BROWNING & BROWNING
[2019] FCCA 861
•10 April 2019
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BROWNING & BROWNING | [2019] FCCA 861 |
| Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Parenting – relocation advantages – status quo advantages. |
| Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, (2), (3), 61DA(1) |
| Cases cited: Taylor & Barker (2007) FLC 93-343 |
| Applicant: | MS BROWNING |
| Respondent: | MR BROWNING |
| File Number: | BRC 10191 of 2016 |
| Judgment of: | Judge McGuire |
| Hearing dates: | 24 & 25 January 2019 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 15 March 2019 |
| Delivered at: | Burnie |
| Delivered on: | 10 April 2019 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr James |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | MCG Legal |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Carlton |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Wiltshire Family Law |
| Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: | Ms Wardle |
| Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer: | Seth Solicitors |
ORDERS
That all extant orders in respect of the children [X] born … 2004 and [Y] born … 2007 (“the children”) be discharged.
That the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for [X] and [Y].
That the child [X] live with the father.
That the child [Y] live with the mother and that the mother be permitted to relocate [Y]'s principal place of residence to the Region A, Queensland.
That the child [X] spend time and communicate with the mother as follows:
(a)Each second weekend between Friday evening and Sunday evening; and
(b)For one half of each gazetted Queensland term school holiday and for three weeks in the Queensland gazetted summer school holiday, as agreed between the parties but failing agreement then for the first half of term holidays being from the first Friday at 5.00 p.m. until the second Saturday at 12.00 noon and for the first half of the summer holidays in 2019/20 and in each alternate year thereafter and for the second half of the summer holidays in 2020/21 and in each alternate year thereafter.
That the child [Y] spend time and communicate with the father as follows:
(a)Each second weekend between Friday evening and Sunday evening with the effect being that [X] and [Y] spend each weekend together; and
(b)For one half of each gazetted Queensland school term holiday and for three weeks in each gazetted Queensland summer school holiday with the effect of the above orders being that [X] and [Y] spend all of the Queensland school holidays together.
That there be variations of the above or the children spend such other time between their parents as may be agreed between the parents from time to time.
That for the purposes of the above orders, the changeovers on Fridays and Sundays occur at 5.00 p.m. or otherwise as agreed between the parents and at a mutually agreed changeover point approximately half way between the parents’ homes and failing agreement then at times and at a changeover location as directed by the Independent Children's Lawyer.
That weekend time for the children with the parents be suspended during school holidays.
That each of the parents be and is hereby restrained from discussing any of the evidence in this trial and/or providing the girls or either of them with any materials filed in this matter.
That as soon as practicable, the Independent Children's Lawyer meet with [X] and [Y] to advise them of the fact and effect of these orders and to assist in the transition for [Y] from movement of home and school from the Region B to the Region A.
That the appointment of the Independent Children's Lawyer be discharged as from 28 days from the date of these orders.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Browning & Browning is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT LAUNCESTON |
BRC 10191 of 2016
| MS BROWNING |
Applicant
And
| MR BROWNING |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Applications
These proceedings are in respect of the parties’ two children namely [X] born … 2004 (aged 15 years) and [Y] born … 2007 (aged 11 years).
The parents essentially seek mirror orders in that each proposes that [X] and [Y] live primarily with them and spend time on each second weekend and half school holidays with the other parent. The father lives on the Region B and the mother on the Region A being a distance which precludes any reasonable prospects of a shared care arrangement.
The parties separated on or about 28 August 2016. They both then lived on the Region B. There was then an informal arrangement of a week-about for the children with each of their parents until January 2018 when the mother moved to the Region A. The children have since remained living primarily with their father and spending weekend and holiday time with the mother such confirmed by interim orders of 14 March 2018.
The Court has the benefit of an Independent Children's Lawyer who provided considerable assistance to the Court in objective cross- examination of the parents and who provided helpful written submissions where at [102] – [104] are provided the Independent Children's Lawyer's recommendations as follows:
[102] [X] is at an age where her views should be afforded some weight and it seems she wishes to remain living with her father.
[103] [Y] seems caught between two parents. It is the view of the ICL that the evidence on different matters concerning what is in [Y]’s best interest is finely balanced. It seems that [Y] was more comfortable in talking to her mother about her emotional issues affecting her. This leads to two further considerations:
(a)[Y] does not have that level of relationship with her Father considering she is a 'deep thinker'; and
(b) whilst in the Father's day-to-day care and spending time with the Father, despite his best efforts he was unable to stabilise [Y]'s emotional distress.
It is for this reason that ICL supports a primary view that [Y] may feel better supported in her mother's home despite the ICL concerns about the Mother not supporting a relationship with her father.
[104] If the Court felt it may cause more harm by [Y] not residing with her sister and the additional secondary considerations of not being supported by school, friends, pets and the broader family then the ICL supports a position that both girls reside with their father for all the reasons outlined above.
Background
The father is 46 years of age. The mother is 40 years old. The father works self-employed in the … Employment industry. The mother is a public servant.
The father lives on the Region B in Queensland. It seems that this has been his usual place of residence since childhood. The mother now lives on the Region A, Queensland. She has her own mother, stepfather and older son also living on the Region A.
The parties first met when the mother was 14 years old. Their relationship commenced in about 1999. They married on … 2002.
The mother has an adult son, Mr C (aged 23 years), who lived with the parties for much of his childhood and for his adolescence and apparently had little or no relationship with his biological father.
The parents separated in either July or August 2016. The mother moved out of the family home on 28 August 2016 and on that day the parties entered into a Parenting Agreement whereby [X] and [Y] were to live on a week-about basis between the parents.
From 9 October 2016 the parties have made the various applications for the domestic violence orders in the local Courts. The mother's complaints have at times alleged stalking or surveillance behaviour on her by the father. The father has made application against both the mother’s son, Mr C, and the mother's stepfather.
The parties were divorced on 14 January 2018.
On 15 January 2018 the mother relocated herself to live on the Region A.
On 14 March 2018 interim orders were made for the children to remain living with the father on the Region B and to spend time with the mother each second weekend and for half of school holidays.
On 31 July 2018 the first family report prepared by Ms D was released.
The second family report of Ms D was released on 20 December 2018.
[X] is studying her year 10 secondary school in 2019. [Y] is in year 6 at her primary school.
The mother has not re-partnered. The father's affidavit of 22 January 2019 deposes that he has now a ‘partner’ named Ms E. She is 45 years of age and has two children, [F] aged 13 and [G] aged five years. She is a professional in full-time employment and Mr Browning and Ms E have been ‘dating’ since … 2018. The father's evidence was vague and somewhat inconsistent as to whether or not he had introduced [X] and [Y] to Ms E as his ‘partner’. Ms E did not provide an affidavit.
The Mother's Case
The mother says that, on balance, the children's views and preferences are to live with her on the Region A.
The mother says that the father has not emotionally dealt with or moved on from the separation and that he improperly involves the children in adult matters and in these proceedings including, most strikingly, having a [X] swear and provide an affidavit in local Court intervention order proceedings involving the father and the mother's stepfather.
The mother says that the father has informed the children and involved them directly and indirectly in his own surveillance, monitoring and stalking of the mother.
The mother says that [Y] is presenting with low self-esteem and are self-image issues that affect her emotional stability. The mother says that she has a close and practical relationship including easy communication with these two teenage and sub-teenage girls and is more insightful and able to attend to their personal and female issues.
The Father’s Case
The father says that the children are settled and progressing well in the current parenting arrangement, socially, and at their schools. He says that the children have lived on the Region B for all of their lives and that this is their familiar environment with access to their peers and interests.
The father denies the mother’s allegations of stalking or monitoring and suggests that the mother herself suffers a form of paranoia in this respect. He says that he no longer feels acrimonious towards the mother and that he has moved on from their separation.
The father says that the current arrangement has worked satisfactorily and that he is objectively able to foster the children's relationships with their mother.
The tenor of Mr Browning’s evidence is that the children have a preference to remain living on the Region B and with him whilst acknowledging that [Y], in particular, misses her mother.
The father says that the children would be significantly disturbed in their lives and at crucial times by the mother's proposal in that they would be moved from their home, schools and friendship groups when [Y] is in her final year of primary school and [X] entering into the important last years of her secondary education.
The father's material raises an issue as to the mother's alcohol use during the marriage.
The father also alleges that the mother has improperly involved the children in the adult issues subject of this dispute.
The father asserts that the mother’s frequent use of local Courts and intervention orders does not demonstrate an ability or insight in her in facilitating the children's relationship with the father.
Relevant Law
Both parents ask the Court to make an order that they have equal shared parental responsibility for [X] and [Y]. There is a presumption in this respect at Section 61DA(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”). That the presumption, however, is not applicable if the Court is satisfied that there has been family violence or abuse within the broad definition in the Act in respect of the relevant children. The mother's case, in part, is based on what she says is her being subjected to physical, financial, coercive and stalking family violence at the hands of the father.
Alternatively, the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility may be rebutted if the Court is of the view that such an order would not be in the children's best interests.
Ordinarily, the presumption being applicable or a Court making an order for equal shared parental responsibility will enliven a process of consideration as to the children's living arrangements including whether a regime of the children living in an equal time between their parents is both in their best interests and reasonably practicable or, if the answer to either of those questions is in the negative, then whether the children living in an arrangement of 'substantial and significant’ time between the parents is both in their best interests and reasonably practicable. In the matter now before me, however, the geographical locations of the parties does not leave either of those options as being reasonably practicable. That is, for all practical purposes, the only options available are for the children, or either of them, to live primarily with their mother on the Region A or remain living with their father on the Region B. The parties are agreed that the non-residential parent will spend time with the children on each second weekend and for block periods in school holidays.
In determining the children's living and parenting arrangements the Court must have the best interests of the children as its paramount consideration[1]. The children's best interests are determined by referencing the parties’ proposals and the probative evidence to the matters set out in section 60B of the Act which provides the objects and principles of the Act in respect of children and then, more pragmatically, to the mandatory considerations set out in section 60 CC(2) and (3) of the Act.
[1] Section 60CA of the Act
The orders sought by the mother would involve a relocation of [X] and [Y] from the Region B to living on the Region A a distance involving some 2.5 hours travel. It is notable that the Act itself is silent as to the notion of 'relocation'. It follows then that a relocation of children is neither expressly prohibited by law nor is there a presumption against it. That is, a proposal by a parent to relocate children is simply one factor to be considered among the many considerations for Courts in arriving at orders which, on balance, provide for the best interests of the children. In this sense, the Full Court in Taylor & Barker[2] confirmed the earlier authority of Paskandy & Paskandy[3] that there should be no dissection of a parenting matter into discrete issues of, firstly, with whom the children shall live and then a further or separate issue as to whether a relocation should be permitted. That is, in a practical sense, the mother's proposal in the matter now before me inherently involves the children relocating from the Region B to the Region A.
[2] (2007) FLC 93-343
[3] (1999) FLC 92-878
Despite the above, and again in a practical sense, it is clear that matters involving a proposed relocation of children require discrete and particular focus of consideration for Judges and various Full Courts of the Family Court have helpfully over the years compiled a list of ‘principles' to assist in that consideration. Those principles can be summarised as follows:
(a)Relocation matters are to be determined generally with reference to part VII of the Act;
(b)The children's best interests remain the paramount but not the sole is consideration;
(c)A relocation proposal is to be evaluated within the context of the necessary findings in relation to the children's best interests (section 60CC matters) and where appropriate, section 60DAA would reasonably practicable;
(d)The Court must consider the parties proposals, including the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed relocation, and may be required to formulate proposals itself in the best interests of the children;
(e)That neither party bears an onus to establish a relocation or a continuing of an existing regime will best promote the interests of the children;
(f)An applicant for relocation need not show 'compelling reasons' in support of the relocation but must provide probative evidence which permits the Court, on balance, to find that a parenting order involving a relocation is in the best interests of the children; and
(g)The children's best interests must be weighed and balanced with the 'right' of the proposed relocating parent’s freedom of movement but that such an adult 'right' must ultimately defer to the children's best interests.
The Evidence
Applicant Mother
Ms Browning relied on her two affidavits filed 10 September 2018 and 23 January 2019.
The mother presented in the witness box as someone of vulnerable demeanour. Her evidence emphasised what she says are her fears as to coercive violence and a power imbalance between herself and Mr Browning. For example, she was steadfast in her evidence that she was reluctant to communicate directly with the children's father. Ms Browning was subjected to vigorous cross-examination in respect of her assertions of coercive violence including what she says has been the father's surveillance and monitoring of her since separation. She was not shaken in that evidence and I observed her demeanour to be consistent with, at least, subjective honesty in these respects. Further, my observations were that the mother is torn between her desire to have the children live with her, but what she feels has been a need to put distance between herself and the father. I generally found the mother to be a child focused and honest and believable witness.
The Father
Mr Browning relied on his two affidavits of 10 September 2018 and 22 January 2019. I did not find Mr Browning to be as impressive a witness as was the mother. The father tended to prevaricate in his evidence. He was at times unconvincing in explanations to assertions put to him in cross-examination. He claimed poor memory recall and at times his evidence tended towards the misleading.
The Family Reporter
Ms D, registered psychologist, assisted the Court with two family reports dated the 31 July and 20 December 2018.
At [23.02] of her first report Ms D recommends that the children live with the mother as detailed as follows:
Therefore, based on the information provided to the writer at the time of writing, it is recommended that in the case that the mother confirms a residential move to the Region A, [X] and [Y] reside with their mother and spend regular weekend time with their father.
It is recommended that the girls spend at least two nights per fortnight during school term time with their father and any Monday public holidays.
As Mr Browning will spend less time with his daughters during the school term, the Court may consider providing him with a greater share of the school holiday time. In this case, it is recommended that the girls spend no more than two consecutive weeks in any one parents care.
In her second report at [20.01] under the heading ‘recommendations’, Ms D firstly recommends that the children spend additional time with their mother and apparently based on the following:
i)[Y] is experiencing obvious signs of adjustment difficulties as reported by both parents, and as witnessed at interview.
ii)[X], who has an easy-going temperament, has been involved by her father on at least two occasions in incidents that demonstrate a lack of appropriate parental modelling and concern for her emotional development. However, to date, she has demonstrated better adjustment to the consequences of separation and conflict than her younger sister, suggesting that she has better coping strategies and a more robust psyche.
Ms D then provides two broader recommendations in the alternative and as follows:–
1)That the current parenting arrangements be reversed whereby [Y] and [X] move to reside with their mother at the Region A and spend time with their father from Friday to Sunday every second weekend; or
2)That [Y] live primarily with the mother but that [X] remain living primarily with the father but with the girls to spend each weekend together alternatively with the father and the mother.
Ms D offers some justification for the second option at [20.16] as follows:
(plan B) supports [Y] to spend more time with her mother, who can provide appropriate emotional support through [Y]'s pubescent and adolescent years and also spend time with her father and sister. Additionally, it allows [X] to remain with her peers (where her focus will continue to grow) and to continue attending the same school and maintain her employment contract at Employer while having regular time with her mother and sister. In holiday periods, the girls would spend time together in the care of each parent.
Ms D gave evidence and was cross-examined. During her cross-examination, Ms D offered even further options including the children remaining living primarily with their father but having more weekend time with the mother as for instance two out of three weekends with one of those taking place on the Region B.
Ms D noted [Y] to be a more sensitive child than her older sister who in turn is more robust and adaptable. [Y] is observed to have missed her mother which is an observation made also by each of the parents. It is these sensitivities accompanied by issues of low self-esteem and poor body image which concern the family reporter for [Y] being separated from her mother. Of real concern is the disclosure of the family reporter that [Y] had spoken of death and associated issues during the interviews.
In her reports Ms D notes [Y] as being quiet, shy and a deep thinker. [Y]'s sensitivities extend to not wishing to offend either of her parents by spending more or less time with either. She did volunteer, however, at [16.06] that she wanted to spend more time with the mother although suggesting perhaps a week-about arrangement which, of course, is not a practical option. [Y] told the reporter that ‘she had many worries and that sometimes she had spoken with a lady at the school…' These issues for [Y] do not appear to be a simple aberration or circumstantial given that at [19.03] of the family report [Y] apparently advised her mother 'that she finds herself ugly and has been experiencing recurring nightmares’.
The relevance of these concerns in respect of [Y] are that, firstly, they have been observed and acknowledged by both parents. The tenor of the father's interview with the family reporter in December, however, is that at [6.08]:
He volunteered that both girls appeared to be more settled with the current shared parenting arrangement and that he and the girls had developed regular routines.
During the past six months, it was his belief that as a result of the reduction in parental conflict, the girls were calmer and more relaxed.
At [8.11] of the second report Mr Browning is reported in respect of [Y]:
Mr Browning is of the opinion that [Y] has had some trouble adjusting to the recent orders for the children to reside with their father and spend every alternate weekend with their mother.
He advised that [Y] has told him on numerous occasions that she misses her mother.
…
He advised that [Y] appears sad at times.
Mr Browning asked the writer what other action he could possibly take to ensure that [Y] spent time with the mother.
The writer asked Mr Browning how he would cope if at sometime in the future, the girls decided that they wanted to reside with their mother for a period of time. He responded that he did not think it was in the girl’s best interests to move communities and schools as they had friends and support in their community, but understood that [Y] missed her mother and may prefer to spend more time with her mother.
Mr Browning advised that [Y] was coping well with her schoolwork and that her teachers had reported that she was well-behaved and engaged in class.
The girls were observed with both of their parents at the first set of interviews. At [11.02] of the first report Ms D observed:
On entering the room the girls quietly acknowledged their father… For several minutes, there was no conversation between the father and the girls… The atmosphere during this observation period was stilted and the girls only spoke when spoken to. The writer observed that the girls were very quiet, did not volunteer conversation or interaction with their father and generally appeared wary. They were focused on their drawing, although neither appeared to be drawing anything particular and limited their eye contact with the writer and their father during this period.
At [13.01] and following Ms D observed the girls with their mother thus:
The girls became animated when their mother walked into the room. They rose from their chairs and hugged her and welcomed her into the office
Ms Browning presented as an energetic, positive and warm person.
… As they decided on the structure of the game, the girls chatted easily with their mother about their day and recent events.
Ms Browning provided a warm and engaged presence in the room and spoke at all times in child appropriate language. …
Then on leaving the room, the atmosphere became a little awkward and [Y] hugged her mother closely. The girls left the room in a polite yet distant manner.
The tenor of Ms D's concerns in respect of [Y]'s sensitivities, self-confidence, and self-esteem rest with the response to and nature of the relationships between the children and each of their parents. At [22.17] and following Ms D opines:
It was the writer's observation that there were clear differences in the children's presentation when with their father as opposed to their mother.
The children were both quiet, emotionally rigid and initiated less conversation when with their father.
Both children were more animated, physically relaxed and verbose when with their mother.
When the children initiated conversation with the writer about the possibility of moving to the Region A, they clearly argued for the move and discounted the difficulties involved moving schools and residents.
In her conclusions in the second report Ms D is forthright at [19.47] as follows:
It would seem that the current parenting arrangement of residing with the father on the Region B and spending time with the mother on the Region A is not conducive to the healthy development of [Y]’s emotional well-being.
The family reporter also referenced the peculiarities and characteristics of [X] and at [19.51] says:
It is the writer's opinion that [X], while relatively content with the current parenting arrangement, would therefore manage to cope with further change to the parenting arrangements if required.
It is also noted by the writer that both girls are about to embark on a new stage of schooling, [X] into the higher and final three years of school and [Y] into the middle years of secondary school, where change will be expected by the structure of the Department of Education.
And at [19.42] and following:
While [X], according to both parents, has a more robust self-esteem and is a more social and a less emotionally complex individual than her sister, at interview she displayed some sadness in relation to her parents.
…
[X], at age 14.5 years who displays a sunny disposition and a naturally social demeanour, presents as being less emotional and more transactional in regard to the parental conflict. It would seem that she can 'move on' from unpleasantries (such as the signing incident) and negotiate terms for herself to provide comfort and sense of temporary satisfaction….
The family reporter also deals with other issues between these parents including their personal relationship. The reports from the mother are generally consistent with the mother's affidavit evidence in, firstly, that the mother subjectively felt a power imbalance during the relationship. She references financial and emotional control. The mother also reports, consistent with her affidavit, her belief that she has been subjected to surveillance and monitoring by the father since separation.
Significantly, and within the context of the mother moving to the Region A, appears the following in the second family report at [19.27]:
It is the writer’s opinion that Ms Browning has significantly progressed in terms of adjusting to her separated lifestyle and managing her emotional independence from Mr Browning. She has sought psychological assistance, has made and met some individual goals, and seemed less anxious and more emotionally robust than she appeared at her interview for the initial family report.
She was able to objectively self-reflect, acknowledge herself-doubts and areas requiring parenting improvement, as well as note her areas of strength and growth. She reported that seeking psychological assistance had been a helpful learning experience.
Ms Browning was able to talk in an informed and knowledgeable manner about the two girls and their emotional well-being, demonstrating an ear for listening carefully and respectfully to her daughter’s (sic) and their concerns (for example stories about the girls and their friends, and the type of behaviours that each girl finds comforting). The information she provided was reflective of a parent harbouring a devoted and respectful parent/child relationship with both girls, and of a parent who is able to place their child's needs first, even at the expense of pursuing their own individual dees (sharing the care of the girls after separation, moving on short notice and with financial stress to larger accommodation, and making herself available for conversation at all hours).
The family reporter's observations and conclusions in respect of the father are not so positive. At [19.34) Ms D notes:
It is of note that the Department of Child Safety recorded an opinion that Mr Browning seemed to be struggling with detaching from the marital relationship and flag that he may have some attachment concerns. This note, along with his complacency regarding [Y]'s sleeping routine and the involvement of [X] in the signing of the affidavit, direct the writer to consider that Mr Browning may rely on the girls to meet his emotional needs rather than identifying and separating his own concerns, in order to focus on meeting his children's emotional requirements.
Nevertheless, it is also noted at [19.31] that Mr Browning 'is devoted to maintaining his daughters’ happiness and enjoys spending regular time with the girls.'
Ms D notes that Mr Browning seems to have been spending more active time and taking a more active role in the children's lives since the first report and it is notable that Mr Browning seemed able to recognise and acknowledge [Y]'s emotional issues.
At [19.33] Ms D notes:
Mr Browning advised that he sought psychological assistance as per the recommendations on the family report, however at interview he was unable to recall the name of the psychologist, the number of sessions attended or the content of these sessions. It was his understanding that the male psychologist he had engaged had advised him that he did not need further support.
The family reporter records her concerns as to Mr Browning's involvement of the children in these adult issues. Of particular concern is his questionable insight in having [X] prepare and sign an affidavit in state local Court intervention order proceedings involving her father and her step-grandfather. Further, the family report suggests that both of these girls indicate that their father himself has made them aware of his monitoring behaviour towards the mother which, of course, is something that the father himself now denies to this Court. At [22.29] of the first report appears the following:
In the documents and at interview, Mr Browning denies having the technological expertise to complete personal surveillance on Ms Browning. However, at interview, he did not deny talking with his children about these events.
The writer is uncertain as to Mr Browning's motives for involving the children in the discussion of these monitoring behaviours. The discussion of this information, (regarding hidden cameras, the mother's phone number been blocked, that there were 'secret' recording devices, showing [Y] that he can read Ms Browning's emails) whether the alleged surveillance was true or false, would most likely be alarming and confusing for the children.
The family reporter also notes that the girls claim that the father has urged former friends of the mother to disengage with her and, if true, shows a lack of insight into the delicate needs of teenage and sub-teenage girls and particularly in respect of their relationship with their mother.
Of related concern is what appears at [22.14] of the first report and in respect of the father's insight:
It was of interest that [X] also use the word, 'questioning', for her father and reported that it was her experience that he asked lots of questions about their mother and their time with their mother after spending the week in their mother's care.
Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that the mother is also culpable in respect of involving the children in the adult dispute. She has undoubtedly both directly and indirectly engaged these children with her own personal views as to their father.
I have placed the above copious extracts from these two most helpful family reports into these reasons so as to emphasise and give context to the complex interpersonal relationships between the two parents and the impact on their children and the delicate nature of but different personalities of these two young girls in a determination as to their ultimate best interests but where issues such as the potential relocation from a long standing status quo are also for consideration.
Witness – Ms H
Ms H is the paternal grandmother. Her affidavit is sworn 10 September 2018. Her evidence was blatantly partisan towards her son. Of more concern was her general lack of honesty as a witness and particularly for someone who claims to be a professional and who witnessed the affidavit prepared on behalf of [X] for use in the state Court proceedings in support of the father against the maternal grandfather. Ms H’s evidence was most unsatisfactory in this respect. Such evidence as there was had to be extracted with some difficulty in cross-examination. I do not consider her to be an honest witness.
At [8] this witness deposes that '[X] told me she does not want to move to the Region A and that Ms Browning knows that'. Within the sense of her evidence generally, I place no weight on this assertion given its lack of particularity as to time, place and circumstances and the general unsatisfactory and partisan nature of the witness’s evidence.
Dr J
Dr J gave evidence and was cross-examined over the telephone. His affidavit was sworn on 23 January 2019.
Dr J is a clinical psychologist. He says that he has consulted with the father on six occasions since 22 July 2016. I am unaware as to whether or not this is the psychologist referenced by the father to the family reporter and whose name he could not recall?
The session with Dr J on 28 July 2016 was a joint session with both parents. The last session for the father was as recently as 16 November 2018.
I am not greatly assisted by this report which, although claiming to be in respect of 'therapy' appears more as a record of the father's responses to the mother's complaints. The probative value therefore suffers in that the mother apparently attended only one interview as long ago as 2016 and at around the time of separation. Dr J does, however, concludes at page 19 as follows:
From my work with Mr Browning in therapy, my observations of his presentation and demeanour during the sessions, and discussion of his parenting of his daughters, I am of the view that Mr Browning has the capacity to provide safe physical and emotional care of the subject children.
With respect to Dr J, he does not appear to have seen the children and is appraised in the main of only the father's version of history.
Of some interest, however, is the reference at [28):
“In support of his contention that Ms Browning had misrepresented the truth during the Ms D family report process, Mr Browning stated the following:
…
b.In relation to the suggestion that he had tracked the ex-wife’s movements, Mr Browning denied that he had tracked her electronically or that he had hired a private investigator to follow and report on her movements.
c. Mr Browning however self-disclosed during our first session on 22 July 2016 that 'he had done a wrong thing' and admitted to activating a 'call recorder' during the week immediately following Ms Browning informing him that she wanted a separation, and that she wanted to move out within a matter of weeks. He stated that he suspected that she may have been having an affair and needed to know for himself. He informed me that it became apparent that Ms Browning had commenced an affair with her ex-partner Mr K, prior to her informing Mr Browning that she wanted a separation.
S60CC factors
S60CC(2)(a) - the benefit to the children of having a meaningful relationship with both of the parents
The evidence as a whole persuades me that [X] and [Y] have established meaningful relationships with both the mother and the father. The children lived with both their parents in a family unit for the formative years of their lives. I am satisfied that both the parents have been active and involved in the children's upbringing and lives.
S60CC(2)(b) - the need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm including from family violence
Undoubtedly these two children have been exposed to the high level of conflict between their parents such as continues to this day. There is no suggestion, however, that the children are at risk of physical harm in the care of either parent.
The mother alleges that the father has subjected her to emotional abuse since separation in the form of surveillance and monitoring of her movements. She alleges that devices have been placed on telephones or other media. The children's comments to the family reporter seemed to give some corroboration to the mother's concerns. The father's evidence in Court when challenged in this respect was unconvincing in his denials. There is a strong suggestion, supported by my own lay persons’ observations of the father in the witness box, that he has experienced some emotional difficulties in accepting that his relationship with the mother is at an end. All of these matters in turn give some credence to the mother's complaints of a power imbalance during the relationship and of she being subjected to some coercive and financial family violence. However, the orders that I am to make in respect of these children are prospective and into the future. Importantly, the family reporter suggests that the mother, having moved from the Region B the Region A, has developed a greater self-confidence (see second family report at [19.27]).
Of continuing concern is the father's direct involvement of these children in adult disputes. Most strikingly is him having [X] prepare and sign an affidavit in local Court intervention proceedings. The involvement of the paternal grandmother in this process is also disturbing. [X]’s comments to the family reporter demonstrate her responses and hence the profound lack of insight of both Mr Browning and the maternal grandmother. The child’s comments to the family reporter are both enlightening and concerning as follows:
17.31 The writer advised [X] that she had been made aware that [X] may have signed an affidavit for another matter. The writer asked [X] for her comments.
[X] appeared uncomfortable and her eyes became swollen with tears. She advised that 'I was made to sign it… I didn't write it, and I had to sign it several times'.
The writer asked if the document was about an incident between [X]'s father and her grandmother’s partner. [X] nodded and replied that the document was about these people and confirmed the man's name as Mr L…
She advised that she thought her grandmother (paternal) and father had written the document and that she had to sign the papers several times because she had forgotten how to write her signature.
She had clear recollections of the event. However, as [X] seemed upset by the recollection, the writer did not ask [X] to provide further information about this incident.
S60CC(3)(a) - any views expressed by the children and any relevant factors such as the children's ages and levels of maturity that are relevant to the weight to be given to the children's views
Not surprisingly, both parents state that the children have told them that they prefer to live with them. In all the circumstances of this case and the nature of the children themselves, such contrary statements are entirely plausible. The paternal grandmother offers some corroboration of the father's evidence in this respect and in relation to [X]. Nevertheless, the involvement of the paternal grandmother in [X] signing an affidavit for Court proceedings suggests that I should place little or no weight on her evidence.
The first family report was prepared as recently as July 2018. Significantly, [X] is reported at [12.12] as:
[X] volunteered that she didn't mind at all if she had to leave the Region B, and [Y] nodded in agreement.
The writer suggested that such a move would require attending a different school. Both girls nodded in agreement.
In her evidence in Court, the family reporter suggested that there had been a change in [X]'s views and preferences. She is described as a confident and robust 15 year old. She has established a degree of independence on the Region B and has obtained casual work. She seems to be progressing well at school both academically and socially. She has just commenced her year 10 studies and it appears that any move of primary residence would present challenges to [X].
[Y] is described as much sensitive and vulnerable than her older sister. She says that she wants to spend more time with her mother. Her stated preferences are impacted by her obvious loyalty to both parents and a desire that she doesn't offend either. A suggestion of some subtle attempt to influence [Y] is apparent from the later family report at [16.42] thus:
She ([Y]) then advised that if she moved to her mother's home, her father would be both sad and angry. She thought he would be sad because he had said he would miss her, and angry because he had recently allowed her to have guinea pigs and if she moved to her mother's she would not be home to care for the guinea pigs.
S60CC(3)(b) - the nature of the relationship of the children with each parent
In the initial family report there is a suggestion that the children experienced a lack of the hands-on care by the father who may have occupied himself with his own interests. The second report shows an improvement in this area and in the children's understanding of their father’s involvement.
Both parents acknowledge [Y]'s sensitivities, emotional difficulties with poor body-image and the fact that she misses her mother. The family reporter expresses real concern in respect of [Y] who is experiencing thoughts around death, fear and unhappiness. This is best described by the family reporter at [19.61]:
As a result of the ongoing conflict between the parents, [Y]'s seeming emotional responsibility for her family's happiness and the involvement by the father of [X] in the parental conflict, the research suggests that both children are currently at greater risk of experiencing further negative consequences of paternal separation. The risk of depression, anxiety and mental health issues is increased for those children who have been overburdened with responsibility or providing emotional support for a parent.
The tenor of the family reporter's evidence is that [Y] might be better supported by her mother in developing her self-identity and emotional well-being through her adolescence and perhaps consistent with the mother herself having further advanced emotionally from the marriage breakdown than has Mr Browning.
The observations of the family reporter were of the children being more relaxed, animated and verbose with their mother whereas they are described as quiet and emotionally rigid when observed with their father. Such observations are, in my view, of some relevance to the emotional difficulties being experienced [Y].
Further, and whilst there is some evidence that the mother may have involved the children to a degree in suggesting advantages for them in moving to the Region A, the father's involvement of the children in these proceedings and adult conflict has been direct, inclusive and demonstrative of a distinct lack of insight into the vulnerabilities and needs of these young girls.
S60CC(3)(c) - The extent to which each of the children's parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the children, spend time and communicate with the children and fulfil the parents obligations to maintain the children
The mother suggests that Mr Browning has not always adhered to his obligations for the children spending time with the mother. The children's statements to the family reporter gives some corroboration to the mother's evidence. [Y] reports at [16.05] of the second family report:
When asked why she doesn't get to spend time with her mother every second weekend, [Y] advised that 'sometimes Dad takes us on a holiday or he changes the weekends because he has plans'.
[X] also alluded to the father's lack of consistency but suggested to the reporter 'now Dad is sticking to it, and it's much better.' Again, the father's lack of insight is of concern in respect of his understanding of the need for these children to maintain a relationship with their mother.
S60CC(3)(ii) - the extent to which each of the children's parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parents obligations to maintain the children.
In her affidavit material the mother deposes to Mr Browning being less than candid with the Child Support Agency in respect of his own income. Similarly, the mother deposes to a form of financial abuse during the course of the relationship. These matters were not pursued with any rigour during the evidence before me but remain a theme of the mother's evidence generally in respect of the power imbalances during the relationship.
S60CC(3)(d) - the likely effect of any changes in the children's circumstances including the likely effect on the children of any separation from the parents or any other person
These children have always lived on the Region B. Since separation they have lived with their father. They have established relationships with their father's extended family on the Region B. They have peer group relationships and have attended schools on the Region B. The mother's proposals offer quantum changes for these children in most aspects of their day-to-day life and their relationships with the parents and with others.
The recommendations of the Independent Children's Lawyer and the family reporter leave open an option of [X] and [Y] being separated. This, of course, would present another momentous change in the lives of these children who each, on the evidence, have in different ways been impacted by their parents separation and conflict.
[Y] has anticipated the difficulties of anticipated change in expressing quite clearly that she is torn between her parents and does not wish to hurt either of them.
[X] is at a different stage of emotional development than [Y] and more robust and independent of personality. The suggestion from the first family report is that both girls would cope and adapt with a change of residence to their mother. The latter report, however, leans more towards [X] establishing an even greater independence in being able to cope with remaining on the Region B and continuing her relationship with her mother by way of visits on weekends and school holidays.
The issues for the Court therefore are many and complex. How are the girls coping with a separation from their mother? How would they cope with a separation from their father? How would they cope with a separation from each other? How would they cope with a separation from the stability of peer group relationships, schools, and familiar lifestyle on the Region B?
S60CC(3)(e) - the practical difficulty and expense of the children spending time and communicating with a parent
The distance between the parents homes does not permit easy transition or equal or substantial/significant time for these children between their parents. They will inevitably live with either the father or the mother and spend weekend and holiday time with the other parent. This will obligate each of the parents in respect of facilitating and assisting in the children's relationship with the other parent.
Further and common difficulties will undoubtedly arise as the children become older. Their commitment to weekend and holiday relationships with the non-resident parent will be challenged by the children developing their own relationships, interests and commitments which will conflict with any orders for time-with on weekends and holidays. As such, it is crucial that the primary residential parent have the insight and ability to be able to maintain these relationships for the children with the other parent.
S60CC(3)(f) - the capacity of each of the children's parents or any other person to provide for the children's physical, intellectual and emotional needs
The evidence satisfies me that both parents have the ability to attend the children's physical needs. As mentioned above, the father has improved in prioritising time with the children over his own interests.
The father's direct involvement of the children in the adult conflict suggests failings in his ability to recognise and attend to the children's emotional needs. Similarly, a lack of prioritising the children's weekend time with their mother likewise indicates a lack of insight into the children's emotional needs.
There is evidence to suggest that the father's capacity to attend the children's emotional needs is compromised by his own failure to emotionally rationalise his own separation from the mother.
S60CC(3)(g) - the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background of the children and parents
[X] and [Y] are of different ages, stages of emotional development and personality. Whilst [X] is described as robust and independent, [Y] is manifesting her vulnerability and sensitivities. The evidence suggests that whilst [Y] might be more confident and open in exposing these issues with the mother, Ms Browning is also more attuned to these matters which are of concern to both parents and the family reporter.
S60CC(3)(i) - the attitude to the children and the responsibilities of parenthood demonstrated by each of the children's parents
Both parents have generally been capable and responsible parents. Both have engaged in the children's upbringing, schooling and activities.
S60CC(3)(j) & (k) - family violence and family violence orders
Both parties have engaged the State Courts in various applications for family violence orders. The father has made allegations against the mother's adult son and the mother's step-father.
The mother asserts that the father's coercive behaviour has continued since separation in the form of surveillance and monitoring of her. She has made complaints to Queensland police accordingly.
The father has also been in inclined to involve the police and, in particular, a complaint made by him in respect of the mother's adult son, Mr C, and for which the material before me suggests that the police found no substance.
Generally, the use of State Court family violence orders is an all too common accompaniment to these Courts’ objective considerations of children's best interests.
S60CC(3)(l) - whether it would be preferable to make the orders that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the children
Whilst these parents remain in conflict, there will always be a likelihood of further proceedings in these Courts involving [X] and [Y]. As such, and whilst judges are not presumptuous so as to think that they will make ideal or optimum orders, it beholds parents, such as the mother and the father here, to understand that they must move forward armed with whatever orders a Court determines to be in their children's best interests.
Nevertheless, the orders that are to be made are prospective in respect of children and the vagaries of life will inevitably impact on both the children and parents moving forward. The options for the Court in this matter are many and problematic and each bring its own possible negative ramifications. Ultimately, however, the aim for the Court, and it should be the ambition of these parents, is for the parents to compartmentalise their own residual animosities and cooperatively and communicatively parent their children with a hope that the children can have successful, comfortable and meaningful relationships with each of their mother and their father.
The communication between these parents is virtually non-existent or, at best, limited to formalities and by media other than direct engagement.
It is clear that the separation of these parents has impacted emotionally and psychologically on their children with real concern in respect of the emotional stability of [Y]. The mother’s own claimed fears of the father and a reluctance to have any actual communicative relationship with him, do not to lend towards she being able to easily facilitate and encourage the children's relationship with the father if they live primarily with her. Similarly, there are some empirical grounds to support the mother's views in respect of the father's coercive and stalking behaviour towards her. If he has not emotionally dealt with the finality of his own relationship with the mother then the fear is that he will continue to rely emotionally on the children as a form of connection and/or to improperly involve these two girls in adult issues. This in turn will affect his ability to objectively encourage and facilitate the children's relationship with their mother.
Findings and Conclusions
The complexity of the task confronting the Court in determining the best interests for these 15 and 11 year old girls is complex and difficult and as evidenced by both the family reporter and the Independent Children’s Lawyer leaving recommendations in the alternative as to the children’s living and parenting arrangements.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer has had, like the Court, the benefit of hearing and testing the evidence. Her primary position is that the children be split with [X] continuing to live with the father and [Y] moving to live with the mother and the girls spending each weekend and all school holidays together, split evenly between the parents.
The Independent Children’s Lawyers secondary position is that [X] and [Y] continue to live with the father with [Y] to spend three out of five weekends with the mother and [X] to spend two out of the five weekends with the mother but with an option at the child’s discretion of also spending a third weekend. The recommendation is that the children spend four out of six weeks of the summer holidays together with all of the June/July holidays with the mother and half of the other two term holidays.
Similarly, the family Reporter in her first report of 31 July 2018 recommended that both [X] and [Y] live with the mother on the Region A and spend ‘regular weekend time with their father'.
Less than five months later the family reporter is more equivocal in her recommendations with a ‘plan A' that the current parenting arrangement be reversed whereby [Y] and [X] move to reside with their mother on the Region A and spend time with their father from Friday to Sunday each second weekend. The family reporter, however, then offers a ‘plan B’ whereby ‘the children are split between homes for a part of each week with [X] to continue to reside with the father between Monday and Friday and then spend every second weekend with the mother and [Y] to reside with the mother and spend each second weekend with the father.
Despite that the difficulties between these parents, the lack of cooperative parenting, and lack of communication, the evidence of the family reporter suggests that the girls have well-established, attached and meaningful relationships with each of their parents.
[X] is 15 years of age. The evidence satisfies me that she is more comfortable than her younger sister in dealing with the conflictual relationship between her parents and has developed peer group relationships, personal interests, and employment such that she has a relatively high degree of independence from the parents.
[Y] is of a different personality type than her older sister. She is more dependent on her parents for emotional support. She is less confident socially than her sister. She is more sensitive to her parents’ conflict than her sister. She has poor body image and self-esteem such as manifested in image and personal difficulties for this young girl and noted by the family reporter with some concern and including making written notes speaking of death and similar.
I am comfortably satisfied that [Y] has a preference to spend more time with her mother than is currently the case. As such, I am of the view that [Y]’s relationship with her mother is one of a greater personal dependency than that with her father. [X]’s views are more ambivalent but seemingly directed to other aspects of her teenage life than simply a choice or preference as to which parent she lives with.
The evidence before me suggests that, despite their ages and differences in personality type, the girls have a close relationship with each other and hence a mutual supportive relationship. I note, however, their ages and levels personal development. [X] has developed independence. She has taken part-time employment. She appears to deal well with her parent’s conflict. [Y] is much younger and still in primary school. She has a greater level of dependence on her parents. She needs direct and empathetic support in respect of her personal issues.
The evidence satisfies me that on the balance of probabilities that there have been and continue to be power imbalances in the relationship between the parents and generally in accordance with the evidence of the mother and as reported by her to the family reporter. It is clear that the mother has moved forward to a far greater extent from the marriage breakdown than has Mr Browning. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there is some validity to the mother's concerns that she has been stalked and monitored by the father since separation. I note with even greater concern that Mr Browning has made his daughters aware of some elements of this behaviour.
I retain real concern as to the insight of Mr Browning into the delicate needs of children and particularly the vulnerabilities exhibited by his younger child, and where I am able to find that both Mr Browning and the paternal grandmother have actively involved [X] in the adult dispute by having her complete an affidavit for State Court proceedings.
I am comfortably satisfied that, whilst both parents are able to attend adequately to the physical needs of these children, it is the mother who, having moved forward from the separation, is more able to be child focused and, in particular, to the important but very different emotional needs of [X] and [Y].
By reason of geographical factors this is not a matter where the Court realistically has an option of the children living in a shared care arrangement between the parents. The three options remaining are stark. Firstly, the status quo can be maintained with the girls living with their father and spending weekend and holiday time with their mother. There is the opportunity, of course, to extend the quality weekend and holiday time with the mother. Such a continuation of the status quo gives the girls continuity of home, schooling, peer group relationships and extracurricular activities. They are familiar with their environment. They would have a regular and proximate relationship with the paternal extended family.
The second option is that both [X] and [Y] move to live primarily with their mother and that their quality weekend and holiday time be shared between the parents. There would be significant advantages, in my view, for [Y] in such an order. I am comfortably satisfied that the mother is more attuned to [Y]’s vulnerabilities and self-esteem issues than is the father. In the first family report both girls indicated that they would not be troubled by such a change in their circumstances. Nevertheless, both [X] and [Y] have commenced the current school year and in years that are important in their educational progress. In particular, [X] has entered year 10 and any change for her could be problematic in such an important a year. Similarly, [Y] has entered into her last year of primary school and she would need to deal with the change in school, home and removal from her friends. As noted above, [Y] carries with her certain vulnerabilities.
On reflection, and should the geographical issues have been removed and the parents were to live proximate then I would have little hesitation in formulating orders which saw both [X] and [Y] living primarily with their mother but with easy access to Mr Browning. As mentioned above, however, this option is not available.
There is, of course, a third option for the Court and one left in the alternative by both the ICL and the family reporter. That is that [Y] move to live primarily with the mother whilst [X] remain living with the father. Such an order would recognise the differences in these girls’ ages and stages of development and in their personalities. It would recognise [X]’s greater ability to compartmentalise her own life from her parents’ conflict and where she has achieved a high degree of independence in her social, schooling and part-time employment. It would also attend to the delicate but important needs for [Y] and what I find to be the mother’s greater empathy.
Nevertheless, there are negatives to consider in any proposal that would separate these two children. In H & H[4] Nicholson CJ considered the issues of separating siblings. His Honour there cited an article published in 1991 in the Journal of Divorce and Remarriage (volume 16) and titled ‘Issues of Split Custody; Siblings separated by Divorce’ (Lori Kaplan, Linda Ade-Ritter and Charles B. Hennon. And at page 254-5 as follows:
Courts are often reluctant to separate siblings based upon the presumption that children benefit from growing up with brothers and sisters and should remain together (Elrod, 1985). Further, to separate them would mean that they would grow up as strangers and ‘create a household divided against itself' (Schopler, Swarthout & Dreschler, 1964, pg 930). A marital breakup is a traumatic event to all members involved and is experienced by siblings individually, and also together as a unit. According to Nichols (1986), there are three conditions which permit formation of a sibling bond; high degree of physical and emotional access among siblings, need for meaningful personal identity, and shortage of parental influence. The most pertinent issue of the three in regards to split custody is that separating siblings after divorce will decrease their access to each other, thereby affecting a previously formed bond, or limiting the formation of a bond.
Further, during early childhood, children frequently spend more time interacting with their siblings than with their parents. The frequency of interaction with siblings does not diminish until emancipation in adolescence or early adulthood when the child leaves home (Walters, 1987). Therefore, sibling relationships constitute one of the more common interpersonal relationships among humans. Not only do siblings influence the development of each other's sociocognitive skills, but their relationship can be described as primarily a positive one, with high frequencies of altruistic, affectionate, cooperative … and concerned behaviour.
In times of divorce, the natural support system existent among siblings often strengthens as a way to convince the children that nothing catastrophic is going to happen and that they do, at least, have each other. Siblings not only cling together in hopes of hanging on to what they perceive to be stable and reassuring in a time of change… But also draw strength from their own coalition, finding in each other comrades who help weather the difficult post-separation period… Further, there are important differences among siblings’ reactions to parental divorce. Older siblings are better adjusted than younger siblings, older siblings have a better understanding of the divorce, fewer problematic beliefs regarding the divorce, a better understanding of conflict resolution, a more internal locus of control, and are less dependant on adults. Older siblings can often help younger siblings to accept the loss as inherent in divorce, as well as to make a more realistic assessment of what is occurring than the younger child can make alone. Implications of these findings suggest the need to keep siblings together, especially for the benefit of providing role models (older siblings) to younger siblings.
The importance of continuity of an attachment relationship is another reason split custody occurs so rarely. Not only is it important to keep the parent/child relationship intact, but also it is necessary to stabilise other factors in the child's life. For this reason, split custody seems undesirable because it not only breaks the continuity of a relationship with an adult, but also breaks the continuity of relationship with the siblings.
[4] (1995) FLC 92-599
Whilst, in my time sitting on this bench, I can recall only rare instances of making orders which split siblings, I am persuaded that this is a circumstance which such an order should be made. I am, of course, mindful of the comments set out above and of the importance of sibling unity when dealing with the breakdown of their parents’ relationship. However, in the matter before me, there are extenuating circumstances including but not limited to the difference in the ages of these children; the difference in their levels of personal and social development; the fact that [X] appears to be moving rapidly to independence whereas [Y] retains an extremely high degree of dependability together with disturbing issues of personal self-esteem and where I am satisfied that the mother is more attuned to [Y]'s needs than is Mr Browning. In all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that the girls’ relationship can be maintained by them sharing their quality time during all weekends and all school holidays where, of course, they now attend, in any event, different schools. Consequently, I intend to order that [Y]'s primary place of residence move for her to live on the Region A with the mother whilst [X] will remain living with the father. Further, given [X]'s levels of maturity and independence, I fully expect that she will herself soon have a significant input into her own living and parenting arrangements and is likely to confront her parents herself should she wish to move her primary place of residence. I intend to make orders whereby the girls spend time together each weekend alternatively with their mother and father. This will require a further commitment by the parents to travelling on each weekend rather than fortnightly. I am satisfied, however, that this is not an overly onerous commitment which should outweigh the benefits for these children of the orders that I propose to make. Similarly, they will spend one half of each school holidays with each parent but such time spent together.
Despite my findings set out above and in particular as to the power imbalances between the parents and their high levels of conflict, mistrust, and lack of communication, I am of the view that the children's best interests are served by there being an order for equal shared parental responsibility for both girls. Firstly, the girls themselves should understand and rely on their parents contributing to the important decisions in their lives. Secondly, when the girls are separated themselves in their weekly and living arrangements, it becomes more important for the parents to attempt to compartmentalise their own residual personal animosities, and to jointly or equally contribute to important decisions for their daughters.
I will make an order to injunct the parents from further involving the children in their adult dispute in respect of these issues.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and thirty (130) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge McGuire
Date: 10 April 2019
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
0
0
2