Dallal and Chin and Anor
[2021] FCCA 70
•22 January 2021
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| DALLAL & CHIN & ANOR | [2021] FCCA 70 |
| Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Property –parties having very little in way of property save that the father is the registered proprietor of 2 investment properties – father alleging properties held on trust for his mother – court accepting father’s position despite anomalies – parties to retain their possessions with no property adjustment. |
| Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.60CC Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s.140 |
| Cases cited: Goode v Goode [2006] FamCA 1346 Stanford and Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108 |
| Applicant: | MR DALLAL |
| First Respondent: | MS CHIN |
| Second Respondent: | MS DALLAL |
| File Number: | DGC 92 of 2019 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Burchardt |
| Hearing dates: | 11, 12, 13 & 14 January 2021 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 14 January 2021 |
| Delivered at: | Dandenong |
| Delivered on: | 22 January 2021 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Ms Cranenburgh |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Not Applicable |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Ms Dwyer |
| Solicitors for the First Respondent: | Ressan Lawyers |
| Counsel for the Second Respondent: | Self-Represented |
| Solicitors for the Second Respondent: | Not Applicable |
| Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: | Mr O’Connell |
| Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer: | McCormack and Co |
ORDERS
Parenting
All previous parenting orders shall be discharged including paragraphs 5 , 6 and 7 of the Orders made 29 January 2019 ( the Airport Watch Orders )
The Applicant Mother shall have sole parental responsibility for the children of the marriage, X born in 2014 and Y born in 2017 (“the children “ ) and the Mother as soon as practicable advise the Father in writing (including by email or text messaging) prior to any decision being made by her concerning the long term care, welfare and development of the children or either of them of the details of such proposed decision.
The children shall live with the Mother
The children shall spend time and communicate with the Father as follows :
(a)from 4 pm Friday until 3 pm Sunday each weekend for the remainder of the summer holidays 2020/2021.
(b)during school term in 2021 , in each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school or 4 pm Friday until 4 pm Sunday and on the Thursday in the alternate week from 4 pm until 7 pm .
(c)during the first term holidays of 2021, the alternate weekend and alternate Thursday time shall continue except the alternate weekend shall commence on Thursday at 4 pm.
(d)during the second term holidays 2021, the alternate weekend and alternate Thursday time shall be suspended and the children shall spend time with the Father for four nights from4 pm on the first Wednesday of such holidays until 4 pm on the second Sunday.
(e)during the third term holidays 2021 and the term holidays in 2022, the alternate weekend and alternate Thursday time shall be suspended and the children shall spend time with the Father for five nights from 4pm on the first Wednesday of such holidays until 4pm on the second Monday.
(f)during the Summer Holidays of 2021/22 and 2022/23 , the alternate Thursdays shall be suspended and the children’s alternate weekend time with the Father shall be extended to five nights from 4 pm Friday until 4 pm on the following Wednesday.
(g)Commencing the first term holidays 2023 , the Father’s alternate weekend and Thursday time shall be suspended during all term and Summer holidays and the children shall spend time with the Father as follows :
(i)in each of the term holidays, from the conclusion of school or 4 pm on the last day of the school term until 4 pm on the middle Saturday of such holidays.
(ii)for one half of the Summer holidays 2023/24 on a week about basis commencing at the conclusion of school or 4 pm on the last day of the last school term .
(iii)for the second half of the Summer holidays 2024/25 and the same in each alternate year thereafter
(iv)for the first half of the summer holidays 2025/26 and the same in each alternate year thereafter.
(h)commencing the first term 2024, the Father’s alternate weekend time with the children shall be extended to conclude at the commencement of school or 9 am Monday and the alternate Thursday time shall be extended to conclude at the commencement of school the next day (Friday).
(i)from the conclusion of school until 6.30 pm on each of the children’s and the Father’s birthday if a school day and the children are not in the Father’s care and from 12 noon until 5 pm on a non-school day when not in the Father’s care and if the children are in the Father’s care on their birthday and the Mother’s birthday , the Father’s time shall be suspended for the same periods to enable the Mother to spend time with the children
(j)from 5 pm on the eve of Father’s Day until 5 pm Father’s Day and the Father’s time shall be suspended from 5 pm on the eve of Mother’s Day until 5 pm Mother’s Day
(k)In relation to Eid, Order 1(b) of the Orders made on 27 April 2020 remain in full force and effect.
(l)By FaceTime or telephone each Tuesday and Thursday between 6pm and 6:30pm
Changeover shall be at the front entrance of McDonald’s Restaurant, B Street, Suburb C when not at school or such other place agreed to by the parties in writing.
The Mother shall forthwith provide the father’s solicitor with the name of X’s school and the Mother shall direct such school not to reveal her home address to the Father either directly or in correspondence. The Mother shall provide such school with a copy of these Orders.
The Father by himself, his servants or his agents shall not attempt to find out the Mother’s address from any person connected with X’s school.
The Father shall be at liberty to attend school functions and events, parent/teacher nights and officially organised meetings and appointments related to either of the children’s education.
Each of the Mother and the Father shall provide the other with a current telephone number and email address and ensure that the other is kept up to date with any changes thereto
In the event of any serious illness or injury suffered by either of the children whilst in the care of a parent , such parent shall forthwith inform the other parent and provide details of any health professional treating such child and each parent shall be at liberty to consult with any such health professional and attend upon such child whilst hospitalised , subject to the direction of any treating health professional
The Mother and the Father by themselves , servants or agents are hereby restrained from
(a)using physical punishment on either of the children
(b)denigrating the other in the presence or hearing of the children or either of them
(c)discussing with or in the presence or hearing of the children these proceeding or any allegations referred to in these proceedings or in any documents filed herein
The Mother shall ensure that the children are available for online study organised by the Father about Islam once a week for at least an hour.
Property
There be no further property adjustment between the parties.
That, unless otherwise specified in these Orders and except for the purposes of enforcing the payment of any money due under these or any subsequent Orders;
(a)The Applicant and Respondent each be declared to be the sole legal and beneficial owner of all other items of property presently in the possession, custody or control of each of them respectively including, but not limited to, money, motor vehicles, furniture, furnishings, appliances, jewellery, equities, choses-in-action and personal effects;
(b)Each party hereby forgoes any claim they may have to any Superannuation benefits belonging to or earned by the other;
(c)All insurance policies to become the sole property of the owner named thereon;
(d)Monies standing to the credit of either party in any bank account are to become the property of that party;
(e)Each party be solely liable for and indemnify the other against any liability encumbering any item of property to which that party is entitled pursuant to these Orders; and
All parties are forthwith to remove any caveats they have lodged over any property owned by any party to these proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Dallal & Chin & Anor is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT DANDENONG |
DGC 92 of 2019
| MR DALLAL |
Applicant
And
| MS CHIN |
First Respondent
| MS DALLAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is a parenting and property dispute which is urgent on both fronts. So far as parenting matters are concerned we are occupied with the best interests of two young girls, X born in 2014 and Y born in 2017. Each of their parents seeks primary residence and the applicant father is strongly supported by his mother, the second respondent, and indeed all of his family. There is an interrelated but to the parties very important dispute about which, and indeed what sort of, school the children should attend. This is obviously urgent because the school year is about to start and indeed this proceeding has been shoehorned into a January hearing to endeavour to meet that deadline.
So far as property matters are concerned the primary matter in dispute is whether or not two investment properties of which the father is the registered proprietor should or should not be included in the property pool. The mother says they should be but the father says that in truth they belong to his mother. This aspect of the matter is also said to be urgent because the mother has filed caveats over the two properties which it is asserted, so far as I can see without material contradiction, is giving rise to financial stress on the Dallal family in relation to those properties (although it is not immediately apparent to me why the existence of the caveats should have this effect).
For the reasons that follow I am going to make parenting orders as proposed by the Independent Children's Lawyer and supported by the mother which are generally to the effect that the children should live with the mother, spend time and communicate with the father and attend a school chosen by the mother. So far as property is concerned I do not think that the two investment properties should be included in the property pool and the parties having virtually no other meaningful resources should simply retain what they have.
It should be noted, that because of the urgency of the circumstances, in these reasons I propose to deal to an extent in a rather broad-brush way both with the materials the parties have filed and the evidence the parties gave at Court. Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer described the parties’ affidavit material as prolix and tangential and I entirely agree with that description. Even if there were more time available, it would not be appropriate or necessary to traverse each and every matter that the parties have seen fit to raise against one another (and they have left nothing, no matter how minute, out). This decision will concentrate on the essentials.
Agreed or Uncontroversial Matters
The father’s family is of Country D origin. The paternal grandfather was born in 1944 and came first to Australia in 1969. He is professionally qualified. He married the paternal grandmother who was born in 1959 in 1978. They have three children, Mr E born in 1978, Mr F born in 1980 and Mr Dallal (the father in this case) born in 1982. From what the father told the family report writer it appears that he returned to live in Country D with his family aged about 18 months and returned to Australia in 2007. He has completed amongst other things a master’s degree at G University.
The mother was born in 1985 in Country H where her family continues to live. She came to Australia in 2010 to study at G University and it seems that the mother and father met on campus relatively shortly thereafter.
In 2012 the father accompanied by his mother returned to Country D to investigate various possibilities for an arranged marriage. It appears that during the currency of that visit the mother contacted the father and indicated she wished to marry him. This led to the abortion so to speak of the Country D marriage initiative and the father and his mother returned to Australia. Thereafter the wife was introduced to the father’s parents and family. It is quite clear that the father made it wholly apparent to the mother that he would not marry unless he married a person who was practising Islamic faith and who was prepared to bring any children up and educate them in accordance with Islamic beliefs. There is equally no doubt and it is not the slightest bit controversial that the wife voluntarily converted to Islam and at the wedding ceremony appears to have undertaken in front of a substantial multitude of guests that she would indeed ensure that she brought up any children in the Islamic faith. Indeed it is the mother’s case, and it does not seem to be denied, that at least initially she was extremely devout in her observation praying five times a day.
The marriage took place in 2013 and the wife (the parties are not divorced and I will refer to them as mother and wife and father and husband as the context makes appropriate) worked part-time as a professional until she was heavily pregnant with X who as earlier indicated was born in 2014. Following the marriage the parties lived with the father’s family (relevantly his parents but it appears that the eldest sister was a frequent visitor and it is clear that the Dallal family are closely intertwined) and it is the father’s family’s case (including him) that the mother was received very tenderly as it were into the family and very well-regarded and looked after. Unsurprisingly members of the father’s family would talk to each other in Urdu from time to time and it is the grandmother’s evidence that it was she who caused them to speak in English to avoid leaving the mother out. This evidence is not controversial and in any event I have heard it and believe it.
There is a significant dispute to which I shall return as to the extent that the mother participated both in the ordinary running of the household and a business conducted by the family but I will return to that.
Following the birth of X in 2016, the mother and X went on a visit to Country H to see her family which appears to have been wholly funded by the father’s family. In early 2017 the mother and father together with various members of the father’s family visited the Country J, appear to have gone to City K and City L and also visited his extended family in Country D for four weeks. Once again this journey was apparently wholly funded by the father’s family. In April 2017 the maternal grandmother and the mother’s younger brother came to stay with the family for two weeks and later in 2017 in November the maternal grandmother came again for two months. There is some dispute as to exactly who paid for the relevant airfares but the visits themselves are not controversial. The mother also returned to Country H for two months on 28 August 2018.
At a latter stage in the relationship the parties saw fit to attend upon Ms M, a counsellor who has gone on affidavit in the proceedings. It will be appropriate to return to her affidavit in due course.
On 9 January 2019 the mother left the matrimonial home and went to a refuge, following which over time she has been moved into transitional accommodation which she still occupies. There is nothing to suggest that this accommodation is in any way unsuitable. The father has continued to live in their home with his parents and once again it is clear that this is a well-appointed property in which the children would be well-cared for if they were to live there as their primary residence.
Following the mother’s departure and following a brief period of time spent shortly thereafter with the father, which the mother ended because as she perceived it the father was endeavouring to coach X to make complaints about her, proceedings were commenced in this Court on 16 January 2019 when the father sought a recovery order and watch list order. That watch list order is still extant. Thereafter there have been numerous court proceedings, not least because the parties have filed applications in a case to ventilate their perceived dissatisfaction with one another’s conduct and more particularly with the vexed issue of whether the children should be enrolled in an Islamic school. Towards the end of the proceeding the paternal grandmother sought to be joined as a respondent and was successful. Given the urgency of the schooling issue the Court as earlier indicated shoehorned this matter into an early start in January and as indicated these reasons for judgment are being prepared in some haste.
The Parties’ Affidavits
I have already referred to the prolixity of the parties’ affidavit material. I have of course read carefully the entirety of the Court file and have regard to everything the parties have put before the Court. Much of the parties’ affidavit material (perhaps somewhat more so that of the father and those who support him) is objectionable in one way or another. The purported evidence involves submissions, expression of expert opinion not supported by expertise, hearsay and other objectionable material. What really emerges is the intensity of the parties’ disputation. Both sides roundly accuse the other of lying or fabricating evidence. The father’s affidavits (and those of his mother which I strongly suspect were prepared by the father given the similarities of style and font) are littered with headings such as False Evidence Given by the Mother and the like. As I have earlier indicated they have not left anything out.
As already indicated the parties have filed all too much affidavit material. Much of what is of relevance is contained in the agreed section above. Both parties are in my view strongly given to hyperbolae and florid exaggeration. Both parties have sought to put before the Court videos and/or audios recorded of one another both during and after the relationship albeit that none have ultimately made their way into evidence. As I think already earlier indicated each roundly accuses the other of giving false evidence and fabricating evidence and lying. By way of illustration only I would quote some paragraphs from the mother’s first affidavit filed 26 February 2019. At paragraph 22 she deposed:
Every day with him and his family, I was always living in stress and panic because I didn’t know what they would complain about or blame on me. I was struggling by myself with children, while having to serve his whole family. Outside the house, they would be nice with me to pretend that they were a good family but kill me slowly inside the house.
At paragraph 29 the mother deposed:
Where is my right as a mother when cannot teach my own children my language freely, I don't have the right to avoid food which can harm their health and cannot discipline them to teach them right from wrong. I felt like their nanny and a slave.
At paragraph 34 to 35 she deposed:
On or around 9 January 2019, I made an avocado tomato omelette for breakfast. I called the Applicant many times but he was still in bed and then the toilet. The children finished their meal and they were playing, of course toys were everywhere. The Applicant came out and complained about house. He started filming all over the house in an attempt to show everyone that I was a bad wife. The Applicant showed the video to my friend Ms N and her ex-husband Mr O. I am not sure if he showed it anyone else. Instead of helping me out, he tried to get me down and humiliate me by recording me. I said that I do not allow him to record me. The Applicant replied that he had the right to record me. Any time he was not happy with me, he filmed me.
If I refused to have sex with him, he started filming me to show to Mr P (who had Islam knowledge) that I am a bad wife because I do not satisfy him when he wants. It was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I could not suffer any more and called my friend Ms N to pick me up.
It should be noted in this regard that the wife subsequently made very serious allegations of sexual abuse on the husband’s part to the police which were not proceeded with on the footing that the authorities formed the view there was insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction. It should be noted that the wife has not set out these allegations in any detail in any of her affidavits.
One affidavit that is worthy of note is the affidavit of Ms M filed on 18 March 2019. Ms M is a clinical psychologist who is a longstanding friend of the Dallal family. At paragraphs 7 and 8 Ms M deposed that the paternal grandmother had requested her to speak to the mother as a family friend bearing in mind her professional knowledge because it was asserted that the wife had been very angry and reactive in the last couple of months and abusive towards X. Ms M saw the mother in her clinic on 21 December 2018 and “she talked about some family matters that we both agreed to work on and by involving Mr Dallal in order to find solutions to everyday issues she raised”. She agreed to have a joint meeting to discuss the issues.
At paragraph 10 Ms M describes a family meeting that took place on 24 December 2018. They discussed complaints on both sides. The father’s perspective seems to me to be very generalised but he offered to cooperate in every possible manner to make his family life happy. The report notes also:
Everyone agreed that the family will not interfere in her discipline on the condition that she would not hit X. We discussed the child behaviour strategies for her to improve her parenting skills.
It was also agreed that her demand of a separate home will also be fulfilled but Ms Chin wanted to get her driving licence prior to moving out (illegible) manage her household.
The next matter raised in the meeting was as follows:
Ms Chin brought up the matter of financial management and her demand of her financial maintenance. In my understanding, Ms Chin was paid $1000 per month from their family business and extra cash from Mr Dallal whenever she wanted. She talked about not receiving Centrelink money, Family tax Benefit Part A & B. I did not feel comfortable to ask the amount and also they talked about changes and gaps in payments due to delays in Tax paperwork and variation of Mr Dallal’s income.
We discussed a few options related to money and financial support responsibilities. We agreed that the Family payments could go to the joint account and must be used for children’s needs and Mr Dallal agreed to pay her pocket money and the amount of pocket money was to be negotiated between the couple.
I explained to her that Family Payments were for children and the amount of Family Payments were income-based. I was not clear about her visa status but I talked briefly about Parenting Payments that required verification with the Centrelink. We finalised that Mr Dallal must maintain her expenses in a reasonable manner as her spouse. She agreed to this suggestion as well.
The meeting also clearly traversed the father’s desire that the children be enrolled in the Q School in Suburb R and the mother’s desire to enrol in a local primary school.
The remainder of the affidavit really does little but to confirm that, as is unsurprising perhaps in the circumstances, Ms M was affronted by what she described as “Ms Chin laid false allegations on myself for giving her misleading advice” and her obvious alignment as a partisan witness in favour of the Dallal family. Indeed I will say in passing that all of the supporting affidavits filed by the father (and there are a considerable number) show an obvious partiality which in most instances diminishes the weight to be given to their evidence to something close to zero.
Lest it be thought that my criticisms of the parties’ affidavits were reserved to the mother alone I will set out paragraphs 2-4 of the father’s affidavit filed 18 March 2019:
This is in response to Ms Chin’s false allegations on me and my family and I am completely shocked and saddened to read her statement which is based on just telling lies and fabricating the facts.
It is to mention that it is a perjury and contempt of court to lie in front of Federal Circuit Court judge.
On 5th of February 2019, Ms Chin’s lawyer gave false and mis-leading information to the ICL and to the honourable court that Ms Chin handed over the kids to the father from 11th of January Saturday to 12th January Sunday because she was NOT separated at that time. This false information was given without any prior investigation so that Ms Chin could keep the kids and deprive the right of the children to stay with the father. It is later on found out from Centrelink that Ms Chin gave wrong information to the court. Please find attached letter “Annexure A” from Centrelink stating that Ms Chin was separated on 9th of January 2019 already.
The hyperbolae which perhaps best illustrates the father’s manner of self-expression is his repeated description of his children as his “two little angels”. I have no doubt that the father adores his children but, and accepting that there may be cultural influences of which I am not fully aware, this is in my opinion an over-the-top description typical of not just his but the mother’s material generally and of course that of the second respondent also who is entirely as unself-restrained as the father.
I note that an affidavit filed by Mr S on 29 January 2020, once again entirely partisan in its nature, says at paragraphs 20 to 21:
Since the kids are born in a Muslim family and we have observed certain statements of X which made us worried, therefore, we request honourable court to appoint Islamic school for X so that she can easily learn her culture and faith from the foundation.
We sincerely, hope that the court would consider this honest request on behalf of our community. (Please See Attached Annexure 1).
Annexure 1 is a document addressed by Mr S who is general secretary of the T Institute which in substance repeats the two requests to which I have just referred but it is signed by no less than 49 members of the community. It is apparent that the family law dispute, which as counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer correctly submitted is essentially a private matter between the parties and privileged, has been widely bruited about in the community by the Dallal family. I note that purely by way of illustration the second respondent paternal grandmother deposed at paragraph 10 of her affidavit filed on 1 December 2020:
It should also be noted that respondent 1 has deposed to false allegations and made-up stories throughout her trial affidavit, so much so that she has given the wrong name of the family report writer as Ms U.
The exact same phrase is used in the father’s affidavit filed on 7 December 2020 at paragraph 8.
I note that in the father’s trial affidavit filed 9 November 2020 he deposes at paragraph 110 as to sums owned by the mother in excess of $100,000 to which I shall return.
I note that the wife’s trial affidavit appends as “21” a record of observations made by Ms V of W Contact Centre. Ms V supervised a number of contact visits between the children and the father and I note that on all occasions it would seem that other family members were present.
In her contact summary at page 71 of 85 of the affidavit, having noted the generally satisfactory nature of the care provided by the father and his family and various other matters, the report writer observed:
The writer feels that the family could struggle with setting and maintaining boundaries with the girls. While it appears very apparent that they love the girls, they have been observed to struggle with X when she becomes defiant and disengages. They use multiple tactics to encourage her to comply, however this includes rewards for not listening. When a child refuses to follow direction, it isn't appropriate to offer a reward or a surprise after negotiating. The mother felt that this was also an ongoing issue, that the girls were allowed to do whatever they want.
The Family Report of Ms Z
Ms Z recorded the background, the current arrangements and relevant family backgrounds and the history of the dispute before the Court (which has been protracted). She went on to deal with the proposals of the parties and then turned to her interviews with the parents. At paragraph 16 Ms Z recorded:
Ms Chin reported that Mr Dallal and his family were controlling and racially discriminating against her. She gave examples of being directed to work in the business and having no access to finances, as well as being unable to prepare Country H food in the home and was forbidden from speaking Country H language with the children openly. Ms Chin described being verbally abused by Mr Dallal and the paternal grandfather. Ms Chin described a living arrangement whereby she was treated like a slave and had no keys to the family home. Mr Dallal denies any such family violence and crossalleged it was Ms Chin who had become verbally violent.
Mr Dallal alleged Ms Chin had used smacking to chastise the children. Ms Chin reported at interview that she does not hit the children. Ms Chin advised she had engaged in counselling support from Family Violence services and has been learning parenting skills. Ms Chin advised she uses a warning by counting approach and then removes technology. Ms Chin denied that she has harmed the children as alleged by Mr Dallal. Mr Dallal reported that the hospital had contacted the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) when X was hurt in her care and taken to hospital.
At paragraph 24 when dealing with her interview with the father Ms Z reported:
Mr Dallal was interviewed with a telephone interpreter service in Urdu. Mr Dallal was late by half an hour. Mr Dallal had difficulty constraining himself to the process. On several occasions it was necessary to ask him to answer the questions which were by way of semi structured interview. Mr Dallal reverted several times to focusing negatively on Ms Chin when being asked questions about himself particularly about risks.
I note that having traversed the father’s criticisms of the mother’s care of the children the report turned to Ms Chin. At paragraph 34 in reporting upon Ms Chin’s childhood the report noted:
…She recalled that her father hit her and that culturally it was said that the more parents loved a child the more they would hit them. This was the discipline.
The mother denied abuse of the children as alleged, asserted that X was attending a local school where she was happy and at paragraph 40:
Ms Chin reported that she had converted to Islam to marry Mr Dallal and while she does not object to the children having an awareness of that fact she does not wish to be involved in arrangements to send them to an Islamic school which is impractical for her. She also cannot afford to be paying fees and does not wish to have more communication with Mr Dallal than is absolutely necessary. Ms Chin recalled that Mr Dallal had twice attended a property where she was staying and harassed her since the separation. Ms Chin reported that Mr Dallal pressures until he gets what he wants and she does not want to deal with that in direct communication with him.
The parties have poor communication currently and low levels of trust. Mr Dallal appeared to have an incredibly low opinion of Ms Chin and her parenting skills. Unless the DHHS have supported his allegations about her, there are concerns that Mr Dallal’s beliefs about the children’s mother will obstruct their relationship with her particularly if there is a change of residence. Ms Chin did not spontaneously express negative attitudes about Mr Dallal, but she expressed a wish to be able to direct her own life and not to be pressured and controlled by Mr Dallal and his family…
Ms Z was not able to interview the children because of their age and shyness but concluded that the children had established bonds with both parties and that the mother had been their primary carer. At paragraph 44 she observed:
…The mother has been their primary carer. Their father usually works full-time and so they are less likely to have been in his primary care but would have a bond with him. They have lived in the home of the paternal grandparents and are likely to have formed bonds with them. They have recently been living with their maternal grandmother for several months and so would have formed a bond with her too.
It is fair to say that Mr Dallal appears to have made a relatively poor impression upon Ms Z who observed at paragraph 46:
Mr Dallal impressed as working hard to create an impression he was unable to communicate well in English while also informing that he had completed a Master’s level course at G University in Australia and is currently studying a course. It appeared that Mr Dallal was using the presence of the interpreter to try to control the interview by speaking at length in in Urdu on things which were not relevant to the questions asked of him. He was asked several times to attend to the question asked. Mr Dallal appeared evasive about the alleged financial and other control of Ms Chin. Mr Dallal also made statements about Ms Chin which undermined her capabilities as a parent. This raised concerns about how the children will be negatively impacted by his opinions in relation to their mother and suggests that their time with him should be minimised to reduce opportunity for such influence.
The report went on to recommend the children live with the mother and spend gradually increasing periods of time with their father. The report made no express recommendation in relation to parental responsibility. The report noted the very poor level of trust and poor communication between the parents.
The Reports from the Department of Health and Human Services
There have been at least two reports pursuant to section 67Z notices of risk filed by the department. They do not take the matter much further in my view but I will refer to them briefly as they were raised by counsel for the father.
Relevantly the report dated 15 May 2019 noted four reports between January and April 2019 all of which were closed at intake. The report noted on page 2, accurately in my opinion:
The file also indicates that the parents have an acrimonious relationship and there remains an ongoing matter in the FLC.
The most recent report commencing on 3 April 2019 dealt with X sustaining a burn on her hand in the mother’s care. The report concluded that there was no information to suggest neglect or unfit parenting by the mother. The report commencing 14 March 2019 noted concerns of abuse by the father in the form of ongoing controlling emotional and economic abuse. While a statement has been taken by the family violence investigation unit the mother disclosed she had been raped by the father multiple times (this is the series of assaults to which I have earlier referred) the other earlier reports suggest that there were no concerns on the partner’s part.
The then current investigation commenced on 19 April 2019 as Y had had a bruise on her lip on 11 April and a bruise on her cheek on 13 April and X was limping on 18 April 2019. X told the contact supervisor that her mother had hit her with a shoe. This led to a visit by SOCIT to the mother’s home and the mother’s explanations were plausible. The SOCIT practitioners noted that neither child appeared to be fearful of their mother and appeared comfortable in her care. Following further contact from the father there was a further follow-up visit with the mother. No concerns were established from the department’s point of view.
The Evidence Given at Court – How is it to be Dealt With
Ordinarily I traverse the parties’ evidence, albeit in a paraphrase taken from notes, in considerable detail. It sets the scene for the findings of fact that are made. In this case however there are two interrelated matters which make this inappropriate. The first aspect of the matter is that there were some four or so days of evidence and any endeavour to traverse even by way of paraphrase everything that was said would produce a judgment of great length and would take considerable time. The second aspect of the matter is that the Court does not have a lot of spare time in which to deal with this matter. In order for judgment to be given sufficiently quickly to enable the issue that the parties regard as vital, namely the choice of school, to be determined another methodology must be found. Furthermore, having given earnest thought to the matter, this is a case in which I have come to a very clear set of conclusions as to what the facts are subject to one caveat which I will deal with. Accordingly what I am going to do is set out my observations about the credit of the witnesses and the way in which they gave their evidence before coming to a narrative that I think is comfortably consistent not only with what the parties said and the way they said it but, in some instances, with the relevant documentation filed before the Court.
Observations about the Credit of the Witnesses
The father as the applicant gave evidence first. Almost from the moment he opened his mouth it was apparent that he was extremely loquacious. His answers were prolix and nonresponsive even in evidence-in-chief. Under cross-examination things only got worse. He was cross-examined in some detail about the affairs of the business AA that is on paper wholly owned by his mother but his answers were in my view unbelievable. He was cross-examined about why he had changed his position as to parental responsibility and the amount of time he was seeking from time to time and really effectively failed in my view meaningfully to respond to those questions. I note that when cross-examined about the petition to which I have referred signed by the 49 members of the community he said he wanted the Court to know that no video had been circulated. What I took from his answer was that it was clear he was behind the petition. He seemed unable to quite a surprising degree to give a simple answer to any straightforward question that was put to him and that his answers were at times quite exceptionally evasive and nonresponsive.
This was perhaps particularly noticeable when he was being pressed about the loan he had obtained from the bank to buy the first investment property. He professed to blame his broker for any irregularities but he must have signed the documents and he has a master’s in banking and finance. His answers about the obtaining of the First Home Owner Grant which was obtained to buy the first investment property were similarly unconvincing. I note that he was unable to say one good thing about the mother.
When pressed by counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer about his assertion that the mother had left X shivering and cold for half an hour following a shower and asked as to why he had not intervened to do something about it, his answers were completely unbelievable.
Mr S who was called was, in my view, a careful and composed witness, but he was clearly partisan. The same can be said of Ms BB, who I understand to be his wife.
The paternal grandfather, whose evidence was largely concerned with the operation of a business and the responding to certain criticisms made of him by the wife, did not, in my view, take the matter much further.
The paternal grandmother, the second respondent, was at first in evidence-in-chief and in cross-examination relatively restrained because she was giving evidence in English. She conceded that the First Homeowner's Grant might have been worth as much as $16,000. Nonetheless, even when giving her answers initially in English, Mrs Dallal's answers were unbelievable and had all the appearance in some instances of being made up on the run. Despite having an excellent memory of some matters and dates, she professed to be unaware to a surprising degree of the precise details of the purchase of the two properties, which she says in fact are owned beneficially for her. Once she moved into expressing her evidence through the interpreter, her evidence took on very much the pattern of her son's answers. They were very, very lengthy and generally non-responsive to the questions put. I note that the gravamen of her position was that the children should live with her family and the mother would be able to spend time whenever she asked for it. As my notes record, once she obtained the assistance of the interpreter, her answers became voluble, unrestrained and unresponsive.
Ms CC, the father's elder sister, was, in terms of the lay witnesses called, the stand-out. She was an extremely measured and fair witness. It is worth recording her evidence in rather greater detail.
Ms CC adopted her affidavit as true and correct. Under cross-examination by counsel for the father (who was, of course, favourable to the witness), Ms CC said she was aware of the two investment properties. She was aware of her mother's inheritance. Her brother Mr F came to Australia and the investment issue just came up. The money was never a gift to her brother. She and her other brother Mr F had advised that there should be a loan agreement so it was clear what had happened at the time. She had no comment to make on the absence of a trust document. She has also contributed $12,000 to the properties. When her mother requested, she helped out. It is like a loan. She expects to be repaid when things settle down. She has three children, EE, 14, FF (if my notes are correct), 6, and GG, 4. They are very close to their cousins. X is the same age as one of the children and Y is the same as GG. The children have spent time together since separation when they are with the grandparents. This has been restricted by COVID. She considered the mother as a younger sister and wanted to make her welcome in the family. She has not seen her since separation. The mother does not wish to meet with her and is negative and will not even talk to them. Her own children went to HH School in primary school but the eldest, EE, is now at JJ School.
When cross-examined by counsel for the mother, Ms CC said they just wanted to make sure that her mother's assets were kept separately. There was an investment in trust. She was not aware if her brother had contributed. The loan agreement is a trust. The properties were held on trust by Mr Dallal for her mother. She visited her father while the mother was away in Country D (this related to an essentially irrelevant criticism made by the mother in her affidavit material that Ms CC had somehow breached COVID regulations).
Under cross-examination by counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer, Ms CC said she used to see the mother frequently and the children went out together. They had been to Town KK on a number of occasions and to Town LL. She respected the mother. There are scenarios when the kids throw tantrums and this is just normal. She did know that the mother was a late riser during the time she lived with her parents.
In re-examination, Ms CC confirmed that she had been planning a birthday party but the mother said to consult her lawyer. She agreed that her own mother had never spoken ill about the mother and that she would remind them to switch to English if they were speaking in Urdu.
The mother gave evidence in English almost throughout the entirety of her evidence. While her command of English was fluent and she was certainly voluble, not all of it was entirely easy to understand. It did emerge with, in my view, complete clarity that the mother will not support any Islamic practices on the children's part. She said words to the effect more than once that, "They can do whatever they want in their time". She also espoused the proposition that the children should choose their own religion, which I would observe in passing, while perhaps sound in principle as they approach adulthood, rather ignores the practical realities of their current very young age.
The mother impressed me as being extremely alert about all matters to do with finances. She impressed me as being very financially focused. Regrettably, like the father and the paternal grandmother in particular, she gave lengthy, non-responsive and self-serving answers to questions put to her. She had much to say about her alleged role in the company AA and the alleged failure for her to be properly remunerated. She did say she can work as a business administrator. In some respects, she was very precise as to dates, but like the other witnesses, then professed a surprising lack of detail when the questions seemed unfavourable to her. My notes record that she gave non-responsive answers at every turn, and her answers were often elliptical. Some of her answers, as with the father and Ms Dallal, were essentially extensive, rambling vents.
The evidence of Ms Z would not ordinarily be the subject of detailed consideration as to credit, but since her credit was put vividly in issue by the father, it is appropriate to say that Ms Z was an entirely fair witness whose answers to the matters put to her that were critical were entirely believable and I entirely accept them. She was entirely fair to the father in the answers that she gave and was not meaningfully moved in her views. This being the case, it is perhaps appropriate to record her evidence, like that of Ms CC, in rather more detail.
Having adopted her report, Ms Z was cross-examined by counsel for the father. It was put that he felt she had misunderstood him and was biased. Ms Z responded that the father had used an interpreter for the entirety of the report. She had taken notes and the report reflected those notes. Most of the time he used the interpreter. The wife spoke in English most of the time. She had asked the father about his qualifications and was surprised he needed an interpreter. She had spoken to the mother after the interviews because the mother rang her on the 8th October. She had thought the mother was truthful. She had asked the father about studying his Master's degrees but had not formed a negative view of him as a result of this. She had taken notes of what he said about the mother, in particular her capacity under stress. The father has asserted she was a single mother who would not be able to cope and would take her stress out on the children. He alleged she would hit the children. The mother said this was a practice with her culture from her father, but denied hitting them. She had assumed her own discipline system after separation.
The father talked at length in Urdu and it was quite difficult to get him to answer the questions she asked. He was trying to convince her of the truth of what he was saying, but she reminded him that was not her job. When asked if the mother had talked about post-natal depression, Ms Z said she did discuss whether there had been any diagnosis. She may have had the same effect. Primarily, she talked about her experiences in the father's family and with the father. She had not told Ms Z she was suicidal and told her she had had support since she left the relationship. She struggled with family violence.
When it was put to her that suicidal feelings might represent risk, Ms Z said suicidal feelings are different to the act. She had attempted to discuss family violence with the father but he would talk at length with the interpreter and not respond to her questions. She was aware of the cross intervention orders. The mother had said she converted to Islam to marry the father but she had not talked about whether this was voluntary. The father emphasised the Muslim religion was important because the children were born into it. They did talk about schools. He said he had offered three different schools to the mother. Two were Muslim and one not. The mother's main issues about schools were distance from where she was. X is already enrolled at a local school. The mother feared the father would harass her. He had the police attend on a couple of occasions. That was the reason she did not want to reveal the school's address. The police were attending and the father was sending them to harass her.
Ms Z was cross-examined about the father's assertion that it was her and not him who was late to the interview, but the explanation given by Ms Z was entirely believable. She knew that the father's mother was in the property matters but there was not enough time and it was not necessary or appropriate to interview her. She was aware that the father lived with his parents. She was aware that the maternal grandmother was in Australia because of COVID and had lived with the mother for three months. She had no opportunity to observe the children with the parents. They could not get interpreters. Her administration person organised the interpreters and was told it could not be done (the father said it can, but once again, Ms Z's explanation was entirely believable).
The father did not tell Ms Z that he was working from home. He expressed concerns about the safety of the children. If the Department were involved, they would have acted. She had not seen the subpoenaed documents. She was aware that a boy in a refuge had hurt X's hand. This assertion was a matter for the judge. She had formed a view that the father's time should be minimised. This is mainly about school and the distance from where the father was. The father changed his mind during the interview. Initially, he said the children should live with him, but later said fifty-fifty. When it was put to her that the mother might have invented or exaggerated the issues of family violence, Ms Z conceded that, of course, this was possible. The mother had been into some detail, however, and this needed to be taken seriously. There was significant detail about sexual violence. There was cultural violence. She tried to ask the father about this but he talked at length but did not answer the questions.
Ms Z does not recommend an equal time regime. This is partly because of distance and also the high conflict between the parties. She knew that the mother had converted to Islam to marry him. She noted that the mother had not talked about being Buddhist. She said it would not harm the children to have exposure to two different religious beliefs.
Ms Z did not recall the father mentioning that X was being bullied at her current school. The father complained about the mother going to family violence services and his not spending time with the children. She recommended more time in the summer holidays (which I have ordered). She would not be opposed to telephone or video time, which was usual, and should occur twice a week. Neither parent had proposed this to her. Cross-examination by the paternal grandmother and counsel for the mother did not, in my view, take the matter much further. I note that in answer to a question from counsel for the mother, Ms Z indicated that if the mother had hit the children this did not change her views. The mother had undertaken parenting courses and had learned how to deal with these matters better. Ms Z understood the mother's cultural background and understood it might lead to different discipline.
What I Think Actually Happened
The father comes from a family to whom Islam is very important and is a central part of their lives. He effectively grew up in Country D and only returned to Australia when he was about 27 years old. His mother still teaches the Quran to substantial numbers of students on a voluntary basis. They are plainly very well-respected members of the community of which they form a part.
The father is highly educated, as, indeed, it would appear, are all members of his family. He has completed a Master's degree at G University. While there, he appears to have met the mother in the sort of casual way that students do. She had only recently arrived in Australia and was completely on her own. No doubt her English was much less developed then than it is now. In some fashion, not perhaps entirely clearly denoted in the voluminous affidavit material, they came to have a tenderness for one another. This reached a point when in 2012 the husband was overseas with his mother inspecting marriage prospects in Country D, she contacted him and indicated that she would wish to marry him and convert to Islam as well.
For whatever reason, the arrangements in Country D did not continue and the grandmother and her son returned to Australia, and following an appropriate period of instruction, the mother freely and of her own volition converted to Islam and was married at a ceremony attended by a very substantial number of the community. Whether she expressly said so as part of the ceremony or not, it is clear beyond doubt that she represented to the husband that she would remain Muslim and bring the children up when they came in the Islamic faith also.
The father's case, and it has been enthusiastically embraced by his mother and no doubt by the rest of his family also, appears to be that the mother at all times engaged in this relationship as a so-called charade with a view to obtaining permanent residence. I reject that assertion. Not only, as the mother herself said, she would not have had two children with him if permanent residence was all she wanted (and she expressed a revulsion for the physical effects of pregnancy that I found somewhat surprising) but it is completely inconsistent with the all too voluminous photographs that are appended to the various affidavits. I have no doubt that the mother did indeed pray five times a day, at least on occasions, and she enthusiastically participated in a visit to what for Islam is the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia.
I have no doubt that the father's family generously embraced the mother as a family member. The photographs appended of the affidavits strongly support this proposition, and the evidence of Ms CC in particular was compelling. Not only the immediate family but the extended family, and, indeed, other members of the community appear to have embraced the mother sympathetically and enthusiastically as a Muslim convert and new member of their community.
Nonetheless, plainly things did not go smoothly ever thereafter. Given the, in some senses, relative lack of life experience of both of the mother and father (they both profess to have no prior intimate experience, notwithstanding that they were 31 and 28 at the time they married) and the cross-cultural differences which would self-evidently have been significant, things started to go wrong.
The mother's main complaints of family violence are ones that must be seen essentially as matters of perspective. I do not accept that she was prohibited in any kind of violent or demeaning way from speaking Country H language or cooking Country H food. Living in a household in which every other member would have been preferring Country D cuisine, it is small wonder that that cuisine predominated, especially since it was, of course, in truth the father's mother's house. I do not think that the mother was in any way nearly as put upon as she now wishes to say looking backwards.
Having regard to the totality of the evidence, including the affidavit material, and more particularly, the evidence given before the Court, I fully accept the submission of the Independent Children's Lawyer that the mother could be described as "feisty". Indeed, in my view, this rather understates the matter. She impressed me as a woman of considerable force of personality and as being a person highly likely to be given to quite significant outbursts of anger when provoked.
I accept that the mother was generally well looked after by the father's family, who have hired a cleaner to assist her. I also accept that she was a late riser, as Ms CC says. In her evidence, the mother seemed to suggest that this was because of the difficulties of looking after the children when young, and, of course, that is in some ways not inherently at all improbable. Little children who do not sleep through give rise to most disrupted sleep patterns, and every parent is well aware of this. Nonetheless, the assistance given by the father and his family enabled her to sleep in when she would not otherwise have been able to do so. The significance of this does not lie in the competing and overstated differences of emphasis the parties have given to it, but rather goes to support the proposition that the paternal family were, indeed, generally supportive of the mother. It is more likely by far, in my view, that the primary assistance was given by the grandmother, given that the father was working full time. He was working from home to an extent, but the fact is he was working, and that must have taken much of his time.
One area which it is clear was a matter of major discord between the parties was money. The father saw fit to retain to his benefit all of the family tax benefits. The mother was well aware of this and, putting the matter bluntly, wanted the money paid to her. This was clearly a major matter of discord between the parents. The mother did a certain amount of work for the family business, AA. I think both sides have exaggerated their position in this regard. She did more work than the grandparents and the father are prepared to admit, and less work than she says. She felt, however, quite clearly, that she was not being paid enough. It would appear she was paid either $1000 or $500 per month for some periods of time while she did this work, and was probably given some extra moneys from time to time. What is clear, of course, is that it was the father and his family who controlled how much she got, and I accept that she found this irksome. She is a person for whom money has a particular importance. Lest it be thought, however, that this was a one-way street, the father's affidavit material suggests a similar detailed preoccupation with financial matters.
The mother, on one view of the matter, did rather well during the brief currency of this relationship. She went back to Country H two times. The father's family assisted at the very least her own mother and brother to attend Australia. She went to Country MM, Country NN and Country D. At one level of analysis, she was really doing rather well.
One area about which I am not able to make any findings is the mother's allegations of sexual abuse. These are, as I say, not deposed to directly, so far as I can see, in her affidavits, but rather in the police statements she made. The matters raised are very concerning. There is no independent evidence to support or deny the mother's assertions and the father's denials. A possible prosecution simply did not proceed. I am simply not in a position to make any finding as to whether or not they occurred either in whole or in part as the mother asserts and the father denies. I agree with Ms Z that they are important matters and must be taken seriously, but the state of the evidence does not enable me to form any conclusions. They are, after all, matters to which section 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) would apply. What I can say, however, is that the mother impressed me very strongly as being completely unafraid of the father. Nothing she said nor her demeanour when she was not speaking suggested any kind of fearfulness on her part of the father per se.
What she is very concerned about is what she perceives to be the father's controlling behaviour which manifested itself, as I have indicated, in her perceptions of their sexual relationship, and the clear financial controlling nature of the relationship.
On any view of the matter, by late 2018, things were not going as well as they might be. The visit to Ms M is clear evidence of this. I note that the mother obtained her permanent resident at about the same time, and it is clear that if the mother was as unhappy as she says she was, she was hanging on in the relationship to get her permanent residency through. I have no doubt that this was the case. Having said this, however, I must make it clear and repeat again that I do not think that the mother commenced the relationship with a view simply to obtaining permanent residence in some cynical fashion.
Thereafter, there was nothing to keep the mother in the relationship and she decamped. She has cut off all her relationship with the Islamic community since, including, it must be noted, Ms CC, who was nothing but kind to her. This speaks volumes for the mother's views of the world and of the father's family. She has done her level best to limit the father's time with the children, and in my view, will never provide him with anything more than Court-ordered time.
The next matters raised are relatively minor amounts of money withdrawn from other bank accounts which I do not regard as being of any moment. The husband then asserts that the wife has two diamond rings worth $10,000 but there is no evidence that satisfies me either that she still has these things or, if she does, that they are saleable for those amounts.
The husband then goes on in the most niggardly way to assert that the wife has a computer worth $1,600 and a phone worth $1,500. All I have to say about those is that his meanness of spirit shines through very clearly.
The husband further asserts that the wife took goods worth more than $20,000 in value. She certainly appears to have cleaned the children’s possessions out in a major way when she finally got the chance to do so but once again there is no value to these goods on a second-hand basis and I discount them all together.
This was a relatively short relationship of some five years and two months. The parties had next to nothing when they went in and have, in truth, next to nothing now. Once the investment properties are excluded, as I have no doubt whatever they should be, there is really, in effect, nothing left to divide in any event. In the circumstances, it is appropriate that each party retain what they have.
This conclusion is only buttressed by considering the issues of contribution and future needs. This is so even though, as I understand the matter, technically, one should not embark upon consideration of these matters unless the preliminary conclusion is reached that a property settlement is, indeed, just and equitable. But, for completeness, I will address them now.
Contribution
There is no doubt that the husband’s family took the wife dearly to their hearts when she came to live with them. They embraced her as part of their family and their community. She was given a lot of assistance. She was a late riser. She travelled internationally. She was given amounts of money, albeit not munificent, to meet her every day needs. I do not accept the wife’s assertion that she was treated like a slave, or anything remotely like that, nor that she was consciously financially controlled although she plainly perceived herself to be so.
What appears to have grated upon the wife more than anything else was the husband abstracting the Centrelink benefits which she felt should go to her. In fact, they were payments for the children and should not really have been regarded as personal to either of the parents.
The husband worked full-time for the family business, and that I will return to that in consideration of future needs. The wife was the primary caregiver to the children and certainly contributed to the general wellbeing of the father’s family household. In all the circumstances, I would have been minded to regard the parties’ contributions as essentially equal.
Future Needs
The husband works in a business which has really not been satisfactorily explained. AA was founded in about 2013 or 2014 and the husband gave up other work to work for it. As he would have it, he is solely in marketing but I do not accept that. While his mother struck me as being extremely strong-willed and an independent person, and his father is plainly highly educated and able to help with bookkeeping, and the like, there is no doubt in my mind that AA is a family business.
While it is said that it runs at a loss, and that may be so in the current COVID environment, exhibit A1 shows a position, on an ongoing basis, of a very different kind. The total income of the company for the year 2019 to 2020 was over $481,000. The accounts show that the cost of sales was $272,940 leaving the net profit, subject to minor expenses, of approximately $200,000. The primary subparts of that are contractor, subcontractor and commission expenses $128,517 and all other expenses being $76,733.
The husband gave evidence that there were other subcontractors as well as himself (he apparently submits invoices on an ABN although these have not been tendered). There is no means of knowing exactly how much of the contractor expenses were, in truth, paid to him, albeit that his taxable income was substantially less than $128,000. What I do know from the list of the expenses in the accounts is that the bulk of the $76,733,000 was spent on “marketing and promotions $47,774.”
Since that is an expense that has not been in any way explained it is impossible to say whether this was some form of expenditure on hard product, so to speak, or whether it was part of the marketing conducting allegedly by the husband.
The position of AA remains shrouded in considerable uncertainty so far as I am concerned. But what I am quite sure of is that it is a family business run generally by the husband and his parents. I should say, in passing, if I have not – and I may have already said so – that the wife’s contribution to the bookkeeping was less than she said and more than the paternal grandfather said but it is not of any significance in the contribution of the parties’ generally.
As I find, the husband will, when this proceeding is over and he starts to turn his attention to his affairs more generally, rapidly improve and he will have at least a sufficient income for his needs into the ongoing future and it appears that AA continues until his mother’s death, he will inherit the company.
Both of these parties are in unexceptional good health and, as counsel for the wife submitted, are relatively young. The mother will have the predominant care of these two young children for a very considerable time. She is retraining both in bookkeeping and allied health and struck me as being a woman of considerable intelligence and force of personality. She will requalify and will start work when the children go to school. Her future prospects, in my view, are relatively good.
That this is so is all the more buttressed by the evidence which I repeat I accept that she has been able to save really very substantial amounts of money while living on only statutory benefits and intermittent and insufficient child support.
In the circumstances, one would ordinarily have allotted some loading in favour of the wife for future needs but since there is nothing to have it paid out of, and since the wife’s future needs appear to be fully met in any event, in my view, it is not appropriate to make any order to require the husband, as it were, to raise funds from further borrowings or some other way to pay any lump sum to the wife.
Conclusion
This has been an unusual judgment. I make it clear, again, that I have not sought – and, indeed, in the time available, would not be able – to deal with each and every matter that the parties have raised. Their materials are prolix and, to a considerable degree, objectionable, in any event.
Given the pressure of time, I have done my best to concentrate on those things that really matter. In the end, the mother has been successful on the parenting issues and the father has been successful on the property issues. They will both have to adjust themselves to this reality. It is to be hoped that once the proceeding is over, and the hyperbole with which the parties have expressed themselves perhaps subsides somewhat, that the parents are able to cooperate in a more sensible child-focused way into the future.
Nonetheless, the Court has made clear and precise orders and they are to be adhered to. I do not expect that the wife will agree to any changes and the father needs to accept that.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and seventy-three (173) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Burchardt
Associate:
Date: 22 January 2021
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Equity & Trusts
Legal Concepts
-
Constructive Trust
-
Remedies
0
2
3