Faheem & Habul
[2021] FedCFamC2F 414
•10 November 2021
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Faheem & Habul [2021] FedCFamC2F 414
File number: MLC 4921 of 2021 Judgment of: JUDGE O'SHANNESSY Date of judgment: 10 November 2021 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – interim parenting – spousal maintenance – allegations of family violence – appointment of independent children’s lawyer – psychiatric assessment of father ordered – further conciliation conference ordered. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2001 (Cth) r 7.01
Cases cited: Blatch v Archer (1774) 1 Cowp 63; 98 ER 969
Goode & Goode [2006] FLC ¶93-286
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8
Re K [1997] FamCA 21
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 52 Date of hearing: 10 November 2021 Place: Melbourne Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J Eley Solicitor for the Applicant: FJR Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr E Hall Solicitor for the Respondent: Aston Legal Group ORDERS
MLC 4921 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR FAHEEM
Applicant
AND: MS HABUL
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE O'SHANNESSY
DATE OF ORDER:
10 NOVEMBER 2021
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Parenting
1.Paragraph 1 of the Orders made on 7 July 2021 be discharged.
2.Paragraphs 2-6 of the Orders made on 7 July 2021 remain in full force and effect.
3.The Father is at liberty to provide via text message or email (but not social media) to trusted family or friends of his, photographs or videos of himself and the child, but none of the Mother, on the basis that those photographs would not be published or distributed any further.
4.The Father undertake a full psychiatric assessment and report by Dr B at his sole expense.
5.In the event the Father is unable to fund Dr B's report, then he sell his shares to fund such report, and is otherwise restrained from disposing of his shares.
6.Within 7 days, the Father provide written proof to the Mother's solicitors of his progress to date regarding the Mens Behavioural Change Program and the Father to provide written proof of completion within 7 days of completion.
7.Within 7 days, the Father enrol and complete a Post-Separation Parenting Program and provide the Mother's solicitors with written proof of completion within 7 days of completion.
8.Any expert reports and subpoenaed material obtained in the course of these proceedings be permitted to be provided to any and all other expert' reports in these proceedings, including any supervision reports, psychiatric assessments and family reports.
9.Both parties, the Father, Mr Faheem born in 1986, and the Mother, Ms Habul born in 1994, their servants and/or agents be and are hereby restrained by injunction from removing or attempting to remove or causing or permitting the removal of the X born in 2019 from the Commonwealth of Australia. This order ceases to have effect 2 years after the date on which it is made.
10.The Court requests that the Australian Federal Police give effect to this order by placing the name of the child on the Family Law Watch List in force at all points of international arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia and maintain the child's/children's name/s on the Family Law Watch List for the said period, until the Court orders its removal, or with the consent of all parties. This order ceases to have effect 2 years after the date on which it is made.
11.The Marshal and all officers of the Australian Federal Police and of the police forces of the various States and Territories are requested and empowered to take all necessary steps to give effect to these orders.
12.Pursuant to section 68L(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 the child, X born in 2019, be independently represented AND IT IS REQUESTED that Victoria Legal Aid arrange such separate representation and such arrangement be as soon as possible AND THAT:
(a)Forthwith upon appointment by Victoria Legal Aid, the Independent Children's Lawyer file a Notice of Address for Service; and
(b)Upon notification of such appointment, the parties (by their solicitors if represented) shall provide to the Independent Children's Lawyer copies of all relevant documents.
Property/Spousal Maintenance
13.Within 14 days the Father provide evidence to the Mother's solicitors of the status of his bank shares.
14.The Father keep the Mother informed of his employment status.
15.The application for periodic and retrospective lump sum maintenance is otherwise dismissed.
16.The parties and any lawyers on the record shall personally attend a Conciliation Conference on 9 February 2022 and 9:00am.
17.The parties and any lawyers on the record shall follow any directions from the Registrar convening the conference in relation to attendance in person, by Microsoft Teams or by telephone.
18.At least 14 days prior to the conference date, each party must:
(a)ensure that all documents required to be exchanged between parties pursuant to Chapter 6 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) have been exchanged;
(b)ensure that any private expert report that is relevant to the proceedings has been filed;
(c)provide to the Court by email to the relevant case manager at … and to the other party a single collated bundle of documents comprising:
(i)a Confidential Outline of Case (Dispute Resolution)
(ii)a detailed minute of Orders Sought;
(iii)details of any previous or current family violence orders;
(iv)a copy of any document exchanged between the parties which is directly relevant to an issue remaining in dispute (with relevant passages highlighted);
(v)particulars of any financial resource;
(vi)a valuation or market appraisal of any real estate or other asset the value of which is in dispute;
(vii)statements for, and where applicable, valuations of any superannuation interest;
(viii)written confirmation that the trustee of any fund that may be the subject of a splitting order has been afforded procedural fairness.
Procedural
19.The matter be adjourned to 11 March 2022 at 9:30am for Interim Defended Hearing at the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
20.The parties may inspect only and the parties' legal representatives and the Independent Children's Lawyer (if appointed) may inspect and photocopy the documents produced by the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing in response to the Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk filed in these proceedings.
21.The parties and their legal representatives are restrained from providing a copy of the documents or disclosing their contents to any other person without an order of the Court.
AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.The Mother has no current intention for the child to undergo the ceremony of baptism and the Mother is obligated to notify the Father were that to change.
B.In the event the Family Report is not available prior to 11 March 2022, the parties' solicitors will notify the Court by email to adjourn the Interim Defended Hearing date to a time when the Family Report is available.
C.The Court is informed that all issues as to valuation, disclosure and procedural fairness have been attended to and the matter is ready to proceed to a Conciliation Conference.
D.Prior to the Conciliation Conference, the lawyer for each represented party must provide to his or her client, and to each other party, a notice indicating whether the party is in receipt of legal aid funding and, if not, providing particulars of:
(a)the total costs and disbursements incurred by the party in the proceeding to date;
(b)an estimate of the anticipated costs expected to be incurred in each remaining stage of the proceeding; and
(c)an estimate of the likely duration of the final hearing and the total anticipated costs and disbursements expected to be incurred for the remainder of the proceeding.
E.The Confidential Outline of Case (Dispute Resolution) is a confidential without prejudice document prepared for the purpose of the Conciliation Conference only. It is not to be filed or kept with the Court file after the conclusion of the conference.
F.The information produced is confidential and cannot be disclosed to any other person without an order of this Court.
G.Penalties may apply pursuant to s.112AD and s.121 of the Family Law Act 1975 if the information is disseminated other than as ordered in these proceedings.
H.Pursuant to ss.65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in Annexure A and these particulars are included in these orders.
I.If in any proceedings there are allegations of family violence and the provisions of section 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 apply (see attached Family Violence Information Sheet), any unrepresented party will not be permitted to personally cross-examine the other party/parties.
J.Affected unrepresented parties may apply to the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme ("the Scheme") for representation but any such application must be made at least 12 weeks prior to the final hearing.
K.Further information about the legislation and the Scheme can be found at Part 4 of the attached Family Violence Information Sheet.
L.If s102NA applies and a party becomes unrepresented after trial directions have been made, that party is required to promptly advise the Court.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Faheem & Habul has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENTJUDGE O’SHANNESSY
These are the settled ex tempore reasons. Repetition and grammar are corrected and some paragraphs reordered. I will deal firstly with the welfare of the child X who is aged nearly 2 (‘the child’). Mr Faheem (‘the Father’) is 35. Ms Habul (‘The Mother’) is 27. They commenced a relationship before they were married, but I am not sure whether they actually cohabited as man and wife prior to marriage. They were married in 2016 and then separated in March 2021. The Father issued proceedings in May 2021. The Mother joined issue with a Response filed in July 2021 and sought spousal maintenance.
Considerable time was taken to day whilst the Court and the parties and their counsel listened to the recordings that form part and parcel of, as it turns out, the hand-up brief that the Father was served with a week ago on 3 November 2021. The same transcript was tendered initially marked for identification (MFI) and now M1.
That transcript shows an angry and emotionally labile man. I do not speak Arabic, and nor do counsel. In fact, the document should not be called a transcript. It should be called notes of a recording. Certain passages are highlighted in yellow and it is those passages that will inform the criminal law proceedings that the father now faces and the settled reasons will recite the two charges that he faces. He was charged on 20 October 2021 but he was interviewed about that transcript on 15 August 2021.
The Father was interviewed by the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing, which I will refer to as Child Protection, on 4 June 2021 and again on 18 June 2021. In regard to the issue of family violence, when first interviewed, the Father responded that the couple would have normal couple arguments and the Father denied ever yelling or raising his voice to the Mother and denied ever abusing the Mother physically, verbally or emotionally or controlling her life. He denied exposing the child to any of those arguments.
On 18 June 2021 he was interviewed again and he again denied that he ever yelled, raised his voice, threatened or controlled the Mother. I am not aware of exactly when he first came to listen to those recordings, but I infer that he was aware of them on 18 June 2021.
The allegations of serious family violence against him are denied entirely by the Father and he posits that he has been the victim of family violence himself and paragraphs 11 and 29-32 of his affidavit of 3 May 2021 state:
11.I was subjected to constant belittling and control by the Respondent and her mother which exacerbated further upon the birth of X.
…
29.Throughout the relationship, there have been numerous occasions where the Respondent has been physically and verbally violent towards me and during these times where she has tried to twist the story of what is actually occurring during the argument. The Respondent had a habit of creating issues and arguments and then trying to tum the story around to make it as if I was the party who was being abusive.
30.An example of this was during an argument we had in January this year where the Respondent was being physically and verbally abusive. During this argument, the Respondent ripped my shirt, scrapped my arm and pushed and shoved me. The police arrived that night took photographs and spoke to both of us and decided to take out an Intervention Order against the Respondent to protect myself and X.
31.I eventually had the Intervention Order withdrawn as the Respondent spent days begging me to have it removed and promised me and my parents that she would change and stop her erratic behaviour.
32.Another example of the Respondent's indirect family violence was when she came into the Matrimonial home on 20 April 2021 where all of my belongings remained (after she had moved out and already taken all her items). The Respondent removed all the furniture and household items including furniture and basic items that I needed such as the fridge, washing machine, all the kitchenware and every single item in the home besides my clothing.
33.I view this as family violence as the Respondent did not require these items as she has them at the place she is residing, that is, her mother's home. It appears that the Respondent acted in the way purely out of her controlling behaviour. She is aware that I required these items for my day-to-day living.
The circumstance that the Mother attends the then rented home that he was living in, and effectively enters a home that was no longer where she was living, and removes all of the contents may well be family violence, or at least high-handed behaviour. He says that save for his clothes all of the contents of the home were removed.
The family violence that the Mother alleges that she and the children have suffered is set out in considerable detail and has a compelling nature to its narrative in the affidavit of 6 October 2021. It is corroborated by the affidavit of her mother Ms C. Because of the pressing time I will not recite the allegations. But the allegations of family violence cover a considerable period of time and a considerable period of alleged violent activities, including sexual violence, physical violence, abuse and exposing the child to yelling and screaming and there is specific detail in regard to each of those matters.
The recordings and the tone recorded in those recordings with the occasional use of English in them also corroborate the Mother's very serious allegations. The allegations include threat to kill or threat to cause serious harm, and they are corroborated by the police notes of a recording prepared by a Leading Detective Senior Constable and by this afternoon we became aware that not only is that person a police officer but is also an accredited interpreter.
The Father objected to reliance upon those notes on the basis that they were not accepted as reliable. I read those notes and then ruled that they were admissible. The Father's position then was that they should be given little weight. In the circumstances I am unable to give them little weight. I am compelled by the combination of the circumstances of having listened to the recording and the fact that the Victorian Police give them such weight that they found or assist the founding of serious charges against the Father to give them considerable weight.
I place significant weight in terms of the weight to be given to the allegations against the Father, on the fact that the Father has been aware of the allegations or the fact of the recordings since June 2021 and was provided with the transcripts on the day before Melbourne Cup Day and then was also sent the transcript very recently.
The Father has chosen not to put his account or his version of what is said, particularly at the crucial parts of that transcript. He has chosen not to do that and the inference I draw is that he has chosen not to do that because, were he to do so, it would not assist his case, that is, the Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8 authority or the other authority Blatch v Archer (1774) 1 Cowp 63; 98 ER 969 that the weight to be given to evidence relates to the power of a party to themselves give evidence and put it before the court. So that assists me give the notes of the transcript with all its imperfections that it may have some significant weight.
However, it is clear from listening to those notes of transcript that it is not an entirely accurate transcript, and nor does it purport to be. However, it is sufficient to demonstrate that there is substance to the Mother's allegations.
On an interim hearing, I am attempting to follow paragraph 82 of Goode & Goode [2006] FLC ¶93-286. On an interim hearing, save in exceptional circumstances, I cannot make findings of fact. The situation is, however, that all untested allegations are not of the same weight. I must give some weight to the Mother's allegations. I cannot dismiss them in the circumstances of simply saying they are mere untested allegations.
The dispute between the parties comes down to whether there should be a continuation of the existing supervised regime or whether that should move to unsupervised time on the very limited basis as set out in the father's application.
On the Father's case, the limited time that he seeks is eminently sensible. There is very significant, important evidence before me, and that is the two reports of D Family Services who supervised the Father’s time with the child.
The Mother has filed a detailed affidavit where she sought to challenge or qualify certain observations of those reports. However, those qualifications that the Mother asserts do not detract from the significance of the actual observations of the Father and his daughter. The dynamics of the Father and his daughter in the circumstances of her age and the fact that she had not seen her Father for many months is very significant. The child is relaxed and enjoys her Father's company. What is significant for me is that the many observations of the supervisor are then collated and put into a document where there is a summary given. The summary, of course, is by Ms D. She did not make the observations. Nonetheless, in this case it is convenient to refer to both summaries as they accurately reflect the many detailed observations of the report.
The reports cover 10 occasions of supervised time and demonstrate to me that the Father deeply loves the child and is very attentive to her care and, at times when he is emotionally regulated, the child is not only of no harm in his care but would benefit from that relationship.
My concern, having listened to the recordings and considered the observations of his treating psychologist, is the potential for the father to become emotionally dysregulated. On the Mother's case that dysregulation is the trigger for the behaviour of the threats to kill and threats to cause serious injury, if that is what he said. I do not find, and I cannot find on this hearing, that is what he said on the balance of probabilities. However, there is significant evidence corroborating that that is what he said as alleged by the Mother and her mother.
That causes me to have concerns that at times of emotional dysregulation the Father's behaviour may, not will, but may interfere with what is otherwise a lovely relationship between a Father and a daughter.
The other aspect that I take into account is that on the Mother's case, and it has substantial corroborating evidence, there is a real issue as to the Mother's anxiety and concern about two things:
(1)Firstly, coming into contact at all with the Father, including on changeovers; and
(2)Secondly, her concern about the Father's ability to care for the child.
I notice and place some weight on the circumstance that follow the release of the D Report observations. The Mother insightfully changed her position from no time at all, which was her position in her amended application once she changed solicitors and counsel as was announced to me on 8 October 2021, to seeking the continuation of that time.
That time is a considerable financial impost upon the Father. However, it does bear repeating that that supervision demonstrates that the Father is capable of caring very well for the child and that she, in all the circumstances, relates very well to him. I am satisfied that there is a real benefit to the child of having a relationship with her father.
The issue for me is in the circumstances of section 60CC(2A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (‘the Act’), that is, that I must give greater weight to the safety or protective primary consideration than the consideration I have just referred to.
In all the circumstances, I find it is in the child's best interest that the existing arrangements with the supervision continue. That is a significant financial impost upon the Father and an impost on the Mother's life. I note that it is to the credit of the parties the manner in which they were able to make arrangements to suit, or at least to minimise the inconvenience to all of them, to ensure that that time occurs on at least a weekly basis and it has occurred more frequently than that, and often twice weekly.
The benefit to the child of promoting that relationship with the Father is significant, but I cannot find on this hearing that it is to the child's benefit that that move at this stage to unsupervised time.
I am concerned at the impact upon the Mother at this stage when the Father's psychiatric circumstances have a considerable question mark over them. The Father's psychiatric or mental and psychological stability have question marks over them because of, firstly, the allegations that the Mother makes and the behaviour that is described; secondly, the tone in the recordings; and, thirdly, the treating psychologist's report.
In regard to the treating psychologist's report, I agree with Mr Eley that that report is admissible pursuant to Rule 7.01(1)(a)(i) and (iii) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2001 as a report of a treater. I acknowledge Mr Hall's point that it is not on affidavit and that it does not demonstrate the instructions or the awareness of the primary obligation to the Court.
Nonetheless, I find the document to be admissible and in considering the Father’s psychological and psychiatric state, including whether or not there is an advantage or requirement that it be examined by (‘Dr B’), I place significant weight on it. So the existing time arrangements should continue: not move to unsupervised.
Moving, then, to the other disputes between the parties. There should be an examination by Dr B of the Father at the Father's expense. In the event that the Father is able to fund an examination at a time proximate to his examination of the mother then that should occur. If he is unable to fund that report and I am unable to find that he can, then that will not occur. It is quite clear that the Mother cannot fund that report.
The report of Dr B should be undertaken with him being briefed with the section 67Z response documents, both C1 and C2, and all of the material filed by the parties and the hand-up brief exhibit.
Moving to orders sought numbers 7, 8, 9 and 10: that is, the undertaking of post-separation parenting course. The Mother has not undertaken a post-separation parenting course. Both parents should undertake a post-separation parenting course. That is not a criticism of either parent, but the reality is they will simply learn a significant amount, including about what the other parent is learning, by undertaking that course.
The Watch List order should be made and I will make that for two years. It can be discharged later if appropriate. There should be an Independent Children’s Lawyer (‘ICL’) appointed on the basis of the allegations of child abuse, and that is allegations, not findings by exposure to family violence. That is the first category of Re K [1997] FamCA 21.
I now come to the spousal maintenance issue. The law is that I only make a spousal maintenance order, if and only if, a party is unable to support themselves by any reason, including the care of the child. It is not disputed that the Mother is unable to support herself because of her obligation to care for the child at this time. It is not suggested that the Mother does not have an earning capacity. But that she cannot exercise it at the moment given her obligation to care for the child.
The real issue is whether the Father currently has or should have an earning capacity such that would enable him to pay maintenance in addition to any child support. The significant document is those documents that relate to the father changing his employment from full-time to part-time.
The Mother's case is that the father retains an earning capacity to the tune of $160,000 to $180,000 before tax and that, with necessary economies, with that income he could pay the $600 per week sought. Indeed, that the Mother's need is greater than that now that child support has been reduced.
The nub of that earning capacity turns on the paragraphs 73 of the Father's affidavit and the exhibit to his affidavit of 29 October 2021 being the report of his psychologist of Dr E (‘Dr E’). A relevant paragraph of that report is set out below:
In my view Mr Faheem needs time off work to deal with tl1e stress and anxiety that the separation proceedings are causing him. He has explained that due to the nature of his work, mistakes are not tolerable. I have suggested he does reduced hours for the next few months with a view to review this periodically. Much of his mental health will be influenced by the ongoing legal issues he is dealing with.
From my dealings with Mr Faheem, I have no concerns about his ability to parent and nurture his daughter. If the court deems it appropriate, I can provide psychological and parenting capacity and child abuse potential testing for Mr Faheem.
Because of the timing of the Father's change of employment status from full-time to part-time, the Mother's lawyers are very sceptical about the bona fides of that change. That scepticism can be readily understood. At the time the Father appeared before me when an adjournment was sought to enable the Father to respond to late filed material, he was in full-time employment with a base salary of about $130,000 plus super plus bonus, if any.
Then, sometime in the week of 11 October 2021, he again consulted Dr E who he had previously consulted in 2020. Dr E's report is exhibit -3 and I have accepted that into evidence notwithstanding that it is not on affidavit. Dr E's affidavit recites that in the doctor's view the Father needs time off work to deal with the stress and anxiety that the separation proceedings are causing him.
As I have already recited, Dr E's observations as to the psychological fragility of the Father are corroborated by his lability in the recordings and the Mother's allegations. I cannot dismiss that. The statement that the Father is alleged to have made (in December 2020) and referred to by the Mother's counsel is:
If she wants to play the law, it is up her. I will play the law, too.
So then dealing with the spousal maintenance issue, it is not seriously disputed that absent full-time work the Father does not have the capacity to pay periodic spousal maintenance. The expenses claimed by each party are not unreasonable. On the Father's current income he simply does not have the capacity to pay spousal maintenance in addition to marginal rates of income tax, including Medicare levy and child support as assessed.
I am unable to find that the change to part time work is a sham. I am unable to find that he has a capacity to pay spousal maintenance at this time. I have pondered that those Bank shares that he owns, (we are not sure how far between 0 and 41 it is that would have a market value of roughly $4000), should be sold and applied to the Mother as spousal maintenance. In the circumstances where I am compelling him to fund in the first instance Dr B's report, I am not prepared to do so.
I will order that in the event that the Father is unable to fund Dr B's report, he is to sell those shares and he is not otherwise to dispose of them. He is also ordered to provide evidence within 14 days to the Mother's solicitors of the status of those shares so it can be identified just which ones are his and which ones are not. So the application for periodic and retrospective lump sum maintenance is dismissed.
I am pondering the matters that Mr Hall sensibly raised about case management; that is whether the family report should be put off. The internal reports have a degree of flexibility. The interviews for the report may be undertaken before Dr B's report is available and not necessarily. It would be greatly to the advantage of both parties, but particularly the Father, if Dr B's report was available to the parties before the family report writer is to interview the family for the purpose of the family report. However, that may not be. It is likely that the report writer would delay releasing the report until they had Dr B's report.
I am also ruling that the matter should return to Court on a further interim basis when I will have the assistance of the family report, Dr B's report and an ICL where the issue of whether the Father's time should move to unsupervised should be considered. Further, my Associate has found a date for a further conciliation conference. I will give the parties another conciliation conference at public expense. It is 2 February 2022 at 9.00am.
My Associates will find a suitable date for this matter to return in March, that is six months before the final hearing. Given the child's age, I am determining that, as at this point in time and until there is further evidence before the Court, that it is in the child's interest that the relationship with the Father is pursued and is of benefit to her but supervised. However, from now until September is a very long time and it may not be in the child's interests that that should continue for that time.
I will also make an order that the father provide notice to the Mother of any change of his employment status.
I will discharge the order for equal shared parental responsibility. That is not a criticism of the order that was made or in any way a finding that it should not have been made at the time that it was. However, in the circumstances that have arisen since, including serious criminal charges, it is not appropriate at this point in time that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility.
The other aspect that I did not deal with is that the father is anxious, I now understand, in the context of the mother being a baptised Christian of the Roman Catholic stream or faith, that the child may be baptised. The Mother has told me through her counsel and I accept that she has no immediate plan for such a ceremony and does not intend to carry out such a plan before final hearing, and certainly that would mean not before we return in March.
So I will simply note in the orders that the Mother has no current intention to have the child undergo the ceremony of baptism and I will note that. She would be obligated to notify the Father were that to change. But I accept that she is not going to do that and do not see the need to restrain her “just in case”, in all the circumstances.
I do not intend to vary the IVO to make an order inconsistent with it to the extent of permitting publication on Facebook. However, I will make an order inconsistent to the extent that the Father is at liberty to provide by text message or email to trusted family or friends, photographs or videos of he and the child (but none of the Mother) on the basis that they would not be published or distributed any further.
In other words, the modern equivalent of the Father showing trusted friends or relatives what would once have been a pocketbook of favourite photos of the child and particularly in COVID-19 times when it may be more difficult to actually share such happy photographs. He is going to be at liberty to do that via text message or email (but not Facebook or social media) and these are my reasons why it is proper that an order inconsistent with the final intervention order be made.
I certify that the preceding fifty-two (52) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge O'Shannessy. Associate:
Dated: 22 November 2021
0