BULLA & HAYLES
[2020] FCCA 2878
•21 October 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BULLA & HAYLES | [2020] FCCA 2878 |
| Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Parenting – interim applications – best interests of child – Orders made. |
| Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA, 65D |
| Cases cited: Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286 Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101 Eaby & Speelman [2015] FamCAFC 104 Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36 |
| Applicant: | MR BULLA |
| Respondent: | MS HAYLES |
| File Number: | PAC 1516 of 2020 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Newbrun |
| Hearing date: | 22 September 2020 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 22 September 2020 |
| Delivered at: | Parramatta |
| Delivered on: | 21 October 2020 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Cathy Stevenson & Associates |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Ms Singh - Opal Legal |
ORDERS PENDING FURTHER ORDER
That the Orders of 20 April 2016 be discharged.
The Father and Mother shall have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, X born 2015 (the child).
Each parent is to keep the other parent informed of their email and contact numbers.
The child shall live with the Mother.
Commencing 31 October 2020, the child shall spend time with the Father each alternate weekend from 9am Saturday to 9am Monday.
Commencing 29 January 2021, the child shall spend time with the Father each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school or 3pm Friday to the commencement of school at 9am Monday.
Commencing with the Term 1, 2021 school holidays, the child spend time with the Father in accordance with the Father’s proposed interim Order 3c (deleting “commencing in the September/October gazetted holidays 2020”).
The child shall spend time with the Father on Father's Day from 5pm on the Saturday prior to Father's Day and concluding at 5.00pm on Father's Day.
The child shall spend time with the Father on her birthday each year from 3.00pm to 5.00pm in the event it is a school day and she is not otherwise in the Father's care and from 1.00pm to 5.00pm in the event it is a weekend day and she is not otherwise in the Father's care.
The child shall spend time with the Father for a period as agreed for Christmas, but failing agreement as follows:
(a)From 9am Christmas Eve until 3pm Christmas day in each odd numbered year;
(b)From 3.00pm Christmas day until 5.00pm Boxing day in each even numbered year.
The child shall spend time with the Father for a period as agreed for Easter, but failing agreement as follows:
(a)From 9.00am Good Friday until 5.00pm Easter Saturday in each odd numbered year;
(b)From 5.00pm Easter Saturday until 5.00pm Easter Monday in each even numbered year.
The child shall spend time with the Father at such other times as agreed between the parties.
Changeovers shall occur at Location A, B Street, Town C, NSW, unless occurring at school.
That the Father shall enrol and attend in a co-parenting skills course and provide to the Mother proof of his enrolment and thereafter complete the said course as soon as is practicable.
That without admissions and pending further order, each parent is restrained from:
(a)Denigrating the other parent or allowing any third party to denigrate the other parent in the presence of or hearing of the child.
(b)Allowing any third party to act in a manner towards the child that would place the child at risk.
(c)Allowing any third party to smoke in the presence of the child.
That each party is to keep the other notified of their current mobile phone number.
That the parties communicate via text message only.
That in the event of the child suffering any serious injury or illness or medical emergency requiring medical attention while spending time with or living with either parent:
(a)The other parent is to be notified as soon as practicable.
(b)That the other parent is to be provided with the full details of the practitioner or medical facility upon which the child attends as soon as practicable.
(c)That the medical practitioner or medical facility be advised that the other parent has access to the child’s medical records and the information obtained with them upon request.
That the parties shall make arrangements and do all things necessary at the child’s school(s) to ensure that the parties can each obtain the following information and documents at their own cost:
(a)A copy of all school reports and school photo order forms for the child.
(b)Notification for school activities that they may decide to attend, such activities being those that parents are ordinarily entitled to or invited by the school to attend.
(c)Notification of parent/teacher nights.
(d)In the event of the child being taken from the school for an emergency, remedial or correctional treatment that both parents are to be informed as soon as practicable.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Bulla & Hayles is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA |
PAC 1516 of 2020
| MR BULLA |
Applicant
And
| MS HAYLES |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
These are short form reasons in relation to the determination of firstly, the Mother’s proposed interim parenting orders set out in Annexure A to her Amended Case Outline document filed 22 September 2020, and secondly, in relation to the Father’s proposed interim parenting orders set out in his Initiating Application filed 30 March 2020.
The subject child is X born 2015.
By way of background, the Family Court of Australia at Parramatta made final consent parenting Orders between the parties on 20 April 2016. Those Orders provided inter alia, that:
a)the child live with the Mother;
b)the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the child;
c)the child spend time with the Father each alternate Saturday from 9am to 6pm, with changeover to occur at the Mother’s residence;
d)the child spend time with each parent on certain special occasions;
e)the parties are to communicate by text message, telephone, or in person;
f)each parent is to keep the other parent informed of their current residential address, email and contact numbers;
g)each parent is to notify the other parent of any serious injury or illness or medical emergency within 24 hours;
h)commencing 2 August 2018, the child is to spend each alternate Saturday (with the Father) at 9am to Sunday at 6pm;
i)the child spend additional time with the Father as agreed in writing.
The child began to spend one overnight each fortnight with the Father from August 2018, in conformity with the above orders. Between March 2020 and June 2020 such time did not occur because the Mother unilaterally ceased the child’s time with the Father during that period.
On 3 June 2020, consent parenting Orders were made in this court providing, inter alia, for the child to spend time with the Father each alternate weekend from 9am Saturday to 6pm Sunday commencing 6 June 2020. In conjunction with that Order, on 3 June 2020, without admissions and pending interim hearing, the Father was made the subject of certain restraining Orders in relation to the child.
The Father relies upon, relevantly:
a)His Case Outline for this interim hearing;
b)His Initiating Application filed 30 March 2020;
c)His Affidavits filed 2 June 2020 and 7 July 2020;
d)Affidavit of Ms A Bulla, the Paternal Grandmother, filed 2 June 2020;
e)Response to Application in a Case filed 7 July 2020.
The Mother relies upon, relevantly:
a)Her Amended Case Outline filed 22 September 2020;
b)Her Tender Bundle;
c)Her Affidavits filed 14 June 2020 and 18 September 2020;
d)Affidavit of Mr D filed 18 September 2020;
e)Her Response to Initiating Application filed 1 June 2020; and
f)Her Application in a Case filed 16 June 2020.
The Court will firstly deal with the parties’ competing time-with proposed orders.
The Mother effectively seeks a continuation of the present time-with orders between the child and the Father; that the Father spend time with the child each alternate weekend from 9am on Saturday to 6pm on Sunday. She does not seek any further interim parenting orders relating to the child spending additional time with the Father, such as holiday time or on special occasions.
Whereas the Father proposes initially, for a period of three months, three nights per fortnight with the child, and thereafter, during school terms four nights per fortnight with the child. He seeks in addition, an equal sharing of holiday time in the mid-term school holidays, and in Christmas school holidays time with the child on a week about basis. He seeks other interim related parenting orders.
The Court has considered all the submissions of the parties made at this interim hearing, including submissions in their Case Outlines.
The material before the Court suggests that the child has a meaningful relationship with both parents and will benefit from a continuance of those relationships.
The Mother, in her material, expresses her significant concerns that historically and to date the child has been returned to her primary care by the Father suffering either illness or injury. The Mother refers to and alleges that “the frequency and seriousness of the injuries and illness (that the child suffers) while in the (Father’s) care is concerning.”
The Mother, inter alia, in this context, refers to the child allegedly intermittently having suffered grazes, bruises, scratches, and experiencing feelings of pain or discomfort. The Mother alleges that these physical occurrences to the child have occurred from about January 2019 to date.
The Mother alleges that it has only been since June 2020 that she has taken the child to the doctors following each visit with the Father. The Mother has placed no health professional material before the Court relating to these alleged injuries or illnesses. The Mother refers to text message communication between the parties in relation to these occurrences and alleges that the Father fails to adequately communicate with her in relation to these occurrences in respect to the child. The Father, for his part, acknowledges that the child has suffered bruises or scratches in his care, but alleges that the child is a young active child, and as a result of her activities, has minor grazing and bruising. He denies ever being abusive or neglectful and thereby causing the child harm. He is not aware, he alleges, of the child ever suffering a serious injury requiring medical intervention.
The Court’s impression of the material adduced by the Mother in relation to these alleged injuries or illnesses of the child, without proceeding to make any findings of fact, is that they do not appear to be particularly serious and may well be the result of minor illnesses or injuries that an active children is prone to suffer from. Having said that, there is, on one view, since early June 2020 until mid September 2020, an increasing occurrence of these alleged injuries.
However, what is of particular relevance in relation to these alleged injuries and illnesses is the significant suggestion, on the material before the Court, that the Mother experiences stress and anxiety in relation to them; the Mother herself alleges that the Father’s failure to keep her informed of the child’s health has caused her distress as she does not want to unnecessarily medicate the child, take her to the doctors, and see her uncomfortable and in pain.
The Father alleges that in 2017 the parties were unable to agree to the child spending more time with the Father and this created arguments and conflict between them. He alleges in this context that the parties were in regular disagreement by text message over the child’s parenting.
He also alleges that during the parties’ relationship he became aware that the Mother suffered depression and anxiety and that the Mother had told him that she had self-harmed by cutting her arms. This allegation suggests that the Mother’s alleged more recently experienced anxiety, and for which she has sought and commenced treatment with a therapist, may well be of particular relevance.
The Mother alleges that she commenced to see a therapist in April 2020 in relation to anxiety that she was feeling about the Father constantly contacting her and attending her home and in relation to all her alleged concerns during the child’s time with the Father. The Mother continues to see this therapist every fortnight. The Mother refers to the alleged content of her therapy sessions in relation to dealing with her alleged stress and anxiety in relation to dealing with the Father.
The Father alleges that the parties have continued to disagree over matters such as toilet training, singing lessons and other general parenting matters for the child. He describes the parties’ co-parenting relationship as inconsistent, that is, sometimes they are working well together and other times they are in disagreement.
The Mother, for her part, alleges that the parties have not been able to co-parent, and she refers to disagreements between the parties in this context. She alleges that she continues to feel intimidated in the presence of the Father and communicating with him. She alleges that the majority of the time that she has communicated with the Father this has resulted in conflict.
The Mother’s new partner, in his Affidavit, alleges that he has overheard verbal disputation between the parties in relation to the child spending time with the Father and allegedly observed the Father grab the Mother and walk off. He alleges that the Mother was visibly upset with tears on this latter occasion. He alleges that the Mother requested him to accompany her to changeovers to reduce the chance of conflict. He alleges that in early 2019 the Mother told him that she was scared and stressed out about all the arguments that happen every time the Father drops the child home. He alleges that from about early to mid 2019 he has been handing over the child to the Father at the commencement of his time with her and collecting her when she is returned. He alleges that throughout his relationship with the mother he has observed her communications with the Father and the Mother’s parenting. He alleges that he has observed that the Father has been very forceful and controlling over both the child and the Mother giving alleged examples. He alleges that he has observed that each time the Father returns the child to the Mother and himself the child has either an injury or illness which causes the Mother distress and/or discomfort. He alleges that on many occasions the Father is unable to explain how these have occurred or if he asked the Father, the Father will ignore the question and leave. He alleges that he is fearful of the Father knowing the address of himself and the mother, alleging that if he knows the address that his former partner and family members will find this information out themselves which he does not want to occur.
The Mother, again, had ceased the child’s time with the Father between March 2020 and up to about early June 2020, with the Mother alleging that the Father had acted inappropriately towards the child, including for example, the child showering with the Father and sleeping in the same bed as the Father. Again, these alleged acts of inappropriate behaviour by the Father towards the child were the subject of without admission interim parenting restraining Orders upon the Father on 3 June 2020. The Father denies acting inappropriately towards the child, as alleged by the Mother.
In relation to the above interim parenting restraints upon the Father, there is no evidence that the Father has breached these restraints since 3 June 2020, and the Court takes that into account.
The Court observes that there have been no Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders between the parties. The Father alleges that he has never been contacted or interviewed by the NSW Police with respect to a complaint of intimidation, harassment or assault by the Mother.
The Paternal Grandmother’s Affidavit alleges, in effect, that the Father is a competent carer of the child.
The Mother alleges that since about 2018 on at least 10 occasions the Father has attended her residence and was verbally aggressive towards the Mother. The Father denies that he has acted in any way that is intimidating or causing of fear to the Mother. The Mother alleges that on occasion the Father did not allow her to close the door which the Father denies.
The relevant principles in relation to parenting proceedings, including interim proceedings, are well settled: see Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286.
In Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia discussed the problems associated with making findings on disputed evidence as follows:
[120] As has frequently been emphasised interim parenting proceedings, and orders made as a consequence, are a necessary but temporary measure until all the evidence can be tested, evaluated and weighed at a final hearing by the making of final parenting orders. Decisions judicial officers have to make in interim proceedings are difficult and, often for very good reason, a conservative approach, or one which is likely to avoid harm to a child is adopted. This is often to the understandable distress of a party who may not achieve the outcome he or she desires, or thinks to be in the best interests of their child or children. Interim parenting orders are frequently modified or changed after a final hearing, and any allocation of parental responsibility made at an interim hearing is disregarded at the final hearing (s 61DB).
[122] In SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13 the majority (Boland and Thackray JJ) discussed at paragraph 88 of their reasons the care necessary to be exercised in making findings in interim parenting proceedings. Their Honours said:
In our view, findings made at an interim hearing should be couched with great circumspection, no matter how firmly a judge’s intuition may suggest that the finding will be borne out after a full testing of the evidence.
[123] Later, at paragraph 100 their Honours amplified their comments and said:
The intuition involved in decision-making concerning children is arguably of even greater importance when a judge is obliged to make interim decisions following a hearing at which time constraints prevent the evidence being tested. Apart from relying upon the uncontroversial or agreed facts, a judge will sometimes have little alternative than to weigh the probabilities of competing claims and the likely impact on children in the event that a controversial assertion is acted upon or rejected. It is not always feasible when dealing with the immediate welfare of children simply to ignore an assertion because its accuracy has been put in issue.
Of this, the Full Court in Eaby & Speelman [2015] FamCAFC 104 said at [19]:
As would be immediately apparent, this approach enables the Court to appropriately and carefully deal with contentious issues relevant to the welfare of the child, and for those issues to not be ignored.
The Court also refers to the decision of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36, especially at paragraphs 46 to 52. In that decision, the Full Court stated, inter alia, that (at paragraph 49), “It is also important to stress here that the requirement to “consider” each factor (under s60CC of the Act) does not mean each must be discussed, especially where the evidence leads inexorably to a particular conclusion: SCVG & KLD (2014) FLC 93-582”. Further, it stated, at paragraph 50, “When it is obvious that the findings made as to some of the s 60CC factors will be determinative of the child’s best interests on an interim basis, it is a sterile and unnecessary exercise to address other factors”.
Section 60B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) sets out the objects of Part VII of the Act relating to children that inform the making of parenting orders.
In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration: section 60CA of the Act.
Section 60CC of the Act provides that in determining what is in the child’s best interests, the Court must consider the matters set out in subsections (2) and (3). In this context, the court refers to the above dicta in Banks & Banks.
The Court should state, noting the final parenting consent Orders of 20 April 2016, that there has probably been a significant change in circumstances since the making of those Orders because, inter alia, the child was only aged about 9 months when those orders were made but the child is now aged 5 years, taking into account the Mother’s unilateral ceasing of time between March and June 2020, and the material adduced by the Mother in relation to her alleged anxiety and commencement of therapy in relation thereto.
It is common ground that the Mother has been the child’s primary carer from birth to date. Again, the child has a meaningful relationship with both parents.
In relation to the parties’ competing time-with proposals in relation to the child spending time with the Father, the Court is mindful of the real prospect that the child’s meaningful relationship with the Father will be enhanced if she is able to spend increased time with him.
On the other hand, the Court is mindful of the Mother’s allegations that she is experiencing anxiety, for which she receives treatment, inter alia, in relation to having to deal with the Father in relation to co-parenting the child. Further, in relation to co-parenting between the parties, there is a significant suggestion on the material before the Court that their ability to satisfactorily co-parent the child in a consistent and reliable fashion is unsatisfactory. In this context, the Court takes into account the real possibility that the greater the time that the child spends with the Father that there will be an increased need for the parties to co-parent the child, with thereby an increased risk of conflict between them. Should the child be exposed to such conflict she could suffer emotional harm.
The Court has a concern, based upon all the material before the Court, that if it was to make the Father’s proposed interim parenting orders, relating to time to be spent between the child and the Father, there is a real possibility that the Mother might experience increased stress and anxiety, with detrimental effects upon her parenting capacity for the child, as a result of increased conflict between the parties. The child may experience emotional harm should the mother’s parenting capacity be adversely affected.
As to the Mother’s allegations of inappropriate behaviour by the Father towards the child, the Court has taken into account that there is no allegation by the Mother that the interim parenting restraints against the Father made on 3 June 2020 have been breached by him. It has taken into account the Father’s submissions in this context (in particular, see the Father’s counsel’s Case Outline for this interim hearing at pages 5-6). The Court has also taken into account the Father’s denials in this context. Nevertheless, acting cautiously and conservatively, it will be in the best interests of the child to maintain the current interim parenting restraints against the Father on a without admissions basis, made on 3 June 2020, pending further order, particularly taking into account the age of the child.
Acting cautiously and conservatively, taking into account the above matters, and also taking into account the age of the child, and her historical time with the Father, the Court is of the view that should the child spend increased time with the Father, as follows, the child’s meaningful relationship with the Father can be maintained and enhanced, the risk of significant conflict between the parties can be minimised, the risk of the Mother experiencing increased stress and anxiety can be minimised, and the risk of any harm to the child can be minimised:
a)Commencing 31 October 2020, the child spend time with the Father each alternate weekend from 9am Saturday to 9am Monday.
b)Commencing 29 January 2021, the child spend time with the Father each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school or 3pm Friday to the commencement of school at 9am Monday.
c)Commencing with the Term 1, 2021 school holidays, the child spend time with the Father in accordance with the Father’s proposed interim Order 3c (deleting “commencing in the September/October gazetted holidays 2020”).
d)The child spend time with the Father on Father’s Day in accordance with the Father’s proposed interim Order 3e.
e)The child spend time with the Father on her birthday in accordance with the Father’s proposed interim Order 3f.
f)The child spend time with the Father at Christmas in accordance with the Father’s proposed interim Order 3g.
g)The child spend time with the Father at Easter in accordance with the Father’s proposed interim Order 3h.
h)At such other times as agreed.
At this interim stage, the Court is of the view that it will not be in the best interests of the child to spend block time with the Father during the Christmas school holidays (the father proposes week about) because such additional proposed increased time between the child and the Father may increase the risks to the child and Mother discussed previously in these Reasons. The Court has concerns that the parties’ present ability to communicate and co-parent the child is insufficient to cope with a week about arrangement during the Christmas school holidays. The Court is of the view that the parties can probably cope, in terms of communication and co-parenting the child, in relation to an equal sharing of the shorter school holidays commencing in the school holidays at the end of Term 1 next year.
It will be in the best interests of the child for changeover to continue to occur at Location A, B Street, Town C, unless changeover is occurring at school.
At this interim stage, the Court is not persuaded that it will be in the best interests of the child for the Mother have sole parental responsibility of the child. The parties should continue to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child. The Court refers to its previous discussions above in relation to the parties’ difficulties with communication and co-parenting. Nevertheless, in the view of the Court, there is a real possibility that they will be able to reach agreement in a timely fashion in relation to future major decisions to be reached for the child. In this context of parental responsibility, it is important that the child sees both parents as playing a significant role in the making of major decisions in her life. There is a looming major decision for the child, namely the kindergarten school the child will attend in 2021, however, as submitted by the Father’s counsel, by reason of the Mother’s primary care of the child, the child will likely attend a school close to her residence, and the Court would assess that there is a real chance that the parties can reach agreement in this context without significant conflict. Otherwise there appears to be made no looming major decision for the child.
It will not be in the best interests of the child to order equal time between the parties, and no party sought such an order. As to substantial and significant time, the Court’s proposed increased time between the child and the Father will ultimately (noting the graduated proposed time-with Orders of the Court) constitute substantial and significant time, as defined under the Act. Orders for substantial and significant time should be reasonably practicable.
The Mother has completed certain parenting courses in 2020. It will be in the best interests of the child that the Father complete a co-parenting skills course, as proposed by the Mother, bearing in mind the co-parenting difficulties the parties appear to experience.
As to Order 9 of the 2016 consent parenting orders, that is, “Each parent is to keep the other parent informed of their current residential address, email and contact numbers”, the Court is of the view that it will be in the best interests of the child to discharge this Order but only to the extent of removing the reference to each parent keeping the other parent informed of their current residential address.
In this context, the Court takes into account the Mother’s alleged concerns, and allegations in relation thereto, in respect to the Father being aware of her current residential address. The Court also takes into account the allegations made by the Mother’s partner in his Affidavit in this context. The Court has not overlooked the Father’s denials in this context. However, taking into account the Mother’s allegations in this regard, and so as to minimise the risk of the Mother experiencing increased stress and anxiety if the Father was to know her residential address, again, the Court is of the view that the Mother should not be ordered to provide details of her residential address to the Father, pending further order.
The Court is of the view that the Mother’s proposed Order 6 requiring the Father to notify the Mother of any injury and/or illness that the child suffers in his care, including but not limited to bruises, scratches and grazes, and any treatment provided to the child within 24 hours of such injury and/or illness occurring, will not be in the best interests of the child. Such an order would increase the need of the parties to communicate with each other, and taking into account the Mother’s alleged stress and anxiety, may lead to conflict between the parties with resultant detrimental effects upon the child. The Court is of the view that the Father’s proposed Order 7 relating to the parties reporting incidents involving the child suffering medical emergencies requiring medical attention, but adding the words “any serious injury or illness or” (see Order 10 of the Orders of 20 April 2016) will sufficiently allow the parties to co-parent the child in relation to significant injuries that the child might suffer.
The Court notes that the Father agreed to the Mother’s proposed Orders 3, 10, 11, and 12, and such orders will be in the best interests of the child.
The Court notes that the Mother agreed to the Father’s proposed interim Orders 7 and 8, and such orders will be in the best interests of the child.
Accordingly, evaluating the above discussed considerations under section 60CC of the Act, it will be in the best interests of the child to make the following interim parenting orders:
That the Orders of 20 April 2016 be discharged.
The Father and Mother shall have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, X born 2015 (the child).
Each parent is to keep the other parent informed of their email and contact numbers.
The child shall live with the Mother.
Commencing 31 October 2020, the child shall spend time with the Father each alternate weekend from 9am Saturday to 9am Monday.
Commencing 29 January 2021, the child shall spend time with the Father each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school or 3pm Friday to the commencement of school at 9am Monday.
Commencing with the Term 1, 2021 school holidays, the child spend time with the Father in accordance with the Father’s proposed interim Order 3c (deleting “commencing in the September/October gazetted holidays 2020”).
The child shall spend time with the Father on Father's Day from 5pm on the Saturday prior to Father's Day and concluding at 5.00pm on Father's Day.
The child shall spend time with the Father on her birthday each year from 3.00pm to 5.00pm in the event it is a school day and she is not otherwise in the Father's care and from 1.00pm to 5.00pm in the event it is a weekend day and she is not otherwise in the Father's care.
The child shall spend time with the Father for a period as agreed for Christmas, but failing agreement as follows:
(a)From 9am Christmas Eve until 3pm Christmas day in each odd numbered year;
(b)From 3.00pm Christmas day until 5.00pm Boxing day in each even numbered year.
The child shall spend time with the Father for a period as agreed for Easter, but failing agreement as follows:
(a)From 9.00am Good Friday until 5.00pm Easter Saturday in each odd numbered year;
(b)From 5.00pm Easter Saturday until 5.00pm Easter Monday in each even numbered year.
The child shall spend time with the Father at such other times as agreed between the parties.
Changeovers shall occur at Location A, B Street, Town C, NSW, unless occurring at school.
That the Father shall enrol and attend in a co-parenting skills course and provide to the Mother proof of his enrolment and thereafter complete the said course as soon as is practicable.
That without admissions and pending further order, each parent is restrained from:
(a)Denigrating the other parent or allowing any third party to denigrate the other parent in the presence of or hearing of the child.
(b)Allowing any third party to act in a manner towards the child that would place the child at risk.
(c)Allowing any third party to smoke in the presence of the child.
That each party is to keep the other notified of their current mobile phone number.
That the parties communicate via text message only.
That in the event of the child suffering any serious injury or illness or medical emergency requiring medical attention while spending time with or living with either parent:
(a)The other parent is to be notified as soon as practicable.
(b)That the other parent is to be provided with the full details of the practitioner or medical facility upon which the child attends as soon as practicable.
(c)That the medical practitioner or medical facility be advised that the other parent has access to the child’s medical records and the information obtained with them upon request.
That the parties shall make arrangements and do all things necessary at the child’s school(s) to ensure that the parties can each obtain the following information and documents at their own cost:
(a)A copy of all school reports and school photo order forms for the child.
(b)Notification for school activities that they may decide to attend, such activities being those that parents are ordinarily entitled to or invited by the school to attend.
(c)Notification of parent/teacher nights.
(d)In the event of the child being taken from the school for an emergency, remedial or correctional treatment that both parents are to be informed as soon as practicable.
I certify that the preceding fifty-three (53) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Newbrun
Associate:
Date: 21 October 2020
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
0
4
2