BONES and RIDDLE

[2021] FCWA 60

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

ACT: FAMILY COURT ACT 1997

LOCATION: GERALDTON

CITATION: BONES and RIDDLE [2021] FCWA 60

CORAM: TYSON J

HEARD: 8, 9, 10 & 26 MARCH 2021

DELIVERED : 16 APRIL 2021

FILE NO/S: PTW 5520 of 2017

BETWEEN: MS BONES

Applicant

AND

MR RIDDLE

Respondent

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – Child-related proceedings – One child aged 13 years – Where the child has complex mental health issues – Where the child has been exposed to family violence, neglect and abuse in the care of the mother – Where the Department of Communities and Territory Families have been involved – Where the child is at risk remaining in the mother’s care – Best interests – Case turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Family Court Act 1997 (WA) s 5, s 9A, s 66C, 70A, s 89AA(5)

Category: Not Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Self-Represented Litigant
Respondent	:	Self-Represented Litigant
Independent Children's Lawyer	:	Ms Dass

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Self-Represented Litigant
Respondent	:	Self-Represented Litigant
Independent Children's Lawyer	:	Klimek Dass Family Law

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

AMS v AIF (1999) FLC 92-852

Baghti & Baghti and Ors [2015] FamCAFC 71

Banks & Banks (2015) FLC 93-637

Bant & Clayton (2019) FLC 93-924

Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte (2016) 259 CLR 662

M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69

Re F:Litigants in Person Guidelines (2001) FLC 93-072

Stott & Holgar [2017] FamCAFC 152

TYSON J:

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT – PARTIES’ NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Bones & Riddle has been approved by the Family Court of Western Australia pursuant to s 243(8)(g) of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA).

1These proceedings concern the child, [Child A] who is 13 years of age. Child A's mother, [Ms Bones] and father, [Mr Riddle], were in a short relationship, which ended prior to Child A's birth.

2Child A is a vulnerable child, who has experienced significant instability and difficulties in his life. He has been diagnosed with [Medical Condition A], [Medical Condition B], [Medical Condition C], [Medical Condition D] and [Medical Condition E]. There are questions as to whether Child A may have [Medical Condition F], and whether he was exposed to cannabis and other drugs during the mother's pregnancy, which are yet to be assessed.

3Child A has difficulties regulating his behaviour: he has poor emotional regulation and rapidly escalates in terms of aggressive and violent behaviour. At times, Child A's behaviour is unpredictable, volatile and impulsive. He has threatened and carried out self-harm, including holding scissors and a knife against his neck and banging his head against walls and desks. He is guarded, slow to trust and struggles in many aspects of his life.

4Child A initially lived with his mother in Geraldton. Following repeated concerns for Child A's well-being and intervention by the Department of Communities, in 2017, Child A moved to live with his father in Geraldton. They subsequently relocated to [State A].

5In late 2019, State A became involved with the family, due to an incident between Child A and his half-sister [Child B]. In March 2020, the parents agreed for Child A to return to his mother's care, in Geraldton, on the condition the mother ensured Child A continued to take medication as prescribed, and receive ongoing counselling and educational support. It is common ground that the mother has not complied with those conditions.

6The mother seeks Child A continue to live with her, while the father and the Independent Children's Lawyer (“the ICL”) seek Child A return to live with the father. I must make parenting orders which I consider to be in the best interests of Child A. In deciding what is in Child A's best interests and in the circumstances of this case, there are two key issues which require determination:

•Is Child A at risk of harm in either parent's care?

•What is the capacity of each parent to provide for Child A's complex needs?

WHAT IS AGREED?

7At the commencement of the trial, the parties agreed to a number of orders proposed by the ICL, contained in her Minute filed 25 February 2021. They agreed to various orders including: to exchange information; that Child A should attend on a mental health professional and take medication as prescribed; to access funding for Child A's educational needs and access services to meet Child A's health and educational requirements. The parties agreed to various injunctions[1] and to share the costs associated with Child A travelling between Geraldton and State A. I was satisfied the consent orders were in the best interests of Child A and supported by the available evidence. They are set out in full at the conclusion of these Reasons.

[1] The parents both agreed to orders in terms of paragraph 19(a) to (d) of the Minute prepared by the ICL. The mother raised concerns about paragraph 19(e), being the injunction restraining the parents from discussing court proceedings with Child A, given his age. She explained that Child A was aware that she was attending Court and that he asked questions.

8On 26 March 2021, the parties agreed to interim orders for Child A to travel to State A from 10 to 30 April 2021, to spend time with the father.

WHAT ARE THE PROPOSALS OF THE PARTIES?

9The ICL and the father seek that Child A live with the father, and he have sole parental responsibility. They propose Child A spend time with the mother for 10 days in each of the school holidays.

10The mother seeks Child A live with her and spend time the father for 10 days after terms one and three, and for three weeks over the summer school holidays. She seeks the father supervise Child A's time with his siblings in the father's home.

WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE RELIED UPON?

11The father relied on his affidavit filed 18 February 2021 and the affidavit of his partner [Ms Z] filed 18 February 2021. The mother relied on her affidavit filed 24 February 2021. The ICL relied on the affidavit of [Dr X] filed 3 March 2021. The ICL helpfully prepared and circulated a tender bundle prior to trial, which became exhibit 1. A further supplementary tender bundle was prepared by the ICL on the first day of trial, which became exhibit 2. A number of other documents were tendered into evidence. Dr X was not required for cross-examination. I accept her unchallenged evidence.

CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL

12Both parents were self-represented litigants. The father attended the trial by way of video link from State A. The mother attended the trial in person. On the first day of trial, a large number of subpoenaed documents were produced. The parties and the ICL were given time to inspect the material. The mother and the ICL inspected the documents in Court. Arrangements were made for the father to inspect the documents at the Registry of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, in State A. I wish to extend my gratitude to the staff of the Court, for assisting in that process.

13I explained the trial procedure to each of the parents and provided them with the self-represented litigant booklet. I am aware of the guidelines regarding the manner in which a judicial officer should deal with unrepresented litigants.[2] I applied those guidelines during the course of the proceedings. I am satisfied that the trial was fair and that both parents were able to fully participate.

WHAT IS MY ASSESSMENT OF THE PARTIES AND WITNESSES?

[2] And the associated discussion contained in Re F: Litigants in Person Guidelines (2001) FLC 93-072, [209] - [253] (inclusive).

14The mother attempted to give her evidence in an honest manner, albeit I consider that she gave the truth as she saw it. The mother made a number of concessions against self-interest: she admitted to continuing to use methamphetamines and cannabis; she acknowledged she had not complied with orders to undergo hair strand analysis; she conceded she had not complied with orders to administer Child A's medication and to access mental health counselling and educational assistance for Child A.

15The mother was not a reliable historian and struggled to recall dates and events. At times she was visibly defensive and combative. She gave her evidence with a view to the outcome she sought. The mother's evidence highlighted her lack of insight into the needs of Child A, to which I will return to later in these Reasons. For example, the mother said that any harm Child A had suffered in her care was not intentional and was "no more than normal".

16The father was a man of few words. He gave his evidence in an honest and direct manner. He did not offer explanations or expand on his answers, unless pressed. I consider he gave his evidence in a truthful manner. He too struggled at times to recall dates and details. It is clear that he relies and depends on Ms Z. He was frank in explaining the difficulties he and Ms Z experienced, when they agreed to Child A returning to the mother.

17I found Ms Z to be an open, balanced and honest witness. She did not criticize the mother, despite multiple opportunities to do so. She was an accurate and reliable historian. Ms Z gave her evidence in a careful and considered manner, and was readily able to identify the challenges she and the father would face if Child A were to return to their care. From hearing Ms Z's evidence, it was evident that she has been significantly involved in Child A's care. She presented as a practical, warm, child-focused parent, who was acutely aware of Child A's plethora of needs, and the work required to meet them. Ms Z was an impressive witness. I have no hesitation accepting her evidence.

18The Family Consultant attended the trial and was cross-examined by the ICL and the mother. She gave her evidence in a very professional and helpful manner, which was not seriously challenged in cross-examination.

WHAT ARE THE BACKGROUND FACTS?

19The father was born [in] 1976. He is 45 years of age and is employed as a [painter]. The father lives in rental accommodation, in State A. The home has five bedrooms and two bathrooms. The father has been in a relationship with Ms Z since 2015.

20The father was previously married to [Ms Y]. The father and Ms Y have three children: Child C born [in] 2003 (currently 17 years of age); Child D born [in] 2009 (currently 12 years of age); and Child B born [in] 2011 (currently nine years of age).

21Child C lives in Geraldton. Child B and Child D live with the father and Ms Z, and her son [Child E] born [in] 2008 (currently 12 years of age). Child E is in the appropriate grade for his age and has no special needs. He attends [School A].

22Child D has [Medical Condition G], a mild intellectual disability and Medical Condition C. Child D attends a school which provides him with special support. He is under the care of a psychiatrist and counsellor. Child D has a carer who takes him on outings once a fortnight. He regularly attends on a speech therapist and occupational therapist, and is in receipt of National Disability Insurance Scheme ("NDIS") funding.

23Child B has Medical Condition D, Medical Condition B and [Medical Condition H]. Child B is currently being assessed for Medical Condition G, and is in year 4. She is attending counselling with [Support Service A] and [Sexual Assault Support Service A].

24Although it was not entirely clear on the evidence, it appears Child B and Child D (and, at the time, Child C) came into the father's full-time care at some stage between August 2017 and March 2019, coinciding with Ms Y being charged for possession of [an illicit drug].[3] Prior to that, the father shared care of those children with Ms Y.[4]

[3] Seemingly worth over $1 million, for which she has since been convicted.

[4] Refer to the father’s Case Information Affidavit filed 15 August 2017, Items 10 and 11; and the father’s Case Information Affidavit filed 19 March 2019, Items 10 and 11.

25Ms Z and the father each have an adult daughter, who are both independent.

26The mother was born [in] 1976. The mother lives with her partner, [Mr V], on a farm in [Regional Town A], [outside of] Geraldton. Child A lives with the mother and catches the bus to and from school. The mother has recently commenced work, on a casual basis. She is otherwise in receipt of government benefits and child support from the father.

27The mother was previously in a relationship with [Mr W]. They have two children [Child F] born [in] 2004 (currently 16 years of age) and [Child G] born [in] 2002 (currently 18 years of age). Since 2013 Child G and Child F have lived with their father.

28The mother and father were in a brief relationship in 2007. They separated when the mother was around six months pregnant. Following Child A's birth [in] 2007, he lived with the mother and had limited contact with the father, who was then working on a fly‑in / fly‑out basis. When Child A was approximately three months old, the father relocated to State A.

29In April 2009, the father returned to Geraldton and by July 2009, resumed spending time with Child A, including on an overnight basis.

30Since 2010, the Department have had extensive involvement with the family. Multiple concerns were raised about the mother's care of Child A, including Child A presenting with unexplained or poorly explained injuries, family violence and neglect.[5] Child A was the subject of four child safety investigations.

[5] Exhibit 2, supplementary tender bundle, pages 35 to 37.

31In 2010, Child A's day care reported to the Department on three separate occasions, Child A (who was then two years of age) had injuries including multiple bruises and bite marks, which were suspected to be deliberately inflicted.[6]

[6] Exhibit 5, page 2, Case Closure Approved Outcome Report Interaction, dated 27 May 2010.

32In 2011, the Department investigated allegations of neglect, due to the mother's excessive use of alcohol, and Child A's exposure to family violence.[7] It was alleged the mother was prioritising finances for the purchase of alcohol, her home was unhygienic and contained significant rubbish. The mother denied the allegations and refused to engage in the services which were offered. The Department substantiated Child A had been harmed as a result of neglect. Intensive family support was provided.

[7] Exhibit 6, Child Centred Family Approved Outcome Report, intake date 2011.

33In 2012, the maternal grandmother died in [tragic circumstances]. On the mother's case, she struggled with grief and anxiety following the traumatic circumstances in which her mother died, and commenced using illicit substances and alcohol to excess.

34In the second half of 2012, further concerns were raised with the Department that the mother had exposed Child A and his siblings to family violence and neglect, in the context of the mother continuing to abuse alcohol and illicit drugs. Additionally, the Department was concerned that the mother was taking Child G’s Medical Condition D medication, together with sedatives to get high. Under cross‑examination, the mother admitted to taking Child G’s medication.[8] Visits by a caseworker from the Department did not raise concerns for Child A who presented as "clean and tidy".[9] In 2013, Child A began spending increased time with the father.

[8] Exhibit 7, page 1, Safety and Wellbeing Assessment Approved Outcome Report, interaction date 31 July 2012.

[9] Exhibit 7, pages 3 and 4, Safety and Wellbeing Assessment Approved Outcome Report.

35In February 2013, further notifications were made to the Department, asserting the mother was using drugs and neglecting Child A. In May 2013, a [safety meeting], recorded the following concerns (among others): Child A using sexualised language; the mother exposing the children to family violence in the context of her drug use; the children rarely attending school; the children not getting enough food; and the children having head lice.[10]

[10] Exhibit 8, [safety meeting]Form.

36On 15 May 2013, Child A was interviewed and made no disclosures. Nevertheless, the Department put in place a safety plan, including communicating to both parents that Child A should not be left unsupervised around other children. The Department recorded that despite the mother's agreement to undertake drug testing, she had chosen not to do so, because she did not want a written record of her drug use.[11]

[11] Exhibit 8, Case Notes dated 15 May 2013.

37In June 2013, the Department investigated concerns that Child A and his siblings had been subject to sexual and emotional abuse.[12] Concerns were raised about the state of the mother's home, her drug use, the mother verbally chastising the children and Child A displaying sexualised behaviours. The mother was then pregnant and concerns were raised for her unborn child.[13] The mother confirmed she was continuing to use cannabis, and methamphetamine. She told the Department she had three other children who had no problems, suggesting the mother had used during her previous pregnancies. The Department advised the father to seek family court orders in relation to Child A.

[12] Exhibit 2, page 36, Department of Communities Memorandum dated 15 December 2020. Also, Exhibit 3.

[13] Exhibit 2, page 36, Department of Communities Memorandum dated 15 December 2020.

38During the Department's investigation, they recorded the mother displayed limited insight around the impact of her behaviours on Child A's well-being, and her reluctance to allow Child A to live with the father, whom the Department found was acting protectively.[14] The Department substantiated that Child A had been harmed by the mother as a result of emotional abuse and neglect. Intensive family support was again provided. The father was recommended to pursue for Child A to live with him.

[14] Exhibit 2, page 36, Department of Communities Memorandum dated 15 December 2020.

39In 2013, Child F and Child G moved to live with their father, Mr W.

40In June 2014, Child A went into the care of the father, after the Department again raised concerns for his welfare. In December 2014, the father agreed to return Child A to live with the mother, because he was satisfied that the mother had stopped using drugs. The mother relocated with Child A to [Regional Town B] and later [Regional Town C], without notice to the father. The father then had limited contact with Child A. He says the mother did not facilitate Child A attending school on a regular basis.

41In April 2015, Child A returned to Geraldton and at times lived with Mr W (Child G and Child F’s father). By October 2015, Child A was spending extended periods of time with the father. The father was involved in meetings with the school, in relation to concerns Child A was falling behind, truanting and his behavioural difficulties. It was reported that the mother frequently failed to collect Child A from school and to provide him with food.

42In 2017, Child A was then in year four at [School B] and began to see the school psychologist, [Ms U]. The school reported Child A was regularly expressing fear, sadness, isolation and anger, rapidly escalating aggressive behaviours including throwing chairs, desks and bins, leaving classrooms, refusing to participate in various activities, difficulty trusting new teachers and staff, blaming himself and frequently running away.[15] Child A was placed on an individual behaviour management plan.

[15] Exhibit 1, page 45, notes from the Department of Education, letter from School B.

43Child A was referred to [Support Service B] and then saw [Dr T], a visiting child psychiatrist and [Ms S], a senior mental health professional.

44In 2017, the Department commenced a further investigation, in relation to Child A suffering emotional abuse through exposure to family and domestic violence in his mother's care.[16] Child A reported he was living in an abandoned home, his mother was continuing to use drugs and he had seen his mother physically abused by her partner, including being hit, smacked and yelled at. The mother reportedly went missing for six days in the school holidays, and was struggling to find accommodation. The school recorded Child A was displaying "frequent, dangerous and impulsive behaviour in all aspects …of his schooling".[17] Child A had trashed a classroom, been abusive to staff and other students, he had run away from school and been suspended for 10 days.

[16] Exhibit 9, Interaction Report, intake date 28 April 2017.

[17] Exhibit 9, page 4 of 6, Interaction Report, intake date 28 April 2017.

45The mother was reported to be difficult and abusive. The school questioned whether Child A may have undiagnosed Medical Condition A. The father had then obtained a referral to Support Service B. The school confirmed the father and Ms Z were providing Child A with food and had bought him new glasses.

46In May 2017, the school psychologist reported Child A appeared to have experienced significant trauma relating to neglect, abandonment and witnessed repeated acts of domestic violence against his mother. Child A was described as withdrawn and reserved, with evidence of dissociative symptoms. Child A expressed thoughts of self-harm, and of feeling lonely in his mother's care, where he was fearful and afraid. The psychologist considered Child A had anxiety and depression, together with social and thought problems.[18]

[18] Exhibit 1, page 143, School Psychologist’s Report and letter from Support Service B to School Psychologist.

47On 20 June 2017, the father commenced proceedings seeking a recovery order. The father deposed that the mother was homeless and in a violent relationship with Mr V, that Child A had witnessed family violence and drug use by the mother and her partner. On 27 June 2017, orders were made for the mother to deliver Child A into the father's care.

48In June 2017, Dr T confirmed Child A likely met the criteria for a diagnosis of Medical Condition A, with comorbid depressive symptoms, including low mood and suicidal ideation.[19] Child A continued to attend School B. He engaged with Support Service B, had an educational assistant and regularly attended on the school psychologist.

[19] Exhibit 1, pages 141 and 142, divider 5, letter from Support Service B dated 27 June 2017.

49On 12 February 2018, orders were made requiring the mother to file her responding documents and undergo a supervised broad screen drug urine analysis test.

50On 3 April 2018, as a consequence of the mother's failure to file her responding documents pursuant to the orders made on the preceding date, final orders were made for the father to have sole parental responsibility, for Child A to live with his father and spend time with the mother as agreed.

Sexualised behaviours

51There have been historical reports of Child A displaying sexualised behaviour, over a number of years.

52In 2013, Child A (who was then six years old) was using sexualised words, like "dicking" and "suck my doodle". The Department was notified that Child A had inappropriately touched a three year old boy [Child H], who was the son of the mother's friend [Ms R]. Child H disclosed to his grandmother that Child A had allegedly pulled his pants down and "sucked [his] doodle".[20]

[20] Exhibit 3, Safety and Wellbeing Assessment Approved Outcome Report, intake date 3 May 2013 (redacted version); and Exhibit 8, Initial Inquiry Approved Outcome Report, intake date 11 March 2013.

53The Department interviewed Child A and considered his language had possibly been picked up from older siblings, or at school. The Department discussed with both parents establishing a safety plan, including the use of protective behaviours language, ensuring Child A was not left unsupervised around other children, extending Child A's support networks and ensuring Child A slept in his own room and bathed alone. Child A did not undertake any protective behaviours program or receive any counselling, despite the Department's recommendations.

54While the mother suggested at the time of the incident Child A was in the father's care, I reject her evidence. Instead, I prefer the evidence of the father, who was adamant that Child A was not in his care at the time. In any case, even if Child A was in the father's physical care at the time of the incident, that does not establish that Child A's sexualised behaviour is the father's "fault", as the mother appeared to contend.

55The mother's friend spoke to Child A and advised the parents what had happened. The Department queried whether Child A had been exposed to pornography or sexual behaviour in the mother's care, while she was drug affected. The mother told the Department that Child A's behaviour was normal.[21] When the mother was asked under cross‑examination why she did not obtain counselling for Child A, she explained she did not think too much of it and it probably slipped her mind.

[21] Exhibit 16, page 9 of 546, Extracts from the State A’s Department file of the intake commencing 30 December 2019, pages 4 to 12 inclusive.

56In 2013, it was reported that Child A had inappropriately touched his cousin. It is unclear what occurred, who was advised and what, if any action, was taken at the time.

57In 2017, the mother says that Child A was caught playing adult games with her niece. She says her sister spoke with Child A and that was the end of the matter. Again, there was no detail provided by the mother as to what occurred, or what action was taken.

58There do not appear to have been any further reported incidents until December 2019, to which I will refer in more detail shortly.

Arrangements for Child A in the care of the father

59After the father moved to State A, Child A attended [School C]. He was placed on an individual education plan. The school obtained funding, which allowed Child A to attend an enrichment hub.

60Child A continued to display challenging behaviours at school, including meltdowns, throwing items, hitting his head on his desk and walls. Child A's behaviour was described as explosive. On one occasion, Child A held [a sharp object] to his throat. Child A was then on the wait-list for counselling through Support Service A. Child A's GP referred him to [Support Service C], for assessment and possible therapy. The school obtained a full-time educational assistant for Child A. The school counsellor saw Child A, and referred him to another service, both of whom considered Child A's needs were too complex for them to manage.

61On 2 April 2019, Child A attended on Dr X, a paediatrician, who confirmed his diagnosis of Medical Condition B, Medical Condition A and Medical Condition D. She identified that Child A experienced disrupted attachment and questioned whether Child A was exposed to alcohol and cannabis use during the mother's pregnancy.[22]

[22] Exhibit 2, page 6, supplementary tender bundle, affidavit of Dr X filed 3 March 2021.

62Dr X noted Child A was displaying aggressive and threatening behaviours towards other students and teachers, he had threatened self‑harm, targeted other students, including pretending to point a gun at their head or run his finger across his throat, as if he had a knife. She described Child A as struggling to read social cues, sensitive to perceived criticism and very guarded. Child A was then in year six and significantly behind his peers in terms of reading, writing and maths, about which he was self-conscious.

63Dr X considered that in the previous 18 months, Child A had been in a safe, stable and loving home environment with his father and stepmother. She predicted Child A's recovery from long-standing trauma would be difficult, and take time. She commenced Child A on a number of medications [for Medical Condition D]. She recommended Child A obtain a mental health care plan to access psychological support, continue to engage in the individual education plan, and attend further paediatric assessments to monitor his progress. She recommended Child A avoid highly processed foods, soft drinks and confectionery and his screen time be limited.

64[In] April 2019, Dr X reviewed Child A, who reported he was experiencing better concentration, less disrupted sleep and less aggression, both at home and school. He complained of dizziness. Dr X modified Child A's medication and suggested a further review, which took place in September 2019. Child A then reported increased difficulties with anxiety and aggression; he had been self‑harming, banging his head in frustration and hurting other children. There were questions whether Child A's disappointment at his mother cancelling a proposed visit, had exacerbated Child A's feelings of worthlessness. [Two of] Child A's prescriptions were ceased and replaced with [two new medications for Medical Condition D]. Dr X maintained her recommendation of ongoing medication and intensive psychological therapy.

65Ms Z gave evidence that Dr X subsequently changed Child A's medication to [a] long acting [medication]. Ms Z and the father gave evidence that, when Child A was taking medication, he was better able to regulate his emotions and was less prone to outbursts. Child A reported that he was better able to concentrate when medicated.[23]

[23] Exhibit 2, page 47, Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum dated 28 October 2020.

66The parents agreed to Child A spending time with his mother in State A at a supervision service, subject to the mother providing clear urine analysis samples. Arrangements were made for visits to occur, but they did not proceed. The mother says her car broke down.

67The father suspended Child A's telephone calls with the mother, when they became distressing for Child A. The mother was frequently upset, crying, shouting, yelling, and discussing the proceedings with Child A.

Case Assessment Conference

68On 20 February 2019, the parties attended a Case Assessment Conference with [a Family Consultant].

69The mother and Mr V were then facing [criminal] charges. The Consultant recorded Mr V held an extensive criminal history including 30 drug-related charges, relating to driving with prescribed illicit substances, possession of [multiple illicit substances], in addition to an armed robbery charge in 2001. The mother had a number of historical driving offences, including several charges of driving without authority, and in 2018 for driving with a prescribed illicit substance. The father had historical drink-driving offences, the last of which was dated 2005.

70The mother confirmed she was not opposed to Child A living with the father and advised she and Mr V were planning to relocate to [State B].

71The father reported was agreeable to Child A spending time with the mother, if she provided a clean hair follicle test.

72The father detailed the steps he had taken to assist Child A. The mother considered Child A's behaviours were caused by Child A being "away from me, and no proper accommodation". The mother acknowledged she had unresolved issues relating to her mental health following the death of her mother. She was then prescribed [an antidepressant], and was attending drug counselling at [Hospital A]. She admitted to using cannabis on a regular basis, and a history of intravenous methamphetamine use. The mother confirmed Mr V also used methamphetamine intravenously. She reported they both had stopped using drugs "a few weeks ago".

73The police information identified numerous incidents of family violence between the mother and Mr V. The mother asserted she had never been in fear for her life from Mr V, Mr V had never intentionally hurt her and it was her fault that she and Mr V argued.

74The Consultant did not support any change in Child A's arrangements. He wrote:

The mother has an extensive history of drug use and had a prolonged history of Department of Communities involvement since 2010. The mother would like the court to believe the difficulties in her life only manifested due to the death of her mother in 2012. Although this has been a significant traumatic event in the mother's life, it is evident from the Department involvement two years prior, that there was concerning risks with her parenting of [Child A], resulting in neglect being substantiated in 2011, and the Department conducted 10 safety and well-being assessments since 2010. The mother has two other teenage boys who do live with their father, [Mr W]. The mother does not have ongoing relationship with the children, [Child F] and [Child G].

The mother's drug use is a significant concern and I am not convinced she has caused finality in her methamphetamine use. It is highly inconceivable she has the mental determination to immediately cease methamphetamine use in January 2019 and to never use again. The dynamics of her life are destined to result in a spiral of drug use, chaotic, dysfunctional violent relationship, with a projection of further traumatic events in her life. The inclusion of a young, traumatised child in her life at this juncture would be unsafe fro (sic) [Child A]. The mother minimized the violence in her relationship with [Mr V] and blamed herself for his violence against her. The mother may have limited insight into the toxicity of her relationship, her lifestyle, and the risk it poses, and posed, to a young, vulnerable child. It would appear [Child A] has had an immensely challenging childhood that has led to a diagnosis of [Medical Condition A], and the associated externalised and internalised behaviours associated with experiencing trauma.

…

[Child A] has experienced significant traumatic events in his life and the concerns documented by [School B] demonstrate a child expressing the symptoms of adversity and trauma from being in the mother's care. He requires a significant period of stability, structure, nurturing and therapy, to ensure he can begin the process of healing from his adverse experiences, to allow for him to begin to reach his educational goals, and to achieve his childhood developmental milestones. Exposure to a parent was continually using drugs, and in a relationship that allegedly caused the trauma to the child, would not be appropriate.

It would be the responsibility of the mother to now demonstrate to the court what measurable actions and goals she has said to begin to show [that] her lifestyle is no longer a risk to the child.

December 2019

75[In late] December 2019, Child A and Child B were at home with Ms Z. Child B told Ms Z that Child A had penetrated her vagina and bottom with his fingers while playing in the swimming pool. Child B was then eight years old and Child A was 12 years old. Child B was upset and crying. Child B reported the same thing happened around a month prior, but she was too afraid to say anything, because Child A told her if she did, she was a bad person. Ms Z did not see the incident.[24]

[24] Exhibit 16, pages 4 – 12 (inclusive), Extracts from the State A’s Department file of the intake commencing 30 December 2019.

76Ms Z asked Child A what had happened. Child A became upset, grabbed a [sharp object] which he held to his throat and said, "I don't know why I'm alive, I don't know why I'm alive, and everybody hates me".[25] Ms Z told Child A she would have to call the police if he did not drop the [object], which he then did, started crying and lay on the floor. Child A said he knew what he had done was a bad thing, but he did not know why he had done it.

[25] Exhibit 19, page 310 of 546, Extract from State A’s Department file, Investigation and Safety Assessment Report.

77Ms Z rang the father, whose employer arranged for him to return to State A the following day. Ms Z rang [State A’s Department] and reported what had happened. Child A was sent to his aunt's home for the night.

78Child A told his father one of his mother's boyfriends had done to him, what he had done to Child B, which he later retracted. Child A made similar statements to Ms Z.[26] Ms Z considers Child A likely withdrew his remarks because he did not want to get his mother into trouble. Ms Z rang the mother [in late] December 2020 and reported what had happened between Child A and Child B.

[26] Exhibit 18, page 99 of 546, Extracts from the State A’s Department file.

79The father returned to State A and commenced stress leave. His employer arranged for the father, Child A and Child B to each attend counselling with [Mr Q], a private psychologist. The father attended on his GP and psychiatrist. Ms Z also accessed counselling.

80The family met with case workers from State A’s Department, who arranged for each of the children to complete a protective behaviours course. A safety plan was established, which required the children to be supervised 24 hours a day and for Child A to sleep downstairs and Child B to sleep upstairs. Child B was referred to Sexual Assault Support Service A for counselling. Enquiries were made about counselling for Child A. Child A's phone was removed to prevent him from accessing pornography. [Sharp objects] were removed from the father's home, to prevent the risk of Child A self‑harming.[27]

[27] Exhibit 19, page 318 of 546, Extract from State A’s Department file, Investigation and Safety Assessment Report.

81Child B attended on a doctor, who raised no further concerns for Child B and considered the family were acting protectively. The doctor recorded that Child A was very remorseful for his action and considered he too would require support.

82In January 2020, the mother filed an application seeking for Child A to live with her in Geraldton. She also filed a Notice of Risk which deposed that Child A had "sexually interfered" with Child B, Child A had previously been caught playing adult games with the mother's niece and in 2017, she found Child A "sexually experimenting" with her friend's son.

83[In] January 2020, Ms Z asked Child A to help her clean the toilet after he had an accident. Child A became angry, dysregulated and upset. He threw the bottle of disinfectant which smashed and cut Ms Z's toe. Child A started to scream and threatened to run away. Ms Z grabbed Child A around his waist and arm, in an effort to stop him hurting himself. Child A continued to scream and struggle. Ms Z let Child A go and he then ran away. Ms Z rang the father.

84The father and Ms Z went looking for Child A and were called by the police, who advised they had taken Child A into care, pursuant to the [relevant State A Act]. A report was made to the police, who then spoke with Ms Z and Child A the following day, as well as Child D. When Child A was interviewed, he made no disclosures and presented as withdrawn. He told the police he felt safe and wanted to return to Ms Z and the father's care. When Child A was asked if there was anything the police could do to help his family, he asked if they could get his Dad a job. The police described Ms Z as upset and shocked at the suggestion she had hurt Child A. Ms Z explained that Child A's behaviour was difficult to manage, and they were struggling to access support for Child A.[28] No charges were laid.

[28] Exhibit 18, page 97 of 546, Extracts from the State A’s Department file.

85At the time, Child A was too young to access services at [Support Service D]. He was still waiting to commence counselling with Support Service B. The Sexual Assault Support Service A were not prepared to provide counselling to Child A, since they were assisting Child B, and because Child A was labelled the "perpetrator" of the sexual abuse. State A’s Department referred the family for intensive youth support services.[29]

[29] Exhibit 19, pages 305 to 308 of 546, Extract from State A’s Department file, State A’s Department Referral Form - Intensive Youth Support Service.

86[In late] January 2020, Child A attended the police station. He refused to go home and was angry that he could not attend school. Ms Z attempted to convince Child A to return home. The father was unable to be contacted.[30]

[30] Exhibit 18, page 103 of 546, Extracts from the State A’s Department file.

87On 29 January 2020, a multi-agency meeting was arranged, to formulate a safety plan for Child A's attendance at School A, where he was due to have commenced high school. Present at the meeting were Ms Z; [Mr P] (psychologist); [Mr O] (assistant principal inclusive education); [Ms N] (senior child protection practitioner from State A’s Department); and teachers from School C, where Child A had previously attended, together with representatives from [Charity A], State A’s Department, [State A] Schools and [State A] Police.[31]

[31] Exhibit 18, page 105 of 546, Extracts from the State A’s Department file.

88Charity A agreed to provide Child A with individual support at school, for two hours a day for 10 weeks, and to assist the family to apply for NDIS funding. Support Service A agreed to meet with Child A, begin a risk assessment and commence weekly counselling. The school were planning a case management meeting, aimed to ensure Child A's safety and the safety of the other students. [Support Service E] were providing counselling for Ms Z and the family.

89[In] February 2020, Ms Z found Child A masturbating the family's dog. She redirected Child A and told the father. Ms Z called Child A's psychologist, who recommended Child A be removed from the home, because he was a risk to himself and the other children. Ms Z said she was frightened by those recommendations, she was struggling to supervise the children 24 hours a day, while managing their complex needs. Ms Z rang State A’s Department and reported what had occurred. She described Child A's behaviour as unpredictable. She sought respite care for Child A that night, but was told nothing was available. State A’s Department conducted a further safety assessment, and assessed Child A's behaviour in the red zone,[32] requiring immediate protection and support.[33]

[32] On the traffic light system.

[33] Exhibit 17, page 21 of 546, Extracts from State A’s Department file of the intake commencing 15 February 2020.

90Child A commenced attending half days at school, supervised by workers from Charity A. The school were assessing how they could increase Child A's school attendance, in a manner that ensured his safety, and that of his peers.

91[In] February 2020, a meeting was held with State A’s Department, the police and the Sexual Assault Support Service A.

92[The next day], Ms Z told State A’s Department that Child A had broken into the upstairs overnight and stolen food. Ms Z advised she and the father had spoken with Child A's maternal grandfather, who lived in Regional Town C, who had agreed to care for Child A, and give him the individual attention which he required. The case worker raised concerns about the lack of mental health services available in Regional Town C.[34]

[34] Exhibit 4, page 125 of 546, Progress note search result from the State A’s Department file.

93Mr P from Support Service A was then seeing Child A and recommended Child A be referred to a psychiatrist for cognitive testing, and a Medical Condition F assessment. He also intended to speak with the Sexual Assault Support Service A about supporting Child A, and considered Child A's behaviour was consistent with trauma and exposure to pornography.[35] Mr Q, Child A's private psychologist, supported a psychiatric referral and specialised treatment.

[35] Exhibit 4, page 125 of 546, Progress note search result from the State A’s Department file.

94When Child A was interviewed by the case worker, he said he wanted to live with his [grandfather], because that would be "easier for everyone" and there would be less stress for his family.[36] That said, Child A confirmed he felt safe at his father's home.

[36] Exhibit 4, page 124 of 546, Progress note search result from the State A’s Department file.

95Ms Z spoke with Dr X on 17 February 2020, who advised that sending Child A away would be the worst outcome for him, because it would be another source of rejection and abandonment. The case worker echoed those concerns, and advised that any plan would need to be carefully considered.[37] There were discussions about whether the current support available to Child A could be transferred to Western Australia, particularly if Child A were to live in a regional location, like Geraldton.

[37] Exhibit 4, page 124 of 546, Progress note search result from the State A’s Department file.

96On or about 26 February 2020, Ms Z spoke with Dr X, who confirmed Child A should continue with his existing medication regime and take his lunch time tablet (which was not previously compulsory). A further appointment for Child A with Dr X was scheduled for March 2020. Child A was then continuing to attend on Mr Q for weekly counselling, in addition to Support Service A.

97In late February 2020, the parents agreed that Child A would return to Geraldton to live with the mother. On 26 February 2020, Ms Z advised State A’s Department of the decision.

98On 27 February 2020, Mr P from Support Service A had completed a risk assessment, and was pushing for the Sexual Assault Support Service A to assist, on the basis that Child A may have also been a victim of sexual abuse. Enquiries were still on foot to find a forensic psychiatrist.[38] Mr P reported to State A’s Department that Child A wanted to be with his mother, but it would be important for the parents to carefully manage the change in care, to ensure Child A did not feel any sense of rejection.

[38] Exhibit 4, page 129 or 546, Progress note search result from the State A’s Department file.

99[In mid- March] 2020, a multi-agency meeting was held, attended by Ms Z, representatives from School A, Support Service A, State A’s Department and Charity A. Child A was continuing to attend school only until 11.00 am each day, so he could be individually supervised. The school had applied for extreme behaviour funding for Child A. It was agreed Child A required a forensic assessment, and any further school Child A attended would need to complete a risk assessment. Ms Z advised she and the father could "not afford to fight" the mother's application for Child A to be returned to her care, they continued to have concerns about the mother's circumstances but confirmed the mother would be required to complete drug testing and there would be ongoing welfare checks. It was agreed Child A would practice remembering phone numbers, if he needed to contact anyone for help, when in his mother's care.[39]

[39] Exhibit 4, pages 132 and 133 of 546, Progress note search result from the State A’s Department file.

100The paternal grandparents travelled to State A, and brought Child A to Geraldton [in late] March 2020, and into the mother's care.

101State A’s Department closed their file, and recording their concern about Child A's return to the mother:

It is highly concerning that [Child A] is returning to his mother's care given the significant child protection history that [Child A] was subject to whilst he was in her care previously. [Child A] is extremely vulnerable as evidenced by his multiple diagnosis including [Medical Condition A] and [Medical Condition B] coupled with his complex behaviours and [State A’s Department] are concerned that if [Child A] returns to his mother's care without her making the necessary changes to keep [Child A] safe and if she is unable to protect [Child A] from neglect and abuse he might regress more in his behaviours.

There is a likelihood of harm re-occuring to [Child A] in his mother's care if she has not made significant changes in regards to her long standing issues of violence, drug/alcohol use and homelessness.

At this time [State A’s Department] are not fully aware what changes the mother has made. The mother has acknowledged that she is still seeking accommodation and denied to [State A’s Department] that she is currently using drugs or alcohol...[40]

[40] Exhibit 19, page 323 of 546, Extract from State A’s Department form with the intensive youth referral form, pages 305 to 324 inclusive.

102State A’s Department completed an interstate notification to the Department of Communities, advising that Child A was returning to his mother's care.

103The father's evidence was that, at the time he and Ms Z agreed to Child A returning to his mother, they were overwhelmed and struggling to cope. The father explained he wanted to give the mother the chance to do the right thing by Child A and to "give her a chance to be the mother I believe she can be". The father and Ms Z expected the mother would continue to engage Child A with the counselling and supports they had started, and adhere to his medication regime.

Department's Response to the Mother's Notice of Risk

104In February 2020, the Department received the mother's Notice, however they did not respond until December 2020 "due to some complexities in staff rotations and leaves". The Department referred to Child A's diagnosis of Medical Condition A as a consequence of exposure to family violence, the mother's relationship with Mr V, concerns the mother was using excessive discipline, and not administering Child A's medication, which she was personally using.

105The Department found limited credible evidence the father had contributed towards Child A's sexualised behaviours. The Department found no specific or credible evidence that Child A was risk of harm due to the misuse of alcohol by the father or his partner. They concluded:

[Child A] has significant trauma throughout his life, with this including significant volatility over the years whilst in the primary carer of [the mother]. [Information on file] suggests that this volatility is continuing, and in combination with the ongoing concerns being received by the Department in relation to [the mother], her having primary care of the child does not appear to be conducive to his ongoing development.[41]

Arrangements for Child A in the care of the Mother

[41] Exhibit 2, pages 36 and 37, Department of Communities Memorandum dated 15 December 2020.

106The mother spoke to State A’s Department on at least two occasions, before Child A was returned to her care. [In mid- March] 2020, the mother advised she was looking for appropriate accommodation as she and Mr V were living in a shed at Mr V's mother's home. The mother asked for housing assistance. She denied to the case worker that she was using drugs and alcohol.[42]

[42] Exhibit 4, page 134 of 546, Progress note search result from the State A’s Department file.

107The case worker informed the mother that Child A required a forensic psycho-social assessment, they were seeking NDIS funding and ongoing access to Support Service A, to enable Child A to continue with counselling. The mother was told she would need to liaise with Child A's proposed school about completing a risk assessment. The mother asked the case worker to send a list of services, which she said never occurred and that State A’s Department did not provide any records or information to the Department of Communities. On 17 March 2020, Mr P referred Child A to Support Service B in Geraldton.[43]

[43] Exhibit 4, page 135 of 546, Progress note search result from the State A’s Department file.

108Consent Orders were made on 4 March 2020, for the parents to have equal shared parental responsible for Child A, for Child A to live with the mother and spend time and communicate with the father as agreed. Orders were made for the mother to:

(a)comply with all requests made by the ICL to undertake drug testing;

(b)ensure that [Child A] took medication as prescribed;

(c)enrol [Child A] in all necessary special education services in Geraldton as consistent as possible with those he was attending in [State A]; and

(d)ensure [Child A] attend on a mental health professional regularly, in a manner consistent with the arrangements then in place in [State A].

109Child A travelled to State A in the April 2021 school holidays. He has had telephone contact with the father and Ms Z, while living with the mother.

110The mother adduced limited evidence about the arrangements for Child A in her care. Initially, it appears Child A lived with the mother and her partner, in the shed at the home of Mr V's mother. In around September 2020, the mother obtained her current rental accommodation, which she described as a "big old farmhouse" with four bedrooms and two bathrooms, on a rural property [in Regional Town A, outside of] Geraldton. She recently obtained internet access, in late 2020.

111The mother enrolled Child A into year seven at [School D]. It appears Child A commenced school [in mid-May] 2020, noting that COVID-19 restrictions were imposed in March and April 2020. It is not apparent what information, if any, the mother provided to School D in terms of the risk assessment which had been recommended, before Child A resumed school.

112Child A attended four appointments with Ms S at Support Service B, between April and June 2020. The mother stopped the sessions, because she asserted Child A no longer wanted to attend. The mother considered Child A was not ready for further counselling, and maintained that Support Service B did not consider Child A required further counselling. I consider that to be unlikely, given the information from the school. It is not supported by the correspondence from Support Service B which the mother relied on, which simply refers to having closed Child A's file, hoping Child A "manages the transition back to school okay and that you are able to secure accommodation. Child A can be re-referred to [Support Service B] if needed".[44]

[44] Exhibit 1, page 139, letter from [Health Service A] dated 5 June 2020.

113In May 2020, Child A was referred to Hospital A for a paediatric appointment.[45] The mother says the appointment is scheduled for May 2021, and I note her complaint about the delay. However, the mother conceded that she had not taken any steps to have the appointment expedited. In my view, that failure is reflective of the mother's lack of insight into Child A's complex needs, and the importance of seeking prompt treatment and support for him.

[45] Exhibit 1, page 140, letter from [Support Service B] dated 21 May 2020.

114Child A was prescribed[46] [two medications for Medical Condition D] on a daily basis. The mother stopped administering Child A's medication, around a month and half after he came into her care. She does not accept that Child A has Medical Condition D. She does not consider he requires medication and has questioned whether the medication has contributed to his sexualised and disruptive behaviours. There is no admissible evidence to support the mother's concerns.

[46] Exhibit 2, page 15, affidavit of Dr X filed 3 March 2021.

115The mother admitted in cross-examination both she and Mr V had taken Child A's medication as a "recreational pursuit at the time". Despite the mother not administering Child A's medication, she asked Dr X for further scripts in August 2020, which were refused. The mother was recommended to contact a local GP and paediatrician for Child A.[47] The mother says she took Child A to see her GP, [Dr M], around August 2020. There was no corroborative evidence of that appointment.

[47] Exhibit 2, page 15, affidavit of Dr X filed 3 March 2021.

116The mother asserted that Child A was doing well at school and there were no concerns about his behaviour or achievement. That is not consistent with the evidence from the school, which confirms that Child A has continued to display challenging and difficult behaviours.[48]

[48] For example, see Exhibit 1, pages 31 to 36, notes from the Department of Education, for example.

117In June 2020, the school raised concerns about Child A's behaviour, which included Child A pushing and shoving classmates, antagonising peers, displaying little resilience and capacity to problem solve. He was reported to often retaliate, speak loudly and invade other's personal space.[49] The school noted Child A was disruptive in class, physically aggressive towards staff and students, regularly walking out of classrooms, swearing, yelling, shouting, and refusing to follow instructions, amongst other matters.

[49] Exhibit 1, pages 133 to 134, Department of Education records.

118Child A was identified as a student at educational risk, having an attendance rate in semester two of only 76.6%. Further 42.2% of Child A's school absences were not authorised.[50]

[50] Exhibit 1, page 8, notes from the Department of Education.

119[In] June 2020, the school sought support from student services, to manage Child A's behaviour.[51] A meeting was held with the mother, the school psychologist and the school [in mid-June] 2020. The mother told the school she would be stopping Child A's medication, she would not be continuing his attendance on Support Service B and would not be re‑engaging Child A with counselling. When the school referred the mother to the Court Orders, requiring Child A to be medicated and to attend counselling, they noted "mum reported little concern around meeting conditions in place for counselling and medication for Child A" and when discussed, "she expressed no concerns or desire for compliance".[52]

[51] Exhibit 1, page 131, notes from the Department of Education.

[52] Exhibit 1, pages 131 and 135, notes from the Department of Education.

120The mother insists she was not aware the school were unable to access funding for an educational assistant for Child A, unless he was attending Support Service B. Child A has not had access to any additional educational supports in Geraldton, as he did in State A.

121The mother deposed that Child A was being bullied at school and described Child A's behaviour as "normal school kid stuff". The school records note that Child A was frequently the aggressor in the reported incidents.

122In late 2020, Child A was suspended from school. The mother was asked to attend a meeting, before Child A would be permitted to return to school. The mother said she could not drive and did not have transport. As a result, the meeting (and Child A's return to school) was delayed for over a week and a half.

123Child A has not participated in any activities outside of school since being in the mother's care. Child A told the father and Ms Z that he is often left home alone for extended periods of time, he is frightened and lonely. He reported not having access to a telephone or the internet in his mother's care, as a result of which the father sent Child A a mobile telephone. The mother asked Mr W (Child G and Child F's father) to care for Child A for a night, when she said she needed to travel to Perth. The mother did not collect Child A for four days. The mother's decision to leave Child A in Mr W’s care sat uncomfortably with her evidence under cross‑examination that he "sits and smokes bongs all day".

Mother's Drug Use and Drug Tests

124The mother has an extensive history using illicit substances. She admits to ongoing drug use. By way of example:

(a)The mother deposed to using "small amount of cannabis and meth" in November and December 2019.[53]

(b)The mother wrote to the father in January 2020 and said:

Because I like, not need.. Drugs does not make me a dishonest, unfit, prioritielss (sic),, heartless mother. If anything it equipped me with the skills and knowledge to insure my three sons make better choices in life than myself, the goal of any parent.[54]

11.By consent, the father will provide the mother with copies of [Child A's] school reports, sporting and merit certificates and other relevant information.

12.By consent, the father authorise and keep authorised any educational and medical establishments with whom [Child A] is regularly engaged to provide to the mother duplicate copies of all documents and reports which are regularly supplied to parents.

13.By consent, the father ensure that any educational and medical establishments with whom [Child A] is regularly engaged are provided with contact information for the mother.

14.The father has liberty to travel with [Child A].

15.The mother be restrained from removing [Child A] from the father's care, school or activities, save and except to spend time with [Child A] pursuant to these orders.

16.By consent as to sub-paragraphs (a) – (d) (inclusive) and not by consent as to sub-paragraph (e), each party be restrained by injunction and an injunction be granted restraining them from:

(a)Consuming excessive alcohol or using illicit drugs whilst [Child A] is in their care or permitting or allowing any other person to do so;

(b)Consuming excessive alcohol or using illicit drugs 12 hours prior to spending time with [Child A];

(c)Denigrating or permitting any other person to denigrate the other party either to or in the presence of [Child A];

(d)Denigrating or permitting any other person to denigrate the other party's family or partner either to or in the presence of [Child A] or on social media; and

(e)Discussing the Court proceedings with [Child A] or on social media.

17.A copy of these Orders and Reasons will be distributed to the Department of Communities and [State A’s Department].

18.Subject to hearing from the parties, the father has leave to provide these reasons and orders to [Child A's] treating health practitioners, including but not limited to his paediatrician, psychologist, and psychiatrist.

19.Subject to the institution of an appeal by any party or the Independent Children's Lawyer, the Independent Children's Lawyer be discharged.

20.All documents produced by named persons pursuant to a subpoena be returned or destroyed in accordance with the request from the named person on the expiration of 42 days from the date hereof.

21.In relation to material tendered as an exhibit into evidence in these proceedings, on the expiration of 42 days from the date hereof, all material tendered as an exhibit into evidence, save and except for material produced pursuant to subpoena, be destroyed by the Court without notice to the parties.

22.In the event of an appeal being lodged prior to the expiration period of 42 days, paragraphs 20 and 21 above do not apply.

23.The Application and Response be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Family Court of Western Australia.

CD

Associate

17 APRIL 2021