Edge and Tilton - [2010] FMCAfam 185

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

EDGE & TILTON

[2010] FMCAfam 185

FAMILY LAW – Parenting – high conflict family – orders for contact – overnight time – family report.

Family Law Act 1975 ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA

Bruce Smyth, “Time to rethink time? The experience of time with children after divorce” Family Matters No. 76, Winter 2005 p 4.
Johnston J “Children’s Adjustment in Sole Custody Compared to Joint Custody Families and Principles for Custody Decision Making” (1995) 33 Family and Conciliation Courts Review 415.
McIntosh J and Chisholm R in ‘Shared Care and Children’s Best Interests in Conflicted Separation: A Cautionary Tale From Current Research’ (2008) 20(1) Australian Family Lawyer 3

Applicant:

MS EDGE

Respondent:

MR TILTON

File Number:

SYC 5985 of 2008

Judgment of:

Altobelli FM

Hearing dates:

14 & 15 October 2009

Date of Last Submission:

15 October 2009

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

2 March 2010

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Ms Winfield

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Samir’s Multicultural Legal Services

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Hodgson

ORDERS

The parents have equal shared parental responsibility for all long-term decisions relating to the care of the Child [X] born [in] 2007.
The mother has sole parental responsibility for the day-to-day decisions regarding the care of the Child when the Child is in her care.
The father has sole responsibility for the day-to-day decisions regarding the care of the Child when the Child is in his care.
The Child live with the Mother
The Child spend time with the Father as follows:
Until the Child’s third birthday:
(a)From 10am to 4pm each Monday, Tuesday and Saturday with changeover to take place at the [C] Contact Service.
Until the Child’s fourth birthday:
(b)From 10am to 4.00pm each Monday and Tuesday with changeover to take place at the [C] Contact Service.
(c)From 10.00am each alternate Saturday to 4.00pm Sunday with changeover to take place at the [C] Contact Service.
From the Child’s fourth birthday until the Child commences school:
(d)From 10.00am each alternate Saturday to 10.00am Monday with changeover to take place at the [C] Contact Service.
(e)From 10.00am to 4.00pm each Thursday with changeover to take place at the [C] Contact Service.
From the time the Child commences school:
(f)Each alternate week from after school on Friday to the commencement of school on Monday with the father to collect and return the Child from the Child’s school; and
(g)In the week the Child does not spend overnight time with the Father, on Wednesday from after school to 7.00pm; and
(h)During the shorter school holiday periods, in the second week from Monday at 10.00am to Friday at 4.00pm;
(i)During the Christmas school holiday periods, during weeks two and four from Monday at 10.00am to Friday at 4.00pm;
From the time the Child commences Year Two:
(j)Each alternate week from after school on Friday to before school on Monday with the Father to collect and return the Child from the Child’s school; and
(k)In the alternate week, from after from after school on Thursday to before school on Friday, with the father to collect and return the Child from the Child’s school
(l)For half of all school holidays, to be the first half in odd numbered years and the second half in even numbered years, such time to commence at 10.00am on the relevant Monday.
General Contact Provisions:
(m)All changeovers are to take place at the [C] Contact Service unless otherwise specified or agreed between the parents in writing.
(n)The Father’s time with the Child is to be suspended each Mother’s Day from 9.00am to 4.00pm.
(o)The Child is to spend time with the Father each Father’s day from 9.00am to 4.00pm.
Each of the parties shall inform the other and keep the other informed of his or her current address, his or her current landline telephone number at his or her home address and his or her current mobile telephone number.
Both parents are hereby restrained from:
(a)Speaking or permitting any other to speak to or about the other parent or their family in a negative, offensive or unpleasant fashion in the child’s hearing.
(b)Discussing any proceedings between the parents in the presence or hearing of the children or permitting any other person to do so.
(c)Approaching the other parent.
(d)Commencing an argument with the other party in the presence or hearing of the Child.
The parties are to maintain a communication book which shall travel with the Child at changeover between the parents.
The parties must within 14 days contact Relationships Australia on (02) 8874 8010 to arrange an appointment as soon as practicable for an initial post-separation parenting assessment.
In making their appointment, parties are to state that their attendance is pursuant to an Order of the Federal Magistrates Court.
Parties are to cooperate with providing intake information and details to Relationships Australia and must attend the intake appointment at any reasonable location nominated by Relationships Australia and complete the assessment.
If assessed as suitable and Relationships Australia nominates counselling, mediation including child inclusive mediation or a post-separation parenting course to attend, the parties must attend (as the provider directs) as soon as practicable.
The parties shall comply with the requirements of the nominated program and the recommendations of the program coordinator including any referrals to complementary services.
Both parties to share equally the costs of the program.

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYC 5985 of 2008

MS EDGE

Applicant

And

MR TILTON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

In the family report in this matter, the Family Consultant,

Dr Vardenaga, uses the metaphor of a battlefield to describe the circumstances of this case, and how two year old [X] might be experiencing her parents’ conflict. At paragraph 38 of the family report, the Family Consultant refers to the tension that [X] feels “as she crosses the no man’s land between her parents.” In one trench is the applicant mother who is 22 years old. In the other trench is the respondent father who is 28 years old. They married in an Islamic ceremony in May 2006 and the final separation took place in September 2007. [X] was born [in] 2007 and so she was about two months old when the marriage ended. By all descriptions of the marriage, it was a turbulent one and it is common ground that the separation has been a turbulent one marked by allegation and counter‑allegation. What may have started as a dispute between parents has broadened into a dispute between two extended families. By the end of the hearing of this matter on 16 October 2009, the main issue for determination was how much time [X] should be spending with her father and, in particular, when overnight time would commence. That is not, however, how this case originally started.

Background

[X] has been in the full‑time care of her mother since separation in September 2007. It is common ground that the mother has been her primary care provider. [X] has spent time with her father, primarily day time only but there has been one overnight, since separation.
In her application first filed before the court on 13 October 2008, the mother sought as final orders that [X] live with her, and spend time with the father each alternate weekend on Saturday from 10 am until 2 pm, as well as day time only contact during special days. On 10 October 2008, the mother filed an amended application seeking as final orders that the father’s time with [X] each alternate Saturday be supervised at the [H] Contact Centre, and be subject to the father providing a clear urine test for narcotic and prohibited substances, as well as the father not consuming alcohol or narcotic substances prior to the visit. By the time of the final hearing, the minute of the order sought by the mother included an order for sole parental responsibility, that [X] live with the mother, and that until [X] reaches the age of four years she spend time with the father from 10 am to 4 pm each Monday, Tuesday and Saturday with changeover to be effected at the [C] Contact Service. On attaining the age of four years the time would extend to include 10 am Monday to 4 pm Tuesday, and then when [X] commences school the time be each alternate weekend from 10 am Saturday to 4 pm Sunday. It is also notable that during her oral evidence the mother made the quite clear concession that she would entertain overnight contact, from when [X] attains the age of three years, which would be in July 2010.
In the father’s response filed 22 October 2008, he sought final orders that [X] live with him and spend time with the mother as agreed between the parents but that, on an interim basis, this be each Wednesday from 10 am until 2 pm, and each Saturday from 10 am until 2 pm. During the course of the hearing the father gave evidence to the effect that the order that would be in [X]’s best interests is that she live with her mother between 10 am and 4 pm Monday to Friday and with him the rest of the time, except that she would spend one weekend with her mother and one weekend with her father. By the time of the conclusion of the hearing, however, the father’s position became that [X] should live with the mother, that there should be equal shared parental responsibility, and that she should spend time with the father each alternate weekend from 9 am Saturday to 5 pm on Sunday and on alternate Thursdays and Mondays. Moreover, after a period of three months the alternate weekend time would extend from 5 pm on Sunday until 5 pm on Monday.
Both parents proposed that changeovers take place at [C] Contact Service. This is one of the very few instances of agreement between the parents and there can be no doubt that, at least until [X] commences school and changeover can be facilitated there, it is in her best interests that changeover take place at a supervised contact centre.
As will be apparent from the statement of proposals set out above, each of the parents have shifted significantly in terms of the proposals they presented before the court. For the mother there was a significant shift from equal shared parental responsibility, to sole parental responsibility, as well as the shift from overnight contact commencing at aged four, to commencing at age three. For the father there was a dramatic shift from seeking an order that [X] live with him, to conceding that it was in [X]’s best interests that she live with her mother. Moreover, there were considerable shifts in thinking about how much time [X] should spend with him. The evidence in the mother’s case was presented by herself. The maternal grandmother provided an affidavit but was not required for cross‑examination. The mother’s step‑father provided an affidavit and he was cross‑examined. The father’s evidence consisted of affidavits provided by himself. He, like the mother was cross‑examined. The paternal grandmother also provided an affidavit, but she was not required for cross‑examination. A family report was prepared by Dr Lucia Vardenaga, a regulation 7 Family Consultant. Dr Vardenaga was cross‑examined. In addition various documents produced on subpoena were tendered in evidence.

The Issues

Regrettably, this was a very high conflict case where very serious allegations were made by each parent against the other. It is necessary that I make findings as to the credit of each of the mother, and the father, in order to make sense of the allegations that they make, and the evidence they give. Accordingly, credit is the first issue that I need to determine.
The next issue is the amount of time, or the extent of contact, that [X] should have with her father. In these reasons for judgment I will use the term spends time with, and have contact with, interchangeably. The final major issue is whether I should make an order for equal shared parental responsibility, or sole parental responsibility. Each of the last mentioned issues will be determined by reference to section 60CC of the Family Law Act and, where relevant, I will refer to specific paragraphs of that section. After stating the applicable law, I propose to commence with an examination of the evidence given by the Family Consultant, both in the family report, and orally.

Applicable Law

In determining parenting matters under Part VII of the Family Law Act the Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration: s.60CA.
The objects and principles of Part VII are set out at s.60B:
60B Objects of Part and principles underlying it
(1)     The objects of this Part are to ensure that the best interests of children are met by:
(a)     ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child; and
(b)     protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and
(c) ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and
(d)     ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.
(2)     The principles underlying these objects are that (except when it is or would be contrary to a child’s best interests):
(a)     children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together; and
(b)     children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development (such as grandparents and other relatives); and
(c) parents jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and
(d)     parents should agree about the future parenting of their children; and
(e)     children have a right to enjoy their culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture).
(3)     For the purposes of subparagraph (2)(e), an Aboriginal child’s or Torres Strait Islander child’s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture includes the right:
(a)     to maintain a connection with that culture; and
(b)     to have the support, opportunity and encouragement necessary:
(i) to explore the full extent of that culture, consistent with the child’s age and developmental level and the child’s views; and
(ii)     to develop a positive appreciation of that culture.
At the very core of the new Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 is the creation of a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in s.61DA. Section 61DA provides:
61DA Presumption of equal shared parental responsibility when making parenting orders
(1)     When making a parenting order in relation to a child, the court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.
(2)     The presumption does not apply if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent of the child (or a person who lives with a parent of the child) has engaged in:
(a)     abuse of the child or another child who, at the time, was a member of the parent’s family (or that other person’s family); or
(b)     family violence.
(3)     When the court is making an interim order, the presumption applies unless the court considers that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for the presumption to be applied when making that order.
(4)     The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that satisfies the court that it would not be in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.
If the presumption applies, I am required to consider certain things:
65DAA Court to consider child spending equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent in certain circumstances
Equal time
(1)     If a parenting order provides (or is to provide) that a child’s parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, the court must:
(a)     consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and
(b)     consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable; and
(c) if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents.
Substantial and significant time
(2)     If:
(a)     a parenting order provides (or is to provide) that a child’s parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child; and
(b)     the court does not make an order (or include a provision in the order) for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents; and
the court must:
(c) consider whether the child spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and
(d)     consider whether the child spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable; and
(e)     if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the child to spend substantial and significant time with each of the parents.
(3) will be taken to spend substantial and significant time with a parent only if:
(a)     the time the child spends with the parent includes both:
(i) days that fall on weekends and holidays; and
(ii)     days that do not fall on weekends or holidays; and
(b)     the time the child spends with the parent allows the parent to be involved in:
(i) the child’s daily routine; and
(ii)     occasions and events that are of particular significance to the child; and
(c) the time the child spends with the parent allows the child to be involved in occasions and events that are of special significance to the parent.
(4)     Subsection (3) does not limit the other matters to which a court can have regard in determining whether the time a child spends with a parent would be substantial and significant.
Reasonable practicality
(5)     In determining for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) whether it is reasonably practicable for a child to spend equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the child’s parents, the court must have regard to:
(a)     how far apart the parents live from each other; and
(b)     the parents’ current and future capacity to implement an arrangement for the child spending equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the parents; and
(c) the parents’ current and future capacity to communicate with each other and resolve difficulties that might arise in implementing an arrangement of that kind; and
(d)     the impact that an arrangement of that kind would have on the child; and
(e)     such other matters as the court considers relevant.
Because s.65DAA refers to the best interests of the child I must then go back to consider s.60CC which specifies how I must determine what is in a child’s best interests.
60CC How a court determines what is in a child’s best interests
Determining child’s best interests
(1)     Subject to subsection (5), in determining what is in the child’s best interests, the court must consider the matters set out in subsections (2) and (3).
Primary considerations
(2)     The primary considerations are:
(a)     the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents; and
(b)     the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
Note: Making these considerations the primary ones is consistent with the objects of this Part set out in paragraphs 60B(1)(a) and (b).
Additional considerations
(3)     Additional considerations are:
(a)     any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child’s maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views;
(b)     the nature of the relationship of the child with:
(i) each of the child’s parents; and
(ii)     other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
(c) the willingness and ability of each of the child’s parents to facilitate, and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent;
(d)     the likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:
(i) either of his or her parents; or
(ii)     any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living;
(e)     the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis;
(f) the capacity of:
(i) each of the child’s parents; and
(ii)     any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs;
(g)     the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child’s parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant;
(h)     if the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child:
(i) the child’s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture); and
(ii)     the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right;
(i) the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents;
(j) any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family;
(k)     any family violence order that applies to the child or a member of the child’s family, if:
(i) the order is a final order; or
(ii)     the making of the order was contested by a person;
(l) whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child;
(m)    any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant.

Significance of Time

Like many disputes relating to children, this is a dispute about dividing the child’s time between the parents. A leading Australian researcher has reflected on this phenomena in an article entitled “Time to rethink time? The experience of time with children after divorce”[1]. Smyth refers to the notion of time as part and parcel of the ‘custody wars’ between parents. He says about time at page 4: “…Parents fight about it, courts divvy it up, and children long for it.” Smyth goes on to say some important things about time at page 9 of the article:
A solid body of data also suggest that it is the quality of relationships between parents, and between parents and children, that exerts a critical influence on children’s wellbeing, not the amount of time per se (Amato and Gilbreth 1999; Pryor and Rodgers 2001). Of course, an emotionally close and warm relationship between parents and children requires time to sustain it. “Quality time” needs time.
According to Kelly and Lamb (2000), the greater the range of contexts for interaction between parents and their children, the better. They suggest that different contexts facilitate children’s social, emotional and cognitive development, as well as afford greater opportunities for parents to build emotional bonds with their children.
It is the intermingling of different activities and the different experiences of time that diverse contexts bring that form the hub of family life, and which are critical for family wellbeing. For instance, overnight stays allow for the experience of mundane everyday routines, as well as special moments – such as putting children to bed, reading to them, saying good night, and starting the day together over breakfast. Focused one-on-one together time (such as playing a game, talking in the car, reading a book together, or helping with homework) sends a clear signal to children that they matter. Outdoor time (such as fishing, netball, or hiking) provides opportunities for children’s emotional, physical, social and cognitive development, and give parents the chance to mentor, and to remain engaged with, their children. Fun time (such as long-weekends and school holidays) or special time (such as birthdays, Mothers’ or Fathers’ Day, and Christmas) foster the pursuit of mutually rewarding experiences for children and parents, help create bonds between each and symbolise those bonds, and can create positive life-long memories.
But while these, and other, types of time are important for children’s and parent’s wellbeing, one type of time warrants special attention: being-in-the-moment time. This type of time involves unstructured, spontaneous, intimate time where a parent and child are free to “hang out”, talk about things, or engage in activities that are important to them (such as a teenage daughter talking about boyfriend problems while her father peels potatoes). Post-separation parenting arrangements that involve thin slices of parent–child time, such as daytime-only contact each Saturday afternoon, work against the experience of “being” time as this sort of time needs to feel natural and unimpeded to create the conditions for free-flowing interpersonal engagement.
[1] Bruce Smyth, “Time to rethink time? The experience of time with children after divorce” Family Matters No. 76, Winter 2005 page 4
This is a social science perspective on time, and its significance in the context of children’s relationships with their parents. Section 65DAA(3) is the Family Law Act’s attempt to incorporate this social science perspective into law. The definition of substantial and significant time sets a high benchmark (“…only if…”) for the very diverse forms of cumulative interaction between a parent and child described in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of that section.

Parental Conflict and Shared Parenting

Some recent Australian research has urged caution about shared parenting arrangements in families where there is a high level of parental conflict. McIntosh J and Chisholm R in ‘Shared Care and Children’s Best Interests in Conflicted Separation: A Cautionary Tale From Current Research’ (2008) 20(1) Australian Family Lawyer 3 report high levels of anxiety in children for families exhibiting certain characteristics. They conclude as follows:
Neither the general conditions for children’s healthy emotional development nor the specific new findings described above contradict the core principle underpinning the new legislation, namely that most children will benefit from having both parents actively and cooperatively involved in their lives after separation. The data reported here suggest, however, that a group of children are liable to slip through the safety net of considerations designed to ensure that children do in fact benefit from shared parenting. The findings sound a strong cautionary note about applying the new presumptions to cases characterised by ongoing high conflict between parents. We have shown how, in living between and within climates of ongoing dispute and emotional pre-occupation, the mental health ‘benefits’ of substantially shared care accrued by children are questionable.
By implication, then, the ‘safety net’ of considerations through which we filter the ‘best interests’ questions attached to shared physical care needs to be more tightly woven. The task is to sensibly guide ourselves through the socio-legal and often highly emotive contexts that surround the issue, in order for developmentally appropriate decisions can be made in each case.
The research outlined here suggests that substantially shared care arrangements may entail risks for children’s healthy emotional development in families that have the following specific factors, especially in combination:[2]
Parent factors:
Low levels of maturity and insight;
A parent’s poor capacity for emotional availability to the child;
Ongoing, high levels conflict;
Ongoing significant psychological acrimony between parents;
Child is seen to be at risk in the care of one parent.
Child factors:
Under 10 years of age;
The child is not happy with a shared arrangement;
[2] Whether a factor should be treated as a contra-indication or a caution will be determined by severity, chronicity, and the capacity for change. (endnote from article)
The child experiences a parent to be poorly available to them.
In keeping with the findings of Johnston et al (1989), the new Australian data suggest that shared physical care is an arrangement best determined by the capacity of parents to exercise maturity, to manage their conflict and to move beyond egocentric decision-making in order to adequately embrace the changing developmental needs of their children. When considering ‘the benefit to the child of a meaningful relationship with both parents’, considerable weight should be given to the need of the child for care and contact arrangements that protect them from parental dynamics otherwise likely to erode their developmental security. Here, the capacity of parents for ‘passive cooperation’[3] and the containment of acrimony may prove to be central benchmarks.
[3] Personal communication, Bruce Smyth, October 2007. (endnote from article)
This research is consistent with earlier research undertaken by Johnston J “Children’s Adjustment in Sole Custody Compared to Joint Custody Families and Principles for Custody Decision Making” (1995) 33 Family and Conciliation Courts Review 415 at 420:
A small minority of divorcing parents remain in ongoing high conflict. This subgroup constitutes about 10% of all divorcing families (Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992). Ongoing high conflict is identified by multiple criteria, a combination of factors that tend to be, but are not always, associated with each other: intractable legal disputes, ongoing disagreement over day-to-day parenting practices, expressed hostility, verbal abuse, physical threats, and intermittent violence. Research findings to date indicate that high-conflict divorced parents have a relatively poor prognosis for developing cooperative co-parenting arrangements without a great deal of therapeutic and legal intervention. Those parents who met the multiple criteria of high conflict at the time of divorce were likely to remain conflicted over a 2-to 3-year period. At best, they became disengaged and non communicative with one another; they were less likely to become more cooperative over this period of time (Johnston, 1992; Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992).
The studies, as a group, consistently concluded that ongoing and unresolved conflict between divorced parents has detrimental effects on children, especially boys. Children are particularly hurt by witnessing physical violence between their parents (Johnston, 1992). In divorced families where there was ongoing conflict between parents, frequent visitation arrangements and joint custody schedules were likely to result in increased levels of verbal and physical aggression between parents, compared to similar families who had sole custody arrangements, especially at the times of transitions when children moved between their parents’ homes
Of even greater concern was the finding that more frequent transitions and more shared access between high-conflict parents were associated with more emotional and behavioural disturbance among children, especially girls. These children were likely to be more depressed, withdrawn, and aggressive, and to suffer from physical symptoms of stress (such as stomach aches, headaches, etc.); they were also likely to have more problems getting along with their peers, compared to children with fewer transitions and typical sole custody access plans.[4]
[4] Ibid at 420.
Johnston then provides a general principle to guide decision making in high conflict families at 423:
… recognizing that highly conflictual parents (as defined above) have a poor prognosis for becoming cooperative, custody arrangements for this special subpopulation should allow parents to disengage from each other and develop parallel and separate parenting relationships with their children, governed by an explicit legal contract (a parenting plan) that determines the access schedule. A clearly specified, regular visitation plan is crucial, and the need for shared decision making and direct communication should be kept to a minimum.
This research is background material to my judgment. It is not evidence. It is not material in respect of which I take judicial notice, and I make no findings of fact as a result of this material. It is background material, and it assists in understanding the expert evidence provided by the Family Consultant. One also lives in hope that parents might learn from it.

Evidence of the Family Consultant

In her family report released to the parties on 25 September 2009, the Family Consultant made the following recommendations:
Unless the Court identifies material that was not available for this assessment, it is recommended that the arrangements that are currently in place where [X] spends three days per week with her father continue and that this includes one overnight per week with the view to progressively increasing this to two evenings per week in time.
It is recommended that both parties avail themselves of Parenting Orders Program and thereby seek to improve their communication so that they might be able to participate in more co-operative decision making in respect of [X]. Until this is achieved, it is recommended that the parties continue to communicate through the communication book.
It is recommended that the [C] Contact Centre continue to be the changeover point.
The report takes the standard format in that it records who was interviewed and what documents were read, sets out the background to the dispute based on what the parties told the Family Consultant, records the current living arrangements and the applications and proposals of the parties. The issues in dispute are set out in paragraph 10. The legal issue was correctly identified, ie, how much time [X] should spend with each parent. Of significance, however, is the record of the Family Consultant’s findings as to the non-legal issues in this case.
The non-legal issues included the breakdown in communication between the parents and their capacity to relate in a child-focused way; the level of mistrust between them; the capacity of each of them to facilitate a positive relationship between [X] and the other parent; and the capacity of each parent to be able to share parental responsibility and decision-making particularly given the emerging difficulties already identified including involvement and relationship with extended family. I note that some of the non-legal issues, although psychological in nature, clearly reflect some of the considerations set out in section 60CC.
The report also sets out a record of the matters articulated by both the mother and father, as well as the Family Consultants’ observations of each parent.
The Family Consultant was able to observe [X]’s interactions with both parents. In general terms, this was quite positive for both parents.
Her evaluation of the parents and the issues before the court is contained at paragraphs 32-46 of her report. It is useful that I reproduce this evaluation in full below, particularly as I will find for the reasons set out below that there are significant aspects of the evidence given by both the mother and father which are plainly unreliable.
32. This is a situation where the parties have, since the separation, become involved in a bitter dispute that has escalated and has the potential to become intractable. They are presently caught in a cycle of allegation and counter allegations and are projecting their own limitations and experiences onto the other. Both allege that the other has had an experience of lack of acceptance by their respective extended families in their younger years. Interestingly, both parties are now in a position where they are leaning quite extensively on their extended families who possibly are adding to the intensity of the dispute. In the present, Mr Tilton is critical of Ms Edge’s family and some of the role modeling he believes might be occurring in that household. He also believes they are influencing Ms Edge’s capacity to facilitate his relationship with [X]. The reaction of Mr Tilton’s extended family on the day of the appointment indicates that there is some disquiet on their part as well in respect of Ms Edge. The parties also both make allegations that they have been threatened and have received death threats from the other or persons known to the other. In the absence of documentation, it is difficult to ascertain the extent to which any violence that has occurred in the past impacts on the parties currently and to what extent it will interfere with this matter moving forward. Finally, there were also counter allegations of Mr Tilton using drugs but testing has not confirmed these allegations.
33. This projection of blame extends to the allegations that have been made about [X] and the role they have both taken in her care from the time of her birth to the present. They both present as highly defensive, are afraid of losing their hold on the time they currently have with [X] for fear that the other will have ascendancy in [X]’s life and they demonstrated a strong need to establish their parenting credentials which they feel are not being acknowledged by the other. They also both lament that the other cannot find it within him or her self to communicate transparently regarding [X]. Yet they are maintaining a firm stand that keeps them at arms length and are making allegations about the quality of care [X] receives when she is with the other parent based largely on conjecture and speculation.
34. This makes it extremely difficult for the parties to assume equal shared parental responsibility and to make decisions jointly about [X]’s welfare. It might therefore be preferable that they disengage from each other and work on parallel parenting and make a more earnest effort to use the communication book rather than attempting co-operative parenting at least until their communication improves.
35. Both parties say they love [X] deeply and want the best for her. She is a treasured child and this was evident in the intensity with which both of them related to her. They share a similar perception of her as a bright and capable child. They seem keen to foster and nurture her abilities which both agree are considerable and this was confirmed by this assessment. Sadly, in spite of their very best interests, their current behaviour has the potential to adversely effect [X]’s well being and emotional development and she is at risk of being seriously compromised by their emerging battle for power and control if it continues. Both parties are currently contributing to this and they project blame onto the other for wanting to be controlling and not allowing the other in. Each of them takes very little responsibility for the part they play in the conflict.
36. The dispute and the inter-parental conflict also have the potential to hinder [X]’s capacity to freely form a relationship with both parents. Children exposed to on-going family violence and conflict have been found to suffer adverse consequences in their emotional and cognitive development (Johnston, 1995; McIntosh & Chisholm, 2008; Altobelli, 2008). Depression, anxiety and temperament problems are not uncommonly seen in such children (Maker, Kemmelmeier & Peterson, 1998; Edleston, Mbilinyi, & Shetty, 2003). Exposure to conflict also provides children with a poor role model of how to problem solve in their own lives.
37. [X] will undoubtedly become increasingly aware of the tension between her parents as she matures. At the age of two, her mother has been her primary care giver and her primary attachment seems to be to Ms Edge. Nonetheless, [X] also seems to have a secure relationship with her father and the time she spends with him seems to be unproblematic. Their appears to be a regular routine and structure to the days [X] is with her father which include having a nap, participating in age appropriate activities, visiting family and having meals.
38. Unfortunately however, [X] already seems to experience some difficulty and tension as she crosses the no man’s land between her parents. This was seen for example in her reluctance to acknowledge her father in her mother’s presence on the day of the appointment and, if Mr Tilton’s accounts are correct, on a few subsequent occasions at the Contact Centre. When the parties were seen for this assessment, Ms Edge did not respond when [X] did not acknowledge her father nor did she encourage her to so. This raises questions about her insight into how her actions and negative feelings towards Mr Tilton might impact on [X].
39. The parties give somewhat different accounts of Mr Tilton’s involvement in [X]’s care when she was an infant. There is no doubt however that, since the separation, he has made a concerted effort to participate in as many courses as has been possible in order to strengthen his parenting skills. He seems highly anxious to do the best he can to facilitate an on-going relationship with [X] and feels considerable apprehension that this might be sabotaged. It is probable that [X] would sense some of her father’s anxiety around his parenting role.
40. Ms Edge’s level of mistrust and disdain for Mr Tilton is concerning and palpable. She minimizes the extent of his participation in their family life during the marriage and referred to any such involvement in negative ways. Although she was able to acknowledge that [X]’s relationship with her father has improved significantly, she does so with reservation especially when it comes to spending time overnight.
41. This assessment raises questions about Ms Edge’s insecurities and fears which possibly have some roots in her own experience as a child of separated parents. Ms Edge’s disclosures of [X]’s sleeping and eating habits when she is with her father points to fears which might be impeding [X] from using her as a safe, emotional attachment base to facilitate her confident engagement and interaction with the world beyond the mother child relationship. This is essential for [X] to complete the developmental milestones and mastery over the insecurities which prevail for a child of two and which are centered very much on resolving separation anxiety. It is typical for children of this age to identify with their parents’ over protectiveness and anxieties and to internalize them as their own (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters. & Wall, 1978). Anxieties arising from Ms Edge’s capacity, willingness and ability to facilitate and encourage a close relationship between [X] and Mr Tilton are very likely to be sensed by [X] and impede her capacity to form an unfettered and relaxed relationship with her father which already is pressured by her father’s overwhelming needs to be instrumental in her life.

Ms Edge and Mr Tilton may therefore find the Parenting Orders Program such as that offered by UNIFAM a useful means to obtain a deeper appreciation of how their distrust and behaviour arising from their own needs might be impacting on [X].
42. The question that is pivotal in this matter is the commencement of [X] spending overnight with her father. It is always difficult with children of this age to give clear cut suggestions as to when overnight visits should begin and, in fact, there is disagreement in the literature as to what is the ideal time for a child to spend overnight with the parent with whom they do not reside. Some authors such as Kelly and Lamb (2000, 2001) advocate that children spend overnight with both parents from an early age and that the activities involved in bedtime and waking rituals are in fact instrumental in the formation of attachments, whilst others such as Solomon and Biringen (2001) and Hodges (1991) advocate that spending time overnight be delayed until children are older i.e. at least after the age of three or above.
43. In this matter, [X] has been spending six hours per day for three days weekly with her father. From the accounts of both parties, this seems to be progressing well. When she is in her father’s household, [X] has her own bedroom and takes a nap. There are also strong indications that [X]’s attachment with both her parents is secure, she perceives them both as a safe base from which to explore her world and developmentally therefore she would be ready to move to spending overnight with her father. Therefore, there seems to be no compelling reason for this not to occur initially for one evening with the view of extending that time later.
44. The institution of this arrangement should be on the proviso that Mr Tilton returns [X] to her mother if she becomes upset or distressed and he cannot pacify her. Failure to do this would lead to a sense of insecurity and would adversely affect [X]’s relationship with both parents and her own sense of well being. Of course, the ease with which [X] will move between their two parents especially at this age, is very much determined by the parental relationship, level of conflict and the capacity of the parents to facilitate those transitions without overt signs of anxiety. Court Orders in themselves will provide no assurance that the time [X] spends with a parent is unproblematic unless there is the co-operation of both parties.
45. The final success of [X] spending time with her father and ultimately her relationship with both parents will depend on how focused the parents can be on supporting the Court Orders. As mentioned earlier, Mr Tilton and Ms Edge would benefit from participating in a Parenting Orders program to better understand the impact of their behaviour on [X]’s adjustment and to review the progress she is making as she spends increasing periods of time with her father. What is critical in this case is that the parents work together at the Parenting Orders program in the interests of [X].
46. It is difficult to give prescriptive recommendations for the future since the living arrangements on the long term depend on the circumstances of the parties, where they are living and which school [X] attends. It is important however that, whilst her mother has been her primary care giver and there seems no reason for this to change, [X] should also spend substantial time with her father on a weekly basis.

In short, Dr Vardenaga’s report recommended that, unless there was material that she was not aware of, the current contact arrangements continue with the inclusion of one overnight per week, and eventually two overnights per week, in time. She could not be prescriptive, however, about when the overnights commence.
In her oral evidence Dr Vardenaga conceded that she had not read any of the mother’s affidavit material, and had only read one of the affidavits of the father. In addition she had not seen the subpoenaed documents. She conceded, therefore, that if this material established that there had been a significant history of family violence perpetrated by the father against the mother it would be relevant. Moreover, if there had been an incident at [C] Contact Service during changeover, that this too might be relevant. It would also be highly significant if the court accepted that [X] had been coming home and saying derogatory things of the mother. Dr Vardenaga described the mother’s proposal for no overnight time until [X] was 4 years old as being “on the conservative side” but not necessarily out of the question if issues arose about [X]’s safety and security in the father’s household.
When cross-examined by counsel for the father she conceded that even though she had used the metaphor of the battlefield, there was every indication that the current orders made by the court on 17 December 2008 for [X] to have contact with the father on Mondays, Wednesdays and Saturdays from 10 am to 4pm, was working well based on the evidence of both parents. She conceded that there was evidence of secure attachments to both parents. She agreed that if the evidence was that [X] was having regular naps at her father’s home, that this was a strong base for increasing her time to overnight. Of particular significance in the father’s case was Dr Vardenaga’s confirmation that the report had fully recorded the only concerns that the mother had expressed during interviews about family violence issues.
In writing these reasons for judgement I have the benefit, of course, of being able to reflect on the Family Consultant’s evidence after hearing all of the rest of the evidence including matters that were clearly not known by Dr Vardenaga at the time she wrote her report. Even taking these matters into account, however, I accept Dr Vardenaga’s evidence and there was, in fact, nothing that either counsel put to her which would detract from the efficacy of her recommendations.

Issues of Credit

It is by no means always the case that findings of credit need to be made in parenting cases. Regrettably, this is one of those cases. Indeed, I am left with such concerns about the evidence of both the mother and the father that I am reluctant indeed to accept any of the serious allegations that they make against each other. This means the evidence of both parents is inherently unreliable, for reasons that I will set out below, thus making the court even more dependent on the expert evidence of the Family Consultant.
The mother’s evidence was unreliable, though I am not prepared to say that she was dishonest. She struck me as being an immature woman who may have struggled with personal issues within her own family even before taking on the responsibilities of parenthood. It is quite possible that she is so absorbed in the conflict that she is having with the father, that her perception of events has become distorted so that, for example, difficult or traumatic events are attributable to the father even though there is another potentially plausible explanation for those events. I am satisfied that she had a tendency to exaggerate some of the concerns that she had about the father, and particularly her record of the evidence that she gives in her affidavit about family violence and related matters.
I must say there was some extraordinary inconsistencies between the mother’s evidence in her affidavit, the oral evidence that she gave in cross-examination, and what she told Dr Vardenaga in the family report interviews. For example, evidence of threats purportedly made by or on behalf of the father contained in her affidavit are not reported to the Family Consultant despite their obvious relevance and significance in this case. A further example is the mother’s evidence about some of [X]’s behaviours immediately after returning from contact with her father which were greatly amplified in her oral evidence in cross-examination but merit barely a mention in the affidavits and what she told the Family Consultant.
The clearest example of exaggeration by the mother related to the nature and extent of [X]’s distress after contact. When the mother’s step-father gave evidence about this issue, and I accept he is a more objective observer in this regard, any distress or discomfort that [X] suffers resolves within a few minutes of her returning home. By the end of the mother’s cross-examination I formed a strong impression that she was a mother who was genuinely concerned about [X] spending overnights with her father but principally on the basis that she was too young to be doing that. The mother had concerns about [X] settling back on return from contact, as well as things that [X] has allegedly said, and clearly feels that at an older age [X] might be able to better cope with absences from her, and these other matters. She conceded in cross-examination that the intense nature of the conflict between the father and herself was at least part of the reason for her reluctance to allow overnights.
I do not accept the father’s evidence, but in his case I find that he was being, at times, less than truthful. In cross-examination, he was often unresponsive, prone to make lengthy speeches extolling his virtues as a father and regurgitating matters that he had learnt at parenting courses, being “head knowledge” that he was clearly incapable of applying in practice. He was much more prone to answer the question he wanted to hear, rather than the question that was heard by the rest of the court.
I do not accept his evidence about what happened at [C] Contact Service on 4 April 2009. A document which purports to be a business record and a contemporaneous record of what took place on that day was produced on subpoena and became exhibit A1. This handwritten document states as follows: -
Dad had a temper tantrum - screwed up paper and threw on the floor said ‘She can get fucked. I fucking had this fucking had this has cost too much through a fucking solicitor.’ He then stormed out the door. His partner carried the child out – this occurred in front of the child.
A letter of warning was sent to the father on 7 April 2009. This became exhibit A2. The father agreed that he was aware of this letter. In cross-examination, the father firstly indicated that he didn’t recall this incident but then said he didn’t say the words and that he didn’t know if [X] was present at the time. He denied that his partner was present at the time. The father asserted that the records are incorrect and mistaken. I simply do not accept the father’s evidence in this regard.
This leaves me in a situation where I need to be very wary about the evidence-in-chief given by both parents, a comment that also applies to the evidence they gave in cross-examination.

The contact order that is in [X]’s best interest?

In order to ascertain the contact order that is in [X]’s best interest based on the facts of this case I propose to consider the evidence by reference to the primary and additional considerations set out in section 60CC(2) and (3) of the Family Law Act.
It is clear that [X] enjoys a meaningful relationship with both of her parents, though in qualitative and quantitatively differently ways. [X] is primarily attached to her mother who is her primary caregiver and has been for most of her life. Her father is clearly an important figure as well, and she is securely attached to him, based on the evidence of the Family Consultant.
The mother raises issues about protecting [X] from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to family violence, but her case was very poorly articulated in this regard, and in any event is quite inconsistent with her own position that overnight contact should start at age three or four. The inconsistencies in her evidence about family violence, abuse and threats from the father make this evidence inherently unreliable. The cross-examination of the father by the mother’s counsel, and the documents produced on subpoena, do create the impression that the father is an immature and sometimes volatile young man. I heard evidence of threats allegedly made by the father against the mother’s stepfather on the day of the hearing, and in the precincts of the court. I can make no findings about this despite hearing evidence from both of them. Something clearly happened within the precincts of the court, but I cannot say who initiated it or what precisely happened. It demonstrates extraordinary insensitivity and lack of insight that these events should be allowed to happen during the course of a hearing, and within the precincts of the court building. However, it must be remembered that this is a high conflict case which has embroiled not just the parents but their families as well. There was even an unsuccessful attempt to connect the father to a murder that took place outside the Family Court at Parramatta. This is just an extreme example of what each parent was trying to do to the other in subtle, and not so subtle ways. All I can say is that in the context of this dispute, and having regard to the issues I need to determine about [X], her safety is not a big concern. What unequivocally needs to occur is that she is protected from her parents’ conflict and the campaign of insecurity and denigration that each has waged against the other. I can only trust that these two young parents will grow up one day, at least for the sake of their daughter. Until then any contact between the parents must be avoided, and all communication should be via a communication book.
Having regard to [X]’s age, there is no issue about any views expressed by her, or the weight that I would attribute to them.
The nature of [X]’s relationship with each of her parents is discussed at length in the evaluation by the Family Consultant.
The proposal for overnight contact raises issues about the likely effect of this change in [X]’s life. On the one hand there is clear evidence that [X] is already having sleeps at her father’s home, during the time that she spends with him. As the Family Consultant correctly conceded, in my opinion, this is a good foundation for the introduction of overnight time. However, the very nature of the relationship between the parents, and the intense conflict that is taking place between them, does raise concerns about the mother’s ability to emotionally cope with overnights, and the father’s willingness and ability to return [X] to the mother should she become distressed, or inconsolable. In this regard I note that the father offers an undertaking to the court that if [X] becomes upset or distressed during an overnight and that he is unable to pacify her that he will return her to the mother as soon as practicable. Unfortunately for the father, the history of this matter makes me doubt that very much. After all, at an earlier stage of these proceedings I had to issue a recovery order for [X]’s return to the mother. Moreover, the evidence indicates that the father resisted the execution of the recovery order and had to be placed in the caged section of the police vehicle before he finally relented to [X] being returned to her mother. Moreover, the clear issues I have about his credit makes me reluctant indeed to accept at face value his undertaking. In my opinion there is both a qualitative and quantitative difference between an overnight and having a nap at her father’s home and all the circumstances of this case warrant a more conservative approach being adopted.
Despite all the other difficulties that arise in this case, there are a few issues of practical difficulty and expense associated with [X] spending time and communicating with the other parent.
The Family Consultant discusses at length the issues about the capacity of each parent to provide for [X]’s needs. After hearing all of the evidence, I have greater concerns about the father’s issues than the mother’s issues. Whilst he is, I am satisfied, able to provide for [X]’s physical needs whist she is in his care, I have reservations about his ability to meet the emotional need that [X] has to be protected from the conflict that the mother and father are engaged in. The clearest example of this was what the worker at the [C] Contact Centre quite aptly described as the father’s “temper tantrum” which included the use of offensive language, all in the presence of [X]. If the father is so clearly capable of this insensitivity in the context of a public place, it does suggest the mother has cause for concern about the denigration that she fears from the father, through [X], in the private context of his home. The mother asserts, and the father denies, that [X] returns from contact making offensive statements about the mother. The father initially denied that he used such offensive language, particularly in the presence of [X], but the more objective records of the events that took place at [C] indicate to the contrary. There is, therefore, in this case a real issue about the husband’s capacity to protect [X] from his ill feelings towards the mother, and the conflict in this case generally. The mother is not free from criticism in this regard, but I am satisfied that [X] is more likely to be protected from the conflict in the mother’s care, than in the father’s care.
I have previously described both parents as being somewhat immature. From the mother’s perspective she is younger than the father and some of this immaturity is explicable by reference to that. From the father’s perspective, however, he is older and has clearly had much more experience in life and hence one would expect somewhat more from a father who has done so many courses in relation to parenthood, who prima facie presents as being passionate about parenting and who sent to me that he wanted “to be a super dad for my child”. The clearest example of the father’s immaturity, however, was apparent from his proposal in cross-examination that the order that would be in [X]’s best interests was one that she live with the mother between 10 am and

4 pm Monday to Friday, and with him the rest of the time except for alternating weekends. In a high conflict case such as this one that proposal is obviously absurd, more so when it comes from the father who clearly believes himself to be more than adequate in that role.
The proposal of the father to which I have just referred also provides a revealing insight in relation to his attitude towards [X], and to his responsibilities as a parent. His proposal involved relegating the mother to babysitter status whilst maximising his alibility to work and to have night times with [X]. How his proposal would work when [X] goes to school is not entirely clear, but if he hadn’t thought of that then one must wonder: why not? The father’s attitude about the payment of child support was also quite revealing. In his evidence-in-chief he boasted about the flexibility of his employment and that he was earning about $800 per week. However, he was paying child support at the rate of $25 per week based on a child support assessment in 2008. He agreed in cross-examination that his most recent assessment for the period 1 January 2009 to 19 February 2010 was for $93 per week but that he had challenged that on the basis that on his current financial circumstances he could not pay. He agreed, however, he could agree to pay $40 per fortnight. He agreed that if required to pay more than $40 per fortnight he would, but this does not provide an explanation as to why he challenged an assessment at $93 per week. The father’s evidence is that he earns $800 per week as a self-employed [occupation omitted] in a job which gives him the flexibility to be able to personally care for [X] on the three days each week when he has her care. Notwithstanding that, he is only currently paying about $40 per week child support and has challenged an assessment requiring him to pay $93 per week. It would appear that the father’s conception of wanting to be a “super dad” for his daughter does not necessarily extend to a financial commitment which thus demonstrates a certain irresponsibility about parenthood.

Conclusion about Contact

Overall, and having regard to all of the matters that have been set out above, I believe the order for overnight contact that is in [X]’s best interests is one that is introduced conservatively and having regard to the high level of conflict that exists between these parents. The mother agreed in cross-examination that overnights could be implemented when [X] turns three, and I believe in the circumstances of this case that that is in [X]’s best interests. I don’t think this in inconsistent with the Family Consultant’s recommendation but, if it is, I clearly have had the benefit of more evidence than Dr Vardenaga did. When [X] turns four a second overnight can be introduced. When [X] commences school, and emphasising the need to avoid contact between the parents, she should have contact with the father each alternate weekend from Friday after school to the commencement of school on Monday. Once [X] commences year 2 of her schooling then there should be a further overnight in the alternate week. As for school holidays once she commences school, and until she commences year 2, the father should have a block holiday contact consisting of five days and four nights during the mid-year school holidays, and then two blocks of five days and four nights during the Christmas school holidays. Once [X] commences year 2, it should progress to half of the school holidays. In addition there will be provision for special days. Until such a time as the parents can learn to deal with their conflict more constructively all changeovers should either be at [C] Contact Service, or at the school that [X] is attending.

Equal shared parental responsibility or sole parental responsibility?

The mother’s case for sole parental responsibility is prima facie attractive. There is such a high level of conflict, and such a low level of communication and trust that to require joint decision making is a recipe for not only perpetuating the conflict, but exacerbating it as well. However, from the father’s perspective his submission that giving the mother sole parental responsibility and thus giving her the “upper-hand” in the context of this case is also of concern. This is, perhaps, the most difficult issue to determine in this case. Making an order for sole parental responsibility is potentially fraught with as many risks as making an order for equal shared parental responsibility. I note that the Family Consultant at paragraph 34 of her report did have some concerns about equal shared parental responsibility. My concerns about the immaturity of each parent makes whatever decision I make a potentially problematic one. On balance, I believe that the lesser of risks is presented by making an order for equal shared parental responsibility but, as recommended by the Family Consultant, requiring the parents to attend a parenting orders program and continuing to use the communication book in the meanwhile. I record here that to the extent that the mother’s case for sole parental responsibility was based on establishing family violence, I do not believe that she has discharged the onus on her in that regard. If there are concerns about the suitability of equal shared parental responsibility it arises because of the communication difficulties, lack of trust, and high level of conflict that exists between the parents. But it is these very issues that make the prospect of an order for sole parental responsibility that much more problematic. One can only hope that the parents’ maturity and experience as parents will increase with corresponding decreases in the level of acrimony between them, particularly after they have had the benefit of some education in this regard. I fully understand that there is the risk of further litigation arising out of an order for equal shared parental responsibility. However, I regard that as less of a risk than if I made an order for sole parental responsibility. Accordingly, I will make an order for equal shared responsibility.

I certify that the preceding forty-eight (48) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Altobelli FM

Associate:

Date: