COFFEY & TILLMAN

[2019] FCCA 1118

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

COFFEY & TILLMAN [2019] FCCA 1118

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – where two children – two attempts at Court ordered family therapy unsuccessful - each child aligned and living with one parent – each child refusing contact with the other parent – agreed sole parental responsibility for each child to the parent they live with – agreed each child may spend time with and communicate with the other parent if and as they wish – where children are voluntarily spending time with each other - father seeks court order for further attempt at family therapy – father seeks order requiring children to spend time together in line with time currently being spent – father’s proposed orders not made.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65AA

Applicant: MR COFFEY

Respondent: MS TILLMAN

File Number: SYC 5495 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Bruce Smith

Hearing dates: 4 March 2019, 5 March 2019

Date of Last Submission: 5 March 2019

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 1 May 2019

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: In person

Respondent: In person

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Mr Harris

Independent Children’s Lawyer: Claremont Legal

ORDERS

FINAL PARENTING ORDERS, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. All existing orders are discharged.

   [X]

2. Mr Coffey (“the father”) is to have sole parental responsibility for the child [X] (“[X]”) born … 2003, subject to a requirement that [X]’s residence shall not be moved from the Sydney Metropolitan Region without the written consent of Ms Tillman (“the mother”) or an order of the Court.

3. [X] is to live with the father.

4. [X] may spend such time with the mother as [X] chooses.

5. [X] may communicate with the mother as [X] chooses.

   [Y]

6. The mother have sole parental responsibility for the child [Y] (“[Y]”) born … 2006, subject to a requirement that [Y]’s residence shall not be moved from the Sydney Metropolitan Region without the written consent of the father, or an order of the Court.

7. [Y] is to live with the mother.

8. [Y] may spend such time with the father as [Y] chooses.

9. [Y] may communicate with the father as [Y] chooses.

   School

10. Each parent be entitled to obtain directly from any school attended by the children copies of any reports, notices or other relevant written advice affecting the education of either of the children.

11. A copy of these Orders may be provided to the principal of any school which either child attends from time to time but is not to be published by that principal or any school.

    Costs

12. The father is to pay $10,323.00 to Legal Aid New South Wales by 1 November 2019.

13. Otherwise each party shall bear their own costs of these proceedings.

NOTES

A.The parties agree that it would be in each child’s best interests to spend time with the other parent.

B.The parties agree that it would be in each child’s best interests to spend time with the other child.

C.The parties and children may take part in family therapy if they voluntarily choose to, but no party or child is required to take part in family therapy.

D.The parties agree that it would be in each child’s best interests to improve their school attendance.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYC 5495 of 2015

MR COFFEY

Applicant

And

MS TILLMAN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

A: Introduction

1. These are parenting proceedings in respect of [X] born … 2003 now aged 16 (”[X]”), and [Y] born … 2006 now aged 13 (“[Y]”). 

2. The Applicant, Mr Coffey (“the father”), is a 39-year-old customer service representative.  He lives with the paternal grandparents in Suburb A. 

3. [X] has self-placed with the father and currently refuses all contact with the mother.  She has strongly expressed the wish not to be required to have any contact with the mother.

4. The Respondent, Ms Tillman, (“the mother”) is a 37-year-old office worker.  She has re-married, to a Mr B.  They had a child in … 2018.  They live in Suburb C. 

5. [Y] has self-placed with the mother and currently refuses all contact with the father.  She has strongly expressed the wish not to be required to have any contact with the father.

B: Consent proposals

1. The scope of issues in dispute narrowed very significantly up to and including during final oral submissions.

2. The following proposals made by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, based on the Family Consultant’s opinion, were agreed by the parties. 

[X]

1. The father should have sole parental responsibility for [X], and [X] should live with the father.  [X] may spend time with and communicate with the mother in accordance with [X]’s wishes.

[Y]

1. The mother should have sole parental responsibility for [Y], and [Y] should live with the mother.  [Y] may spend time with and communicate with the father in accordance with [Y]’s wishes.

2. The father’s agreement regarding [Y] came only during his closing oral submissions.  This is relevant to the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s costs application, considered further below.

Residential location

1. The mother had previously proposed relocating with [Y] to Town D.  Her evidence and submissions at Hearing were to the effect that she had entered a new lease in Sydney and intended to remain in Sydney for at least 4 more years.  The parties’ agreement to the proposals set out above were reached on the basis that the mother would not be moving to Town D with [Y], and that the father was intending to remain in Sydney with [X]. 

2. Accordingly, each parent’s sole parental responsibility will be subject to a condition that each child’s residence not be changed from the Sydney Metropolitan region without the written consent of the other parent or an order of the Court.

School information

1. The mother proposed that each parent should be entitled to have access to each child’s school materials. This was not opposed by the father or the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

Approval of consent proposals

1. I am satisfied that orders in accordance with the above proposals are in the best interests of each of the children.  I will make orders accordingly.

C: Issues in dispute and proposals

1. The following issues remained for determination at the end of oral submissions.

Family Therapy

1. The father seeks an order that the parties and children engage in family therapy.  He seeks this order to attempt to heal the rift between each alienated child and the other parent on the basis that it would be of substantial benefit to each child if they could re-establish a relationship with the other parent. 

2. The mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer opposed that order.

3. They agreed that it would be of benefit to each child to re-establish a relationship with the other parent.  However, two previous Court ordered attempts at family therapy were unsuccessful, with each parent blaming the other for the failure.  They submitted that the parties and children are free to attempt family therapy without an order if they all genuinely want to.  However, if they do not all genuinely want to attend family therapy then no Court order will make it work where the previous two attempts failed.  It was submitted that the proposal was also inconsistent with the consent position that neither child should be ordered to spend time with the other parent.  Finally, it was submitted that such an order would provide a potential avenue for further litigation between the parents over who is at fault for any failure of family therapy if it fails a third time.

Children spend time together

1. The father seeks an order that the children spend one day per month with each other during school term time and one day a week during school holidays.  This is to promote this important relationship.

2. The mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer opposed that order. 

3. The children have already voluntarily re-established their relationship and are spending as much or more time together as is sought to be ordered by the father.  It was submitted that this made an order unnecessary.  Further, given the prior resistance of both children to compliance with “time with” orders with the parents, to the point that the parties now agree no further “time with” orders should be made in relation to each parent, it was argued that making an order created a risk of an adverse reaction from the children which could so be counter-productive.  Finally, it was submitted that such an order would also provide a potential ground for further litigation between the parents over who is at fault if the children do not comply.

4. The Independent Children’s Lawyer submitted agreed that a notation could be made to the effect that the mother and father encourage [X] and [Y] to spend time together.

School attendance

1. The evidence at the hearing was that the school attendance of each child was poor.  As the matter proceeded, the Independent Children’s Lawyer also sought an order that the mother and father be required to ensure the children attend school on every scheduled school day and to provide the school with medical or other evidence of any absence.  No submissions were made by the parents.  The Court raised with the Independent Children’s Lawyer the issue that, consistent with their submissions above, such an order might merely provide another opportunity for further litigation.

D: Evidence

1. The parties each led extensive evidence seeking to establish that the other parent was responsible for the present situation where one child is alienated from each parent. 

2. The overwhelming majority of that evidence is not now relevant, given the consent narrowing of the issues. 

3. It is not necessary, and therefore not appropriate, to consider evidence and decide factual contests which are not strictly relevant to the issues requiring determination.  I will therefore restrict this Judgment to those factual matters requiring determination in order to decide the outstanding issues of ordering family therapy, ordering the children to spend time with each other, and ordering school attendance

E: Background

1. The parties commenced co-habitation in 2001, married in 2002, had [X] in 2003 and [Y] in 2006 and separated on a final basis in May 2009.

2. Parenting proceedings were commenced in 2009 with consent Orders entered on 22 September 2009.  Those Orders provided for equal shared parental responsibility, and for the children to live with the mother and to spend time with the father.  

3. Both parents alleged that the other parent failed in their obligations to encourage and promote the children’s relationships with them.

F: Family report

1. A Family Report was prepared by Family Consultant Ms E dated 7 March 2017.   It was based on the parties’ then affidavits and interviews with the parents, the children and some other extended family members.  The evidence of the parties at the time of the family report and interviews was relevantly the same as at the time of Hearing.  It was not affected by cross examination.  Accordingly it is convenient to deal with the Family Report first.

Parents’ views of each other

1. The father described a volatile relationship with the mother over a number of years with many arguments which involved both parents “yelling, screaming and throwing things” but denied any physical violence between the parties.  He told the Family Consultant that the mother “could not handle being a mother”.  The father confirmed that this was his view during cross examination.

2. The Family Consultant stated that the father’s “responses to questioning suggests a lack of compassion for [the mother] about [X]’s estranged relationship with her.  He has little or no positive opinion of [the mother] and her parenting capabilities.” 

3. The mother described the father to the Family Consultant as a “complete narcissist”.  She did not believe that the father posed any risk of physical harm to children, but said she was concerned about their mental health. 

4. The Family Consultant noted that:

   The language of both parents, when speaking about the other, is inflammatory and accusatory.  There is such a high perceived level of spitefulness and disrespect between the parents that [X] and [Y] are in danger of developing a lack of compassion and empathy.  This could impact on their developing sense of self and become a part of how they relate to others in future relationships.

5. The parent’s views of each other as described in the Family Report had not changed by the time of hearing.

Mutual allegations of alienation

1. Each of the children is aligned with the parent they live with and alienated from the parent they do not live with.  Each parent blames the other for intentionally alienating the other child.  Neither parent accepts responsibility for these circumstances.

2. The mother told the Family Consultant that she “believes her difficulties with [X] stem from “parent alienation” on [the father’s] part”.  She said that the father “has stopped her attempts to communicate with [X].”

3. The father told the Family Consultant that he believed that the mother was “influencing [Y] so that she does not want to spend time with him and [X]” and that he “firmly believes that [the mother] is manipulating [Y] for her own means.”

[X]

1. In August 2014 there was a significant argument involving [X] and the mother and maternal grandmother.  [X] alleges that she was slapped by the maternal grandmother and did not receive support from her mother.  As a result, [X] self-placed herself exclusively with her father from April 2015, contrary to the then parenting orders.  [X] was then just 12 years of age.

2. The circumstances of this event are in dispute.  It is not necessary or appropriate to seek to determine the truth of what occurred in that incident.  What is not in dispute is that [X] has lived with the father, and effectively stopped spending time with the mother, from that time.  There have been some text communications from the mother which [X] has indicated she does not wish to receive.  

[Y]

1. The fact that [X] has been allowed effective self-determination since 12 years of age is relevant to [Y]’s conduct and attitude. 

2. The Family Consultant stated that:

   It is noted that [Y]'s potential estrangement from her father mirrors that of [X]'s estrangement from her mother.  [Y] said that, when she tells her father that [X] does not have to go so why should she, he "says [X] has nothing to do with this and in my head I'm saying 'yes she does!’

3. It is clear that [Y] has formed the view that, as a matter of fairness, she should have the same rights of unilateral self-determination and decision making at age 13 that [X] has had since age 12. 

4. [Y] was living with the mother and spending time with the father and with [X] at the father’s house until an incident in around October 2016 when she was 10 yeas 9 months old.

5. [Y]’s version of the event as described to the Family Consultant was that in effect she was shut in a room with no handles and felt locked in and was wrongly accused by the father of having struck [X].

6. The father disputes that version of events.  The father’s case is that [Y] and he had a good relationship to that point so he proposed an equal time arrangement to [Y] which [Y] was open to.  He says that it was the mother’s reaction to [Y] telling her about that proposal that caused [Y] to refuse to see him. 

7. It is not possible to determine what occurred.  However, from that point [Y] refused all contact with the father.

8. The Family Consultant expressed the opinion that:

   [Y]'s refusal to see her father is more recent than [X]'s refusal to see her mother, but it is by no means less troubling. The most compelling explanation for [Y]'s stance is that she, too, is unable to tolerate the criticism and blaming she reportedly hears in each household about the other parent.  [Y] said ''I've always hated it when [X] talks about Mum".  This suggests that [X] has been permitted to speak openly to [Y] in disparaging terms about Ms Tillman in Mr Tillman’s household. It is possible that Mr Coffey and his parents have criticised Ms Tillman directly to [Y]. It is also possible that there have been inappropriate discussions in Ms Tillman's household, as [Y]'s comment to the family consultant about [X] having had tantrums since she was two, suggests. [Y] has expressed her feelings of confusion and anger in very troubling ways; she has tried to get out of a moving car and she has told her parents and the police that she will kill herself if she is forced to go to her father's house. These are very clear statements about the intolerable situation she finds herself in. There are significant concerns about [Y]'s social skills, school progress and her demeanour. There are potentially very serious concerns about the future mental health of both [Y] and [X] as a result of the parental relationship.

9. As noted above both [Y] and the father reported the event in which [Y] had tried to get out of the father’s moving car rather than spend time with him.

10. When asked by the Family Consultant what she would do if the Court made an order for her to spend time with the father, [Y]:

    …said quietly “I’ll feel sad and I still won't go." She was asked about her statement to her parents and the police that she would kill herself if she is forced to go, and [Y] went very quiet. She said that she had had thoughts about saying something like this for some time. When the family consultant asked [Y] if she would hurt herself, she said quietly "I don't know".  [Y] seemed very sad.

11. In the context of the father’s proposal of an equal time arrangement, at the time of the Family Report, the Family Consultant stated that:

    …[t]he idea of living half of her time in [the father’s] house hold seems impossible to [Y] at this time and it seems likely that she would run away or be at serious risk of compromised mental health if this situation were forced on her.

Children’s relationship with each other

1. At the time of the Family Report in March 2017 the two children had not spent time any with each other for about four months.

2. During the interviews [Y] told the Family Consultant that she did not want [X] to come into the child care area with her.  When asked about [X] she told the Family Consultant that she had a bad past with her sister and, significantly, that “I’ve always hated it when [X] talks about Mum”. 

3. The Family Consultant noted that “[a] very sad consequence of the dysfunctional parental relationship is that there is a significant risk of [X] and [Y] becoming estranged from each other.”

4. [X] told the Family Consultant that she and [Y] had been trying to organise meeting up a few weeks and that her father “wants me to try and get [Y] to come over, obviously”.

5. After some encouragement from the Family Consultant [Y] agreed to be seen by the Family Consultant together with [X].  By the end of the consultation the children had agreed to go to a movie on the Sunday following the interviews.

Report opinion

1. The Family Consultant concluded that the children “have lived in the middle of bitter chronic parental conflict since before their parent’s separation in mid-2009.  They have witnessed unrelenting and acrimonious verbal argument between [the mother and the father] including during the lead up to the family report interviews.

2. She expressed the opinion that each parent should have sole parental responsibility for the child living with them, that the family continue with family therapy, and that:

   If the family therapy is unsuccessful in repairing the child/parent relationships it is suggested that both [X] and [Y] should be allowed to decide if they wish to see the parent they do not live with.

   It is recommended that [Y] and [X] spend at least one day together during each school holiday period, and other times as agreed between the girls.

Family Consultant’s oral evidence and opinion

1. The Family Consultant had not seen the parties or the children since the date of the original report.  She was cross examined by counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer, and shortly by the father and the mother.  By that point in the Hearing the consent proposal regarding [X] set out above was agreed, however, the orders in respect of [Y] were still in issue.

1. The Family Consultant was asked to assume the following, based on the evidence given and without objection: 

   ·That the living arrangements and the time each child was spending with the other parent was the same as at the time of the report;

   ·That the children were seeing each other on an informal basis on average once a month but more often during school holiday times; 

   ·That the mother was not intending to move to Town D;

   ·That there was a period of family therapy with Dr F in 2017 and a further period with Relationships Australia in 2018; that neither attempt was successful; and that it was in dispute between the parties as to why it was not successful.

2. She confirmed that each child picked a side as an escape mechanism for avoiding conflict.  Each child was strongly aligned with the parent with whom they were living and was resistant to changing their living arrangements or spending time with the other parent.  Given the facts of this case she did not propose that either child be required to do so contrary to their wishes.

3. She also confirmed her opinion that each parent should have sole parental responsibility for the child living with them, and that the high level of conflict and proven inability to communicate made successful co-parenting unlikely. 

4. The Family Consultant was also concerned that any orders that required the parents to communicate or make joint decisions could provide circumstances which could lead to further litigation, which would not be in the children’s best interests. 

5. The Family Consultant’s opinion was that there should not be an order made for family therapy particularly given the children’s ages.  She stated that the only chance of family therapy being successful was if there was a genuine commitment to change.  She agreed with the father in cross examination that it would be a good thing if family therapy reconciled each child with the other parent, but stated that it would require the parents to genuinely want this to succeed and for them and the children to attend voluntarily, which would not require a Court order.   Her opposition to a Court order was that if it was to work it had to be voluntary, and if it was not voluntary it would not work and would merely provide another avenue for further conflicts, including litigation.

G: The parents’ evidence

The father

1. The father was cross-examined by counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer and, shortly, by the mother.  The father was asked whether he wanted [Y] to be required to spend time with him even if she did not want to.  His evidence was that in the first instance he would want more family therapy, but that in any event that he would seek an order that she spend time with him even if she does not want to. 

2. During final oral submissions the father ultimately stated in response to a question from the Court that he agreed that an order that [Y] spend time with him as she wished would be the appropriate order, but he pressed the issue of family therapy.

3. The father was asked by the mother in cross examination about what would happen if orders were made for [Y] to spend time with him and, despite the mother’s best efforts, she was unable to persuade [Y] to spend time with him.  She asked how she could be confident that he would not bring contravention proceedings against her.  He candidly responded with words to the effect of “you can’t”. 

4. I note that this answer from the father is relevant not only to the then proposed orders that [Y] spend time with the father but also to the father’s proposed orders for family therapy and that the children spend time with each other, and the suggested order regarding school attendance.

The mother

1. The mother was cross-examined by counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer and, shortly, by the father.  Given her agreement to the consent proposals and agreement with the orders proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer based on the Family Consultant’s opinion her evidence does not need to be further considered.

G: Legal framework

1. This is a parenting proceeding pursuant to Part VII of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth). There is a rebuttable presumption of equal shared parental responsibility (s.61DA) however all parties agree that presumption is rebutted. The determination of whether the children should be required to attend family therapy, whether [Y] and [X] should be required to spend time with each other, and whether the parents should be required to ensure the children attend school and provide explanations for absences is to be made by reference to the best interests of each child, which is always the paramount consideration (ss.60CA, 65AA, 60B).

2. Each child’s best interests are to be analysed first in light of the two primary considerations, being the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, and the benefit of a meaningful relationship with each parent.  The additional considerations, which cover a wide variety of factors which may impact on the child’s best interests, must also be considered (s.60CC).  The applicability of and weight to be given to each additional consideration will vary depending on the facts in each case.

3. The determination of what is in the best interests of a particular child is not, unfortunately, a matter allowing of scientific precision.  The finding will depend upon the unique facts of each case and a careful weighing of those facts, within the legislative framework, to determine that child’s best interests.

H: Decision

Family therapy

1. Family therapy can be a valuable process.  Orders were made for family therapy on 2 occasions.  Each attempt was unsuccessful.  The evidence does not allow me to make any finding as to why it was unsuccessful.  Given the animosity in this case and the alignment of the children with one parent each it is, perhaps, unsurprising that it failed. 

2. It is sufficient for the purposes of this judgement that after two Court-ordered attempts family therapy was not successful. 

3. While it would be desirable for the parents and children to voluntarily take part in family therapy, if one or both of the parents, or the children, are not committed to it then it will not work.  If they are all committed an order is unnecessary. All an order will therefore do is create a potential avenue for the continuation, by way of contravention application, of these proceedings if further family therapy is not successful.  That would not be in the best interests of the children.

4. I will not make an order for further family therapy.

Children to spend time together

1. Sibling bonds can be a great source of comfort and emotional protection in situations of family conflict. 

2. No doubt with that fact in mind, by consent an Order was made on 4 May 2017 requiring:

   4. That the children shall spend time together as agreed between the parties and failing agreement at Suburb G Mall from 2:00pm until 5:30pm commencing Saturday 6 May 2017 and continuing each alternate Saturday thereafter.

3. Unsurprisingly in this case the existence of that order did not result in compliance.  However, the skilful intervention of the Family Consultant during the interview process has led to the voluntary re-establishment of a relationship between the children which involves as much, or more, consistent time with each as the order the father seeks. 

4. The question is whether it would be in the children’s best interests to mandate that time with an order as the father proposes, or to do nothing in an attempt to do no harm to that developing relationship, as the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the mother propose.

5. The most an order might do is provide official support for the existing relationship.  It is not clear, given the children’s attitude to this Court’s orders, that this would add anything.  On the other hand there is a risk that it will be counter-productive with counter-suggestive children and harm the relationship.  There is also the risk of further litigation between the parties about whether or not each party is doing what is legally required to encourage compliance if something happens and the children’s relationship deteriorates for any reason.

6. I consider that there is no utility in such an order.  I consider that there is a significant risk in making such an order that it will be counter-productive.   It would therefore not be in the best interests of either child to make such an order.

7. I will not make an order for requiring the children to spend time with each other.

School attendance

1. Each child’s school attendance record is poor.  The explanations pro-offered were not particularly convincing. 

2. The Independent Children’s Lawyer raised the possibility of an order that the mother and father be required to ensure the children attend school on every scheduled school day and will provide the school with medical or other evidence of any absence.

3. Each parent already has an obligation in respect of school attendance in respect of the child for whom they have sole parental responsibility.  That continues their pre-existing obligation. 

4. I cannot see how making such an order would place any greater than the existing legal obligation on the parents.  It’s only impact could be if the other parent sought to enforce the order by way of a contravention application.  That would be unlikely to actually affect school attendance, and would merely provide another possible source of further litigation, which would not be in the children’s best interests.

5. I will not make an order in regards to school attendance.

Costs - Independent Childrens Lawyer

1. In anticipation of the above result the Independent Children’s Lawyer sought an order that the father pay Legal Aid NSW’s costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer. 

2. The common order that each parent pay half of the costs was not sought on the basis that the mother was willing to accept the proposals of the Independent Children’s Lawyer, which reflect the opinion of the expert Family Consultant in her report and confirmed in oral evidence, and that the proceedings could have been resolved by consent prior to hearing.

3. The Independent children’s lawyer therefore sought an order that the father pay $15,485 to the Legal Aid Commission of NSW within 21 days being a payment towards the cost of the Independent Children’s Lawyer. 

4. The father opposed the order on the basis that he could not afford to pay.  He is in full time employment earning approximately $57,000 per annum.  The father is in full time employment, is not otherwise impecunious, and has the capacity to pay if given adequate time. 

5. Costs are not a punishment.  They are ordered to recompense a party for costs incurred by reason of the need to conduct proceedings.  Here it is the State seeking to recover the costs of services provided for the benefit of children from the parents. 

6. I find that it is appropriate that the Legal Aid Commission of NSW to be reimbursed for the costs, or some of the costs, of representing the children’s interests.

7. I am satisfied that the mother should not be required to bear any part of the cost of the Independent Children’s Lawyer as she was willing to consent to the position ultimately attained prior to the Hearing. 

8. I am satisfied that the father should be required to contribute and that his contribution in these circumstances should be more than the 50% commonly ordered, but not the full 100%, taking into account the entirety of the conduct of the proceedings.  I find that it is appropriate to order the father to pay 2/3rds of Legal Aids costs.  That is $10,323.33. 

9. I find that the father should have until 1 November 2019 to pay. 

10. I will make an order in those terms.

Explaining orders to children - Independent Childrens Lawyer

1. I ask the Independent Children’s Lawyer to explain to the children:

2. Firstly, that their views have been respected and they will not be compelled to spend time with or communicate with the other parent or take part in further family therapy.  However, they are also free to do so, if and when they ever want to.

3. Secondly, that both of their parents and the Court are of the view that it would be in their own best interests for their long term mental and emotional health if they were able to move forward and re-establish some level of communication with the other parent, difficult though it would be, and that each parent is open to this happening if and when-ever each child decides that is something they would like to do.  There is no time limit.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and one (101) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Bruce Smith

Date: 1 May 2019