BLEAKLEY & DELANEY

[2017] FamCA 137

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BLEAKLEY & DELANEY [2017] FamCA 137

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom the child should live – Where the child has lost the meaningful relationship with the father and the father is now a stranger to the child – Where the father’s application for the child to live with him is to restore the bond and connection with the child rather than due to risk of harm in the mother’s care – Where the mother risks causing emotional harm to the child due to her irrational and disproportionate reactions to her own fears – Where the removal of the child from the care of the mother will be a traumatic experience for the child – Where the child needs the relationship with his father for his own sense of identity and self-esteem – Concluded the child would be traumatised by the abrupt removal from the mother and placement into the care of the father – Ordered the child live with the mother – Ordered the child spend incrementally increasing time with the father culminating in alternate weekends

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 60CC, 64B

APPLICANT: Mr Bleakley

RESPONDENT: Ms Delaney

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: S Davitt Family Lawyers

FILE NUMBER: (P)PAC 2168 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: 10 March 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF: Cleary J

HEARING DATE: 24 – 27 October 2016

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Cohen

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Higgins Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Dinach

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: David H Cohen & Co

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Mahony

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: S Davitt Family Lawyers

Orders

1. That all previous parenting orders made in the Federal Circuit Court and in this Court in relation to B born … 2012 (“the child”) are discharged.

Parental Responsibility

1. That the mother have sole parental responsibility for the child.

2. That the mother forthwith provide to the father in writing an address which may be a PO Box for receipt of gifts and cards from him to the child pursuant to Order 9 herein.

3. That no later than six months from the date of these Orders the mother shall advise the father in writing of:

   (a)       The residential address of the child;

   (b)The name, address and telephone number of the preschool/school which the child is currently attending.

4. That the mother shall thereafter keep the father advised in a timely way of:

   (a)       The current residential address for the child;

   (b)       The name of the school in which the child is enrolled;

   (c)       A mobile telephone number on which she can be contacted by the father.

Residence

1. The child shall live with the mother.

Time and Communication

1. Each party shall immediately take all steps and sign all necessary documents (including but not limited to an Intake Form) to comply with requirements for use of a Children’s Contact Centre and failing agreement the Contact Centre at C Town NSW (“the Contact Centre”).

2. That the child spend time with the father as follows:

   (a)On one or two occasions for re-introduction of the child to the father, facilitated by the mother in a manner advised by the Contact Centre on dates and at times appointed by the Contact Centre.

3. That after the visit/s for reintroduction at the Contact Centre the father is at liberty to send to the child at the address nominated by the mother (which may be a PO Box) gifts and cards for the child.

4. For a period of six months from the date of these Orders on not less than one day each fortnight (and weekly if the Contact Centre can accommodate that commitment of time) on a week day for the maximum period of time available on each occasion.

5. Thereafter:

   (a)For a period of three months on one day each fortnight, and failing agreement otherwise on each Thursday from 10.00 am to 4.00 pm with changeover at the Contact Centre and the father and child to be accompanied by the paternal grandmother or the paternal aunt or the maternal uncle on each occasion.

6. Thereafter unsupervised time as follows:

   (a)Until the child starts school in 2018, each week from 10.00 am Thursday to midday Friday with changeover to be at the Contact Centre unless an alternate venue is agreed between the parties;

   (b)From the commencement of school in 2018 each alternate weekend from after school Friday to 6.00 pm Sunday with the father or a relative known to the child to collect the child from school and the mother or a relative known to the child to collect the child from the home of the father at the conclusion of the period.

Additional Time (Holidays)

1. Commencing in 2019 for one half of all school holiday periods being the first half in even numbered years (including Christmas Day) and the second half in odd numbered years commencing from after school and concluding at 10.00  am Saturday during term holidays and 10.00 am on the midpoint day of Christmas school holidays.

2. The mother shall ensure that any gifts or cards forwarded by the father to the child are given to the child by the mother in the presence of the maternal uncle Mr D Delaney or by the uncle at a time when the uncle is available to answer any questions or provide necessary information to the child.

Costs of Centre

1. That the parties shall meet equally the costs of the Contact Centre.

Release of Documents pursuant to s 12

1. That in the event that the mother consults with a psychiatrist and clinical psychologist the mother has leave to provide a copy of the following documents to those treating practitioners:

   (a)       The report of Dr E dated 30 June 2015;

   (b)       The report of Ms F dated 29 July 2015;

   (c)       These Orders and Reasons for Judgment.

2. That in the event that the father continues to consult his current treating psychologist the father has leave to provide a copy of the following documents to those treating practitioners:

   (a)       The report of Dr E dated 30 June 2015;

   (b)       The report of Ms F dated 29 July 2015;

   (c)       These Orders and Reasons for Judgment.

3. That the interests of the child continue to be represented by the Independent Children’s Lawyer for a period of twelve months from the date of these Orders.

4. That the Independent Children’s Lawyer:

   (a)Provide a copy of the Orders of 27 October 2016 and these Orders and Reasons for Judgment to the Contact Centre;

   (b)Be present for the re-introduction of the child to the father if so requested by the Contact Centre;

   (c)Relist the proceedings in the event of impediment to implementation of these Orders.

The Court Notes That

(A)The mother lives in the G Town area and the father lives in the Suburb M area and these Orders are predicated on those locations.

(B)The Single Expert, Dr E, has recommended in her report to the Court, and in her oral evidence the following steps be taken, with urgency, by the parties:

B.1That the mother attend on her general practitioner and obtain a referral to:

B.1.1A psychiatrist to manage and prescribe as necessary for the anxiety and depression suffered by the mother;

B.1.2A clinical psychologist with expertise in anxiety (manifesting in panic attacks);

And that the mother attend as required.

B.2That the father continue to attend upon his current treating clinical psychologist as advised to address the anxiety and depression suffered by the father.

B.3That the parties provide to their treating medical psychological practitioners copies of the following documents:

(a)The report of Dr E dated 30 June 2015;

(b)The report of Ms F dated 29 July 2015;

(c)These Orders and Reasons for Judgment.

(C)In the event of an Application for Contravention arising from these Orders being filed within 12 months of the date of these Orders, that Application will be listed before Justice Cleary.

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

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

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT NEWCASTLE

FILE NUMBER: (P)PAC2168/2013

Mr Bleakley

Applicant

And

Ms Delaney

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. These are competing applications for parenting orders in respect of one child, a boy now aged five.

2. The Applicant Mr Bleakley aged 41 years is the father of the child. The Father lives in the outer western area of Sydney. He has an older son aged approximately 15. The father is presently unemployed.

3. The Respondent Ms Delaney aged 34 years, is the mother of the child. The mother disclosed her address to the Court in writing which has remained in a sealed envelope however it was acknowledged that the mother lived in the G Town area of New South Wales.

4. The parties began living together in August 2008. The subject child was born early in 2012. Within three months of his birth the parties had separated on a final basis.

5. After separation the mother and the child moved to live with the maternal grandparents.

6. The mother would visit the father on weekends with the child and sometimes during the week. This arrangement ceased when the child was about 15 months old.

7. On 3 June 2014 interim orders were made in the Federal Circuit Court that the child live with the mother, with no order as to time with the father.

8. The matter was transferred to this Court at that time.

9. The child does not presently have a relationship with his father.

Applications

1. By his Amended Initiating Application filed 26 February 2014, the father seeks orders as follows:

   ·Equal shared parental responsibility;

   ·That the child live with him and spend time with the mother each alternate weekend, half school holidays and other special occasions.

2. During the course of his cross-examination the father conceded that in the event he was unsuccessful with a change of residence but the Court was inclined to make orders for him to spend time with the child, he could accept that that time would better be in a contact centre, at least initially.

3. By her Amended Response filed on 27 May 2014, the mother proposed the following orders:

   ·Sole parental responsibility for the child for her;

   ·That the child continue to live with her;

   ·That the father be able to forward cards for special occasions which would be vetted by maternal family members before being passed onto the child;

   ·That there should otherwise be no time for the child with the father.

Short History of Relevant Events

1. The parties met in mid-2008 and began living together two months later.

2. In the three years prior to their meeting the father had experienced the death of his father in 2005 and the death of his brother in mid-2006. He concedes that he had suffered depression and anxiety, had abused alcohol and cannabis and that he had not sought professional assistance at that time, although he has done so in recent years.

3. It is apparent that the relationship of the parties was rarely a happy or supportive one for either party.

4. During the four years of cohabitation there were several periods of separation. The father was arrested for drug offences and imprisoned for nine months.

5. There were at least four periods of break up and reconciliation. There were three pregnancies terminated prior to the birth of the subject child with disputation and uncertainty in respect of at least one of those pregnancies as to who the father of the child was.

6. The parties were apart when the child was born and reconciled for a very brief period and finally separated when the baby was 4 months old, in 2012. It is apparent that the unstable, unsatisfactory nature of the relationship continued post-separation.

7. The mother alleged that the father had threatened her and the child with physical violence which the father denied.[1]

   [1] Notice of Child Abuse filed 23/07/2013, annexures A & B

8. The mother alleges that in November 2012 the father said that he would “drive up the coast with the child and wrap the car around a telegraph pole”. Also that the father had pointed a gun at her.[2]  The father denied any such incident took place and further stated “I have never had a gun in my life.”[3]

   [2] Affidavit of the mother filed 23/09/2016, par 89

   [3] Affidavit of the father filed 18/10/2016, par 156

9. There is evidence which supports the conclusion that the mother was emotionally inconsistent. She sent affectionate cards on behalf of the subject child to the father and by herself to the father’s older son H; she also sent threatening messages to the father.[4]

   [4] Affidavit of the father filed 18/10/2016, annexures A- E

10. The mother describes herself as fearful of the father but has acted inconsistently with that emotional state. In September 2011 the father left a social gathering and drove away. The mother then left and drove after him following closely. The cars collided. After the accident the mother got out of her car and physically struck the father blaming him for the event. The mother was subsequently charged with negligent driving.

11. On 8 March 2013 the mother indicated to the father that as an act of love she had ordered a DNA test to reassure him that he was the father of the child. The father complied with the test and the following day the mother applied for an Apprehended Violence Order (“AVO”) against the father for nuisance telephone calls arising from DNA test. Thereafter, the father ceased to spend time with the child.

12. On 27 March 2013 an interim AVO was obtained by the mother against the father by consent and without admissions. Subsequently a final order was made for the protection of the mother for 12 months [30 April 2013].

13. The mother alleged that the father breached the AVO with abusive messages and by coming close to her place of residence. The father denied abuse and was concerned he says to see the child.

14. On 23 May 2013 the father filed his first application for parenting orders in the Federal Circuit Court. He proposed equal shared parental responsibility and equal time for each of the parents with the child on a week about basis.

15. The mother filed a Response proposing sole parental responsibility for the child who should live with her, the father to spend time each Sunday from 1.00 pm to 4.00 pm, supervised by the paternal aunt.

16. The parties attended a Child Inclusive Conference.

17. On 20 August 2013 interim orders were made in the Federal Circuit Court providing for the father to spend time with the child at the play area of a shopping centre each alternate Sunday for a short period. At that time the mother was not opposed to time between the child and the father provided it was supervised. She had some concerns that there was a risk to the child through the father’s drug and alcohol use, “I am not proposing orders that have the effect of separating the child from [Mr Bleakley]”.[5] It was a reasonable position to take.

    [5] Affidavit of the mother filed 30/09/2013, par 44

18. On 1 October 2013 further interim orders were made in the Federal Circuit Court by consent that the child live with the mother and that the father spend supervised time two hours per week at a contact centre, the matter was further adjourned.

19. In the weeks following those orders the mother alleged that she was approached by a friend of the father’s and told that the father had paid him “a lot of money to beat her up” although the mother did not allege that any such beating occurred. She did allege that the father had called making death threats.

20. The child stopped seeing the father.

21. On 15 November 2013 further orders were made in the Federal Circuit Court, principally suspending time between the child and the father. An Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) was appointed.

22. On 26 February 2014 the father filed an Amended Initiating Application proposing that the child live with him and spend defined time with the mother.

23. In response, the mother filed an amended document proposing that the child continue to live with her but that there be no face to face contact, only cards.

24. On 3 June 2014 the matter was transferred from the Federal Circuit Court to the Family Court with orders made on the day of transfer providing for the child to live with the mother, with no order as to time with the father and a recommendation for referral to the Magellan List. A Single Expert was appointed and in October 2014 interviews took place.

The Report of the Single Expert

1. The report is instructive as to the attitude the mother had developed to the importance of a relationship between the child and the father. The Single Expert notes that on 23 October 2014 the reporter interviewed the mother for approximately two and a half hours, followed by one hour of psychometric testing. Likewise on 31 October 2014 for the father.

2. The subject child was observed with the mother on 16 February 2015. The mother did not bring the child as directed for observations with the father, “She was unwilling to bring the child to my rooms due to her concerns for his safety with the father”.[6]

   [6] Single Expert Report dated 30/06/2015, par 4

3. The Single Expert then made a request to the Sydney Registry of the Family Court to use their playroom facility in order to conduct the observations in a secure environment.

4. The Single Expert then contacted the mother and the ICL to arrange a mutually convenient time for that observation. There was no response. The Single Expert diligently persisted in attempting to make contact. An appointment was made finally in February 2015.

5. In January 2015 the Single Expert was advised by the ICL that “The mother remained concerned about the observations and I suggested that she could request a Safety Plan from the Court so that the mother could be escorted to the rooms ahead of time”. The appointment was maintained and the Court was advised of the need for a Safety Plan.

6. On 11 February 2015 the mother’s solicitor had apparently advised the ICL that the mother and the child would not be meeting with the father. The mother had, through her solicitor, advised that she was “100 per cent sure that the father will try to kill her and her son (at the first given chance) as he has already made that threat”.

7. The mother however attended the appointment in the rooms of the Single Expert on the appointed day. She attended with her father and the child and was observed for 30 minutes with the child and then interviewed alone while the maternal grandfather cared for the subject child.

8. The Single Expert reported that the mother was a poor historian, defensive when any questions were raised about her, preferring to focus on the father’s deficits, “Thus her insight and understanding appear limited”.[7]

   [7] Single Expert Report dated 30/06/2015, par 70

9. The Single Expert concluded that the mother has had generalised symptoms of depression and anxiety dating back at least to age 20. The Single Expert then went on to conclude that although the depressive symptoms had appeared to have been relatively mild and transient, that it seemed likely that the mother had experienced panic attacks at times of high stress and at the time of interview, was experiencing Panic Disorder without Agoraphobia.[8]

   [8] Single Expert Report dated 30/06/2015, par 95

10. The Single Expert reflected on the apparent contradiction of the mother’s attitude to the father, writing him letters in prison expressing her love for him and the extent to which she was missing him, although maintaining an allegation that the father had raped her in the year when their relationship first commenced.

1. The ultimate conclusion of the Single Expert was that there was no information to suggest that either parent had any entrenched mental illness. The mother was found to be defensive about her psychological symptoms but appeared to have a history of both anxiety and depression with ongoing symptomatology. Further, formal testing revealed paranoid personality traits that could be indicative of dysfunction. There was a recommendation for referral of the mother to a psychiatrist for review and a psychologist for treatment. In relation to the father the Single Expert concluded that his criminal history suggested transgression of the law but of itself did not indicate anti-sociality.

2. The Single Expert was concerned that the mother might flee with the child and not comply with orders. Her refusal to allow the child to be observed with the father and her comments at that time that she would not allow supervised contact suggested future non-compliance.

3. This was a complex situation where the child was developing well and had been well cared for by the mother.

4. The recommendations were as follows:

   1)     The child should live primarily with the mother.

   2)     The child should spend time each fortnight with the father in a supervised contact centre for 12 months. Contact reports to be provided to the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

   3)     After 12 months, if the reports were positive, consideration to be given to unsupervised day time contact, moving to overnight time when the child was in primary school.

   4)     That the mother attend a psychologist for management of her anxiety.

   5)     If the Court determined that the father had a history of family violence then he should attend a group such as Taking Responsibility or a men’s behaviour change program.

5. On 7 July 2015 the matter was listed for mention in the Family Court at Parramatta and the mother was directed to deliver the child to Child Dispute Services, with the father to attend so that there could be an observation.

6. On 22 July 2015 the mother attended at the Court and was interviewed by a Family Consultant who was able to briefly observe the child and the father.

7. The Court had indicated that a warrant would issue for the mother’s arrest if she did not comply with the earlier orders to attend on that day. It was only in those circumstances that the mother attended with the child. Initially the mother had resisted attending and had advised the Family Consultant that she was not intending to come to Court.[9]

   [9] Child Responsive Program Memorandum dated 29/07/2015, par 5

8. In conversation with the Family Consultant the mother said this,

   [Ms Delaney] said that she did not understand why the child had to have the observation with [Mr Bleakley], when she was not supportive of any time occurring between them. [Ms Delaney] said that she did not want the child to be told that [Mr Bleakley] was his father, because she believed it would have a “psychologically negative impact”. [Ms Delaney] was advised that this issue would be further considered, and discussed when she arrived. [Ms Delaney] was asked to try and calm down so that [the child] was not negatively affected by her distress and anxiety. [Ms Delaney] was informed that her concerns would be discussed further when she arrived at the Court. [Ms Delaney] continued to cry, and then asked how the child’s safety would be guaranteed in the Court and in the observation room. [Ms Delaney] was told to wait at security and have them contact the Family Consultant on her arrival. [Ms Delaney] was again advised that these issues would be discussed on her arrival to try and avoid [the child] continuing to be exposed to these conversations.[10]

   [Ms Delaney] was spoken to on her arrival at the Court. [The child] was in the childcare room at this time. [Ms Delaney] was observed to have red eyes, and cry throughout the discussion. [Ms Delaney] said that she had told the child he was going to see someone called “[Mr Bleakley]”. [Miss Delaney] said that [the child] had no knowledge of his father. [Ms Delaney] was informed that the child would not be told that [Mr Bleakley] was his father. When asked if the child had any understanding why she was upset, [Ms Delaney] said she had told him they were “going somewhere where mummy does not want to go”. [11]

   [Ms Delaney] said that she wanted security in the observation room. She stated that she feared for the child’s safety because [Mr Bleakley] had threatened to kill her and the child. [Ms Delaney] said that [Mr Bleakley] could use an item, such as a chair, to hurt the child. [Ms Delaney] was informed security would be right outside of the observation room. She was also informed that the Family Consultant would be in the room with the child.[12]

   [10] Child Responsive Program Memorandum dated 29/07/2015, par 8

   [11] Child Responsive Program Memorandum dated 29/07/2015, par 9

   [12] Child Responsive Program Memorandum dated 29/07/2015, par 10

9. Ultimately, in those circumstances of extreme pressure and a high level of resistance by the mother the child was observed with the father. The father was extremely fearful that the child would react negatively because of the mother’s high level of resistance.

10. In the observation room the Family Consultant introduced the father to the child as “this is [Mr Bleakley]”. The child then crouched on the floor behind the Family Consultant. The Family Consultant crouched down with him, the father made many attempts to draw the child into the room using various age appropriate toys. The child did not interact. The Family Consultant led the child into the room so the door could be shut. The child crouched behind the Family Consultant and repeatedly said “no” in response to requests by the father to play with various toys. The child used the Family Consultant as a shield. The child continued to resist any engagement with the father and asked to go back to the other room. At the point when the child began to sound as though he might cry the Family Consultant decided to return him to the childcare room. On her return to the room in which the father was waiting, the father was observed to be crying.

11. The observation of the Family Consultant was that the child who had shown no difficulty in entering a childcare room and greeting the childcare worker, who was a stranger to him, had appeared fearful of the father; hiding behind the Family Consultant throughout the observation.

12. The Family Consultant concluded that the child had felt unsafe as a result of exposure to the mother’s fear and the mother’s conversations with the Family Consultant by telephone when the child had been present. It was apparent to the Family Consultant that the child had been exposed to conversations adverse to the father in the past and that if it continued the child’s emotional and psychological wellbeing would be adversely affected. Significantly the Family Consultant noted that there was nothing observed in the father’s behaviour that would suggest him spending time with the child would be inappropriate, “He appeared able to consider and prioritise the child’s needs throughout this process”.[13]

    [13] Child Responsive Program Memorandum dated 29/07/2015,  par 29

13. In November 2015 leave was granted to the parties to approach the list clerk for allocation of trial dates. Those trial dates were 24-27 October 2016.

Counselling of Mother

1. I note that there was a report dated 23 November 2015 from a social worker Ms I with the J Centre. Five sessions were completed between 17 August and 6 October 2015. During those sessions the mother apparently disclosed “all forms of domestic violence which included sexual and physical assault by the father during the period 2008 and 2013”. The mother had also reported threats to kill the child.

2. The social worker prepared a report for the Court giving her view that it was highly understandable and reasonable “for the mother to be extremely fearful of harm coming to herself or her child if contact between the father and his son were to take place in any capacity”.

3. The final paragraph of the report reads as follows:

   One of the tactics used [by] perpetrators of domestic violence is to induce ‘terror’ into the mind of the victim by sometimes following through with a threat and sometimes not, it is a means of asserting power and control. Threats can also be carried out as an act of revenge or punishment against the victim. Given many women and children have lost their lives to Domestic and Family Violence, [Ms Delaney’s] fears may well be valid.

4. If it is the case that the mother had disclosed to this social worker providing counselling, her own ambivalence over the years about the father, love and affection, a passionate desire to resume the relationship, an acknowledgment of some good times in their relationship and enjoyment of the connection between herself and the father’s teenage son, then there is no hint of it in that report.

5. It is apparent that the negative information provided by the mother was accepted by the social worker as the whole story of the child’s history, and duly repeated to a Court. Unfortunately that acceptance by the social worker whilst it may have been appropriate in a therapeutic context likely had the effect of confirming for the mother that her own anxious fears, presented through the voice of a third party, would be accepted as the truth.

6. It is in that context that the hearing took place and was concluded in the four days commencing 24 October 2016.

Evidence

1. The documents relied on in respect of the application were as follows: 

   The Applicant Father

   (a)Amended Initiating Application filed 26/02/2014;

   (b)Affidavit of the father filed 18/10/2016;

   The Respondent Mother

   (c)Amended Response filed 27/05/2014;

   (d)Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk of Family Violence filed 23/07/2013;

   (e)Affidavits of the mother filed 30/09/2013 and 23/09/2016;

   (f)Affidavit of Mr D Delaney filed 11/10/2016;

   Reports

   (g)Single Expert Report of Dr E dated 30/06/2015;

   (h)Child Responsive Program Memorandum dated 29/07/2015.

Oral Evidence

The Applicant Father

1. The father was thoroughly challenged in cross-examination as to his conduct during the relationship and since the birth of the child.

2. His evidence revealed a good understanding of the mother. I accept that although the father was at all times open to having a child with the mother, he accepted the mother’s decision on each occasion when she was pregnant and underwent a termination. He accompanied the mother on two of those occasions and provided the funds that the mother requested.

3. The father was present at the birth of his child. He conceded he had entertained some doubts as to whether or not the baby was his until he was born. At that point, he recognised both himself and his older son in the features of the child.

4. The proposition was put to the father in a very general way that he had non-consensual sex with the mother, somewhere between 2008 and 2012. He denied it. There is no other evidence available either from the mother or from any third party to whom such an event was reported. A finding of sexual assault is not open.

5. The father made appropriate concessions about his use of cannabis and alcohol and denied current use of marijuana. He had provided four clean screens since the Court proceedings commenced.

6. The father referred to his cannabis use early in the relationship as smoking cannabis every day, both he and the mother. Further, he said they both used ecstasy together. He said, and I accept, that both parties continued to use cannabis after the child was born, “we had a smoke after he went to bed”. He conceded that he was at times affected by cannabis while the child was in his care but not when he was alone.

7. The father, as he had to, conceded the conviction for selling drugs in 2009, the nature of the offence was sale of three ecstasy tablets at a nightclub. The father was released from jail on appeal. His sentence of 12 months having been reduced to four; a period he had already served when the appeal was heard.

8. The father was taken in detail through an allegation that he had once pointed a gun at the mother; he was clear and vehement in his denial that he had never owned a gun and had not touched a gun since he was six years old. Again there is no evidence available which would allow a finding on this allegation of threat.

9. The father conceded that at times he had lost his temper with the mother and raised his voice.

10. The father also conceded that the child did not know that he was his father but said this, “He knew me for a year and a bit, we had a great bond.” 

11. I conclude that the father was serious about his application for the child to live with him and had given thought to how he would provide care for him and where he would go to school, however I also conclude that the father’s main aim is to restore the bond and connection with his son and to see him regularly. He does not so much want to remove the child from the mother’s care as to have the mother acknowledge the importance of his role in the child’s life and act on it.

12. The father was taken to the observation room with the Family Consultant. He conceded that the child was scared but also, in his view, the father thought the child was wanting to play with him but was scared to do so. He said this, “He wasn’t scared of me, he was scared of what he had been told.”  This must be the case. The child had not seen his father at that time for more than two years. He had not been told that the man who was coming to visit was his father and he clearly did not recognise him. The reason for his fear was external and the father’s conclusion that the child was scared of what he had been told is a logical one.

13. The father contemplates moving to the K Town area. His view was if the child came to live with him, the mother would likely live in that area also. The father was open to counselling for himself and the child to manage what would be a difficult and confusing change of residence for the child.

14. The father has undertaken counselling in a service to which he was referred by his GP. His main motivation was depression about these proceedings and his inability to have a relationship with his son. As the father gave that evidence the mother sat in Court, head down, smiling.

15. The father was clear to say that he had benefitted from the sessions in relation to Court proceedings but “also about being accused of being a rapist and that sort of shit”. Again, at the point the mother was smiling.

16. There was extensive cross-examination about texting between the parties in the past. The evidence supports the father’s response about texts, “Not uncommon for us to send 30 messages to each other”. The father conceded that is was most likely that he had called the mother a “slut” in the texts. He was asked whether the mother had name-called him and he identified the words “loser and druggo” and whatever words applied at the time. The free flowing texting between the parties was more in the nature of a telephone conversation by electronics than the sending of text messages.

17. In relation to equal shared parental responsibility the father was taken to the unlikelihood of there being a co-operative relationship. He said this, “I have been through a divorce before and it wasn’t the greatest separation either but we acted as parents. I believe I can. I believe she could.”

18. The father impressed as genuinely interested in and committed to his son. He is concerned that the child is being frightened and made anxious by what is being said to him by the mother and in her household about the father and “Mr Bleakley”. There is substance in his concerns.

The Respondent Mother

1. The mother gave evidence in a manner and tone which suggested she felt under pressure. Her voice was high and constrained. She regularly spoke quickly. The pitch of her voice would rise abruptly. She appeared to find it difficult to concentrate and listen well to what was being asked of her.

2. I am confident that the mother loves the child and provides a good level of care for him. I consider it likely that she has not thought about the impact on the child of her own fears and her own fixed belief that the father represents a danger to the child and perhaps herself.

3. Seeing herself as she does as a protective mother, the mother was, to use her word “horrified” when told that a warrant might issue for the child if the mother failed to bring him in for an observation with a Family Consultant.

4. She had expressed her fears to the psychologist who undertook the Single Expert Report and apparently expected that her version of events would simply be accepted without challenge or without reference to another point of view.

5. The mother said that she felt embarrassed about having put up with family violence for so long. The mother’s statement suggests that she has received considerable support for the idea that she and the child are victims of family violence who have had to fight to protect themselves. It is an unfortunate position for the child to be in. The mother made this statement, “I will accept Court orders if I consider it is in the child’s best interests and the Court can guarantee my son’s safety.”  This statement strongly suggests that the mother will not comply with Court orders if she disagrees with them.

6. I conclude that the mother has not reflected on the fact that when the child was an infant she held a different view, nor that she be wrong about the father in some respects, that she may have amplified past negative feelings and minimised past positive experiences and now sees the whole history of her relationship with the father as dark and dangerous. She is at risk of becoming an outsider which echoes the concern of the Single Expert that the mother might flee with the child. Such an attitude represents a serious emotional risk for the child and that he will live in fear for his own safety and that of his mother. Balanced against that is the good level of care that the mother provides to the child and the disruption that would be caused to him if he was abruptly removed from her care into the care of the father, presently a stranger to him.

7. However, if the mother continues in this way the balance of risk could favour a change of residence.

8. The Single Expert has strongly recommended a therapeutic process where the mother is challenged about her ideas and assisted to understand the very different perspective and needs of the child from her own. If she maintains an entrenched attitude to keeping the child away from the father and rejects the need to re-examine her own ideas (with or without professional assistance) then inevitably a further application by the father would lead to a different outcome

9. The mother has allowed the child to forget his father and for there to be no discussion about him. The mother was challenged as to who she believed the child’s father was and more importantly, who he would think his father was in future.

10. The mother denied telling the Family Consultant that she had explained to the child that she was upset about attending for the observation because they were “going somewhere Mummy does not want to go”.[14]  The mother denied saying those words to the child and denied telling the Family Consultant that she had said that to the child, “She may have misinterpreted something I said”. I have no reason not to accept what the Family Consultant reported especially as those words were specifically quoted.

    [14] Child Responsive Program Memorandum dated 29/07/2015, par 9

11. Further, they are consistent with the mother’s oral evidence about what she said to the child about seeing his father, “I said he would be seeing Mr Bleakley, that he was someone I had known in the past and he might see him again”. If those words were said the explanation to the child was hardly encouraging.

12. The mother did concede that if she was sure the father would not hurt the child it would be in the child’s best interest to have a relationship with him. She also asserted that if the Court made an order she would have to accept it. That answer sits rather uncomfortably with her earlier evidence that she would accept Court orders if she considered it in the child’s best interests and that the Court could guarantee the child’s safety.

1. The mother described episodes where she would shake, have trouble breathing and feel as if she was going to have a heart attack. She said she had been to the doctor, had her heart checked and had had an ECG. Although she said she had seen a psychologist it was not in relation to the panic attacks. She has not seen a psychiatrist. There would be a direct benefit to the child if his mother ceased to suffer such episodes and was assisted in managing her emotions for his benefit, if not for her own.

2. During the course of her evidence the mother was again inconsistent in her statements about the father. She agreed that on 19 May 2012 she was wanting to restore the relationship between herself and the father, “I wanted to see if our relationship could work for the child’s sake”. She also said that she had gone to the police about text messages she had received from the father and that at that time in her view, the father knew he was losing control of her. When challenged about the fact that the mother had gone to the police station alone and was therefore not under the father’s control, the mother denied it. There is no obvious explanation for the mother’s belief.

3. When asked what her view would be if the child had supervised visits and enjoyed them, perhaps for a year, the mother said in her view, “That doesn’t mean he won’t do something to him in future”.

4. There is no evidence of the father hurting, assaulting, or threatening the child, quite the reverse. The evidence of the mother is of statements being made to her of that affect and she repeating them to third parties such as her solicitor, the Family Consultant and the Single Expert.

5. It is apparent that the ambivalence that characterised the four years of their cohabitation is still present in the mother. Over these four years in August 2008 the parties began living together in Suburb L. In 2009 the parties lived together for five months in Suburb M. The father moved away. The mother returned to her parents. In 2011 the parties again lived together on the Central Coast for two months. The mother then returned to her parents. In September of that year the parties reconciled. The parties were living apart when the child was born but in May 2012 they again lived together for six months in Suburb M before cohabitation ended but not the relationship which continued on a visiting basis, mostly the mother visiting the father for another 12 to 15 months.

6. The mother may believe now that she was under the control of the father at all times then, but the evidence does not support such a finding, rather that there were voluntary reconciliations, again and again, over the four year period.

7. In relation to the threat from the father with a gun, the mother conceded that she had said nothing in the first affidavit filed in the Court about the father holding a gun to her head. Her explanation was this, “No, I didn’t [say anything]. He had a gun and I didn’t want to get killed.”  She was then challenged with the fact that she had gone to the police about text messages but had not said anything about the threat with the gun, “No, he threatened to kill me and my family and my son. I didn’t want to antagonise him”. This was an incredible, irrational response. Had the mother been reluctant to antagonise the father, she would not have gone to the police about the texts; having gone to the police about texts, that was her opportunity to seek protection and to reveal threats about a gun. The evidence does not support a finding of the father threatening the mother with a gun.

8. During the course of her evidence the mother referred to having been sexually assaulted, raped, at age 19, years before the relationship with the father, at which time she had had her first panic attack. Accordingly, on her own evidence the mother has been suffering panic attacks for 15 years and other than attending on domestic violence counselling, has not had the kind of therapeutic assistance that the evidence suggests she needs.

9. The explanation of the mother of the motor vehicle accident on 1 October 2011 was certainly strange. This is the incident where the mother and father had been at a social gathering and left in separate cars. The mother followed the father’s car and did not return to her own home. The father’s car was travelling in front of her. He repeatedly braked. The mother said this, “He slammed on brakes to cause me to crash into him.”  The mother denied she had been driving closely but she clearly had:

   Question:      Although your vehicle was behind his, he was at fault?

   Answer:         Yes.

   Question:      You were pregnant then?

   Answer:         Yes.

   Question:      You were at fault?

   Answer:         No.

10. The fact that the mother stopped, got out of her vehicle and slapped the father after the accident, not only confirms that she held him responsible for the accident but is also a revelation of her lack of fear of the father.

11. The mother was questioned about her assertion[15] where she had said on one occasion while Mr Bleakley was intoxicated he grabbed the child from me and swung him round the room. The child was only a few months old. After this I did not offer to let Mr Bleakley pick up the child. The mother stepped back from the force of her accusation immediately. Her answer was as follows: “It was not in a violent way. He [the father] was doing this silly dance thing with the child.”  This answer suggests that the assertion in the Affidavit was both exaggerated and misleading.

    [15] Affidavit of the mother filed 23/09/2016, par 35

12. The mother also went on to agree that in the second half of 2012, after this alleged incident, she has been taking the child over to visit his father. Further, she said that she herself would go over but the child was not always with her. The mother conceded that at that time “I did have some feelings for him, yes” which is entirely inconsistent with her allegations of wrongdoing, great and small.

13. The mother was asked about a message she had sent in January 2013 to the father, a friendly message, “Don’t be nasty, I love you. Love you by the way. You have to put me as a friend on Facebook”. The father responded politely “No I don’t sorry.”  The mother said she could not remember that message. The mother said “I sent a lot of messages, can’t remember that one.”

14. On 2 February 2013 the mother sent a message to the father, “I won’t come over today, maybe tomorrow, I want cuddles”. When asked whether she had said that, the mother paused for almost a minute looking towards the bench and then said, “I might have, I can’t remember.”

15. The mother conceded that there was not only no fear in those messages but that at least objectively the messages were in the character of love letters. The mother agreed she had expressed strong positive feelings, “Yes when he wasn’t being nasty, he was being nice” and then added, “He wanted me to idolise him. If I don’t idolise him, he’ll kill me.”  There is no basis for understanding the repeated inconsistencies of the mother’s evidence.

16. In relation to immunisation of the child the mother has chosen not to take that course. She said that she and her brother had not been immunised and “We didn’t have infectious diseases”. She denied any religious objection to immunisation but rather asserted she had “done lots of research”.

17. When asked whether she had discussed her research with a doctor she said she had but the doctor did not agree with her. Nevertheless, the mother has chosen to believe her own ideas and not to be persuaded to any extent by medical practitioners. That is her choice but it also represents evidence of a strength of purpose in the mother that is not consistent with being easily overborne.

18. Certainly the mother did not comply with orders made in the Federal Circuit Court in 2013 for supervised time between the child and the father in a contact centre. Instead she went to the contact centre and told them that she did not see the centre would be able to protect her son;

    There were no metal protectors, I didn’t see how my child would be safe.

    Question:You made the decision the child would spend no time.

    Answer:Yes.

19. Again and again the mother justified her failure to comply with orders and her indifference to applications in respect of breaches in this way, “My first priority is my child’s safety, I didn’t realise that the contact centre wouldn’t have metal detectors. I will now comply with orders henceforth.”

20. In answer to a question from the ICL the mother changed her position. The mother had conceded that she could not envisage a circumstance of unsupervised time. She was asked whether she would comply with an order for unsupervised time. Her answer was as follows, “Tricky question, can you repeat it again” and when repeated, she answered, “At this point, no.”

21. By August 2015 the mother was behaving somewhat erratically. She told a social worker at J Centre in August 2015 that she could not sleep, was constantly in fear of her ex-partner and that her ex-partner would kill her son. She agreed she had given a false name and gave the explanation that she was concerned about being tracked down, “Everybody I meet, everything I do, I use a different name. Fear. I had to change my name”.

22. The proposition was put on behalf of the ICL that anxiety was overtaking the mother’s day to day life. She responded that she was living in fear, “I’ve tried to do everything I can to stop being located by [Mr Bleakley]”. However I conclude that there was an element of melodrama in the mother’s answer which suggests that she is at least to some extent indulging herself with the perceived drama of her own life.

23. At this point, if I accept the evidence of the mother, the child knows very little about his father. However, as was drawn to the mother’s attention the child will, especially now that he has started school, ask about his father. If the information that is provided to him is negative he will be hurt by becoming fearful and anxious and suffer the loss of a potential relationship with a father who wants to be a part of his life.

24. The mother urgently needs assistance in dealing with her own fears and seeing the needs of her son as separate from her own needs. She is a loving mother who is at risk of harming the child she loves.

The Maternal Uncle – Mr D Delaney

1. The maternal uncle was an impressive witness appearing through loyalty and affection for his sister but also focused on being truthful for the benefit of the Court.

2. The maternal uncle said he had met the father. They had had a civil conversation although not an extensive one. He said he tried to keep a neutral opinion about the father. He was willing to help with supervision or changeovers if that was required of him, “If orders are made I could assist”.

The Single Expert – Dr E

1. Dr E noted that when she had seen the child with the father the child’s presentation was apprehensive and consistent with the mother’s presentation.

2. When told about the mother’s evidence of panic attacks over the last 15 years the Single Expert reflected that the severity of panic attacks meant that it would be difficult for the mother to protect the child from the effects: the shortness of breath, chest pain, feelings of having a heart attack, that the child would see that and it would be quite distressing for him. He would worry about her physical safety. The mother’s avoidance of other things, such as certain places, the child would also pick up on that anxious behaviour from her.

3. The Single Expert was asked whether it was possible for the mother to have developed an anxiety about beliefs that were not based in truth. Her answer was that phobias, that is, irrational fears, can arise from irrational beliefs.

4. I conclude from this evidence that the identified matters where the mother has been inconsistent or simply illogical fit into this evidence that the mother may have convinced herself of risk and threat and reacted to her own fears in the way described, that is, panic attacks.

5. The Single Expert suggested that intensive cognitive behaviour therapy by an endorsed clinical psychologist skilled in anxiety and depression would be immensely helpful to the mother. Counselling the mother had to date was considered by the Single Expert not to have assisted the mother because it had focused on violence, not coping skills for the mother. She also expressed the opinion that the mother’s anxiety was likely to worsen if not properly treated.

6. When asked why there had not been a recommendation for the child to live with his father, the Single Expert identified, properly in my view, the difficulty for the child, the traumatic experience of being removed from the care of his mother abruptly into the care of a stranger.

7. In the event there was to be such a transition the Single Expert recommended that the father would need to take six months off work, focusing on the child for six to 18 months of transition time. The first six months of which would be no contact with the mother in order to allow him to settle into a new environment. Transitions back and forward would be highly distressing until he had settled with his father.

8. I conclude from having listened to the Single Expert that she thought that the father was capable of doing what it would take but that the injury to the child, despite some of the mother’s conduct did not justify it at this time. I agree.

9. The Single Expert stressed that the child needed the relationship with his father, both for his own sense of identity and self-esteem. She said that if the mother continues to be fearful the child will feel wrong, upset and will appease his mother by rejecting his father. One consequence of that in later life for him, especially in adolescence, is that he is likely to question his own identity and feel angry and hurt that he is being kept away from his father. There is a real possibility that he would become both angry with his mother for having kept him away from his father and angry with himself.

10. The Single Expert expressed the view that time between the child and the father should happen but not unsupervised immediately. Supervision would assist the child to feel comfortable and for the relationship to develop.

11. The Single Expert expressed the view, with which I agree, that if unsupervised time was ordered, the mother would likely not comply and that the mother had not, at least at the time when she was seen by the Single Expert, understood the importance of compliance with Court orders. Importantly, the Single Expert agreed that there would need to be a change of residence if the mother continued to take a defiant stance on compliance.

12. The Single Expert gave evidence which was instructive and helpful:  That the mother has fears, the fears are real but also irrational, she does feel fear, she is aware she should not have those fears. The mother has disproportionate responses to her own fears.

13. The Single Expert considered that a 12 month period of supervised time would be ideal, although eight to 10 months could be sufficient if very frequent.

14. The Single Expert considered that changeovers being effected by the maternal uncle would assist the child and protect him from his mother’s emotional state.

The Law

1. The objects of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) in relation to parenting orders are to ensure that:

   a)Children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives to the maximum extent consistent with their best interests;

   b)Children are protected from physical and psychological harm;

   c)Children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and

   d)Parents fulfil their duties and meet their responsibilities concerning the care welfare and development of their children.

2. These are applications for parenting orders pursuant to s 64B(2) of the Act. In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a court must have regard to the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. The way a court determines what is in a child’s best interests is by considering the matters set out in s 60CC(2) and (3) of the Act.

3. There is also a presumption when making a parenting order; that it is in the best interests of the child for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that equal sharing of parental responsibility would not be in the best interests of the child in question.

4. I have contemplated the issues of parental responsibility, residence, time to be spent and communication between child and parent as well as any other specific issues.

5. I have considered the mandatory factors and conclude that the following matters are relevant to the best interests of this child.

6. The primary considerations are the benefit of a meaningful relationship for a child with each of his parents, balanced against the possibility of harm.

Primary Considerations

The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents

1. In this case the child has lost the meaningful relationship he had as an infant with his father. It is a significant loss and one which the mother underestimates. When the child was observed with his father in 2015 he was unaware that the man he was being seen with was his father and he was fearful. That fear could not have been generated by anything other than what he had been told or what he had observed about the mother’s fearful, panicky behaviour on the way to the observation. The attendance was under the shadow of a warrant for arrest being issued if the mother did not attend Court with the child.

2. The child is being well cared for and is attached to his mother but he must already be wondering why it is that he does not apparently have a father at all. He will have already met at school children whose parents live separately but he is likely to be in a minority of children who only have one parent.

The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm or from being subjected or exposed to abuse or family violence

1. I have considered the allegations of the mother of risk and concluded that the evidence does not support the father representing a risk of harm to the child. There is some risk of emotional harm to the child by the mother’s irrational and disproportionate reactions to her own fears. She has failed to obtain recommended assistance which would help her to manage her fears, reduce her reactions and regulate her emotions.

2. It has been urged on me that the best solution to the problem is for there to be a change of residence. Whilst that submission is understandable, especially as the mother has not been compliant with orders and has retreated from allowing any association between the child and the father at all. However the father is a stranger to the child and I accept that it would be traumatic and cause real suffering for him to be abruptly removed from his mother’s care.

3. There is a benefit now and in the future for the child having a relationship with his father to understand the man his father is and to maintain his self-esteem as a result. I take into account the fact that the child was introduced to his father after a sufficiently long period of time that he had forgotten him and was fearful on that occasion.

Additional Considerations

The nature of the relationship of the child with each of their parents and other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child)

1. Just as the child has lost the relationship with the father, so he has lost the relationship with his half-brother H, paternal grandmother and all other members of the paternal family.

2. The child enjoys a good relationship with his maternal uncle and perhaps, although it is not certain, with the maternal grandparents.

The extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken or failed to take the opportunity to participate in making decisions, to spend time with the child and to communicate with the child

1. The mother has made all of the decisions about the child since the relationship between the parties ended in 2013. She has deliberately excluded the father from decision making to the extent that she has been unwilling to tell the father where the child is living, where he attends preschool and anything about his health and welfare.

2. The father has at all times been interested to participate in decision making.

The likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either of his or her parents, or any other child or other person

1. The likely effect on the child of a change of circumstances is that he will be tentative at first in seeing his father but will hopefully settle in the security of a supervised setting and quickly engage with his father in anticipation of unsupervised time.

The practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent

1. There will be some travelling for the child, some expense associated with supervision. The mother says she is not working but practical difficulties do not exclude the possibility of the relationship developing.

The capacity of the child’s parents and any other person to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs

1. The father has had difficulties in his past with depression and anxiety and with abuse of drugs and alcohol and criminal conduct.

2. The mother in the past has had a traumatic start to adult life, leaving home at 17 and feeling quite isolated in a new city. If it is the case that she was sexually assaulted as a very young woman then that trauma has remained unaddressed for 15 years. Likewise, if the panic attacks which the mother experiences have been happening over a 15 year period she does have some limit on her capacity as a parent as a result of the rational and irrational fears which give rise to that condition.

3. Both parents do have the capacity to meet the day to day needs of the child.

4. The mother has been unable or unwilling to acknowledge the consequences of depriving the child of a relationship with his father.

The maturity, sex, lifestyle and background of the child and either of their parents and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant

1. The child is a young boy, just turned five who will start school in 2018. He has known his mother to use different names and to move around for safety. He has observed his mother in anxious states. It is impossible to know whether he has begun to think and worry about the absence of his father from his life.

The attitude to the child, and to the responsibility of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents

1. The mother has provided for the child but has not understood that he has an independent need for a relationship with his father and a greater level of stability and security in his life.

2. The father has a relationship with his older son from an earlier marriage and has therefore had experience as a parent.

Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family, and if a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child’s family – any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order

1. There have been many allegations of family violence involving the child and the mother. I have found that the mother’s evidence is contradictory and unsubstantiated and that the father has not hurt or threatened to hurt the child and that at worst the father has been insulting in text messages to the mother.

2. The mother followed the father in her car, collided with that vehicle and then assaulted the father.

Whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of future proceedings in relation to the child

1. The mother has failed to comply with Court orders in the past and is defiant, to some extent, although she now says that she will comply.

2. There is some risk that the mother may decide not to comply with these orders which will bring the matter back potentially both for a contravention application and for a further application for the child to live with the father.

Conclusion

1. In the event that the mother really considers the evidence given by the Single Expert she will understand the need to moderate her own behaviour for the benefit of the child so that he does not see her frightened, fearful, reacting dramatically, crying and struggling for breath. Despite that risk, I consider that the harm to the child who is already somewhat anxious as a result of being affected by his mother’s behaviour would be traumatised unnecessarily by abrupt removal.

2. Accordingly, I have concluded that the relationship between the child and the father should be restored and that the mother should have sole parental responsibility, must keep the father advised of where the child is living and attending school and a contact telephone number to facilitate communication. The child should live with the mother, be re-introduced to the father and thereafter continue supervised visits for a period of nine months, six months in the Contact Centre, three months out and about. Thereafter, unsupervised time should follow with changeovers at the Contact Centre, until by the commencement of school in 2018, the child begins spending alternate weekends with the father. That time should continue unbroken through school holiday periods.

3. Block periods of school holiday time will commence in 2019.

4. Provision is made for relevant documents to be released to the psychiatrist and/or clinical psychologist that the mother consults if she chooses to do so. Likewise for the father.

5. An order has been made for the child to continue to be represented by the ICL. That creates an option for the matter to be relisted within that period in the worst outcome which is non-compliance by the mother with orders.

6. Orders are made accordingly.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and seventy (170) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cleary delivered on 10 March 2017.

Associate

Date:  10 March 2017