the children and was demonstrably supportive of the mother’s position. He recognised that the mother holds a negative view of the father and did not think that the children were likely to change their attitude towards him in the short to medium term.
In particular, Mr K still holds considerable resentment towards the father in respect of the allegation that there may have been inappropriate touching with D. He was not impressed nor mollified that the father had withdrawn the allegation without equivocation.

Ms P

Ms P is the children’s school principal.
She impressed as being prepared to do all that was reasonable to assist the children and the parties.
The school will try to facilitate handover arrangements with there being five locations within the school where children can meet up with parents.
She was opposed to B being removed for a period of 20 minutes prior to the end of the school day where it coincides with the father’s pickup. It was her opinion that B would be embarrassed if that were to occur. She considered that B is a sensitive child and very aware of others emotions whether the mother is present or not.
It is possible for B to go to the front office at the end of the school day. She would be appropriately supervised by school staff. There are teachers who are on duty in the yard for 15 minutes after the end of school at 3.15pm.
The school principal is generally aware that handovers have been problematic.
At present B has a male teacher. She enjoys her classroom time and her attendance has been good. She relates well to her teacher. She is an average student and needs help with maths.
She has been the victim of cyber bullying and the school has invested significant effort in helping her work through that unfortunate period.
Generally she is a pleasant student, is compliant and there are no significant or adverse disciplinary concerns pertaining to her.
C and D are now in different classes. It was a considered strategy of the school and the mother that efforts be made to foster independence in each of the children, but in particular C. He has a high level of support given his difficult presentation. Additional to muscular dystrophy, C presents with high functioning ASD, ADD and Tourette’s syndrome. He received occupational therapy and has 9 hours of disability support during class time.
He enjoys playing sport with his peers but he struggles physically to keep up given his muscular dystrophy.
When his school mates decline to play with him it is a cause of upset.
When C and D were in the same class together, C was clearly dependent upon her. The 2018 academic year has been a challenge for C, but it is the observation of the principal that he has now settled well and has a good relationship with his class teacher.
D has also settled happily in her classroom.
It took C a couple of weeks to settle in and the reports are generally positive. C is reported to be an affectionate child and enjoys his classroom environment.
The school principal was called to provide evidence as to the extent to which the school may be able to facilitate handover between the children and the father.
The gravamen of her evidence may well be on her observations of how the children function and are managing, but in particular the very considerable progress in C separating from D and settling into his new classroom environment.

The family consultant

By order made pursuant to s 62G(2) of the Act, Ms E (“family consultant”) has prepared family reports on 1 December 2015 (“the first report”) and 5 December 2017 (“the second report”).
The first report was ordered to assist the Court in the long term interim arrangements for the children. The second report was directed to the final orders sought by each of the parties. The first report provides a convenient foundation to better understand the current circumstances facing the children.
At the time of the first report the children were in the primary care of the mother and they spent every second weekend with the father from Friday after school to the commencement of school on the following Monday.
The father sought an equal shared care arrangement for the children and equal shared parental responsibility. The mother’s proposal was that the children continue to reside with her, that she retain sole parental responsibility and that they spend every second weekend with their father from after school Friday until Sunday evening and some further extended time to coincide with school holidays.
At the time of the assessment the mother had only recently commenced a relationship with Mr K. They had not commenced cohabitation. The father lived with his current partner Ms G, L and Ms G’s son, Q.
The assessment of the family consultant was that the children had been exposed to parental tension and conflict for the majority of their lives. The conflict predominantly arises because of the interpersonal aggression between the parties rather than any allegation by the mother that the father posed a risk to the children.
Paragraphs 26 to 28 of the first report provide an appropriate summary of the issues confronting the parties at that time:-
26.While there were allegations early in the separation the mother stated that she does not now have any concerns about the father in respect of sexual abuse of the children. She said ‘I know I had some concerns when we first separated. I think their father does strange things but I feel safe that he does not sexually abuse the children’.
27.The mother alleged that the relationship between herself and the father had been emotionally abusive and she described the father as ‘manipulative and controlling’ and said that he had taken away her self-esteem and made her feel worthless.
28.The father alleged emotional abuse by the mother during the relationship: ‘She spent most of our relationship saying I was a terrible person. She made me feel I was as low as the carpet and she was supported by her mum and dad.’ The father described the mother hitting him and said that he only put his hands up to protect himself.
The mother has always sought sole parental responsibility. At [39] of the first report the following is attributed to her:-
‘Sole parental responsibility was really important. He was being really disrespectful. He would also want to undermine my decision-making. With general decision-making he would want to combat me on many things and continually try to undermine me and challenge me.’
It is of note that the mother raised with the family consultant the extent of child support arrears of the father.
The mother complained that the children were reacting negatively to the hostility apparent in the relationship between the father and Ms G. The father denied that there was any difficulty in his relationship with his partner and considered that if the children had heard an argument it would only have occurred on a few occasions and was neither aggressive nor heated.
The father complained that the children would tell him at the conclusion of their time with him that the mother would give them gifts and presents upon their return. She did not deny that she had often bought the children small presents and explained her motivation for doing so in that it would be an inducement for them to spend time with their father if they knew there would be a present waiting for them at home. It is recorded at [54] that the mother explained her position as follows:-
‘They are spoilt. I do indulge them a bit but I don’t have the money to spoil them immensely. I do try to get them to morally appreciate the value of things. I try to make time with their father happy for them. You are going to see your father but you can look forward to this when you get home.’
The family consultant considered that the “additional vulnerabilities” of each of the children was a relevant consideration.
At the time the mother was concerned that B was struggling with varying levels of anxiety. She had sought assistance with B from a psychologist but observed that when the father commenced employment in Darwin there was a lessening of tension and much of the child’s anxiety seemed to dissipate.
For reasons not explained, the mother observed that B’s anxiety started on Monday of the week that she is due to visit the father, and increased during the week as it got closer to the time when she was due to spend time with the father.
The mother’s concerns in respect of the father’s ability to care for C were to be considered against his ASD. C needs routine and certainty, whereas the mother considered the father shows insufficient interest in familiarising himself with C’s needs, nor devotes sufficient attention to C.
D presented with less difficulties, although the mother was concerned as to the control of her ongoing reflux.
The family consultant observed that the father acted appropriately with the children and seemed sensitive to their needs. Ms G was introduced to the children and there was generally no difficulty, although the family consultant did note that B appeared to be anxious throughout the observation.
The interaction between the mother and the children was “positive, loving and generally relaxed”.
It is reasonable to find that the children had a close emotional attachment with the mother, but significantly less so with the father.
In individual interview B was not complimentary towards the father. When asked to consider the best thing that occurs at the father’s household other than seeing L, the following is recorded at [106]:-
‘There aren’t very much good things but there are a lot of worst things: I am not scared and shy there which I am in public. The hardest thing is that I have to swap homes and do the rules. If I leave my mum’s I feel sad to go to my dad’s. After being at dad’s mum always gets us DVDs or new clothes to cheer us up. Most of the time dad goes out and leaves us with [Ms G]. [C] does lots of noises and [Ms G] says ‘shut up’ and he sort of cries. He makes funny noises to let me know how he feels.’
When asked his assessment of the father’s home, C was disparaging. He did not consider that the father played with them and that they are left to play by themselves.
D commented that the arguments between the father and Ms G were frequent and distressing.
The recommendations of the family consultant were highly dependent upon a finding that there was or was not conflict in the father’s home with Ms G.
If there is conflict in the relationship, then the recommendation was that the children spend every second weekend with the father and for some hours in the intervening week. If the Court finds that there are not difficulties in the relationship of the father and his partner then the children should spend every second weekend from after school on Friday to the commencement of school on Monday.
The children should spend a four day period with the father in one week of each of the school holidays and if it is established that the children will not be exposed to ongoing conflict in the father’s home then the children should initially spend a seven day period in the father’s care during the long school holidays and thereafter for the remainder of the long school holiday spend a five day period with the father each fortnight.
The second report involved the parties, their partners and the children.
Information was received from Ms P, principal of the children’s school, and from a telephone discussion with Mr O, a psychologist who had been engaged with B until 2016.
The issues raised in the assessment were not dissimilar to those that were apparent in the preparation for the first report.
The mother considered that she would like the children to have a relationship with the father but only at a “level they are comfortable with”.
B was presenting with significant anxiety and the mother described herself as “living with depression”.
The parties had not reconciled their differences and each of them expressed dislike for the other and a deep mistrust of their conduct.
The mother admitted that much of the information as presented by B about the father emanated from the maternal grandmother who apparently speaks freely of her dislike for the father to the children and in particular B.
The report of each of the parties and their partners was generally unremarkable. There was no longer a focus on any perceived conflict in the father’s home with Ms G and both she and Mr K presented as appropriate.
Of more immediate concern arises from the children’s presentation during the assessment. B’s behaviour was properly considered to be alarming.
The observation of the family consultant was that she was anxious and there was concern raised that B had been described anti-depressant medication from the beginning of 2017.
The mother confirmed B’s anxiety and believed that the source of the anxiety was the father and in particular that B could hear “the father’s voice in her head when he is not physically present telling her to do things and leading to OCD mannerisms”.
At the commencement of the interview B told the family consultant that she had something to say and that “she needed to ‘let it all out’ of her system”. It is recorded at [79] that “[s]he then spoke impassionedly for close to an hour. B presented with a list of complaints about the father and appeared to have prepared what she intended to say in advance”.
It is important to repeat that which is being said by the family consultant to be attributed to B’s monologue as follows:-
79.… ‘First, a couple of things: when I was at [Mr Bane’s] (I do not like calling him dad) he never washed the sheets. At mum’s there were new fresh, clean sheets. Mum’s is my happy place.
80.When [L] was born [L] became his first priority, he had boxes and boxes of toys and we hardly had any. [Mr Bane] would always go out arrow shooting and we were left with [Ms G]. She was always in her room. Dad said I could not call mum and put the phone in a cupboard and when he went out I got it and phoned her…
81.After [L] was born [C] accidentally knocked down a nappy box and [Mr Bane] picked him up and threw him across the room. I do not understand as first he is mean and then he is nice. I think he wants to see us because of the attention he gets from friends but he does not even look back at us when we are out at shops. He lost [C] once and I had to go look for him.
82.In the house before the current house [D] was sick and vomiting. [Mr Bane] wiped it up with a dish cloth. When we go to his house I still see the stain of vomit on her cover. [D] says it is still there.
83.[Ms G] used to be mean to us and swear. She said to [Mr Bane] ‘I don’t want you and I hate your fucking kids!’ At his house she would swear every sentence. [Mr Bane] said ‘You cannot tell court I am swearing as you will not get to see me’. Mum’s is the place I want to be as she and [Mr K] are nice to me. Last time in the observation room (referring to the assessment in 2015) did you see how nice he was being? That was because he knew you were on the other side of the glass. He was so mean when we saw him the next day.
84.I would go home and be crying to mum that I did not want to go. One time he put us in front of the camera and made us say that mum hurts us and I am not stupid I knew he was going to send it into the court.
And further at [88]-[92] the following appears:-
88.In our dirty clothes bag he sends us back with their used undies and shirt and [Ms G’s] bra and I am thinking he wants us to wash it for him.
89.[Mr Bane] was nice in front of grandpa. I have known him all my life and I know he is mean and he is only nice for his reputation. Around other people he would be so nice. He was always nice to [L]. [L] would get new toys, clothes washed, bed made.
90.He made me mop the floor. We were scared as he can be so mean and throw things and we do not know if we do not do this your father (sic) will kill your mum. He scared me so much. I did not want to live on this planet. I could not eat or sleep. I think [C] and [D] felt the same way but he was targeting me more. He would always say how he was super nice but there were five people on mum’s side saying he was super mean. About five people said he held mum physically and he said he would change but he has never changed one bit.
91.He made me cry so much. One time Mum gave me her necklace and it smelt like her but it made me cry more as I missed her so much. He acts nice but he is really delusional. Other kids’ fathers hold their hands but I would not hold his hand but I would be scared as he would shout when we got home.
92.I feel so sad for [L]. They do everything for him. They are teaching [a foreign language] and maths but he does not know how to speak English. Sometimes I feel like I love [L] and I wish I could be there for him but I do not want to go back. My whole body was shaking and one time I held onto the school gate and did not want to go. When I was taken off those lists (the court orders) the voices went away in my head but I can still feel him in the back of my head shouting. His voice almost sounded like he was seducing and it was his own kids.’

Meaningful relationship

With obvious reluctance, the father altered the orders sought by him as to B and is now prepared to accept the orders proposed by the ICL that he spend no time with B, but that if she expresses a wish to see him then the mother is required to facilitate such request. The mother is prepared to consent to an order in those terms.
In the ordinary course, significant care should be exercised by a Court if it contemplates a decision that differs from the consent of the parties.
The orders sought by the father initially provided for a continuing suspension of his time with B for a period of six months during which there would be intensive efforts undertaken to re-establish a relationship with her.
I have found that the separate proposals by each of the parties to engage in relationship counselling was initially pressed without any proper consideration given as to how the process of reunification therapy would be undertaken, how it would be funded, the duration of the therapy and whether it may be to the children’s detriment.
The Court was not assisted by any evidence that provided an assessment of the potential therapeutic benefits and pitfalls of further intervention. The uncertainty of outcome of an order that would relegate the children, but in particular B, to more therapeutic intervention (possibly unguided) is made more acute by the separate presentation of each of the children.
B is currently 11 years of age, has not seen her father since October 2016 and has been on regular anti-depressant medication since that time.
There is a history of relatively intensive therapy involving B and the uncertainty of how further proposed therapy would affect her is heightened by her interaction with the family consultant. The family consultant considered that B was not presenting as rational during the interview, which gave her concerns for B’s mental health.
The matters expressed by B in her one hour monologue as recorded by the family consultant bear little or no connection to actual events observed by the child or in which she has been actively involved.
The family consultant was surprised by B’s presentation and was frank in her admission that she had not experienced such presentation before.
The matters as expressed by B comprised a litany of complaint, allegation and assertion that bore no connection to any real event that had occurred.
It could not have been promoted by any recent conduct or action of the father. The likely explanation if the mother’s evidence is accepted that she did not coach or prompt the child to present in the way that she did during the assessment is that the atmosphere created by the mother in her home is so negative towards the father that B, taking into account her vulnerable psychological state, would be likely to adopt a position most likely to be loyal to the mother.
No evidence was presented as to the extent of B’s psychological disability and how that should be best considered in orders that may be made. The likely impact on the proceedings of B’s psychological dysfunction has been evident for some considerable time and was raised by the Court as an issue that needed attention.
The order proposed by the ICL and supported by the parties is predicated upon an acceptance that B would benefit from a meaningful relationship with the father. The difficulty with the order as currently framed is that the Court has no confidence that the mother would facilitate and convey any request by B to see her father to him.
The mother’s evidence, whilst frank, was unimpressive. It is a reasonable finding that unless forced to do so the mother is not likely to promote the children’s relationship with the father and she considers that she has the ability to make a unilateral decision as to whether an order should be the subject of compliance.
While the parties and the ICL may consider that the proposed order as to B is better than no order, I do not accept that the Court should so easily abrogate its responsibility to B.
It is reasonable that following the conclusion of the current litigation some period of time should elapse to enable the children to stabilise, but in attempting to balance all of the countervailing considerations, given B’s age and the evidence from her school that there are no difficulties with her attendance, she has reasonable peer relationships and an acceptable academic performance, consideration must be given as to whether it is in a child’s best interests to make an order that would effectively terminate B’s relationship with her father where there is no sound justification for doing so other than the child’s exaggerated and irrational presentation to the family consultant.
If nothing more is to occur, it is reasonable to find that B’s view of her father will not change. She will progress in life with an erroneous belief that her father is a person to be hated.
The family consultant’s evidence on the risks to a child of holding such a view without there being any foundation is compelling.
C and D to a lesser degree hold similar views of their father. C’s presentation to the family consultant when asked what he thought of the father was distressing. Not dissimilar to B, the matters expressed by C could not be based on any actual lived experience. It is a demonstration of the psychological turmoil that the children find themselves in and presumably as a direct result of the endless litigation and the negative environment created or fostered by the mother in her home towards the father.
The mother concedes that it would be in the children’s best interests to maintain their relationship with their father. She does not see how it can practically take place and as such she does not resile from her actions in taking active steps from August 2017 to thwart the children’s time with the father.
If the hysterical, nonsensical matters raised by C and D are removed from their presentation, there is nothing that remains to support any contention that the children should not see their father because of a risk that he poses to them.
The complexity of the children’s presentation and the difficulty that it creates in attempting to formulate appropriate orders arises from their vulnerability, in particular as experienced by C.
The ICL promotes that the father does not present as a risk to the children and that time to C and D should be forthwith reinstated for some hours each Tuesday and Friday and then extending to each alternate weekend from Friday 3.30 pm until Saturday at 6pm, with extended time during school holidays, provisions for Easter, Christmas and Mother’s and Father’s Day.
There is no good reason why orders should not be made that would have the children spending time with the father.
In circumstances where the father does not pose a risk to the children, the focus should properly turn to consider whether the mother poses a risk to their psychological health.
The mother recognises that the children are dramatically and adversely affected by the ongoing litigation. Whilst the mother’s attention needed to be directed to B’s presentation to the family consultant, she did concede that the issues raised by B, C and to a lesser extent D had little or no basis in fact and therefore was supportive of a finding that the children are psychologically vulnerable and have been adversely affected.
I find that the mother has either directly promoted the negative attitude of the children towards their father, or has been prepared to acquiesce and take no steps to assist in their relationship with him, or to facilitate and promote the children spending time with him.
In circumstances where the family consultant considers strongly that the children would benefit from a relationship with their father and that it would be potentially highly damaging to the children and their development were they to go through life with the erroneous belief that the father merits their hate and dislike, for that to be engendered by the mother must promote a finding that the mother presents as a risk to the children.
The father recognises that in the current circumstances it is not a realistic option that the children should be removed from the mother’s care and transition to his primary care.
Such an outcome is not supported by the ICL, would be strongly resisted by the mother and I suspect would have the damaging and deleterious effect on children who are currently traversing a psychological tightrope.
Such an order could only be considered if appropriate evidence had been presented as to how the children were likely to be affected by such an outcome. Neither of the parties or the ICL considered that the Court should be assisted by such evidence.
The consequence is that orders will need to consider and if possible counter the mother’s potential conduct in refusing to promote the children’s relationship with the father, but to do the best that can be done to restore the children having a meaningful relationship with their father.
In Baglio & Baglio [2013] FamCA 105 at [111] Murphy J said that “… a chance of a meaningful relationship…which is beneficial to” the child was likely to be to the child’s advantage and that the absence of such a relationship had “the potential to cause [the child] harm in the long term”.

Children’s wishes

The views of the children, but in particular B and C could be reasonably interpreted as them not wishing to see or engage with their father. There is no other reasonable interpretation following their presentation to the family consultant. The issue in this case is not ascertaining the wishes of the children but rather to determine the weight that should be given to those wishes.
The family consultant did not consider that the matters raised by the children were reasonable or were based in reality.
Many years of litigation and the reasonable finding that the children have been exposed to a negative environment in terms of how they should perceive and consider their father promotes a finding that I should give the wishes of the children little or no weight.
The residual concern is that notwithstanding B’s observations of her father are without substance, nonetheless a child soon to be 12 years of age may well act in direct opposition to orders made and thereby make compliance difficult. A reasonable example is the direct interference by B in a handover between D and C and the father at school. Whether prompted or promoted by the mother, B set about to actively dissuade her siblings from going with the father. It is also possible that B may well continue to disrupt any attempts at a restoration of a relationship with the father.

Parent’s ability to communicate with each other

The parties have no ability to communicate successfully with each other. They each readily concede the level of their dysfunction and it is obvious from their evidence and demeanour that they hold an unyielding distress of the other.
The more recent telephone communication between the children and their father on 31 December 2017 does provide at least some faint hope that whilst there was unlikely to be any prospect of the parties promoting the children’s relationship with each of them, there may be begrudging compliance with order to that effect.

Relation of the children with each of the parties

B presently has no relationship with the father and for at least six months he does not press a resumption of time. The same cannot be said for C and D. D expressed to the family consultant her love of the father, but her attitude was clouded by her erroneous negative views of him.
I am able to find that whatever the current level of dysfunction is in respect of the children’s relationship with their father, it is nonetheless a relationship that should be pursued. To do otherwise may well reinforce the children’s current damaging view of their father.

Change in child’s circumstance

The orders now sought by the father and promoted by the ICL are at the low end of the range.
The focus in terms of a change in the children’s circumstances is likely to arise in terms of the handover arrangements.
A school handover has been problematic even though the Court was impressed with the preparedness of the school principal to assist the parties if in doing so it would minimise any adverse impact on the children.
Mid-week time does not appear to be supported either by the school or the mother. If there is to be handover from the children’s school then B cannot be permitted to participate unless there is some evidence that she understands her behaviour if it involves interrupting the handover arrangements between C, D and the father is unacceptable.
The evidence speaks against B being removed from school 20 minutes prior to any handover taking place. The mother is strongly opposed to any such order although her opposition should be considered against the example set by her own conduct in removing C and D from school prior to the father’s anticipated attendance pursuant to the orders.
The Court was impressed with the evidence of the school principal and if handover is to be effected from school then at the conclusion of B’s school day she should be required to attend at the school office until D and C have left with the father.

The capacity of the child’s parents and other relevant parties to provide for her needs.

There was little or no evidence to suggest that either of the parties or their current partners are not able to provide for the physical needs of the children. The evidence of Mr K was impressive. He is closely bonded to the children, has a good relationship with them and whilst not supportive of the father, did not impress as a person who would take active steps to dissuade the children from seeing him.
The orders sought by the father do not raise any issue that would focus on his household or his relationship with Ms G.
There was some criticism of the father for not calling Ms G. In the circumstances of this case and given that she had participated in the assessment for the family report, there are no aspects of the arrangements within the father’s household which would speak against orders that are under contemplation.

Orders least likely to lead to further litigation.

In the circumstances of this case where the first proceedings were issued by the mother in February 2010 and there has been effectively ongoing litigation since that time, the Court is entitled to express a degree of pessimism that orders that are to be made will resolve issues between the parties. They have thus far failed to recognise the horrific consequences of their conduct in terms of their children’s presentation. It is only from the startling presentation of the children during the family assessment that has promoted the parties to accept that there needs to be a different way forward.
The evidence of the family consultant is that the mother’s attitude will need to change dramatically for there to be a reasonable prospect of the children restoring a mutually beneficial relationship with their father.
The options however are few. The family consultant and the ICL do not support an outcome that would see the children have no relationship with their father. The mother has been clear that to date she does not consider that the children will benefit from spending time with their father and she is prepared to take active steps to thwart the thrust of any orders made to that effect.
It is at least a possible outcome that the best interests of the children will be served in circumstances where any orders made will be the subject of future enforcement proceedings.

CONCLUSION

The child B

As discussed, I do not propose to readily fall in with the agreed position of the parties and the ICL as to B.
B should be the subject of an order that she spends time with her father, but such an order should be suspended for a period of six months. During that time orders will be made that enable the father to communicate with B by telephone or electronically.
By reference to the evidence of the family consultant and placing some considerable weight on the father’s evidence of his most recent telephone communication with the children, it is reasonable for the father to explore the substance and viability of his future relationship with B. The Court can have no confidence in an order which enables the mother to filter the process or to rely upon her informing the husband of any wish or request by B to see him.
The mother concedes that in terms of other aspects of B’s life she is a compliant child. The mother agreed that she would brook no resistance from B if the child decided she did not wish to go to school, go to a medical appointment or undertake some other social function or engagement the mother considered important. In the absence of any evidence as to risk, it is difficult to understand why the mother cannot impose her parental will upon the child in relation to matters involving her father. In any event, initially all that is required is that the mother facilitate telephone and/or electronic communication.

The children C and D

There is merit in the proposal of the ICL but the proposed intervening few hours each Tuesday is problematic simply because of the difficult mechanics involved in the handover.
I do not propose to make an order that the children spend time with the father each Tuesday but rather, will order that for a period of time the children spend time with the father after school on Friday until 7pm and thereafter the time is extended as proposed by the ICL.
The Court is conscious of the current dramatic change to the classroom arrangements for C as explained by the helpful evidence of the school principal.
C has special needs and there must be some recognition of how C views his circumstances is likely to be different to D.
It is important that C and D attend the father together and I propose to delay the operation of the order for a period of three months to enable C to settle into his new classroom environment and to receive the assistance as promoted by the mother and now made available by reference to the NDIS funding arrangements.

Handover

Handover should be effected from school and an order made that B not be permitted to interfere with the handover arrangements. Following the mother’s acknowledgement that B is generally a compliant child, it is difficult to understand why she would not respect a direct instruction from the mother that she is not to interfere in a way that is intended to disrupt the handover arrangements. It is reasonable for B to remain in her class until the conclusion of her school day, but that she is then to attend the school office and await pickup by the mother.
The ICL seeks that handovers that do not occur at the children’s school initially be effected at the Suburb H Police Station and thereafter at the carpark adjacent to the maternal grandparents’ home. Whilst it is always regrettable that there be handover arrangements that utilise a police station, in the short term it may well be the only viable option.
The Court did not hear evidence from the maternal grandparents and as such I am reluctant to make an order that might in some way place an obligation on them to effect the handover or to be prepared to receive the children at the conclusion of the father’s time.
There is no good reason why the father could not return the children to the mother’s home. It was put to the mother that the children could exit the father’s car in front of the mother’s home, and be received directly by the mother but without the parties coming into direct or physical contact with each other.

Father’s ability to attend the children’s school and sporting events

There is no good reason why the father should not be able to attend and observe the children in their normal school activities.
Such an order should be made, but again its introduction should be delayed for a sufficient period of time for the proposed orders to take effect and for the children to prepare themselves or be prepared for the father’s attendance at their school.

Provision of Court documents to the children’s health professionals

The mother has foreshadowed that she may well resume therapeutic intervention for B at the conclusion of the proceedings.
It is also intended that C will access psychological counselling under the NDIS. In the circumstances of this case and taking into account the heightened needs of these children, it is reasonable that any psychologist, social worker, counsellor or psychiatrist should be provided with a copy of the most recent family report and a copy of this judgment.

Interstate travel arrangements

I do not propose to order that the parties be restricted in terms of their ability to remove the children from the State of South Australia for the purposes of holiday travel. It is unnecessary for a full itinerary, flight and accommodation details to be provided. It is not intended or anticipated that the children’s principal place of residence will change from the State of South Australia and accordingly the obligation as proposed by the ICL is unnecessary.
That does not suggest that as a matter of courtesy the parties should not generally know where the parties are from time to time, but I do not propose to place any further obligation on each of them in that regard.
As requested, the appointment of the ICL is to be discharged.
I make orders as appear at the commencement of these reasons.

I certify that the preceding three hundred and six (306) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Berman delivered on 27 April 2017

Associate:

Date: 27 April 2018

[2018] FamCA 263

27 April 2018

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Legal Concepts

Injunction

Procedural Fairness

Remedies