C & C
[2004] FamCA 708
•6 August 2004
[2004] FamCA 708
FAMILY LAW ACT 1975
IN THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY No. SY6431 of 2001
BETWEEN:
C
Father
- and -
C
Mother
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BEFORE: The Honourable Justice Moore
HEARD: 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23 & 24
October 2003
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS CONCLUDED: 21 November 2003
JUDGMENT: 6 August 2004
APPEARANCES: Mr Schonell, instructed by Marks Griffiths & Bova, Solicitors, DX 9223 Manly, appeared for the applicant/mother.
Mr Smith, instructed by Kelly & Agerholm, Solicitors, 12 Nepean Avenue, Arana Hills Qld 4054, appeared for the respondent/father.
Ms Karagiannis of Legal Aid Commission NSW, DX 5 Sydney, appeared as the child representative
CATCHWORDS:
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN - Residence orders sought by each parent – 12 year old boy alienated from his father – allegation mother responsible - discussion of Parental Alienation Syndrome – apportionment of responsibility for alienation as between the parents – strong wishes of child to have no further contact with his father – age and stage of development of child discussed as well as the child’s particular personality – identification of risks for child in short and long term by remaining in the care of his mother and having no further contact with his father or paternal family – identification of risks for child in being removed from Sydney to Perth to live with his father and initially having limited contact with his mother so as to reconcile him with his father – available options considered and weighed – orders for child to remain living with mother notwithstanding the considerable contribution she made to the alienation from his father and despite the risks and disadvantages in the almost certain result that he would have no further contact with his father.
Proceedings and orders sought
To be determined are the future arrangements for the parties’ son, J (12 years), against a background of long-standing parental conflict and complicated intra-family dynamics.
J’s father, Mr C, seeks a residence order in circumstances where he has not seen J since October 2002, save for an event in October 2003 to be discussed in due course, and the child is steadfast in his refusal to have anything more to do with him or with his paternal family. Mr C believes this has come about because his mother has alienated J from him, a process she has allegedly employed over a long period by putting distance between them by her relocation from Perth to Sydney in 1996, by interference, control, proprietorial and high-handed behaviour, threats of litigation and intensive cross-questioning of the child. He calls in aid the work of theorists and clinicians on the so-called ‘Parential Alienation Syndrome’, not only to identify the current state of affairs as the mother’s handiwork but also to provide to the Court the solution for it; namely, removal of the child from her care and limiting contact with her for a period.
The orders Mr C seeks are more particularly set out in exhibit 3. As his counsel points out, those orders are largely modelled on those made by Lindenmayer J in the unreported decision of P v D delivered 29 August 2001 and subsequently upheld by the Full Court on appeal. He proposes a residence order in his favour and he would have sole responsibility for the child’s care, welfare and development. For a short time there would be no contact from the mother then contact would be restricted to letters once a week. On this proposal, the child’s progress would be monitored by Dr W, a suitably qualified expert based in Perth and familiar with the sort of alienating conduct the mother allegedly has engaged in here. Dr W would take a therapeutic role with J as he is reconciled to his father, step-mother and paternal extended family. His expertise was said by Mr Smith to be considerable in circumstances where a child has been alienated from a parent and not only would his expertise be invaluable in the transition phase but also in the eventual management of issues such as whether and in what circumstances contact with the mother should be re-instated. It is proposed Dr W’s involvement would operate in conjunction with the child representative and a counsellor also based in Perth who would report to the Court no later than nine months after the change in residence and consideration of other contact between J and his mother would be deferred until then.
On the other hand, J’s mother, Mrs C, maintains J’s attitude has come about by reason of shortcomings in his father’s parenting and inadequacies in the environment offered to J on contact visits. As she sees it, J’s by now implacable opposition to any further contact with his father is of Mr C’s own making. By her formal orders at the commencement of the hearing she sought a discharge of existing contact orders, that the father attend a course of therapy about contact for 12 months, she and the child attend a course of therapy about contact for 12 months, and they follow the reasonable recommendations of the therapist as to the implementation of any future contact. However, as her counsel said in closing submissions, her application is consistent with the final orders proposed by the child representative.
Ms Karagiannis took on the role of child representative and in her submissions she adopted the final recommendation of the Court appointed expert, Dr M. She proposed there be no orders for contact between J and his father, despite that being a highly unsatisfactory result on a number of levels. Nonetheless, as she put it, at the end of the day the welfare of an early adolescent child is under consideration, not an electronic device requiring re-programming to function more efficiently. She submitted it is plain that orders providing for contact between J and his father will not work and to force it would be contrary to J’s interests. Accordingly, the current orders for contact should be discharged, but Mr C should be permitted to forward to J appropriate cards, gifts and correspondence and Mrs C should ensure he receives them and otherwise facilitates any contact requested by J at any time in the future.
Evidence
The evidence has been extensive in this case and the hearing itself occupied 10 days. But while the very nature of the case requires close scrutiny of all of the evidence and attention given to detail, not all of it needs to be referred to here. It is not really a case where there is a great deal of dispute about factual or historical matters. More at issue are those things more subtle and difficult to discern than competing versions of a particular event: attitude, influence, intent and motive. Even so, where it has become necessary to make a finding on a disputed fact, I have done so on the probabilities having regard to the evidence, in combination with my assessment of the party or witness concerned, and that is also the source of other judgments I have brought to bear.
It will be convenient to refer specifically here to the evidence given by the Court appointed expert, Dr M, who provided three reports and gave further evidence at the hearing. Mr C’s counsel in his submissions put arguments that sought to diminish some of the weight of Dr M’s evidence, but I found them unpersuasive. I found him to be an impressive witness because as far as I could discern he carried out the task required of him in a professional manner, he maintained objectivity throughout, and his focus remained the child’s interests. I was left with the impression overall that his conclusions were well founded and his opinions could be relied upon as soundly based. In discussing his evidence in the course of this judgment, it can be assumed that I accept his evidence unless there is expressed a specific qualification or rejection.
Brief background
The parties, whose families are immigrants, lived in Perth where they met in 1991 and they began living together soon afterwards. They married in November 1991 and separated in July 1992 shortly after their son’s birth in May of that year. They were divorced in February 1995. J has always lived with his mother.
Court proceedings
This is the third set of contested proceedings involving their son’s arrangements since they separated. Mr C instituted the first round of litigation after their separation by seeking orders for access. The path to final orders on that occasion in October 1993 was punctuated by enforcement proceedings resulting in orders either defining contact or varying the existing arrangements. The final orders provided for Mrs C to have sole guardianship and custody (by consent) and for Mr C to have defined access that increased over time as the child became older, culminating in alternate weekends and block periods during the school holidays from the time he turned 6 years of age.
10. Further proceedings were instituted by Mr C in September 1995 seeking a variation of the access arrangements. Mrs C’s response entailed a proposal to re-locate from Perth to Sydney where her partner at the time had found employment. After a contested hearing, Martin J made orders on 23 April 1996 enabling Mrs C to make the move to Sydney with J. At the same time orders were made providing for access to take place in Perth for three weeks in the mid-year school holidays, three weeks in the summer school vacation, and in Sydney for three days each month as well as telephone contact twice a week. Mrs C moved to Sydney promptly following the orders.
11. It is convenient to say here that the wife’s partner was called as a witness in Mr C’s case and, while his time in the witness box was relatively brief, he nonetheless impressed as a relatively straightforward person who had moved on with his life since his relationship with Mrs C ended and I was not left with the impression that he was motivated by any ill-feeling towards her in the evidence he gave. That evidence included the proposition, which I accept, that she had told him on occasions in Perth that she would like to move to Sydney to get away from Mr C.
12. In giving Reasons for Judgment some time after the making of orders – something Mrs C erroneously misconstrues as somehow related to assistance rendered to her against the prospect of a successful appeal – Martin J made a number of observations to which attention was directed in the submissions of the child representative:
“It is clear that the parties have, and have had a very poor relationship over the years. Despite the fact that their marriage was so short, the parties have been involved in three long trials in this Court in a very short period of time, and this in itself, demonstrates the extraordinary poor relationship between them.”(p.3)
“..despite the extent and nature of the continuing proceedings between the parties, to their credit, despite their poor relationship, the access has been proceeding relatively smoothly over the last 2-1/2 years, and the access order has been complied with, almost to the letter.”(p.8)
“The husband presented as a doting parent who is desperate to spend more time with his son……….The wife, as sole guardian and custodian, has acted in a proprietorial manner towards the child and I have no doubt, would ideally like to limit the contact of the child with the father,………..As to credibility, although I found the husband to be unrealistic in his approach to the proceedings, generally speaking, I consider he was a credible witness………..I consider the wife should have been more frank about her past and future working arrangements ……”(p 13)
“Having regard to the history of the litigation between the parties, I have no doubt, that whatever order I make, both parties are likely to take further proceedings against the other in relation to the child in the not too distant future, although, since both parties have spent in excess of $80,000 on their continuing warfare, one imagines that their financial resources and their wish to expend them in this matter, must be finite”.(p 15)
13. Mrs C instigated the current round of litigation in November 2002 by seeking orders, inter alia, suspending the existing contact orders. This followed J’s return from a visit to Perth the previous month and his refusal to go on any further contact visits. As the matter progressed a child representative was appointed for J and Dr M was appointed as the Court expert. He provided his first report in February 2003 and I shall come to that and his later reports in due course. In March 2003 consent orders were made to the effect that contact was to resume in April. However, events to be discussed later occurred at the airport and J did not board the flight for Perth. Mr C came to Sydney in an attempt to overcome the problem, but this was resisted and amongst other Court applications Mr C changed his application to seek orders for J to live with him. Mrs C then applied to have contact suspended, based upon evidence from her and from Professor S about statements allegedly made by J about certain conduct of his father during the October contact visit. The upshot was an order suspending all contact pending the outcome of the final hearing.
Child’s schooling and interests
14. J began his schooling in 1997 at a local primary school. As Mrs C explained it, she wanted a private school education for him but she could not afford it at that stage. In the year he turned 7 years of age, J began professional acting work and, as his mother described it, he wanted to go to a private school that provided acting, dance and art work, all of which he enjoyed, as he met other child actors. She became concerned he was not being academically extended or sufficiently challenged at his public school. She located in due course the a performing arts college which, she said, specifically caters for and encourages children with talents like J’s while maintaining a high academic standard, both factors of immense importance to herself and to J. He has been attending that school since May 2001. He has been provided with a curricula that encompasses acting, dance, singing, art and language and he has been academically successful, as his school reports reflect. He is studying French and is particularly looking forward to going with the school on an excursion to France. His core performing arts subject is drama, he is taught to analyse motives and to understand human responses and he is considered by his mother to be very perceptive and to have an aptitude for reading body language. I should say Dr M’s assessment of J sits rather incongruously with this. Nevertheless his mother describes him as surrounded by other students who are talented and sophisticated, with similar interests and attitudes, and she describes the school as an ideal environment for a child who loves the theatre as he does. He has an extended group of friends from school whom he often sees on a social basis and she says he is mature for his age, not only because of his own nature but also because of the age and maturity of his friends. As she sees it, he will complete his secondary schooling at the college. She considers his professional acting work, outlined in some detail, to be an integral part of his schooling.
Parties background, current circumstances, future proposals
15. In 1994 Mr C formed a relationship with Ms R with whom he has now lived for many years in Perth in a home owned by Mr C. Ms R has been a part of the household during J’s visits to his father over the years.
16. Mr C is employed by a company owned and operated by his brother. It allows him flexible hours, he has tailored his work to suit J’s visits in the past, and he said he will be able to fit his work commitments around his care of J in the future. He would ensure all of J’s current interests are maintained and he has gone to some effort to locate a school in Perth that offers specialist programs and facilities similar to those available to J at his present school in Sydney. In Perth he can also pursue his interest in acting and be involved in advertising. He said he has paid child support as assessed over the years and he has also paid for travelling and accommodation and other costs associated with travel to Sydney for contact. He proposes to increase his earnings to pay for the proposed private schooling by taking on work as a private investigator. He has a close extended family in Perth with whom J has had contact during visits to Perth over the years. On his proposal, his family would be involved in J’s upbringing and his brother, in his evidence, confirmed his availability and willingness to have J stay with his family during any period of transition between his mother and his father’s home in Perth. In more recent times Mr C and Ms R have completed a parenting course that concentrated on dealing with teenage children and, as mentioned earlier, Mr C has made contact with Dr W whom he intends to engage to assist J in settling into his environment in Perth.
17. Mr Schonell made a number of criticisms of these proposals, calling them ‘speculative’. He submitted that irrespective of how he intends to get J to Perth - a problematic scenario on any view of it - the proposition that he could provide for J in a manner similar to his mother cannot be sustained. In particular, there is no certainty there is a place at the school proposed and the information available about the school is very general, as is the quantum of fees. More to the point, there is a very real question about Mr C’s ability to pay the fees. True it is that he proposes taking on further employment as a private investigator, but that proposal reflects adversely on the minimal payments of child support made up until now. Ms R’s views about his availability and the cost of school fees, along with the costs incurred in this litigation already, also have to be factored into the plan. All considered, there must be doubt about his capacity to provide educational opportunities for J similar to those available to him in Sydney and this is a case where the child’s schooling is of some significance, a point made by Dr M in this passage from his report:
‘J attends a special school for the performing arts which has given him a highly enriched and particular school environment and peer network. It is unlikely that these environmental factors would be reproducible by the father. It is likely that J would feel the loss of this enriched environment acutely. Under such circumstances emotional distress and behavioural disturbance is highly likely.’
18. I agree the proposal for J to go to live with his father in Perth presents considerable difficulties, to be discussed later, and I agree that some aspects of it are ‘speculative’ in that there are still things that would need to be done to realise the proposal, more particularly related to J’s schooling. But nonetheless I am prepared for present purposes to move on the assumption that the school proposed would offer an education not too dissimilar from the school J now attends and also that Mr C would have the money necessary to pay the fees and meet J’s other financial needs while in his care.
19. Mrs C’s circumstances since her departure from Perth in 1996 have taken a few turns. On her arrival in Sydney with J, she and Mr A lived together in rented premises. By the end of 1999 that relationship had broken down though they remained living in the same premises until around June 2000 when Mr A returned to live in Perth. Mrs C has remained in Sydney, initially in the rented premises she occupied with her partner. She later met and formed a friendship with Professor S and in early 2003 she moved with J to live with him in a house he purchased and provides for that purpose. There is a significant difference in their ages and it is a relationship described by Professor S himself as ‘bizarre’ in his interview with Dr M. It is said there has been no sexual intimacy between them at any stage, but their relationship is reported to be supportive and close in other ways. It is also said that Professor S assumes the role of ‘godfather’ to J and he takes an active role in J’s schooling and social life as well as providing financial support.
20. On the topic of finances, J’s school fees are about $15,000 per annum and an increase to $20,000 per annum was anticipated at the time of the hearing. Mrs C said she and Professor S pay for his school fees without contribution from Mr C who pays only $5 per day in child support. Mr C’s knowledge of J’s schooling arrangements was a disputed topic, but I was persuaded to the view that in all probability Mrs C never advised him of the school where J was enrolled initially (though I also accept he could have pressed for the information), I accept that she never consulted him about the change to the arts college in 2001 or advised him of the change after the event, and I accept that she has never raised with Mr C the topic of any financial contribution towards payment of J’s school fees. Instead, she has taken it upon herself to make those decisions and to fund his private schooling and extra-curricula activities. That raises the topic of Mrs C’s work over more recent years since she has been in Sydney.
21. Neither in evidence in chief nor in any of the interviews with Dr M did Mrs C or Professor S reveal that from 1999 (possibly earlier) Mrs C supplemented her earnings as a legal secretary by operating as a prostitute before giving up secretarial work and starting her own business as a sex worker from premises she rents for that purpose. There was innuendo to that effect in affidavit material relied upon by Mr C, but it was only in the course of questioning at the hearing about her evening work that this aspect of her circumstances came out.
22. Professor S has been aware of her work at all material times and has minded J on occasions when she has been working. His failure to put the picture to Dr M during interview, particularly when he portrayed himself as having traditional values and being dull and conservative, attracted some criticism from Mr Smith in his submissions. He said this deceit perpetrated by Mrs C and Professor S put the Court expert in a position where he was unable to properly perform his role. Certainly Dr M was kept in the dark about it throughout the reporting process, and it hardly needs to be said that this information ought to have been disclosed during interview so that its relevance could be considered and balanced with other factors in the pre-trial reports. Dr M did agree with the proposition put by Mr Smith that it would have been helpful to have known of Mrs C’s work from the outset. In that event he could have addressed issues related to her emotional functioning, how she approaches her own health and safety, the impact of it on her parenting, J’s exposure if any to her work, and whether there are any issues of neglect involved. But at the end of the day to say that Dr M was unable to properly perform his role was to overstate the position and I reject that submission.
23. On the topic of submissions, the proposition put by Mr Schonell that Mrs C works as a prostitute not out of choice but out of financial necessity should be addressed. He went on to say that she incurs significant expenditure for J, Mr C’s child support makes no inroad into that, and she found herself unable to earn sufficient monies to meet that expenditure other than by working as a prostitute. The submission would appear to be not inconsistent with Mrs C’s evidence that she operates as a sex worker so as to pay for J’s school fees, it is not something she likes to do, and if Mr C paid for the fees rather than pay the low level of child support he does, then she would stop this work. Mr Schonell took the opportunity here to point out – not unreasonably - that there is a paradox in Mr C’s proposal now to pay private fees for a Perth school if J lives with him compared with the level of child support paid in the past.
24. But this submission about necessity is without merit in my view. It hardly needs to be said that obviously there is a choice. Children are raised in this community on secretarial earnings and less without resort to reluctant sex work and, not to be forgotten, Mrs C was operating in that field well prior to J’s enrolment at a private school in May 2001. In any event, there is an obvious unexplained incongruity in her rejection of Professor S’s offer of financial assistance to allow her to cease this line of work - ‘I have told him he is not J’s father - yet she has not rejected the housing he provides or his payment of around $250,000 towards her costs of this litigation and J’s expenses. This raises questions about factors that do motivate her, as Dr M pointed out, and the fact that she looks to Mr C and blame him for her choice of work tends to suggest she does not take responsibility for her own decisions and actions, as he also pointed out.
25. Issues of Mrs C’s health and issues of neglect, mentioned by Dr M, can be put to one side in this case as having no implications. But there are other potential implications for J, as discussed by Dr M, though they would depend on a number of variables not known at this stage. Obviously he considered J would be far better off if he were protected from the information about his mother’s work. But if he did come to learn of it his response would depend on things such as the method and timing of the information, his stage of development, his own moral code at the time, and the moral view of those he might discuss it with. For example, if he had developed a belief system that rejected such behaviour, it could be expected he would be profoundly disturbed – as would a lot of children if given this sort of information. On the other hand, he might cut off his emotional response by taking the view that you do what you can to get what you want in life and see his mother as having made a choice about that. What is unlikely, according to Dr M, is a response that is emotionally intact and balanced.
26. Dr M also agreed that if J were to find out in the context of not having any significant relationships with adult figures to work through his emotional response, the revelation would have a more powerful impact. He agreed that Professor S’s knowledge of her activity means his effectiveness in taking a supportive role for J in those circumstances would be diminished. He also said that if Mrs C contends she engages in this work for J’s benefit, it introduces a dynamic of great concern to the mother/son relationship and it would be absolutely devastating for J to learn that she preferred otherwise but she did this work to provide for him in a material sense, including to send him to a private school. If this were revealed to him it is likely he would feel guilty, be left with a sense of responsibility for her behaviour, and he may feel anger at her or himself (or both) and be very distressed about it in the longer term.
27. The risk that J will learn of it cannot be lightly dismissed. The possibilities are demonstrated by the relationship (whatever its nature) Mrs C had with a client and his conduct during 2000 when he contacted J’s school and also the Department of Community Services to inform them she was working as a prostitute, amongst other things. It became necessary for her to take out an AVO against him, not only for her own protection but also for J’s – but not before ringing Mr C in anger to accuse him (falsely as it happens) of contacting J’s school when the culprit was her client (see exhibit 29) apparently bent on harming her in some way. Of course, as Dr M agreed, the risk to J of revelation is present whether he lives with either parent, but Mr Schonell made a submission that the risk would be heightened if J has contact with Mr C and his family. That may be so if his relatives were to come by the information but I was persuaded that Mr C will do his best not to have people find out about it out of consideration for the adverse consequences for J if there were to be some remark, unwitting or otherwise, around him. In other words, I accept Mr C would try to protect J from learning of it so far as he is able.
28. The question of risk, however, raises the question of secretiveness. As Dr M pointed out, in effect, one of the problems about secrets in families is that it creates an unauthentic environment, it is a lie, and children can often be alive to that without necessarily making sense of it. In fact, as he also pointed out, it is actually very important for parents to be authentic by acknowledging their own and their child’s emotional experiences. If J has been invited to collude in secretiveness about the household arrangements without necessarily knowing why, that would have the potential to impair his moral development by reason of its association with issues such as honesty and frankness. Living with a secret is one aspect of the environment Mrs C has given her son, trying to maintain the secret is an aspect of the care she offers, and its revelation at some point is a risk she has put in his path. Whether the need to maintain secrecy about her life from Mr C has been a factor in the difficulties J has been caught up in over the years is less certain, though Dr M was inclined to the view that there were enough other factors operating to that end and this would have been ‘just another drop in the bucket’.
Other background
29. Some of the history of their relationship and its breakdown prior to the orders of Martin J in April 1996 found its way into the evidence. That was sufficient to demonstrate that following their separation, when their son was 2 months of age, their relationship was marked by acrimony, bitterness and recrimination, with grievances about the involvement and opinions of psychiatrists then still being related here more than a decade later. The move Mrs C made to Sydney on the heels of the 1996 proceedings brought about a significant change to the contact arrangements, but no improvement in the poor regard each had of the other. J negotiated his way through that over the next six years until he reached early adolescence. The role they each played in his experiences and development in those years, as well as their mutually held view of the other’s damaging contributions along the way, was a topic about which they presented an entirely contrary perspective.
30. Mrs C allows of no contribution on her part to the later breakdown of the relationship between J and his father. To roll up her case in a summary way, the detail she presented went to her attempts to facilitate J’s contact with his father, her flexibility in meeting his plans, and the difficulties he presented on occasions of contact in Sydney. Added to that, Mr C had consistently demonstrated himself to be a disinterested parent lacking appropriate parenting skills; he had been inattentive and insensitive towards J’s needs in a variety of ways; he had been inflexible and argumentative with respect to contact arrangements; he had conducted himself in a volatile and frightening way towards J and others; and not only is he an habitual drug user of many years standing but he and members of his family are drug dealers.
31. Her facilitation of contact over the years since she moved to Sydney she supported by reference to the many trips J had made to Perth until the last visit in October 2002 and the many occasions Mr C had taken contact in Sydney, including one trip for which she had paid at the end of 2000 on her invitation to see J perform in a play, though she alleged he had displayed no interest in J’s school reports or photos of his trip to New Zealand at the time. Added to that, she pointed out there has been lengthy and unrestricted telephone contact twice a week on Wednesdays and on Sundays. So committed was she to the contact, she ensured it had taken place even when J was ill and the only time it had been postponed – made up later - was when J went to New Zealand at the age of six years to film a commercial. She sent video copies of all J’s television work to him. Her encouragement extended to having J read to his father, do portions of his homework, and learn some of his scripts with his father over the telephone. Yet his father had refused to take J to drawing or acting classes when contact had occurred in Sydney and he had refused to organise pottery classes for J as she had requested while he was in Perth.
32. For all this, she maintained that J expressed dissatisfaction about his father or the environment he offered almost from the start. In the early period when J complained to her - being homesick, not wanting to be there, his father sleeping in, the house being cold, his father not bathing him every day – to cheer him up she posted him cards and little gifts such as colouring pens, a computer game, chocolates or she sent him a bunch of flowers. On occasions she relayed J’s complaints to his father – for example, his refusal to allow J to bring the Nintendo game back to Sydney with him – but this resulted in Mr C yelling at her in front of J.
33. J’s complaints escalated, she maintained, from the July 1999 holidays in Perth and they were maintained up to the last visit in October 2002. There follows samples of the types of grievances he expressed to her – some consistently – over the years:
His father slept in and did not wake until midday or early afternoon while he was left with nothing to do and feeling lonely.
His telephone calls to his mother had been restricted by his father and at other times inhibited by Ms R’s proximity.
No one but Ms R had been enthusiastic about the video of the commercial he appeared in.
There was little communication with or visits to his father’s extended family and he did not get to see his cousins (whom in any event he called ‘strange’, said they use bad language, are rough and they scare him), including his paternal grandparents.
His father had ‘turned nasty’ during an incident where there had been tickling; his father had become angry when a plate had been dropped and threw all the other plates into the bin; and his father had been angry about a gift of pottery J had given him for Father’s Day.
His father shouted at W, ordered her around, treated her like a slave, and he got angry for no reason. It was like ‘walking on egg shells’ to be around him, not knowing when he would explode or ‘go off’ at anything, such as he did with the computer on one occasion when he could not work it out.
He was not allowed to wear clothes his mother had given him and his father had not allowed him to play with the Leggo she had sent him for Christmas.
His father’s garden was ‘full of tall weeds’ (related in the context of alleging Mr C’s cannabis use over a 30 year period), he cannot go into the garden, the front fence gate is always locked and could not be opened without a key kept by his father, and the house is like a prison.
34. Mr C, who generally denied these allegations about shortcomings in his care or level of attentiveness, also did not allow of any contribution on his part to the breakdown of his relationship with J. He agreed there were difficulties from early on after the 1996 hearing, but he maintained Mrs C had constantly run interference in an attempt to control his time with J and she had concealed from him information about J’s schooling, residence and telephone number over the years. More particularly -
He has never received a photograph of J in his school uniform, despite requests, and had only ever been given information about his acting.
He had not been informed where J had been enrolled at school, he only became aware of that on a trip to Sydney later in 1997, and he was never informed about the change in his schooling. He became aware of that in late 2002. J, he said, had refused to talk about school over the years.
He had been falsely accused of telephoning J’s school in September 2000 and a threat was made to stop contact when in fact the caller had been the wife’s client.
The invitation to Sydney to see the play was late, he had no funds for the trip and he did read the reports he was handed.
On almost every occasion he was in Sydney, he was given a list of activities Mrs C wished J to attend during the limited time they had together, she phoned every day while J was with him, and she attempted to restrict where contact was to occur during those visits.
She interfered so as to prevent common interests being shared with J; for example, a plan to buy a puppy was outstripped by her buying him a puppy; he purchased J a computer game for him but she purchased the same game and gave it to him as her present; a microscope he purchased for J for Christmas was trumped by her telling J she had bought him ‘a real one that you plug in but it was too big to send to Perth.’; and other gifts he has given J over the years have been pronounced to have some shortcoming; for example, the camera did not have a zoom lens.
She would send J flowers and chocolates, including on her own birthday and other occasions, while J was staying with him.
On every visit to Perth she has rung and made a variety of unfounded accusations: J has not been allowed to get food by himself, not been allowed to use the computer, he had not taken J out, or Ms W had been rude to her on the phone.
While in Perth J was involved in many and various activities and outings, he regularly saw his paternal family, and good relationships were in place there.
He had never been given Mrs C’s home number and there had been various difficulties surrounding telephone contact, including the lack of any call from J on Mr C’s birthday or on Father’s Day and nor did he receive a gift from J on either occasion. He denied being angry about Father’s Day, he did talk to J about it during the October 2002 visit, but merely told him it would be nice to be told ‘Happy Father’s Day’.
He and Ms R denied any arguments in J’s presence though there was one occasion J asked them to stop arguing - to their surprise because there was no argument.
His house is light and airy, the garden has no strange plants in it, and the house no ‘prison’ (see photographs tendered).
35. All of this over the years prepared fertile ground for further dispute during J’s last visit in October 2002. It appears common ground that Mrs C rang early in the visit taking up on J’s behalf a complaint that he had not been allowed to use the computer, that his father and Ms R were fighting, and that Ms R was listening to his phone calls. Mr C denied there was any substance to any of it and terminated the call. Plainly it was an unpleasant exchange and not an unusual feature of J’s visits to Perth by this time. In fact it seems to have followed something of a pattern by this stage: J would relate some grievance to his mother, she would call to take it up with Mr C (no doubt in an accusatory way) who dismissed it (no doubt in a resentful fashion) as without substance. On this occasion Mr C spoke to J about it, but rather than being a ‘low key’ discussion probably his reaction was less considered than his description tended to suggest. More likely than not, he conveyed his frustration and even anger about J complaining to his mother and her calling to take up his grievance. J’s failure to make any gestures on Father’s Day or on his birthday probably were part of the talk. All things considered, I very much doubt it would have been a comfortable conversation for J.
36. For all that, Mr C said the visit came to an end after an enjoyable time and on the morning of his departure J was said to be happy, he cuddled up to his father, he had made him a birthday card, he said goodbye to Ms R affectionately, he picked her some flowers from the garden, he called his grandparents to say he would see them at Christmas, and he intimated he was looking forward to seeing his father at the airport when he was scheduled to leave for Sydney. In stark contrast to that is Mrs C’s account of it: J called her in tears after his father had dropped him off at his grandmother’s; he told her his father scares him; he called his father ‘weird’; he gives ‘strange little talks’; he yells and gets angry; he insists on coming to the airport to see him off and he makes everyone feel uncomfortable; and he gave J a strange look so he would not tell what happened. To avoid J having to encounter his father at the airport, Mrs C bought him another ticket and he returned to Sydney earlier than planned. Her evidence of J’s disturbance was supported by Mrs T who described J on the day he was dropped off by his father as ‘not like his normal self’ but ‘withdrawn and silent’. She confirmed he became emotional while speaking to his mother, that he started to cry on the phone - ‘he just sobbed and sobbed and sobbed without saying much at first’ – and he eventually became hysterical and, amongst other things, said ‘I never want to see him again. I never want to come to Perth again’.
37. Assuming these quite contrary pictures of J are accurate - and they probably are - they demonstrate a dramatic change in his presentation within a short time. But this will not be the last time there will be occasion to observe his ability to bring about a speedy and complete change of demeanour according to the circumstances in which he finds himself.
38. On his arrival back at his mother’s home, J made further complaints, including his father’s instruction that he not tell his mother what goes on in Perth - ‘your mum does not need to know anything that happens here’ – and if there are any problems his father should be the first person J speaks to. He reported his father as being angry J had not given him a Father’s Day gift and Ms R had got him to make his father a birthday card. He also reported his father saying in a nasty way ‘just because your mother and I are finished, it doesn’t mean we are’. He said he felt scared and uncomfortable.
39. Around this time Mrs C linked occasions J had been ill or unwell to visits to his father, something that had not occurred to her beforehand, and considerable effort was then put into correlating his visits to doctors to contact visits. Dr M thought there might have been some psychosomatic symptoms of stress but there was also likely to have been some exaggeration.
40. Mrs C took J’s complaints up with Mr C and told him she was sending J to see a psychologist. There was an unpleasant exchange and the call was terminated without Mr C speaking to J. J did call him the next day and it was a very unsatisfactory conversation from Mr C’s point of view. Knowing J was going to see a psychologist, he told him: ‘no matter who you talk to, you have to be honest, just tell the truth.’ They spoke again the following Sunday and J reminded his father what he had said about being honest. J related that he had spoken to the psychologist and in a spirit of honesty he told his father: ‘I don’t want to go to [P – a town in Western Australia] there’s nothing for me to do there’ and ‘I don’t want to go to [B – a town in Western Australia] either. I have to go now. Goodbye.’ Mr C said he found this confusing for reasons discussed in his affidavit.
41. The psychologist Mrs C took J to see produced a report on 5 December after five sessions with J between 14 October and 5 December. Mrs C gave him school reports, medical notes, a medical journal she kept, and she had numerous conversations with him – in fact she agreed she had called the psychologist 48 times between October and December. Contacted by the psychologist in due course, Mr C declined to participate in the sessions and there was some written communication between them. I should say that in this period Mrs C filed her application initiating these proceedings and the sessions with the psychologist and the writing of his report all occurred prior to the appointment of the child representative.
42. The psychologist recorded the purpose of his involvement as being to determine why J was having difficulties when he was with his father and how he could learn to cope with his father’s style of parenting. But at the outset of his report he expressed his concern not to be how J needs to learn to cope, but how J can be protected from what appears to be inappropriate parenting from his father. He went on in the body of his report to record in considerable detail what he had been told by Mrs C and by J, and all of the incidents and issues raised by Mrs C to that point in her affidavit can be found recorded there, either sourced to her or to J, no matter how seemingly insignificant or aged. No stone was left unturned, so it seems, in constructing a catalogue of complaints and grievances and in some instances J was able to provide detail one would have thought not available to him in the ordinary course; for example, that his mother had paid his father’s airfare to Sydney to see him in a play over two years earlier. In the light of later developments, I should say that amongst the detail - and after encouragement from his father to be honest and tell the truth (something J repeated twice to the psychologist) - J also spoke of his last visit to his father in Perth.
43. The psychologist assessed J as honest and communicative and he said he had no doubt he was telling the truth in describing his experiences. He concluded his report with a recommendation that visits to his father cease until Mr C’s situation is assessed as to his parenting skills, psychological condition and alleged substance abuse and that Mr C participate in a parenting course or other intervention to make the visits positive, enjoyable and safe for J.
44. By the end of the sessions with the psychologist, J had had no contact with his father for some weeks. Asked by the psychologist how his father would feel not having spoken to him, J replied: ‘I don’t think it will matter to him, he doesn’t want to see me anyway.’ J was reported to be upset by his father’s contact with his school in November and his discussion with the school counsellor. Mrs C, I should add, was angry this had occurred and let the counsellor know how she felt.
45. Dr M later discussed with J his contact with the psychologist and this was said at p. 13 of his first report:
‘…J told me he had been encouraged to stand up to his father and tell him how he felt. When he had tried to do this, his father had ranted and raved, saying it was all coming from his mother. He liked being able to tell the psychologist his problems. J explained, "I was telling him what I want, that I don't want to see my father. My mother said that if I told [the psychologist] all the problems I have and how my father treats me, I would get what I want and I won't have to see my father". It was also good to talk to his mother.’
46. In the six years of discord about J’s experiences during time spent with his father, either in Perth or in Sydney, there had been no professional intervention in an attempt to resolve difficulties, whatever their source or substance, prior to the psychologist’s engagement. So plainly it was important at this point that the intervention be from someone independent, capable of maintaining objectivity and able to harness the confidence of both parents. Yet this was far from the case. What was not revealed by the psychologist in his report nor by Mrs C in her affidavits was the fact that he had prior clinical consultations with her over a number of years for reasons related to her relationships and in relation to her activities as a sex worker. Added to that, Mrs C gave a discomforting response to the question whether the psychologist had been a client of hers to the effect: ‘No, but I know he would like to be’. These prior clinical consultations were another matter not disclosed to Dr M who said he had been left with the impression that Mrs C had located the psychologist from the Yellow Pages and he agreed he had been deceived by her about this. In hindsight Mr C’s refusal to participate in the sessions conducted by the psychologist seems to have been justified.
47. That said, it is a great pity an appropriately qualified professional, untainted by prior association with the mother, had not been engaged because this was an important time for the distance between J and his father to be addressed. As it happened, the sessions with the psychologist over those two months, with no information other than that provided by Mrs C and J, served to validate J’s responses to and denigration of his father and they did nothing at that critical early stage to link J and his parents to a more constructive process with a professional more qualified than the psychologist to address issues for a child exposed to long standing parental conflict.
Dr M’s first report – 12 February 2003
48. Dr M’s first report, produced in February and released on 11 March 2003, reported J as expressing a clear and consistent wish – in an extreme and absolute way - to have no further contact with his father, stepmother or any member of his paternal extended family. This being inconsistent with the affidavits, video and photographs given to him by Mr C and Ms R, Dr M noted his discussion with the psychologist who told him J had not initially reported any fear or desire for no contact and had presented with mild to moderate anxiety symptoms and discomfort. Dr M went on:
‘It would appear that the rapid development of his current presentation had occurred in the context of discussions with the mother and Professor S, cessation of contact with the father and therapeutic intervention with the treating psychologist. There had been a significant amplification of his negative thoughts and emotions since the discontinuation of contact, which I did not believe had been in his best interest. J described having had discussions with his mother which had encouraged his recent behaviour. This had included a shared belief that he had been suffering from significant psychosomatic symptomatoloty, which was solely due to his father’s behaviour during contact visits. J understood that these visits would cease if he continued to express such views in the assessment. I found this situation extremely concerning. Given this understanding, I did not view that J’s expressed wishes should be given the weight that might otherwise be given to those expressed by a boy his age.’
49. He assessed Mrs C at the time as a concerned and committed parent who had provided well for J, though he was concerned she did not see J’s ongoing relationship with his father and paternal extended family as being of any importance to him. He considered her behaviour in the course of the assessment as consistent with an underlying personality vulnerability associated with the rejection of her family and ethnic background and this had fuelled her views regard the father’s ‘ethnic’ behaviour and her motivation to have a better life for both herself and her son. These are views, I should say, Mrs C rejected. Having informed Dr M of J’s psychosomatic problems linked to contact with his father, she considered J did not require further intervention provided contact with his father ceased. Dr M said he found such statements to be inconsistent with her alleged concern regarding the seriousness of her son’s presentation and he formed the opinion that she had a tendency to exaggerate her views and response to issues, consistent with histrionic personality traits. But despite reservations regarding aspects of her parenting capacity, Dr M formed the opinion she was more than adequately attending to J’s developmental needs.
50. Amongst other things, he assessed Professor S as a concerned and supportive friend who provided ongoing financial assistance. Professor S acknowledged the importance of J maintaining a relationship with the father, contrary to the mother’s view.
51. Dr M noted Mr C to be highly motivated to maintain a relationship with his son, consistent with his behaviour to that point and, despite the allegations, Dr M did not find any evidence he was suffering from a mental disorder. Nor did he form the view that he had an ongoing dependency on marijuana or other illicit substances. Mr C
‘….reluctantly acknowledged having “a hot temper” but specifically denied that this had been directed towards his son. J had been exposed to his expression of frustration and anger at times. This had been to a mild to moderate degree.’
52. Dr M said he regarded this as being within the range of normal human behaviour and not requiring any specific intervention. He also noted Mr C had a stable relationship with Ms R who presented as a thoughtful and caring stepmother and he formed the opinion that they had adequately attended to J’s developmental needs during his visits in Perth. He did not form the opinion J had been subjected to any form of abuse while in their care.
53. Dr M concluded that a change in residence would involve substantial disruption to J’s developmental progress and he thought it likely that substantial emotional and behavioural problems would be the result. But he also concluded that it would be in J’s best interests to maintain an ongoing relationship with his father, stepmother and extended paternal family. He said Mr C provided a balanced experience for J during his visits to Perth and J would benefit from this continuing. At the same time, he considered there was benefit to be had from family counselling addressing ‘background issues’ at the core of the dispute, and he recommended a family systems therapist to stabilise the contact arrangements.
54. Dr M would change his recommendation in his two subsequent reports, but in March 2003 this was the view made available to the parents, the child representative and the Court.
Interim order for Perth visit
55. Against that background, orders were made by consent on 12 March 2003 providing for J to go to Perth to visit his father during the school holidays, the first visit to be in mid-April. J was taken to the airport by his mother and Professor S but while waiting to board the flight for Perth J left the airport (allegedly by subterfuge) and took a taxi home. On the way he called his mother and informed her what he had done: ‘I’m sorry Mum, I can’t go. I don’t want to worry you. I am in a taxi on my way home.’ Events then took a rather odd course. Mrs C told J, who had sufficient money on him for the fare, to get a receipt from the taxi driver but, rather than go home to see him and discuss his actions, she remained at the airport with Professor S who faxed a letter to Mr C explaining what had happened and they both remained at the airport until J’s luggage was retrieved. This meant they did not return home for another couple of hours.
56. Various aspects of the evidence about this event were unsatisfactory, including but not limited to the timing of J’s call placing him proximate to the airport yet his mother did not ask him to return; the receipt she asked him to get from the taxi driver; and the fact he had money on him for the taxi fare when he had not taken money with him to Perth on prior occasions. It all raises the suspicion that Mrs C stage-managed the exit from the airport, a proposition Mr Smith put to Dr M who said he could not exclude it and nor could he exclude the possibility that she had encouraged or procured in some way the circumstances that led to J not going to Perth on this visit. In the later interview Dr M conducted with J, he had professed to have operated on his own without any influence from his mother or anyone else, but Dr M thought the validity of that questionable given the chain of events. Even if that is wrong and Mrs C was uninvolved and had not exerted influence, her actions at the airport and her decision to remain there rather than return home to see to J is puzzling and raises questions about her priorities and motivation. That is to say, it suggests it was not a priority to ensure he was not left at the airport unsupervised, it was not a priority to have him return to the airport when he called from the taxi, and it suggests she was not concerned about J’s mental state or behaviour. After all, this was a child who had acted in a rash and impulsive manner and taken a precipitate course of action and yet her actions all point towards a lack of concern about connecting with him immediately so as to ascertain his state and what was going on for him. Certainly there was no talk of him being disciplined in any way for his disobedience.
57. For my part, I concluded the whole episode was suspicious and, when viewed overall and in context, the probabilities suggest to my mind that what happened came about as a result of either some influence or management from Mrs C, even if that was covert and not overt. It is a stark reminder that she could not be relied on to do anything to assist in a reconciliation between J and his father at any time in the future.
Other events
58. A couple of days after the aborted contact visit Mr C flew to Sydney and, despite considerable efforts, including arrangements proposed by the child representative for counselling, contact was resisted and no contact took place.
59. In her evidence Mrs C related J being distressed and distracted by participation in the proceedings, by having to see a psychiatrist (who did not help him as promised), and he was distressed by his dealings with his own lawyer, the child representative, and upset by repeated phone calls from her about seeing his father. It was alleged she told him he would be arrested and put in handcuffs unless he saw his father. He was annoyed because his father had changed his mind about forcing him to go. He told the child representative if he was made to live with his father it would ruin his life and he would keep running away if she could get him over there in the first place. He told the child representative that she might be able to get the police to put him on a plane to Perth but the police could not hang around his father’s house to see he does not run away. Like his father, the child representative does not listen to him and he does not trust her. He resolved to write all she told him in a diary (that mirrors his mother’s habit) and write to her. The tone of his correspondence is revealing and, one would have thought, called for some correcting guidance from his mother. To the contrary, he seems to have been encouraged to express his views in the way he did.
60. Mrs C made telephone calls to Mr C’s relatives in Perth and tapes of some of the conversations (done at Mr C’s request and without her knowledge or consent) were admitted into evidence. There is no doubt that what Mrs C said initially of her contact with Mrs H, the husband’s relative, was untruthful and misleading and, as became apparent, there were untruths in what she told Mrs J. As Mr Smith pointed out, the transcript reflects Mrs C trying to ingratiate herself with Mrs H, persistently steering the conversation in the direction that suited her, and trying to override Mrs H’s view of Mr C’s parenting, his relationship with J, and of the father’s family.
61. As Mr Smith also pointed out, this evidence does show Mrs C in an unguarded moment – to be distinguished from the considered crafting of her affidavit evidence and her presentation at the hearing - and it is therefore quite instructive. Dr M’s comment on the transcript was to the effect that it showed her in a light consistent with the impression he had formed of her as single minded in her view about J’s experiences with his father, he said it highlighted her obsessive preoccupation with her view that Mr C is a neglectful and inadequate parent, and it confirmed his opinion that she had a tendency to generalise, to focus on the negatives, and to hear what she wants to hear.
62. In late June, on the topic of seeing his father the following week and encouraged by Professor S to tell what was wrong so he and his mother could help, J related something said to have happened on the last night he had been at his father’s in October 2002:
‘On the last night at Dad’s I got up in the middle of the night to go to the toilet. When I walked out of my room there was a funny smell and the house stank. I walked to the back of the house where the toilet is and I saw my father sitting on a chair. He was smoking and mumbling things to himself. I couldn’t understand him But he had a gun and it made me really scared. He saw me and in a strange voice he said, ‘oh hello little dwarf. Have you come to take me away?’ I was scared. He was pointing the gun at things. I wet my pyjamas. I wanted to get away. I turned to go back to my room and I heard him laugh. I then looked at him and he had the gun pointed at me. I ran to my room. I couldn’t sleep because I was scared he might come in my room. I hid under the covers and kept an eye on the door. I cried all night.’
But of course the means by which this option would be implemented in the first place are unclear and the picture painted by Mr C’s evidence of putting J in a car with others and driving with him to Perth starkly illustrates the problems – and the risks for J – in trying to propel him to Perth by some compulsory means. J made it very clear to Dr M that he would resist and stated he would run away and not comply with any orders to live with his father. He is capable of acting on his own strong views and of extreme behaviour – as demonstrated by the airport incident and the episode in Dr M’s rooms. It is difficult to contemplate, but Dr M was asked at one point to comment on the impact on J of being forced to go to live with his father in Perth, perhaps by the intervention of police or in some way physically forced, and Dr M recalled J’s own words: ‘what are they going to do, handcuff me?’. Plainly to expose a child to police intervention in that setting would be acutely stressful and traumatic for the child and be counter-productive to any quest to add to his store of positive experiences with his father.
Certainly these practical problems were at the forefront of Mr C’s case and he sought to address them. Yet I was not persuaded Mr C had a real appreciation of the extent of the difficulties he would face were there an order for J to live with him. There was an element of wishful thinking, if you like, in his view of it all and rather too much reliance on the evidence related to parental alienation ‘syndrome’ and the proposed solution to severe instances of alienation as discussed by the theorists, though one can readily understand the grip on the lifeline that seems to offer someone in Mr C’s position. In some cases that solution is judged the appropriate outcome and Mr Smith presented a case in that category determined by the Full Court. But each case has to be assessed on its own particular circumstances and there are many core variable that can effect the outcome of a particular decision.
Assuming he arrives in Perth without harm, there is then the question of how long his resistance is likely to last. There is nothing, I have to say, to indicate that it is likely to be of relatively short duration, whatever the input of Dr W or whether or not there is a transitional environment created at his uncle’s home rather than going directly to his father’s. His age and his personality and the strength of his opinions and his sense of entitlement to having his needs met are all indicators pointing clearly in the direction of his opposition not abating. He is entirely capable of ‘upping the ante’ to achieve his own ends and the prospect of him coming to harm in some way is a serious and weighty consideration. There are inherent in this scenario risks for J that are critical to his well being, and perhaps even to his safety.
Dr M in his report at page 19 expressed the view that a change in residence for J would be associated with ‘substantive and ongoing disruption to J's developmental progress.’ As to that, he explained that J is presently succeeding academically and with a range of developmental tasks, if he is removed from his current environment and placed in an environment where he decides he will not fit in and comply, then the concern is that his education might suffer and then there would be flow-on consequences from that. So while it could be assumed a similar school would be found in Perth for him, his education could suffer as a result of a move out of his current environment. Almost certainly he would experience emotional and behavioural disturbance and the signs of stress - such as the psychosomatic symptoms J experienced in the past (present in part according to Dr M but likely to have been exaggerated) - may re-emerge to a mild or moderate degree and he could find it difficult to sleep or feel settled in those new circumstances.
It is acknowledged that unless he has the opportunity to have a relationship with his father – only possible on this option – he will continue to have a distorted view of his father and he will take that distorted view with him through his adolescence and into adulthood and it may never change. For any child this is an important consideration, but perhaps more particularly so for a child of the same sex as the absent parent. One cannot dismiss the prospect that this will come home to roost in some adverse way at a later time. His developmental experiences will almost certainly influence his ability to form meaningful and healthy relationships.
Overall an outcome implementing this option would be detrimental to J’s welfare also.
Conclusion
Of course the decision must be consistent with J’s best interests having regard to all of the relevant factors set out in s68F(2) of the Act and taking into account the objects of the Act -
‘…..to ensure that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential, and to ensure that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.’
and the principles underlying them ‘except when it is or would be contrary to the child's best interests’ –
‘(a)…..the right to know and be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together; and
(b)……a right of contact, on a regular basis, with both their parents and with other people significant to their care, welfare and development; and
(c)parents share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and
(d) parents should agree about the future parenting of their children.’
In this case, the decision has come down to which of the available options is likely to be the least detrimental for this child. In weighing the proportionality of potential harm for him, I have concluded the balance tips in favour of J remaining where he is, living with his mother and having his contact with his father limited in the way discussed and proposed by the child representative. The disadvantages for him on either of the available options, in the short term and longer term, are potentially serious, some more obvious and less subtle than others, and all carry weight of varying degrees. But ultimately this is a child beyond the option proposed by Mr C – in age, stage of development, independence of mind, strength of view, and capacity for action - the combined force of which is made more potent by the particular lines along which his personality has been formed and developed through to early adolescence.
It would be expected, of course, that this judgment would be explained to J by the child representative as best she is able and the seed firmly planted with him that the door to his father is always open, whatever has been said or done in the past, and of his father’s abiding love for him.
For those reasons, the orders will be:
Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the orders made 23 April 1996 providing for contact between the child J and his father are discharged.
The father is permitted to forward appropriate cards, gifts and correspondence to the child regularly.
The mother is to give the child any items sent by the father pursuant to Order 2.
The mother is to facilitate any contact between the child and his father in the event that the child requests such contact at any time.
I certify that the previous 116 paragraphs are a true copy of the judgment delivered by the Honourable Justice Moore.
Associate:
0
0