COLEMAN & PATTERSON

[2016] FamCA 58

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

COLEMAN & PATTERSON [2016] FamCA 58

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim Parenting – With whom the child spends time – Parental Responsibility – Best interests of the child – Very young child – Significant issue of family violence – Limited existing relationship with the father – Need to protect the child from harm – Awaiting Single Expert report – Mother have sole parental responsibility and child spend no time with the father.

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

Deiter & Deiter [2011] FamCAFC 82
George & George [2013] FamCAFC 182
Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346
Marvel & Marvel (No. 2) [2010] FamCAFC 101
Mazorski & Albright [2007] FamCA 520
McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93-405
MRR v GRR (2010) 240 CLR 461

APPLICANT: Ms Coleman

RESPONDENT: Mr Patterson

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid NSW Parramatta Family Law

FILE NUMBER: PAC 2685 of 2015

DATE DELIVERED: 11 February 2016

PLACE DELIVERED: Parramatta

PLACE HEARD: Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF: Foster J

HEARING DATE: 22 January 2016

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Druitt

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: McPhee Kelshaw

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Litigant in person

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid NSW Parramatta Family Law

Orders Pending Further Order:

1. That the mother have sole parental responsibility for the child B born … 2013.

2. That the child live with the mother.

3. That the child spend no time with the father subject to the following orders.

4. That the mother and father shall do all necessary things to contact the Suburb C Contact Centre within 14 days and arrange an appointment for assessment for suitability for supervision of the father’s time with the child B born … 2013 and attend such appointments.

5. That the mother and father or either of them are to attend and undertake any course of therapy, counselling or intervention as is reasonably directed by the Manager or Director of the Suburb C Contact Centre which may include referrals to other service providers.

6. That the father do all things necessary to promptly enrol in, attend and successfully complete a recognised program that meets the New South Wales minimum standards for men’s domestic and family violence behaviour change programmes with such program to be nominated by the Senior Family Consultant Child Dispute Service Family Court Parramatta to the father within 14 days from this date.

7. It is noted that that the mother proposes that upon receipt of the report of the Single Expert Ms D that time for the father with the child (if any) will be implemented at the Suburb C Contact Centre in accordance with Ms D’s recommendations.

8. That for the purpose of the previous order it is ordered:

   (a)       That the mother and father comply with any appointments made by the Contact Centre for supervised time;

   (b)       That the mother and father comply with all reasonable policies and rules of the Contact Centre;

   (c)       That the mother and father comply with all reasonable requests or directions of the staff of the Contact Centre;

   (d)       That if after the assessment intake procedure the Contact Centre is unable or unwilling to provide supervision as set out above, the Independent Children’s Lawyer has leave to restore the matter to the list on 7 days written notice to the other parties and to the Court;

   (e)       That if after assessment the parties are accepted by the Contact Centre as suitable for supervised time and subject to recommendation by the Single Expert the father is to have contact with the child at times nominated by the Suburb C Contact Centre and such contact is to occur at the Contact Centre;

   (f)       That the mother must deliver the child to and collect the child from the Contact Centre at the times specified by the Contact Centre and on each occasion promptly leave the building and the vicinity subject to any contrary direction by the Contact Centre;

   (g)       That the time the child spends with the father is to be supervised by the Suburb C Contact Centre and the father must pay the reasonable fees for the supervision on each occasion of supervision;

   (h)       That the father must not attend the Contact Centre or its vicinity before the time with the child is to start and must promptly leave the Contact Centre and the vicinity at the time the time with the child is to end; and

   (i)        That if the Contact Centre during the currency of these orders declines or is unable to continue to provide its services, or the Director of the Suburb C Contact Centre recommends in writing to the parties a variation of these orders, then the Independent Children’s Lawyer may on 7 days written notice to the other parties and the Court restore the matter to the list. 

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Coleman & Patterson has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 2685  of 2015

Ms Coleman

Applicant

And

Mr Patterson

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter relates to the interim parenting arrangements for the child B born in 2013. She is just two years of age.

2. The applicant mother in her Initiating Application seeks orders that in summary provide that:

   a)That the mother have sole parental responsibility for the child;

   b)That the child live with the mother; and

   c)That the child spend no time with the father.

3. The background to the mother’s position is discussed below.

4. The father in his response to the mother’s application seeks orders in summary:

   a)That the mother and father have equal shared parental responsibility for the child;

   b)That the child spend time with him each alternate weekend, an overnight each week, an afternoon each alternate week and half school holidays;

   c)Time on other special days; and

   d)Specific issues orders as to being provided with information as to the child’s health issues, restraining the mother from taking the child out of Australia and weekend time to coincide with the father’s time with his child from a previous relationship.

5. The parties attended Child Responsive Program interviews with a family consultant on 13 October 2013 and the memorandum dated 15 October 2013 is Exhibit B.

6. The mother relied on her affidavit filed 7 September 2015 and the affidavit of the maternal grandmother filed 7 September 2015.

7. The father relied on his affidavits filed 14 July and 10 November 2015 and the paternal grandmother’s affidavit filed 10 November 2015.

The issues

1. The key issues were identified by the family consultant as follows:

   a)The appropriate arrangements and amount of time for the child to spend with the father, if at all;

   b)The most appropriate arrangements for parental responsibility for the child;

   c)The post-separation harassment of the mother by the father;

   d)The mother’s assertions that the father has engaged in stalking behaviour following separation;

   e)The mother’s assertions that the father was emotionally abusive to her during the relationship; and

   f)Whether or not it is suitable to have any arrangements to maintain a relationship between the child and the father.

Context

1. The mother is nearly 39 years of age. She is an Australian resident but a citizen of the United Kingdom. The father is 40 years of age.

2. Cohabitation between the parties commenced in January 2013 when the mother moved in to live with the father upon finding that she was pregnant to him.

3. The subject child was born in 2013. The mother took maternity leave and returned to work on a part-time basis in about April 2014.

4. The mother says that the parties separated on 1 November 2013 although such separation was under the one roof.  The father denies this separation under one roof. Final separation was effected between the parties in March 2014 at which stage the child was about 10 months of age.

5. The mother has two children from an earlier marriage, E now aged nearly 11 and F now aged 9. These children attend the local primary school. The children enjoy a significant relationship with their father and live in a week-about arrangement between their father and the mother.

6. The father has a child from a previous marriage, G now aged 11. The mother asserts that this child has significant behavioural problems, she having observed the child G exhibit aggressive and concerning behaviour including threatening a child with a knife, throwing objects at and striking a child and threatening to kill a child. Otherwise the child has exhibited sexualised behaviour towards the mother’s older children. The mother has significant concerns should the subject child come into contact with or be in the presence of the child G. The mother’s concerns in relation to this child were supported by material provided by the H Centre relating to G (Exh D) and G’s school, the H School (Exh E).

Background

1. On 3 September 2014 a final Apprehended Domestic Violence Order was made for the protection of the mother and the mother’s two older daughters at the Local Court at Suburb I. The order is in force for two years until 2 September 2016 and provides that the father shall not assault, molest, harass, threaten, intimidate or stalk the protected persons. The orders additionally provide that the father:

   a)Must not go within 100m of any premises at which the protected persons may reside or work or specified premises at J Street, Suburb K;

   b)Must not approach the school or other premises at which the protected persons may from time to time attend for the purposes of education or childcare;

   c)Must not destroy or deliberately damage or interfere with the property of the protected persons;

   d)Must not approach or contact the protected persons by any means whatsoever except through his legal representative or as agreed in writing or as permitted by an order or directions under the Family Law Act 1975 or for the sole purpose of facilitating counselling or mediation through Relationships Australia.

2. The mother alleges that during the period that she and the father remained living under the one roof after separation he was abusive and offensive towards her. She observed that he appeared concerningly overly affectionate to her two older daughters.

3. The father has not been left alone with the subject child since November 2013.

4. In March 2014 the mother moved into the property that she owned at J Street, Suburb K. The mother thereafter made arrangements for the father to see the child in either her presence or the presence of the extended maternal family.

5. The mother complains that during the father’s time with the child he substantially ignored the child’s presence and behaved in an inquiring and offensive manner towards her. The mother became concerned about the father’s behaviour by April 2014 and made a report to the police as she was concerned for her safety and the safety of her children.

6. In late May 2014 she arranged for the father to spend time with the child at his home at Suburb L as she held concerns when the father was at her home. On occasions he waited out the front of her home, walked around the property saying words to the effect of “I smell a man in here” and rummaged through the mother’s personal effects.

7. The mother’s extended family continued to supervise the father’s time with the child until an incident on 9 November 2014 (the father says it was the 23 November 2014) when the child was made available to the father for supervised time but he refused to permit the maternal grandmother to remain and supervise. Thereafter the father has spent no time with the child since that date. It is to be inferred that by reason of the child’s age and the length of time since she has had time with the father that there is little or no relationship.

8. The father continued after physical separation to be abusive and argumentative towards the mother, sending her hundreds of text messages and phoning her on numerous occasions. As a consequence the NSW Police applied for an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order on behalf of the mother on 29 May 2014. An interim Apprehended Domestic Violence Order was issued on 16 June 2014. A final order was made as referred to above.

9. The mother asserts that subsequent to the father being served with the interim order he texted her and telephoned her on more than 140 occasions, many of his communications being offensive and aggressive. On one occasion the father attended at the mother’s home uninvited.

10. The tyres on the mother’s car have been deflated on a regular basis until such time as she installed a security system at home.

11. Various alleged breaches of the Apprehended Domestic Violence Order were reported to the police including the father continuing to contact the mother, driving past her home, the maternal grandmother’s home and the home of the father of her older children. For his part the father denies much of the mother’s allegations.

12. On 30 July 2014 the father was charged with the offences of stalk and intimidate with intent to cause fear or physical harm and use a carriage service to menace, harass or offend, in relation to his conduct in the period from 1 May 2014 to 6 June 2014. On 3 September 2014 the father in respect of one charge was convicted and was placed on a good behaviour bond for a period of 12 months and on the other charge he was fined the sum of $600 and placed on a recognisance to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months. As detailed above, a final Apprehended Domestic Violence Order was made for two years.

13. On 8 November 2014 the father was charged with two further offences that on 21 July 2014 he contravened a prohibition or restriction in an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order. In relation to these charges on 13 April 2015 the father was ordered to enter into a good behaviour bond for a period of 18 months conditional upon complying with the Apprehended Domestic Violence Order made on 3 September 2014.

14. On 2 January 2015 the father was charged with three further offences of contravene a prohibition or restriction in an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order. The offences were committed on 11 July 2014 and 14 July 2014. On 13 April 2015 the father was fined $300 in respect of each charge.

15. The father’s criminal history reveals that he was dealt with in 2011 at the Suburb I Local Court for two charges of contravene a prohibition or restriction in an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (Exh C). Such order related to the father’s previous relationship with the mother of his child G. The father in respect of those charges was ordered to enter into a 12 month good behaviour bond without conviction.

The mother

1. The mother is presently in part-time work and is able to provide financially for herself and her children from her wages, government benefits and child support. The father has a periodic child support obligation of $250 per month in relation to the subject child.

2. The father concedes that the mother has been the primary carer of the child and he has no concerns in relation to her care of the child.

3. The maternal grandmother supports the mother’s application. She asserts her concerns during times that she supervised the father’s time with the child and her observations as to the father’s preoccupation with the mother. To her observation the father seemed inept in tending to the child’s needs and to her concern he often took photographs of the child in the bath whilst the child was naked. She confirms that the father refused to allow her into his home on 9 November 2014 for the purposes of supervision.

4. The maternal grandmother also expresses her concerns in relation to the child G.

The father

1. The paternal grandmother supports the father’s application. She asserts that since the birth of the child she has observed the mother’s behaviour to be very controlling and possessive in relation to the child. She complains that she and her husband have not seen the child since the child was 11 months of age. She agrees that following separation the father went through a “bad patch” and did do some “silly things”.

2. The father has now re-partnered and his new partner has three sons aged 14, 12 and 10 years. He does not live with his new partner.

The Child Responsive Memorandum

1. The family consultant’s memorandum is dated 15 October 2015. The memorandum provides an overview of the background to this matter as discussed above.

2. As to the child, the family consultant was of the view that it would not be clear as to whether the child retained any memory of the father as her father.

3. The father conceded to the family consultant that he had harassed the mother by contacting her in relation to not spending time with the child. However the family consultant also noted:

   [The father] did not appear to accept that such harassment was considered a form of family violence and demonstrated little insight into the potentially negative impact that such behaviour may have on [the mother’s] mental health and hence her capacity to adequately parent [the child].

4. The family consultant reported the mother’s concerns about the father’s mental health in relation to his post-separation behaviour. The father denied any issues as to his mental health and asserted that the mother was overprotective in relation to her children.

5. In evaluation the family consultant made reference to the mother’s allegations of significant stalking and harassment by the father. The consultant opined that:

   Children can be adversely affected through ongoing contact with a person who perpetrate family violence (including the exercise of controlling behaviour and psychological abuse) in a number of ways, including having that person undermine the other parent’s role as a parent and their relationships with the child(ren), increased risk of exposure to threats or actual violence against the other parent, increased risk of psychological abuse and manipulation of the child(ren) by that parent and increased risk of exposure to neglectful or irresponsible parenting.

6. The child was identified as unable to manage issues relating to her own safety.

7. The family consultant recommended that it may assist if the issue of whether or not the father engaged in stalking behaviour and harassment towards the mother is determined prior to any consideration of re-establishing the child’s relationship with him. The mother’s reluctance in the circumstances to promote any relationship between the father and the child is thus understandable.

8. The family consultant recommended that it may assist the father if he undertakes and successfully complete a recognised program that meets the NSW minimum standards for men’s domestic and family violence behaviour change programmes. This may be an option as the father informed the family consultant that he would “do anything” to be able to re-establish a relationship with the child. The family consultant further recommended that if the Court considered it to be in the child’s best interests to re-establish a relationship with the father the use of the children’s contact centre could be considered because of the higher level of security and structure afforded by such a centre.

The ICL

1. On 11 August 2015 an Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) was appointed to represent the interests of B. The ICL supported the mother’s position that at this stage there be no formal order for the child’s time with the father.

2. Such position was taken in the context of the parties agreeing to the appointment of Ms D, clinical and forensic psychologist, as a Single Expert for the purposes of preparing a report for the Court and Ms D having available reasonably prompt appointments to engage with the parties.

3. The ICL supported the mother’s position that there simply be a notation to the effect of “that upon receipt of the report of Ms D that time for the father with B (if any) will commence at the Suburb C Contact Centre in accordance with Ms D’s recommendations.”

1. It is common ground that there is significant delay in the availability of the commencement of supervised time at the Suburb C Contact Centre and it would thus be appropriate for the mother and father at least to complete intake assessments at an early date pending any recommendation by Ms D, so that in the event that the is a positive recommendation there will be less of a waiting time for the commencement of supervision.

Interim parenting

1. In Marvel & Marvel (No. 2) [2010] FamCAFC 101 the Full Court (Faulks DCJ, Boland and Stevenson JJ), discussed the difficulties associated with making findings on contested evidence as follows:

   120.     As has frequently been emphasised interim parenting proceedings, and orders made as a consequence, are a necessary but temporary measure until all the evidence can be tested, evaluated and weighed at a final hearing by the making of final parenting orders. Decisions judicial officers have to make in interim proceedings are difficult and, often for very good reason, a conservative approach, or one which is likely to avoid harm to a child is adopted. (emphasis added). This is often to the understandable distress of a party who may not achieve the outcome he or she desires, or thinks to be in the best interests of their child or children. Interim parenting orders are frequently modified or changed after a final hearing, and any allocation of parental responsibility made at an interim hearing is disregarded at the final hearing (s 61DB).

   …

   122.     In SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13 the majority (Boland and Thackray JJ) discussed at paragraph [88] of their reasons the care necessary to be exercised in making findings in interim parenting proceedings. Their Honours said:

   In our view, findings made at an interim hearing should be couched with great circumspection, no matter how firmly a judge’s intuition may suggest that the finding will be borne out after a full testing of the evidence.

   Later, at paragraph 100 their Honours amplified their comments and said:

   The intuition involved in decision-making concerning children is arguably of even greater importance when a judge is obliged to make interim decisions following a hearing at which time constraints prevent the evidence being tested. Apart from relying upon the uncontroversial or agreed facts, a judge will sometimes have little alternative than to weigh the probabilities of competing claims and the likely impact on children in the event that a controversial assertion is acted upon or rejected. It is not always feasible when dealing with the immediate welfare of children simply to ignore an assertion because its accuracy has been put in issue.

2. In George & George [2013] FamCAFC 182 the Full Court cited Deiter & Deiter [2011] FamCAFC 82 in confirming that the mere fact that matters are in dispute does not mean the Court can ignore concerns that are raised in the material before it.

3. In Deiter (supra) the Court was there concerned with the situation where the contested facts related to an assessment of risk and where it was said at [61]:

   … Risk assessment comprises two elements - the first requires prediction of the likelihood of the occurrence of harmful events, and the second requires consideration of the severity of the impact caused by those events. In our view, the assessment of risk in cases involving the welfare of children cannot be postponed until the last piece of evidence is given and tested, and the last submission is made. We accept, however, that it is always a question of degree depending on the evidence that is before the Court.

4. The relevant principles in relation to parenting are well settled Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346.

5. Section 60B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) outlines the objects and principles underlying Part VII of the Act. 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.

6. Section 60CC then 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 the context of this matter it is not necessary to undertake a detailed examination of each of the consideration set out in s 60CC. The protective issues are overwhelming.

7. 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.

8. If the presumption in s 61DA is to apply and the Court makes an order for equal shared parental responsibility, this “triggers” the operation of s 65DAA which requires the Court to consider whether equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent is in the child’s best interests and reasonably practicable.

9. 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:

   a)There are reasonable grounds to believe a parent has engaged in abuse of the child or family violence (s 61DA(2));

   b)In interim proceedings where the court considers that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for the presumption to be applied when making that order (s 61DA(3)); and

   c)If the court is satisfied that an order for equal shared parental responsibility would not be in the child’s best interests (s 61DA(4)).

10. The High Court in MRR v GRR (2010) 240 CLR 461 affirmed the “legislative pathway”.

11. Clearly in this matter the presumption is not to apply by reason of the father’s conduct amounting to family violence the subject of court findings and in the best interests of the child as discussed below. It is appropriate that the mother hold sole parental responsibility for the child.

12. Thus the orders to be made are guided by the best interests principles.

The primary considerations: s 60CC(2)

1. The primary considerations are:

   a)The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents; and

   b)The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence. This factor taking primacy (s 60CC(2A)).

2. In Mazorski & Albright [2007] FamCA 520 Brown J considered the ordinary definitions of the term “meaningful” and observed at [26]:

   What these definitions convey is that “meaningful”, when used in the context of “meaningful relationship”, is synonymous with “significant” which, in turn, is generally used as a synonym for “important” or “of consequence”. I proceed on the basis that when considering the primary considerations and the application of the object and principles, a meaningful relationship or a meaningful involvement is one which is important, significant and valuable to the child. It is a qualitative adjective, not a strictly quantitive one. Quantitive concepts may be addressed as part of the process of considering the consequences of the application of the presumption of equally shared parental responsibility and the requirement for time with children to be, where possible and in their best interests, substantial and significant.

3. In McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93-405 the Full Court at 83,476 accepted as appropriate this interpretation by Brown J of “meaningful relationship”.

4. It is clear that in the present circumstances any relationship between the child and the father could not possibly be meaningful in the context of being important, significant and valuable to the child. The child it is to be inferred has been exposed to family violence and the father’s aberrant behaviour.  The father’s conduct post-separation represents a serious concern as his ability to be child focused. The nature of his relationship with the child must await a fuller examination by the Single Expert and if necessary a hearing to resolve evidentiary disputes.

5. It is important at this difficult time that the child remains in the primary care of the mother with that representing a stable, valuable and important relationship for her at this time.

6. Regard has been had to the additional considerations in s 60CC(3) such as are relevant below but in the context of this matter the determination can readily be resolved by the protective factors set out in s 60CC(2)(b).

7. The father’s past behaviour should it continue will expose the child to the risk of “family violence” and prospectively psychological harm should the mother’s parenting capacity be compromised by his behaviour.

8. The nature of this risk will await a report from the Single Expert. Clearly the father did not learn from his experiences from his first relationship. At present for the reasons discussed herein there is an unacceptable risk to the child in the event that that the child spends time with the father. That risk is in part ameliorated by supervision but by reason of the age of the child and there being at present no relationship between the child and the father, the management of  a reintroduction, if any, awaits the Single Expert report.

The additional considerations: s 60CC(3)

1. The more relevant considerations are briefly discussed hereunder.

2. The child is of tender years and there is no evidence of any views expressed by the child.

3. The mother clearly represents to the child her primary carer throughout her short life to date. There is no issue as to the relationship between the child and the mother and arising from that also the child’s relationships with the extended maternal family. The father’s relationship with the child has been compromised by his behaviour that amounts to family violence. At this stage he has no relationship with the child and has not had any relationship with the child since November 2014. As discussed above the recommencement of any relationship between the father and the child at present is problematic and awaits recommendations from the Single Expert.

4. The mother to date has taken her opportunities to make decisions about the major long-term issues in relation to the child who has been at all times in her primary care. The father in this regard has abrogated his responsibility in this regard by reason of his conduct that has led to him having no time with the child now since November 2014.

5. The mother presents as the primary financial provider for the child and the father has a present child support obligation that it is expected he will continue to fulfil.

6. The present application sees no primary change in the child’s circumstances living with the mother as her primary carer. The father’s application seeks to introduce time with the child and by reason of the matters discussed above there are significant reservations at present whether that time should commence absent recommendations from the Single Expert. In the event that the Single Expert makes some recommendations as to a reintroduction of the child to the father the nature and course of such reintroduction will need to be carefully managed so as to avoid any unnecessary adverse effect on the child by reason of separation from the mother.

7. There is no practical difficulty and expense in the child spending time with the father. However the commencement of such time will await future determinations as referred to above.

8. The mother has demonstrated an appropriate capacity to provide to the needs of the child including her emotional and intellectual needs by reason of her being primary carer. The father’s capacity in this regard has been compromised by his behaviour that has seen a cessation in his relationship with the child.

9. The mother has demonstrated a proper attitude to the child and responsibilities of parenthood in the circumstances outlined above. The father, for his part, has not, by reason of his conduct particularly post-separation. Time will tell as to whether he has the capacity to adopt a proper attitude to the child and his responsibilities as father.

10. There has been family violence in the relationship between the father and the mother as referred to in detail above. That family violence has been the subject of findings by the Local Court in respect of which the father has been dealt with in terms as detailed above.

11. There is presently a family violence order that will apply until September 2016. The nature of that order is set out above. Subject to the father’s behaviour there is a prospect that the mother may make application for that order to be extended.

12. These are interim proceedings and clearly a court cannot fashion orders that would least likely lead to the institution of further proceedings.

13. There are no other relevant facts or circumstances.

Discussion

1. A consideration of the matters discussed above leads to the inevitable conclusion that it is in the child’s best interests for orders to be made as sought by the mother and as supported by the ICL with a notation to be made in accordance with the mother’s contention.

2. It is important in the context of this matter to have regard to the age of the child and the risk that the father may present to the child should his past conduct reappear. 

3. It is appropriate to make orders requiring the parties to at least participate in the assessment process to place them as it were in the queue at the Suburb C Contact Centre pending release of the Single Expert’s report. Such an order will be made.

4. Orders will be made accordingly.

I certify that the preceding eighty-four (84) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Foster delivered on 11 February 2016.

Associate: 

Date:  11 February 2016