Flamel and Flamel - [2009] FMCAfam 1262

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FLAMEL & FLAMEL

[2009] FMCAfam 1262

FAMILY LAW – Parenting – father’s application to spend time with two children aged 9 and 5 – where the children spent regular time including overnight time with the father between separation in 2006 and July 2008 – where the children have spent no overnight time with the father since July 2008 – whether the father’s alcohol consumption and past illicit drug use raise a concern about his parenting capacity – whether supervision of the father’s time with the children is required – whether overnight time should resume.

Family Law Act 1975, ss.60CC, 61DA

Mazorski & Albright (2007) 37 FamLR 518

Applicant:

MR FLAMEL

Respondent:

MS FLAMEL

File Number:

NCC 2544 of 2007

Judgment of:

Terry FM

Hearing dates:

6, 23 & 30 July 2009

Date of Last Submission:

30 July 2009

Delivered at:

Darwin

Delivered on:

10 December 2009

REPRESENTATION

Applicant:

In person

Respondent:

In person

ORDERS

That the children [X] born [in] 2000 and [Y] born [in] 2004 live with the mother.

UNTIL FURTHER ORDER

That the mother have sole responsibility for making decisions about the children’s treatment by a psychologist or medical practitioner and shall keep the father advised of the name of any such professional person who she engages, the dates of all appointments that the children have with such a professional and shall provide him with copies of all reports she obtains from such professionals.
That the mother and father otherwise have equal shared parental responsibility for the children.
That the father spend time with the children:
(i)for four (4) hours on either Saturday or Sunday each weekend as agreed between the parties and failing agreement from 10.00am to 2.00pm on Sunday;
(ii)from 4.00pm to 7.00pm each Thursday, (save for 24 December 2009);
(iii)for four (4) hours on Father’s Day 2010 as agreed between the parties and failing agreement between 10.00am and 2.00pm;
(iv)from 10.00am to 2.00pm on Christmas Day 2009;
(v)at such additional or alternate times as may be agreed between the parties.
That the father’s time with the children pursuant to orders (4)(i) and (ii) shall continue during the school holidays save that the time shall be suspended for up to half of each school holiday period if the mother gives the father written notice in accordance with Order (6) of her intention to take the children away for a holiday.
That the written notice must be given no later than seven (7) days prior to the commencement of the Christmas 2009 school holidays and no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the commencement of the each other school holiday period during 2010 and the time taken by mother for a holiday with the children shall not include Christmas Day except with the agreement of the father.
That the father’s time with the children shall be suspended on Mother’s Day 2010.
That the father may have telephone communication with the children at 4.30pm each Wednesday and at 4.30pm on each of the children’s birthdays and on the father’s birthday if the children are not otherwise spending time with the father on those days with the calls to be made to the pre-paid mobile telephone delivered to the mother pursuant to Order (3) of the orders made on 10 December 2008.
The mother shall ensure that the mobile phone is charged, switched on, in a mobile service area and available to the children at the time designated in order (8) for telephone communication.
That each parent shall keep the other advised of their landline and mobile telephone number and their residential address and advise the other of any change to those details.
That unless otherwise agreed between the parties and provided that the father has a current driver’s licence, for the purposes of changeover the father shall pick the children up from [omitted] Park at the commencement of his time with them and return them to [omitted] Park at the conclusion of his time with them.
That during any period when the father does not have a current driver’s licence the mother or her nominee shall drop the children off at the front gate of the father’s home at the commencement of his time with the children and pick them up from the front gate of the father’s home at the conclusion of his time with the children.
That the father shall not approach the mother or attempt to discuss family law matters with the mother when dropping off or picking up the children.
That each party is restrained and an injunction is granted restraining them from denigrating the other party or any member of the other parties’ family to or in the presence of the children.
That the father is restrained and an injunction is granted restraining him from consuming alcohol or using non prescription drugs during his time with the children or for a period of twelve (12) hours prior to the commencement of his time with the children.
That notwithstanding any other provision of these orders, the father be at liberty to attend events at the children’s schools normally attended by parents.

AND IT IS ORDERED

That the father shall forthwith enrol in a “Parenting after Separation” course and attend all sessions of the course.
That the father shall promptly engage with a drug and alcohol counsellor and attend all sessions with the counsellor as recommended by the counsellor and follow the advice and directions of the counsellor.
That the mother may request the father in writing no more than once each month to undergo chain of custody urinalysis to screen for the presence of illegal drugs. The father shall complete the testing within forty eight (48) hours of being requested to do so by the mother and provide a copy of the results to the mother as soon as they are available.
That the matter is adjourned to a date to be advised in May 2010 for further consideration.

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
NEWCASTLE

NCC 2544 of 2007

MR FLAMEL

Applicant

And

MS FLAMEL

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

Mr Flamel and Ms Flamel are unable to agree about future parenting arrangements for their children, [X], 9 and [Y], 5.
The children have lived with the mother since the parties separated in June 2006 and there was no suggestion that this should change. The issue in dispute was the amount of time the children should spend with the father in the future.
For most of the period between June 2006 and July 2008 the children spent time with the father from Friday until Sunday each alternate weekend and for about three hours each Thursday evening. This stopped suddenly and completely in July 2008, and the father commenced court proceedings.
The mother raised concerns in the court proceedings about the father’s alcohol use and illicit drug use and the first interim orders, made in October 2008, provided for the children to spend time with the father for four hours each Saturday, with a proviso that his partner be present whenever the children were with him.
In December 2008 this time was extended by consent to be from 9.00am to 5.00pm on Saturday and on Sunday each alternate weekend and from 4.00pm to 7.00pm each Thursday, but still with the proviso that the father’s partner be present.
At the final hearing the father sought orders which would see his overnight time restored and any requirement for supervision removed. He denied being a problem drinker or being an illicit drug user. He said that it was ridiculous for the mother to suggest that the children might be at risk in his care in the future when they had never come to any harm between June 2006 and July 2008 when they regularly spent full weekends with him.
The mother opposed the reintroduction of overnight time or extended unsupervised time. She continued to maintain that the father had a serious alcohol problem and she was unconvinced that he had ceased using illicit drugs.
The mother said that she had always been worried when the children went to spend time with the father between 2006 and 2008. She rejected any suggestion that she was making spurious complaints about the father’s alcohol and drug use to justify an otherwise unreasonable opposition to him spending overnight and unsupervised time with the children.

The Evidence

In the father’s case I read his initiating application filed on 25 August 2008, and his affidavits filed on 25 August 2008 and 10 December 2008.
The father’s general practitioner Dr M gave oral evidence.
In the mother’s case I read her response filed on 24 October 2008, and her affidavits filed on 24 October 2008, 27 May 2009 and 1 July 2009.
Ms Lara Turley prepared the Family Report in March/April 2009.
Ms Turley has a Bachelor of Social Work and commenced working as a Family Consultant at the court in Newcastle in 2008. Prior to that

Ms Turley had worked for many years for the Department of Community Services as it then was known, including in the area of child protection.
Ms Turley’s report was thorough and her conclusions carefully reasoned. Ms Turley gave oral evidence at the hearing and was cross-examined. I place weight on her evidence.
All of the witnesses were cross-examined.

Background

The father is from Scotland and the mother from Australia. They met in London in 1995, when they were about 27 & 21 respectively, and lived together in London until 1997.
In 1997 the mother returned to Australia. The father followed her to Australia, and the parties have lived here ever since. They married in 2002.
There are two children of the relationship, [X], born in 2000 and [Y], born in 2004.
Both the mother and the father used illicit drugs and indulged in frequent alcohol consumption and binge drinking on weekends while they lived in London. After they commenced living in Australia this lifestyle continued. It apparently continued after the birth of the children. From time to time during the relationship the parents engaged in yelling and screaming and some physical violence toward each other. The children were exposed to this behaviour.
On 9 & 10 June 2006 the parties had a violent dispute. The mother said that during dinner on the Monday night the father was drinking and coming down off drugs he had used over the weekend, and that he kept abusing and insulting her and squirted tomato sauce over her in the presence of the children who were very upset.
The mother said that the following day the father was again aggressive in the evening. When the mother told him that she had not organised anything for dinner he punched a hole in the microwave and then the wall. He then pushed the mother over and pulled her into the bedroom by her hair. The mother said that she was crying hysterically and the children were frightened and distraught.
The mother said that the father paced up and down for a while and then grabbed [Y], aged 22 months and said that he was taking [Y] and the mother could keep [X]. The mother said that she was able to talk the father around and eventually put the boys to bed. The parties separated the next day.
I accept the mother’s evidence about what occurred at the time of separation. She gave a detailed description of the events and I found her to be a generally credible witness in respect of factual matters. [X], who was almost 6 at the time of separation, told Ms Turley about his parents fighting on the day of separation. He said that he was yelling “Stop it, stop it” and said that the father picked up [Y]. [X] said that he tried to get [Y] off the father and the father picked him ([X]) up and threw him on the bed.
Sadly, [X] told Ms Turley in March 2009 that:
“Dad said it was all our fault him and Mum breaking up. Well all my fault, because [Y] was only a baby so it couldn’t be his fault.”[1]
[1] Family Report paragraph 93
The mother took the children and went to live with her parents. The father began spending time with the children regularly not long afterwards. The parties attended mediation and reached an agreement that the father would spend time with the children each alternate weekend from Friday until Sunday and for three hours each Thursday. This commenced about four months after separation.
Concurrent with the father spending time with the children however conflict between the parties also flared up regularly. The mother said that she endured “12 months of abuse through text messages, phone calls, stalking, verbal abuse and harassment” but she did not give any further details about this conduct. She called the police on three occasions in 2006 to complain about the father but the police records which were tendered do not disclose anything of serious concern.
The father’s neighbours called the police in February 2007 after the mother and members of her family entered the father’s home when he was not there and removed furniture. This incident still rankles with the father, who brought it up at the hearing.
On 23 May 2007 an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) was made against the father for the protection of the mother for a period of twelve months. It was made by consent and without admissions. It is not clear from the material available to me why the mother made the application, but the father claimed that it was originally made in February 2007 after he complained about the mother’s actions in entering his home and taking the furniture.
Attached to the AVO was a document setting out the father’s agreed times with the children, namely each alternate weekend from after school Friday until 4.00pm Sunday and each Thursday from 4.30pm to 7.00pm. The father said that he consented without admissions to the AVO because the terms concerning his time with the children were attached.
The mother said that after the AVO was made “things settled down a bit.” The father spent time with the children more or less in accordance with the document attached to the AVO until 11 July 2008.
The parties had agreed that the children would spend time with the father overnight on 10 and 11 July 2008. They subsequently argued over who would in fact look after the children on 11 July 2008 and about whether the children could stay an extra night with the father.
The mother did not agree to the extra night and went to the father’s home on 11 July to collect the children. When she got there an unpleasant scene erupted in front of the children, with the parents arguing, the mother yelling and the father attempting to slam the door on the mother and catching her foot in the doorway.
The father eventually allowed the distressed children to go with the mother. However not long after the mother arrived home the father appeared at her front gate. Another unpleasant scene occurred, with the father pushing his way into the mother’s home, the mother and father pushing each other and both parents yelling and screaming, all either witnessed or heard by the children.
The scene ended after the father picked up [Y] and the mother said that she was calling the police. The father then put [Y] down and left. The police attended at the home and later applied for an AVO on the mother’s behalf. On 9 September 2008 an AVO was made for two years.
After 11 July 2008 the mother refused to allow the children to spend time with the father. It was the father’s firm belief that the mother stopped him seeing the children after this time not because of the conflict on 11 July 2008 or because she had concerns about his alcohol use, drug use or any other issue but because on 10 July 2008 he had given her a letter informing her that he intended to commence family law proceedings and seek additional time with the children.
The father filed an application on 22 August 2008. The mother filed a response making allegations among other things about the father’s alcohol use, drug use, gambling, and denigration of her and her family.
On 28 October 2008 interim consent orders were made for the father to spend time with the children each Saturday between 10.00am and 2.00pm, subject to the conditions that he “cause to be present at all times Ms M [his partner]” and that he “not consume alcohol during his time with the children or for a period of twelve hours prior to the commencement of his time with the children.”
On 10 December 2008 the father’s time with the children was extended by consent to be from 9.00am to 5.00pm on Saturday and Sunday each alternate week and each Thursday from 4.00pm to 7.00pm with the conditions about the presence of Ms M and about alcohol consumption remaining.
These orders continued in place until the hearing commenced on 6 July 2009, but the father’s time with the children during 2009 frequently did not occur because of the unavailability of Ms M.
On 30 July 2009 interim orders were made providing for the father to spend time with the children from 10.00am to 2.00pm each Sunday, with the condition about the father’s alcohol consumption remaining but the condition about Ms M being present removed. These orders have continued in force pending the handing down of this decision.

The parties current circumstances

The father commenced a relationship with Ms M in 2006. This relationship appears to have broken down during 2009 and at the time of the hearing in July 2009 the father and Ms M were not sharing a residence. The father was not ready to concede that the relationship was completely over but he conceded that he could not rely on Ms M to be present in the future during any time he spent with the children.
The father is a self-employed [omitted]. He has had some health problems over the years and at the time of the hearing was not working full time.
The mother has re-partnered with Mr S, a [occupation omitted]. Mr S has two children from a previous relationship who live with the family on Mr S’s days off. The birth of the mother’s child to Mr S was imminent during the hearing in July 2009.
The mother has been employed recently as a [omitted].
At the time of the hearing the parties were living two kilometres apart on the Central Coast. The mother said that she intended to look for more spacious accommodation once her new baby was born but intended to continue living in the same area.

The children’s best interests

In deciding whether to make particular parenting orders about the children, I must treat their best interests as the paramount consideration.
Sub-sections.60CC(2) and (3) of the Family Law Act set out the considerations to which I must have regard in order to determine the children’s best interests.
The primary considerations in s.60CC(2) are as follows:
“a)The benefit to the children of having a meaningful relationship with both of the children’s parents; and
b)The need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.”
The children have a meaningful relationship with their mother and they will continue to do so, whatever the outcome of the proceedings.
The children currently have a relationship with their father which is “important, significant and valuable to [them]” [2] The father has however only been able to spend some fairly restricted periods of time with the children recently, and his importance in the children’s lives will diminish if he is only able to spend short periods of time or supervised periods of time with them in the future.
[2] Mazorski & Albright (2007) 37 FamLR 518.
Orders which allow the father to spend overnight time and unsupervised time with the children in the future will at least lay a foundation for the children to maintain a meaningful relationship with their father. However a meaningful relationship may not be maintained even if this kind of time is ordered if the father is indeed a problem drinker or an illicit drug user. Moreover the children’s safety must be the first priority, and if I ultimately conclude that the father’s drinking is likely to place the children at risk of inadequate care or at risk of actual harm, it would not be appropriate to order that overnight time and unsupervised time occur.

As to s.60CC(2)(b) I do not consider that the children are likely to be exposed to family violence in the separate care of either of their parents, but on 11 July 2008 the children were exposed to family violence when the parents came into conflict. Given the history of the parent’s relationship such events could occur again. Orders which limit the chances of the parents coming into contact with each other at changeover are to be preferred.
I do not consider that either parent is likely to abuse the children (as abuse is defined in the Family Law Act).
There was no evidence that either parent had ever neglected the children in the past. There is no likelihood of the mother neglecting them in the future. If the father has a serious problem with alcohol or drugs this could lead to the children being neglected, but this issue is better considered in the context of considering the father’s capacity to provide for the children’s needs.
I now turn to the additional considerations in s.60CC(3).
I must consider any views expressed by the children and any factors (such as the children’s maturity and level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the children’s views.
The father insisted that [X] and [Y] both wanted to spend overnight time with him. The mother questioned whether the children did in fact strongly desire this or whether they were simply asking for it because of pressure from the father.
The Family Report provided some objective evidence about the children’s views.
Ms Turley spoke to [X] in March 2009. She said that:
“[X] is aware of his father’s spending time proposal. In response to this [X] said: ‘He’s putting in our head we want to stay the night’ and ‘Stop putting things in our head. Stop trying to get us to stay.’ The writer then clarified with [X] whether he wanted to spend overnight time with the father and [X] answered, “Maybe. Yes. 1 or 2 nights.”[3]
[3] Family Report paragraph 94
It is difficult to assess where [X]’s preferences lie. It was Ms Turley’s opinion that he was torn between his parents and that both had sought to inappropriately influence him.
As to [Y] (aged four and a half at the time of the interview) Ms Turley reported that:
“[Y] said that he is ‘happy’ at the mother’s and ‘happy’ at the father’s and that he did not have any worries or concerns in either household. When [Y] was asked if he would like to have sleepovers at the father’s house, [Y] smiled and said very loudly “Yes”.[4]
[4] Family Report paragraph 103
I accept that [Y]’s views are genuinely held.
I must consider the nature of the children’s relationship with each of their parents and any other significant persons.
Ms Turley’s report provided some objective information about the children’s relationship with their parents. As to the father Ms Turley said that:
“In observation between the child and the father, [X] was observed to have a very positive and loving relationship with his father. [X] was observed to actively engage in play and conversation with his father. [X] advised the father and sought comfort from the father when he hurt his knee on a toy. [X] affectionately farewelled the father at the conclusion of the spending time arrangement.”[5]
[5] Family Report paragraph 98
As to [Y] Ms Turley reported that:
“In observation between the child and the father, [Y] initiated a significant amount of close physical contact with the father, sitting on his lap and placing his arm around his father. [Y] appeared very happy in the company of the father and actively engaged the father in play and verbal conversation. [Y] sought assistance from the father to operate a toy.”[6]
[6] Family Report paragraph 107.
Ms Turley observed both children to have a close and loving relationship with their mother and both to engage positively with the mother’s partner Mr S. Ms M did not attend the report interviews.
I must consider the willingness and ability of each of the children’s parents to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the children and the other parent.
The father questioned the mother’s willingness and ability to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the children and himself. He pointed to her failure to involve him in decisions about the children after separation and to her arbitrarily (in his view) refusing to allow him to spend time with the children after 11 July 2008, even to the extent of refusing to allow him to see or speak to the children on Father’s Day.
It was clear during the hearing that the mother did struggle with the issue of facilitating and encouraging a close and continuing relationship between the children and their father. On the one hand she acknowledged that the children enjoyed spending time with their father and on the other hand she was concerned about his drinking and also clearly felt some anger about the level of child support he was paying.
I would not rate as high the father’s willingness and ability to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the children and their mother either. He harbours resentment toward her about a diverse range of post-separation matters such as her entering his house in February 2007 without his consent and her refusing (in his view arbitrarily) to allow him to spend time with the children after 11 July 2008.
I must consider the likely effect of any change in the children’s circumstances, including the likely effect of separation of the children from:
i)either of their parents; or
ii)any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child) with whom they have been living.
If I make the orders sought by the father and the children resume spending overnight time with him, this will represent a change for the children in comparison to the arrangements which have been in place now for more than twelve months.
The children are 9 and 5 and Ms Turley observed a good relationship between the children and the father. I am satisfied that the children would cope emotionally with overnight time if it were re-introduced. Provided that the children are properly cared for when with the father and are not exposed to the father using illicit drugs or drinking excessively and provided that the father refrains from denigrating the mother or her family to the children and refrains from putting pressure on the children to side with him on parenting issues, then a change which restores overnight time would be a positive change for the children.
Whether these conditions can be met if overnight time was reinstated is the difficult issue I need to decide.
I must consider the practical difficulty and expense of the children spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the children’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with a parent on a regular basis.
At the time of the hearing the parents were living two kilometres apart. The mother said that she intended to move to a bigger house once her new child was born but that she intended to continue living in the same area. There should be no practical difficulties or expense associated with the children spending time with the father in the future.
I must consider the capacity of each of the parents to meet the needs of the children, including their emotional and intellectual needs.
The father has a long history of consuming excessive amounts of alcohol and using illicit drugs. He did this in London and this lifestyle continued after the parties came to Australia.
It was the mother’s evidence that during the relationship the father would fall asleep on the couch after drinking heavily during the evening. The mother also linked the father’s aggressive behaviour during the relationship to his coming down off the drugs and alcohol he habitually used heavily on weekends.
Dr M was the father’s doctor prior to separation and the father’s medical records were tendered during the hearing. There are references in those records to the father being depressed in 2005 and to having low moods related to drug use in 2006.
The father and mother had a brief separation in 2005 and during this period Dr M referred the father to East Coast Counselling Services. The counsellor sent a letter dated 19 March 2005 to Dr M saying that:
“Mr Flamel presented in an anxious state and reported feeling depressed since separating from his wife some seven weeks prior to the initial appointment. He reported a long history of recreational drug and alcohol use, which his wife sees as contributing to his mood swings. He also has a significant history of childhood trauma, which undoubtedly contributes to the drug and alcohol use as well as his presenting symptoms.”[7]
[7] Exhibit A
Dr M’s records do not contain any details about the childhood trauma. However it is known that when the father was thirteen, he was involved in a fight with his best friend. The father had a knife and stabbed his friend, who died. The father was initially charged with murder, but this was changed to culpable homicide. The father spent six months in juvenile detention and two years under supervision. He received no counselling at the time.
On 21 February 2006 the father contacted Central Coast Health seeking help in relation to drugs and alcohol. Their notes at the time record the father as saying that he:
“uses Etoh [ethanol - alcohol] every day 4-6 stubbies of beer and 2-3 glasses of wine on weekend drinking escalates and uses speed Fri/Sat/Sun usually 1gm each of the 3 days ingested. THC occasionally. Ecstasy twice a month. Wants to stop he states it is affecting his family life and moods….”[8]
[8] Exhibit B Documents from Central Coast Area Health
The principal drug of concern was noted to be alcohol and other drugs of concern were “amphetamines - broad category”. The father is recorded as having a “long history of substance abuse”. Health concerns for the father were identified as mood swings and poor attention span. In the assessment the father was recorded as being “co-operative” but “in denial about severity of problem”.
On 7 March 2006 Dr M received a letter from a Registered Nurse from Northern Sydney Central Coast NSW Health which said as follows:
“As per our phone conversation, Mr Flamel approached our service for assistance to detox from Etoh and amphetamines. I will commence a home detox as of the 20/3/06. Could you please prescribe Valium…for use during the detox? I have also discussed the options of anti-craving medication…Mr Flamel has not decided to make alcohol a permanent abstinence but is prepared to abstain for a 3-6 month trial period so he has the option to try controlled drinking a later stage.”[9]
[9] Exhibit A
The notes record the father on 20 March 2006, the day his detox was due to start, as telling the service that he “had binge over weekend – 12 stubbies, 375ml vodka and small amount of speed.”
The detox took place over a period of days and on 27 March 2006 the service reported to Dr M that the detox was completed and that the father “intended to remain abstinent for a 3-month period and then review for controlled drinking”.
The father did not directly challenge the accuracy of the records obtained from Central Coast Health, but when interviewed by

Ms Turley in April 2009 the father denied that he had required assistance to detox in 2006 although he conceded that a nurse had come to the house three times.
The father did not completely stop drinking. The mother said that he was drinking on the day prior separation in June 2006.
Dr M’s notes contain the following comment on 21 August 2006:
“Progress..not drinking and has decided to move away from wife with new partner, has declined anti-depressants and councilling [sic]
Education..discussed ongoing alcohol avoidance – to continue AA meeting.
Relapse prevention – as above.”[10]
[10] Exhibit A
The father had not ceased drinking permanently however. On 10 May 2007 Dr M recorded that the father:
“continues to have problems with ETHO but has cut down recently, saw a councillor last year for issues about abuse as a child, now feels anxious at times…”[11]
[11] Exhibit A
The mother said that she had observed the father under the influence of alcohol on occasions when she dropped off and picked up the boys after separation. She also said that sometimes she had observed the father to be under the influence of alcohol at lunchtime.
The mother said that when she dropped the children off to the father on 10 July 2008 she could smell alcohol and “observed the father to be acting in a way I was familiar with when he was under the influence of alcohol.”[12] She said that the father admitted that he had been drinking and that she told him that she did not want him to take [X] to soccer training because he was under the influence of alcohol.
[12] Mother’s affidavit filed 24 October 2008 paragraph 41
I accept the mother’s evidence. I do not accept that the mother has made this evidence up as ex post-facto justification for her actions in refusing the send the children to the father for their regular visits after 11 July 2008.
There was some independent evidence of alcohol use post-separation which caused concern. Firstly in December 2007 [Y]’s pre-school made a mandatory report which said as follows:
“Father came to pick [Y] (sic) up from preschool and appeared upset when questioned by staff as to his name. Staff did not know Dad and asked for verification or ID. Mr Flamel became aggressive and upset when questioned by room leader (Ms K). When talking to Mr Flamel I noticed a smell of alcohol and asked was he OK to drive. Mr Flamel left with [Y] after calming down to sign him out and collect bags etc.”[13]
[13] Mother’s affidavit filed 24 October 2008 annexure A
The father denied that he had been seriously affected by alcohol on that occasion. He said he may have had one beer after work before picking [Y] up.
The father’s case that he did not have any problem with alcohol consumption was somewhat undermined by the fact that at about 4.40pm on 7 August 2008 he was driving his motor vehicle and was pulled over by the police for not wearing a seat belt. A police check revealed that the father’s licence had expired on 24 April 2007. The police noticed that the father’s breath smelt moderately of alcohol. He was breathalysed and returned a reading of 0.125.
The father was convicted of drink driving and lost his licence for twelve months.
The father did not address the issue of his alcohol consumption in his affidavits. Ms Turley asked him about it in an interview in March 2009 and reported as follows:
“The father was closed and defensive about his alcohol and drug use. The father reports that his alcohol consumption currently ‘varies’. The father said that he would usually drink beer after work and ‘have a couple’ of wines with dinner. The father reports 2 days a week he does not consume any alcohol. The father said that on Saturdays he would drink at the pub with friends and consume ‘the same as everyone else’. When pushed for specific amounts the father reported drinking 8 full strength alcohol schooners of beer.”[14]
[14] Family Report paragraph 38
Ms Turley further reported that:
“The writer detected a slight smell of alcohol on the father when he was spoken to just prior to the lunch break at 1.00pm. The writer asked the father if he had drunk alcohol that day. The father said “I had a few wines last night”. The writer again asked the father if he had had a drink that day and the father replied, ‘I had a light beer with my counter lunch.”
Ms M informed Ms Turley that the father would go to the pub after work and have a couple of beers and maybe an additional beer or wine with dinner. She said that on occasion the father returned from the pub intoxicated on a weekend but ‘only on occasion. Not every week.’
When the father was giving evidence on Monday 6 July 2009 he was asked when he had last consumed alcohol. He said that it was the night before and that he had drunk “close on a bottle of wine.”
On 6 July 2009 I ordered the father to undergo a liver function test before the matter was next back in court on 23 July 2009. Dr M facilitated the test occurring. The test showed a slightly elevated reading for GGT.
Dr M said that normally in someone who had an alcohol problem. the GGT reading would be a lot higher than shown in this test result. However he also said that occasionally people who drank heavily showed no elevation and that a heavy drinker might occasionally have a normal liver function test.
The situation in summary is as follows. Prior to March 2006 the father drank very heavily, every day, and his drinking and drug use were affecting his life to the extent that he sought assistance to detox. He underwent a three day detox but he did not cease drinking permanently thereafter nor did he have any counselling or therapy to assist him.
There was no evidence from the father that he had moderated his drinking since separation and he avoided dealing with the issue of his alcohol consumption in his affidavits. Ms Turley formed the view that the father was closed and defensive when questioned about his drinking. When she pressed him to reveal information about his weekend drinking he stated that he drank eight schooners of beer at a session.
The fact that the father consumed alcohol on the day of the family report interviews is particularly concerning, because he was well aware that his alcohol consumption was a major issue in the proceedings. He conceded that it was a ‘stupid thing to do’ but denied that it suggested he had a problem with alcohol. However the fact that the father consumed alcohol prior to be interviewed by Ms Turley brings into question whether the father is able to control his alcohol consumption or whether he is in fact in the grip of an addiction.
The father informed the court that on the evening prior to the hearing he drank “close on a bottle of wine.”
In my view the following opinion by Ms Turley was soundly based:
“Considering that the father has a long history of problematic alcohol use, was unable to articulate a process of engagement in a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program and continues to drink alcohol on a regular basis at a high risk level it is suggested that the father is minimising his level of alcohol consumption.”[15]
[15] Family Report paragraph 122
Ms Turley’s opinion was that:
“The father’s ability to manage his parenting responsibilities, for a four year old and eight year old would likely be compromised if he continues to misuse alcohol or alternatively be dealing with withdrawals or cravings during spending time arrangements with the children.”[16]
[16] Family Report paragraph 124
The mother was not convinced either that the father had entirely given up the use of illicit drugs.
The father certainly used illicit drugs during the relationship and used them on occasion afterwards. However he informed Ms Turley that he last used amphetamines in September 2008 and he denied at the hearing that he still used illicit drugs. Dr M facilitated the father having a drug screening test on 8 July 2009 and no illicit drugs were detected.
It is impossible to be confident that the father will never use illicit drugs again. On his own admission he used illicit drugs, including amphetamines, for a very long period of his life, and illicit drug use is sometimes referred to as a chronic relapsing condition. The father has had no counselling in respect of ceasing drug use and he admitted using ecstasy in September 2008. However there was no evidence to support a finding that the father is currently using illicit drugs.
As to the mother’s capacity to provide for the needs of the children, the mother appears to have made sound decisions for the children post separation in terms of their education and in terms of accessing appropriate medical and counselling treatment for them, albeit she can be criticised for not involving the father in these choices.

The mother conceded that she also had a history of drug use and alcohol misuse. She informed Ms Turley that she had started using marijuana when she was 16-17, had used an array of illicit drugs while in London and had begun to binge drink every weekend. The mother told Ms Turley that this continued upon her return to Australia and after the birth of the children. She said that she had last used amphetamines when in a relationship with the father.
The mother is also at a risk of relapse in relation to illicit drug use. However the father did not suggest that the mother currently used illicit drugs or misused alcohol. The father conceded to Ms Turley that the mother was “great with the kids” and he raised no concerns about her capacity to provide for the children’s day to day needs.
There is reason to be concerned that both parents have an impaired capacity to provide for the children’s emotional needs.
Since separation the parents have been unable to restrain themselves from quarrelling openly before the children on more than one occasion.
The father showed extremely poor judgment on 11 July 2008 in engaging in a quarrel with the mother in front of the children and even worse judgment in following her home after that quarrel ended and forcing his way into her home and engaging in yet another quarrel with her which resulted in the police being called.
There was compelling evidence that the father during 2009 involved the children in the dispute about parenting arrangements and that this has caused distress for [X].
I accept the mother’s evidence that on 24 January 2009 the father telephoned her to saying “I’ve spoke to the boys and they want to stay the night so they are staying alright.”[17] After an argument with the mother the father eventually returned the children that evening, but [X] was an “absolute mess” after he returned home and punched walls, shouted hysterically and said that he had wanted to stay at his father’s and it was the mother’s fault that he could not. He later apologised telling he mother that ‘Daddy is always in my head blaming you and saying “Oh I wish you and [Y] could stay.”
[17] Mother’s affidavit filed 27 May 2009 paragraph 4
I accept that on 5 February 2009 the father approached the mother at changeover asking if he could take the children away for the weekend. The mother would not agree. Regardless of the fact that the boys were in the car and witnessing the dispute the father started yelling and accusing the mother of “filling the boys head with crap.”[18]
[18] Mother’s affidavit filed 27 May 2009 paragraph 10
I accept the mother’s evidence that on 5 March 2009 [X] became upset and said that “Daddy is doing my head in. He keeps asking questions about you and Mr S. He said you were lying about the court orders and that we are allowed to stay overnight.”[19]
[19] Mother’s affidavit filed 27 May 2009 paragraph 22
During the interview with Ms Turley [X] revealed that his father called his mother a “fucking bitch” which upset him, and called his maternal grandparents “the Emporer” and “Darth Vader” referring to characters from Star Wars.
The mother has also inappropriately involved the children in the parenting dispute since separation. [X] told Ms Turley that his mother had urged him to inform Ms Turley about name calling by the father, and [X] has become very watchful for signs that his father may have consumed alcohol. Ms Turley’s view was that the mother had “shown an inability to contain her own emotions, views and concerns about the father, from [X].”[20]
[20] Family Report paragraph 117.
Ms Turley commented that:
“[X] is expressing sentiments which suggest that he is extremely torn between his parents, that he is emotionally burdened by the parental situation and to some extent both parents have attempted to align [X] with their view. It is also suggested that both parents have contributed to the level of anguish that [X] is feeling and have done very little to shield [X] from their conflict.”
[X] was described by both parents as being a sensitive child[21] and the Family Report Writer said that [X] appeared “very sad and somewhat uncomfortable talking about the family situation.”
[21] Family Report paragraph 83
The mother said that [X] experienced some behavioural difficulties in late 2008 and that she had arranged for him to see a counsellor.
Both children are at risk of harm as a result of their exposure to conflict. Ms Turley said:
“The vulnerabilities for both children in high conflict situations, but particularly for [X] in light of his temperament, include:
·    inability to manage conflict and normal periods of difficulties in peer relationships, due to lack of positive role modelling from parents about management of conflict;
·    manifestation of significant mental health difficulties including anxiety and depression;
·    developmental milestones not being achieved as a result of the lack of stability in the familial environment and interjecting conflict;
·    being forced to choose one parent over the other as a means of escaping the ongoing conflict, resulting in a lost relationship with one parent.[22]
[22] Family Report paragraph 118
I only hope that the parents will take a good hard look at the situation, recognise the damage which their conflict and their involving the children in the dispute has already done to [X], and may do to [Y], and take steps to protect the children from further damage in the future.
I must consider the children’s maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture, and traditions) of the children and of either of the children’s parents, and any other characteristics of the children that the court thinks are relevant.
The children have a Scottish heritage through their father. The father is the only member of his family living in Australia. Through the father the children will best have the opportunity to communicate with and spend time with their Scottish relatives. The paternal grandmother has visited the father in Australia and spent time with the children.
If the father is able to spend only limited time with the children, world time differences will make it very difficult for telephone communication with the paternal grandmother to occur regularly.
The mother said that the paternal grandmother could ring the children when they were with her, but the mother has her own family and many calls on her time and attention and I accept that the best opportunity for the children to maintain contact with the Scottish side of their family will be through the father.
I must consider the attitude of each of the parents to the duties and responsibilities of parenthood.
The father has taken all the opportunities available to him to spend time with the children since separation.
He failed however to enrol in a parenting after separation course as he was ordered to do on 28 October 2008 and in that regard he showed a poor attitude to the duties or responsibilities of parenthood.
The mother was critical of the level of child support provided by the father. The father is a self employed tree surgeon. He has had some medical problems from time to time. He conceded at the hearing that he was not currently working full time and had ‘had a bad year financially”.
I accept that the mother is dissatisfied about the amount of child support she is receiving and that the father’s failure to contribute at a higher level casts a burden on her and no doubt on her partner. However on the state of the evidence before me, it is impossible for me to be satisfied that the father is deliberately evading payment of child support. I cannot exclude the possibility that health problems (and these could include alcohol problems as well as physical problems) impact on the father’s ability to earn an income.
The father was highly critical of the mother for failing to involve him in decisions making for the children after separation The mother did indeed take charge of all decision making for the children after separation and did not involve the father. Without consultation with the father she selected the children’s schools, arranged counselling for the children and arranged for [Y] to see a chiropractor. When asked by

Ms Turley if she had informed the father about the chiropractor’s appointment the mother said “No, I didn’t speak to Mr Flamel about that. He doesn’t support them at all. He doesn’t pay a cent. So I don’t think why should he have a say in what appointments I take them to”[23]
[23] Family Report paragraph 56.
The mother has not shown good attitude to the duties and responsibilities of parenthood in failing to involve the father in decision making about the children post separation.
Both parents have shown a particularly poor attitude to the duties and responsibilities of parenthood on a number of occasions since separation when they have exposed the children to conflict at changeover.
I must take into account any family violence involving the children or a member of the children’s family.
The parents both informed Ms Turley that their relationship had involved heated arguments and yelling and screaming in the presence of the children.
The father denied hitting the mother during the relationship but admitted to Ms Turley that he had pushed and shoved her. He said that he had been regularly slapped by the mother. Both parents drank excessively during the relationship and used illicit drugs and I consider it likely that both parties committed acts of family violence during the relationship.
I accept the mother’s version of the events of 9 and 10 June 2006 when the parties separated and I am satisfied that the father was violent to the mother on those occasions and deliberately damaged property.
On 11 July 2008 the parties pushed and shoved each other. The father’s pushing during the second part of the quarrel was in connection with his entry of the mother’s home against her wishes and I am satisfied that the father committed an act of family violence on that occasion.
The violence that has erupted between these parties in the past has had to do with drug and alcohol use (during the relationship) and extremely poor dispute resolution skills and lack of impulse control (during the relationship and post separation). The children have been subjected to psychological harm as a result of being exposed to the quarrels as well as just the violence that occurred during to the quarrels and each party must accept some responsibility for what has occurred.
I must consider any family violence order that applies to the children or a member of the children’s family if:
i)the order is a final order; or
ii)the making of the order was contested by a person.
There is a final family violence order in place and it protects the mother and the children. It is current until August 2011.
I must consider whether it is preferable to make orders which are least likely to lead to further proceedings.
It is not possible to identify the orders which are least likely to lead to further proceedings.
The father will be content if his overnight time with the children is restored, but the mother may later bring the matter back to court if further concerns arise about the father’s drinking or use of illicit drugs.
The mother will be content if I make the restrictive orders she proposed, but the father may bring the matter back to court if he feels able to demonstrate in the future that he has changed and that orders for more extensive time can therefore be justified.

Parental responsibility

I am required by s.61DA of the Family Law Act to apply a presumption that it is in the children’s best interests that their parents have equal shared parental responsibility for them, absent a finding that there are reasonable grounds to believe that one of the parents has engaged in abuse of the children or family violence.
I am satisfied that family violence has occurred between the parents and therefore the presumption does not apply. It is still open to me however to make an order for equal shared parental responsibility if I consider that to be in the children’s best interests.
The father sought such an order. He was most aggrieved about the fact that the mother had made a number of major decisions about the children since separation without consultation with him.
The mother sought an order for sole parental responsibility. She has in fact made all relevant major decisions for the children since separation, including choosing their schools, arranging for [X] to attend counselling and arranging for [Y] to see a Chiropractor. The mother was impatient with the suggestion that she should be required to consult about these matters with someone she found intermittently aggressive and who did not pay adequate child support.
Ms Turley recommended that the parents have “shared decision making responsibility”. She was critical of the mother for excluding the father from involvement in making major decisions.
I have grave misgivings about the workability of an order for equal shared parental responsibility. The parents have had many serious arguments since separation. The mother has been only too ready to yell and argue and give as good as she got on occasions and the father has shown little respect for the mother. Examples range from him forcing his way into her house in July 2008 when he was dissatisfied with arrangements concerning his time with the children, to commenting about a “little piglet” being on the way when he discovered that the mother was pregnant with Mr S’s child.
The parents did reach an agreement about parenting matters at mediation in 2006 but have otherwise displayed little ability to constructively resolve disputes. If I make an order for equal shared parental responsibility the parties may come into conflict when major decisions are required or alternatively the children may miss out because the parents cannot agree.
On the other hand making an order for sole parental responsibility may simply fuel the father’s sense of injustice and may deflect him from focussing on the fact that his alcohol consumption is the primary cause for concern. His motivation to do something about his drinking for the sake of the children may be effected if parental responsibility for the children is taken away from him.
It is usually necessary to make a decision about parental responsibility before considering appropriate orders about the children’s time with each of their parents, because making an order for equal shared parental responsibility triggers a requirement that the court consider whether equal time or substantial and significant time is in the best interests of the children and reasonably practicable.
In this case however neither parent sought an order for equal time and even if I were to make an order that the father spend time with the children on alternate weekends and one afternoon each week or fortnight that time, this time while it might come within the definition of significant time, would hardly be substantial.
It is of course open to the court to make orders different to those sought by the parties, but in the case before me I consider it appropriate to deal with the matter within the parameters set by the parties.
I therefore intend to defer consideration of whether to make an order for equal shared parental responsibility until I consider the issue of the father’s time with the children and in particular consider whether I should make final or interim orders.

Conclusion

The dispute in the end came down to whether the father should be permitted to resume spending unsupervised time with the children on alternate weekends and on the Thursday afternoons, or whether he should only have some fairly restricted time with the children until he was able to demonstrate that he could be trusted to abstain from excessive drinking.
The father was insistent that his previous time should be restored. He said that the problem was not his drinking or drug use, but the mother’s wilful refusal to agree to him spending time with the children, and that the problem was easily solved by the court making orders restoring the previous arrangements.
The father questioned the mother’s bona fides in expressing a concern now about his alcohol and drug use. The mother well knew that he had problems with excessive drinking and drug use prior to separation and yet she allowed the children to spend overnight time with him for two years afterwards, indeed allowed it until the fight on 11 July 2008. The children never came to any harm in his care.
It was the father’s view that the mother’s real motivation in stopping his time was not a concern about his alcohol or drug use but a variety of matters such as her desire to be in control, retaliation for him not paying what she considered to be adequate child support and retaliation for him pressing her in 2008 for additional time with the children.
It is easy to see why the father would form that view. The mother did take control of arrangements for the children after separation and she did make all the major decisions for them without involving the father. Ms Turley recognised that this had “fuelled the father’s belief that the mother is obstructing him having a relationship with the children for no valid reason.”
The mother did stop the father seeing the children because of child support issues on at least one occasion prior to separation. The father gave unchallenged evidence that on 14 May 2008 the mother left a phone message for him which said:
“Yeah hi [Mr Flamel]…just me. I tried to ring you earlier but you haven’t got back to me. …Just ringing to let you know that…I noticed that you haven’t put the money in the bank for the boys again…and sadly, I’ve warned you plenty of times, so they’re not going to be able to come over tomorrow. Alright see you later.”[24]
[24] Father’s affidavit filed 25 August 2008 Annexure A
The mother also used the child support issue as an excuse for not telling the father about a chiropractor’s appointment she made for [Y].
I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the immediate reason for the mother stopping the father’s time with the children after 11 July 2008 was the furious quarrel the parties had on 11 July, rather than simply the issue of the father’s alcohol consumption. I consider it likely that the mother was predisposed to act hastily and end the father’s time after the dispute on 11 July 2008 because of the long history of conflict between the parties, because of the mother’s belief that the father was not to be trusted and that he denigrated her and her family to the children and because of her irritation about the child support issue.
However I also accept that the mother has always been concerned about the father’s alcohol use and possible illicit drug use. Those concerns are completely understandable given the extent of the father’s problem with alcohol and drug use prior to separation. I accept that once court proceedings were commenced in 2008 the mother raised these issues out of genuine concern for the children’s welfare.
A careful examination of the evidence reveals that there is compelling reason to be concerned about the father’s alcohol consumption. The fact that the children have not come to harm in his care in the past when spending overnight time or whole weekends with him is not a good enough reason to return them a situation where they might be at risk of harm in the future.
The information the father gave to the counselling service prior to separation and the evidence the father gave about his alcohol consumption the night before the hearing suggests that he drinks heavily at night. He would not be available under those circumstances to properly respond to the children at night if they were in distress or to drive them to hospital. The fact that he was arrested for drink driving at 4.40pm in the afternoon raises a concern about the extent of his drinking at other times. He also has a long history of drinking heavily on weekends and Ms M’s comments and the information given by the father to Ms Turley suggests that this continues.

I accept that the children enjoy spending time with their father and that they have never come to any harm while spending time with him. The father loves his children, and the children will benefit from the opportunity to have a caring loving father in their lives.
I accept that the father’s opportunity to engage in a variety of mundane caring activities as well as fun activities with the children and his ability to spend holiday time with the children will not exist if he is given no overnight time with them. The children’s overall relationship with their father will be less rounded and less valuable to them as a result.
I accept that it is through the father that the children will best be able to maintain a connection with their maternal grandmother and the Scottish part of their heritage. If the father sees the children for only a few hours at a time during the day arranging telephone communication with his side of the family will be difficult.
However in my view it is simply not in the children’s best interests to make orders restoring the previous time they had with their father unless he is able to convincingly demonstrate that something has changed in respect of his alcohol consumption.
The father said that he would engage in therapy if it was the only way he could get overnight time with his children, and he should at least be given a chance to demonstrate that he can deal with his alcohol problem.
Ms Turley recommended interim orders only to be made and recommended that the father’s time continue to be during the day only and supervised for six months, a period which would allow the father to “demonstrate his regular engagement with a drug and alcohol counsellor, follow the advice and directions of the drug and alcohol counsellor and comply with the orders not to consume alcohol or use non-prescription drugs during spending time with arrangements with the children or for twelve hours prior to spending time arrangements.”
Ms Turley’s recommendation was that if the father successfully engaged in the counselling, then in the longer term the children should spend time with him each alternate weekend from Friday until Sunday and on alternate Thursday afternoons from 4.00pm to 7.00pm. If the father failed to engage in the counselling she suggested that consideration should be given to the father spending time with the children for limited periods, say up to four hours, during the day.
In my view there is merit in these recommendations. The difficulty however is that it is not possible for the time from 9.00am to 5.00pm on Saturday and Sunday and 4.00 to 7.00pm on Thursdays with Ms M present to continue. Ms M is no longer available and a partner or perhaps a parent are the only people likely to be able to invest the amount of time required to supervise the children in the father’s care the week in and week out 9.00am to 5.00pm on two consecutive weekend days.
In view of this problem on 6 and 23 July 2009 I ordered that the father spend unsupervised time with the children on a number of occasions for four hours. Ms Turley had recommended this as a possible final solution if the father was unable to engage with drug and alcohol counselling. As this, while not ideal, is the only interim solution available (outside of using a contact centre) I intend to order that this continue in the interim and occur on Sundays (unless otherwise agreed between the parties) and on Thursday evenings.
Because I can only order that the father have limited time with the children I intend to order that the time on Sundays occur every weekend, but this is an interim solution only and is not a desirable outcome in the longer term. The children are part of a blended family which includes their step-father, two step-siblings and I presume now a half-sibling. The children need to be able to spend whole weekends with their mother.
If the father has his licence back then he should pick the children up from and return them to [omitted] Park although I accept that this may cause the mother some anxiety given the father’s recent drink driving charge. It is reasonable that the father should share in the burden of picking up and dropping off the children.
If the father continues to be unlicensed then there is no option but to require that the mother either drop off and pick up the children or make arrangements for someone else to do so.
Neither of these change-over arrangements are ideal given the conflict which has occurred between the parties at changeovers in the past but neither party suggested that a changeover centre be used.
I intend to order that the father engage in drug and alcohol counselling. The father should be able to liaise with Dr M about a suitable service.
I also intend to order that the father undergo random drug screening tests once each month during the period of the adjournment. Ms Turley recommended that this occur to lay to rest any ongoing concerns about the father’s illicit drug use.
I have concerns about whether the father is capable of protecting the children from exposure to conflict between their parents. The mother is not blameless in this regard either, but the father has not done the parenting after separation course which he was ordered to do in October 2008, and he showed little insight during the hearing into the part he has played in the conflict which has occurred between the parties since separation.
I intend to order that the father enrol in and complete the parenting after separation course which he has yet to attend. This course will afford him the opportunity to learn new and better ways to communicate with the mother and will teach him about the damage which conflict between parents does to children.
I have grave misgivings about whether it is in the children’s best interest that I make an order for equal shared parental responsibility given the current state the parties’ relationship.
An order for sole parental responsibility may be the only option if the parents cannot communicate and constructively resolve disputes. The children live with the mother and the mother has made good decisions for the children concerning schooling, [X]’s attendance on a psychologist and [Y]’s attendance at a chiropractor, so she is the logical choice if a sole decision making order has to be made.
The father is keenly interested in his sons however and if the mother is given sole parental responsibility the father’s resentment may not do anything for the conflict between the parents and may impact on the father’s motivation to do something about his drinking.
The only major decision likely to be required during the next six months is in respect of medical issues and I intend to order that in the interim the mother have sole parental responsibility for decisions about medical issues and that the parents otherwise have equal shared parental responsibility. This issue can be reconsidered once the father completes the post separation parenting course and in the light of developments over the next six months.
I intend to list this matter for mention before me in about six month’s time. I will then hear from the parties as to how the time has been proceeding, whether the father has engaged in the drug and alcohol counselling and whether the father has produced a series of clean drug screening tests. It may be necessary to then list the matter for further hearing.
I realise that the father will be disappointed about this outcome overall but on a positive note Ms Turley observed a good relationship between the father and the children and the mother conceded that the children enjoyed seeing their father. The way is open for the father to regain more extensive time with the children through engaging with the drug and alcohol counselling.
For all these reasons the orders of this court are set out at the beginning of these reasons.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and one pages (201) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Terry FM

Associate: Barbara Cameron

Date: 10 December 2009