Bell & Atkinson
[2022] FedCFamC2F 211
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Bell & Atkinson [2022] FedCFamC2F 211
File number(s): MLC 9516 of 2020 Judgment of: MCCLELLAND DCJ Date of judgment: 2 March 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING AND PROPERTY – Review of a registrar’s decision – Where it is alleged that the father was in possession of pornography and suffers from alcohol and substance abuse – Where the mother seeks to reduce the time that the child spends with the father – Where the mother seeks review of disclosure, valuation and mediation orders – Where the mother failed to file a supporting affidavit in time – Absence of evidence to support the mother’s allegations – Review application dismissed – Written submissions as to costs. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CA, 60CC, 60CC(2A)
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss 100, 101, 256(1)
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 1.07, 5.07, 14.05, 14.07
Cases cited: Banks & Banks (2015) FLC 93–637
Feiteiro & Feiteiro [2019] FamCA 647
Henley & Henley [2019] FamCA 101
Marvel v Marvel (2010) 43 Fam LR 348
Mazorski & AlP Town (2007) 37 Fam LR 518,
Noble Earth Technologies Pty Ltd v Hampic Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 935
Sigley v Evor (2011) 44 Fam LR 439
SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13
Stott & Holgar & Anor [2017] FamCAFC 152
Tomko v Palasty (No 2) (2007) 71 NSWLR 61
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 105 Date of hearing: 11 February 2022 Place: Sydney (via videolink) Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr Rothschild Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Hannan Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Schuck ORDERS
MLC 9516 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MS ATKINSON
Applicant
AND: MR BELL
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
MCCLELLAND DCJ
DATE OF ORDER:
2 MARCH 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The mother’s Application for Review filed on 22 December 2021 is dismissed.
2.In the event of the respondent father and/or the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) seeking an order for costs, they are to file, within 14 days, written submissions of no more than three (3) pages setting out the basis upon which such costs are claimed.
3.In the event that such submissions are filed, the applicant mother shall be entitled to file written submissions in reply of no more than three (3) pages within 14 days of being served with the respondent father’s and/or the ICL’s submissions.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Bell & Atkinson has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MCCLELLAND DCJ:
INTRODUCTION
This matter concerns an application for review of parenting orders made by a senior judicial registrar on 23 November 2021 which, by way of summary, provided for X, born 2012 (“the child”) to live with the mother and spend an increasing amount of time with the father on a graduated basis. The mother’s primary concern with the orders is that, in her opinion, the progression of time that the child is to spend with the father is beyond that which is appropriate, given the child’s age and circumstances. The mother is also concerned that an order permitting the child to travel with the father to Queensland for several days in March 2022 will be too stressful for the child and, hence, contrary to her best interests.
I have dismissed the mother’s application on the basis that the orders are, in my view, consistent with the recommendations of a Regulation 7 Family Consultant who has provided a report in this matter. I have determined that the orders appropriately balance the issue of risk with the best interest of the child in having a meaningful relationship with her father, whilst allowing for the child to spend an amount of time with the father that is consistent with her stage of development.
BACKGROUND
In the absence of the parties presenting evidence regarding the background of their relationship, I have relied upon the helpful summary provided in the affidavit of Mr B dated 16 November 2021, who is the aforementioned Regulation 7 Family Consultant. It is noted that a copy of Mr B’s report dated 20 April 2021 is annexed to that affidavit and marked “-2”.
It appears to be accepted that the parties commenced a relationship in 2011, however their accounts of the nature of that relationship differ significantly. The mother contends that the parties separated in 2012 but continued to live under the one roof until the father moved out of the home in September 2018. The mother further contends that there were at least 10 occasions where the father moved out of the house in which they were living prior to that time of separation in 2018. The mother acknowledges, however, “occasional moments of intimacy between the parties”[1] after 2011 but there is no detail as to the extent to which the parties’ relationship involved intimacy.
[1] Annexure -2 of the Affidavit of Mr B filed 16 November 2021, page 11.
Comparatively, the father contends that the parties were in a de facto relationship during the entirety of the period from 2011 to 2018, although there appears to be acknowledgement that, at the very least, the last five years of the relationship were turbulent.
It is not, in these proceedings, possible to make a determination as to the nature of the parties’ relationship during the time that they cohabited between 2011 and 2018. It does not appear to be disputed, however, that both parents contributed to the care and support of the child.
In the period immediately following the father moving out of the house where the mother and the child continued to live, the child spent regular overnight time with the father for a period of approximately six months. This changed, however, when the father was admitted to hospital in 2019. After being admitted, the father requested that the mother attend the unit where he was living to retrieve some items. It appears that the mother found the father’s unit to be in an unkempt state and, more significantly, found a number of pornographic images on his computer.
The nature of the pornographic images found by the mother was not presented to the Court, however, having regard to a report dated 16 November 2021 and attached to the affidavit of Dr C, a clinical and forensic psychologist, filed 23 January 2022, it appears that some were of relatively young women, although there is no indication of their ages. Dr C noted in a report dated 7 July 2021 and attached to his affidavit filed 23 July 2021, however, that the father has not been charged with any related criminal offences and, in those circumstances, there is no basis for assuming that the images found on the father’s computer were of children. Dr C acknowledges, however, that the images so found were such that it was reasonable for the mother to have concerns as to what she viewed.
As a result of what she observed in the father’s unit, the mother applied for an intervention order, which was subsequently granted for a period of three years. As noted by Mr B, this brought about “an abrupt end to Mr Bell’s time with X.”
While the precise date is unclear, during the course of 2020, the father moved from Melbourne, Victoria to D Town, Victoria to be closer to a woman who he was then in a relationship with. The father has now commenced cohabitating with that woman and her 11 year old son.
The father filed an initiating application seeking parenting orders in September 2020 and the mother filed her response in December 2020.
On 2 December 2020, orders were made appointing an Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) and, by consent, it was ordered that the child live with the mother and spend time with the father on a supervised basis, with the cost of that supervision being met by the father. The supervision was to occur on 24 December 2020 and 13 January 2021, for no more than three hours together, with such other times as agreed between the parties in writing. Video communication was also to occur between the father and the child each Wednesday between 6.15 pm and 6.45 pm.
On 19 January 2021, orders were made requiring the father to file and serve an amended initiating application and further affidavit in respect to a threshold property issue, with reference as to whether the parties were in a de facto relationship for a sufficient period of time to found the jurisdictional basis for the Court adjudicating in respect to their property dispute.
It appears that, other than the supervised time that occurred up until 13 January 2021, the child did not spend time with the father until the period subsequent to the preparation of the report dated 20 April 2021 in the affidavit of Mr B filed 16 November 2021. In that report, Mr B made the following recommendations:
100. [X] to remain living with her mother, [Ms Atkinson].
101.[Mr Bell] to forthwith commence spending professionally facilitated supervised time with [X] on alternate Saturdays for a period of three hours each visit.
102.[Mr Bell] to participate in an initial hair follicle test within seven days of the making of orders to this effect to demonstrate whether he has any recent history of illicit substance usage, plus a further test at the commencement of any overnight time.
103.[Mr Bell] to participate in a psycho-sexual evaluation by a recognised expert in the field, such as the likes of [Dr C] or [Dr E].
104.[Mr Bell] to be restrained from the consumption of alcohol and/or the usage of any illicit substances no less than 24 hours prior to the commencement of time with [X] and to be restrained from such during all time spent with [X].
105.In addition to the hair follicle test noted above, there may also be merit in [Mr Bell] participating in urinalysis screening immediately preceding scheduled time with [X] on a random basis of no more frequently than monthly.
106.Upon the completion of the psycho-sexual evaluation, [Mr Bell]’s hair follicle test, at least two urinalysis screens and no less than three months of supervised visits, should no issues of concern arise from this material/assessments, it would then be recommended [Mr Bell]’s time with [X] progresses to unsupervised as per the following progressive plan:
a. Time together to occur on alternate Saturdays 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. alternating each fortnight with one visit occurring in Melbourne and the following fortnight the visit to occur in [D Town] at [Mr Bell]’s residence, and such to continue for a period of two months.
b. Then time together to occur on alternate weekends Friday 6:00 p.m. to Saturday 6:00 p.m. on three occasions in [D Town].
c. Then time together to occur on alternate weekends Friday 6:00 p.m. to Sunday 6:00 p.m. in [D Town] and continue on an ongoing basis.
d. Upon [Mr Bell] commencing time with [X] at his residence, it is further recommended the parties conduct handovers as close as possible an equidistance between their respective residences.
e. Once [X] spends a minimum of three months of alternate weekend time with her father, it would then be assessed as appropriate for the parties to equally share all term school holidays, and on the first occasion [X] spends time with [Mr Bell] during the Christmas holidays such to occur on a week-about arrangement, but all subsequent years, such to occur by way of two equal three-week blocks of time.
107.Commencing forthwith, [Mr Bell] to also communicate with [X] each Tuesday and Thursday by way of Zoom or other electronic video calls.
108.Should any issues/concerns arise from the psycho-sexual evaluation, [Mr Bell]’s supervised time with [X] and/or the hair follicle tests, this Family Consultant reserves the right to re-consider any long-term recommendations in relation to parenting time and the court may need to consider any progression of time cautiously, which may also necessitate an updated Family Report assessment.
109.[Mr Bell] and [Ms Atkinson] to be restrained from denigrating the other in the presence of [X] and ensure such does not occur by any third party.
110.[Mr Bell] and [Ms Atkinson] to also participate in and complete a post-separation parenting program for the purposes of enhancing their understanding of the benefit to children in maintaining an ongoing relationship with their mother and father following separation.
111.Lastly, should either or both parents form the view that [X] would be assisted by participating in counselling/mental health treatment, such to occur with the involvement of both parents regarding any treatment/attendance.
(As per the original)
The Court was advised that the father has attended drug screening tests in accordance with the recommendations of Mr B and both parties have attended for psychological evaluations, which were provided by Dr C. Those assessments are set out, in respect to the father, in an affidavit of Dr C filed on 23 July 2021 and, in respect to the mother, in an affidavit filed by Dr C on 23 January 2022. A supplementary addendum to the report concerning the father is contained in the affidavit of Dr C filed on 7 February 2022.
On 30 April 2021, Senior Judicial Registrar Hoult made orders that the child spend supervised time with the father each alternate Saturday, with provisions for the relevant time to be modified to accommodate the child’s sporting commitments.
On 31 August 2021, Senior Judicial Registrar Hoult made further orders which, relevantly, included that:
2. The child spend time and communicate with Father as follows:
a. From 10:00am to 5:00pm on Sunday on the following dates:
i.On 12 September 2021 in Melbourne, with changeover in Melbourne;
ii.On 3 October 2021 in Melbourne, with changeover in Melbourne;
b. Commencing 16 October 2021 and each alternate weekend thereafter:
i.From 6:00pm Saturday to 6:00pm Sunday in [D Town], with all changeovers to take place in [F Town];
ii.On Sunday 5 December 2021 from 10:00am to 6:00pm in Melbourne, with changeover in Melbourne;
c. Via Zoom each Tuesday and Thursday with the call to be initiated by the Respondent Mother between 6.45pm and 7.15pm by invitation to a zoom meeting on the child’s laptop computer or other electronic video calls and the meeting to be between the Applicant Father and the child alone;
d. Via email, text, zoom or phone, to be initiated by the child at any reasonable time;
e. At such further and other times as may be agreed between the parents.
3.For the purpose of the child’s time with the Father, the Father’s partner [Ms G] be in substantial attendance during all periods the child is spending time with the Father at the Father’s home.
4.The Father be restrained from the consumption of alcohol and/or illicit drug use and from accessing pornography, no less than 24 hours prior to the commencement of time with the child and during all time spent with the child.
It does not appear to be disputed that the child has spent time with the father in accordance with these orders made by the senior judicial registrar.
On 23 November 2021, Senior Judicial Registrar Hoult made the orders which are the subject of this review application and which, leaving aside procedural orders, are as follows:
1.Paragraph 2(a) of the Orders of 31 August 2021 be discharged.
2.The Father spend time with the child [X] born …2012 as follows:
a.From 5.30pm Saturday 27 November until 5.30pm Sunday 28 November 2021;
b.From 5.30pm Friday 10 December until 5.30pm Sunday 12 December 2021;
c.From 5.30pm Friday 24 December until 5.30pm Monday 27 December 2021;
d.From 5.30pm Friday 14 January 2022 until 5.30pm Tuesday 18 January 2022;
e.From 5.30pm 11 February until 5.30pm 13 February 2022;
f.From 5.30pm 18 February until 5.30pm 20 February 2022;
g.From 5.30pm 4 March until 5.30pm 6 March 2022;
h.From 5.30pm 11 March until 5.30 Monday 14 March 2022 (in Brisbane);
i.From 5.30pm 1 April until 5.30pm 2 April 2022;
j.From 5.30pm 15 April until 5.30 Wednesday 20 April 2022.
3.Thereafter and commencing 6 May 2022:
a.Each alternate weekend from 5.30pm Friday until 5.30pm Sunday
b.for one half of each of the school term holidays at times agreed, but failing agreement the second half of the holidays commencing 5.30pm the middle day of the holidays and concluding 5.30pm the night prior to the commencement of the new school term.
4.For the purpose of the long summer holidays in 2022/2023, the father shall spend time with [X] for one half of the holidays with his time to include [X]’s birthday.
5.The Father be at liberty to contact [X]’s [sporting] centre to find out schedules for [X].
6.The parties shall utilize the Our Family Wizard parenting App to correspond with each other in relation to issues concerning [X], and each party shall pay their own costs associated with the App.
7.Each party shall notify the other as soon as practicable of any interstate/overseas travel (involving traveling on a plane) during the time [X] is in their care including providing details of accommodation and contact telephone numbers.
8.Both parents forthwith do all such acts and things to engage a child psychologist for [X] as agreed between them and failing agreement as nominated by the ICL and both parents be permitted to engage/liaise with the psychologist.
9.The parties shall attend a Family Dispute Resolution Service (FDRS) conference with VLA in or around April 2022. The ICL have leave to provide to FDRS copies of the following:
a.The Affidavit of [Mr B] filed 16 November 2021
b.The affidavit of [Dr C] filed 23 July 2021 (the Father’s psychological assessment) and the Addendum dated 30 August 2021
c.The Mother’s psychological assessment prepared by [Dr C] dated 16 November 2021.
Property
10.Within 21 days the parties shall exchange a list of all discoverable documents requested by the other party, and 14 days thereafter the documents shall be produced.
11.The parties shall jointly appoint Company Q to prepare sworn valuations of the properties situate at [H Street, Suburb J] and [K Street, Suburb L], such valuations to include current values and retrospective values as at 2008 at the joint expense of the parties.
12.The parties are to participate in private mediation on or before 30 April 2022 and for the purpose of same the mediator shall be [Mr M], and the mediators fees shall be paid equally by the parties.
(As per the original)
APPLICATION
In her application for review filed on 22 November 2021, the mother seeks to review Orders 2, 3, 4, 10, 11 and 12 of the orders made by the senior judicial registrar.
In place of those orders, the mother sought the following:
1.That the Court grants leave for this Review to be filed late.
2.That Order 2 of the Orders of 23 November 2021 be discharged.
3.The Respondent spend time with the child [X] (“the Child”) born in 2012 as follows:
a. From 5.30pm Friday 24 December until 5.30pm Monday 27 December 2021;
b. From 6.30pm Friday 14 January 2022 until 5.30pm Sunday 16 January 2022;
c. From 6.30pm Friday 28 January 2022 until 5.30pm Sunday 30 January 2022;
d. From 6.30pm Friday 11 February 2022 until 5.30pm Sunday 13 February 2022;
e. From 6.30pm Friday 25 February 2022 until 5.30pm Sunday 27 February 2022;
f. From 6.30pm Friday 11 March 2022 until 5.30pm Sunday 13 March 2022;
g. From 6.30pm Friday 25 March 2022 until 5.30pm Sunday 27 March 2022;
h. From 6.30pm Friday 8 April 2022 until 5.30pm Sunday 10 April 2022;
i. From 6.30pm Friday 15 April 2022 until 5.30pm Wednesday 20 April 2022 over Easter.
4.That Zoom calls are to be conducted as follows:
a. the Child communicates with the Respondent via Zoom each Monday with the call to be initiated by the Appellant between 6:45pm and 7:15pm. Calls are initiated via an invitation to a Zoom meeting on the child’s laptop or other electronic devices and the meeting to be between the Respondent and the child alone; and
b. the Child be allowed to initiate any other calls with the Respondent on a day and time amenable to her as she sees fit.
5.That Order 3 of the Orders of 23 November 2021 be discharged.
6.That thereafter and commencing 6 May 2021 the Respondent spend time with the Child as follows:
a. Each alternate weekend from 6.30pm Friday until 5.30pm Sunday for one half of each of the school term holidays at times agreed but failing agreement the second half of the holidays commencing 6.30pm on the middle day of the school term holidays and concluding 5.30pm two nights prior to the commencement of the new school term.
7.That the Child spend at most 2 consecutive nights with the Respondent in [D Town] and all additional nights for visits longer than 2 nights be conducted in a manner where the Respondent and the Child spends the additional time in Melbourne, as recommended by the ICL in the Case Outline filed 19 November 2021.
8.That Order 4 of the Orders of 23 November 2021 be discharged.
9.That the Respondent spend time with the Child over the long school holidays in the summer for 2022 and 2023 as follows:
a. The Respondent shall spend time with the Child for one half of the holidays with his time to exclude the Child’s birthday.
10.That Orders 10, 11 and 12 of the Orders of 23 November 2021 be discharged.
11.That no further action to be taken in relation to property matters until the matter of whether there was a long-term relationship in terms of the original property claim is resolved.
12.That there should be an exclusion of the child having access to computers or similar devices of the Respondent.
13.That the Respondent must seek ongoing substance abuse counselling and treatment and monitoring in respect to mood related issues.
14.That a parenting coordinator should be used by the Appellant and the Respondent to improve co-parenting, such as [Ms N], psychologist.
15.That the Respondent facilitates any reasonable request by the Child to communicate with the Appellant whilst the Child is spending time with the Respondent which was recommended by the ICL in her Case Outline filed 19 November 2021.
(As per the original)
EVIDENCE
For the purpose of these proceedings, I have read the following material:
In respect to the mother:
(a)Application for Review filed 22 December 2021
(b)Case Outline for interim hearing filed 23 November 2021
(c)Case Outline filed 11 February 2022.
In respect to the father:
(a)Affidavit of Ms G, the father’s current partner, filed 22 November 2021
(b)Affidavit of the father filed 22 November 2021
(c)Affidavit of the father filed 8 February 2022.
In respect to the ICL:
(a)Case Outline for interim hearing filed 19 November 2021
(b)Case Outline filed 9 February 2022
(c)Affidavit of Mr B filed 16 November 2021
(d)Affidavit of Dr C filed 23 July 2021
(e)Affidavit of Dr C filed 23 January 2022
(f)Affidavit of Dr C filed 7 February 2022.
Exhibits:
(a)Letter from Brendan Rothschild Legal Group dated 3 November 2021 (Exhibit ‘A’)
(b)Psychological Evaluation of Ms Atkinson by Dr C dated 16 November 2021 (Exhibit ‘B’)
I record that I rejected an application by the mother seeking leave to rely upon an affidavit sworn by herself and filed on the day prior to these proceedings. This was because it was not filed within the time prescribed by r 5.07 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“Family Law Rules 2021”), which provides that:
Each affidavit in support of or in opposition to an interlocutory application must be filed and served at least two business days before the date fixed for hearing.
This was in circumstances where I was satisfied that there would be a fundamental denial of procedural fairness if the mother were to rely upon that affidavit, particularly in circumstances where the father did not have an opportunity to respond to the matters raised in that affidavit. Further, permitting the mother to rely upon that affidavit would have deprived the ICL of having the opportunity of conferring with the child, as is the practice of the ICL who appeared in the proceedings. Such consultation, the Court noted, was consistent with the National ICL Guidelines and entirely appropriate in the circumstances of this case, including the age of the child.
The mother advised the Court that, in light of potential cost consequences, she did not wish to apply for an adjournment of the proceedings to enable the other parties to have sufficient time to read the disallowed affidavit.
CONSIDERATION
Nature of review
Section 256(1) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (“the FCFCOA Act”) provides for judicial supervision of orders made by registrars under delegated authority by enabling a party to seek the review of a power exercised by a delegate of Division 2 of the Court, namely, a registrar. Therefore, the decision of a senior judicial registrar is a reviewable decision pursuant to s 256(1) of the FCFCOA Act.
Rule 14.05 of the Family Law Rules 2021 sets out when a party may apply for a review as follows:
14.05 Application for review of order or decision
(1)A party may apply for a review of an exercise of a power referred to in the table in clause 2 of Schedule 4 by a Senior Judicial Registrar or Judicial Registrar by filing an Application for Review and a copy of the order or decision sought to be reviewed in the filing registry within 21 days after the order or decision is made.
(2)A party may apply for a review of any other exercise of a power under these Rules by a Senior Judicial Registrar or Judicial Registrar by filing an Application for Review and a copy of the order or decision sought to be reviewed in the filing registry within 21 days after the order or decision is made.
…
Further, r 14.07 of the Family Law Rules 2021 provides:
14.07 Procedure for review
(1)A court must hear an application for review of an exercise of power by a Senior Judicial Registrar or Judicial Registrar as an original hearing.
Note: In an original hearing, the court rehears the whole matter and does not simply review the decision of the original court.
(2) The court may receive as evidence:
(a) any affidavit or exhibit tendered in the first hearing; or
(b) any further affidavit or exhibit; or
(c) the transcript (if any) of the first hearing; or
(d)if a transcript is not available—an affidavit about the evidence that was adduced at the first hearing, sworn by a person who was present at the first hearing.
…
The effect of these rules is that the review of a registrar’s determination is an original hearing, in the sense that error does not need to be established: see Feiteiro & Feiteiro [2019] FamCA 647 at [17] referring to Henley & Henley [2019] FamCA 101 at [7]. Thus, the review is taken to mean a re-examination of the matter afresh: see Tomko v Palasty (No 2) (2007) 71 NSWLR 61 at [43].
As Hallen J observed in Noble Earth Technologies Pty Ltd v Hampic Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 935 at [39]:
(e)Although on review, the Court should consider the matter afresh, it does not follow that the reasoning of the registrar should be ignored, or that variations in the material presented to her, or him, and the evidence that was adduced are irrelevant. The starting point is, therefore, the decision that is to be reviewed. The court does not merely cast that decision to one side and proceed as if it had never been made. The court will have regard to the basis on which the decision was made and the material placed before the court itself on the application for review: Wily re LED (South Coast) Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 946 at [24] – [26].
Also at [39], Hallen J further observed that:
(d)There is an onus on a person seeking to have a court set aside, or vary, a registrar's decision to make out a case that the court conducting the review, in the interests of justice, should exercise its discretion to do so: Tomko v Palasty (No 2) per Hodgson JA at [7]. In other words, there must be a basis shown for setting aside, or varying, the decision or orders of the registrar.
The mother has faced considerable difficulty in discharging the persuasive onus as a result of the failure to file an affidavit in support of her application within the time prescribed by the rules. This is in circumstances where the mother had not relied upon an affidavit sworn by herself in the proceedings before the senior judicial registrar.
The solicitor advocate for the mother nonetheless referred to parts of the affidavit filed by the father on 8 February 2022, which the mother submitted should give the Court concern. Relevantly, that affidavit contained several references to the father reporting that, on two occasions, the child had been mildly distressed when in his care. In that respect, the father’s affidavit gave a detailed account of visits that the child has had with him since the orders of the senior judicial registrar were made on 23 November 2021. The affidavit, at paragraph 12, describes a brief time that the child became distressed in respect to not having appropriate adherence to her bedtime schedule. At paragraph 15, the father describes the child being distressed that she had gone to bed without going through her usual wind down schedule, which was usually followed by her mother when she was at home with her. The father recounts a generally supportive conversation with the child and the child subsequently returning to her bed after she had been comforted.
I respectfully agree with the submission of the ICL that the father’s preparedness to recount those incidents is to his credit. The incidents appear to be relatively minor and entirely understandable in circumstances where a child is caught in the middle of entrenched positions between her parents regarding parenting arrangements for her.
The solicitor for the mother further referred to unsatisfactory travelling arrangements in circumstances where, during the child’s visit with the father on 14 or 15 January 2022, the father had taken the child with his current partner and her child on a trip to P Town, Victoria. It was contended that the father gave greater priority to returning his partner and her child to D Town before then travelling with the child to the Court ordered changeover point, which was approximately midway between D Town and Melbourne.
At paragraphs 18 through to 20 of his affidavit, the father provides his account of the situation, which he contends resulted from an inability to reach agreement with the mother that the changeover point for that visit could more conveniently be accommodated at a midpoint between P Town and Melbourne, rather than the Court ordered changeover site approximately midway between D Town and Melbourne. The father further explained that the additional travel to the Court ordered changeover point occurred after there had been a long period of resting before recommencing the additional travel.
While the Court is unable to make findings in respect to controversial facts in interim proceedings, the evidence presented by the father, which was referred to by the solicitor for the mother, does not justify the inference that the father is failing to prioritise the needs of the child.
More generally, I agree with the submissions of the ICL that the orders made by the senior judicial registrar appropriately reflect the recommendations of Mr B for there to be a graduated increase in the child’s time with the father.
This is in circumstances where, while the orders made by the senior judicial registrar on 23 November 2021 discharged Order 2(a) of the 31 August 2021 orders, the 23 November 2021 orders did not discharge Orders 3 and 4, which relevantly provide:
3.For the purpose of the child’s time with the Father, the Father’s partner [Ms G] be in substantial attendance during all periods the child is spending time with the Father at the Father’s home.
4.The Father be restrained from the consumption of alcohol and/or illicit drug use and from accessing pornography, no less than 24 hours prior to the commencement of time with the child and during all time spent with the child.
It is perhaps regrettable that the senior judicial registrar did not provide reasons for the orders that were made on 23 November 2021. However, as noted, a review from a decision of a registrar is conducted as a fresh hearing. Despite the absence of reasons of the senior judicial registrar, it did not appear to be disputed that the orders were consistent with a minute of order proposed by the father which, as explained by the father in his February 2022 affidavit, were based on the child spending time with the father that approximated to every alternative weekend, with adjustments due to the fact that the father, as a professional entertainer, had pre-existing commitments. As further explained by the father in his affidavit, in the period subsequent to April 2022, he will be in a position to adjust his professional commitments to enable the child to have regular time with him every alternative weekend.
For reasons which I explain, I am satisfied that the orders made by the senior judicial registrar are orders that are in the best interests of the child.
Assessing the best interests of the child
Section 60CA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) provides that, in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, the Court must have regard to the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. This is also confirmed in s 65DAA of the Act.
Section 60CC of the Act sets out the list of matters that the Court must consider in determining what is in the children’s best interests. The primary considerations set out in s 60CC(2) of the Act are as follows:
·the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents; and
·the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
In balancing these considerations, s 60CC(2A) of the Act requires the Court to give greater weight to the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence: s 60CC(2)(b) of the Act.
Meaningful relationship
Section 60CC(2)(a) of the Act requires me to consider “the benefit of the child having a meaningful relationship” with each of the parties. On the other hand, I must consider the issue of the risk associated with the children possibly being subject to physical or psychological harm, neglect or abuse in the care of either of the parties.
In Sigley v Evor (2011) 44 Fam LR 439 at [132], the Full Court, quoting Brown J in Mazorski & AlP Town (2007) 37 Fam LR 518, confirmed that the concept of a meaningful relationship is one which is “important, significant and valuable to the child”.
Protection from harm
In Stott & Holgar & Anor [2017] FamCAFC 152 at [38], the Full Court confirmed that, where unacceptable risk is alleged, the Court must give consideration to the facts of the case to decide whether or not those facts could reasonably be said to raise an unacceptable risk of harm.
Despite the Court’s limited ability to make findings in respect of controversial facts in interim proceedings, the Court is not relieved of that responsibility in interim proceedings. In that respect, in SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13 (“SS & AH”), the majority of the Full Court (Boland and Thackray JJ) said at [100]:
… Apart from relying upon the uncontroversial or agreed facts, a judge will sometimes have little alternative than to weigh the probabilities of competing claims and the likely impact on children in the event that a controversial assertion is acted upon or rejected. It is not always feasible when dealing with the immediate welfare of children simply to ignore an assertion because its accuracy has been put in issue.
It is to be observed that the reference in SS & AH to “probabilities” does not mean that the Court must find the probable existence of an unacceptable risk of harm before implementing measures to protect a child from that risk. It is clear that, in assessing whether there is a risk that something may happen, “possibilities” are a legitimate basis for finding that there is such a risk, as long as there is a proper basis for those “possibilities”.
Where risk is alleged in interim parenting proceedings, a conservative approach is warranted that is “likely to avoid harm to a child”: see Marvel v Marvel (2010) 43 Fam LR 348 at [375].
Additional considerations
Section 60CC(3) of the Act sets out additional considerations in determining what is in the child’s best interests. To assist analysis, those considerations can conveniently be grouped under the following headings:
(a)Issues relating to the children – their views, level of maturity, culture and relationships:
·Sub-section (3)(a) – any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child’s maturity or level of understanding) that the Court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views;
·Sub-section (3)(b) – the nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child’s parents and other persons, including any grandparent or other relative of the child;
·Sub-section (3)(g) – the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and either of the child’s parents and any other characteristics of the child that the Court thinks relevant; and
·Sub-section (3)(h) – issues pertaining to the culture of the child if the child is Aboriginal or a Torres Strait Islander.
(b)Issues relating to the parents – decision making, time spent with children, fulfilled obligations, attitude, capacity and exercise of responsibility:
·Sub-section (3)(c) – the extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child, to spend time with the child, and to communicate with the child;
·Sub-section (3)(ca) – the extent to which each of the child’s parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent’s obligations to maintain the child;
·Sub-section (3)(f) – the capacity of each of the child’s parents, and any other person, to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs; and
·Sub-section (3)(i) – the attitude towards the child and parental responsibilities, of each of the child’s parents.
(c)Issues of family violence:
·Sub-section (3)(j) – any family violence involving a child or a member of the child’s family; and
·Sub-section (3)(k) – any family violence order that applies or has applied involving the child or a member of the child’s family and, if applicable, taking into account a number of stated matters.
(d)Effect of change:
·Sub-section (3)(d) – the likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either of his or her parents, any other child or other person (including any grandparent or other relative) with whom the child has been living.
(e)Practical difficulty of implementation:
·Sub-section (3)(e) – the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis.
(f)Avoiding further proceedings:
·Sub-section (3)(l) – whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child.
(g)Other relevant matters:
·Sub-section (3)(m) – any other facts or circumstances the Court considers relevant.
In Banks & Banks (2015) FLC 93–637 at [48]–[50], the Full Court stated that, in the context of interim proceedings, the Court should adopt a practical approach as described in the following terms:
48.It should also be said that in parenting proceedings as in all civil litigation, it will be the issues that are joined that will dictate which s 60CC factors are relevant. By their nature, interim proceedings should be confined to those issues which, in the best interests of the children, require determination prior to a proper determination at trial…
49.… there is a risk that in discussing every s 60CC factor, the judicial officer may lose sight of the forest for the trees. It is also important to stress here that the requirement to “consider” each factor does not mean each must be discussed, especially where the evidence leads inexorably to a particular conclusion: SCVG & KLD (2014) FLC 93-582.
50.When it is obvious that the findings made as to some of the s 60CC factors will be determinative of the child’s best interests on an interim basis, it is a sterile and unnecessary exercise to address other factors. Moreover, it will be a sterile exercise to determine whether or not particular facts are disputed if they are relevant only to one of the non-determinative s 60CC considerations. Properly understood, we do not interpret what was said in Goode as meaning that in an interim case, each and every fact must be characterised as disputed or not; and that each s 60CC factor must be traversed where it is obvious on the facts and issues joined that there are only one or two decisive factors.
Applying the s 60CC considerations
In her case outline, the mother notes that she supports father spending time with the child but expresses concern that such time “is not currently being provided in a stable and safe environment.”
In that respect, the only evidence before the Court regarding the environment in which the child spends time with the father is the evidence set out in the father’s affidavits and that of his current partner. Those affidavits attach photographs of the home in which the child spends time with them, which appears neat and comfortable. The evidence sets out activities that the father and the child have enjoyed and the extent to which the father and his partner have taken steps to satisfy the child’s needs and comforts, including accommodating her vegetarian diet. The mother has failed to present any evidence that the child is spending time with the father other than in a stable and safe environment.
For reasons set out in the report of Mr B, I am satisfied that it is in the child’s best interests to have a meaningful relationship with both parents.
Issues of risk
In respect to the issue of risk, the mother contends that the father has had previous drug and alcohol dependency and has consumed excessive amounts of alcohol whilst caring for the child.
The father admits to having previous drug and alcohol dependency and further admits that, on one occasion, he collected the child from school after having consumed an excessive amount of alcohol. The evidence before the Court is that the father has complied with directions that he undergo drug screening and the Court has been advised that those tests have each been negative.
The father denies that he continues to suffer from alcohol or illicit substance dependency and there is no further evidence before the Court that he is adversely impacted by substance abuse. The submission by counsel for the mother that it can be inferred that the father is at a greater risk of substance abuse as a result of his profession as an entertainer is, with respect, superficial and is one to which I give little weight.
Moreover, I note that the March 2021 orders of the senior judicial registrar appropriately include restraints against the father consuming alcohol and/or illicit substances no less than 24 hours prior to the commencement of time with the child and during all time spent with the child.
The mother further raises concerns regarding the fact that she has found the father to be in possession of pornography, including images that appear to be of very young women. This issue was explored in detail in the first affidavit of Dr C and revisited in his supplementary affidavit. By way of summary, Dr C is of the view that the father has not committed sexual offences and is not at risk of committing sexual offences including, as would be of great concern, sexual offences relating to children. Nevertheless, Dr C understands the concern of the mother, as does the Court. As against those concerns, it is noted that the father now resides with his current partner and her son and, further, in addition to the August 2021 orders restraining the father from accessing pornography in the period prior to the child’s commencement of time with him and during the time that the child spends with him, the August 2021 orders provide that the father’s current partner is to be in substantial attendance during all periods that the child is spending time with the father at the father’s home.
In the absence of additional evidence presented by the mother regarding this issue, those requirements, in my view, adequately mitigate against any issues of risk associated with the father acting in a sexually inappropriate manner towards the child.
In terms of the considerations set out in s 60CC(3) of the Act, as best as can be determined on the basis of the evidence presented to the Court in respect to this application, I note the following:
Any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child’s maturity or level of understanding) that the Court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views.
The child is 10 years of age and it is appropriate for the Court to give weight to her views. The report of Mr B describes the child as wanting to spend time with the father, but is understandably cautious as to the amount of time and the rate at which that time should progress.
The orders made by the senior judicial registrar, in my view, are appropriate and consistent with the child’s views.
The nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child’s parents and other persons, including any grandparent or other relative of the child;
It is clear that the child has a close relationship with her mother and, again, having regard to the report of Mr B, understandably, was initially reserved in being reacquainted with her father after not spending time with him for several months. On the evidence presented in these proceedings including, most relevantly, the affidavits of the father and his current partner, the child is beginning to develop a close bond with her father and is also developing a relationship with the father’s current partner and her child.
An issue of some significance in these proceedings is the mother’s objection to the child travelling to Brisbane with the father in March of this year. In circumstances where it is accepted by all parties that the child is an anxious child, the mother is concerned that the child spending overnight time with the father in another state could be beyond the tolerance of the child. The father explains that the purpose of the trip is for him to work and also to introduce the child to her paternal grandparents and aunts.
I respectfully agree with the submission of the ICL that the evidence provided by the father is that he is appreciative of the child’s emotions and has taken appropriate steps to calm her concerns and comfort her on those occasions where she has shown distress. It can, in those circumstances, be reasonably inferred that he will show similar empathy to the child’s concerns if they arise when she is travelling with the father and his partner to Brisbane in March of this year. At the same time, I also agree with the submission of the ICL and the father that it is in the child’s interests to have the opportunity of establishing a relationship with her paternal grandparents and aunts.
The maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and either of the child’s parents and any other characteristics of the child that the Court thinks relevant;
I have earlier referred to the fact that the child is now 10 years of age. The most relevant aspect of this consideration appears to be the fact that the child is a keen athlete and shows considerable potential. The mother expressed concern that the father attempted to reduce the child’s engagement with sports in order to facilitate her communication with him. However, the evidence satisfies me that both parents have indicated their preparedness to accommodate the child’s interest in sport, including working around those commitments in respect to parenting arrangements.
The extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child, to spend time with the child, and to communicate with the child;
The evidence satisfies me that both parents have taken every opportunity to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child and to spend time and communicate with the child.
The mother has some concern in respect to the manner in which the father engages with the child, however, the evidence that is available in these proceedings is such that it satisfies the Court that the father is empathetic to the child’s needs and acts entirely appropriately in respect to his communication and interaction with the child. Similarly, the evidence satisfies me that the interaction between the father’s current partner and the child is caring, supportive and entirely appropriate.
Sub-section (3)(ca) – the extent to which each of the child’s parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent’s obligations to maintain the child;
The mother, by way of submission rather than by way of evidence, contends that the father has returned the child in an unkempt manner, including being unbathed, with her hair not brushed and wearing inappropriate clothing, including her pyjamas, which, the mother contends, were “exposing the child’s genitals”. The father denies that assertion and contends that he and his partner ensure that the child maintains personal hygiene standards, however the father is also prepared to grant the child some autonomy, at the age of 10, in terms of the clothes that she selects to wear. He denies that the child has worn clothing that exposes her genitals. In the absence of evidence presented by the mother, the Court is not satisfied that the father has acted other than appropriately in caring for and maintaining the child, including in respect to standards of hygiene and dress.
The capacity of each of the child’s parents, and any other person, to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs;
The mother contends that the father’s capacity to care for the child has been adversely impacted by mental health issues, alcohol abuse and substance abuse. The father acknowledges that he has suffered from depression and periods of anxiety and takes medication in respect to depression under medical supervision and, occasionally, may take medication in respect to his anxiety. Otherwise, the father has participated in a detailed psychometric examination by Dr C and that report does not conclude that the father’s parenting capacity has been adversely impacted by either mental health issues or alcohol or substance abuse.
The attitude towards the child and parental responsibilities, of each of the child’s parents;
The father acknowledges engaging in irresponsible conduct by collecting the child from school on one occasion when he had consumed an excessive amount of alcohol. That conduct was certainly irresponsible.
There is otherwise, in the absence of evidence presented by the mother, no evidence that the father has engaged in irresponsible conduct in respect to the child, and the evidence which has been presented to the Court in the form of the father’s affidavits and that of his current partner satisfies the Court that the father and his partner are acting entirely responsibly in respect to their interactions with the child and the steps they take to care for, support and encourage the child.
Issues of family violence;
Neither party alleges that the other has engaged in physically violent conduct towards the other. Both parties allege that the other has engaged in conduct which potentially, if established, can be regarded as coercive and controlling, and therefore falling within the broader definition of family violence as set out in s 4AB of the Act. The evidence is not such, however, that it is possible to make a determination as to whether that has occurred.
The mother, with respect, makes an unsatisfactory ambiguous allegation that the father has “potentially” breached a restraining order relating to communication with the child. In his most recent affidavit, the father explains that, during the period of the COVID-19 lockdowns, he did have some communication with the child. While speculated, there is no evidence before the Court that the father has been convicted of any breach of the restraints imposed in late 2019.
There is no suggestion that the father or any other party has engaged in acts of family violence towards the subject child or any other child.
The likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either of his or her parents, any other child or other person (including any grandparent or other relative) with whom the child has been living;
The parenting orders proposed by the mother in place of those made by the senior judicial registrar in November 2021 involve relatively minor amendments, but would have the effect of reducing the amount of time that the child spends with the father. This is in circumstances where, since those orders were made on 23 November 2021, the child, according to the evidence presented by the father and his current partner, has enjoyed the additional time she spends with them.
While relatively minor in terms of change, the mother has not presented evidence to satisfy the Court that such a change, by way of reduction of time spent with the father, is necessary or appropriate. As previously mentioned, it is a view of the Court that the orders made by the senior judicial registrar are consistent with the recommendations of Mr B for the child to spend an increasing amount of time with the father on a graduated basis with appropriate safeguards in place. The orders, in my view, achieve that outcome.
The practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis;
There are practical difficulties with the child spending time with each parent as a result of the fact that the mother lives in Melbourne and the father now lives in D Town. At least on one occasion, this gave rise to tension and disagreement between the parties regarding the appropriate changeover location following the father spending time with the child in another town other than D Town.
It will inevitably be the case that the child will be required to undertake several hours of travel between Melbourne and D Town in order to spend time with the father. No evidence has been presented, however, that this is having an adverse consequence on the child, and any inconvenience needs to be considered in the context of the desirability of the child continuing to have a meaningful relationship with her father.
In those circumstances, while the requirement for travel is an inconvenience, it is one that is relatively minor in the context of the child being able to maintain her relationship with the father.
Whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child;
The number of times that this matter has been before the Court is a concern. Indeed, the substance of this review application which, in the scheme of the totality of orders in place, involves relatively minor changes to those made by the senior judicial registrar and is reflective of an overly litigious approach to the matters in dispute between the parties.
It is clear that the litigation itself is leading to additional acrimony between the parties and that is not in the child’s best interests.
Sensibly, the orders of the senior judicial registrar proposed a circuit breaker in the form of the parties attending family dispute resolution.
Both parties are clearly highly intelligent people and it is hoped that they can attempt to reach an accommodation in respect to their respective positions rather than, as I commented during the course of the proceedings, appearing to strive to reach disagreement.
Based on the current tempo of the litigation, however, there is every expectation that it will continue and, as noted, that is not in the best interests of the child.
CONCLUSION IN RESPECT TO BEST INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS
Having regard to those matters set out in s 60CC to which I have earlier referred, I am satisfied that the parenting orders made by the senior judicial registrar are in the best interests of the child.
Mother’s review application in respect to property orders made by the senior judicial registrar
As noted earlier, the mother’s application for review includes an application to review Orders 10, 11 and 12 made by the senior judicial registrar.
Order 10 made by the senior judicial registrar requires the parties to provide mutual disclosure. The solicitor for the mother contends that, in circumstances where there is an outstanding threshold issue as to whether the parties were in a de facto relationship and, in circumstances where the mother contends the father engaged in coercive and controlling conduct directed towards her, it is inappropriate for her to be required to disclose her private financial circumstances. I note, however, that Order 10 does no more than reflect the requirements of the Family Law Rules 2021 for the parties to provide mutual financial disclosure in respect to matters that are relevant in the proceedings. Clearly, the extent to which the parties had or did not have intermingled financial affairs is an issue that will be considered by the Court in determining whether the parties were in a de facto relationship. In those circumstances, Order 10 made by the senior judicial registrar was, in my view, entirely appropriate.
Order 11 of the orders made by the senior judicial registrar require the parties to arrange a joint valuation of two properties. Those orders are made in the context of there being no challenge to the procedural orders made by the senior judicial registrar, including the order to set the matter down for hearing for three days commencing 7 November 2022. As a related matter, in Order 12, the senior judicial registrar required the parties to participate in private mediation regarding their disagreement in respect to property matters.
Clearly, the valuations ordered by the senior judicial registrar will be required for the matter to proceed to hearing.
In those circumstances, I am satisfied that Order 11 made by the senior judicial registrar is, again, entirely appropriate.
Order 12 of the orders made by the senior judicial registrar requires the parties to attend private mediation in respect to their property dispute. This order is entirely consistent with paragraph 1.4 of the Central Practice Direction, which requires the parties and their legal representatives to strive for the most cost efficient method of resolution or determination of the issues in dispute. The order is also consistent with the aim of the Central Practice Direction, as set out in paragraph 1.6, which is to “minimise the impact of litigation on families and children by encouraging the early and focussed resolution of family law disputes”.
Further, paragraph 3.9 of the Central Practice Direction requires the parties to:
…be proactive in identifying the appropriate time, and the appropriate way, in which they can participate in dispute resolution, either by agreement or by court order”
(Emphasis added)
Consistent with those paragraphs, paragraph 5.3 of the Central Practice Direction notes that an essential part of the listing pathway will involve the parties attending a dispute resolution event “such as mediation”, and attending such an event “as early as possible and usually no later than five months after the date of commencement of a proceeding.”
Those paragraphs are consistent with ss 100 and 101 of the FCFCOA Act, which set out the overarching purpose as being to facilitate the just resolution of disputes:
(a) according to law; and
(b) as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible.
Indeed, paragraph 5.4 of the Central Practice Direction empowered the senior judicial registrar to make such directions as he considered appropriate as “would facilitate the resolution or determination of the proceedings in accordance with the overarching purpose or otherwise promote the interests of justice.”
Paragraph 5.10(e) contemplates that, other than in respect to arbitration which requires the consent of the parties, the Court may refer parties to “external dispute resolution”.
Accordingly, Order 12 of the orders made by the senior judicial registrar on 23 November 2021 is consistent with the powers set out in the Central Practice Direction which, in turn, have been issued by the Chief Justice pursuant to Rule 1.07 of the Family Law Rules 2021.
Additional orders sought by the mother
At paragraph 7 of her application for review filed 22 December 2021, the mother seeks additional orders, including in areas not the subject of orders by the senior judicial registrar.
In the absence of the mother filing an affidavit, within the required time, justifying the orders she seeks in her application for review, the mother has failed to satisfy the Court that there is a basis for the making of those orders.
CONCLUSION
For all of these reasons, I have concluded that the mother’s application for review is without merit and should be dismissed.
COSTS
In the event of the father and/or the ICL seeking an order for costs they are to, within 14 days, file written submissions of no more than three pages setting out the basis upon which they seek costs. In the event that such submissions are filed, the mother shall have a further period of 14 days to file written submissions of no more than three pages in response to any such costs application.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and five (105) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Deputy Chief Judge McClelland. Associate:
Dated: 2 March 2022
0
7
0