Brunker and Mercer
[2008] FMCAfam 1010
•18 June 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BRUNKER & MERCER | [2008] FMCAfam 1010 |
| FAMILY LAW – Children – equal shared parental responsibility – live with mother – what time to be spent with father – mother refuses to communicate with father – shared parental responsibility requires parties to consult and make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA, 65DAC |
| Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 |
| Applicant: | MR BRUNKER |
| Respondent: | MS MERCER |
| File Number: | HBC 1327 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Roberts FM |
| Hearing dates: | 17 & 18 June 2008 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 18 June 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Launceston |
| Delivered on: | 18 June 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr M Foster |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Murdoch Clarke |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr R Murray |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Murray & Associates |
ORDERS
That MS MERCER (“the mother”) and MR BRUNKER (“the father”) have equal shared parental responsibility for the child [T] BRUNKER WYNNE born in 2002 (“[T]”).
That [T] live with the mother.
That [T] spend time with the father as follows:
(a)During school terms in the first week of each fortnight from Friday at the conclusion of school until the following Tuesday at the commencement of school, such to commence on the first Friday of the school term.
(b)During school terms in the other week of each fortnight from the conclusion of school on the Monday until the commencement of school on the Tuesday morning.
(c)During the forthcoming Christmas school holidays for two separate periods of one week each.
(d)For half of each other school holiday on a week and week about basis as agreed between the parties but failing such agreement on the basis of such commencing on the last day of school in odd numbered years and one week after the last day of school in even numbered years.
(e)For half of each Easter school break with such to commence after school on the Thursday before Easter and conclude at 5.00 p.m. on the following Tuesday in even numbered years and commence at 5.00 p.m. on the Tuesday after Easter and conclude on the first morning of school thereafter in odd numbered years.
(f)From 5.00 p.m. on Christmas Eve until 3.00 p.m. on Christmas Day in even numbered years and from 3.00 p.m. on Christmas Day until 3.00 p.m. on Boxing Day in odd numbered years.
(g)From 11.00a.m. until 5.00 p.m. on Father’s Day if [T] is not otherwise spending time with the father.
That notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Order hereof [T] is to be returned to his mother if he is otherwise with his father as follows:
(a)Between 3.00 p.m. on Christmas Day and 3.00 p.m. on Boxing Day in even numbered years.
(b)Between 5.00 p.m. on Christmas Eve and 3.00 p.m. on Christmas Day in odd numbered years.
(c)On Mother’s Day between 11. 00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m.
That notwithstanding the provisions of Order 3(d) hereof during any Christmas school holiday after the 2008/09 Christmas school holiday each parent has the option of having a two week block with [T] provided that the parent wishing to exercise such option provides the other parent with at least 60 days notice and such does not result in [T] spending more than half of that holiday with the parent exercising that option.
That upon [T] attaining the age of 8 years either parent may elect upon giving at least 28 days notice to have [T] delivered to or collected from the [omitted] Airport on a day on which changeover would otherwise occur at a time as close as possible to the normal changeover time depending on availability of flights provided that the child will be travelling on a direct flight and is able to travel as an unaccompanied minor.
That both parties shall keep the other advised of their residential address and mobile telephone number and in the event that either party changes any of these details they are to notify the other party within
48 hours of such change and provide that party with the new details.
That in the event that [T] suffers any medical illness or emergency that requires medical treatment the parent attending to such medical treatment shall inform the other of that as soon as practicable.
That while [T] is with either parent that parent is to initiate a telephone call to enable [T] to communicate with that other parent at least once per week at a time to be agreed but failing agreement at 5.00 p.m. on Wednesday.
That the mother shall not restrict, and if necessary will authorise and facilitate the father having equal access to school records, reports, school activities, newsletters and other information ordinarily provided to parents.
That the father is permitted to attend all school functions, sporting classes and other school events in which [T] participates and the mother shall not restrict, and if necessary will facilitate the father having access to information about such events.
That the father is permitted to attend all significant religious events and ceremonies involving [T] and the mother is to provide the father of reasonable notice of any such event.
That [T] shall be known as and use the surname BRUNKER WYNNE.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Brunker & Mercer is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT LAUNCESTON |
HBC 1327 of 2007
| MR BRUNKER |
Applicant
And
| MS MERCER |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The issues
The applications before the court are for parenting orders in relation to a child who is nearly six years old. He is [T] BRUNKER WYNNE, born in 2002 (affectionately known by both his parents as “[T]”).
The applicant is MR BRUNKER (“the father”) and the respondent is MS MERCER (“the mother”).
The issues between the parties were considerably narrowed leading up to the hearing, and indeed were narrowed even further after the hearing started. For convenience and to assist the court the parties chose to adopt the father's Amended Application filed 28 August 2008 as a template to inform the court about what was or what was not agreed.
After some to-ing and fro-ing, the parties agreed that:
·they will have equal shared parental responsibility for [T];
·[T] will live with the mother; and
·[T] will spend time with the father during school terms from the conclusion of school on Friday until the start of school on Tuesday each alternate week.
The father also seeks additional time in the other week each fortnight from after school on Monday until the start of school on Tuesday. That is clearly not agreed between the parties.
The father also seeks time with [T] on [T]’s birthday and on his own birthday for a period of five hours on each day if those days are not school days. That is not agreed.
Initially, it appeared that there was some difference between the parties about Easter. However, as the case unfolded, it appeared to me that by the end of the hearing that the parties were agreed that the Easter school holiday break (which is not technically a term holiday but is consistently includes Good Friday and all of the next week) should be shared on a fifty-fifty basis so that the first half [T] would be with one parent and for the second half with the other.
The parties were agreed in relation to Christmas Day and that is that in odd-numbered years [T] will be with his father from 3 pm on Christmas Day until 3 pm on Boxing Day and in even-numbered years from 5 pm on Christmas Eve until 3 pm on Christmas Day.
Although not specifically stated, I make the assumption that the reverse or mirror image of that is to apply in relation to the mother which will ensure that [T] is with her.
The father also sought orders in relation to:
a)spending time with [T] on Father's Day from 11.00 a.m. until 5.00 p.m.; and
b)returning [T] to his mother on Mother's Day for a period of time.
That was initially resisted by the mother but after some time it became apparent that the mother would agree to that.
The father sought that all school holidays be shared equally on a week and weekabout basis with both parents having the option of a two-week block during the summer school holiday period, with the parent that wishes to exercise that option providing the other party with at least 60 days’ notice.
The mother's position was that:
a)in this forthcoming Christmas holiday there should be only two separate periods of one week each; and
b)thereafter it the Christmas holidays should be shared
In closing submissions counsel for the father indicated that the father would accept the mother’s proposal in relation to that as a staged process towards an equal sharing of the Christmas school holidays.
After some time, the parties agreed that each parent could elect during a holiday for [T] to be delivered to or collected from [omitted] Airport. This was on the basis that they each have relatives in Victoria and [T] would, from the age of eight onwards, be able to travel on a direct flight as an unaccompanied minor.
The parties agreed that there should be orders in relation to:
a)each advising the other of his or her address and telephone number and of any changes thereto; and
b)the parent attending to any illness or emergency requiring treatment of [T] being required to inform the other as soon as practicable.
There was initially no agreement about telephone contact as sought by the father in the Orders No. 9 and 10 in his Amended Application. However, in closing submissions the father's counsel conceded that a mobile telephone at [T]'s age may not be appropriate and in evidence the mother conceded that a weekly phone call was appropriate (presumably to a landline). I will refer to that later.
The parties agreed that the mother would not restrict, and if necessary would authorise and facilitate, the father having equal access to those school records and reports that are normally provided to parents and also that the father be permitted to attend all school functions and sporting events and other events in which [T] is involved.
The father sought to be able to attend religious events and ceremonies. Initially that cause some confusion but it became apparent that, provided it was restricted to significant events such as a confirmation, then there was agreement in relation to that. The parties agreed that it would be sufficient to simply add the word “significant” before “religious events” in the Order that the father was seeking.
The parties also agreed that [T] should be known by the surname Brunker Wynne, without the hyphen shown in the father’s application.
I note that [T]’s birth certificate has no hyphen either.
The evidence
The father relied upon two affidavits. The mother relied upon one trial affidavit.
I had indicated my opinion that evidence about the circumstances of the parties’ separation and an annexed report from a psychologist were not helpful and that evidence was excluded from consideration.
The Family Report by Family Consultant, Mrs Fowler, was also admitted into evidence.
I had the opportunity to observe both parties and Mrs Fowler in the witness box.
Background
The parties are both in their forties.
[T], born in 2002, was the result of a very brief period of cohabitation between the parties in Victoria.
Clearly, the parties’ separation was not pleasant for either of them but I can see no point in raking over the coals of that time.
The mother moved to Tasmania even before [T] was born and the father moved to Tasmania after his birth.
Consent orders were made in 2005 which provided that [T] should reside with the mother and have contact with the father on a gradually increasing basis to each second weekend to include two overnight periods. The parties were subsequently unable to agree upon an extension to that and the father made an application to the Family Court of Australia on 31 October 2007.
Further consent orders were made on 19 November 2007 by Benjamin J which clearly were intended to be interim. They provided that the parties share parental responsibility and that the time that [T] spends with his father be varied to:
a)each alternate weekend from 5.00 p.m. every second Friday until 9.00 a.m. the following Monday morning;
b)from 5.00 p.m. until 7.00 p.m. every second Tuesday;
c)from 9.00 a.m. on 8 January 2008 until 5.00 p.m. on 15 January with the father being able to travel to Melbourne with [T] at that time; and
d)for such other times as is agreed between the parties in writing (although I have no evidence of that ever being exercised).
The fortnightly cycle provided for in those orders has continued.
On 19 November 2007 Benjamin J transferred the matter to this court and on 13 March 2008 the matter was set down for trial yesterday.
Legal principles to be applied
Proceedings for parenting orders are governed by the provisions of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act). Section 60CA provides that the court must consider the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.
Section 60B sets out the objects of Part VII of the Act and the principles which underlie those objects.
In determining what is in a child’s best interests I must consider the matters set out in section 60CC. It refers to “primary considerations” and “additional considerations”.
There are two “primary considerations”. The first is the benefit of the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents and the second is the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.
As I have already said the court must take into account those of the additional considerations set out in section 60CC(3) that are relevant.
Section 60CC(4) provides that the court must also consider the extent to which each parent has fulfilled his or her parenting responsibilities and has facilitated the other parent in fulfilling his or her parental responsibilities.
Section 61DA provides that the court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of children for their parents to have “equal shared parental responsibility” unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent has engaged in abuse of a child of that parent’s family or in family violence. Subsection (4) also provides that the presumption “may be rebutted by evidence that satisfies the court that it would not be in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child”.
Subsection 65DAA(1) provides that if a parenting order is to provide that the parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, the court must:
(a) consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and
(b) consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents is reasonably practical; and
(c) if it is, consider making an order to provide … for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents.
If an order is to provide that the parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility but the court does not propose to order that the child is to spend equal time with each of the parents, then the court must consider whether it is in the child’s best interests to spend substantial and significant time with each of the parents and whether that would be reasonably practical.[1]
[1] See subsections 65DAA(2) and (3).
Courts have been assisted in finding their way through the provisions of Part VII of the Act by the decision in Goode & Goode[2].
[2] (2006) FLC 93-286
Discussion
The parties agree that they should have equal shared parental responsibility, so I must consider whether it is in [T]’s best interests to spend equal time with each of them and whether that is reasonably practicable. Neither party seeks an order for equal time, so I conclude that it is not reasonably practical.
That leads me to a consideration of substantial and significant time. In fact both parties are proposing time that falls within the definition of “substantial and significant time”, so I must consider each proposal and whether either is in [T]’s best interests. It is clear, however, that I am not bound by either party’s proposal. In order to make orders that are in [T]’s best interests, I must consider the evidence in the light of section 60CC.
Primary considerations
As I have already said, section 60CC provides for two primary considerations. They are the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents[3], and the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence[4]. Those considerations often compete and must be carefully balanced.
[3] Section 60CC(2)(a)
[4] Section 60CC(2)(b)
In my view, however, they are not competing considerations in this matter because I conclude that there is no evidence which suggests that [T] needs any protection from physical or psychological harm.
However, the mother suggests that [T] may be at some risk from the father’s behaviour. At paragraph 17 of the Family Report, Mrs Fowler said as follows:
When asked if she was concerned for [T]'s safety in the care of his father, she responded that (she) did not believe that [T] would be physically harmed in his father’s care, however was concerned that his “oddities” and social inappropriateness would have a negative impact on [T]. For example Ms Mercer believes that [T]'s past carers and teachers have been fearful and uncomfortable around Mr Brunker due to his bizarre and inappropriate behaviours.
At paragraph 29 Mrs Fowler repeated:
Ms Mercer believes that Mr Brunker has an undiagnosed personality disorder which may have a detrimental impact on [T] in the future.
However, the mother gave no real particulars of the father's bizarre behaviour and she brought no evidence about that, other than her opinions and hearsay comments that she says were made by others.
I further note the following:
·Firstly, the mother made no application to have the father psychiatrically or psychologically examined for the purposes of these proceedings.
·Secondly, Ms Fowler saw no evidence of any behaviour that would suggest that [T] would be at any risk in the father’s care; and
·Thirdly, I saw no evidence of any such behaviour.
Seeing that the mother brought no other witness to substantiate or corroborate her claims about the father’s behaviour, not even her husband, I conclude on the basis of Jones v Dunkel[5] that no such evidence exists.
[5] (1959) 101 CLR 298
In relation to the benefit of the child maintaining a meaningful relationship with both parents I shall refer to that in due course.
Additional considerations
Any views expressed by the child and any fact that the court considers relevant to the weight that should be given to the child’s views
Mrs Fowler said at paragraph 26 of her report:
[T] clearly loves spending time with each of his parents and interacts with both of them in an intimate manner.
Clearly that also has some relevance to the next factor.
The nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child’s parents
Also at paragraph 26 Mrs Fowler said:
It is apparent that both Mr Brunker and Ms Mercer are attentive and loving parents. They are both child focused in their interactions with [T] and committed to providing him with a safe, happy and stimulating environment.
She had earlier said at paragraph 22:
[T]… appeared to be incredibly shy in the presence of his mother and Ms Mercer did not talk to or make eye contact with the Family Consultant. [T] was observed to have a very close and loving relationship with his mother and remained in close proximity to his mother for the duration of their time in the playroom. Both Ms Mercer and Mr Mercer interacted well with [T] and Ms Mercer kept [T] calm and focused on books and activities with her encouraging softly spoken words. [T] was reluctant to be separated.
Then at paragraph 25 Mrs Fowler said:
[T] was a different boy again spending time with his father. In this environment [T] was outgoing, energetic and keen to engage his father in physically active games. [T] was loud, cheeky and was all smiles and laughs. [T] was comfortable physically initiating affection with his father and Mr Mercer (sic) was very child-focused in his activities with [T].
I think that she meant to say “Mr Brunker” in that last sentence rather than “Mr Mercer”.
I have no hesitation in concluding that [T] has warm loving relationships with both of his parents, notwithstanding, and indeed, even in spite of their complete lack of a relationship with each other. I will refer to that again later.
The willingness and ability of each of the child’s parents to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent
I have no concerns about the father's willingness to promote and encourage [T]'s relationship with his mother. For example, April Fowler said at page 9:
Mr Brunker believes Ms Mercer is a loving mother to [T] who meets all of his physical and emotional needs. He also had no concerns regarding [T] in his mother's care other than she may be a little over protective.
I pause to say that Mr Brunker would not be the first father who thought that his child’s mother was a little over-protective.
It is clear also from the nature of his application that he is not trying to replace the mother as [T]'s primary carer.
Having said that, I do have concerns that the mother does not adequately promote and encourage a close relationship between [T] and his father.
In her evidence the mother said (and I quote what I took down as her exact words):
I have given him every ounce of contact he wanted.
However, when she was cross-examined quite extensively about that, she clearly saw that the facts show otherwise, so she sought to qualify that statement by the addition of the words “within reason”.
I must admit to being at a loss to understand how a person could possibly claim to have a willingness and ability to encourage the child’s relationship with the other parent if that first person absolutely refuses to have any communication with the other parent.
Referring again to Mrs Fowler's report, at paragraph 18, she says:
Ms Mercer stated she had no intention of communicating with
Mr Brunker and felt there was no need to come into contact with him.
Certainly, that was reinforced by her evidence.
Although the mother claims to have completed the “Parenting Orders Program” run by Relationships Australia, I can only conclude that she gained very little, if anything at all, from that because she is still maintaining her stand that she will not communicate with the father.
Indeed, one of the saddest things that I have read for quite some time in any Family Report was to be found at paragraph 13 of Mrs Fowler’s Report. There she reported:
Mr Brunker stated that he had not seen Ms Mercer since 2003 and doubted whether he would recognise her.
The two most important people in [T]’s life are his parents and yet one of them refuses point black to communicate with the other.
I accept the father’s evidence that he is willing to discuss the communication issue and it is his desire to improve it so it is my view that the mother needs to do a lot more than she is currently willing to do to repair the rift between the parties.
I am reminded of an example (which I often quote) of some people that I know. When one of my friends’ children decided to get married, she was too embarrassed to invite both her parents to the wedding. She and the groom solved the problem by inviting neither parent to their wedding. I think that is particularly sad as well.
It does seem to me that both parties need to work very hard to repair their communication problem. I am not saying that they necessarily have to like each other, nor am I saying that they necessarily have to forgive each other for past behaviour. However, I am saying that they need to look to [T]’s future and put their own feelings aside in order to improve his chances for that future.
The likely effect of any changes to the child’s circumstances including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either parent or any other person with the child is living
Mr Brunker is not seeking to separate [T] from his mother; he is not even seeking equal time. He is simply seeking more time than he is currently exercising.
I note that [T] has spent at least one occasion of seven days with his father. I also note that there is no evidence that he suffered in any way from that. Further, the mother has altered her proposal in relation to sharing the school holidays and she is seeking orders that will see the father spend at least seven days at a time from time to time with the child.
In addition, [T] is getting older by the day, and as he grows older his ability to be separated from each of his parents will increase because that is the natural order of things. Eventually, we all leave the nest. All too quickly [T] will be the one who decides how much time he spends with each of his parents. As a parent who has three children who have grown up and left home, I can say that it comes around much too quickly. However, that day is not yet here and because the parents cannot agree upon the fine detail of this matter, the court has to make decisions.
The father wants to spend an additional night with [T] per fortnight over and above what the mother is prepared to concede. He says that he wants to involve him at that time in some structured activity such as scouts, martial arts or something similar. Although the mother says that she could quite easily take [T] to that on that particular Monday night, I have some reservations about her willingness to do so.
I am of the view that [T] will be able to cope with that extra night and, further, it will benefit him in his relationship with his father.
The capacity of each of the child’s parents to provide for the child’s needs, including emotional and intellectual needs
It is quite clear that both parents are articulate, intelligent and well educated so I have no concerns at all about the capacity of either of them to provide for [T]’s intellectual needs.
In his written submissions in particular, Mr Foster said that the mother has a diminished capacity to provide for [T]’s emotional needs. In my view, that is true only insofar that she is unwilling to engage directly with the father in relation to matters pertaining to [T]’s future welfare. However, she is seeking an order for “equal shared parental responsibility” and that carries with it certain obligations to consult with the father. Section 65DAC provides that an order for shared parental responsibility is taken to require the parties to consult in relation to major long-term issues and to make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision.
It appears that, in order to be able to comply with that section, the mother will need to change her stance in relation to communication.
Conclusions
Before I detail all my conclusions and the orders that I will make, I should comment that both parties are to be commended for making significant concessions, not only from the beginning, but during and right up to the end of the hearing. That can only be in [T]’s best interests and I hope it signals a more cooperative relationship in the future.
I will now detail the orders to be made and give some explanation where necessary. Some orders will not require any explanation.
The first order will be for equal shared parental responsibility and the second will be that [T] is to live with his mother.
As may already be apparent, I conclude that spending time with the father on that additional day per fortnight during school terms is in [T]’s best interests. The third order will relate to the time that [T] spends with his father, and during school terms that will be each fortnight from Friday at the conclusion of school until the following Tuesday at the start of school with such to commence on the first Friday of the school term and also in the other week of each fortnight from the conclusion of school on Monday until the start of school on Tuesday.
I make an order that during these forthcoming Christmas school holidays [T] is to spend time with his father for two separate periods of one week each. That is because of what I consider to be an admirable concession on the part of the father towards the end of the hearing.
[T] is to spend time with his father for half of each other school holiday on a week and week about basis, and failing agreement on the basis of such commencing on the last day of school in odd-numbered years and one week after the last day of school in even-numbered years. I will also provide for concession the mother made about being able to nominate a two-week block in the Christmas holidays.
[T] is also to spend time with his father for half of the Easter school break, commencing:
·on the Thursday before Easter after school and conclude at 5.00p.m. on the Tuesday in even-numbered years; and
·at 5.00 p.m. on the Tuesday in even-numbered years and concluding at school after the break in the odd-numbered years.
There will also be provision for the other agreed arrangements, which are for [T] is to spend time with his father:
·from 5.00 p.m. on Christmas Eve until 5.00 p.m. on Christmas Day in even-numbered years;
·from 3 pm on Christmas Day until 3.00 p.m. on Boxing Day in odd-numbered years; and
·from 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. on Father's Day (if [T] is not otherwise spending time with his father).
I will include orders to cover what I have referred to as the “mirror images” in relation to Christmas so that, if he is otherwise with his father, [T] will be to be returned to his mother between:
·3.00 p.m. on Christmas Day and 3.00 p.m. on Boxing Day in even-numbered years;
·5.00 p.m. on Christmas Eve and 3.00 p.m. on Christmas day in odd‑numbered years; and
·11.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. on Mother's Day.
I will not include an order in relation to [T]’s birthday or the father’s birthday. My reasons are that, although I am ever an optimist, currently communication between the parties is “zero” so such an order would add to difficulties. However, as suggested by the mother there will occasions when those birthdays will fall on the days that [T] is with his father anyway. Further, as I pointed out during the hearing, neither of those birthdays will ever occur during school holidays. Because the father will be seeing [T] on a weekly basis during school terms, it will not be very many days before or after a birthday that [T] will be seeing his father. Consequently, they can celebrate the birthday a few days late or a few days early.
I will include the agreed order about giving 28 days’ notice in relation to [T] catching the aeroplane at [omitted] airport after he is eight years old. I will also include an agreed order about keeping each other informed of residential addresses and mobile telephone numbers. There will also be an agreed order about medical illness or emergency.
I will add an order that while [T] is with either parent that parent is to initiate a telephone call to enable [T] to communicate with the other parent at least once per week at a time to be agreed but failing an agreement at 5.00 p.m. on Wednesday. I do not believe I need to explain that order. It is fairly clear that is will work both ways.
I will also include the agreed orders:
·enabling the provision of school reports and the like; and
·enabling the father to attend all school functions and also significant religious events.
Last but not least, there will be an order that [T] is to be known as and use the surname “Brunker Wynne”.
Discussion
I have heard the father’s evidence. Being self‑employed, he appears to have a certain flexibility in his employment. He made it quite clear that it was not his intention to leave [T] in care on a regular basis. Indeed, as I recall his evidence, he has only ever left [T] with someone who was trusted for a very short time. I am therefore confident that the father will only be leaving [T] in proper care on rare occasions. Further, I accept his evidence that it will be on those rare occasions that he may be required to do some work. However, he made it quite clear that it was his intention not to do any work unless it was an emergency.
To be perfectly frank. I do not know what emergency situations [occupation omitted] experience, but in any event, I do not see why [T] should not be able to tag along if there needs to be an emergency attendance upon one of the father’s patients.
I certify that the preceding ninety-eight (98) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Roberts FM
Associate:
Date:
0