Bolton and Dawson
[2008] FMCAfam 1275
•28 November 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BOLTON & DAWSON | [2008] FMCAfam 1275 |
| FAMILY LAW – Parenting orders. |
| Family Law Act 1975, ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA |
| Applicant: | MS BOLTON |
| Respondent: | MR DAWSON |
| File Number: | NCC 3698 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Lapthorn FM |
| Hearing dates: | 1, 2 and 4 July 2008 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 4 July 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Newcastle |
| Delivered on: | 28 November 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Sundstrom |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Lucas & Associates |
| Counsel for the Respondent: |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Self Represented |
ORDERS
That the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the child [G] born in March 2003.
The child live with the father as follows:
(i)During school terms in alternate weeks commencing from the conclusion of school on Wednesday until the commencement of school the following Monday;
(ii)For one half of school holidays as agreed between the parties but failing agreement for the first half in years ending in an even number and for the second half in years ending in an odd number;
The child live with the mother at all other times.
That the above orders be suspended to permit:
(i)The child to spend Mother’s Day with the mother from 9am until 5pm;
(ii)The child to spend Father’s Day with the father from 9am until 5pm:
(iii)The child to spend a period of four hours, as agreed, with the parent with whom she is not living on 21 March in each year, and failing agreement between the hours of 12 noon and 4pm, or from conclusion of school to 7pm if that date falls on a school day;
(iv)The child spend a period of four hours as agreed with her father on 30 June in each year, and failing agreement between the hours of 12 noon and 4pm, or from conclusion of school to 7pm if that date falls on a school day;
(v)The child spend a period of four hours as agreed with her mother on 14 April in each year, and failing agreement between the hours of 12 noon and 4 pm or from conclusion of school to 7pm if that date falls on a school day;
(vi)In years ending in an odd number the child to spend time with the mother from 10am on Christmas Eve until 2pm on Christmas Day and in years ending in an even number from 2pm on Christmas Day until 5pm on Boxing day;
(vii)In years ending in an odd number for the child to spend time with the father from 2pm on Christmas Day until 5pm on Boxing Day and in years ending in an even number from 10am on Christmas Eve until 2pm on Christmas Day;
(viii)In years ending in an odd number for the child to spend time with the mother from 11am on Good Friday until 11am on Easter Sunday and in years ending in an even number from 11am on Easter Sunday until 6pm on Easter Monday;
(ix)In years ending in an odd number for the child to spend time with the father from 11am on Easter Sunday until 6pm on Easter Monday and in years ending in an even number from 11am on Good Friday until 11am Easter Sunday.
(x)To permit the child to attend the father’s wedding from after school (or 4pm if not a school day) the day before the wedding to 10am the day after the wedding.
That the parties do all acts and things necessary to ensure the child’s continued enrolment at School [3].
That each party be restrained from changing the child’s school or enrolling the child in a high school without the written consent of the other.
That each party be restrained until the child is thirteen years of age from causing the child’s hair to be coloured without the written consent of both parties and must ensure that no other person does so.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Bolton & Dawson is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT NEWCASTLE |
NCC 3698 of 2007
| MS BOLTON |
Applicant
And
| MR DAWSON |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
The parents of a 5 year old girl, [G] cannot agree as to her future parenting arrangements. [G] was born in March 2003. Her mother,
Ms Bolton, seeks parenting orders that would provide for the child to live primarily with her but over a fortnight spend five days with the father[1]. The father, Mr Dawson, seeks orders in mirrored terms to that of the mother. In other words he seeks that [G] live with him for nine days and with her mother for five days a fortnight.
[1] Her Amended Application filed 10 June 2008 sought four days with the father but during the hearing she changed her position to five days consistent with the interim orders made 8 February 2008.
Another significant issue that the parties cannot agree on is where [G] should attend school. She is currently enrolled at School [3] as a result of orders made in this court on 8 February 2008 by His Honour Federal Magistrate Coakes. The father would like to see [G] attend School [1] or School [2]. The mother seeks a continuation of the enrolment at School [3].
Background
The mother, who is 29 years of age, is a [occupation omitted]. The father, 36, is a [occupation omitted].
The parties began to live together in November of 2001 and married in December 2003. [G] was born in March 2003. They separated on a final basis on 5 October 2004 when the father moved to Morisset.
Although their relationship involved some separations they purchased a house in June of 2004 at Property K near Morisset. The mother remains living in that property.
In late 2005 the father relocated to Bar Beach. By this time the parties had arranged for a shared care arrangement for the child whereby she spent four days with one parent and three with the other each week.
Interim orders were made on the 13th February 2006 whereby the child was to spend time with the father from 10.00 am Sunday until 8.30 am Wednesday in each week and with the mother for the remainder of the week.
In March of 2006 the mother commenced a relationship with Mr S.
Mr S has two children from other relationships. [X] who is six years old lives with his mother but sees Mr S for four nights and two afternoons each fortnight. His other child, [Z] is 10 years of age and spends time with him for two evenings and three afternoons each week. At the time of the hearing the mother and Mr S were expecting a baby boy in September.
The father and Ms C commenced a relationship in April 2007 and began to live together later that year in around August. They plan to marry in March 2009. They continue to live in Bar Beach.
These proceedings have had an unfortunate procedural history in that the matter has already had one final hearing before her Honour Federal Magistrate Housego. The father lodged an appeal against her Honour’s orders but during an interim hearing before his Honour Federal Magistrate Coakes the parties agreed to the discharge of the orders of her Honour and have the matter set down for a new hearing which was the one conducted before me.
The orders her Honour made on 2 November 2007 provided for the child’s care to be shared equally between the parties provided the father moved to or near Warners Bay. No provision was made for the child’s care in the event that he did not move which is in fact what happened. Her Honour also ordered the child to attend School [3].
The mother did not return the child to the father at the end of January 2008 as she believed he was about to breach the orders of her Honour and enrol the child at School [2] rather than at School [3].
On the 8th February 2008 His Honour Federal Magistrate Coakes made interim orders for the child to live primarily with the mother, to spend time with the father from Wednesday afternoon to before school Monday each alternate week and for the child to be enrolled in and attend at School [3].
The Evidence
The applicant mother relied on her affidavits filed:
a)17 August 2006;
b)12 July 2007;
c)23 August 2007;
d)12 December 2007;
e)30 January 2008; and
f)13 June 2008.
The mother also relied on affidavits of:
a)her partner Mr S filed:
i)17 August 2006;
ii)12 April 2007; and
iii)13 June 2008.
b)the maternal grandmother, Ms B filed:
i)17 August 2006;
ii)12 April 2007; and
iii)13 June 2008.
The respondent father relied on his affidavits filed:
a)11 June 2008; and
b)20 June 2008.
He also relied on the affidavits of:
a)his fiancée Ms C filed:
i)10 June 2008; and
ii)20 June 2008.
b)the paternal grandmother, Ms D filed 10 June 2008;
c)the paternal grandfather, Mr D filed 10 June 2008; and
d)the affidavits of the paternal aunt Kerrie Jane Burns filed:
i)23 July 2007; and
ii)10 June 2008.
Two Family reports have been prepared in this matter by Mr Drew Cowen. Those reports were released on 3 July 2007 and 12 May 2008.
I have had regard to the evidence in the affidavits although I have not placed any weight on opinions expressed in them except to understand a witnesses’ perception of events as a result of the opinion. I have also placed little if any weight on hearsay evidence.
I have also had regard to the Family Reports and documents tendered.
I have had an opportunity to observe both parties in the witness box as well as their respective partners, the maternal grandmother and paternal grandfather. The paternal grandmother and paternal aunt were not required for cross examination.
Each party presented as honest witnesses who were totally committed to the well being of their child as they perceived that well being should be achieved. Although their recollections and perceptions of events differ at times I did not perceive any deliberate attempt by either of them to mislead the court.
The maternal grandmother impressed as an honest witness who despite being naturally aligned to her daughter was able to be respectful of the father.
Mr S presented as an honest witness although he was reluctant to comply with a subpoena that he was aware of that had not been properly served.
The father’s partner Ms C was not an impressive witness. She was so aligned with the father that she lacked any objectivity towards the mother. For the reasons I will explain later I have no confidence in her ability to be child focussed in any decision that involves her and the mother.
I will address the evidence in more detail when I consider the factors under s.60CC.
Legal Principles
Parenting proceedings are governed by the provisions of Pt VII of the Family Law Act1975. In determining the outcome of parenting matters the Court must consider the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.[2] That is the overriding principle.
[2] S 60CA
The objects of Pt VII are to ensure that the best interests of children are met by both parents having a meaningful involvement in their children’s lives; that the children are protected from physical or psychological harm; that they receive adequate and proper parenting; and the parents fulfil their duties and meet their parental responsibilities.[3]
[3] S 60B lists the objects and principles for Pt VII.
In determining what is in a child’s best interests I must consider the matters set out in s.60CC.
When making a parenting order the court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility.[4] This presumption may not apply or may be rebutted in cases of child abuse and/or family violence or when the evidence establishes that it is not in the child’s best interests for it to apply.[5]
[4] S 61DA
[5] S61DA(2) & (4)
In the event that the court orders the parties to have equal shared parental responsibility the court must apply the provisions of s.65DAA which provide for a consideration of the child spending equal time with the parents. If the court finds that is not in the child’s best interests or reasonably practicable then the court must consider the child spending substantial and significant time with the parents.
Parental Responsibility
The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility is not rebutted as there is no evidence of family violence or child abuse.
Each party seeks an order that they have equal shared parental responsibility. I am satisfied that it would be in this child’s best interests for such an order to be made notwithstanding the difficulties the parties have had in communicating with each other about important decisions as to the child’s care. The obvious example is their inability to agree on what school the child should attend and their suspicions as to what the other parent planned to do in that regard.
Despite this I am confident that neither party would want to exclude the other from the child’s life including the making of important parental decisions. Since both parties seek the order for equal shared parental responsibility, and the presumption is not rebutted, I will make the order.
Consideration of Equal Time or Substantial and Significant Time
Having indicated that I will make an order for equal shared parental responsibility I am required to consider the provisions of s.65DAA. The child has spent most of her life in shared care arrangements. Both parties would have agreed to a shared care arrangement if they lived closer to each other. For valid reasons neither are prepared to consider moving closer although the father did contemplate it when the matter was first heard before her Honour Federal Magistrate Housego. Consequently they agree that as they live a significant distance apart it is no longer practicable for an equal shared care arrangement to work.
I am satisfied that the geographical distance alone is sufficient to not consider this issue further.
Having decided that an equal shared care arrangement will not be in the child’s best interests I must consider her spending significant and substantial time with her parents. To determine the most appropriate primary home and the extent of the time with the other parent I will consider the factors set out in s.60CC.
The primary considerations: s.60CC(2)
The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents
This child has a meaningful relationship with both parents. The vast majority of her life has been spent in a shared care arrangement. Because she now needs to attend school the geographical distance has made it impossible for a shared care arrangement to continue. The proposals of each of the parties however will ensure that the meaningful relationship that has been developed over time will be continued.
A meaningful relationship is not one that should be defined by the extent of time a child spends with a parent. Children benefit from and develop their relationship with their parents by experiencing the varying aspects of life with each parent. School days and weekends will bring different experiences in each household. As each party proposes the child live primarily with them but spend significant time of five days in every fourteen with the other, plus half of each school holiday, the child will enjoy the different activities that each household offers on school days and weekends. Both parents will be involved with getting the child ready for school and off to extra curricular activities as well as having opportunities to visit family and friends.
I am satisfied that the proposals of each party would ensure that the child has a meaningful relationship with both parents.
The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence
The counsel for the mother argues in his outline of case document that the mother has been subjected to abusive language and communications with the father. Whilst verbal abuse and in-appropriate written communication can be defined as family violence this is not a case where the allegations are of such a level as to find that the child has been exposed to family violence. This is a case where both parents care deeply about their child and although at times they have had inappropriate exchanges, for the most part they have been sufficiently child focussed so as to ensure the child has been relieved of witnessing their disputes. The child has not been exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.
Because both parents care for their child I am further satisfied that the child is unlikely to be exposed to such harm in the future.
The additional considerations: s.60CC (3)
Any views expressed by the child and any factors that the Court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views
Even though the child is only 5 years of age she appeared to the Family Report writer to know about the court proceedings and was certainly aware of the dispute between the parents as to where she should live and what school she should go to.
[G] was positive in her description of each household.
She was also positive about her school saying she enjoys going to school. She described her teacher positively and named a number of friends. [G] volunteered that her father had told her that there were mean people at the school ‘but there isn’t’.
The child was able to describe the previous arrangement of spending four nights with her mother and three nights with her father but that she now spends five nights with her father to her mother’s nine nights. She told the Family Report writer that the current arrangement was ‘better’ because ‘I get to spend more time with Mum’. She was ‘OK’ about spending less time with her father.
Although the Family Report writer approached this issue with the child in various ways she was consistent in her desire to spend more time with her mother. The reporter concluded however that she was not in any way expressing a dislike of the father’s household just a preference for more time with the mother. The reporter could find no evidence to suggest she was in anyway inappropriately influenced in arriving at those views and that they were developmentally appropriate given her age.
He added a caution though given that age. At just five years old she would not have the maturity to sufficiently understand the implications of her views. I accept the reporter’s evidence and professional opinion in that regard. For this reason I find that her views should not be given significant weight and on their own they would not be determinative of the matter. However I am satisfied that her views need to be included along with all the other considerations in my overall assessment but having less weight.
The nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child’s parents
This child has a good relationship with both parents and I am further satisfied that she has a good relationship with extended members of each family including Mr S’s children. Subject to what I have to say under the next consideration, this would continue under either proposal.
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
This is an important consideration. I am satisfied that both parties are committed to ensuring that this child has a positive and ongoing relationship with the other parent. I am further satisfied that Mr S and the maternal grandmother would likewise promote that relationship between the child and the father.
Ms C the father’s partner on the other hand does not appear to be able to be objective in relation to Ms Bolton. I am concerned that where
Ms C and Ms Bolton would hold a different view in relation to the parenting of this child Ms C would not be able to respect the views of the mother. Whilst Ms C has a [qualifications omitted] I found her to be anything but child focussed. She is clearly aligned with the father and has a lot less objectivity than him in relation to respecting the mother’s views of parenting.
One example is when Ms C was aware that the mother did not want the child to share a bath with her and ignored this request. In evidence she said she did not feel the need to follow this request. Her tone and demeanour in answering questions on this topic was defiant and absolute.
When the child was four years old, Ms C took her to a hairdresser and had foils put in her hair. She did not consult the mother before hand. Ms C has no understanding of the need for parents to be consulted about issues such as this and clearly had no respect for the mother in her dismissal of the mother’s concerns.
It was submitted on behalf of the mother that if the child lived primarily with the father Ms C’s influence would undermine the child’s relationship with the mother. The father argued that although Ms C’s evidence may not be seen in a positive light by the court, it was explainable because of her inexperience with the court process. I can not accept the father’s submission. I am persuaded that although Ms C would not deliberately set out to undermine or in any way compromise the child’s relationship with the mother her immaturity and arrogance would have the potential to do so.
The mother complains that the father has been rude to and critical of her. In her affidavits she gives a number of examples of this. The father does not accept that he is rude although he agrees that he has at times disagreed with the mother as to things she has done or not done for their daughter.
The maternal grandmother also gave evidence of the father being rude on occasion. She was clear to say however that there were occasions when he was nice to her. The maternal grandmother gave evidence about an incident on 12 June this year when she had taken the child to school. The child asked her to stay for reading. The father arrived and the maternal grandmother offered to go so he could read. The child however asked for her grandmother to stay. The maternal grandmother encouraged the child to read with the father but he abruptly decided to leave. Away from the child the maternal grandmother spoke to the father challenging him on his rudeness to her. The father considers this an example of the maternal grandmother not respecting him. The maternal grandmother acted most appropriately on this occasion.
I am satisfied that the father does not appreciate that at times he may come across as rude to others. The ongoing tension between the mother and father and it extension to the maternal grandmother as a result of this protracted litigation would not help them to always relate in a respectful and trusting way. I am not persuaded however that as between the mother, the father and the maternal grandmother there is a level of animosity such that they could not communicate effectively for the child’s benefit in the future. They have been able to do so in the past and with these proceedings behind them they should be able to do so again. I am confident that if they have disagreements in the future they will attempt to keep them from the child. I take some comfort in this finding by the observations of the Family Report writer when he says:[6]
“Despite the ongoing tensions and frustrations (and mounting legal costs), and documented allegations of impropriety, in the main the parents have been able to separate their adult conflict from the needs of [G]. In this regard both parents are to be congratulated. It was very pleasing, for example, that despite what must have been an extremely upsetting period for both parents and in particular for the father, both the father and the mother chose to attend [G]’s first day at school and that from [G]’s perspective at least, this occasion was a very pleasant occasion for her. It is noted that [G]’s school teacher, Ms R noted no problems with either parent’s attendance or involvement with the school.”
[6] at paragraph 24
Despite the mother’s concerns and Ms C’s views I am satisfied that the father will not endanger the child’s relationship with the mother and will encourage a close and continuing relationship with her.
During the mother’s evidence I suggested to her that given the distance between the parties and the consequent level of travel the child would have to do if the mother’s proposal was adopted it may be better for the child to spend even less time with the father if I ordered her to primarily live with the mother. This would reduce the number of days a fortnight the child would have to travel between the father’s home and the mother’s proposed school. The mother was very impressive in her response. She was very reluctant to have the time between the child and the father reduced to a Friday afternoon to before school Monday. She was concerned that the child should not be travelling long distances to and from school but also expressed the importance of balancing that with the need of the child to have a meaningful relationship with the father. This thinking influenced her decision to seek to have the child continue her enrolment at School [3]. She saw this as a reasonable but albeit a less than ideal solution to the competing needs of the child. The mother was sincere and emotional during this evidence and was clear that she wanted this child to have an ongoing relationship with the father and that she would prefer it to be from Wednesday afternoon to Monday morning once a fortnight. I am satisfied that the mother is sincere in her promotion of the relationship between the child and the father and is willing to continue to promote that relationship.
Even after Ms C’s evidence the mother instructed her counsel to maintain her position that the child spend five days a fortnight with the father. It was submitted that despite concerns about Ms C’s ability to promote the relationship between child and mother the need to maintain a relationship with the father was of significant importance to the mother. This position along with her attempts to avoid discussing the parental dispute in front of the child gives me confidence the mother will continue to encourage a positive relationship with the father.
The father complained that the mother was inflexible with providing extra time for the child to spend with him outside of past agreements or orders. The mother also complained of instances of the father being inflexible. I am not persuaded on the evidence, given the extensive time each party has had with the child that either has been inflexible to the extent that warrants censure or criticism. Having said that I would still encourage the parties to move towards a more flexible approach in the future. If however they can not reach agreement they will need to stick to the orders.
The likely effect of any changes to 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 with whom he or she has been living
The father’s proposal would see the child spend less time with her mother than she currently does. Although it is difficult to predict the consequences for the child if this were to happen I am satisfied that at least initially she would find this difficult especially as it is contrary to her wishes.
The capacity of each of the child’s parents and 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
Both parents are able to meet this child’s needs but Ms C’s influence may have some negative impact on [G]’s emotional needs overtime.
If the child was to live primarily with the father the risk of that happening would be greater.
The attitude to the child and to the responsibilities of parenthood demonstrated by each of the child’s parents
Despite their differences both parents have over all acted responsibly as parents. The issue of the child’s enrolment was an aberration with both parents making decisions influenced by the ongoing litigation.
Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family and any family violence order that applies to the child or a member of the child’s family if the order is a final order or the making of the order was contested by a person
There are no family violence orders in place and this is not a relevant consideration in this case.
Whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child
The father is concerned that the parties will not be able to agree about a suitable high school in the future. That may be the case. The need to make that decision however is a long way off. The circumstances of the parents and child may change before then. Currently before any party can bring further proceedings, unless they meet the exceptions provided for in the Act they will have to attend upon a family dispute resolution practitioner and attempt to resolve their dispute. I hold out hope that the parties would be able over time to reach agreement on such important parenting issues such as this and therefore avoid further litigation. In any event neither proposal is more likely to avoid future disputes than the other.
I indicated during the course of the hearing that I would restrain the parties from changing the child’s school or enrolling the child in a high school without the written consent of the other.
Any other relevant fact or circumstance
At the time of the hearing the mother was expecting another child. He was due to be born in September. The father told the court he saw it as important for [G] to experience the event of the child’s birth and to have a relationship with the baby. He was prepared to agree to the mother’s request for [G] to be with the mother’s household around the time of the birth.
I have taken into account that [G] would have an ongoing relationship with the new born child and that that would be better fostered if she lived primarily in the mother’s household.
The father does not have any other children however Ms C and he plan to do so in the future.
The extent to which each of the parents has fulfilled or failed to fulfil, his or her responsibilities as a parent S60CC(4)
With the exception of the actions of both parents surrounding the enrolment of the child at school I am satisfied that overall they have fulfilled their responsibilities as a parent. I have already found the school issue to be an aberration and therefore do not find that either party has fulfilled or failed to fulfil their responsibilities to a greater extent than the other.
Conclusion as to where the child should live
When I weigh all of the considerations discussed I am of the view that the child should live primarily with the mother. I am satisfied that although [G] is blessed with two good parents the influence of Ms C has the potential to compromise the child’s relationship with the mother over time and that this risk would be heightened if the child lived primarily in the father’s household.
The Child’s School
Having decided the child should live primarily with the mother I will turn to the issue of her schooling.
The mother originally wanted the child to attend School [4] which is much closer to her home. The father has wanted School [2] or School [1]. The child’s cousins and some friends attend the latter.
Federal Magistrate Housego ordered the child attend School [3]. Her Honour’s order must be seen in the context of her understanding that the father would be moving to the Warner’s Bay area. The mother retained the child in January because of her fear the father was going to send the child to School [2] despite her Honour’s orders. Although he had lodged an appeal the orders remained operative as no stay had been granted. Urgent interim proceedings led to orders for the child to be enrolled at School [3]. The mother now seeks to have the child remain there even though it is 20 minutes from her home.
The father made the valid point that School [3] is not in the locale of either parent although it is closer to the mother’s home than his.
At paragraph 19 of the Family Report, the writer set out the differing times for travel under the competing proposals. The father did not accept these times to be accurate especially the buffer given to them by the reporter. During the hearing he sought to tender a video he took of the various options but I did not receive it. I allowed however a tender of an Aide Memoir[7] as to the differing travel times for each proposal.
[7] F3
I do not propose to set out in this judgment the detailed distances and times. Rather I note that if the child is to live with the mother for nine days in each fortnight she will have less travel time if she remains at School [3] than if she had to travel to School [2] or School [1].
School [3] is not so far from the father’s home as to make it impossible for him to be involved with the school although his proposed schools would have been easier for him. A school closer to the mother would have made things more difficult for the father.
There is no evidence that any of the three schools would be better for the child academically, culturally or socially.
Although stability is an issue for consideration when deciding a child’s school I have not given any weight to the fact that the child has been attending School [3] this year. That enrolment occurred as a result of the interim order made at the beginning of the year and given the young age of the child I am satisfied she would be able to handle a change to another school.
Although an ideal school would have been one closer to her primary home so she could more easily spend out of school time with friends from school it is more important that the father be able to be involved with her schooling. Distance will still make this difficult but School [3] remains a better option than a school closer to the mother.
The father raised the point that School [3] did not have out of
school hours care on site unlike the other options. Whilst that is so, arrangements are made to bus the children to another site if needed. This would not be disqualifying factor in my mind.
The mother will not be in paid employment for the next couple of years and will continue to have the assistance of her mother to ensure that the child is delivered to and collected form her school. Likewise the father would be able with assistance from time to time from Ms C and others be able to do the same when the child is living with him.
When I consider all of these factors I am satisfied that the travel times under the father’s options mitigate against them. I am satisfied that it is in the child’s best interests for her to attend School [3].
Discussion
During the hearing the issue of the colouring the child’s hair arose. Because Ms C did not see it as important to respect the mother’s views on this issue I will restrain the parties from changing the colouring of the child’s hair before she is 13 years of age without the written consent of both parties and extend that restraint to ensure that no other person does so.
The father seeks an order that the child be made available for his wedding. The mother does not oppose that although the minute of order the father seeks would see the child spend from 10am the day before the wedding to 10am the day after. The mother’s proposal was from 10am on the day of the wedding. I do not have any evidence as to the time of the wedding nor where it is to take place. I propose to order that the orders be suspended from after school the day before the wedding or if it is a non school day from 4pm the day before. This would give some time for the child to enjoy the family occasion both before and after the event.
For the reasons I make the orders set out at the beginning of this Judgment.
I certify that the preceding eighty-seven (87) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Lapthorn FM
Associate: Helen Drysdale
Date: 28 November 2008
0
0
1