Florin and Jokela

[2014] FamCA 318

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FLORIN & JOKELA [2014] FamCA 318

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Where the parties are European Citizens – Where the mother and the children live in Australia on the mother’s student visa – Where the father lives in Europe – Parental responsibility – Where an order for equal shared parental responsibility is made in relation to the children’s citizenship – Time limit on international travel – Where the mother is restricted to the general terms of holiday time for international travel – Circumcision – Costs associated with the father spending time with the children either in Europe or Australia.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Florin

RESPONDENT: Mr Jokela

FILE NUMBER: BRC 11727 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 19 May 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Forrest J

HEARING DATE: 28 April 2014

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Carew of Queen’s Counsel

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Jones Mitchell Lawyers

FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Jokela in Person

Orders

(1)That save as otherwise provided for herein the mother shall have sole parental responsibility for all “major long-term issues” (as that term is defined in the Family Law Act 1975) in relation to the children, M born … 2003 and B born … 2005, including, in particular, in respect of applying for permanent residency for the said children in Australia.

(2)That in exercising that sole parental responsibility in relation to the  said children:

(a)The mother shall advise the father, in writing, of the necessity to make a decision, her proposal or proposals in respect of her preferred outcome of such decision, the reasons for her proposal or proposals and provide any documentation available to assist the father in considering the making of such decision and the mother shall invite from the father his response, his proposal or proposals in respect of his preferred outcome of such decision and suggestions or advice he wishes to give in respect of the decision;

(b)The father shall reply, in writing, to the mother within 14 days of receipt of her written advice pursuant to paragraph 2(a) hereof;

(c)The mother shall give genuine and reasonable consideration to all of the matters contained in the father’s reply but shall, in the event of remaining disagreement, be entitled to make the decision herself; and  

(d)When the mother has made the decision, she shall within 7 days of making the decision write to the father and advise him of the decision she has made, the reasons for the decision and just how she has considered and taken into account the father’s response and suggestions in the making of the decision.

(3)That the parents shall have shared parental responsibility in respect of any decision to apply for citizenship of any country, including Australia, for the said children. 

(4)That the mother shall not take the children to Israel for any period longer than the school holiday time that they spend with her pursuant to the Orders made on 28 April, 2014.

(5)That neither the Mother nor the Father shall cause the child, M, to be circumcised unless and until the said child personally expresses his wish to be circumcised, which wish is to be confirmed in writing by an agreed child psychologist, or failing agreement, a child psychologist nominated by the Chair of the Psychology Board of Australia.

(6)That on each occasion when the children are to spend time with the Father in Europe, the Father shall be solely responsible for the children’s airline expenses, save on those occasions when the mother will also be spending time in Europe with the children during the same holiday period in which event the total cost of the children’s airfare tickets from Australia to Europe return at the economy class rate, shall be shared equally between the Mother and the Father.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Florin & Jokela has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 11727  of 2011

Ms Florin

Applicant

And

Mr Jakola

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1.Two boys, M born in 2003 (now aged 10, nearly 11) and his brother, B born in 2005 (now aged 8) are the children of European parents who require this Court to determine but a few remaining parenting orders in respect of their boys, after the Court had already made substantial parenting orders with their consent.

2.Parenting orders proceedings were first commenced in this Court in 2011 by the mother.  Interim orders were made after a contested hearing and family reports by experienced report writer, Mr S, were prepared. The matter was listed for hearing in a one day trial before me on 28 April, 2014 and the father, who lives in Country A in eastern Europe travelled out to Australia for the hearing and appeared without legal representation. The mother, who lives on the Gold Coast with the two boys, appeared represented by very experienced family law solicitors and Queen’s Counsel.

3.At the commencement of the trial, Ms Carew QC for the mother handed to the Court a document styled “Agreed Minutes of Consent”. It contained seven pages of terms regulating parenting arrangements for the two boys as between the mother and the father. The Court was told that the document reflected terms that the parents joined in asking the Court to make as Orders with their consent. The Court was also told that there remained just a few matters upon which the parents could not reach agreement. After having the father confirm that was indeed the case and that he, too, asked for Orders to be made in those agreed terms at that time, I made Orders at the commencement of the trial in those terms and agreed to proceed to hear and determine the remaining matters about which the parents remained in dispute.

4.Attached to these reasons for judgment is a copy of the Orders made by me in this matter on the morning of 28 April, 2014 at the commencement of the trial. What remained in issue that day for me to determine were the following matters:

(i) Just how parental responsibility for the two boys was to be conferred on the parents and, in particular, how parental responsibility in respect of issues such as applying for permanent residency in Australia or even Australian citizenship or citizenship of other countries, such as Israel, was to be conferred;

(ii) Whether there should be a time limit placed on the length of time which the mother could spend in Israel on holidays with the two boys;

(iii)Circumstances under which the child, M, could be circumcised;

(iv)How responsibility for the payment of airfares required to facilitate the children spending time with the father in Europe or in Australia should be apportioned.

Some Background

5.The mother, who is almost 40 years of age, was born in City C, Country D in northern Europe. The father, who is 42 years of age, was also born in City C, Country D. They began living together in a relationship in or around 1996 in Country D and married in that country in 1999.

6.The couple moved to live in Country E in southwestern Europe around the time of the birth of their first son, where they lived on and operated what they both call a “ranch”. In October 2009 the couple with their two boys travelled from Country E to the South Pacific, arriving at the Gold Coast in Australia in December 2010. On their arrival in Australia, the mother began studying and the boys began to attend a local school. The entire family are Country D citizens, both parents describing themselves of Country F-Country D (in northern Europe) cultural origin. The mother and the two boys are also Jewish. The mother, the father and the two children were all able to stay in Australia because of the fact that the mother obtained a visa permitting her to study here. She began studying towards a Doctorate.

7.The couple’s marriage broke down and the father left Australia and went back to Europe in the middle of 2011. Final separation occurred and the father has travelled back to Australia and spent time with the boys on a number of occasions since.

8.The mother remains living and studying in Australia on a Student Visa that is valid until 2017. Her visa allows the two dependent children to live with her and stay in the country whilst she does. The mother says she wants to continue to live in Australia even after her studies are completed. She says that she is advised by her migration lawyer that she has good prospects of obtaining permanent residency and that this would allow her and the boys to stay permanently. She says that if she obtains permanent residency status she will consider applying for Australian Citizenship.

9.Finalisation of the untangling of the couple’s financial and property affairs remains complicated. Property division proceedings consequent upon the breakdown of their marriage are apparently underway in the courts of Country E. In any event, I am not determining any aspect of those matters. It is sufficient at this point to observe that the mother apparently is the daughter of very wealthy parents who provide her and the boys with significant financial support.

10. The full extent of the father’s financial circumstances is not known to me. He says he lives at a development on the coast of Country A, in which he is commercially involved as a developer. The sea there is frozen over in winter time, which, I consider, must last for several months. In addition to his development activity at this site, he says he is regularly engaged to skipper vessels, which sometimes involve multiple days away on the water.

11.I consider it fair to say, despite last minute agreement between the parents on many of the terms of the parenting arrangements that are now in place by Orders of this Court, that their co-parenting relationship since their separation has been marred by a deep lack of trust and a significant amount of conflict. Indeed, the father even sought at one point in time to engage the Country E Government authorities to begin the process that would lead to an application in Australia pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, action that has apparently since been deemed abandoned.  However, that they were able to agree to all of the terms of the Orders that I made on 28 April 2014, was a positive sign at least.

The Matters to be determined still

(i) Parental Responsibility

12.The father argued passionately for an order that parental responsibility in respect to the two boys be shared equally between the parents. Essentially, as I understood his submissions, he was relying on the statutory presumption that it is in the best interests of a child for the parents of that child to equally share parental responsibility for that child as well as his own fundamental belief in that principle.

13.Of course, that statutory presumption is rebuttable in certain circumstances and also may be displaced where the Court is satisfied, on evidence, that it is not in the best interests of particular children for their parents to share parental responsibility. For the mother, it was submitted that the evidence in this case would satisfy the Court that it is not in the best interests of the two boys for their parents to equally share parental responsibility.

14. As I have observed already, the evidence in this case did satisfy me that the parents of the children have not reasonably been able to agree on many matters of significance in respect of the parenting of these two boys since separation. Indeed, the father could not refer me to anything of substance in this regard when I asked him to. Conflict about which school they should be enrolled at when the mother proposed changing them from a State school to a private school, in circumstances where the father agrees, in principle to them being enrolled in a private school but currently makes no direct financial contribution to the mother’s financial support of the children, exemplified their difficulties.

15.The family report writer ultimately opined that sole parental responsibility should be conferred upon the mother and justified it by reference to there being too many disputes between them, serious difficulties presented in respect of engagement in family dispute resolution because of the extreme distance between the parents and the consequent potential exposure of the children to continued parental conflict. I accept that opinion as sound having regard to the factual basis given for it. I consider it not in the best interests of these children for their parents to have equal shared parental responsibility. Disagreement is likely to be frequent, resolution difficult, time consuming and expensive and such delayed outcomes not conducive to best interests’ outcomes in so far as the boys are concerned.

16.I am satisfied in this case that giving sole responsibility to the mother will allow her to make necessary final decisions herself. That is appropriate in circumstances where the boys are living here with her in Australia and the father lives on the other side of the world in eastern Europe and is also often out at sea. Nevertheless, I will make orders that still require the mother to involve the father in the decision making process and give him the opportunity for considered input with a view to the parties trying to reach decisions that they both agree upon in any event. It is simply consensus that will not be required before any final decision is made. 

17.That said however, it became clear to me during the course of the hearing that the father is very troubled about the mother having the sole parental authority to apply for the boys to become citizens of Australia or, indeed, any other country, particularly Israel. The father presented as a proud citizen of Country D and European who was worried about the potential consequences of the mother having the sole right to determine whether the boys should be able to become citizens of another country whilst they are still children. In the circumstances, I do not consider the father’s concern about this particular aspect of parental responsibility to be unreasonable.

18.I was not taken to any evidence adduced by the mother that supported a finding that it is critical in so far as the boys’ best interests are concerned for her to have sole parental responsibility in respect of an issue as significant as determining their national citizenship. There was no evidence before me of the ramifications for the boys in so far as their current Country D and European citizenship is concerned if they were to take on Australian citizenship. Whilst I do not have any concerns about the mother being ultimately solely responsible for making application to the Australian Government for the boys to gain permanent residency status in this country, I am satisfied that the question of their seeking to obtain citizenship of any country in the world other than Country D, at least at this point in their lives, should be a matter upon which their parents agree or, failing agreement, left for each of the boys himself to determine once he has reached adulthood. Of course, if it is a matter that needs to be adjudicated upon, in the absence of parental agreement, whilst the boys are still children, it can ultimately come back to this Court whilst ever the boys remain subject to this Court’s jurisdiction. Then it can be determined one way or the other on appropriate and relevant evidence. 

19. Accordingly, I will order that parental responsibility in respect of decisions about applications for citizenship of any country for the boys, including Australia, is to be shared by the mother and the father.

(ii)Time Limit on Holidays to Israel

20.It appears that during the course of negotiating the terms of parenting arrangements that the parents would agree upon, dispute arose between the parties as to the length of time which the mother could spend with the children in her care in Israel during any school holidays. The mother presented a position of seeking a limitation of 60 days and the father presented a position of seeking a limitation of 10 days.

21. Ms Carew QC for the mother said the father had not formally sought such a restriction in any of the documents he had filed in the proceedings and had not adduced evidence in his affidavit going to the issue. Ms Carew submitted that should the mother’s position not be accepted, the absence of any such material in the father’s case should result in no order being made in respect of the issue.

22. In contested parenting cases, the Court’s fiat is to make appropriate orders with consideration of the children’s best interests being the paramount concern. Subject to procedural fairness issues, the Court is not restricted to making parenting orders in the exact terms sought by either one or other of the parties. This issue of dispute between the parties having been ventilated, I consider it appropriate to determine it.

23. The parties have agreed to terms made into orders that provide for the boys to spend school holidays with their mother and with their father in proportions determined in the manner provided for in the orders. I consider it appropriate to restrict any time the mother spends with the boys in Israel to the confines of the holiday time otherwise provided for in the orders the parents have agreed to. That is what I will order.

(iii) Circumcision of M

24.The parents were not able to agree in respect of this matter either. It seems as if the child, B, has been circumcised but that the child, M has not. There was little evidence adduced to which I could have recourse to assist in determining this issue. I do take limited judicial notice of the fact that circumcision of males is a practice undertaken by Jewish people, somehow connected with their religious beliefs and cultural practices.

25.Each of the parents presented competing proposals for orders in respect of this issue.

The mother proposed the following:

That neither the Mother nor the Father cause the child, [M], to be circumcised unless and until the said child personally expresses his wish to be circumcised, which wish is to be confirmed in writing by an agreed child psychologist, or failing agreement, a child psychologist nominated by the Chair of the Psychology Board of Australia.

The father proposed the following:

That neither the Mother nor the Father causes the child, [M], to be circumcised unless and until the child personally expresses his wish to be circumcised, which wish is to be confirmed in writing by child psychologist elected by the Mother from a panel of three child psychologists provided by the Father.

[M] is to be informed that it is possible to have the Bar Mitzvah performed without being circumcised and that it will not have any implication on his life.

Should [M] require circumcision for medical reasons, the Father should have the right (and obligation) to discuss this with the doctor and seek second opinion.

26.It is clear the parents are not very far apart in respect to how this matter should be dealt with. I intend to make an order in the terms proposed by the mother. I think it entirely appropriate for any psychologist who is to have the responsibility of discussing the issue with the child to verify that any wish for circumcision is one personally held by the child, to be a psychologist appointed by agreement between the parents or, failing agreement, independently appointed by the Chair of the Psychology Board. The father, of course, can propose as many as he wishes following this course, but only if the mother agrees with one of them should that person be appointed. I do not, in this case where there has been a great deal of mistrust, consider it appropriate to allow the father to nominate only three psychologists and bind the mother to having to choose one of those in respect of such a serious issue. Absent agreement, an independently nominated person is more appropriate.

27.Having had no evidence adduced about the matters dealt with in the second paragraph of the father’s proposal and knowing nothing about that matter myself, I am not in a position to consider such an order appropriate.

28.In respect of the third paragraph of the father’s proposal, I consider this to be adequately covered by the orders I will make about the exercise by the mother of parental responsibility. If the boy requires a circumcision for medical reasons or other reasons, she will be required to comply with the orders as to communication with the father, the provision of information and consideration of his proposals. Should the father be unsatisfied about the proposal, considering it not in the boy’s best interests, he retains the right to apply to this Court for orders restraining any such procedure from taking place if he feels he will, with relevant evidence, be able to persuade the Court that the proposed medical procedure is not in the child’s best interests.

(iv) The Payment of Airfares

29.The parenting Orders already made by me provide for the boys to spend time with the father in Europe during their school holidays or even in Australia if he travels here. Air travel for the boys or the father is thereby contemplated. The parties were not able to agree as to the apportionment of responsibility for the costs of that air travel. The mother proposed the following:

On each occasion when the children are to spend time with the Father in Europe, the Father shall be solely responsible for the children’s airline expenses, save on those occasions when the mother will also be spending time in Europe with the children during the same holiday period in which event the total cost of the airfare tickets from Australia to Europe return, shall be shared equally between the Mother and the Father.

The father proposed the following:

On times when the children are going to visit the Father in Europe without the Mother flying to Europe during the same period, the Father shall be responsible for the children’s airline expenses.

a.On occasions when the children will spend time with the Mother and/or her extended family during the same trip as spending time with their Father in Europe, the Mother will bear the airfares to [City C, Country D] or [Country E] and back to Australia and the Father will solely pay for the travel expenses to the destination where the children and the Father will be staying.

b.That the Mother will pay the Father’s airfares once a year return to Australia from Europe, with the cheapest possible airline.

30.Again, I consider the proposal of the mother, refined just slightly to make it expressly clear that it will be only the total cost of economy class airfare tickets from Australia to Europe return for the two boys that are to be shared equally between the parents if the mother travels to Europe with the boys, the appropriate order to make.

31.I do not consider that the father should have to share the costs of the mother’s airfares or the costs of anything other than economy class airfares for the boys. However, I am satisfied that the mother might very well choose to accompany the boys to Europe when they are going there to spend time with the father and to spend some time with her parents there, whereas she might not do that but for the need for the boys to go there to spend time with their father. I do not consider it appropriate to make her pay for the boys’ return airfares to Europe and back in such circumstances.

32.As to the cost of the father’s airfares to travel to Australia to see the boys once per year, I will not order the mother to pay those in circumstances where she does not receive any child support paid directly to her by the father to assist her in financially supporting the children. The father asserted that he indirectly pays the mother child support by way of interest he says she must be earning on money that she must have received from the sale of their ranch in Country E. That can only be speculative assertion by the father as he supported it with no evidence adduced on point whereas the mother asserted that money received on the sale of the ranch was repaid to her parents to extinguish debt owed to them. That issue is no doubt one of the issues in dispute between them in property adjustment proceedings the father has commenced in Country E. In determining this particular point, I look no further than the simple undisputed fact that the mother receives no direct contribution from the father of any money to assist her in the financial support of the two boys. In such circumstance, I will not order that she pay the costs of the father’s travel to Australia once per year.

33.I make the orders set out at the commencement of these reasons.

I certify that the preceding thirty-three (33) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Forrest delivered on 19 May 2014.

Associate: 

Date:  19 May 2014

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

IN THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT BRISBANE   File No. BRC11727/2011

BETWEEN

Ms Florin   (Applicant)

AND

Mr Jokela  (Respondent)

28 April 2014 
Before The Honourable Justice FORREST

UPON APPLICATION made to the Court AND UPON HEARING Ms Carew of Queen’s Counsel appearing for the Applicant and the Respondent appearing on his own behalf

IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT

1.The children shall live with the Mother.

2.Notwithstanding the order for parental responsibility:

(a)the Father shall be responsible for the children’s day to day care and welfare when the children are spending time with him; and

(b)the Mother shall keep the Father reasonably informed by email as to any relevant issues concerning the children’s health, educational progress and involvement in extra-curricular activities and consult with him in relation to those issues.

3.The children shall spend time with the Father at all such times; all such places; and on such terms and conditions as the Mother and Father agree between themselves, but failing agreement then as follows: 

Holidays
Provided that:

(i)Not less than 60 days prior to the relevant holiday, the Father provides to the Mother confirmation by email of his intention to have the children spend time with him; and

(ii)The children shall not spend time with the father outside Australia on more than 2 occasions in any 12 month period, save and except should the Father elect to spend time with the children in New Zealand, Bali or Fiji;

the children shall spend time with the Father:

(a)For the Easter holidays and the September/October holidays in each year, whether in Australia, Europe or elsewhere overseas, either:

(i)One-half of each holiday and if so, then the first half in each odd numbered years and the second half in each even numbered years;

Or in the alternative, as the Father may elect:

(ii)The whole of either the Easter holidays or the September/October holidays.

(b)For the June/July holidays whether in Australia, Europe or elsewhere overseas, for a period of 14 days, being:

(i)The first 14 days of their holidays in even numbered years; and

(ii)The last 14 days of their holidays in odd numbered years; and

(iii)In calculating the children’s time with the Father in accordance with Orders 3(b)(i) and (ii) above, the children’s travel time is to be shared between the Mother and Father.

(c)For the December/January holidays whether in Australia, Europe or elsewhere overseas, for a period of:

(i)23 days in either December or 23 days in January as the Father may choose (that is, makes his election) in even numbered years commencing December 2014;

and:

(ii)23 days in either December or 23 days in January as the Mother may choose (that is, makes her election) in odd numbered years commencing December 2015,

and alternating annually thereafter.

PROVIDED HOWEVER THAT for the first 5 days of the Father’s 23 day period, the boys shall spend time with their Father as follows:

(a)For the first day from 9.00 am – 7.00 pm;

(d)For the second day with the Mother;

(e)From 9.00 am on the third day to 7.00 pm on the fourth day;

(f)For the fifth day with the Mother; and

(g)From 9.00 am on the sixth day with the Father for a period of 18 days thereafter.

4.That should the Mother or the Father elect to have the children spend time with either of them outside Australia on any holiday occasion, then:

(a)Each of the Mother and the Father is restrained and an injunction issues restraining either of them from taking the children to any country which is not a signatory to the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”);

(b)The Father will provide the Mother with a preliminary itinerary of the proposed travel including details of destination, arrival and departure dates, not less than 60 days prior to the time of arrival and a final itinerary, including copies of the children’s airline tickets relevant addresses including hotels where applicable together with relevant phone numbers at all relevant times, not less than 15 days prior to the time of arrival.

5.If the Father elects to be in Australia at times other than the children’s school holiday times then the children shall spend time with the Father at all such times as the Mother and Father agree between themselves, but failing agreement, then as follows:

(a)       For the first 14 days:

(i)        For Week 1:  from after school Thursday until 5.00 pm Sunday;

(ii)For Week 2:  from after school Tuesday until the commencement of school on Friday;

(b)For any time beyond the first 14 days:

(i)        For Week 1:  from after school Friday until 5.00 pm Sunday;

(ii)For Week 2:  from after school Wednesday until the commencement of school on Friday.

6.To the extent that it is geographically and reasonably possible, the children shall if not already spending time with the particular parent, then spend time with the other parent on the following occasions:

(a)On Mother’s Day with the Mother from 9.00 am to 7.00 pm;

(b)On Father’s Day with the Father from 9.00 am to 7.00 pm;

(c)On the Mother’s birthday with the Mother from 9.00 am to 7.00 pm or if it is a school day, from after school until return to school the following day;

(d)On the Father’s birthday with the Father from 9.00 am to 7.00 pm or if it is a school day, from after school until return to school the following day;

(e)On each the children’s birthdays with the Mother on the child’s birthday and with the Father the following day in all odd numbered years; and with the Father on the child’s birthday and with the Mother the following day in all even numbered years, and alternating each year thereafter;

(f)For two days over the Jewish holiday of Pesach with the Mother;

(g)For two days over the Jewish New Year holiday with the Mother;

(h)For two days over the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur with the Mother; and

(i)That should the children’s time with the Father be suspended to accommodate the children spending time with the Mother in accordance with Orders 5 (f) – (g) inclusive, then the children are to spend any corresponding make up time with the Father at the conclusion of the children’s time with the Mother.

Telephone/Skype Communications

7.That the parent with whom the children are living shall reasonably do all things to facilitate the children communicating with the other parent each Wednesday and Sunday between 6.00 pm and 6.30 pm AEST with such communication to be by Skype in the first instance or if for any reason impracticable, then by phone or any other electronic means as the parent may elect with the Mother to initiate contact on Wednesdays and the Father to initiate contact on the Sundays.

8.Save for the times set out in Order 7 above, each of the Mother and the Father are to do all reasonable things to facilitate the children phoning or Skyping the other parent whenever the children or either of them wish to do so as well as ensure, to the extent that it is reasonable, that the children’s mobile phones are charged and switched on and that the children’s computer is online so that the other parent may contact the children at all reasonable times.

Specific Issues

9.Each of the Mother and the Father shall:

(a)keep the other parent informed at all times of their residential address and mobile contact telephone numbers and email addresses and no less than 7 days’ notice of any intention to change those details;

(b)keep the other parent informed of the names and addresses of any treating medical or other health practitioner who treats the children and authorise those practitioners to provide the other parent with information that they are lawfully able to provide about the children;

(c)inform the other parent as soon as reasonably practicable of any significant medical condition, significant health issue or illness suffered by the children;

(d)authorise by these Orders for any treating medical practitioner to release the children’s medical information to the other parent.

10.That order 3 of the Orders made by this Court on 20 June 2012 restraining each of the Mother and the Father from removing the children from the Commonwealth of Australia and requesting the Australian Federal Police to place the children’s names on the Airport Watch List, be discharged.

11.The Mother shall hold the children’s passports and retain them in her possession at all times other than when they are required by the Father for the children to spend time with him outside Australia at the expiration of which the Father is to forthwith return the children’s passports to the Mother.

12.That both the Mother and the Father do all things to support the children to fully participate in their religious upbringing in the Jewish faith:

(a)The Mother will inform the Father of the children’s Bar Mitzvah at least 75 days in advance, so the Father can attend, if he chooses to do so;

(b)The Mother will inform the Father of any other special Jewish events at least 14 days in advance, so the Father can attend, if he chooses to do so, such events being those which occur in the Jewish Synagogue or otherwise organised by the Jewish community  in which either or both of the children are involved, but excludes such events or festivities that occur within the children’s home;

(c)The Father is to refrain from doing any act; making any comment; or communicating in any way, any anti-Semitic views or expression at any time and at any place to or in the presence of either or both of the children.

13.That both the Mother and the Father do all things to support the children to maintain their Country F heritage and ancestry.

14.That each of the Mother and the Father do all things and sign all documents reasonably necessary to:

(a)facilitate the removal of the children’s names from the said Airport Watch List;

(b)register these Orders in the relevant Court of competent jurisdiction or with the relevant government agency and/or authorities in Country D, Country E and Country A, with the Mother to be responsible for the preparation of all documentation and associated costs.

15.That the Mother be authorised to sign on behalf of the Father all documents reasonably required in order to ensure that the children have current Country D passports until they reach the age of 18 years and all necessary visas and permits to enable them to travel outside Australia.

16.In each instance before the children leave the Gold Coast with the Mother, whether for holidays in Australia or overseas the Mother shall within 15 days prior to departure provide to the Father in writing, a full itinerary detailing relevant flights and tickets if applicable; departure and return dates; accommodation addresses; phone numbers and as much other relevant information to ensure that he is fully informed.

17.That the Father be restrained from removing the children from the Commonwealth of Australia until the youngest child, B reaches 10 years of age, save and except if the children are travelling with the Father to either New Zealand, Bali or Fiji, or with the Mother to meet the Father in Europe.

Default Obligations

18.Each of the Mother and the Father shall do all acts and things reasonably required including the signing of all necessary documents to give effect to the provisions of these Orders within 7 days of being requested to do so. In the event that either party refuses or neglects to sign and return a necessary document within 28 days of the request being received by the other party then pursuant to section 106A of the Family Law Act, a Registrar of the Brisbane Registry of the Family Court of Australia is empowered, appointed and directed by these Orders to sign the necessary document in the name of the defaulting party upon presentation of such document and an Affidavit by the party or solicitor on behalf of the requesting party as to the said neglect or refusal. 

19.That the cost of and incidental to such request and production of relevant documents to the Registrar shall be borne by the defaulting party without further Order of this honourable Court and may be taxed or fixed by the Registrar and thereafter shall be recoverable from the defaulting party by the other party as a debt and an Affidavit of the party or the solicitor acting for the party shall be sufficient proof of the other party’s default.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

20.To give effect to Order 10 above, the Court requests that the Australia Federal Police remove the names of the children, M born … 2003 (male) and B born … 2005 (male), from the Family Law Watch List at all points of international arrivals and departures in Australia.

By the Court

(Signed Forrest J)

The Honourable Justice Forrest