Blainey and Starr
[2011] FMCAfam 988
•15 September 2011
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BLAINEY & STARR | [2011] FMCAfam 988 |
| FAMILY LAW – Children – father’s time with the children – father’s mental health. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, rule 21.15 Family Law Act 1975, ss.60B, 60B(2), 60CC, 65DAA and 65DAC |
| AMS and AIF (1999) FLC 92-852 |
| Applicant: | MS BLAINEY |
| Respondent: | MR STARR |
| File Number: | MLC 871 of 2010 |
| Judgment of: | Cole FM |
| Hearing dates: | 25, 26 and 27 July 2011 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 15 August 2011 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 15 September 2011 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Ms Moisidis |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | KP Abbott & Co |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Goddard |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | NA Young & Co |
| Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer | Mr Tessoriero |
| Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: | Lampe Family Law |
ORDERS
That all current parenting orders be discharged.
That the mother and father have equal shared parental responsibility for the children X born on (omitted) 2003 and Y born on (omitted) 2006.
That the children live with the mother.
That the children spend time with the father as follows:
(a)for a period of 12 consecutive weeks from the date of these orders, from the conclusion of school each alternate Friday until 5:00pm Saturday and from the conclusion of school each alternate Wednesday commencing the following week until 7:00pm Wednesday evening and then;
(b)for a further period of 12 consecutive weeks, from the conclusion of school each alternate Friday until 12:00pm Sunday and from the conclusion of school each Wednesday commencing the following week until 7.00pm Wednesday evening and then;
(c)from the conclusion of school each alternate Friday until the commencement of school the following Monday and from the conclusion of school each Wednesday until the commencement of school Thursday;
(d)the time referred to in paragraph (4)(c) be suspended during school term holidays from the end of Term 2 in 2012 and the children spend time with the father for half of each of the mid year school holidays, as agreed, and in default of agreement such time shall:
(i) commence at 9.00am on the first Saturday, and
(ii) conclude at 6.00pm on the middle Saturday.
(e)for a consecutive period of seven days during Christmas school holiday period in 2011/2012 as agreed and failing agreement from 5.00pm on 28 December 2011 until 5.00pm on 5 January 2012;
(f)for half of the Christmas school holidays in each year (commencing 2012/2013) as agreed, and in default of agreement such time shall:
(i) commence at 9.00am on the first Saturday; and
(ii) conclude at 6.00pm on third Saturday;
(g)from 12.00pm on 25 December 2011 to 12.00pm on 26 December 2011 and each alternate year thereafter;
(h)from 12.00pm on 24 December 2012 to 12.00 p.m. 25 December 2012 and each alternate year thereafter;
(i)in the event Father’s Day does not fall on a weekend pursuant to paragraph (4)(c) then on the Father’s Day weekend in each year commencing 2012 from 5.00pm on Saturday to the commencement of school on the following Monday;
(j)in the event Mother’s Day falls on a weekend pursuant to paragraph (4)(c) then the children’s time with the father will conclude at 5.00pm on the Saturday preceding Mother’s Day; and
(k)as otherwise agreed between the parties.
That the father may communicate with the children by telephone on each of the child’s birthdays and the father’s birthday between 7.00 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. with the mother to instigate such calls and the children to communicate in private at such times;
That for the purpose of the children’s changeover pursuant to these orders, the father will collect X from School and Y from her childcare in 2011 (and thereafter from their school) and in the event changeover does not take place at the commencement and conclusion of a school day then changeover will be at McDonald's (omitted) in (omitted).
That the mother and father keep each other advised at all times of their current residential address, mobile and landline telephone numbers.
That the mother and father:
(a)advise each other immediately in the event that the children, or either of them suffer any serious illness or injury;
(b)authorize any medical practitioner upon whom the children, or either of them, may attend from time to time, to communicate with the other parent in respect to the child’s medical condition and/or requirements;
(c)enable the other parent to receive copies of all school (or pre- school) reports, school (or pre-school) notices and school (or pre- school) photographs in relation to the children; and
(d)be at liberty to attend all school (or pre school) functions to which parent are normally invited subject to any school policy in relation thereto.
That the mother or her servants and agents be and are hereby restrained by injunction from:
(a)abusing, insulting, belittling, rebuking or otherwise denigrating the father in the presence or hearing of the children or either of them or from permitting the other person so to do;
(b)relocating to an address more than 100 kilometres from the mother’s current address without the written consent of the father or an Order of the Court;
(c)changing the children’s school without the written consent of the father or an Order of the Court;
(d)using physical discipline on the children or any of them.
That the father or his servants and agents be and are hereby restrained by injunctions from:
(a)abusing, insulting, belittling, rebuking or otherwise denigrating the father in the presence or hearing of the children or either of them or from permitting any other person so to do;
(b)changing the children’s school without the written consent of the mother or an Order of the Court;
(c)using physical discipline on the children or any of them.
That whilst the children are in the father’s care pursuant to these orders, the father be restrained by injunction from ingesting, consuming or using, or otherwise being under the influence of any legal or illegal drug or substance, save and except for:
(a)any legal medication prescribed by a registered medical practitioner and taken or used by the father strictly in accordance with such prescription; and
(b)any over the counter legal medication or pharmaceutical substance ordinarily sold in major supermarkets, or taken by the father strictly in accordance with the directions appearing on such medication or pharmaceutical substance.
That for 24 hours immediately prior to the children spending time with the father during all such time, the father be restrained by injunction from ingesting, consuming or using, or otherwise being under the influence of any legal or illegal drug or substance, save and except for:
(a)any legal medication prescribed by a registered medical practitioner and taken or used by the father strictly in accordance with such prescription; and
(b)any over the counter legal medication or pharmaceutical substance ordinarily sold in major supermarkets, or taken by the father strictly in accordance with the directions appearing on such medication or pharmaceutical substance.
That the father purchase a communication book which the parties shall utilise to communicate with each other in respect to issues concerning the children.
That the mother complete a post-separation parenting course.
That within 14 days from the last day of March, June, September and December of each year the father request that Dr N provide Dr M with a brief report as to the father’s general compliance with his medical recommendations. The father will do all things necessary to allow the mother to receive a copy of such report as soon as practicable.
That pursuant to ss.65DA(2) & 62B of the Family Law Act1975 the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in the Attachment and these particulars are included in these orders.
That the order of the Court appointing the Independent Children’s Lawyer be discharged.
Pursuant to rule 21.15 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules2001, the Court certifies that it was reasonable for the parties to employ an advocate.
AND THE COURT NOTES:
That the father invites the child Z to spend time with him at any of the times that Y and X are spending time with him, however in accordance with the recommendation in the family report, he will accept the wishes of Z if he does not want to currently spend time with him.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Blainey & Starr is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLC 871 OF 2010
| MS BLAINEY |
Applicant
And
| MR STARR |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
The husband in November 2009 had a break down and was admitted to (omitted) Hospital as a patient.
The break down arose through a number of issues the husband was dealing with including; depression, alcohol and drug abuse. These matters clearly impacted on the parties’ relationship.
On the husband’s discharge from (omitted) Hospital, the parties encountered further difficulties and eventually separated on 24 January 2010 when the husband left the former matrimonial home.
Proceedings were filed on 1 February 2010 and since that time the parties have been engaged in litigation concerning amongst other things the time the father should spend with the children.
In the course of these proceedings agreement has been reached as follows:
a)final orders were made for property settlement on 25 August 2010;
b)the father conceded the children should live with the mother; and
c)the mother in closing submissions conceded that supervised time should cease after weekly supervised visits.
Further agreement was reached in respect of other minor issues and orders were made accordingly.
The issue then became the pace at which the father’s time with the children could be increased.
At the conclusion of the trial; noting the concession of the mother and the time it may take for reasons to be published, it was agreed (the father noting his application sought a immediate move to unsupervised time) that orders could be made allowing for the father’s time to continue for six periods of supervised time and thereafter each Saturday from 11.00am until 4.00pm, such time to be unsupervised (noting the mother proposes that there be an increase following six of these periods being completed).
Matters agreed
It would now appear that the following is agreed:
a)that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children X born on (omitted) 2003 and Y born on (omitted) 2006;
b)that the children live with the mother;
c)that in the event that either party intends to take the children or either of them outside Victoria during times when the children are in their care pursuant to these orders, they provide fourteen day’s notice of such proposed trip to the other party including an itinerary;
d)that each party advise the other immediately by telephone in the event of any medical emergency affecting the children or either of them whilst the children are in that party’s care;
e)the parties provide the names and addresses of any medical practitioners, counsellors or psychologists the children or either of them attend whilst in that party’s care and authorise such professionals to provide the other parent information regarding the health and treatment recommended in respect of the child;
f)that within 48 hours of these orders the applicant mother do all things necessary to authorise the school the child X attends and the childcare centre the child Y attends to provide the respondent at his expense, all the usual information to which parents are ordinarily entitled including, but not limited to, the provision of school reports, school photographs, notices and newsletters and provide to the respondent a copy of that authorisation;
g)that the respondent be at liberty to attend school events to which a parent is ordinarily entitled to attend including, but not limited to, school assemblies, parent teacher interviews, sports days, concerts and working bees (noting the respondent will give the applicant prior notice of his intention to attend such events);
h)that the respondent provide a communication book to the applicant at the conclusion of his time with the children on the first occasion pursuant to the orders herein and the parties use that book to communicate issues concerning the welfare of the children only;
i)that each party be restrained and an injunction granted from abusing, belittling or denigrating the other party to the children or in the hearing or in the presence of the children or permitting the children to be in the presence or hearing of any third party who is abusing, belittling or denigrating the other party; and
j)that each party be restrained and an injunction granted from discussing any legal proceedings between the parties with the children or allowing the children to read any documents created for the purposes of any legal proceedings between the parties.
It was further agreed during the course of the trial that the husband would be prepared to authorise his medical practitioners to keep the wife informed as to whether the husband was continuing to obtain treatment and was compliant with the directions of the practitioners. There was some issue as to whether this task could be undertaken by the husband’s psychiatrist Dr N or his general practitioner Dr M. The husband in his closing submissions opposed the order sought by the wife and did not propose an alternative. I will refer to this later in my reasons.
It was also agreed that the parties would communicate by email and/or communication book.
Finally, it was agreed that the husband would continue to attend upon Dr M and Dr N for the foreseeable future.
Z
The mother has a child from a prior relationship namely Z born (omitted) 2000.
It is noted at paragraph 32 of the updated family report that it is acknowledged that Z is a child who has been identified as having specific learning issues related to a diagnosed speech disability
The father in these proceedings, in essence, was Z’s father from the day the parties commenced cohabitation on 3 October 2002 until 24 January 2010.
Unfortunately, in the course of the separation of the parties, Z became aware that Mr Starr was not his father.
Z was introduced to his biological father and has commenced the process of seeing him.
The parties have agreed that no order is sought in respect of Z and that Z will attend upon Mr Starr in accordance with his wishes.
Z was interviewed by the report writer in the course of these proceedings. At the time of the first report, he was nine years and ten months of age. Z did not wish to see Mr Starr for the interviews for the first report (dated 12 August 2010) and the matter was not pressed.
He commented to the report writer that he now knows Mr Starr (the respondent father) “is not my real Dad, I have met my real Dad now, it was OK, next week I am meeting some aunties and cousins.” The report writer further noted at paragraph 42 of the first report that:
Z impresses as emotionally vulnerable at this time. He has been personally challenged in both his relationship with Mr Starr and in becoming aware that he has a different biological father to his siblings. Ms Blainey has sought appropriate professional advice in this area and appears to be facilitating positive connections between Z, his biological father and members of this paternal father. Z made comment that he feels supported by his mother in this area and is open to future communication with his paternal family. Z has refused to spend time with Mr Starr since April 2010 and this coinciding with being informed of his birth status and attempting to raise the issue with Mr Starr. It appears that at this time Z feels unsupported by Mr Starr, experiencing mixed and confused feelings in relation to this relationship.
She went on to comment at paragraph 43 of the first report :
Mr Starr commented that he is accepting of Z’s decision not to see him at the present time.
At paragraph 49 of the first report, she recommended that Z’s wishes at this time are acknowledged in relation to spending time or communicating with Mr Starr. Furthermore, she said that Z be provided with the opportunity to engage in individual counselling in order to address his current circumstances.
From the evidence before me it would appear that the parties followed this recommendation.
In the second report (dated 9 May 2011), she noted Z’s comment that “… I don’t really care about seeing Mr Starr, X and Y don’t talk about him, it is up to them and what they want to do …”.
She further noted in paragraph 20 of the second report Z’s comment that “I see a school counsellor, this is pretty good, we have friends around us to help, my Pa and Nan help us but they live in (omitted), Mum is still a bit upset with everything.”
At paragraph 42 of the second report Ms D recommended:
That Z’s wishes continue to be acknowledged in relation to spending time or communicating with Mr Starr. Z to continue to be provided with the opportunity to engage in individual counselling in order to address his current circumstances and individual needs.
Neither party nor the Independent Children’s Lawyer sought any orders that would impact on these arrangements which are currently in place.
A notation to the orders is suggested by the Independent Children’s Lawyer in closing submissions that:
The father invites Z to spend time with him at any of the times that Y and X are spending time with him, however in accordance with the recommendation in the family report; he will accept the wishes of Z if he does not currently wish to spend time with him.
I accept that submission.
Short history
The parties commenced cohabiting in 2002.
They have two children of their relationship namely X born on (omitted) 2003 and Y born on (omitted) 2006.
The father was employed as a qualified (occupation omitted) through the period of the relationship. The mother undertook some part-time work and is now employed on a full-time basis (occupation omitted).
The father concedes in the months leading up to his breakdown in November 2009, his abuse of alcohol and drugs increased.
In November 2009, the father had a breakdown and was admitted to (omitted) Hospital.
The parties subsequently separated in January 2010. Arrangements were made for the father to have supervised time with the children with the mother’s step-father supervising. This unfortunately did not work.
Further arrangements were made for the father to have supervised time with the children in 2010 and six visits occurred before being unilateral stopped by the mother.
On 25 August 2010, the mother was granted an interim restraining order.
In or about November 2010, the parties’ home was auctioned, however the sale was not concluded. The bank have now proceeded to foreclose on the property.
The father’s supervised visits with the children resumed just prior to the trial.
On 20 June 2011 the mother obtained a final restraining order.
The matter proceeded to trial on 25 July 2011 and concluded on 27 July 2011 with final submissions being provided by way of written submissions the last being received on the 15 August 2011.
As of the date of trial, the father had provided 33 clear drug screens.
I will refer to this in more detail in due course.
It is further noted that from the date of separation to the date of trial the father has been attending upon his general practitioner, Dr M and has since March 2010 been a regular patient of Dr N, his psychiatrist.
Evidence
The mother
The mother presented as someone who is concerned for her children’s safety. The issue was whether her focus on this issue had affected her ability to stand back and make a proper assessment of what was in the children’s best interests.
Her evidence leading up to and during the trial did raise the issue as to whether this was about the children’s relationship with their father or her relationship with the father and her complete lack of trust in him.
For example:
a)she insisted on supervised time and then unilaterally suspended the visits in October 2010 (having cancelled four visits prior to that). The father did not then see the children for some 6 months, his time resuming in June 2011 ;
b)her reason for suspending the visits varied from not complying with Court orders to no drug tests being supplied. Her evidence in respect of this was unsatisfactory;
c)she insisted on clear drug tests (and she is not criticised for this) however, did not follow up when they were not provided to her direct, the wife no longer having legal representation. She admitted having a conversation with the supervisor of the father’s time with the children wherein a number of drug tests were referred to which were clear and yet she did not seek a copy of those tests from the supervisor and elected to continue with the children not seeing their father;
d)she sought an independent psychiatric report in accordance with the recommendation of the family report writer and yet was not prepared to accept it once it was published;
e)having received three reports in respect of the supervised time she was not prepared to accept that they were accurate based on what the children told her on their return home. At no point did she address the option that the children may be telling her what she wanted to hear;
f)her evidence only too often comprised of broad sweeping allegations with little or no evidence to support it. In her affidavit sworn on 8 July 2011 for example, she states at paragraph 10:
From my own observations I have been able to see that Mr Starr has and continues to suffer from depression and an addiction to alcohol, and at times he had psychotic behaviour where he would jump out of a moving car, break down doors, pull steel/iron of garage, lock himself in bedrooms, and believe that his mind was controlled by others with the syndrome of hearing voices in his head telling him what to do.
She does not address the fact that since the parties separated she has made a point of having very little or no contact with the father whatsoever. In other words, she has not been in a position to properly observe him for approximately 18 months. She has not been in a position to properly assess whether the treatment she insisted on him receiving has been effective. Furthermore, in making the allegations she does not identify that the behaviours complained of are those which occurred in the months leading up to 2009 as opposed to any recent events;
g)at the commencement of the trial, her position was that the husband should have no time with the children. This changed to supervised time and after the evidence concluded it changed again to one where there could be a progression to unsupervised time;
h)one had the distinct impression prior to this matter proceeding that the mother had since the date of separation:
i)made a decision to take all matters through the Court (which she confirmed); and
ii)had in the course of this litigation set a number of goals for the father to achieve and then when it looked like he had, or was about to achieve those goals, either raised the bar or in the alternative, attempted to find a flaw in the process through which he sought to achieve those goals without consideration for any explanation that may be proffered.
The father admits that around the time of separation that:
a)he was abusing alcohol and binge drinking;
b)he was abusing drugs and taking speed; and
c)he was severely depressed.
It is conceded that the events leading up to and surrounding the father’s breakdown in 2009 and his subsequent early part of recovery while the parties were together were not good. They severely affected the mother’s perception of the father and his relationship with the children.
Those events have coloured the mother’s view of the steps taken by the father to obtain treatment and get his health back.
They have coloured her perception of the reports and made her, where the reports were favourable, look for flaws that would support her continuing position of what her Counsel referred to in her closing submissions as sub-zero trust of the father.
Her attitude/mindset and an understanding of the context in which that came about, reflect on what steps should be taken when considering the way forward.
It is clear and goes without saying that the parties in this case have to rebuild a parenting relationship from a position where there is little or nothing remaining after the separation.
The applicant mother relied on:
a)her Initiating Application filed on 1 February 2010; and
b)her Trial Affidavit filed on 28 July 2010, and the updated Affidavits filed on 20 August 2010 and on 9 July 2011.
The mother gave evidence and was cross-examined. She did not call any other witnesses.
The father
The father has in some ways since the parties separated not assisted his own case.
Some of the initial urine analysis results show the presence of benzodiazepine. It is not apparent that any effort was made to explain this result which it now appears was caused by the presence of prescribed valium that had remained in his system after the father had ceased taking the valium in February 2010.
The father on 28 May 2011 and 29 July 2011 conceded that he had tried to delete the warnings regarding low creatinine levels from two reports as he knew it would give the applicant a reason to terminate his visits with the children.
His explanation was that he drinks a lot of water in general and on sample days he drinks even more to enable him to easily supply a sample. An explanation was given on 6 August 2010 by his general practitioner Dr M which was admitted into evidence unchallenged. That evidence which said:
“Mr Starr has had numerous witnessed collections of urine for drug screening. These samples have never been tampered with in any form. An occasional low creatinine level may occur, most likely due to inadvertently drinking water prior to the collection in the hope that a sample can be easily produced. Dilution of the urine has not occurred.”
The attempt to delete the warnings however, simply fed into the applicant’s concerns in this matter.
In addition, the father conceded (rightfully) that he had resumed having some alcohol and had disclosed this to Dr N and to Dr G, the independent expert. The mother was of the view that the father was an alcoholic and that any resumption of drinking would leave to a resumption of the behaviours that led to the events in 2009. Once again, his choice to have the occasional beer or can of bourbon (and the evidence is that it was one or perhaps two) fed into the concerns of the mother.
Finally, his evidence when being cross-examined, at times revealed a man who whilst having made significant strides in recovering from his breakdown in 2009, still had some way to go.
In other words, his evidence and his demeanour supported the suggestion of the report writer that a conservative approach be taken in building a regime or pattern of time that the father spends with the children for the forthcoming years.
The father relied on:
a)the Amended Response filed 20 August 2010;
b)the Affidavit filed 20 August 2010;
c)his Affidavit filed 10 June 2011;
d)the Affidavit of Dr M filed 24 August 2010;
e)the Psychiatric Report of Dr G filed 9 June 2011;
f)the Psychiatric Report of Dr N filed 14 August 2010;
g)the Psychiatric Report of Dr N filed 22 March 2010;
h)the Affidavit of Ms M at the commencement of the trial;
i)the Family Reports of Ms D dated 9 May 2011 and 13 August 2010; and
j)the affidavit of Mr R sworn 21 July 2010.
The Affidavit of Dr M was accepted and his reports went into evidence unchallenged.
Dr G, Dr N, Ms D and Mr R gave evidence and were cross-examined as was the father.
The proposals of the parties and the recommendations of the report writer
The report writer
In her updated report Ms D recommended that:
34.At the present time primary care of Z, X and Y continues to be provided by Ms Blainey.
35.That the parties continue to have joint parental responsibility for X and Y.
36.That X and Y have the ongoing, regular and planned opportunity to spend time with their father and members of the paternal family. Consideration be given to re-establishing the arrangement whereby X and Y spend up to five hours on an alternate Saturday or Sunday, this time to continue to be supervised for the following two months.
37.That Mr Starr continues to engage in professional counselling with his treating psychiatrist Dr N.
38.That Mr Starr continues to attend his general practitioner Dr M and follow with the professional advice provided.
39.That Mr Starr continues to provide supervised drug screens on a regular basis.
40.That dependant upon the outcome of the independent psychiatric assessment and a continued pattern of acceptable drug screen results a consideration be given to X and Y spending time on an unsupervised basis with Mr Starr on a Saturday or Sunday on alternate weekends for the re-establishment of the relationship between the children and their father, this being considered following two months of supervised time.
41.That Ms Blainey completes post separation parenting counselling. Ms Blainey is also encouraged to engage in personal counselling provided through either a Family Relationship Centre or the private counsellor to assist her at the present time.
42.That Z’s wishes continue to be acknowledged in relation to spending time or communicating with Mr Starr. Z to continue to be provided with the opportunity to engage in individual counselling in order to address his current circumstances and individual needs.
43.Both parties to engage in respectful communication in relation to each other and refrain from making negative comments about the other parent in front of the children.
As set out above, there is agreement on most of the recommendations provided by the report writer save for what should happen once the requirement for the father’s time to be supervised ceases.
Furthermore, it was acknowledged by the parties that two supervised sessions having been undertaken prior to the trial, that Ms D’s evidence was that if the supervised time is to be ordered, then the two months or eight weeks of supervised time recommended by her would include those two periods, meaning that only six further visits would be required.
Mother’s proposals
The mother’s proposals are that the father spend time with X and Y as follows:
a)each Saturday between the hours of 9.30 am and 2.30 pm with such time to be supervised by Ms M for six periods of time;
b)each Saturday between the hours of 11.00 am and 4.00 pm for eight periods of time such time to unsupervised;
c)each alternate Saturday from 10.00 am to 5.00 pm for a three month period;
d)thereafter from the conclusion of school or crèche from Friday 3.15 pm until 11.00 am Saturday each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school or 3.15 pm Wednesday until 6.30 pm Wednesday for a three month period;
e)thereafter from the conclusion of school or crèche Friday until 5.00 pm Saturday each alternate weekend and from the conclusion of school or 3.15 pm Wednesday until 6.30 pm Friday each Wednesday for a three month period; and
f)thereafter from 5.00 pm Friday until 5.00 pm Sunday each alternate weekend and from 3.30 pm until 6.30 pm each Wednesday every other week.
Usual orders are proposed in respect of Father’s and Mother’s Day although it is noted on this occasion that Father’s Day will be in the period of time to be supervised by Ms M on the mother’s proposal.
For Christmas 2011 the mother proposes the father have time with the children from 3.00 pm until 7.30 pm on 25 December 2011.
Thereafter, the mother proposes that the father spend time with the children from 4.00 pm Christmas Eve to 3.00 pm Christmas Day each alternate year.
She further proposes that the father spend time with the children from 3.00 pm Christmas Day until 4.00 pm Boxing Day every other year thereafter, commencing 2013.
The mother proposes that there be no change to the routine for the school holidays until the second term holidays of 2012.
She then proposes that for the second term school holidays in 2012 the father have consecutive days with the children as set out in the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s recommendations to the Court.
She further proposes that the weekly screening for drug testing continue for the six week period and the first three month period with time to be taken from today.
She also proposes that the Independent Children’s Lawyer not be discharged for a four month period.
It is proposed that on the ceasing of the supervision requirement, all changeovers be at McDonalds.
It is further proposed that the father continue to engage Dr N in respect of his issues and that he authorise Dr N to provide confirmation of his continued treatment.
Orders are sought that the father be restrained from knowingly allowing any person under the influence of illicit substances or any inebriated person to be in the presence of the children.
An order is sought for the parties to attend round table mediation.
(I note however the obligations imposed on the parties by the legislation to attempt medication.)
An order was sought that the father disclose his address, however the mother does not wish to disclose hers. It is noted that she may be required to vacate the matrimonial home within two weeks.
The proposals of the Independent Children’s Lawyer
The proposals of the Independent Children’s Lawyer are that following the period of supervised time, the fathers time with the children should increase to overnight Friday as recommended by the report writer, with time gradually increasing to alternate weekends, Wednesday nights and school holidays with a raft of orders to cover special occasions.
He includes in the orders an order requiring the father to request Dr N to provide Dr M with a brief report as to the father’s general compliance with her directions.
The proposals of the father
The father proposes that unsupervised time commence immediately. His proposals are that the father spend time with the children as follows:
a)each Saturday from 9.30 am until 2.30 pm on four separate occasions;
b)commencing the week after the fourth occasion referred to above from the conclusion of the child X’s school on Friday until 2.30 pm each Saturday on four occasions;
c)commencing one fortnight after the fourth occasions referred to in paragraph 4(b) hereof from the conclusion of the child X’s school on Friday until the commencement of the school day on the following Monday and at the same time each alternate week thereafter;
d)for the remainder of the 2011 school year from the conclusion of X’s school on Wednesday until 8.30 pm each alternate Wednesday;
e)commencing on the second Wednesday of the 2012 school year from the conclusion of school until the commencement of school on the following Thursday in each alternate week thereafter;
f)commencing on Friday of the 2012 school year from the conclusion of school (or 3.30 pm if the children or one of them is not attending school) on each alternate weekend thereafter;
g)for one week during the long Christmas vacation in 2011/2012 to be agreed between the parties and failing agreement in the first week in January;
h)commencing in the 2012 school year for one half of all school holiday periods, including the long Christmas vacation, to be agreed or failing agreement, the first half of all such holidays;
i)on Christmas Day 2011 from 12.00 pm until 12.00 pm Boxing Day and at the same time each alternate year thereafter;
j)on 24 December 2012 from 12.00 pm until 12.00 pm Christmas Day and at the same time each alternate year thereafter;
k)by telephone on each of the child’s birthdays and the father’s birthday and in the event that the children are living with the mother at such times that the mother to facilitate such calls to the father’s mobile and to allow the children to communicate with the father in privacy; and
l)at other times as agreed between the parties in writing (including by SMS or Email).
The father then sets out a further 16 orders that are sought by him which I do not propose to go into at this stage.
The law
The relevant legislation is contained in Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”).
Section 60B sets out the objects of Part VII and the principles which underlie those objects. The objects are addressed in the considerations the Court must have regard to in s.60CC.
Section 60B(2) of the Act provides that:
The principles underlying those objects are that (except when it is or would be contrary to a child’s best interest):
(a)children have the right to know and be cared for by both of their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together; and
(b)children have the right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development (such as grandparents and other relatives); and
(c)parents jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and
(d)the parents should agree about the future parenting of their children; and
(e)children have a right to enjoy their culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture).
Section 60CA of the Act states that:
In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.
Section 60CC sets out how a court determines what is in the child’s best interests and points to a consideration of the matters set out in sub-ss.(2) and (3) (per s.60CC(1)).
The primary considerations are contained in s.60CC(2) and are:
(a)the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents; and
(b)the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
Section 60CC(3) sets out additional considerations, which are:
(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;
(b) the nature of the relationship of the child with:
(i) each of the child’s parents; and
(ii)other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
(c)the willingness and ability of each of the child’s parents to facilitate, and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent;
(d)the likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:
(i) either of his or her parents; or
(ii)any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child, with whom he or she has been living;
(e)the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis;
(f) the capacity of:
(i) each of the child’s parents; and
(ii)any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child),
to provide for the needs of the child including emotional and intellectual needs;
g)the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child’s parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant;
h)if the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Island child:
(i)the child’s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture); and
(ii)the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right;
i)the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents;
j)any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family;
k)any family violence order that applies to the child or a member of the child’s family, if:
(i) the order is a final order; or
(ii) the making of the order was contested by a person;
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; and
m)any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant.
The child’s best interests
The Independent Children’s Lawyer refers me to the decision of AMS and AIF (1999) FLC 92-852 which he submits qualifies the meaning “best interests” when the Court said at page 144:
A statutory instruction to treat the welfare or best interests of the child as the paramount consideration does not oblige a court, making the decision, to ignore the legitimate interest and desires of the parties.
The relevance of this decision he says to the current matter is the consideration of the recommendation for a conservative increase in the father’s time with the children in the context of the mothers heightened sense of anxiety.
Whilst I accept this submission, I would reframe it to say that a consideration of what is in the best interests of the children must involve an examination of the whole picture. That would include an acknowledgment of the mother’s heightened sense of anxiety, her lack of trust of the father and the rebuilding that is required to enable the parties to establish a working relationship as parents.
The father says that he has addressed his issues and he is ready to move on. The mother is far from certain that this has occurred.
The successful transition of the children between the parents’ houses relies not only on the children but also the parents successfully coping with the arrangements.
That is not to say that the children’s interests are not paramount but simply to acknowledge that these arrangements do not operate in a vacuum. Factors such as those referred to above need to be bought to account and consideration be given to whether arrangements for the children can be set up in such a way that without compromising the best interests of the children no-one is left behind, particularly the primary caregiver.
The benefit of the child having a meaningful relationship with each parent
It is not disputed that there is a benefit to the children having a meaningful relationship with each parent. The difficulty is the terms and conditions upon which that relationship should be conducted.
The mother, as submitted through her Counsel has sub-zero trust in the father’s capacity to properly parent. That trust will need to be rebuilt, however, it cannot be rebuilt without the father having the opportunity to spend time with the children. The conclusion of the report writer which was not shaken in the course of cross-examination is that it is in the best interests of X and Y to have the ongoing planned and regular opportunity to spend time with their father.
SECTION 60CC(2)(b) the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence
It is this matter which occupied the bulk of the three days of trial.
There is no doubt that the father in 2009 was abusing alcohol, illicit drugs and was depressed.
A case was attempted to be made that he was an alcoholic. This was rejected by all of the experts. Whilst it was conceded that he may have been alcohol dependent, it was not conceded that this translated into the father being diagnosed as an alcoholic.
All three, but more importantly, the two psychiatrists took the view that his alcohol dependency and non dependent abuse of amphetamines occurred in the context of major depression.
There is also agreement that he has generalised anxiety disorder.
Dr G’s opinion was that Mr Starr does not currently suffer from a major depressive episode. His depression is in full remission. He does drink alcohol but does not, to the best of his knowledge, abuse alcohol or other substances.
He went on to say at page 6 of the report that:
He does have some risk of further depressive episodes and could be at risk of substance use at times of stress but the positive results from his work with Dr N and Dr M markedly reduce the risk. This seemingly modest risk is not sufficient to limit his care and contact with his children.
He seems to be a man who in his early adult years had no concept about his emotional life and this had a great impact on his relationship. He had little emotional skills to handle the stressful challenges of his relationship and evolving family responsibilities. The competing demands of being a financial provider and demands to support his wife and children were especially difficult. He experienced his wife’s frustration as criticism and he argued back. His assault at age 19 contributed to his anxiety, his substance abuse as a young adult and to his later depression.
His comment about his former friends who continued to use drugs suggested to me that he sees both them and his past from quite a distance. He has changed for the better. He was a little embarrassed at the seriousness of his drinking in the past and gave more detail about his substance use when discussed by phone on 6 June, but he can’t fake the extent of his improvement. Now he can talk to a psychiatrist and not be unduly anxious. His emotions and shortcomings are not something to be feared or ashamed. For Mr Starr getting help is now acceptable.
Dr N in her report of 14 August 2010 noted that:
My formulation is that Mr Starr had poly-substance abuse without dependent secondary chronic depressive illness and on background of chronic marital discord. It is difficult to know how much the head injury contributed to the depressive illness. Since separating Mr Starr’s mental state has been significantly better, he has not had any alcohol or any other drugs to the best of my knowledge.
The point was best expressed by Ms D when asked to discuss paragraph 22 of her first report where she stated that telephone contact was made with Dr N and noted that:
She described Mr Starr as attending appointments regularly noting “there has been no evidence of current drug use, he appears genuine, devoted to his children.” Dr N stated that she intends providing a supplementary report to correct an error in her report dated 22 March 2010. She commented that her diagnosis is in variance with the opinion expressed by (omitted) Hospital staff. Dr N indicated that she was able to refer Mr Starr to other services such as general counselling and drug and alcohol counselling.
Ms D explained that the continuation of Dr N and Dr M as the two key players in the treatment and support of Mr Starr was critical to this matter.
The father’s psychiatrist and general practitioner are in the position of those key players. His continued interaction with them would enable these key players to refer him to other services should they consider it warranted. Orders that he continue to comply with their directions and treatment, would assist this matter.
The mother sought to address the issue of whether the father should have undertaken a drug and alcohol counselling course as recommended by (omitted).
This was quickly put to rest by Dr N in the course of her evidence. Dr N made it perfectly clear that there was a hierarchy of skill levels in this area. Drug and alcohol counsellors could be of use, however, above them were psychologists, then clinical psychologists, then psychiatrists, then psychiatrists with special fields.
She considered that her ongoing sessions with the father addressed these issues, however, should she feel the need for some further focus on these matters, and she did not have the time to attend to them herself, then she would have no hesitation in referring him to the appropriate person to deal with any drug and alcohol issues. Whether that was a drug and alcohol counsellor or a clinical psychologist was a matter that she would address at the time.
For the moment however, she considered that the issues with which the father presented, were more than adequately addressed by his ongoing sessions with her.
Dr N in turn supported the recommendations of Ms D.
SECTION 60CC(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
X and Y are relatively young. Their views are acknowledged and reflected in the report of the family consultant. Their wishes to resume a relationship with their father are noted in the context of each of their ages.
SECTION 60CC(3)(b) - the nature of the relationship of the child and each of the child’s parents:
The children’s relationship with their mother is not in dispute.
The father in the reports acknowledges the mother’s role as a good mother save that he has significant concerns about her willingness to foster a relationship between the children and their father.
The observations of the supervisor and the three reports tendered to the Court would suggest that the children have a good relationship with their father.
This is confirmed by the observations of Ms D, the report writer in her two reports.
There is nothing in the evidence before me to suggest that the children’s relationship is anything other than appropriate, taking into account the circumstances of this case, with each parent.
(b) other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child)
Z is someone who must be considered here. The report writer has addressed this issue and the parties have accepted her recommendations.
The notation to the orders recommended by the Independent Children’s Lawyer represents an appropriate way of noting on the record that he will be welcome at the father’s home.
SECTION 60CC(3)(c) - the willingness and ability of each of the parties to facilitate, and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other party
In view of the history of this matter, there are significant concerns regarding the mother’s willingness and ability to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the children and their father.
I have already commented that those concerns may well be an inability on the part of the mother to pull herself out of the events that occurred in 2009 and to acknowledge the steps the father has taken in seeking to recover from what occurred. It would now appear that after three days of hearing, the mother has conceded that the father has taken the appropriate steps and has listened to the evidence of the experts and digested it in the appropriate way.
SECTION 60CC(3)(d) - the likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:
After the events following the parties’ separation, the children’s relationship with their father has been fairly fractured by, amongst other things the requirement of supervision, and the stop and start nature of the routine and pattern which they have been able to establish to see him.
There has been a significant gap in their time with their father prior to the commencement of this trial.
The resumption of time with the father and the consequential dropping of the need for supervision can only be seen as positive steps for the children.
With this however, comes a significant responsibility for the father to ensure that the transition for the children is relatively easy and without conflict. There is a lot of rebuilding to be done and each party needs to make every effort to ensure that the process is not derailed.
SECTION 60CC(3)(e) - the practical difficulty and expense of the child spending time with and communicating with a party and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially effect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis
There is an issue regarding the expense of the children continuing to spend time with the father on a supervised basis. The cost of the (omitted) Family Services supervision is significant for someone with the father’s income. To date, he has been able to manage on his evidence with the assistance of loans from, amongst other people, his friend Mr I, and his parents. Fortunately that period of time will shortly cease and that expense will no longer need to be met.
SECTION 60CC(3)(f) - the capacity of each of the children’s parents to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs
The concerns in respect of the father have been addressed in detail in the course of these proceedings and in the course of evidence provided to this Court.
The evidence of Ms D was of great assistance to the Court in assessing the father’s capacity to provide for the needs of the children including their emotional and intellectual needs.
Ms D’s evidence was supported by the evidence of Dr G and Dr N.
That evidence has been that the father has taken extremely significant steps in recovering from what was a very poor position in 2009 to his current status.
That is not to say that the father’s work is over, it is simply to say that his recovery has been significant and one that is met with the approval of his psychiatrist and general practitioner.
The evidence is that there is no concern regarding the father’s capacity to provide for the children’s intellectual and emotional needs.
In respect of the mother, the father himself concedes that the mother does a good job. Part of her role however, is to also encourage and facilitate the children’s relationship with their father. Her behaviour throughout the course of these proceedings has been a cause for concern.
There is some explanation for this in that the mother has, amongst other things, had to deal with the father’s behaviour in the events leading up to his breakdown in 2009, the subsequent separation of the parties, the fallout of those events and that separation on the children and the adjustment to now having to re-establish another routine and a pattern for the children to spend time with their father in the context of the significant concerns that she had arising from the events of 2009.
To her credit, she was finally able to make the concession that the father should spend time with the children and that the requirement that his time be supervised should be dropped. There is still significant work to be done on her part and it is hoped that it will not require the intervention of the Court at a later stage.
SECTION 60CC(3)(g) - the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background of the children
These are relatively young children who need a relationship with each of their parents.
SECTION 60CC(3)(h) – if the child is an Aboriginal child …
This issue is not relevant in these proceedings.
SECTION 60CC(3)(i) – the attitude to the children and to the responsibilities of parenthood demonstrated by each of the child’s parents
I have already commented on the mother’s conduct in facilitating an arrangement whereby the children could spend regular time with their father. I have also commented on some aspects of the father’s conduct which did not assist him in enabling an easy transition for the children. At the same time, I must commend his conduct in taking appropriate steps to recover from his breakdown in 2009. The reports of his doctor, his psychiatrist, the report writer, and the independent psychiatrist, all support a conclusion that the father has made every effort possible to resume his role as a caring parent for these children.
The mother conceded in evidence that the father would have been under significant pressure in view of the fact that he was unable to see his children for significant periods of time since the parties’ separation. In spite of that, he has not “relapsed” and has been able to maintain a healthy and productive relationship with his children.
SECTION 60CC(3)(j) – any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family
The father concedes that his behaviour prior to the parties’ separating was wrong. He does not however, concede that there was any physical violence between himself and the mother. This is not to say that there was not family violence as defined in the Act.
The allegations are denied however. The main focus of this trial has been on the father’s mental health and his recovery from his breakdown.
SECTION 60CC(3)(k) - any family violence order that applies to the child or a member of that child’s family
A final intervention order is in place but it was made without the admission of any wrong doing or finding of fact. The timing of the orders and the mother’s applications to the Court are matters for concern.
SECTION 60CC(3)(l) - whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings
Counsel for the father submits that it would increase the potential for further litigation if the Court were to make orders that the father amongst other things:
a)be restrained from drinking alcohol to excess;
b)be restrained from knowingly bringing the children into contact with any person under the influence of illicit substances or an inebriated person;
c)give 14 days notice of his intention to attend school functions; and
d)authorise Dr N to provide written confirmation of his continued attendance upon her and compliance with her directions.
He submits that the actions required by the injunctions regarding illicit substances and alcohol are those that are part and parcel of the responsibilities of being a parent.
The Court, he says, should not make orders injuncting or restraining parties from particular conduct unless there is a specific need to do so having regard to the evidence before the Court.
Where this submission applies to the father’s conduct whilst the children are not with him I consider that the father has a point.
There is however, a need to address the work that the parties need to do and the issues that confront the Court.
I am not convinced that this needs to extend as far as the orders sought by the mother however, I do consider that the father must go some way to addressing her issues with the conduct that she has witnessed in the past.
This means that while I will not make orders preventing him from knowingly bringing the children into contact with inebriated persons or those using illicit substances as I consider that:
a)the application assumes that he is the same person that the wife separated from in 2009, and the evidence does not support that;
b)there is no evidence to suggest that he would do so now in any event;
c)both parents have an obligation to act responsibly in any event; and
d)these orders may well apply in situations that may be outside the fathers control (for example the children having to attend the accident and emergency section of a hospital with a sporting injury) and I would not want to see contravention proceedings to enforce a strict interpretation of the rules.
I would make a variation of the order sought by the wife regarding Dr N as I consider it important that she be kept informed in an appropriate manner. This of course is something the husband could do without going into great detail but some corroboration from someone such as Dr M would assist to ease the concerns of the wife.
The advance notice of his intention to attend school functions is sought on the basis that the wife would wish to make arrangements for Z who attends the same school. Care must be taken here to ensure that in taking an overly cautious approach to Z and his interaction with the husband that the problem is not made worse. The husband should of course use common sense when attending a school function and a request that the wife have some notice may at the least remove any surprise factor however I do not consider that there is any evidence to support an order being made in the terms sought by the wife.
SECTION 60CC(4) - Extent to which the either party has fulfilled or failed to fulfil responsibilities as a parent
I accept that since separation the father has been effectively prevented from taking the opportunity to participate in making decisions about major long term issues in relation to the children. He has been denied the opportunity of spending time with the children but has always sought to spend that time subject to legal constraints.
I have commented on his problems around the time of the separation which in turn became the problem of the wife and children.
He has since then made significant progress and in doing so has started back on the path to taking up his responsibility as a parent. There is still a way to go and the outlook according to his treating doctors is positive.
The wife as a result of the husband’s behaviour had some significant problems to address. Some credit must be given to her for having to cope with the events at the time of separation.
Her ability to now accept the husband’s efforts to address the issues of the past remains a concern for which she as a parent must take some responsibility.
Equal shared parental responsibility
The parties agree that they have equal shared parental responsibility.
The legislation sets out their obligations as follows:
65DAC(1) This section applies if, under a parenting order:
a) 2 or more persons are to share for a ; and
b) the exercise of that involves making a decision about a major long-term issue in relation to the .
65DAC(2) [Decision to be made jointly]
The order is taken to require the decision to be jointly by those persons.
Note: Subject to any court orders, decisions about issues that are not major long-term issues are made by the person with whom the child is spending time without a need to consult the other person (see section 65DAE).
65DAC(3) [Requirement to consult and make a genuine effort]
The order is taken to require each of those persons:
(a) to consult the other person in relation to the decision to be about that issue; and
(b) to make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision about that issue
65DAC(4) [No requirement to establish joint decision]
To avoid doubt, this section does not require any other person to establish, before acting on a decision about the communicated by one of those persons, that the decision has been jointly.
SECTION 65DAA
This section requires me to consider having made an order for equal shared parental responsibility whether an order that the parents have equal time with the children would be appropriate.
Neither parent however is seeking an order for equal time.
I therefore do not propose to take that matter further.
In the event that an order for equal time is not to be made then consideration must be given as to whether there should be substantial and significant time as sought by the husband. In so deciding, the Court must have regard to the following.
How far apart the parents live from each other
The parents at the time of the trial were residing in close proximity.
The transition between their homes was not an issue.
There was in closing submissions, a suggestion that the wife may have to change her premises due to the bank taking possession of the house. There is no evidence as to when she would need to vacate or what alternative accommodation she would obtain in the area.
Orders were made pending further order in respect of that issue being paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the orders of 27 July 2011. I consider for the reasons set out in this judgment, that those orders should continue in the form suggested by Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
There is otherwise no evidence to suggest there is an issue in respect of this matter.
The parent’s current and future capacity to implement an arrangement for the child spending equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the parents
I have commented on this previously in these reasons.
The capacity of the father to implement an arrangement for the children to spend time with him was strongly questioned by the wife’s Counsel. I have accepted the advice of his doctors and the report writer and his evidence that he is making significant steps in addressing those concerns and is in a position to commence rebuilding his time with the children.
In so doing, he will need to keep in mind what the wife has had to deal with in the past and remember that in addition to rebuilding the relationship with the children it will be in their best interests if he can give consideration to reassuring the wife that he remains on that path.
This does not require him to take anything other than a common sense approach such as reassuring her that he continues to attend on his doctors and follow their advice, or giving her some notice that he will be attending school functions, for example.
The parents’ current and future capacity to communicate with each other and resolve difficulties that might arise in implementing an arrangement of that kind
This has been canvassed in these reasons. While there is clear room for improvement, the evidence is that there is capacity to communicate and attempt to resolve difficulties albeit limited at present.
The wife has yet to attend a parenting program which, she says is due to her work commitments. Her attendance at such a program would enhance the prospect of the parties not having to return to Court and I would order that she do so.
The impact that an arrangement of that kind would have on the children
The report writer at paragraph 31 of the report dated 9 May 2011 submits:
It is considered to be in the best interests of both X and Y to have the ongoing planned and regular opportunity(ies) to spend time with their father.
I accept this and consider the arrangements set out would be in the children’s best interests.
Conclusion
I have accepted the evidence of the report writers, Dr N and Dr G, the unchallenged evidence of Dr M, and the father, in respect of the progress made by him in addressing the issues that led to the parties’ separation.
I accept the advice of the report writer that a conservative approach should be taken. That approach is supported by the expert witnesses referred to above and the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
The orders proposed by Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer reflect that approach.
I would therefore for the reasons set out above make the orders set out at the commencement of these reasons.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and eighty three (183) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Cole FM
Date: 15 September 2011
0
2