Bonython and Darley
[2010] FamCA 1147
•16 December 2010
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BONYTHON & DARLEY | [2010] FamCA 1147 |
| FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parental responsibility – where connection between the father’s alcohol use and aggressive anti social behaviour – where parents separated during child’s infancy – where the father had spent limited time with the child – views – where child strongly opposed to contact with the father – where parties have very different lifestyles – where various strategies tried unsuccessfully to re-establish child’s relationship with father – presumption of equal shared parental responsibility rebutted – child to live with mother and not have contact with father FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – mother’s application to change the child’s surname – change ordered |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60CG, 61C(1), 61B, 61DA, 64A, 65AA, 65DAA Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140 |
| Chapman & Palmer (1978) FLC 90-510 Goode and Goode (2006) FLC 93-286 Mazorski v Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518 McCall v Clarke (2009) FLC 93-405 |
| APPLICANT: | Ms Bonython |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Darley |
| INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Boyd Olsen Lawyers |
| FILE NUMBER: | BRC | 3091 | Of | 2007 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 16 December 2010 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Newcastle |
| PLACE HEARD: | Newcastle |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Ryan J |
| HEARING DATES: | 14, 15, 16 and 23 April 2010 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Mr Hamilton |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Webb & Boland |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Smart |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Jensens Solicitors |
| COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Mr Duane |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Boyd Olsen Lawyers |
Orders
That all prior parenting orders are discharged.
That Ms Bonython (the mother) shall have sole parental responsibility for the child L born … August 2000.
In the event the father wishes to speak to the child he shall give the mother advance notice and provided the child is willing to speak to the father, the parties shall settle a time when the father may telephone.
In the event the father provides letters or gifts for the child, the mother is to ensure these are given to her.
The mother shall keep the father informed of her address and contact details.
The father shall keep the mother informed of his address and contact details.
The mother shall keep the father informed, in writing, of the following:
(a) changes to where the child attends school;
(b)any accident or illness which results in the child’s hospitalisation.
The mother shall give her written authority to any school attended by the child for the school to give the father copies of school reports and other information commonly provided to parents. The court notes this order does not bind the school.
The mother may change the child’s surname from Bonython to Lewis.
The mother is authorised to do all acts and things necessary to amend the child’s registration of birth, so that a birth certificate issues in the surname “Lewis”.
Pursuant to s 65DA(2) and s 62B of the Family Law Act 1975, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.
All outstanding applications are dismissed.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Bonython & Darley is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT NEWCASTLE |
FILE NUMBER: BRC 3091 of 2007
| MS BONYTHON |
Applicant
And
| MR DARLEY |
Respondent
And
| INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
These proceedings concern the amount of time L (“the child”) should spend with her father. The child lives with her mother, Ms Bonython, (“the mother”) and has done all her life. Her parents separated when she was 10 months old.
The applicant mother seeks orders for sole parental responsibility, the child to live with her and spend no time with the father. She proposes the father speaks with the child by telephone twice a week, and otherwise they communicate by letter and other correspondence. The mother also seeks to change the child’s surname from Bonython to Lewis, her husband’s surname.
The respondent Mr Darley (“the father”) opposes the mother’s application. He sought orders for the child to spend time with him for two weekends each school term and half of all school holidays, and for the parties to have equal shared parental responsibility. However, he has some appreciation the strength of the child’s opposition to spending time with him, may mean his proposed orders are unrealistic, at least initially. He also wants to speak with the child twice a week by telephone and is opposed to her name being changed.
The child has not spent any time with her father since December 2008, except in 2009 during an observation session with the single expert witness. The child is opposed to spending any time with the father or even to speak to him by telephone. Her views are strongly held and long standing.
Thus the main issue is whether there is any reasonable prospect of re-establishing the child’s relationship with the father. Related to this is the effect on the child if these attempts fail and risks to her if her time with the father is unsupervised. This is particularly significant because of the wide range of strategies which have been tried in order to make the child comfortable with the father and her time with him viewed favourably by her. These have included supervised and unsupervised visits, therapeutic intervention and specific programs aimed at enhancing the father’s parenting capacity. While the latter has met with some success, in the meantime the child’s views against spending time with him have strengthened. The situation now is that the child is settled and happy with her mother and step-father and, subject to her not having a relationship with the father, her needs are met to a very high degree.
Background facts
Throughout these reasons findings of facts will be determined upon the balance of probabilities. Section 140 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).
The father was born in 1976.
The mother was born in 1979.
Mr Lewis, who is the mother’s husband, was born in 1985.
The mother and father commenced a relationship in about November/ December 1997. They started living together in December 1997. During their relationship they resided in R in northern New South Wales. Throughout the relationship the father was employed on a full time basis in addition to running his own natural resources business.
The child was born in August 2000. Prior to her birth the mother was in paid employment. She returned to part time work 10 weeks after the child’s birth. The mother has been the child’s primary carer since birth. The nature of the father’s work meant he was absent for weeks, if not months, at a time. Thus from the outset, his time with the child has been sporadic and his role in her life limited.
The parties finally separated on 28 June 2001 after an ugly incident. The child was 10 months old. The day before the father became angry and verbally abused the mother. He had been drinking and smoking marijuana. He threw the child’s high chair at the mother while she had the child in her arms. The child was not physically injured but was distressed. The father then took the child from the mother, shoved the mother across the kitchen table and pushed her from the house. The mother went back to the house to collect the child and called the police. After Police left, the mother put the child to bed. The next day while the father was at work, she went to the Police Station and police issued an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order for her protection from the father. That same day the mother moved to W, south of R, with the child. The parties have been separated ever since.
During July and August 2001, the father spent time with the child about once a week, usually overnight with the father taking the child to his parent’s home in R. The mother said that the child seemed to enjoy going with the father.
Between September 2001 and 3 December 2001 the father did not contact the mother and thus he did not spend any time with the child. During this period he re-partnered. The point being he focussed on his new partner, Ms F, and did not make time for the child.
The father was invited to the child’s christening, which he attended in December 2001.
On 18 December 2001, unannounced, the father came to the mother’s home. While she was in the shower, without permission, he took the child from the mother’s sister, the maternal aunt, and left for R. The maternal aunt tried to stop him. The mother telephoned police who apprehended the father at gun point and returned the child to her. The father was charged with breaching the mother’s AVO. According to the father, he told the maternal aunt that he would be taking the child to R for the day and that the child would be returned that same afternoon. While he may have done so, this is beside the point. The point is, other than briefly at her christening, the child had not seen him for about four months. He failed to appreciate or even consider how this incident may have been perceived by the mother or the child. His removal of the child without even forewarning was insensitive to the child’s needs and, most people would anticipate, highly likely to fuel disharmony in the parental relationship. It did, in fact, have the latter effect.
Shortly after this incident, the mother moved to the Gold Coast. In cross-examination, she said the reason for this was to make a fresh start as well as better employment opportunities. The father was unaware of the mother’s intention to relocate to the Gold Coast. Although the mother denied it, I am strongly satisfied she was also motivated to put real distance between the child and the father. This way the risk the father would arrive unannounced and take the child greatly diminished.
From when the mother and child moved to the Gold Coast until May 2002, the father did not contact the mother or seek to have any time with the child.
In May 2002 the mother returned to W to attend a wedding. Beforehand she contacted the father to see whether he wanted to spend time with the child. The father agreed and spent two hours with the child the day after the wedding. The father did not see the child again until December 2002.
In October 2002, at the mother’s instigation, the parties participated in mediation and agreed about the contact the father was to have with the child.
On 5 December 2002 orders were made by consent in Southport Magistrates Court in accordance with the parties’ agreement of October 2002. Those orders provided as follows:
1.That the child [L] born […] August 2000 reside with the Mother.
2.That the child [L] have contact with her Father at all such times as may be agreed between the parties and in default of agreement:
(a)UP UNTIL THE CHILD COMMENCES SCHOOL and commencing on Friday 22 November 2002 contact from 3.00 pm Friday to 3.00 pm Sunday and then from 3.00 pm Monday to 3.00 pm Wednesday with such contact to continue in an eight week cycle with the Father to pick up and deliver the child to the mothers residence at both the commencement and conclusion of contact.
(b)Contact in the June/July and December/January Queensland gazetted school holiday periods as follows:
(i) the Mother is to travel to [W] in New South Wales for a minimum of ten [10] days; and
(ii) the Mother is to give to the Father a minimum of one week’s notice with respect to her proposed arrival and departure dates in [W]; and
(iii) during such time the Mother is in [W] contact for the first two days and each alternate two days thereafter until the Mother leaves [W] [ie the child will spend two days with the Father and then two days with the mother and so on]
(iv) unless otherwise agreed the father is to pick up and deliver the child to the maternal grandmother’s residence in [W] at both the commencement and conclusion of contact.
(c)At times when the child is in the care of either party the non carer parent at that time shall be entitled to have free and liberal telephone contact with the child.
(d)Irrespective of any other order herein and unless otherwise agreed the child is to spend Christmas Day on the Gold Coast in even numbered years and Christmas Day in [W] in odd numbered years with the mother to have the care of the child from 3.00 pm Christmas Eve to 2.00 pm Christmas Day in each year and (unless the Father gives the Mother a minimum of one week’s notice otherwise) the father is to exercise contact from 2.00 pm Christmas Day to 5.00 pm Boxing Day in each year.
3.Unless otherwise agreed or specified in these orders the Father is to confirm his contact arrangements with the Mother a minimum of forty eight (48) hours prior to the commencement of contact and the mother is to confirm her travel arrangements to [W] with the Father a minimum of forty eight (48) hours prior to the proposed commencement of contact.
…
NOTATION
…
12.On a date proximate to one year from the date of these orders the parties shall discuss the issue of extending periods of overnight contact PROVIDED THAT should the parties not agree on this issue then the Father shall make an appointment for counselling with either Relationships Australia, similar organisation or a credited counsellor and both parties shall attend such counselling to both discuss and attempt to resolve the issue.
Bearing in mind that the child was only two and how little contact she had with the father, the arrangements in these orders were, at least initially, developmentally inappropriate. With respect to both parties, it is difficult to see how the child would have coped.
The father exercised contact with the child pursuant to these orders twice. The parties agreed that the first period would occur on the Gold Coast so that the child would not be required to travel to northern New South Wales. The father travelled to the Gold Coast to spend time with the child on the first weekend after the orders were signed. On the night he arrived, he telephoned the mother very late and asked her to pick him up from a night club. The father kept ringing until she agreed to collect him. The mother thought the father sounded like he was intoxicated and had been taking drugs. Thus she took a friend with her as she was afraid about how the father might behave, including that he may be violent towards her. When she collected the father from the night club, he was heavily intoxicated. As well as an excessive amount of alcohol, I am satisfied he had also taken drugs. The father asked if the mother’s friend could drive his car back to where he was staying on the Gold Coast and she agreed. The father was so intoxicated it took some time to find his car. When the mother opened the door of the father’s car, she saw a bag of marijuana on the back seat.
The child did not see the father from the night club weekend in December 2002 until August 2004. From her perspective, he simply disappeared. The mother did not hear from the father for about 18 months.
In breach of the orders, the mother did not take the child to R.
In or about August 2004 the father telephoned the mother and told her he planned to visit friends at the Gold Coast and said he would like to spend time with the child. The mother agreed on the condition he would not take drugs or become intoxicated whilst the child was in his care, nor take the child to any residence where people were taking drugs. Given the limited amount of time the child had spent with the father, the mother’s consent is consistent with her being willing to encourage the child’s relationship with him provided the child was safe. A few hours after the father collected the child a friend of the mother telephoned and told her the father had the child at a house where people were smoking marijuana. Immediately the mother went to the property where she found five or six men, all drug affected, in a house which strongly smelt of marijuana smoke. One of these people told her the child was outside while they smoked marijuana in the bathroom. The mother said the child seemed scared and did not want to stay with the father and his friends. Sensibly, she took the child home.
The father explained he had hired a cabin for him and the child to stay. After he collected the child, he took her to visit friends. He was looking for advice about what he could do with the child over the weekend. The father was at this house for about 40 minutes. Although he did not use marijuana on this occasion, he agrees his friends were smoking marijuana in the bathroom. He thought it was significant that no one smoked marijuana in front of the child. It was clear to him that the child knew some of the people in the house, his point being the child and the mother were acquainted with at least one of the people present. While this is true, it does not follow the child was exposed to drug taking by the mother or make the father’s failure to leave when he realised drugs were being used, appropriate. I accept the mother has not exposed the child to drug abuse.
In October 2004 the mother and child moved back to W. The father says he continued to have reasonably regular contact with the child. The mother says this was not the case. According to her, the father saw the child in November 2004 when her sister took the child to R and he spent one hour with the child. The mother is a better historian than the father and I accept her evidence about the frequency and duration of the child’s contact with her father.
The next time the father saw the child was Christmas Day 2004. On this occasion, he arrived unannounced at the mother’s home. He was intoxicated and accompanied by two male friends. The father was agitated and demanded to see the child. The mother brought the child out. The child was scared and crying and did not want to go with the father as he requested. The father stayed for five minutes then left, in the child’s presence yelling abuse at the mother as he departed.
Following this incident the mother did not hear from the father until approximately March or April 2005 when, unannounced, he came to her home with the paternal grandparents asking to spend time with the child. The mother asked the child if she wanted to go with “[the father] and his parents”. It is not surprising that she did not want to go. When the mother told the father the child did not want to go with him, he accused her of turning the child against him. He said this in front of the child. Although the child started to cry the mother persuaded her to go with the father and paternal grandparents for the hour the father requested.
On 25 April 2005 the father came to the mother’s home and requested to spend time with the child. The mother asked the child if she wanted to go and the child said no and hid in her room. When the mother told the father the child did not wish to go with him, he again accused her of turning the child against him. He yelled at her then left without the child.
In October 2005 the father commenced a relationship with Ms K. They commenced living together at R on Boxing Day 2005.
In December 2005 the mother moved back to the Gold Coast with the child. The mother says the reason for her relocation was better work opportunities and better schools for the child. The father says the mother did not tell him she was relocating with the child nor did she provide him with her new contact details. I accept the mother moved without first informing the father.
In 2006 the father commenced parenting and contravention proceedings in the New South Wales Local Court. The parties attended mediation on 31 March 2006 and agreement was reached.
On 16 April 2006 the New South Wales Local Court made consent orders in accordance with the mediation agreement. Those orders provided for the child to live with the mother, the parties have shared responsibility for the long term care, welfare and development of the child, and for the child to spend time with the father as agreed and failing agreement as follows:
5. a) For four hours from 3.00 pm to 7.00 pm each day on the 18th, 19th and 20th of April, 2006 with such contact to take place at a contact centre or under the supervision of a person agreed to by both parties;
b) From 9.00 am until 5.00 pm on the 24th, 25th and 26th of June, 2006 and then from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm on 28th, 29th, and 30th June with such contact to take place at premises rented by the Applicant Father on the Gold Coast, Queensland.
c) From 9.00 am until 5.00 pm each day on a Saturday and Sunday at a time during the Queensland third school term with the Applicant Father to give seven days written notice of his intention to exercise such contact.
d) During the third term (ie. the September/October) Queensland school holidays from 9.00 am on a Monday until 9.00 am on the next Wednesday and then from 9.00 am the next Thursday until 9.00 am the next Saturday with the father to give seven days notice as to which week of the school holidays in which he intends to have the aforementioned contact.
e) From 5.00 pm on a Friday until noon the next Sunday at a time during the fourth Queensland school term with the father to provide fourteen days written notice of his intention to exercise the aforementioned contact.
f) From 3.00 pm 25th December, 2006 until 5.00 pm 26th December, 2006.
g) That during the December/January school holidays in 2006/2007 the father will have contact with the child from 9.00 am until 5.00 pm in accordance with the following pattern:
·Two nights with the Applicant Father
·One night with the Respondent Mother
·Two nights with the Applicant Father
·One night with the Respondent Mother
·Two nights with Applicant Father
h)As from the cessation of the 2006/2007 December/January school holidays the Applicant Father will have contact for the first half of the terms one, two and three school holidays in odd numbered years and the second half in even numbered years.
i)For up to two nights starting at 9.00 am in the morning and finishing at 9.00 am after the second night during the Easter holidays each year if such holidays do not fall during the term one school holidays.
j)During the December/January school holidays from 2007/2008 onwards the Applicant Father will have contact with the child for the first two weeks of the school holidays when December falls in odd numbered years and the last two weeks of the holidays when December falls in even numbered years.
6.That the father will exercise all contact in 2006 on the Gold Coast at a flat or cabin rented on the Gold Coast. From 2007 onwards the father may have contact either on the Gold Coast, at [R] or a holiday destination or other place agreed between the parties.
7.That the father is responsible for the collection and return of the child to and from contact.
8.That each party is to undergo a drug test within fourteen days of these orders and furnish the results to the other party as soon as possible thereafter. The parties are also to undergo drug testing three months after the making of this order and then furnish the results to each other as soon as possible thereafter.
9.That the father have telephone contact with the child between 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm every Tuesday and Thursday that he is not having contact.
…
12.That if the father is unable to have contact with the child as per these orders he must notify the mother of this fact as soon as possible.
The mother says that the child did not want to spend time with the father and on each occasion it was attempted she became very distressed and it was difficult to convince her to spend time with him. The father says the mother did not follow the orders, in that she cut contact short, did not encourage the child to spend time with him, with the result she became upset and at times the mother did not bring the child to contact at all. There are elements of truth in both parties’ evidence summarised here.
Pursuant to paragraph 5(b) of the 18 April 2006 consent orders, the child was meant to spend time with the father from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm on 24 June, 25 June, 26 June, 28 June, 29 June and 30 June 2006. The mother attended changeover with the child on each of those days but on each occasion the child was extremely distressed, crying and screaming, and not wanting to go with the father. On each of those occasions the father left without the child.
In late September 2006 the father telephoned the mother wishing to exercise contact with the child pursuant to order 5(c) of the 18 April 2006 orders. The mother agreed to this contact occurring. On 2 October 2006 the mother drove with the child to meet the father for changeover. The child said she did not want to go with the father. The father tried to take the child out of the mother’s arms but the child would not let go of the mother. Contact did not occur and the father left without the child.
On 5 and 6 October 2006 the father attended Hungry Jacks restaurant on the Gold Coast for changeover. The mother failed to take the child to the changeover venue.
On 8 December 2006 the father commenced contravention proceedings in the New South Wales Local Court.
Around 22 December 2006 the father telephoned the mother, advising that he would like to see the child for Christmas Day in accordance with the 2006 orders. The mother agreed and advised the father that she and the child would be in W. On 25 December 2006 the father attended the mother’s sister’s home in W to collect the child. The mother says she encouraged the child to go but she did not want to. The father agrees the child was distressed. The father did not end up taking the child. Again it is not surprising when regard is had to the child’s age and her lack of contact with the father that these difficulties occurred. Even if the mother’s encouragement had been fulsome difficulties would have been likely.
Even though the orders provided for the father to telephone the child twice a week, between April 2006 and December 2006 he telephoned approximately ten times. On most occasions he only spoke with the mother. This was because the child did not want to talk to him.
On 10 January 2007 the matter was mentioned at the New South Wales Local Court. The parties agreed that the father would spend an hour with the child that day at McDonald’s, with the maternal grandmother to supervise. Orders were also made for the father to spend supervised time with the child at a Contact Centre on at least four occasions. The mother says the father only exercised contact pursuant to these orders on three occasions in January 2007. The father confirms this and says he spent time with the child on 21 January 2007, 22 January 2007 and 28 January 2007 and that the child enjoyed their time together.
In February 2007 the father filed an application for final orders at the Local Court seeking, in summary, that the child live with the mother, the parties have equal shared parental responsibility, the child spend time with him for the entire end of terms 1, 2 and 3 Queensland school holidays and for five weeks of the Christmas school holidays, as well as for the child to communicate with him by telephone each Tuesday and Thursday between 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm. He also sought an order for the child to be known as L Darley and for the mother to be restrained from calling the child by any other name or from allowing any other person or organisation to call the child by any other name.
On 14 February 2007 the matter was transferred to the Federal Magistrates Court in Brisbane.
In March 2007 the mother met her husband Mr Lewis. They commenced a relationship in approximately August 2007.
Consent orders were made in the Federal Magistrates Court in Brisbane on 10 May 2007 which provide as follows:
1.That the parties withdraw all contravention proceedings without admissions and the Father to withdraw his Application in a Case.
2.That the Orders made before the Local Court [New South Wales] on 16th April, 2006 be discharged.
3.That the Child [L], born […] August 2000 (“the child”) live with the Mother.
4.That the parties have equal shared parental responsibility of the child.
5.That the Father spends time with the child as follows:
5.1At the Gold Coast Children’s Contact Centre (Building Bridges Contact Centre, Nerang), for a period of two (2) months, for two (2) consecutive weekends per month being:
5.1.1 Weekend commencing 2nd June, 2007;
5.1.2 Weekend commencing 16th June, 2007;
5.1.3 Weekend commencing 30th June, 2007; and
5.1.4 Weekend commencing 7th July, 2007.
for a period of no less than two (2) hours each Saturday and no less than two (2) hours each Sunday.
5.2 For a period of four (4) month as follows:
5.2.1 On 4th August, 2007 from 10:00 am until 3:00 pm;
5.2.2 On 5th August, 2007 from 10:00 am until 3:00 pm;
5.2.3 On 1st September, 2007 from 10:00 am until 3:00 pm;
5.2.4 On 2nd September, 2007 from 9:00 am until 5:00 pm;
5.2.5 On 6th October, 2007 from 9:00 am until 5:00 pm
5.2.6 On 7th October, 2007 from 9:00 am until 5:00 pm;
5.2.7 On 3rd November, 2007 from 9:00 am until 5:00 pm;
5.2.8 On 4th November, 2007 from 9:00am until 5:00pm.
5.3Commencing 9:00 am on 1st December, 2007 until 5.00 pm 2nd December, 2007 on the condition that the Father has already participated in all times as specified in Orders 5.1 and 5.2 above. Should for whatever reason the Father be unable to facilitate the times specified in Orders 5.1 and 5.2 or the child is unable to attend these times due to illness or the like, then the parties will do what is practical to ensure that the Father has completed the equivalent amount of time prior to 1st December, 2007. Should this not occur, then the Father shall continue to spend equivalent time with the child as per Order 5.2, until such time as the Father has spent the equivalent time as specified in Orders 5.1 and 5.2 above.
5.4Commencing 3.00 pm on 25th December, 2007 until 3.00 pm 26th December, 2007, with handover as agreed.
5.5Commencing 9.00 am on 31st December, 2007 until 5.00 pm 1st January, 2008, with handover as agreed.
5.6Commencing 9.00 am on 8th January, 2008 until 5.00 pm 9th January, 2008.
5.7Commencing 9.00 am on 1st February, 2008 until 5.00 pm 2nd February, 2008.
5.8Commencing in 2008, each Father’s Day weekend commencing 9.00 am Saturday and concluding 5.00 pm Sunday.
5.9Commencing in 2008, on the child birthday, commencing 3.30 pm and concluding 6.30 pm with either the Father or a person agreed upon between the parties to collect the child from the Contact Centre or a person agreed upon between the parties at a location agreed upon between the parties.
5.10For one (1) half of all gazetted Queensland school holiday periods being the first half in even numbered years and the second half in odd numbered years to commence from 2nd February, 2008. In even numbered years the Father shall collect the child at midday on the first Saturday of the holiday period and return the child at midday on the middle Saturday of the holiday period and in odd numbered years the Father shall collect the child at midday on the middle Saturday of the holiday period and return the child at midday on the last Saturday of the holiday period. The Father will not commence spending school holiday time with the child until such time as he has spent all the time with the child as provided in Orders 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7. Should the Father not spend all the time as provided in Orders 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7 then the Father shall spend time with the child for four (4) weekends being the first weekend of each month commencing 9.00 am on Saturday and concluding 5.00 pm on Sunday. When the Father has concluded spending time with the child for these four (4) weekends, the Father will commence spending school holiday time with the child.
5.11When the Father is spending time with the child in even numbered years in accordance with Order 5.10, and therefore the child is with the Father on 25th December, the child shall spend time with the Mother commencing 3.00 pm 25th December and concluding 3.00 pm on 26th December with changeover to occur at the front of the Police Station, [R], New South Wales.
5.12By telephone each Tuesday and Wednesday between 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm, Queensland time with the Father to initiate the telephone call.
5.13As agreed between the parties.
6.When the child spends time with the Father as per Order 5.10, then the Mother shall have telephone communications with the child each Tuesday and Wednesday between 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm New South Wales time, with the Mother to initiate the telephone call.
7.That except where otherwise referred, or as otherwise agreed between the parties, hand over for the purposes of these Orders will occur at the Gold Coast Children’s Contact Centre, with the Father to contact the Centre and organise for handover to occur.
8.That only the parties be responsible for collecting and returning the child except as otherwise provided in these Orders, for the purposes of the child spending time with the Father. Should either party wish to designate a third party to collect or return the child, this must be agreed upon between the parties.
9.That the parties will be equally responsible for the costs associated with the Gold Coast Children’s Contact Centre.
10.That except where otherwise referred, all time specified in these Orders is in reference to Queensland time.
11.Each party is to keep the other informed of their address and contact details at all times and should there be any change in these details, each party must ensure that they notify the other of such change within forty-eight (48) hours of this change occurring.
12.That the Mother authorise the child’s school to provide the Father with copies of the child’s school reports and school bulletins at the Father’s own expense and the Father is hereby authorised to attend school functions and events.
13.That the parents notify each other in the event of any significant illness, hospitalisation or injury to the child and ensure that the other parent is informed of the medical or dental needs of the child whilst the child is with the other parent.
14.That neither party will denigrate each other or members of each others extended family to the child or in the presence of the child or at all and each will use their best endeavours to ensure that no other person denigrate the parties or members of their respective extended families to the child or in the presence of the child or at all.
15.That the child is to be known as [L Bonython] for all purposes and the Father is restrained from calling the child by any other name and is further restrained from allowing any other person or organisation to call the child by any other name.
16.The Father will undertake a Parenting course prior to the Orders proceeding to Order 5.2 with the Father’s Solicitor to provide the Mother’s Solicitor with a copy of the Certificate of Completion when this is obtained. Should the Certificate of Completion not be provided to the Mother’s Legal Representative prior to 4th August, 2007, the Father will continue to spend time with the child in accordance with Order 5.1 until such time as the Certificate is provided to the Mother’s Solicitor, at which time the Father shall commence spending time with the child in accordance with Order. 5.2.
17.The parties will not use drugs or consume intoxicating amount of alcohol whilst in the presence of the child or allow the child to be exposed to drug use or the consumption or intoxicating amounts of alcohol.
18.That both parties undertake urine analysis for the purpose of drug detection for the months of May, 2007, June, 2007, and July, 2007 with each party to provide the results to their Legal Representatives, who in turn will provide it to the other party’s Legal Representative. Should the Father not provide his drug test results to the Mother’s Legal Representative, prior to 4th August, 2007, the Father will continue to spend time with the child in accordance with Order 5.1 until such time as all three (3) results are provided, at which time, the Father will commence spending time with the child in accordance with Order 5.2. Should any of the Father’s drug test results provide a positive reading, the Father will continue to spend time with the child in accordance with Order 5.1, until such time as he provides three (3) drug test results, each being four (4) weeks apart, and each having a negative reading.
The effect of the above orders was to gradually increase the father’s time with the child, commencing initially with limited supervised time at a contact centre leading to unsupervised overnight time, and from February 2008 half of all school holidays. As will be apparent the parties lived a long way from each other and on an ongoing basis regular weekend periods were not possible. Thus after a relatively modest number of visits it was agreed thereafter the child would spend time with the father during school holidays. Other than possibly for special occasions she would not see him during school term. While this was a practical response to the tyranny of distance, it was ambitious and probably naïve to expect the child to take this type of arrangement in her stride.
The father spent supervised time with the child pursuant to the above orders. The contact centre notes reveal that on 28 January 2007 when the mother was told by staff that the child became distressed about being photographed by the father the mother “appeared pleased at [the child’s] reaction”.
On 6 May 2007 when the father asked the child if he could take a photograph, she said “No. Mum said ‘no photos’”.
The father telephoned the child throughout May 2007 each Tuesday and Wednesday. These conversations started just about every time with the mother informing him the child did not want to speak with him. With some pressure applied by the mother, she did, however, the conversations were brief. Although the father tried to engage with the child, she rebuffed his attempts.
In June 2007 the father and Ms K moved to the far north coast of New South Wales. They did this so that he could be closer to the child.
In June, July and August 2007 the father telephoned the child on average weekly. The child was reluctant to speak with him and their telephone calls were short.
On 4 August 2007 the child was due to commence unsupervised time with the father. The contact centre notes reveal that “[The mother] found it difficult to convince [the child] to stay behind at the Contact Service when she left”. The contact visit was terminated early due to the child’s high level of distress.
On 2 September 2007, 15 September 2007 and 13 October 2007 the contact visits proceeded without incident.
The parties agreed for the father to spend additional time with the child on 14 October 2007 however the child refused to stay at the contact centre so the extra visit did not go ahead.
On 3 November 2007 the child refused to stay at the contact centre and the visit was terminated.
On 4 November 2007 the child refused to come into the contact centre.
On 18 November 2007 the child spent time with the father in the vicinity of the contact centre.
On 1 December 2007 the child spent her first overnight visit with the father since 2005. The father organised for one of the child’s friends to be present during that visit. The child was very upset at changeover. Afterwards she told the mother she was put in the father’s car “kicking and screaming”. The father admits the child was very distressed and did not want to leave the contact centre with him. The only way he was able to get her out of the contact centre was by picking her up and carrying her to the car. The child settled down after a few minutes in the car.
On 15 December 2007 the child spent overnight time with the father. According to the mother changeover went smoothly. This is corroborated by the contact centre notes.
By agreement, on 21 December 2007 the child spent an additional night with the father. This is the last time changeover took place at the contact centre.
In accordance with the orders the child spent overnight time with the father on Christmas Eve 2007. There followed a number of visits which the parties agree proceeded fairly smoothly.
The child spent time with the father from 31 December 2007 until 2 January 2008. The child was only meant to stay with the father until 1 January 2008. The parties agreed to the child spending an extra night with the father. Their agreement is consistent with the visits going well.
Between 3 January 2008 and 24 January 2008 the child spent at least three additional nights with the father beyond the time provided in the orders. The mother says she and the father were getting along well, so much so she even attended a barbecue at his home.
The father spent time with the child from 24 January until 26 January 2008.
On 27 January 2008 the mother moved back to W. She did this because of her health problems, as well to be closer to her family and her now husband, Mr Lewis, who she had recently met. The mother told the father she wished to relocate to W in late 2007 or early 2008. The father was upset by the mother’s decision to move back to W as he had moved to the far north coast to be closer to the child. Nonetheless he agreed to the mother returning to W. The father did not believe the move was in the child’s best interests as she would need to change school and it would be difficult for him to spend time with her. However, he accepted that the mother wanted to be closer to her family while she was dealing with the threat of cancer. In addition, he did not want to ‘rock the boat’ as he and the mother had been getting along for the first time in a long time.
The child spent two or three nights with the father during Easter 2008 which, by all accounts, went well.
In April 2008 the child started calling Mr Lewis, “Dad”. This was her idea, from which neither the mother nor Mr Lewis tried to dissuade her.
The child spent half of school holidays at the end of term one, two and three 2008 with the father. By all accounts this went well.
On 12 July 2008 the father went to the Police station and made a statement, complaining about the mother and Mr Lewis contacting him outside of the designated times provided by the orders then in place. The father also complained about a telephone conversation he had with Mr Lewis that day which became heated.
The mother married Mr Lewis in October 2008.
In November 2008 the father’s and Ms K’s child, N, was born.
The child last spent time with the father in December 2008. She was meant to spend half of the Christmas school holidays with him. The child was anxious about spending this prolonged period with the father. This was not just about being with the father but she had never she had never been away from the mother for more than one week. Mr Lewis reports that about two weeks before the holidays the child’s behaviour was very unsettled. She started to misbehave, was unsettled and subdued. The father collected the child on 20 December 2008. At the mother’s insistence, in the child’s presence he promised to return her early if this was what she wanted. The father says the child was excited to see him, Ms K and especially N who she had not met. The mother asked him to return the child on 5 January 2009 and he told her he would return her on 8 January 2009 in accordance with the orders. The mother then said words to the effect, “Unless you can promise me she’ll be back on the 5th you’re not taking her then”. As he was entitled to do, the father remained adamant the parties comply with the orders then left with the child.
The mother spoke with the child on 21 December 2008 and the child told her she was home sick. The mother told the child to “try and have a good time, you will be home soon enough”. On 21 December 2008 Mr Lewis also telephoned the child and she told him she missed him and the mother. It was their habit to telephone daily. After the child had returned to the mother she told her that on the first night with the father he had a party. The father says that on 21 December 2008 a few of his and Ms K’s friends came to his parents’ home to visit. He says that most people had a few drinks but no-one was seriously intoxicated. I have considerable reservations about the father’s ability to assess intoxication. His views on the subject are unlikely to accord with the mother or child’s. It is more likely that quite an amount of alcohol was consumed, with the scene something quite foreign to the child.
The mother spoke with the child on 22 December 2008. The child told her, “[the father] took me roo shooting. [Ms K] came with us as well and [the father’s] parents looked after [N]. We were in the back of the ute and it was the middle of the night”. The mother made no mention of the child sounding upset. Nonetheless she decided, “I knew the child would be upset about the roo shooting, as [the child] is a child who loves animals and does not like to see animals injured”. After the mother spoke with the child, Mr Lewis telephoned her. Mr Lewis said the child said, “I went shooting in the middle of the night with [the father] and we shot a kangaroo”. Mr Lewis knew the mother had spoken with the child and that she disapproved of the alleged kangaroo shooting. Mr Lewis says the child sounded upset. Because the child had not been upset when she spoke to the mother, I doubt this was the case.
The mother and Mr Lewis spoke with the child on 23 and 24 December 2008. She was not upset. If the child was distressed about the kangaroo shooting incident this would have been a continuing theme in their discussions. It was not.
That the father took the child kangaroo shooting is not contentious. What is contentious is whether a kangaroo was shot. Ms S discussed this shooting trip with the child. She recounts their discussion as follows:
[The child] was asked about the details of this shooting trip. She said there were 4 – 5 men, including her father and the farmer who owned the property, as well as two ladies, including [Ms K], and a boy aged about six. When they went out, her father and the farmer were in the front of a four-wheel drive ute, and she was in the back of the ute with the others. [The child] said she had told her father she did not want to go out shooting, but he said she had to.
At my request, [the child] drew a picture of the scene. She said it took place at night and there was a spotlight on the car which was operated by the farmer who did not participate in the shooting. The other men had all been shooting, with weapons which [the child] denoted were long like rifles. They had fired at an old oil box.
[The child] said they had initially seen a fox in the bush, but then the spotlight was turned around and the men, including her father, all took shots at a kangaroo. She said after the kangaroos got shot, it legs were shaking. The men, who were laughing, jumped off the ute and held the animal down so it would not run away. The dead animal was put in the back of the ute, and the child was transferred to the front seat with her father and the farmer.
The child said her father drove back to the farm. One of the other men had put his hands across the father’s eyes as he was driving, as a joke.
Afterwards, the dead kangaroo was held on a hook on a shed back at the farm. After this, alcohol was consumed at the farm. The father had been drunk, ‘stumbling and screaming out’.
The child seemed quite subdued when talking of the death of the animal and said several times that it was not fair because the kangaroo had done no harm to its killers.
It was Ms S’s opinion that the clarity of the child’s description suggested her account of the incident was reliable.
The father and Ms K deny a kangaroo was shot. Although this was a “roo shooting” event, because of the moonlight, the conditions for hunting were poor. Foxes were seen and a few kangaroos jumped away. It is their evidence there were no shots fired at any animals. According to them, they had been out yabbying and on their way home pulled into Mr O’s property to cook the yabbies in his yabby boiler. Mr O is a kangaroo culler. The conversation turned to roo shooting and pig hunting and Mr O offered to take the father’s friends from the Gold Coast and Ms K roo shooting that evening.
The father intended he would mind the children, including the subject child, at Mr O’s home. The child asked if she could come shooting, which the father said she could not. Mischievously and, incorrectly, she told him she had been shooting and did this “with Uncle [B] all the time.” The father knows Uncle B as a sensible person and, persuaded by the child that she had been shooting before, he agreed they would go on the roo shoot that night.
The child travelled in the front of the ute with the father and Mr O. Mr O’s rifle was mounted in a special rifle rack on the dash of the cabin. The rifle was not loaded. Ms K, Mr O’s young son and the father’s friends from the Gold Coast travelled in the tray of the ute. When the hunting proved unsuccessful, the party pulled over and there was some target shooting. The father did not shoot and nor did the child. The father agrees that as a joke, his eyes were covered by a friend and he pretended he was unable to see while driving. The child was anxious about this, and, having realised it was a joke and asked him to do it again, she then said “don’t do it”.
The child has not been shooting with her uncle or anybody else. Her only experience of “roo shooting” is this occasion with the father. I agree with Ms S that the child’s clear description about the dying kangaroo suggests she has seen one in its death throes. It is beyond dispute the mother and Mr Lewis were troubled about the child being taken shooting. The mother knows first hand the father uses alcohol to excess and she and Mr Lewis were terribly concerned the child may have been out at night with guns in the possession of adults who were drunk. It is not possible to be certain about whether the child’s complete account of this incident is correct. This is because Ms K corroborated the father’s evidence nobody shot a kangaroo. It is clear there was a lot of discussion about the details of the shooting party in the mother’s home. While I do not consider the mother and Mr Lewis encouraged the child to lie about what happened, it is quite possible she has expanded upon the event by adding this detail. The child’s unhappiness about this which she discussed with Ms S, probably reflects how she feels about killing animals and her acceptance of her mother and Mr Lewis’s opinion she should not have been there.
The child returned to the mother on Christmas Day 2008. The mother says she was visibly upset and adamant that she did not want to resume her holiday with the father on Boxing Day. The child said nothing to the father about not wanting to spend more time with him, and left her clothes and Christmas presents in his car. The father said to the child when he returned her to her mother “See you tomorrow” and the child said “yep, see you tomorrow. What time?” It does not follow that by leaving her gifts and clothes behind the child intimated she would return.
One hour after they returned the child on Christmas Day the mother advised the father and Ms K that the child did not wish to resume holiday contact the next day. The mother told the father the child was too scared to go with him after the kangaroo shooting incident. She questioned him about whether the guns he used were registered and whether he had a gun license. The father told the mother he would collect the child at 3.00 pm the next day. The mother says on Christmas Day the child repeatedly told her that she “hated” going to her father’s home. The child also told the mother and Mr Lewis that the father verbally abused Ms K. Ms K corroborated the child’s statements about the father’s verbal abuse and gave evidence about his physical violence and substance abuse.
At approximately 9.00 pm on Christmas Day the mother attended the W Police Station accompanied by Mr Lewis and his father. They told police that the child was too scared to spend further time with the father. An incident report was completed and police reported the matter, including the alleged kangaroo shooting incident to the Department of Community Services (DoCS).
On 26 December 2008 the mother made a similar report to DoCS. No further action was taken by DoCS.
On 26 December 2008 at approximately 11.00 am the mother, child, Mr Lewis, his parents and sister left for Tamworth. The mother telephoned the father earlier that morning and told him the child would not be available for further time with him. The father advised the mother that he would collect the child at 3.00 pm. The mother again said that the child would not be available. The father attended upon the mother’s home at 3.00 pm on Boxing Day to collect the child. The child was with the mother in Tamworth.
After Christmas 2008 the child commenced wetting the bed, her behaviour became erratic and volatile and she would burst into tears for no apparent reason. This type of behaviour was out of character. On numerous occasions the child said to the mother, “I wish I was never born, I wish I was dead”.
On 30 January 2009 the child told the mother and Mr Lewis the father had a party on Christmas Eve where everyone was drunk and he told her to draw on the face of a person who had fallen asleep. This was a fairly accurate description. Again this type of event was foreign to the child.
The mother then obtained a referral for the child to attend upon a psychologist.
Between 29 December 2008 and 5 May 2009 the father telephoned the child on about 20 occasions. The telephone conversations were brief and the child was generally reluctant to speak with the father. The father says that during each of their telephone conversations the child said to him that she did not want to talk to him and generally hung up on him. The father says that he often heard the mother or Mr Lewis in the background while he was speaking with the child. He says he heard the mother says things like, “Tell them you’ve got nothing to say and hang up”. They agree they were often present but deny any interference with the conversation.
On 10 February 2009 the mother filed an Application for Final Orders in the Family Court at Newcastle seeking the following final orders:
1.That the orders made in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia at Brisbane on 10 May 2007, be dispensed with.
2.That the child, [L], born […] August 2000 (“the child”) live with the Mother.
3.That the Mother have sole parental responsibility for the child.
4.That the Father communicate with the child via telephone each Tuesday and Wednesday between 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm, New South Wales time with the Father to initiate the telephone call.
5.The Father to communicate with the child via letters and other forms of correspondence.
6.Each party to keep the other informed of their residential address and contact details at all times and should there be any change in these details, each party must ensure they notify the other of such change within forty eight (48) hours of this change occurring.
7.That the child’s name be changed from [L Bonython] to [L Lewis] and the parents be restrained from using any other name then [L Lewis] for the child.
8.That within twenty eight (28) days the mother must do all acts and execute all documents to apply to the Register of births, deaths and marriages in the State of New South Wales, to amend the registration of the child’s birth to include the new name [L Lewis] and the Father shall do all acts and execute all documents which may be required for this change to occur.
On 28 March 2009 the father and Ms K separated following an incident of violence. The father, who was intoxicated allegedly assaulted Ms K. The father admits that they had two verbal arguments, that he was drunk and that his behaviour was inappropriate. However he denies being physically violent or threatening towards Ms K. Ms K called the police who arrested and charged the father with assault.
A provisional Apprehended Domestic Violence Order was made for Ms K’s protection on 28 March 2009 against the father.
In early April 2009 the father and Ms K reconciled. At that time they shared a home with a friend of the father’s named D. Ms K says that one day in early April 2009 she met two people called A and Y at her house who were there with D. She then saw them at her house another two or three times on which occasions they had a garbage bag full of marijuana. About two weeks later either she or the father told A and Y they could move into their spare room. Ms K says that she observed D, A and Y and the father all take drugs in the home, including marijuana, ecstasy tablets and white powder she believed was cocaine. While I am satisfied she saw the father use marijuana often, I accept his denials in relation to the other named drugs.
On 25 April 2009 the child fell off a trampoline and broke her arm. The mother and Mr Lewis took the child to hospital where her arm was x-rayed and put in plaster.
On 4 May 2009 the mother took the child to the doctor for a follow up appointment for her broken arm and was advised that the child would most likely require surgery. They were referred to a specialist in Tamworth.
On 5 May 2009 the mother took the child to Tamworth and was advised by the surgeon that the child’s arm was broken in two places. Surgery was scheduled for 1.30 pm the next day about which the mother informed the father.
On 6 May 2009 the paternal grandparents attended the Tamworth Base Hospital to see the child. By coincidence, they were in Tamworth for the paternal grandfather to have a medical check up. The father told them the child was in hospital and thus, they went to see her. As far as the mother knew, they had driven from R. She saw the paternal grandparents approach the nurses’ station. Without greeting or acknowledging them, she and Mr Lewis went to the child’s room. A few minutes later a nurse entered the room and told the child her grandparents were there to see her. The child told the nurse she did not want to see them and became quite distressed. The mother told the nurse that she did not object to the paternal grandparents seeing the child, however she did not say anything to encourage the child to see them, nor alleviate her distress. The nurse asked the paternal grandparents to leave and they did not see the child. The mother denied her failure to acknowledge or greet the paternal grandparents was rude. Her actions were most ill mannered.
The child was released from hospital on 6 May 2009. The father did not contact the child until 19 May 2009. From then on, he telephoned her a few times a month. The nature of their conversations did not improve.
On 8 May 2009 Ms K and the father finally separated. Ms K says she is frightened of the father and how he behaves when he is drunk. She says she left because of her concerns for her and N’s safety.
The Court in Chapman and Palmer went on to hold at 77,675-77,676:
We believe that each such case should be approached in an even-handed manner with the object of making a decision that will promote the welfare of the child.
To summarise, the factors to which the courts should have regard in determining whether there should be any change in the surname of a child include the following:
(a) The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration.
(b)The short and long term effects of any change in the child’s surname.
(c)Any embarrassment likely to be experienced by the child if its name is different from that of the parent with custody or care and control.
(d)Any confusion of identity which may arise for the child if his or her name is changed or is not changed.
(e)The effect which any change in surname may have on the relationship between the child and the parent whose name the child bore during the marriage.
(f) The effect of frequent or random changes of name.
Post 2006 the approach set out in Chapman and Palmer has continued to apply.
This would be the second change of name for the child. When she was born she was registered with her father’s surname. When the parties separated, without the father’s knowledge, the mother adopted her name for the child, although formally the child continued to be known as Darley. This is apparent from the child’s christening invitation, school reports in 2006 and medical certificates, which issued in 2006.
In 2007, the mother applied for orders to change the child’s surname from Darley to Bonython. The father agreed but only in terms of order 15 of the orders made 10 May 2007. Although this order did not entitle her to change the child’s surname with the New South Wales Registry of Births Deaths & Marriages, the mother did this and since then the child has been registered as Bonython and for all purposes known as Bonython.
Although the mother is keen to adopt her husband’s surname she has not yet done this. In her workplace she is known by her husband’s surname, but elsewhere continues to call herself Bonython. She and Mr Lewis are keen the child has the same surname as their child and their married name. Mr Lewis contemplated but rejected that he might change his surname to Bonython. His attachment to his parents is such he decided against giving up their surname.
The father is opposed to the child’s surname being changed from Bonython to Lewis. His main concern is about the consequences for the child should the mother’s relationship with Mr Lewis break down. His concern being, if this occurred, the mother would probably wish to change the child’s surname yet again. The Independent Children’s Lawyer made a tentative submission against name change. There was no support from the Independent Children’s Lawyer to add back into the child’s surname the father’s name.
The mother was willing to contemplate a hyphenated surname for the child, comprising her and Mr Lewis’s name. The child has not called herself by the father’s surname for a long time. Given her rejection of any relationship with him, adding his surname back would cause her embarrassment and probably distress. Allowing the child to become known as Lewis will distress the father. However, it will not affect the child’s relationship with him and is a step welcomed by the child. Of course, there is a prospect the mother and Mr Lewis’s relationship might fail and the possibility arises of another name change. It is my assessment this possibility is theoretical rather than real. Permitting the child to be known by Mr Lewis’s surname accords with her views and is likely to make her happy. Because this reflects the reality of the child’s life, it is appropriate to order accordingly.
Orders will be made for the mother to provide the father with information about the child. The issue of telephone contact is difficult and as has been discussed has already been abandoned by the father. There was discussion about the use of Skype. However, Ms S explained this would be confronting for the child and was a strategy she said was likely to create stress and inevitably and quickly fail. I agree with her that Skype is contraindicated. In my view, the proper approach to telephone contact between the child and father is for him to occasionally approach the mother and seek to speak to the child. If he says he will call the child he must ensure he does. The mother is to encourage the child to speak to the father but need not struggle with her if she is reluctant.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer made an application for costs against the father. The mother is in receipt of a grant of Legal Aid and thus exempt. The Independent Children Lawyer seeks that the father pays $400 towards the appearance of the expert for cross-examination, and $1,650 towards the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s instructing solicitor. The father is in a difficult financial position and the Independent Children's Lawyer’s application for costs is refused.
For these reasons, I make the orders identified at the beginning of this judgment.
I certify that the preceding two hundred and sixteen (216) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Ryan delivered on 16 December 2010
Associate:
Date: 16 December 2010
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Injunction
-
Remedies