BENSON & BENSON

[2015] FCCA 2627

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BENSON & BENSON [2015] FCCA 2627

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Arrangements for child aged 8 to spend time with father interstate – allegations by mother child mistreated during previous visit – evidence taken regarding allegations – high conflict parenting relationship – should child travel by air unaccompanied – how to protect child from conflict – child to be informed of outcome and arrangements by letter from the court – best interest.

Legislation:  

Family Law Act 1975, s.60CC

Benson & Benson (No.2) [2014] FCCA 2204

Applicant: MR BENSON

Respondent: MS BENSON

File Number: MLC 5232 of 2011

Judgment of: Judge Brown

Hearing date: 9 September 2015

Date of Last Submission: 9 September 2015

Delivered at: Adelaide

Delivered on: 9 September 2015

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: In person by telephone link

Counsel for the Respondent: In person

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Mr Boehm

Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Legal Services Commission of South Australia

ORDERS

1. The father spend time with the child X born (omitted) 2007 between 26 September and 2 October 2015 at the father’s home in Victoria.

2. In order to give effect to order 1 hereof the father book and pay for the child to travel by air between Adelaide and Melbourne and return as an unaccompanied minor and advise the mother in writing (which may be in electronic form) of the arrangements including flight numbers and details of arrival and departure seven (7) days prior to travel.

3. The mother deliver the child to the airline staff at Adelaide with sufficient time to catch the flight nominated by the father.

4. The father collect the child at Melbourne airport upon his arrival and deliver the child to airline staff at Melbourne airport within sufficient time to catch the flight nominated by him to return to Adelaide.

5. The mother make an appointment with Mr Kent, the independent children’s lawyer in the week prior to the travel envisaged in orders 1 and 2 hereof so that Mr Kent may advise the child of the arrangements in order 1 hereof and read the following letter attached to these orders from the court to X.

6. Further consideration of the matter is adjourned to 27 November 2015 at 10:00am to the complete the hearing and submissions.

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

9 September 2015

Dear X,

Hello there, it’s Judge Brown again.  Remember, I wrote to you last year.  Your mum and dad have been back to see me again to help them sort out what should happen on your school holidays which are coming up soon.

Hey, I saw some photos of you with (omitted) at your dad’s place taken on your last holiday.  I saw you with the cows and feeding the chicken.  Looked like you were having a good time.  I also saw you with Y playing on the computer together.

Your dad tells me you and Y get on really well, which sounds good.

I have decided you will spend one week at your dad’s house in the next holidays.  Your dad told me he is looking forward to seeing you again. 

I have also decided that you will fly on your own between Adelaide and Melbourne.  The flight attendants will look out for you. I think it will be exciting.  Your dad will meet you in Melbourne and make sure you get back to your mum okay at the end of the holiday.

Bye for now.

Judge Brown

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA

AT ADELAIDE

MLC 5232 of 2011

MR BENSON

Applicant

And

MS BENSON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These reasons for judgment were delivered orally during the course of the trial of the parties’ competing applications in respect of their child X.  Due to time constraints, the hearing could not be finished in the time allocated.  However, it was necessary for me to rule in respect of arrangements for X to spend time with his father in the forthcoming September/October school holiday.

2. The proceedings between the parties have been marked by controversy throughout and this judgement is the most recent in a series of judgements, which were either published or delivered ex tempore and subsequently settled by me. 

3. This judgment should be read in conjunction with those earlier judgments, particularly the one in which it was determined that X should begin to spend some form of time with his father.[1]  In that earlier case, as with this one, I took the unusual step of writing to X personally.

   [1] Benson & Benson (No.2) [2014] FCCA 2204

4. This morning, I am dealing with proceedings in which Mr Benson is the applicant and Ms Benson is the respondent.  They are the parents of X, who was born on (omitted) 2007. 

5. The proceedings today essentially deal with what arrangements should be made, if any, for X to spend time with his father.  Mr Benson lives in (omitted), which is a small rural hamlet near (omitted) in Victoria.  He has a business (omitted), which he sells commercially.  In the jargon, he is a (occupation omitted). 

6. Ms Benson lives in suburban Adelaide with her mother and X, although she is planning to move to accommodation of her own shortly.   This accommodation has been purchased by Ms Benson, following the settlement of property proceedings between the parties.

7. As the parties are aware, I have been involved in overseeing litigation between them for a significant period of time.  I think I first became involved with them in respect of their property proceedings, which commenced in mid-2011.  Since that time there have been proceedings about child support, and also a revisiting of final property orders, ostensibly made by consent, through a section 79A application. 

8. More recently again, I have been dealing with arrangements in respect of X, particularly what sort of relationship he should have with his father, with whom he did not spend any time whatsoever for a number of years. 

9. Those arrangements are rendered problematic, not only because of the distance between Adelaide and (omitted) and the costs of travelling between the two locations, but also, and more significantly, because the parties have a very poor and mistrustful relationship with one another.  In these circumstances, it has been difficult to restore a relationship between X and his father.

10. The mother asserts that Mr Benson was a poor parent in the past, who mistreated both her and X.  As such, underpinning her position is her view that X will achieve few benefits from spending time with his father.  Ms Benson also views X as an extremely sensitive child, who has memories of his father’s abusive behaviour.

11. On the other hand, the father asserts that the mother is intent on ensuring that he has no proper level of relationship with X.  To achieve her ends, he alleges that Ms Benson is emotionally manipulating X, which he characterises as serious abuse of the child.  He believes that the mother is inculcating X with a distorted view of both him and the world in general, which is likely to be unhealthy for X.

12. It is common ground that the parties married in early 2008 and separated in mid-2010, after what seems to have been an unhappy relationship.  A short time after the parties separated, Ms Benson and X left Melbourne where the family then lived.  Ms Benson wanted to live in Adelaide, where she has very strong family connections. 

13. It is not suggested that she left Melbourne without informing Mr Benson or without his apparent approval.  Mr Benson remained living in Melbourne.  He later instituted proceedings, in the court’s registry in Melbourne, seeking property orders, but not orders in respect of X.  Because Ms Benson was living in Adelaide, these proceedings were transferred to my docket in Adelaide, where they have remained.  Mr Benson later began proceedings in respect of X.

14. It was the mother’s case that during the marriage she had been subject to significant coercive and violent behaviour emanating from Mr Benson. Although it must be the case that X was very young, when the parties separated, it is the mother case that X had been exposed to this violence and continued to be aware of it, long after the parties had separated. 

15. At any event, it is common ground between the parties that X’s relationship with his father was, to all intents and purposes, severed when the parties separated and X came to live in Adelaide.  This was because Mr Benson did not attempt to spend any time with X thereafter. 

16. By way of explanation for his conduct, Mr Benson says because the mother was so vehemently opposed to him spending time with X, he did not think it would be helpful, either to him or X, to push the issue.  Rather, he hoped, with time, she would come round and he could resume some form of relationship with X, particularly once the property proceeding had been finalised.

17. It is clearly the case that nothing has settled down been the parties.  Their relationship is fraught with all manner of difficulties.  In these circumstances, some years after the parties separated, Mr Benson commenced these proceedings, in which he sought to rekindle some form of relationship with X. 

18. These reasons for judgment are delivered as his application moves towards its possible conclusion, following a lengthy process in which oral evidence from each of the parties has been taken.  However, the proceedings are not as yet concluded. 

19. On 25 September of last year I delivered some lengthy reasons for judgment which set out the history of the parties’ relationship with one another.  Significantly, I also made reference to the involvement of the family report writer, Ms N, who had earlier assessed the parties and X to see whether and how the child should begin to spend time with his father. 

20. Due to the difficulties in this case, it has previously been ordered that X be independently represented in these proceedings.  X’s representative is Mr Kent, who is an experienced lawyer who works with the Legal Services Commission of South Australia.  He has briefed Mr Boehm, a barrister to appear on his behalf throughout the case.   The parties now each represent themselves.

21. In 2014, it was the position that an earlier process of professionally supervised time occurring in Adelaide between X and his father had been unsuccessful.  X was brought to the contact centre, but it was not possible for him to part from his mother and go into the contact centre to spend time with his father.

22. It was the mother’s case that X refused to separate from her and was overcome with anxiety at the prospect of going into a location which was unfamiliar to him to meet a person whom, to all practical purposes, he did not know.  It was also Ms Benson’s position at that point that Mr Benson was not an appropriate role model for the child because of what she characterised was his violent and labile personality. 

23. For his part, Mr Benson vehemently refuted any characterisation of himself as a violent and manipulative person.  It was his fear that Ms Benson was intent on ensuring that X never had a proper paternal relationship with him because of her animosity for him for reasons to do with the unhappy nature of the parties’ relationship with one another.  So late last year the case was a difficult one which was fraught with all manner of controversy. 

24. Since that time, the case has been set down for hearing, and I have heard evidence from Ms N and from each of the parties.  Other things have also happened, and the case, perhaps against my expectation, has moved forward, albeit slowly. 

25. I rely on what I said in the reasons for judgment, which were delivered on 25 September 2014 and adopt the history of the parties’ relationship with one another, which is outlined in that document.  I also adopt the summary of the law which I provided in that case.  But in summary, I am required to make orders which I think are in X’s best interests.

26. In determining what is in those best interests I have to consider the matters contained in section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975, and in particular, the primary considerations which require me to consider the benefit of the child concerned having a meaningful level of relationship with both his parents, and secondly, the need to protect him from coming to physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence. 

27. It has long been Mr Benson’s position that I need to give particular emphasis to how X can have a meaningful level of relationship with his father.  Mr Benson has children from an earlier relationship.  Due to the untimely passing of their mother, those children, Y and Z, now live with him in (omitted), having moved there from Queensland, fairly recently.  Y is aged around 16; and Z is aged around 14.

28. In these circumstances, it is also Mr Benson’s position that X needs to know not just his father but also to have a sense that he has other members of his family, particularly his paternal family and half siblings, who are interested in him and accordingly want to know him and spend time with him. 

29. Ms N has given her history of her involvement with X in the family reports which have been filed in this matter.  She first met Mr Benson, in what must have been very difficult circumstances indeed.  Mr Benson came to her rooms desirous of seeing X, whom he had not seen for a long time. 

30. There had been earlier difficulties, at the (omitted) Children's Contact Centre, during which X had apparently refused to separated from the workers concerned and go in and meet his father.  So no doubt Mr Benson was on edge.  Ms N was impressed with how Mr Benson handled himself in this challenging situation.  She thought he was an emotionally attuned and sensitive parent. 

31. Significantly, when Ms N observed that first interaction between father and child, she thought that X appeared to genuinely enjoy the time he spent with his father and showed no fear or anxiety of him.  The interaction went extraordinarily well in the circumstances.

32. In contrast, it was Ms N’s assessment that Ms Benson was a very anxious person indeed.  In those circumstances, Ms N thought that it was clearly the case that X would have been aware of his mother’s anxiety about this very difficult process and would necessarily have been influenced by it.  Ms N recommended that Ms Benson undertake some counselling to assist with her anxiety.  I understand that has not yet occurred.

33. In any event, both in her report and more recently in her oral evidence given at trial, Ms N deposed as to what she described as a heart‑warming interaction between father and child in those, as I say, extraordinarily difficult and artificial circumstances. 

34. She noted that when the time came for Mr Benson to leave and for X to go back to his mother, the child looked through the venetian blinds at his father, as he went away.  I found this description moving.  It showed a child who was curious about his father.  In her evidence, Ms N confirmed that she also found this vignette to be an emotional one. 

35. Ms N recommended that the court put in place orders that would see X spending time with his father in small blocks, which incrementally increased.  This was to provide support for X, but also his mother, who was likely to find X spending any time with his father emotionally challenging.

36. So on 25 September I thought it was time and it was justified in the service of X’s best interests that steps be taken to ensure that X built on what seemed to be some rudimentary possibility of having a normal relationship with his father in what were very difficult circumstances. 

37. I should also say that Ms N advised that X would become increasingly curious about his father, as he matured, and it was likely that he would yearn to know him.  This view underpinned her recommendation that steps needed to be taken to ensure father and child knew one another and were emotionally comfortable in each other’s presence.

38. Over time and with some difficulty, arrangements were made for Mr Benson to come to Adelaide, at some expense to himself, to spend time with X for a brief period of time during the day.  The first visit was on 3 November 2014. 

39. This visit occurred after I had taken the unusual step of personally writing to X.  I told X that his parents had come into my court and I had decided that he would spend some time with his dad.  I was fearful that X might feel he was letting down his mum by wanting to spending time with his father.

40. To overcome this particular problem, I wanted X to be re-assured that that was okay for him to spend time with his father because that the decision had not been made necessarily by one or other of his parents.  Rather it was a decision which had been made by someone in authority – a judge – whom he did not know but with his parents’ involvement.

41. I wanted X to know that I wanted the time to go well and I did not want him to be worried about it or feel responsible for it.  I told him that this was what I had decided because it was what I thought was best for him.  The aim was for him to have a sense that an impartial person had made the decision and all concerned, his mum, his dad and he himself had to go along with it.  I did this so that X would hopefully think that his loyalties to his parents were not being called into question.

42. Later, in her oral evidence given at trial, Ms N who with Mr Kent was responsible for reading the letter to X, indicated that she thought the letter was a good idea.  She considered that it took some of the pressure of X, which was what I had wanted to do.

43. Mr Benson has given some evidence about that first visit.  He did collect X from his school on the day in question.  X was uncommunicative or, at best, monosyllabic.  However, Mr Benson had a soccer ball in his car, I think.  He suggested to X that the two of them might want to kick the ball around a park together. 

44. X took up the proposal.  It thawed the ice between the two of them.  The visit happened successfully.  It was a lucky break that Mr Benson had the ball.  It is a small thing but it demonstrates that Mr Benson has some aptitude in dealing with the child’s stresses and anxieties, some of which are likely to stem from his sense of loyalty to his mother.

45. What I take from Ms N’s first report and how she observed the child at it is that X has a natural curiosity about who his father is and wants to know him.  I also accept both from Ms N’s report and my observations of Mr Benson himself, which have now occurred over a not-insignificant period of time, that he is a sensitive person and would not want to do any harm to X.  He also seems to have some intuition into what sort of things X would want to do, as is demonstrated by the soccer ball. 

46. So between November and mid December of last year there was a regime of time put into place for the father to spend gradually increasing periods of time with X.  Mr Benson committed to the regime.  He came regularly to Adelaide, and he spent time with X.  It was expensive regime because the periods envisaged were brief and Mr Benson necessarily had to travel a significant distance each time.

47. More orders were made on 16 December 2014.  Those orders included some time on weekends in February, March and April.  Again Mr Benson demonstrated a level of commitment to the regime and it happened reasonably successfully.  Although Ms Benson was critical that Mr Benson on occasion brought X home early.

48. The final hearing began, as I recall, in May of this year.  Two days were set aside.  That proved to be an inadequate estimate of the time required, given the complexity of the case and the unlikelihood of the parties being able to reach some form of consensus.  It was, however, sufficient time for me to hear, Ms N’s evidence, which I found both thoughtful and helpful.  I also heard some evidence from Mr Benson. 

49. At the outset of the case, it was Mr Benson’s case that he considered that the only way in which it was likely that X would have a satisfactory level of relationship with both, not just one of his parents, was if X lived predominantly with him.  He was concerned that the mother was intent on infantilising X and alienating him, if possible, from his father.

1. Ms N did not believe that it would be in X’s best interest to be abruptly removed from his mother’s care, particularly given that he did not know his father particularly well.  She considered that Ms Benson was the major source of emotional sustenance for X and he would be traumatised if his primary care shifted dramatically.  After hearing, Ms N’s evidence, Mr Benson changed his position.

2. At that stage, from my perspective, I considered that it was likely to be in X’s best interests if there was some form of build up from what I regarded, from hearing from Mr Benson, as successful periods of time, between him and X, which had occurred in Adelaide, over the past few months. 

3. I thought it was time, after what I regarded as a sufficient build up, for there to be some overnight periods, at Mr Benson’s home, at (omitted) in Victoria.  Arrangements were made, and orders followed, which saw X going to Victoria on the weekend of 11 and 13 July 2015.  This followed an overnight visit in Adelaide.

4. It was arranged for his paternal grandmother, a lady by the name of Ms A, to assist with those arrangements. She came across to reconnect with X and was deputised to take him back by air.  The case was then adjourned until 1 September 2015. 

5. Regrettably the case could not be finished on 1 September 2015, primarily because the parties had a fundamentally different views as to what happened when X went to (omitted).  Each party filed further affidavit material and I heard some oral evidence from each of them about it.  They were both cross-examined by Mr Boehm, counsel for the independent children’s lawyer.  I also heard evidence from Ms A, via the telephone, from her home in Victoria.

6. From the mother’s point of view, the child returned from Victoria emotionally distraught and physically exhausted.  It is her evidence that the child complained about how he had been treated at his father’s home, particularly that he had been given cold and inappropriate sleeping arrangements, with not enough bedding. In addition, she deposed that X had complained that he had been aggravated by a dog, which had jumped up on his bed and that his father had been mean to him. 

7. Ms Benson arranged for the child to consult with her GP, a Dr W, and a report was obtained in which Dr W reported X’s apparent complaints about the low bed, no mattress, sheets or blankets, that he was cold and shivering and a dog jumped on the bed several times. 

8. The doctor also reported some physical complaints, such as headaches, fatigue, stomach pains and bad behaviour, which his mother had also reported.  In these circumstances, Dr W recommended that, as the child seemed to him to be at risk of severe anxiety and emotional distress there, that there be no further visits to (omitted). 

9. Mr Benson in his evidence to me indicated that he was aghast at what had been reported.  It was his position, at the time, that the court should make an urgent order that the child X come into his care forthwith, because the mother’s complaints were without evidentiary foundation but indicated that she was willing to emotionally abuse the child by facilitating him to make false complaints about his father in order to advance her position in the proceedings.  It was Mr Benson’s position that this was emotionally abusive of the child. 

10. He showed me photographs of X feeding chickens and visiting livestock on a neighbouring friend’s property and playing Xbox or something on a computer with his half-sibling Y.  From Mr Benson’s point of view, the visit had gone very well indeed and X had had a good time.  It was also Mr Benson’s evidence that X had formed a particularly close rapport with Y and the two were becoming close indeed. 

11. I also had an affidavit which Mr Benson had filed from his father, Mr J, who lives in (omitted) in Victoria.  He deposed that he had attended a barbecue lunch with X and had gone on a four-wheel motorbike ride with him.  He described X as high-spirited and the interaction between X and his step-brothers as being fond.  Ms Benson chose not to cross-examine Mr Benson senior. 

12. I also have had an affidavit from Ms A, who is X’s paternal grandmother.  It was she, as I say, who was involved with initially Mr Benson and later alone getting X back to Adelaide by air, in putting into the effect the orders of July. 

13. Again she deposed as to what she saw as a happy visit. She refuted any suggestion that the child did not have appropriate bedding.  I think she conceded that he had what was called “a trundle bed”, but from her perspective it was comfortable and appropriate for a child of X’s age, and it was her evidence that X had a particular good relation with (omitted), the golden retriever dog, who lives with Mr Benson and his current partner. 

14. Interestingly Ms A gave some evidence about what happened when X returned to Adelaide and went back into the care of this mother.  She used terminology which I found curious.  It was her evidence that when X came back to his mother he subjected himself to her like a younger dog subjects itself to a dominant or older dog.  She thought that was unusual.  She also thought X was reserved and withdrawn on the plane going home, which she thought was not completely in keeping with how he had presented at Mr Benson’s home.  From Ms Benson’s point of view, this was evidence of the traumatised child she had described in her affidavit material. 

15. The issue I have to determine today is what should happen prior to the conclusion of these proceedings.  I am going to schedule a date to complete the case, which I hope is convenient to all concerned, and at this stage I propose 27 November 2015. 

16. From Mr Benson’s point of view he aspires to normalising his relationship with X.  He concedes that X is well cared for in his mother’s home, and I think his mother, Ms A, said that he was a well-turned-out boy who had delightful manners and was no trouble to have around. 

17. Mr Benson does not want to traumatise the child unnecessarily, but it is his position that the relationship between the parties remains fraught, and whether X will have a relationship with his father and his half-siblings still hangs in doubt.  From his perspective, much will depend on what happens in the forthcoming school holiday period. 

18. If things do not go as he anticipates, it may be his position that he will re-iterate his application that X needs to move to live in his father’s care to avoid him suffering psychological abuse from having his relationship with his father either passively or actively undermined by his mother. 

19. So these reasons for judgment are directed to what should happen in the September-October school holidays.  From Mr Benson’s point of view, he seeks six or seven days or something like that with X in Victoria.  It is his position that, after having at least one plane trip with Ms A, X is old enough to fly unaccompanied, which will be more affordable for him. 

20. It is the mother’s position that the time should occur in Adelaide, as has happened in the past.  It is her position that X is as Ms N categorised him, namely a sensitive and vulnerable child. It is her position that it is clearly the case that X’s recent visit to Victoria was a failure and all concerned, including the court, need to take a step back.

21. I have had the benefit now of hearing evidence from each of the parties.  I have also had the submissions of Mr Boehm, who has been briefed by Mr Kent in these proceedings.  It is Mr Boehm’s submission that it is inconceivable that Mr Benson would have mistreated X, whilst he was in Victoria, after the trouble and effort he has gone to get to this point.

22. He characterises Mr Benson as a truthful witness as to what happened whilst X was at his home, namely X enjoyed himself, particularly with Y and engaged in a number of child focussed activities such as feeding chickens, visiting a farm and taking part in a barbeque.  I have seen some photographs of X, in this regard, including one with Mr Benson’s golden retriever dog, (omitted).

23. I accept that photographs are just a frozen snapshot in time.  As such they do not indicate what happened before or after the photograph obviously and for obvious reasons individuals tend to put on a happy face, when they are being photographed. But in this case the photographs, I think, were important. 

24. At an earlier stage I have some video tape of X playing air hockey, I think it was, with one of his brothers or, perhaps, both of the half-brothers, and that from my point of view was valuable evidence because it indicated a child doing what children do with other children, in a normal manner. 

25. Although it may not have been the most comfortable bed in the world, and although (omitted), the dog, might have been annoying, when he jumped up on it, I do not think, on balance, that there is any convincing evidence that X was subject to any abuse or neglect, when he visited his father’s household. 

26. Ms Benson was not there to observe what occurred in Mr Benson’s household during the visit.  I consider Mr Benson and his mother’s (Ms A) evidence about the evidence to ring true.  Mr Benson senior’s evidence is unchallenged.   I accept that the visit went well and X enjoyed himself, particularly when he engaging with Y, with whom he has formed a bond.

27. I have not, as yet, heard any evidence from Dr W.  I am concerned that Dr W, perhaps, has not been fully informed of all the evidence in this matter, particularly Mr Benson’s perspective on the case and what happened to X, during his time in Victoria. 

28. I am concerned that X is caught between two parents who are in competition with one another and that this it is a very difficult situation for him.  What I took from Ms N’s first report was that X is a child who is naturally curious about his father, but also wants to please his mother, whom he loves.  As X grows older he is likely to want to satisfy his own needs for a father. 

29. I have, I hope, proceeded carefully and incrementally in this difficult matter.  The parties will have different views about that.  No doubt from Mr Benson’s perspective I have moved too slowly.  Perhaps he considers I have placed too many difficulties in his way or that I have tried to assuage the mother’s concerns too much.  No doubt from Ms Benson’s point of view I have moved insensitively and too quickly so far as X is concerned. 

30. I have tried, from my perspective to strike a balance, between these competing concerns.  But, as I said in the first reasons for judgment, I have an obligation to ensure X’s best interests are served by whatever order I make. Inextricably bound up with those best interests is the benefits he is likely to have from knowing his father and other members of his father’s family.  In this context, I think Ms N indicated that, if X does not have a relationship with his father, he may be resentful in due course about this and this resentment may focus on his mother. 

31. As I observed when the matter was last in court there can be now no doubt that, so far as X is concerned, the genie is out of the bottle.  He knows he has a dad.  He knows he has part-siblings.  He knows those individuals love him. 

32. In my view, it is now time to move forward, so far as these relationships are concerned.  I am satisfied that, with appropriate safeguards, X can fly independently between Adelaide and Melbourne.  I have come to the view that there should be some time in Victoria and it should be for an extended period of time. 

33. I am also going to engage Mr Kent in the process of informing X of these orders so once again he may have a sense that he is not pleasing either his mother or his father, rather somebody whom he does not know has decided for his mother and father and they are bound by the decision. 

34. For all these reasons, the orders of the court will be as set out at the commencement of these reasons for judgment.

I certify that the preceding eighty three (83) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Brown

Associate: 

Date:  25 September 2015