East & Loewe
[2015] FamCA 517
•25 June 2015
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| EAST & LOEWE | [2015] FamCA 517 |
| FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Relocation to the USA – Where the mother seeks an order to relocate the child to the USA – Where the father opposes the relocation order – Where both parties agree the mother should continue to be the primary carer of the child – Where the mother has major non-melancholic or reactive depression and if she is forced to remain in Australia, she will function poorly and remain emotionally impoverished.– Where the mother’s psychiatrist opines the mother’s condition will likely deteriorate if she stays but improve if she returns to the USA – Where the proposals are finely balanced and risks to the child’s relationship with the father are to be weighed against the ability of the mother to act as primary carer in her current mental state –Where the best interests of the child will be met by allowing the relocation – Where orders are made providing for the father to spend time with the child in the USA and abroad – Where the parties will have shared parental responsibility after the initial decision about the child’s primary schooling in the USA is made – Where the parties ensure these orders be registered with the court in the USA – Where the mother’s application for relocation is allowed. FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Whether it is just and equitable to make an alteration of property – Where the father had the more significant initial and continuing financial contributions throughout the very short relationship – Where the father asserts the mother has failed to make full and frank disclosure – Where the mother will continue to have the ongoing primary care of the child in the USA – Where the father currently has a higher earning capacity – Where the mother has been unable to work because of her responsibility to care for a young child and her mental health condition – Order made for an adjustment of $50,000 in the mother’s favour. FAMILY LAW – SPOUSE MAINTENANCE – Where the mother seeks payment of spouse maintenance – Where the mother’s needs will be reduced upon her return to the USA – Where an assessment is made of the mother’s reasonable needs – Where the father has a capacity to pay – Order made for weekly spousal maintenance to the mother for twelve months or until she gains employment. |
| Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) Family Law Regulations 1984 (Cth) |
| Bevan & Bevan (2014) FLC 93-572 Weir & Weir (1993) FLC 92-338 |
| APPLICANT: | Mr East |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Loewe |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 2444 | of | 2012 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 25 June 2015 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Parramatta |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Watts J |
| HEARING DATE: | 24 - 28 November 2014 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Mr Richardson, SC |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Blackman Legal |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Lloyd, SC |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Newnhams Solicitors |
Orders
Parenting
After a decision is made pursuant to order 3, the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for A Loewe-East born …, 2010 (“the child”) for major long-term decisions about the care, welfare, and development of the child including (but not limited to) issues concerning:
1.1.The child’s education (both current and future);
1.2.The child’s religious, and cultural, upbringing;
1.3.The child’s health;
1.4.The child’s name; and
1.5.All changes to the child’s living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with each of the parents pursuant to these orders.
The decisions referred to in order 1 are required to be made jointly by the parties. The parties must consult with each other about these decisions and must make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision about those issues. I note that once these orders are registered in Texas, any impasse about any such decision would likely be determined by a court in Texas.
The mother have parental responsibility for deciding where the child shall commence primary school in August/September 2015 provided that prior to making any final decision about this issue, the mother communicate with the father about this issue as soon as is possible, take into account his views, and make a genuine attempt to reach an agreed position with the father. In the absence of agreement, the mother is to make the final decision.
The mother and father each have sole responsibility for making decisions about the day to day care of the child whenever the child is in their care.
The Mother be permitted to relocate the child’s residence to Texas, United States of America (“USA”) not earlier than 31 July 2015 and at a time after the father has had an opportunity to have time with the child in accordance with order 6.1.
Upon the child taking up residence in the USA, he shall live with the mother at all times apart from those times the child is living with the father or spending time with the father as follows:
6.1.The father shall have the opportunity, if the father has the ability to do so, to spend up to 12 days with the child in the United Kingdom (“UK”) prior to the child going to the USA, provided that the father could deliver the child to the mother no later than three days before the commencement of school term in the USA. The mother is to forthwith provide the father with written notice as to the date upon which the child’s schooling commences. The father is to provide written notice to the mother within a period of 14 days whether or not he has the ability to take advantage of this order.
6.2.During the child’s USA December 2015/January 2016 school holiday period for a period of 14 days, at the father’s option, outside the USA;
6.3.From 2016 in the USA on any occasion the father travels to the USA, subject to the father providing the mother with 30 days written notice prior to his arrival in the USA the child will live with the father as follows:
6.3.1.A period of up to two weeks during the child’s school holiday periods, and
6.3.2.During School term in week one from Thursday after School until Monday morning, and in week two from Wednesday after School until Friday morning; and
6.3.3.At all other times as agreed.
6.4.In the 2016 USA long summer school holidays for a period of 21 days, at the father’s option, outside the USA;
6.5.The child spend time with the father during the 2017 calendar year, for periods up to fifty six days in any year, at the father’s option outside of the USA, provided the longest period is no more than 28 consecutive days, and are separated by school terms;
6.6.The child is to spend Christmas Day 2016 with the mother and each alternate Christmas Day thereafter;
6.7.The child spend time with the father during the 2018 calendar year, and thereafter, for periods up to fifty six days in any year, at the father’s option outside of the USA, provided the longest period is no more than 42 consecutive days to coincide with USA summer school holidays, and are separated by school terms.
The travel expenses in respect of the child shall be borne by the father until the mother obtains full time employment and are thereafter to be shared equally between the parties and the mother is to forthwith notify the father in writing in the event that the mother obtains full time employment.
Unless the mother chooses at her own cost to accompany the child on any flight to and from the USA (or by agreement paid or partly paid for by the father), the father accompany the child on all flights to and from the USA, or elsewhere, until the child has attained the age of 10 years old.
Unless the parties otherwise agree, all changeovers take place at the nearest international airport to the mother’s residence.
The father be responsible for advising the mother in writing with reasonable notice of all changeover times and arrangements.
Upon the child taking up residence in the USA, the mother will do all things to facilitate the child having communication with the father via Skype and if Skype is not reasonably available, by telephone or other electronic communication for up to one hour on no less than three times each week at such times as agreed between the parties, and failing agreement each Sunday, Tuesday and Friday between 5.30pm and 6.30pm Texas time and for that purpose:
11.1.Both parties shall do all things necessary to ensure each has in place the necessary technology to enable Skype communication between the child and the father to occur;
11.2.The mother create a location in her residence where the communication between the child and the father can take place without undue interruption.
Upon the mother commencing to reside in the USA, she shall ensure:
12.1.The father is advised at all times of her residential address, contact telephone number and a Skype address by which the father may communicate with the child;
12.2.Advise the father immediately in the event that the child suffers any serious illness or injury;
12.3.Authorise any medical practitioner upon whom the child may attend from time to time, to communicate with the father in respect to the child’s medical condition and/or requirements, and
12.4.Authorise all schools at which the child may attend from time to time to:
12.4.1.provide the father copies of all school reports, school notices and school photographs in relation to the child, and
12.4.2.communicate with the father, either by telephone, in writing or other electronic means in respect to the child’s progress at his school.
Both parties do all things and acts and sign all documents as are necessary to register in the appropriate court of Texas, USA, a copy of these orders, including making a written request to both the Registry Manager and the Registrar of this court pursuant to s 70M(2) of the Family LawAct 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) and Regulation 24(2) Family Law Regulations 1984 (Cth).
Pursuant to s.65DA(2) and s.62B of the Act, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.
Property
Pursuant to s90SM of the Act within 35 days the father pay to the mother the sum of $50,000 and each party indemnify the other for any liability that party has or which attaches to any asset which they retain.
Spousal maintenance
The father pay the mother by way of spousal maintenance a sum of $590 per week. The first payment is to be made within seven (7) days, and shall continue weekly for a period until:
16.1.The expiration of a period of twelve months from the date that the mother commences to reside in the USA; or
16.2.The mother obtaining full time employment
whichever event first occurs.
In the event the mother obtains full time employment within the period of twelve months referred to in order 16.1, the mother is to forthwith notify the father in writing that she has done so.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym East & Loewe 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: SYC 2444 of 2012
| Mr East |
Applicant
And
| Ms Loewe |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
A Loewe-East born in early 2010 (“the child”), who is currently five years of age, has a meaningful relationship with both his parents. Ms Loewe (“the mother”) has been the child’s primary caregiver. The mother has lived in Australia since 2007. She was born and educated in the United States of America (“USA”) and seeks to return there with the child.
Mr East (“the father”) says there is a substantial risk that the child will no longer be able to have a meaningful relationship with him if the relocation is allowed. The family consultant recommended that I not allow the child to relocate to the USA. The mother’s treating psychiatrist says that the mother suffers from a non-melancholic or reactive depression and if she is forced to remain in Australia, she will function poorly and remain emotionally impoverished. He opined her depression will resolve if she is allowed to return home.
In this hard fought and finally balanced case, the effect of a relocation upon the child’s meaningful relationship with his father and the effect of a refusal to allow relocation upon the mother’s mental status were the focus of the hearing.
The parties also ask that the court finalise their outstanding disputes about financial matters.
THE RESPECTIVE PROPOSALS OF THE PARTIES
The orders sought by each party are set out in Schedule 1.
Parenting
On any proposal, the parties agree that the mother shall be the primary carer for the child.
If the child remains in Australia, the parties agree that they should have equal shared parental responsibility for the child for major long term decisions, and that each of the parties have sole responsibility for making decisions about the day to day care of the child, whenever the child is in their care.
If the child relocates to the USA the mother seeks that she have sole parental responsibility for the child’s education, in circumstances where prior to making a final decision concerning his future education, the mother will discuss the issue with the father over a reasonable period of time, and in the absence of agreement, the mother’s proposal will prevail. The father seeks an order for equal shared parental responsibility wherever the child lives.
The mother’s primary proposal
The mother’s proposal in general terms is that she would initially return to and reside in her mother’s home in the USA, take time to recover from her mental illness and obtain full time employment when well. She says there is appropriate accommodation there for her and the child. In the words of her senior counsel, “She would propose to get herself better as soon as she possibly can, and obtain some form of employment”.
It is her case that her best chance of offering the child “a perfectly mentally healthy mother” is to return to the USA. She offers this as her primary proposal, understanding how it impacts upon the father’s time for the child.
The charge that the father makes against the mother is that the mother is so blinded by the desire to get back to the USA that she has not reality tested what her life will be like when she is living there.
The mother also indicated that if living at her parent’s house became unsustainable before she was on her feet in the USA then she had the option of residing at the homes of friends who have offered assistance by way of accommodation. I accept that the mother’s evidence does establish that more than one person has offered her alternate accommodation in the short term.
The mother’s proposals in relation to the child’s schooling have not yet been fully thought through. The mother proposes that the child will attend a local school in the area in which she is living in the USA, although at the date of the hearing she was unable to give details about any of those schools. Whilst the mother is seeking sole parental responsibility in relation to the child’s education in the USA, her responses to why she had not made any definite plans in relation to the child’s schooling (commencing in August 2015) was that she and the father had not yet made a decision about it. The mother contented herself by asserting there were a number of possible schools available in the catchment area near her mother’s home or alternatively in another catchment area near the home of a close friend of hers, which would be her desired location when she is on her feet and able to re-establish herself in that district (which is within a 15 minute drive of her mother’s home).
The mother conceded that she would not be in a position to take up the offer of work made by her friend, Ms L given that Ms L’s business premises are 200 miles from the maternal grandmother’s home.
The mother was asked, given her level of apprehension about the father monitoring her, how she would be able to cope with the father coming to the USA and having the child away from her for extended periods of time. The mother agreed that she had an apprehension that the father might be a flight risk with the child. The mother said she would place her faith in God and get through it. The mother has however indicated through her senior counsel that she is prepared to agree to an arrangement whereby the child goes to the UK with the father for a period of time prior to the child coming to the USA.
Mother’s alternate proposal
If the child remains in Australia, the mother will also remain in Australia. It is the mother’s case that in those circumstances:
She would be constantly in a state of depression. She would be a person who would require financial assistance from the father. She would have a sense of entrapment about remaining in a country she doesn’t call home....She would be a parent who would not be able to give her best [to the child]. It would probably impact upon her relationship also with [the father]. There would unquestionably be differences of opinion about various things because her state of mind would not be sufficiently clear enough to act in an objective way, and all of those things would then ultimately impact upon [the child].
The father’s proposal
In general terms, the father’s primary proposal is the mother’s alternate proposal, except it is the father’s case that the mother’s parenting will not be disabled in the manner which she asserts and his proposal for time with the child would be more nights each fortnight than proposed by the mother.
The father does not offer any proposal that would involve him relocating himself to the USA. The father works for a multinational organisation.
At [313] of the father’s affidavit filed 4 September 2014, he says:
313. Once I was aware that [the mother] was seeking to relocate to [the] U.S. I did make an email inquiry of the US Consulate in Sydney in September 2013 about my eligibility to gain a visa to work in the U.S.
The father received a response from the U.S. Consulate General, Sydney, directing him to a link on the different types of working visas. The father said he has read the information on the U.S. Embassy website relating to working visas for Australians and it is his understanding that he requires a suitable “sponsored-employment” position with a U.S. company, to work in the USA.
At [315] of his primary affidavit the father says that it is his belief that the U.S. Consulate requires a person to hold a degree or the equivalent of a degree and he does not have a degree or a diploma. He says he only held “O” levels which is the equivalent of secondary school HSC in Australia. Whilst the father’s employer has an office in Texas, the father says it has nothing to do with his field of work as an IT manager. Neither party sought to call any expert evidence on the topic (and if the matter was seriously put in issue then the onus would be on the father to do so). There was however no objection to the evidence that the father gave about his prospects of employment and permanent residence in the USA at [311] to [318] of his affidavit filed 4 September 2014.
The father caused the HR Department of his employer to create a letter dated 7 November 2014 (Exhibit 9) which asserts that since the father commenced employment with that organisation there have been no potential employment opportunities or transfers within that organisation or its subsidiaries in North America. The letter goes on to say that it is not anticipated in the immediate future that there will be any anticipated opportunities. The letter is somewhat at odds with the other part of Exhibit 9 which is the company’s permanent relocation and assignment policy document. The father asserted that that document only related to internal relocations but the document itself does not seem to be limited in that way.
Senior counsel for the mother contended that the father’s evidence in relation to the possibility of him having a transfer within his current employer back to the USA was a “little bit hedgy” and suggested I may find that the father had not demonstrated that he had fully explored the possibilities. Although the submission is open that the father has not fully explored the possibilities of his permanent relocation to the USA, I am unable to find he has not. I do find however, it is certainly the father’s primary position that he does not want to go back to the USA and I have no indication that he would attempt to reassess his position if the mother was allowed to relocate to the USA with the child. This case will be decided on the understanding that if the mother’s primary proposal is accepted, then there will be a significant reduction in the amount of time that the child will spend with the father.
Specific orders if the child remains in Australia
The parties agree that the child should live primarily with the mother.
The father seeks that until the commencement of Term 1, 2016 (when the child commences school), the child spend time with him five nights a fortnight being each Wednesday from after school, or 3.00pm, to 12.30pm the next day, and on each alternate weekend from after school, or 3.30pm on Friday to before school the following Monday (or should there be no school, 4pm).
The mother proposes the child spend three nights a fortnight with the father until the commencement of term 1, 2016, namely each Wednesday from 5.00pm until 9am Thursday and each alternate weekend from 5.00pm Friday to 5.00pm Sunday.
In 2015 the parties agree that the child will spend time with the father for a period of five nights during each of the school holiday periods.
Prior to the child commencing school in 2016 during the 2015/2016 Christmas holiday and school holiday periods the parties agree the child will spend time with the father for two non-consecutive periods of six nights.
From the commencement of Term 1 2016 and thereafter, the father proposes his time with the child be increased to six nights each fortnight:
29.1.In week one from after school each Wednesday to before school on Friday and alternating thereafter;
29.2.In week two from after school Thursday to before school the following Monday (or should there be no School, 4pm) and alternating thereafter;
29.3.for one half of all school holiday periods;
From the commencement of term 1, 2016 and thereafter, the mother seeks that the child spend three nights each fortnight with the father:
30.1.In week one from after school each Wednesday to before school on Thursday, and alternating thereafter;
30.2.From 9.00am Saturday to before school on Monday each alternate week;
30.3.From term 1 2017, the child would spend four nights a fortnight with his father with alternate weekend time starting after school Friday.
Various other orders are sought, including in relation to travel and special days.
Specific orders if the mother relocates to the USA
The father proposes the child live with the mother and spend time with him as follows:
32.1.For a period of six weeks to coincide with the USA long summer school holidays with such time to be taken at the election of the father in Australia or in the United Kingdom (“UK”) (these orders are subject to conditions in relation to travel and cost of travel);
32.2.During the USA December/January school holiday period in each year ending in an even number in either Australia or the UK on the day after the USA Winter term ends and returning to the USA the day before school resumes.
32.3.In the USA on any occasion the father travels to the USA, subject to the father providing the mother with 30 days written notice prior to his arrival in the USA for:
32.3.1.A period of up to two weeks during the child’s school holiday periods, and
32.3.2.During school term during week one from Thursday after school until Monday morning and in week two from Wednesday after school until Friday morning; and
32.3.3.At all other times as agreed.
The mother proposes that the child spend time with the father during the 2015 and 2016 calendar years for two non-consecutive periods each of seven nights separated by not less than seven days, such time to be spent in the USA. She proposes that during the 2015 and 2016 Christmas period, in addition to the two non-consecutive periods of seven days referred above, the father spend time with the child for a period up to seven nights during the Christmas period provided the parties shall share Christmas Day.
From the 2017 calendar year onwards, the mother proposes the father spend time with the child for periods up to 56 days in any year, outside the USA or within the USA, provided the longest period is no more than twenty one consecutive days, and are separated by school terms with the parties to alternate Christmas Day and Boxing Day each year.
The father seeks he and the child communicate via Skype, telephone or other electronic communication no less than three times each week. The mother proposes the father and child communicate once per week by way of Skype.
Registration order (s 70M of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”))
At the end of final submissions, senior counsel for the father indicated that in the event that the mother was allowed to relocate with the child, the father would seek to impose a requirement on both of the parties to participate in taking the appropriate steps under the Act and the Family Law Regulations 1984 (Cth) (“the Regulations”) to have orders registered in Texas. Section 79M of the Act, and the Regulations prescribed pursuant to s 70N of the Act, make provision for and are in relation to the sending of the parenting orders to Texas which is a prescribed overseas jurisdiction for the purposes of Part VII Division 13 subdivision D of the Act. (see Regulation 14 and Schedule 1A of the Regulations). The father seeks, and the mother agrees, that the father will request this court to send to an appropriate court in Texas the documents and information necessary for securing the enforcement of the order in Texas. I note in passing there is a slight discrepancy between s 70M and Regulation 24(2) of the Regulations. The former requires a party to make the request to the Registry Manager of the Court and the latter to make the request to the Registrar of the Court. For more abundant caution, if relocation is permitted the request should be made to both, and an order shall be made that both parties are to do all things and acts and sign all documents as are necessary to register in the appropriate court of Texas, USA, a copy of these orders, including making a written request to both the Registry Manager and the Registrar of this court pursuant to s 70M(2) of the Act and Regulation 24(2) of the Regulations. The father also sought, should he so require, that he be able to make an application in the local jurisdiction for any other orders that might be beneficial to him. This was requested on the basis that it may turn out that the father might ultimately obtain advice that procedurally, by way of enforcement or otherwise, it might be easier to rely upon the local code. As I understand it, a registration under s 70M of the Act in Texas makes the Australian order enforceable as if it were an order made in Texas, and consequently would be enforceable under Texan law. If relocation is permitted, I do not intend to make any order other than requiring both the parties to take all appropriate steps under the Act and Regulations to have the orders that I have made registered in Texas.
The UK Holiday option
Both parties agreed that depending upon when the judgment was delivered and the availability of holidays to the father, it would be appropriate for an option to be given to the father to have some time with the child in the UK prior to the child settling into school in the USA.
No move before July 2015
Senior counsel for the mother said that it would be the mother’s position that any move to the USA would not be before July 2015.
Property and spousal maintenance
The father seeks that no order be made for alteration of interests in property other than for the parties to retain all of their property in their respective possession, including superannuation, and that the parties each release the other from any liabilities they may have or which attaches to any asset each retains.
The father proposes to pay the mother, if she remains in Australia, spousal maintenance in the sum of $300 per week until the earliest of the following occurs:
40.1.The mother commences a de facto relationship, or
40.2.The mother commenced part time or full time work, or
40.3.The child commenced primary school in 2016.
The mother seeks that the father pay to her the sum of $275,000 by way of property settlement. She also seeks that the father pays to her $1,000 per week, by way of spousal maintenance. She proposes this payment cease after two years from the date of final orders, or, upon her obtaining full time employment.
DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON
The documents relied upon by each of the parties together with reports from the family consultant are set out in Schedule 2.
SHORT HISTORY
The father was born in 1962 in the UK and is currently aged 53 years old.
The mother was born in 1968 in the USA, and is currently 46 years of age.
The father first came to Australia from the UK in 1992 and has resided permanently in Australia since that time.
The parties generally agreed on the period of cohabitation. When the mother came from the USA to Australia in December 2007 she commenced living with the father in his apartment. The parties initially separated in July 2008 when the mother moved out of his apartment but they remained in contact. They recommenced their relationship in around February 2009 but did not cohabit together again until after the child was born.
In early 2010 the parties’ child was born. The father moved into the mother’s apartment in January 2010 when he came home from hospital with the child and the mother and stayed. The parties agree they separated on a final basis on 26 April 2012 when the father moved out of the mother’s rented unit.
The parties separated on a final basis on 26 April 2012.
CREDIT
Father
The father gave oral evidence in a reasonably straight forward manner.
There was one part of the father’s evidence where I doubted whether or not he was being candid. It related to questions asked about an occasion when he took the child swimming on 26 May 2014. The mother had complained that the child had developed a middle ear infection after he had been swimming face down in the ocean. The father wrote to the mother saying that he resented the mother’s “insinuation that [the child’s] ear infection is a result of lack of care or awareness on my part”. It is not clear to me that that is in fact what the mother had done in the email to which the father was responding. In oral evidence the father said that when he had been swimming with the child on that weekend, the child had been wearing a wet suit, they had only been paddling and he did not put his head in the water. That evidence does not comfortably sit with a document from the child’s preschool records created by the father on 29 May 2014 which describes the child going for a swim in the ocean with his wet suit on.
Mother
The mother was cross examined for almost eight hours. There is some force in the submission by senior counsel for the father that, during her oral evidence, when the mother was dealing with topics in which there was nothing unhelpful to her, her answers came readily and responsively. On other more problematic topics, her answers were delayed with requests to repeat questions. Some of her answers were not responsive. Senior counsel for the mother accepted that there may have been some difficulty with the way the mother answered to the questions in the witness box. The mother’s ability to answer questions may well have been affected by her current mental status which I discuss later in these reasons.
Given that the mother has been able to access retirement funds and given the untidy state of her disclosure in relation to those funds (even in her current financial statement and affidavit filed in September 2014), there is some substance in the submission that the mother may not have properly represented to her treating psychiatrist (Dr F) the level of her immediate financial destitution.
The mother was asked about passports. The mother originally took the child’s passport from the father’s briefcase. The father’s passport was also in the briefcase and the mother took the father’s passport as well. She was asked why she did that. She said she wanted to make sure he did not take the child out of the country as he had threatened to do so and the child had a British passport as well, which the father obtained without the mother’s consent. The mother asserted that things were hidden in the father’s briefcase including birth certificates, bank statements and the like. The mother was then asked how she knew the passports were in the father’s briefcase and she indicated that the father had told her. She was then asked whether or not it would have been possible, even if the briefcase was locked, for her to simply pick the briefcase up and remove it. She agreed that she could. She was unable then to respond to the question as to why she had told Dr F that the father had hidden the passports in circumstances where she knew that they were in the briefcase and the briefcase was portable. The mother was not prepared to acknowledge it was unfair to tell her psychiatrist that the father had hidden the passports.
The mother was cross examined about her knowledge of the father’s use of sedatives. The mother asserted that the father kept a stockpile of Stilnox tablets in his drawer when the parties first got together. It is inherently unlikely that the father had a supply of a number of years of sleeping tablets stockpiled in his drawer.
Reference is made to inconsistencies between what the mother has said in evidence in this case and what she has said in a statutory declaration given to the Department of Immigration in the context of an application for permanent residency in Australia. The mother did not acknowledge that she had falsified the document, although she said there were some grey areas in it. I do not place great weight upon any of those inconsistencies given that at [47] of the father’s affidavit, he indicates that he had signed a statutory declaration in circumstances where he knew that the mother and he were not living together as a de facto couple at the time but believed there was no other choice than to sign a declaration in order to have the mother’s application approved.
The mother denied that she had got Dr F’s name as a result of a recommendation from an American friend who had used Dr F “in similar circumstances” and because he was prepared to “go to court”. The mother also denied she said these things to Dr G. I do not accept the mother’s evidence about this given that Dr G has noted that the mother provided him with that information.
Conclusion in respect of credit
There is no difference in the evidence between the mother and the father that is significantly important to require an overall finding as to whose evidence is to be preferred.
Notwithstanding the difficulties in the way the mother gave her evidence, I do not conclude on an overall basis that, as was suggested by senior counsel for the father, the mother has adopted a deliberate strategy and trajectory for one purpose only and that is to set up her case to ensure that an order would be made for her return to the USA. Nor do I find that the mother has confected her mental status as part of a deliberate plan to bolster her case for relocation. I formed the view that the mother was genuine when speaking about mattes relevant to her state of mind. At times the mother appeared quite distressed in the witness box and it was my assessment that that distressed emotional state was genuine and not just occasioned by the pressure of being cross examined.
DETAILED CHRONOLOGY
Allegations in respect of family violence are dealt with separately below.
The father was born in 1962 in the UK.
The mother was born in 1968 in the USA.
The father was employed between 1982 and 1992 in the UK.
In 1992 the father relocated from the UK to Australia to be with his former wife. The mother alleges that the father told her he moved to Australia in 1994. The father divorced from his first wife in May 1995.
In July 1994 the father commenced a de facto relationship with Ms E in Sydney, and lived with her and travelled with her overseas for a period of eight months. The father and Ms E ended their de facto relationship in August 1996.
In 1995 the mother married in the USA.
In 1998 the mother divorced her then husband and moved to live with her parents in Texas, USA.
In 1998 the father purchased X Street, Suburb M (“M Unit”) for $315,000 using savings he had in the UK at that time and borrowing $236,200 from St George Bank.
In July 1999 the mother commenced work in the USA.
In November 2000 the father commenced employment at the company with whom he is still employed.
In November 2000 the mother was transferred to work at her company’s office in the UK. The mother resided in the UK until 2003. The mother says that during her time living in the UK, the mother lived in an abusive relationship and terminated a pregnancy.
In April 2003 the mother obtained a position in her company as North America Small Business Manager for C Company.
In 2005 the mother sought the assistance from a counsellor in the USA, Ms H. The mother saw Ms H once or twice a month over the following 9-12 month period.
The parties met through mutual friends in September 2005 when the mother was holidaying in Sydney.
In August/September 2006 the mother travelled to Sydney and stayed with friends for about two and a half weeks.
In May 2007 the father paid down the mortgage on the M Unit leaving a small balance owing.
In July 2007 the father travelled to the UK to visit family. On 1 August 2007 the parties met in London and stayed with mother’s cousin for one night.
On 2 August 2007 the parties holidayed together in Europe for one week
In September 2007 the mother travelled to Sydney for two and a half weeks and stayed with the father. During mother’s stay in Sydney, the mother visited her company’s office to seek employment opportunities in Sydney. At this point in time the father says the mother said to him “This is the third year running that I have visited Australia and it just makes me want to live here even more”. The father also says the mother told him during her stay in Sydney “I’ve been seeing a counsellor for some time now to help me deal with some of the issues I have with the relationship between my mom and me and also with my step father … and my real father. [Ms H’s] been great to me” Before leaving Sydney the father asserts the mother said to him “I’ve spoken to the manager at [my company] here in Australia and there are no immediate vacancies. But I will make some enquiries when I return to [the USA]”
With the father’s encouragement, the mother met with her company in Sydney about potential employment and at end of her vacation she was offered a position within the company’s Australian C Company team.
The father also encouraged the mother her to get her company to hurry and secure her visas and paperwork to work in Australia saying to her “It is very difficult to get into Australia and your company needs to apply for your visa now as the immigration laws change every six months”.
In December 2007 the mother relocated from the USA to Australia and stayed with father. The parties commenced cohabitation. The mother became employed fulltime in Sydney earning about $140,000 gross per annum.
In February 2008 the mother rolled over funds in a small retirement savings account of USD$82,000 from a small company she used to work for, into her LPL investment account.
In April 2008 the mother contacted Ms H via email in USA to assist her with difficulties she was having with the relationship with the father. At this time, the mother began to socially lose confidence but forced herself to attend social functions with the father and his friends.
In or about April/May 2008 the mother was seriously considering leaving the father and moving out of his apartment and also considered quitting her job.
In May 2008 the mother was prescribed an anti-depressant, Lexapro.
In July 2008 the mother moved out of the father’s apartment.
In August 2008 the mother was made redundant from her role at the company. The mother has not been in paid employment since that time.
On 3 August 2008 the father sent her an email saying that he would be open to moving to America or Europe.
In January 2009 the parties commenced seeing each other again on a casual basis.
In February 2009 the mother received a redundancy package of $63,486.01.
In April 2009 the father says the mother advised him that she was pregnant, handing him a copy of a letter from the doctor confirming her pregnancy. The mother says she discovered she was pregnant in May 2009 when she took a home pregnancy test. That was confirmed by her doctor on 13 May 2009. Nothing turns upon this difference in the evidence.
In April 2009 the mother alleges that she intended to break up with the father and make the move to go home to the USA.
On 13 May 2009 the mother received an email from the Australian Immigration with Notice of Intention to Consider Cancelling her 457 Visa. On 18 May 2009 the parties thus commenced filling in paperwork for a de facto visa.
Between April and May 2009 the father says the parties commenced their application to obtain a Partner Visa for the mother to stay in Australia.
In May 2009 the parties set up a joint bank account into which the Family Benefits and baby bonus has been paid. The father also has made regular deposits for the mother to utilise.
In June 2009 the father observed the mother seemed unhappy. The parties continued to experience relationship difficulties.
In June 2009 the father wrote a power point presentation to show her the support he would provide to her to remain in Australia labelled “Lisbon to London”.
On 15 June 2009 father sent the mother an email noting that he would consider a move to the USA (annexure I to the mother’s affidavit).
In early July 2009 the parties had a conversation in which mother said “Security is really important to me and I need to make sure you are going to support me financially while I’m pregnant and that when our child is born I know you are going to assist both of us financially.
On 25 July 2009 the mother sent an email to the father outlining her plans to return to the USA for a holiday to announce her news and confirming that she will stay in Australia to raise the child.
In July 2009 the father visited his family in the UK.
In August 2009 the mother obtained a quotation for moving her belongings back to the USA.
Between September and October 2009 the mother travelled to the USA.
Prior to her father’s death in October 2009, the mother’s father transferred to the mother a property in the USA (with a mortgage owing of about $44,300 USD).A mortgage of $USD44,300 was paid. The mother also received her father’s time share in a vacation resort group.
In early 2010 the child was born. On this day the father moved into the mother’s rented unit at U Street, Suburb M for which he contributed to the mortgage. The parties commenced to live together in a de facto relationship.
On 24 February 2010 the maternal grandmother visited from the USA and stayed at the father’s M Unit.
In June 2010 the father commenced to rent out his M unit.
Between 14 October and 2 December 2010 the parties and child visited the mother’s family in the USA. The child was baptized whilst in the USA. The mother alleges that during their trip the father stated to the maternal grandmother and many of her friends and relatives, in front of her or within ear shot, that he would like to move to the USA as long as one of them had a job to move back to.
On 27 May 2011 upon arriving home from a night out the mother could hear the child screaming and the father was asleep with earplugs in.
By October 2011 the father said he recognised the relationship between he and the mother had started to break down and the mother said to him “As far as I’m concerned, we are no longer a couple rather just co-parenting [the child]”. The father does not however assert that the de facto relationship broke down at this time.
On 12 October 2011, the mother, father and child travelled to the UK to visit the father’s family. While in the UK the mother was told that her mother had just been diagnosed with breast cancer. She says the father would not let her and the child go to the USA to see the maternal grandmother. The father denies this and says that the mother did not ask him to visit her mother when the parties were in the UK. He says the mother said to him “I’ll go and see Mom when she’s had an opportunity to recover from her treatment. I don’t think taking [the child] at his age will be beneficial and I don’t think she will cope with him around”. The father also contends that he booked the flights for the mother and child to the USA in March 2012. I accept the father’s version.
About one week after returning from the UK in November 2011, the mother asserts the father said to her “I am taking [the child] and moving back to the UK and you will stay here!” The mother says that the father kept the child’s birth certificate and his UK and Australia passport locked away and hidden from her. The father denies this and I am unable to find that this happened.
On 30 November 2011 the mother requested the father to move out and he said to her “Legally, I do not need to leave and I will not leave no matter what”.
The mother asked the father to leave and move out on 10 December 2011.
In early 2012 the father was reluctant to move out of the mother’s unit without an agreed parenting plan in place.
Also in or around April 2012 the mother had a conversation with the father about taking cot rails off the child’s cot and the father said to her “But then [the child] will get out of bed and wake me up”
In April 2012 the parties were at a Jazz Festival and she was texting away from the father and the child and that the father walked over to her to see what she was texting, leaving the child alone in a crowd. The father than continued to walk away leaving the mother to run after the child with a pram and all their belongings. The father denies this incident and I am unable to find that this happened.
On 10 April 2012 the mother met with the Family Relationships Australia Centre at Dee Why.
On 26 April 2012 after the father went to work the mother packed the father’s suitcase with work and casual clothes, some of the child’s toys, and other belongings and placed them in storage. That day the mother sent an email to the father to confirm their separation. The father attempted to telephone the mother but she would not answer. The father went to stay with a friend until he was able to move back into his unit in Suburb M.
On 27 April 2012 the father checked the belongings the mother had placed into storage and discovered that both his and the child’s passport were missing. The child was two years and three months old.
Between 26 April and 5 May 2012 the father did not see the child.
On 30 April 2012 the father filed an Initiating Application seeking amongst other things an Airport Watch List Order in relation to the child.
On 5 May 2012 the father spent time with the child for approximately two hours at Balmoral Beach. The mother remained short distance away and a mutual friend was present.
On this day the mother sent an email to the father advising that she was going to limit the child’s contact with him based on professional advice received, including advice from the Family Relationships Centre.
In or about May 2012 the father spoke to a Family Advisor at the Family Relationship Centre who said to him “I’m not sure who [the mother] would have spoken to but no-one here would give advice to restrict access unless it was in the child’s best interest due to allegations of family violence or abuse”.
On 11 May 2012 the mother discovered that the father had not topped up the parties’ joint account and that he had taken the entire amount of money out of the joint account.
On 16 May 2012 the mother received a Child Support Assessment for the father to pay $1,235.58 in child support per month.
On 30 May 2012 the mother attended Kids In Focus.
On 10 June 2012 the father turned up at a Suburb M location when the mother was with a mother’s group friend. The father pretended to be on phone and went straight to the child and began to play with him in the water fountain. On two other occasions the father turned up without notice. The father denies these allegations and says that the parties live in the same area and there have been times he has run into the mother and child. I accept these occasions were coincidental but unsettled the mother.
On 17 and 18 June 2012 the parties spoke over the phone to discuss how they could organise the father’s time with the child and the father said to her “You are a great Mum and I know the best place for [the child] is with you. I will never try to take [the child] from you”.
On 22 June 2012 the mother called the father to say that the child was having difficulty breathing and that she was taking him to the hospital. The father was at a work function, which he left and drove to the mother’s residence. The parties spent seven hours at the children’s ward of the hospital while the child was treated for asthma. The child was diagnosed with mild asthma.
On 23 June 2012 the mother the child were asleep in her bed. The child woke at 10:00 pm crying and shallow breathing. The mother telephoned the father to come home, which he did, but she smelled alcohol on his breath. There is no issue in this case relating to the father’s use of alcohol.
In May and June 2012 (and the father says also after) the father spent a few hours with the child on various occasions, with the mother choosing the location and with the mother and a mutual friend present.
From 25 June 2012 the father spent time with the child every Tuesday and Thursday afternoon from 3:30pm to 5:30pm and every Saturday from 9am -1pm.
In July 2012 the father said to the child “Mommy will not let us have dinner together” and “Mommy will not let you spend time with me”. He said to the mother “I am telling [the child] what is happening”.
In July 2012 an offer seems to have been made by the mother’s lawyer to extend the child’s time with the father each Saturday from 8.00am to 4.00pm.
On 12 July 2012, during a telephone conversation, the mother said to the father “I no longer agree for [the child] to spend all day on Saturdays with you”. The father emailed the mother to confirm this (see page 35 of the annexures to the father’s affidavit).
On 2 and 3 August 2012 the father emailed the mother asking for extra time on the long bank holiday weekend. He says the mother did not agree with extra time but advised that he could swap days.
On 23 August 2012 the father was given an enrolment form for M Child Care Centre (“M Centre”) to complete in order for the child to attend. On 24 August 2012 the father emailed the mother requesting that on occasions when the mother needed to avail herself of the M Centre service, he be given the first opportunity to look after the child (see page 91 of the annexures to the father’s affidavit). He says no response was received but on this day he signed the enrolment form for M Centre.
On 30 August 2012 the father emailed the mother asking if the child could spend Father’s Day with him. The mother consented to the father spending the morning of Father’s Day with the child in lieu of his time on Saturday.
On 7 September 2012 the parties attended a child dispute conference with the family consultant and agreement was made providing for the mother and the child to travel to the USA in November 2012 and for the father to travel to the UK with the child in 2012. That day the mother registered the child’s birth at the USA Consulate.
On 27 October 2012 the father completed an Infant & Child First Aid Course.
On 31 October 2012 the child obtained a USA passport.
In November 2012 the father completed the Triple P Positive Parenting Program course.
On 24 November 2012 the mother and child travelled to the USA. During this time, the father regularly skyped with the child. The father requested to spend additional time with the child following the child’s return to Australia. A schedule of extra time during the Christmas holidays between December 2012 and February 2013 is at Annexure LL to the mother’s affidavit which indicates the extra time the father spent with the child over this period.
On 10 January 2013 the child commenced at B Pre-school on Thursdays and Fridays. The father met all associated costs.
On 24 January 2013 the mother told the father during a telephone call “[The child] is having trouble adjusting to pre-school. This might be as a result of our separation”. That day, the father telephoned B Pre-school and spoke to the child’s classroom teacher who told him “[the child’s] behaviour is typical of any child who starts in a day care environment for the first time, particularly as he is not used to taking naps or eating food in a new environment”.
In February 2013 the father resumed taking the child to his swimming lessons on a weekday morning during term. The father had previously taken the child to swimming lessons on Saturday mornings from April 2011 until the time of separation.
On 9 February 2013 the parties agreed that handovers would occur at the local 7/11.
On 19 February 2013 the father informed the mother that he had enrolled the child in swimming and “little kickers” soccer. The father did not communicate with the mother about this before he did it.
In March 2013 the father completed Parenting After Separation (Keeping Kids In Mind) Course.
On 12 March 2013 the mother unilaterally withdrew the child from B Pre-school and changed the time the child spent with the father to Tuesdays and Thursday mornings instead of Mondays and Wednesdays. As a result of the mother’s decision to change the father’s days, the father was no longer able to take the child to swimming lessons on Wednesdays. The mother’s solicitors forwarded to the father’s solicitors a letter setting this decision out and explaining the reasoning behind the decision as the child regressing in his toileting, being sleep disturbed and upset before and after day-care (see Annexure X to the mother’s affidavit).
On 18 March 2013 the child was admitted to the emergency department of the R Hospital experiencing breathing difficulties. The father was informed of this by an email from the mother the following day (See page 123 of the annexures to the father’s affidavit).
On 13 April 2013 the parties attended an interim hearing. Consent orders were made in relation to the child’s time with the father on Tuesday between 1.00pm and 5.00pm, Thursday’s between 8.00am and 12.00pm, overnight from 5.00pm Friday to 5.00pm Saturday and that the father pay spouse maintenance to the mother in the amount of $250 per week.
On 19 April 2013 the child was taken to hospital having injured his neck at the mother’s apartment. The father was informed of this the next day by the mother at changeover.
The child first stayed overnight with the father on 24 May 2013 at the age of three years and four months.
On 25 May 2013 the father accompanied the child to a trial lesson of “Little Kickers” soccer. The father sent the mother an email on 30 May 2013 asking her to consider allowing the child to attend Little Kickers on a Saturday morning The mother replied to this email on 31 May 2013 indicating that the child already had plans on Saturday mornings.
On 23 July 2013 the mother alleges the child had night terrors on five occasions.
The mother obtained a referral from Dr G to see Dr F on 24July 2013.
On 29 July 2013 the father smelt alcohol on the mother’s breath at changeover. There is no issue in this case relating to the mother’s use of alcohol.
In August 2013 the child was diagnosed with pneumonia and was prescribed antibiotics.
On 7 September 2013 the parties and child were interviewed by the family consultant. During the interview the father became aware from the family consultant that the mother proposed to take the child to a play therapist.
On 8 September 2013 the father made an email enquiry with the USA Consulate in Sydney about his eligibility to gain a visa to work in the USA and received a response.
On 17 September 2013 the mother sent an email to the father requesting the father’s preference on three preschools she had nominated for the child to attend in 2014.
The family report was released to the parties on 16 October 2013.
On 5 November 2013 the mother emailed the father advising that she intended to relocate with the child to either Newcastle or the Blue Mountains.
On 25 December 2013 the child was taken to hospital by the mother to have a piece of wood from his thumbnail removed. The father was told about this by the mother through a text message 15 minutes prior to the child spending time with him.
On 31 December 2013 the father brought the child directly home rather than to the 7/11 for changeover. The mother accused the father of breaching the court orders. The father says that it was close to 10.00pm at night so he advised the mother he would drop the child off at her home and had a mutual friend attend the changeover with him.
In or around January 2014 the child said to the mother “Daddy said you are not excited to see me and don’t run to me because you don’t want me to go to Daddy’s house”.
From 8 January 2014 the father says the mother rarely spoke to him at changeovers. The mother sent an email to the father on this day stating that she did not appreciate his “escalated behaviour at handover this morning”.
On 18 January 2014 the mother alleges the father again contravened court orders by attending on her property when dropping the child at home rather than the 7/11. The father says changeover occurred at 7/11. This alleged breach was not referred to in oral evidence or submissions.
On 28 January 2014 orders were made by consent varying the time the child spent with the father to 8.00am to 12.30pm on Tuesdays and 3.00pm to 6.30pm on Thursdays, as well as alternate Friday and Saturday nights.
On 30 January 2014 the child commenced at N Preschool. The father collected the child from N Preschool at the end of the child’s first day and says he was surprised to see the mother there.
In February 2014 the mother’s rent on her unit was increased to $650 per week. The mother’s case is that she now finds it difficult to continue to pay rent on top of her everyday expenses.
In March 2014 the mother withdrew the whole of her MLC Superannuation fund of $7,626.01 to pay for legal fees. The mother also withdrew funds from her IRA account for legal fees and personal expenses.
That if there is any medical emergency involving the child, including but not limited to, serious illness, accident, or hospitalisation, the party with the care of the child must:-
a.Contact the other party as soon as it is practicable;
b.As soon as practicable, provide to the other party all documentation and information in their possession regarding the incident, and either party be at liberty to attend at any hospital, or any other facility, as the child is admitted.
[This is similar to the father’s Order 14].
That each party shall provide the other with any particulars of any treatment required, or received, by the child together with the name and address of the treatment provider, and/or location, at which the child may be a patient.
[This is identical to the father’s Order 15].
That each party shall provide the other with any prescriptions or prescribed medications for the child, and the other parent shall administer those medications appropriately.
[This is identical to the father’s Order 16].
That the parties shall both be listed as enrolling parents, and emergency contacts, at the child’s school and all extracurricular activities.
[This is identical to the father’s Order 17. The mother opposes the making of Order 18 sought by the father for obvious reasons].
That the parties shall do all things necessary to ensure the school which the child attends will provide each of them with a copy of the child’s school reports, newsletters, and notifications, relating to but not limited to special events, including but not limited to concerts, concerns, parent/teacher interviews, excursions, and camps.
[This is identical to the father’s Order 19. The mother opposes Orders 20 and 21 sought by the father for obvious reasons].
That each of the parties use their best endeavours to ensure the child attends all extracurricular activities, and sporting events, jointly agreed upon by the parties.
[This is not dissimilar to the father’s Order 22].
That each party must each keep the other informed of their current residential addresses, and provide the other with written notice of any change of their residential address, email address, telephone numbers, including mobile and landline numbers, within forty eight hours of such change.
[This is identical in-part to the father’s Order 23 excluding restriction as to location of residence].
That the mother is to hold the child’s USA and Australian passports, and the father is to hold the child’s UK passport, and the father and mother are to co-operate in renewing all passports held by the child at the date of these orders on the expiry of same, and share the costs of renewal.
[This is identical to the father’s Order 24].
IN THE EVENT OF THE MOTHER’S RELOCATION
Such orders be made in the following terms:-
a.That in the event of the child taking up residence in the USA, he shall live with the mother at all times save as specifically provided hereunder:-
i.During the 2015 calendar year, the child shall spend time with the father for two non-consecutive periods each of seven nights separated by not less than seven days, such time to be spent in the USA.
[This is different to the father’s Order 25].
ii.During the 2015 and 2016 Christmas period, in addition to the two non-consecutive periods of seven days referred to in 20(a)(i), the father shall spend time with the child for a period up to seven nights during the Christmas period provided the parties shall share Christmas Day.
[This is different to the father’s Order 25].
b.That the child spend time with the father by way of Skype on a weekly basis to coincide with the local time in City XX, Texas, USA, Sunday morning between 8am and 10am for a period of not exceeding one hour.
c.Upon the mother commencing to reside in the USA, she shall ensure:-
i.The father is advised at all times of her residential address, contact, telephone numbers, and Skype address, by which the father may communicate with the child.
[This is identical to the father’s Order 26A].
ii.Advise the father immediately in the event the child suffers any serious illness or injury.
[This is identical to the father’s Order 26B].
iii.Authorise any medical practitioner upon whom the child may attend from time to time, to communicate with the father in respect of the child’s medical condition, and/or requirements.
[This is identical to the father’s Order 26C].
iv.Authorise all schools at which the child may attend from time to time to provide the father with copies of all school reports, school notices, and school photographs, in relation to the child, and to communicate with the father either by telephone, in writing, or other electronic means, in respect to the child’s progress at his school.
[This is identical to the father’s Order 26D].
d.That the mother do all things and acts as are necessary to register in the appropriate Court of Texas, USA, a copy of these orders.
[This is different to the father’s Order 27].
e.That the child spend time with the father during the 2016 calendar year in identical terms as the 2015 calendar year.
[This is different to the father’s proposal].
f.That the child spend time with the father during the 2017 calendar year, and thereafter, for periods up to fifty six days in any year, outside of the USA or within the USA, provided the longest period is no more than twenty one consecutive days, and are separated by school terms with the parties to alternate Christmas Day and Boxing Day each year.
[This is different to the father’s proposal].
g.Pending further order, that the father accompany the child on all flights to and from the USA, or elsewhere, until the child has attained the age of ten years, and pay for all costs associated with travel.
[This is different to the father’s proposal].
h.That all international changeovers take place by agreement, having regard to the least disruption to the child.
[This is not sought by the father].
SCHEDULE 2
The applicant father relies on the following:
1.1.Father’s affidavit filed 4 September 2014
1.2.Father’s affidavit filed 13 October 2014
1.3.Father’s financial statement filed 29 September 2014
1.4.Affidavit of Mr CC filed 8 October 2014
1.5.Affidavit of Ms RR filed 9 October 2014
1.6.Affidavit of Ms HH filed 10 October 2014
1.7.Affidavit of Ms DD filed 17 November 2014
The respondent mother relies on the following:
2.1.Mother’s affidavit filed 10 September 2014
2.2.Mother’s financial statement filed 9 September 2014
2.3.Affidavit of Maternal Grandmother filed 3 September 2014
2.4.Affidavit of Dr F filed 3 September 2014
2.5.Affidavit of Sara Hays filed 3 September 2014
2.6.Affidavit of Mr KK filed 3 September 2014
2.7.Affidavit of Ms PP filed 3 September 2014
2.8.Affidavit of Mr BB filed 3 September 2014
2.9.Affidavit of Ms O filed 3 September 2014
2.10.Affidavit of Mr V filed 3 September 2014
2.11.Affidavit of Ms L filed 4 September 2014
2.12.Affidavit of Mr SS filed 4 September 2014
2.13.Affidavit of Mr K filed 28 October 2014
2.14.Affidavit of Mr YY filed 3 September 2014
The court also had before it:
3.1.Child Responsive Memorandum dated 7 September 2012
3.2.Child Responsive Memorandum dated 24 January 2013
3.3.Family Report dated 14 October 2013
3.4.Family Report dated 26 February 2014
0
3