Christie and Parvin

[2016] FCCA 1524

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CHRISTIE & PARVIN [2016] FCCA 1524

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Children – child to live with the mother – discrete issue of time the child is to spend with the father.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.60CC, 65DAA

Cases cited:
Goode v Goode (2007) 36 Fam LR 422, (2006) FLC 93-286
MRR v GRR [2010] HCA 4

Applicant: MR CHRISTIE

Respondent: MS PARVIN

File Number: PAC 5858 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Obradovic

Hearing date: 20 June 2016

Date of Last Submission: 20 June 2016

Delivered at: Parramatta

Delivered on: 7 July 2016

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Fowler

Solicitors for the Applicant: Cominos Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Weaver

Solicitors for the Respondent: Central Coast Family Law

ORDERS

1. That the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the child X born (omitted) 2002.

2. That X live with his mother.

3. That during school term X spend time with his father in a four weekly cycle commencing on the first Friday following the making of these Orders:

   (a)In week 1, from the conclusion of school on Friday until 5pm on Sunday;

   (b)In week 2, from the conclusion of school on Friday until 5pm on Sunday;

   (c)In week 3, from the conclusion of school on Friday until 5pm on Sunday; and

   (d)At any other time as agreed between the parents.

4. That X will spend the first half of the school holidays at the conclusion of Terms 1, 2, 3 and 4 with his father and the second half with his mother in years ending in an even number, commencing with the first gazetted school holidays following the making of these Orders.

5. That X will spend the first half of the school holidays at the conclusion of the Terms 1, 2, 3 and 4 with his mother and the second half with his father in years ending in an odd number, commencing with the first gazetted school holidays following the making of these Orders.

6. That X shall spend time with his father on the Father’s Day weekend from the conclusion of school on a Friday until 5pm on Sunday on the Father’s Day weekend and any provision in these Orders that is inconsistent with this Order is suspended so as to allow this time to occur.

7. That X shall spend time with his mother on the Mother’s Day weekend from the conclusion of school on a Friday until 5pm on Sunday on the Mother’s Day weekend and any provision in these Orders that is inconsistent with this Order is suspended so as to allow this time to occur.

8. That X will spend the Easter weekend in 2017 and each odd numbered year thereafter with his father, commencing at 5pm on Good Friday until 5pm on Easter Monday and any provision in these Orders that is inconsistent with this Order is suspended so as to allow this time to occur.

9. That X will spend the Easter weekend in 2018 and each even numbered year thereafter with his mother, commencing at 5pm on Good Friday until 5pm on Easter Monday and any provision in these Orders that is inconsistent with this Order is suspended so as to allow this time to occur.

10. That in the event that X is in the care of his mother on his birthday, X will spend time with his father for a period of at least three hours as agreed between the parents and failing agreement from 5pm to 8pm and any provision in these Orders that is inconsistent with this Order is suspended so as to allow this time to occur.

11. That in the event that X is in the care of his father on his birthday, X will spend time with his mother for a period of at least three hours as agreed between the parents and failing agreement from 5pm to 8pm and any provision in these Orders that is inconsistent with this Order is suspended so as to allow this time to occur.

12. That for the purpose of changeover and unless otherwise agreed between the parents, the father will collect X from school or otherwise the mother’s residence at the commencement of his time and the mother will collect X from the father’s residence at the conclusion of time.

13. That the mother and father will each keep the other informed of:

    (a)Their residential address and contact telephone number;

    (b)Any significant injury or illness suffered by X and details of all medical treatment given to X; and

    (c)All school, extra-curricular and sporting activities in which X is involved.

14. The mother and father are each entitled to communicate with X’s school and receive copies of all school reports, notices, newsletters, bulletins, applications for school photographs and other correspondence from X’s school.

15. The mother and father are each entitled to attend all events involving X including:

    (a)School functions and events that allow for parental attendance, including but not limited to concerts, school assemblies, sports days, parent and teacher interviews, canteen duties and social functions; and/or

    (b)Sporting and/or other extra-curricular activities and training, fixtures and performances and the parent who has X in their care on the day of such activity will be responsible for X’s care and transportation to/from the event.

16. The parents will use all reasonable endeavours to ensure that X attends all extra-curricular and sporting activities in which he is enrolled.

17. That unless otherwise agreed between the parents in writing, the mother and father are at liberty to have telephone communication with X a minimum of three times per week if X is not otherwise in their care.

18. The parents will each facilitate any reasonable request by X to have additional telephone communication with the other parent.

19. The parents will do all things and sign all documents necessary to ensure that X is the holder of a valid Australian Passport at all times.

20. That in the event that either parent fails, refuses or neglects to execute any deed or instrument necessary to give effect to these Orders, the Registrar of the Family Court of Australia, be appointed pursuant to section 106A of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) to execute the deed or instrument in the name of the father or the mother and do all acts and things necessary to give validity to the operation of the deed or instrument.

21. That X be permitted to travel overseas with the parents during the time that X is spending with either his mother or father pursuant to these Orders.

22. That the parent with whom X is travelling overseas provide a minimum of one month’s notice of his/her intention to do so, to the other parent and:

    (a)Provide the other parent with a copy of the return airline ticket and itinerary for X’s travel no later than 14 days prior to the date of proposed travel;

    (b)Provide the other parent with contact telephone and address details during X’s overseas travel;

    (c)Shall ensure that his or her mobile telephone is programmed to accept and make international calls during the period that he or she is overseas with X.

23. Remove all outstanding Applications and Responses from the list of cases awaiting hearing.

24. Pursuant to S.65DA(2) and S.62B, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist the parents adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Christie & Parvin is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

PAC 5858 of 2014

MR CHRISTIE

Applicant

And

MS PARVIN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. These are parenting proceedings in relation to the only child of the parties, X born (omitted) 2002.

2. The father, Mr Christie, is the Applicant and the mother, Ms Parvin, is the Respondent in these proceedings.

3. The discrete and narrow issue for determination by the Court is how much time X is to spend with the father. The parents were in agreement that X should continue to live with the mother and that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility.

4. Neither parent raises any issues of risk nor significant concerns for X’s safety and well-being while with the other parent.

5. The father relied on a Further Amended Initiating Application filed on 11 March 2016. In his case the father read two Affidavits: the first filed on 11 March 2016 and the second filed on 2 May 2016. The father is the deponent of both of those Affidavits. A Case Outline Document was filed in the father’s case.

6. The mother relied on a Response to Initiating Application filed 23 February 2015, although the orders she sought were set out in the Case Outline Document filed on her behalf. In her case the mother read her Affidavit filed 13 April 2016 and tendered the Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum to Court dated 16 February 2016, which became Exhibit ‘1’ in the proceedings.

7. Both parents were cross-examined.

A brief summary of the facts and the proceedings

1. The father was born on (omitted) 1965.

2. The mother was born on (omitted) 1963.

3. At the time of hearing both parents are employed. The father works as a contractor with some flexibility as to his working hours and the mother is employed on a part-time basis and works between the hours of 9am and 2pm.

4. The parties commenced a de facto relationship in 2002 shortly before X was born.

5. There is some dispute between the parties in relation to the extent of the father’s involvement in X’s rearing and upbringing which is not unusual in these types of cases. There is no doubt however that both parents have been involved and continue to be involved in X’s care and that they are both committed and loving parents.

6. The parties separated on a final basis in September 2007. At the time of separation the parties were living at (omitted).

7. Although final separation occurred in September 2007 the parties lived separated under the one roof until September 2009, when the mother and X moved into rental accommodation at (omitted).

8. X spent time with his father following the parents’ separation in accordance with private arrangements between the mother and the father. Such time varied but was always meaningful.

9. In January 2014 the mother advised the father by letter of her intention to move to (omitted) on the (omitted). In that letter she advised the father that she was interested in sending X to (omitted) College at (omitted) and that she wanted the father to attend the school’s open day with her and X. In March 2014 she spoke to the father about whether he would be attending the open day and that he indicated that he would not be attending. The mother and X attended the open day. Shortly thereafter the mother completed the application forms for X to attend (omitted) College commencing in 2015 and sent the completed paperwork to the father for his signature. The father never completed the application form.

10. In July 2014 in saying to the mother that he is not going to sign the application the mother alleges that the father also said to her “If you want to move to (omitted) then go, just go.” The father denies that he ever gave permission to X to move to (omitted) and he does not recall saying those words to the mother.

11. In any event what transpired afterwards was that the father invited the mother to mediation for the purposes of resolving the issue of what high school X was to attend in 2015. This occurred in or about September 2014.

12. The mediation did not take place as the mother declined to participate. In her letter to the mediator dated 15 September 2014 the mother wrote:

    I advised Mr Christie at the beginning of the year of my intention to move to (omitted) and to send X to (omitted) College. I have also kept Mr Christie informed of the enrolment process and as well as X’s acceptance into the school.

    It came as quite a surprise to me last week to hear from Mr Christie that he now objected to this move, as previously he had indicated an indifference either way…

13. On 24 November 2014 the mother purchased a home at Property F.

14. On 4 December 2014, the father commenced these proceedings, seeking, inter alia, an order restraining the mother from relocating the child’s residence outside the Sydney metropolitan area.

15. By that stage the mother had already purchased the property in (omitted) where she currently resides with X. The mother did not tell the father that she had bought this property. The father found out about the purchase of the property through conversations that he had with X.

16. The mother was served with the Initiating Application and a copy of the Affidavit of the father sworn 28 November 2014 on 13 December 2014. However, there is no doubt that as at September 2014, the mother knew that the father opposed any relocation of X’s residence to the (omitted).

17. As at 13 December 2014, by virtue of having been served with the Initiating Application and the father’s Affidavit, the mother was further informed of the father’s opposition to the move and the reasons for that opposition. Notwithstanding that she must have been so aware, the mother proceeded to relocate X’s residence to the (omitted) and moved there with X a few days before the first return date of the father’s Initiating Application. The mother knew that the father’s preference was for X to remain living in Sydney so that both parents could spend time with him.

18. On 24 January 2015 the mother and X moved into the Property F property. The father has remained living at (omitted).

19. The first return date of the Initiating Application was on 27 January 2015, three days after the mother had relocated X’s residence to (omitted).

20. On 27 January 2015, being the first day the matter was before the Court, the father was legally represented and the mother appeared in person. She brought X to Court. Orders were made for X to spend time with his father each weekend from the conclusion of school on Friday until 5pm on Sunday. The matter was also set down for an Interim Hearing on 24 February 2015.

21. At the commencement of the 2015 school year, X started at (omitted) College in Year 7. This is a school which is walking distance from the mother’s residence at (omitted).

22. When the matter came on for Interim Hearing on 24 February 2015, both parents were represented and further interim parenting orders were made. On that day it was ordered that:

    1. Pending further Order, the parties shall have equal shared parental responsibility for their child X born (omitted) 2002.

    2. Pending further Order, X shall live with his mother.

    3. Pending further Order, X shall spend time with his father:

    a. During school terms for each weekend, save the last weekend of each calendar month, from the conclusion of school Friday until 5pm Sunday;

    b. For one half of each New South Wales school holiday period as agreed between the parents or failing agreement;

    i. From the conclusion of school on the last day of school attendance until 5.00pm on the middle Sunday of each short school holiday period;

    ii. From 10.00am on the first Saturday until 5.00pm 9 January during the Christmas 2015/2016 school holidays;

    iii. As otherwise agreed between the parents from time to time.

23. After the Interim Orders were made in February 2015 the parents agreed to an informal variation of those Orders such that X would spend three out of every four weekends with his father. Such a change occurred at the mother’s request and was acceded to by the father. X has in essence been spending three out of every four weekends with his father for over the last 12 months.

24. By October 2015, the father, with what could only be seen as a significant amount of insight about the potential damage to the continuing parental relationship between the mother and the father and the impact on X, made the decision not to pursue an order that X live in the Sydney metropolitan area.

25. Notwithstanding the February 2015 Orders, which provided for X to spend half of each school holiday period with his father, the father once again at the mother’s request, agreed to an informal variation of those Orders. The effect of this further change was that the mother was able to take X to (country omitted) to spend Christmas in December 2015 with her family and also for X to spend less than half the Christmas school holidays with his father.

26. In early March 2016, at the mother’s request, the father agreed to X attending a wedding with the mother in (country omitted) on a weekend when X was to be spending time with the father in accordance with the February 2015 Orders.

27. It is clear that X enjoys spending time with both of his parents and that he has a close and loving relationship with each of them.

28. On all accounts, X appears to be a talented sportsman. In 2016 X will have represented his school in (hobbies omitted).

29. In early March 2016 after X’s selection to participate in his first (hobby omitted) at the (omitted) Centre, an issue arose between the parents as to how X was to get to the competition.

30. After speaking with X about what X would like to happen, the father advised the mother that he would pick X up from the mother’s residence on Wednesday night, drive him to Sydney, have him spend the night there and then take him to the (hobby omitted) on Thursday morning when the competition was on. The father said to the mother that X could then return home with the rest of his teammates on the school bus. The mother’s response to this was that she did not agree to the father picking X up and insisting that he catch the school bus on Thursday morning at 5am with the rest of his teammates.

31. Although X was happy either way, in the mother’s view it was preferable for X to spend time with his friends on the school bus rather than spend an extra night with his father. Not only did the mother disagree with the father’s proposal for X to spend an extra night with him so that he wouldn’t have to travel on the school bus at 5am but that she said to the father that she would ring the police if he turned up to collect X.

32. The father collected X on Wednesday night, took him home to (omitted) where X spent the night and then took him to the (hobby omitted) at (omitted) the following morning.

33. The parents’ disagreement about X’s travelling arrangements to the (hobby omitted) must have been a very upsetting event for X.

34. From the early age of 9 months, X has been attending (hobby omitted) lessons. At the time of hearing and on both parents’ evidence X is a competent (hobby omitted) who is close to (hobby omitted) at State level.

35. X started playing (hobby omitted) at five years of age. He has progressed in (hobby omitted) to representative level. X is also a (hobby omitted) referee.

36. Apart from his school work, X’s sporting commitments mean that X has very little, if any, downtime. His afternoons and weekends are more often than not filled with homework, training (for both (omitted) and (omitted)), (omitted) races and (omitted) games (both as a player and a referee). In the mix, X has to find time to see both his parents and also some time to spend with his friends. He is a very busy young man.

37. Both parents are committed to ensuring that X attends his sporting activities and meets his sporting obligations.

38. Despite the distance, the father will on the weekends that X is spending time with him, travel to and from the (omitted) to ensure that X meets his commitments for (omitted), both as a player and as a referee. This is in addition to the (omitted) races and (omitted) training which X attends while he is spending time with his father.

39. On the weekends that X is spending time with his mother, she does not drive him to Sydney for his Saturday morning (omitted) training but she does however take him to all of his (omitted) games, both as a player and as a referee. During the hearing it became apparent that three days prior X had been approached about playing for the men’s (omitted) team on Sunday mornings.

40. The Court sincerely hopes that both parents will properly consider X’s tight and demanding sporting schedule and ensure that he still has adequate time and opportunity to be a teenager and a child.

The parents

1. Neither the father, who gave evidence first, nor the mother who gave evidence second, were particularly impressive witnesses. The demeanour of each of them was less than ideal.

2. The father during some of his cross-examination was argumentative, and at times raised his voice. The mother was non-responsive to a significant number of questions asked of her and refused to concede matters which should appropriately have been conceded.

3. Both parents have at times acted irrationally and not in X’s best interests. At times, they have both been inflexible and stubborn.

The Law

1. Parenting proceedings are governed by the provisions of Pt VII of the Family Law Act 1975. Section 60CA provides that in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order, the Court is to regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration

2. Section 60B of the Act outlines the objects and principles underlying Part VII of the Act.

3. In determining what is in a child’s best interests, the Court must consider the matters set out in section 60CC. Section 60CC outlines the primary (sub-s.(2)) and additional (sub-s.(3)) considerations that the Court is to take into account in determining what is in the best interests of the child. In applying the considerations set out in subsection (2), the Court is to give greater weight to the consideration set out in paragraph (b).

4. Section 61DA of the Act provides that when making a parenting order, the Court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility. The presumption does not apply where there are reasonable grounds to believe a parent has engaged in abuse of the child or family violence and the presumption may be rebutted if the Court is satisfied that an order for equal shared parental responsibility would not be in the child’s best interests.

5. In the event that the Court orders the parties to have equal shared parental responsibility, the Court must apply the provisions of section 65DAA which provide for a consideration of the children spending equal time with the parents. If the Court finds that it is not in the child’s best interests or reasonably practicable, then the Court must consider the child spending substantial and significant time with the parents.

6. The Full Court in Goode v Goode (2007) 36 Fam LR 422, (2006) FLC 93-286 mandated that this legislative approach must be followed in all parenting cases.

7. The High Court in MRR v GRR [2010] HCA 4 affirmed the legislative pathway.

Parental Responsibility and Equal or Substantial Time

1. The parents both urge the Court to make an order for equal shared parental responsibility. Such an order is appropriate and will be made.

2. The effect of such an order is to trigger s.65DAA namely that the Court must consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interest of the child and whether the child spending equal time, or if not equal time then significant and substantial time, with each of the parents is reasonably practicable.

3. Section 65DAA(3) of the Act provides:

   (3)  For the purposes of subsection (2), a child will be taken to spend substantial and significant time with a parent only if:

   (a)  the time the child spends with the parent includes both:

   (i)  days that fall on weekends and holidays; and

   (ii)  days that do not fall on weekends or holidays; and

   (b)  the time the child spends with the parent allows the parent to be involved in:

   (i)  the child's daily routine; and

   (ii)  occasions and events that are of particular significance to the child; and

   (c)  the time the child spends with the parent allows the child to be involved in occasions and events that are of special significance to the parent.

   Section 65DAA(4) further provides:

   (4)  Subsection (3) does not limit the other matters to which a court can have regard in determining whether the time a child spends with a parent would be substantial and significant

4. As previously stated the father lives in (omitted) and the mother and X live in (omitted). The distance between the two residences is approximately 60 kilometres and about one hour’s drive. X attends school at (omitted), a school which is in very close proximity to the mother’s residence. The father works in Sydney full-time and the mother works part-time.

5. It would not be reasonably practicable in all of the circumstances of this case for X to spend equal time with each of his parents. Likewise, there are practical difficulties with X spending time with his father in the afternoons on a school week.

Primary Considerations

1. X has an established, strong and meaningful relationship with each of his parents. X benefits from having such meaningful relationships for reasons outlined earlier and it is clearly in his best interest that such relationships be maintained.

2. There are no issues of risk nor does either parent raise any concern of physical or psychological harm to X.

X's Wishes: s60CC(3)(a)

1. At the time of hearing X is 13 years and 8 months old.

2. The Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum to the Court dated 16 February 2016 (Exhibit ‘1’) notes the following in relation to X:

   a)That he presented as a friendly and polite boy;

   b)That he enjoys school and has friends there;

   c)That he is very positive about his sporting commitments and achievements, and enjoys  training at two locations, namely on the (omitted) and (omitted);

   d)That he enjoys spending time with both his mother and his father, and that he thought his mother missed him while he was with his father; and

   e)That the current arrangements were “going okay” but that he wanted to have some more weekend time with his mother and more after-school time with his father.

3. Importantly, the Family Consultant notes, at page 2 of the Memorandum, as follows:

   X said that he thought Ms Parvin would like to spend more time with him on weekends than she currently does (because he is with Mr Christie). He said that he did not know what Mr Christie would like because he had not spoken about it to him.

4. In the opinion of the Family Consultant (page 3 of the Memorandum):

   … X’s  stated wishes were similar to Ms Parvin’s proposals. It is possible to X genuinely wants to spend more weekend time with Ms Parvin. It is not unusual for children to want to spend quality weekend time with both parents, when their weekdays are busy with school and extra- curricular activities. However, it cannot be discounted that X is attempting to please Ms Parvin, and all that Ms Parvin has influenced him.

   …

   Due to X’s age and developmental stage, it is likely that he will want to spend increasing time with his friends as he gets older, which is considered a normal part of child development. This may impact on his time with both parents during the weekends.

5. While regard is given to X’s stated wishes, the weight accorded to those wishes in light of all of the evidence is not overly significant and particularly so as to outweigh the other evidence which seems at first blush, to be contrary to those wishes.

Other Relevant s60CC(3) Factors

Child’s relationships and parents’ involvement, participation and support

1. As referred to earlier in these reasons, X has a close and loving relationship with each of his parents and each of the parents is very much involved in X’s life.

2. There appears to be ongoing disputes between the parents in relation to the best way to provide X with continuing orthodontic treatment and care, and there were certainly disputes in the past between the parents about some of X’s sporting commitments. Despite their differences, both the mother and the father have been able to find a common and sensible way forward in relation to these peripheral, but important, issues.

3. Between separation in September 2007 and the mother’s move to (omitted) in January 2015, the parents had a reasonably good working relationship in relation to parenting matters. That relationship certainly suffered and continues to suffer since the mother’s move to the (omitted) in early 2015. It is important for X that his parents do everything that they can in order to repair the relationship, so that they can continue to parent X in the best way possible.

4. X has never expressed a wish or communicated to either of his parents that he did not want to spend time with his father on any particular weekend.

5. The parents both provide financial support for X. X lives with and is housed by his mother, she provides for his daily needs and also pays for some of his extracurricular activities. The father pays child support, meets X’s daily needs when he is spending time with him, pays for some of his extracurricular activities, pays the school fees and is also paying for X’s orthodontic treatment.

Likely effect of change and practicality of orders

1. The Orders which the father seeks, are in line with the current arrangements, and therefore would not cause any changes in the child’s circumstances. The weight of the evidence is that the current arrangements are going well and that there have been no problems, as far as X is concerned, with his living and spending time with arrangements.

2. While there is some practical difficulty and expense with X spending significant and substantial time with his father due to the geographical distance between the parties’ residences, it is not a matter which is insurmountable. This was a matter which was considered by the mother when she decided to purchase her residence in (omitted). It was her evidence that she bought his house because of the reasonable proximity to the father’s residence and the reasonably easy drive between the two homes.

3. There is some concern about the mother’s willingness to facilitate and promote an ongoing relationship between X and his father, and to accommodate X spending significant and substantial time with his father. This is particularly so if there was to be an order that time between X and his father was to occur only on alternate weekends, school holidays and otherwise as agreed between the parties.

4. It was conceded by Counsel for the mother during submissions that time between X and his father during the school week of an afternoon was simply not practicable. The mother on the other hand is able to and does spend most, if not every afternoon and evening, with X.

5. Given X’s schooling and sporting commitments, there is not a great amount of difference in downtime for X during the week and on weekends. For that reason as well as the distance between the parties’ residences the only reasonably practicable solution is for X to spend more weekends with his father than with his mother so that he may have the opportunity of spending meaningful time with his father.

Capacity, insight and other relevant matters

1. Both parents are capable and do provide for X’s needs, including emotional and intellectual needs. The mother gives evidence about her close relationship with X, and the fact that he will talk to her and discuss with her personal matters. On the evidence in the father’s case, X receives appropriate and adequate emotional and intellectual support from his father. The parents’ capabilities are reflected in the fact that X presents, in the words of the Family Consultant, as “a friendly and polite boy”.

2. The father has, overall, been flexible and accommodating in not only his attitude to spending time with X, but also with respect to accommodating the mother. This has been demonstrated by the father’s agreement to the mother’s request for changes to the February 2015 Interim Orders. The father however, can and does appear to be controlling at times.

3. There is no evidence to suggest that the father would not continue to be accommodating and flexible in relation to spending time with X. This would apply to any specific wish which X may express in the future about seeing his friends, attending events and extra-curricular activities, and more importantly, about spending time on a particular day or afternoon with his mother, when he would otherwise be spending time with his father.

4. The mother likewise, since the parents’ separation, has encouraged X’s relationship with his father, albeit perhaps not to all extent possible. It has not been easy. The mother’s encouragement of that relationship is best evidenced by the meaningful relationship which X currently has with his father.

Conclusion

1. It is a great pity for X that his parents have been unable to resolve the current dispute without the Court’s intervention. This is not a criticism of either of the parents, whom the Court finds to be loving and capable parents.

2. X needs to be afforded every opportunity to spend as much time as possible with each of his loving and capable parents.

1. In all of the circumstances and for all of the reasons set out above, it is in X’s best interest that time with the father be as set out at the forefront of these reasons.

I certify that the preceding eighty-six (86) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Obradovic

Date: 7 July 2016