GENIM & GENIM
[2018] FamCA 558
•27 July 2018
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| GENIM & GENIM | [2018] FamCA 558 |
| FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child lives – With whom a child spends time – Where the parties are in conflict – Where the children have been exposed to conflict between the parties – Where the competing proposals of the parties support the children having a meaningful relationship with each of the parents. FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim distribution of property – Where the wife seeks an interim property settlement – The Court should take a cautious approach to interim distribution of property. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B(1), 60B(2), 60CA, 60CC(2), 60CC(2A), 60CC(3), 61DA, 79 |
| Keats & Keats [2016] FamCAFC 156 Marvel v Marvel (No. 2) [2010] FamCAFC 101 Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108 Strahan & Strahan (Interim property orders) (2011) FLC 93-466 |
| APPLICANT: | Ms Genim |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Genim |
| FILE NUMBER: | ADC | 1647 | of | 2018 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 27 July 2018 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Adelaide |
| PLACE HEARD: | Adelaide |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Berman J |
| HEARING DATE: | 18 July 2018 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Ms Ben-Simon |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | RB Flinders |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Alevizos | |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Harry Alevizos, Barrister & Solicitor | |
Orders
That the husband and wife have equal shared parental responsibility for X born … 2008 (“X”) and Y born … 2009 (“Y”) (collectively “the children”).
The children live with the wife and spend time with the husband as follows:-
(a)Each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school (or 3.30 pm if not a school day) on Thursday to the commencement of school (or 5 pm if not a school day) on Monday commencing 2 August 2018;
(b)For one half of the short term school holidays as may be agreed but in default of agreement from the conclusion of school on the last day of term until 5 pm on the middle Sunday;
(c)For one half of the long Christmas school holidays as may be agreed but in default of agreement from the conclusion of school on the last day of term until 5 pm on the following Friday and each alternate week thereafter;
(d)For Father’s Day from 9 am until 5pm if the children are not already in the husband’s care PROVIDED that the children spend time with the wife from 9 am until 5 pm on Mother’s Day if not already in her care;
(e)From 3 pm Christmas Eve until 3 pm Christmas Day in 2018 and each alternate year thereafter PROVIDED that the children will spend time with the wife from 3 pm Christmas Day until 5 pm Boxing Day in 2018 and in each alternate year thereafter;
(f)From 3 pm Christmas Day until 5 pm Boxing Day in 2019 and each alternate year thereafter PROVIDED that the children will spend time with the wife from 3 pm Christmas Eve until 3 pm Christmas Day in 2019 and each alternate year thereafter;
(g)At other times as may be agreed.
That the children’s time with the husband as provided for in paragraph 2(a) is suspended during all school holidays.
That handovers that do not occur to and from the children’s school shall occur at McDonald’s Restaurant, Suburb P.
Until further order the husband Mr Genim born … 1973 and the wife Ms Genim born … 1981, their servants and/or agents are hereby restrained by injunction and irrespective of authenticated consent as contemplated in Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975, from removing or attempting to remove or causing or permitting the removal of the said children X born … 2008 and Y born … 2009 from the Commonwealth of Australia for a period of twenty four (24) months.
It is requested that the Australian Federal Police give effect to this order by placing the names of the said children X born ... 2008 and Y born ... 2009 on the Family Law Watchlist in force at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia and maintain the children’s names on the Watchlist for the said period, or until the Court orders its removal.
That the husband and wife do all things necessary to ensure that the balance of funds currently held in the District Court Suitors Fund on behalf of the District Court of South Australia pursuant to restraining order made 29 May 2017 be distributed as follows:-
(a)NOTING the purported agreement between the husband and the DPP that a settlement sum be fixed in the amount of THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($35,000) such sum as is required to cause the DPP to release the balance of funds currently held in the Suitors Fund;
(b)To the wife’s solicitors for and on behalf of the wife the sum of SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000) by way of interim property settlement;
(c)To B School, Suburb C the sum of THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($35,000);
(d)The balance of the monies to be placed in an interest bearing account in the joint names of the parties with further distributions or withdrawals to be made with the written consent of each party or further order of the Court.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Genim & Genim has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE |
FILE NUMBER: ADC 1647 of 2018
| Ms Genim |
Applicant
And
| Mr Genim |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
The proceedings between Ms Genim (“the wife”) and Mr Genim (“the husband”) relate to children’s matters and property settlement.
There are two children of the marriage, namely X born in 2008 and Y born in 2009 (collectively “the children”).
The matter came before this court on 18 July 2018 for an interim hearing in relation to parenting orders and interim distribution of property.
By Initiating Application filed 26 April 2018 the wife seeks interim orders that the children live with her and spend time with the father each alternate weekend from 3.30 pm Friday until 9 am Monday. She seeks that the children be placed on the Family Law Airport Watchlist and that any passports be delivered up to the Family Court of Australia Registry. With respect to property she seeks an urgent distribution of funds such that $35,000 is applied to outstanding school fees and $100,000 is paid to her and to be categorised at trial.
By Response filed 5 June 2018 the husband opposes the orders sought by the wife and seeks that the children live with each of the parties on a weekabout basis. He seeks that the parties both be permitted to travel overseas with the children. With respect to the property he seeks that there be no distribution of property prior to the finalisation of the proceedings.
Background
The wife was born in 1981 and is 37 years old. She is employed on a full time basis and is studying part time.
The husband was born in 1973 and is 45 years old. He became an Australian citizen in 1987 after arriving as a refugee in 1985. He is presently unemployed but holds a qualification and has been employed in the past.
The parties met in 2001 via an online dating service. They commenced a relationship in late 2001. It is the wife’s position that the parties commenced cohabitation in Melbourne in late 2001. The husband disputes that he ever lived in Melbourne with the wife and instead says that the parties commenced cohabitation in 2005 when the wife moved to live with him in Adelaide.
The parties were married in 2007 and separated on 1 May 2016. There is no prospect of reconciliation.
The husband was convicted of charges relating to the cultivation of cannabis in early 2018 and sentenced to 21 months and three weeks imprisonment, suspended upon entering into a bond of good behaviour for 18 months.
There is a balance of $600,540.49 held in the District Court Suitors Fund following the seizure and sale of two properties held by the parties. The parties each allege that this followed a default on the mortgage by the other.
The balance held in the Suitors Fund is presently restrained pursuant to an order made by the District Court under the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005 (SA), pending orders made by this court.
Children’s matters
Following the parties separation in May 2016, the wife alleges that the children did not spend any significant time with the husband until January 2017 when the children spent time with him on one occasion per week with no overnight time. The wife contends that the husband did not express any interest in seeing the children notwithstanding that he was unemployed and able to assist her in the children’s day to day needs.
From April 2017 the children spent time with the husband every week from Monday after school until the commencement of school on Thursday. While the wife considers that the time the children spend with him was at his insistence, it is not suggested by her that she was threatened or felt compelled to accede to his parenting demands.
The arrangement as commenced in April 2017 continued during school holidays.
It is the husband’s evidence that there was never disagreement between the parties as to the arrangements in respect of the children and that it was with her clear consent that the parties would share the children’s care. He contends there was no interruption to his time with the children after separation.
He says that pursuant to the arrangement with the wife the children would live with him from Monday to Thursday in one week and from Thursday to the commencement of school on Monday in week two.
The arrangement apparently continued until March 2018 when he says the wife changed the routine and only permitted the children to spend time with him from Monday through to Thursday each alternate week.
The wife says that the arrangement whereby the children spend Monday after school to Thursday at the commencement of school each week with the husband has continued.
At the hearing it was noted that the husband had not spent time with X for two weeks. He was spending time with Y.
The husband seeks a return to a shared care arrangement such that the parties each have the children on a week-about basis.
The wife seeks that the children spend time with the husband each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school Friday until the commencement of school on Monday.
The evidence does not enable a finding as to whether either of the asserted shared care arrangements were with the consent of the parties or otherwise.
Following the commencement of proceedings, the parties attended upon a family consultant and a Child Responsive Program Memorandum dated 20 June 2018 was prepared.
The wife places heavy reliance on the report to support her application that the interim arrangements should change and largely fall in line with X’s wishes.
The wife provides examples of the husband’s threatening and harassing behaviour. She asserts that it is consistent with his conduct during the course of the marriage.
Paragraphs 16 and 24 of the wife’s affidavit filed 26 April 2018 provide examples of threatening text messages received from both the husband and his partner. The husband does not deny the contents of the text messages but considers that his and his partner’s response should be seen in the context of the wife’s ongoing abuse and vitriol.
He summarises the position in his affidavit filed 5 June 2018 as follows:-
36.By about January 2018, I was finding it very difficult to continue communicating with the mother as I could no longer tolerate her ongoing abuse and vitriol. I then asked a friend, [Ms D], to assist me in communicating with the mother. She agreed to do so. I am not in a relationship with [Ms D] and she merely offered some assistance to me at the time and is a valued friend. The mother and [Ms D] then exchanged various emails regarding the children and these quickly became very hostile. Although the mother makes derogatory remarks about the contents of various messages [Ms D] sent to her, she neglects to mention that she herself sent [Ms D] numerous messages which were far more aggressive and disrespectful and [Ms D] merely responded to those.
For his part, the husband considers that the wife is unstable and that she is more concerned with paying attention to her partner Mr E and his children than the subject children. He remains concerned as to the appropriateness of the wife’s environment, particularly in respect of her relationship with Mr E.
What is uncontroversial is the toxic nature of the relationship that exists between the parties. They are abjectly mistrustful of each other and their relationship is one of high conflict. The parties have no ready ability to communicate with each other and neither have put forward any evidence as to how they negotiate parenting decisions in respect of the children.
Even on the most benign view of each of the parties’ affidavits, little or no effort has been made to shield the children from the conflict and they appear to have a good understanding of the poor regard that each parent holds for the other.
FAMILY CONSULTANT
The family consultant quickly identified that the children were unhappy in the current environment created by their parents. In particular, X was candid in her self-assessment that she was not popular at school, was subjected to taunts from her peers about her weight and was worried about her ability to function at school.
She also expressed a strong concern about the embarrassment she experiences in the transition from one household to the other exemplified by her having to travel with a conspicuous suitcase. The husband does not appear to have school uniforms for the children. The inference is that the majority, if not all of the children’s clothing and belongings necessary for their time with the husband (and for school whilst with him) is provided by the wife.
The family consultant records at [12] that “[X] intensely disliked the suitcase because it was heavy and people tried to look in it”.
As discussed, X was troubled by her physical appearance and her discomfort associated with her “suitcase”.
X was recorded to struggle with the current shared-care arrangement and whilst she missed her father when with her mother, she missed her mother much more. She considered that her mother was the primary source of support. She considered that swapping houses each week was “too difficult” and she would prefer to live with her mother and spend time with her father every second weekend.
It is not surprising given the content of the parties’ affidavits that the children, but in particular X, were aware that their parents did not like each other and did not get along. Such was the level of conflict that she was scared if the parents happened to be in the same room together.
The husband does not deny that he informed her of what he considered was the wife’s suicide attempt.
Contrary to the husband’s view of the children’s relationship with the wife’s partner Mr E, X considered that he was nice and she enjoyed his presence.
Unlike X, Y presented to the family consultant as being more robust, although he did appear to the family consultant to be shy and at times anxious. He did not experience difficulties at school, considered that he was popular and enjoyed both the academic and extra-curricular activities.
He also spoke positively of the wife’s partner and confirmed that the husband does not retain school uniforms for the children with everything having to be provided by the wife.
The wife impressed the family consultant as being child-focussed with an appropriate level of insight as to the needs of the children, particularly X who has Autism and requires regular assistance for speech and occupational therapy. She acknowledges that X continues to suffer from bedwetting and soiling.
The husband did not impress as child-focussed. He appeared focussed on detailing the wife’s failings and poor parenting skills rather than demonstrating much insight as to how the clear conflict between the parties had impacted upon the children.
The husband is recorded as alleging the wife has mental health issues and may well be autistic. His observations of the children are that when they come into his care they appear neglected, unkempt and lacking in appropriate nutrition.
There is no suggestion that any child protection agency have been involved in monitoring the wife’s care of the children.
The family consultant summarised the position at [40]:-
Under the circumstances of allegations of coercive control, concerns about the father’s drug status, poor communication between the parties, the children’s vulnerability (in particular [X’s] developmental needs), and [X’s] expressed wish to live with her mother, the current care arrangements do not appear to be viable into the future.
PRINCIPLES RELEVANT TO PARENTING CONSIDERATIONS
Section 60CA of the Act requires that I have the best interests of the children as the paramount consideration. The best interests test is to be considered by the application of the objects of s 60B(1) and the underlying principles of s 60B(2).
I am cognisant of the primary considerations and the additional considerations in respect of the matters as set out in s 60CC(2) and (3).
I am mindful of the direction contained in s 60CC(2A), however, in considering the proposals of the parties they are inconsistent with the proposition that either party presents as a significant risk to the children by reason of their conduct and behaviour.
Neither the wife’s assertion that the husband demonstrates controlling and coercive behaviour, nor his allegation that the wife is neglectful of the children and exercises poor parenting skills appear to be relevant considerations that impact the children.
At this stage I am not able to make a finding that either the husband or the wife pose a physical, psychological or emotional risk to the children.
I propose to adopt the following approach:-
(1)To give consideration to the proposals put forward by each of the parties as they are identified and presented to the Court.
(2)Have regard to the objects expressed in s 60B(1) and the underlying principles in s 60B(2).
(3)Have regard to the provisions of s 60CC in order to determine in each case what is in the children’s best interests.
(4)Have regard to the primary considerations under s 60CC(2) namely, the benefit of the children having a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm.
(5)Have regard to the additional considerations under s 60CC(3).
Section 61DA requires the Court to consider whether to apply the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and if so, whether there are matters set out in s 61DA which would rebut the presumption.
The parties concede that the interests of these children are best served by each of them having equal shared parental responsibility. It must be remembered that such an order made on an interim basis is not determinative of the final position. Given my finding as to the toxic nature of the parties’ relationship, they must each consider carefully whether their continued behaviour towards each other is consistent with shared parental responsibility.
In the circumstances I am obliged to consider whether there should be equal shared care (as the husband currently seeks), or if reason exists to make a different order.
The proposals of the parties are inherently supportive of the children maintaining a meaningful relationship with each of them.
X is clearly a troubled child. She is anxious about her appearance and is cognisant that at school she is unpopular. She has experienced bullying and low self-esteem.
Circumstances which might not trouble a more emotionally robust child appear to impact on X. She is conscious of her transition from one household to the other and exemplifies her distress by focussing on the need to travel with her suitcase.
It appears that she struggles academically at school.
She clearly is closely attached to her parents, but when in her father’s home she misses her mother and considers that she is more attuned to her needs and it is the wife that provides X’s primary support.
Y is less concerned about the arrangements and appears to take matters in his stride.
Both children are aware of the conflict and little has been done to shield them from the more florid aspects of the dispute.
The children’s presentation to the family consultant appears generally supportive of her observations that of the two parents, the wife was more child-focussed.
X wishes to spend more time in the wife’s care, with less movement between the households.
In Marvel v Marvel (No. 2) [2010] FamCAFC 101 the Full Court considered the caution that should be exercised in interim proceedings. The issue of findings in contested evidence was considered in the following terms:-
[120]As has frequently been emphasised interim parenting proceedings, and orders made as a consequence, are a necessary but temporary measure until all the evidence can be tested, evaluated and weighed at a final hearing by the making of final parenting orders. Decisions judicial officers have to make in interim proceedings are difficult and, often for very good reason, a conservative approach or one which is likely to avoid harm to a child is adopted. This is often to the understandable distress of a party who may not achieve the outcome he or she desires, or thinks to be in the best interests of their child or children. Interim parenting orders are frequently modified or changed after a final hearing and any allocation of parental responsibility made at an interim hearing is disregarded at the final hearing (s 61DB).
Nevertheless it does not mean that in an appropriate case a judge is always required to be overly cautious as the Full Court considered in Keats & Keats [2016] FamCAFC 156 at [9]:-
…the principles that emerge from cases such as SS v AH [2010] FamCAFC 13, namely, that apart from relying upon the uncontroversial or agreed facts, a judge may have little alternative than to weigh the probabilities of competing claims and the likely impact on children in the event that a controversial assertion is acted upon or rejected…
I am conscious that the husband seeks to maintain what he says has been the status quo for a period of about 18 months until the wife unilaterally altered the arrangements in March 2018.
However, the attitude of the parties towards each other and their current conduct is not supportive of a shared-care arrangement. They have been unsuccessful in shielding the children from the conflict and are entirely incapable of reaching any level of consensus necessary for a shared parenting arrangement to benefit the children.
The presentation of X is axiomatic of a child in distress and not coping.
In circumstances where the parties are not able to put aside their differences, any argument in support of a shared care arrangement has more to do with the needs of the parties rather than any insight as to what the children require.
I propose to fall in with the broad recommendation of the family consultant that there needs to be a change to the current arrangement.
The wife’s proposal of three nights a fortnight is too restrictive. However, a block of four nights from Thursday after school to the commencement on Monday each alternate weekend will ensure some stability returns to the children’s lives, while maintaining a close relationship with each of the parties.
The wife will then be better able to manage and attend the serious personal issues affecting the children, but in particular X.
It also seems reasonable that orders should be made providing for the parties to share equally in the school holidays, both at the end of each school term and the Christmas school holidays.
DRUG TESTING
The wife seeks an order that the husband be restrained from using or consuming illegal substances for a period of 24 hours prior to or during any time that the children are in his care and that he be required to submit to random supervised drug screen testing upon the written request of the wife, but in any event limited to two requests per four week period.
The husband is opposed to the order.
The husband pleaded guilty to the charge of cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis pursuant to s 33B(2) of the Controlled Substances Act (1984SA). He received a term of imprisonment that was suspended upon him entering into a Bond to be of good behaviour.
Other than the conviction, the wife does not allege the use of illicit prohibited substances during the course of the relationship. The husband’s offending occurred after separation.
I do not consider there is any basis to require the husband to submit to a drug testing protocol.
AIRPORT WATCH LIST
The wife seeks that the children be placed on an Airport Watch List. The husband opposes the order on the basis that he is not able to return to Country G but does seek to be able to take the children overseas to visit his father who resides in the US. He is not opposed to the wife taking the children overseas.
Neither party indicates any pressing need or circumstances that would justify the Court considering on an interim basis whether the children should be permitted to leave the Commonwealth of Australia.
Issues that impact on a decision as to whether the children should be permitted to travel overseas are potentially complex and inevitably require the Court to assess the evidence of each of the parties in support of their position.
I propose to place the children on an Airport Watch List.
SCHOOL HOLIDAYS
I intend to order that the parties share the school holidays and in default of agreement the children will be with the husband in the first half of the holidays and for the first week of the December/January school holidays and each alternate week thereafter, save as to the time that the children will spend with each of the parties on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and Boxing Day.
There is no reason why the parties should be restricted in their ability to travel with the children interstate.
INTERIM PROPERTY SETTLEMENT
The wife seeks an order that the parties do all things necessary to cause the balance of the money currently held in the District Court Suitors Fund on behalf of the District Court of South Australia to be held by the wife’s solicitors on trust for the parties and pending final determination that she be paid the sum of $100,000 to be categorised at trial or as may be agreed between the parties and a further $35,000 to be paid to B School for overdue school fees.
The husband opposes the wife’s orders but concedes that the sum of $35,000 should be retained in the fund to satisfy the claim of the Director of Public Prosecutions (“DPP”) pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Assets Compensation Act 2005 (SA).
The husband acknowledges that there are outstanding school fees, but he considers that the school may be amenable to negotiating a reduction in the outstanding amount.
The parties have been unable to reach agreement as to property settlement. The wife seeks that she be entitled to retain the entirety of the funds currently held in the Suitors Fund other than the amount sought by the DPP.
The husband seeks to repay a credit card debt of $33,000, repay his parents $135,000 and the balance then to be divided between the parties equally.
The parties are agreed that the only property available is the money held in the Suitors Fund of about $600,540.
The principle area of contention between the parties is a contest as to the evidence supporting the contribution claims of each of them.
The wife argues that in May 2008 she inherited a property at Suburb H from her grandmother’s estate. It was valued at about $450,000.
In late 2010 the wife’s Suburb H property and the jointly owned property at Suburb L were sold and the parties purchased the former matrimonial home at K Town.
Following separation the parties arranged for the purchase of a property at J Town in which the wife and children lived.
The parties were not able to maintain the mortgage payments and both the K Town and J Town properties were sold in June 2017. The net proceeds of sale were then placed in the Suitors Fund.
In Strahan & Strahan (Interim property orders) (2011) FLC 93-466 the Full Court considered that an application for interim property orders required the consideration of two distinct steps:-
(i)The first stage is a “procedural step” which requires an analysis of whether the circumstances of the case triggers the Court’s power to invoke s 80(1)(h) to make an order for interim property settlement before a final hearing. At this stage the “overarching consideration” is the interests of justice.
(ii)The second stage is the “substantive step” where the provisions of s 79 must be considered and applied but with limitations, given that it is not a final hearing.
The onus is clearly on the applicant to establish that sufficient property or assets exist to satisfy the order that is sought, but also not to prejudice the respondent’s claim.
Because an interim hearing does not enable a proper evaluation of the considerations pursuant to s 79, the Court should take a cautious approach.
In Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108 the High Court stated at [2]:-
Under s 79(2) of the Act, a court shall not make a property settlement order unless satisfied that it is “just and equitable” to do so.
It appears that the parties agree it is just and equitable for the Court to consider an alteration of the property interests of each of them.
I am satisfied that without a consideration of the separate legal and equitable interests of the parties in the money remaining in the Suitors Fund, their separate interests are not able to be determined.
The Court is not required to undertake a “detailed enquiry as to the purpose for which the funds are used”, but an applicant is required to show “more is required than the mere fact that upon a final hearing the applicant would receive the property being sought (or an amount in excess of the funds being sought) from the other party”. (see Strahan & Strahan at 85,646 – 85,647).
The gravamen of the wife’s claim is that she seeks $100,000 to be released from the Suitors Fund for her living expenses and legal fees.
The wife argues that she is financially responsible for the children’s needs. She receives no financial contribution from the husband. She also pays child support to the husband of about $100 per week.
Taking into account her expenses, she has borrowed money from her father and is indebted to him in the sum of $7,000.
She has existing legal fees of $33,000 and has weekly expenses that exceed her weekly income by about $200.
The husband opposes the wife’s application but does not seek any order by way of interim property settlement or litigation funding.
The wife is not required to demonstrate that there are compelling circumstances to support her application. There must however be some basis and in the circumstances as presented by the wife, it is just and equitable that an order for interim property settlement be made. The quantum is more problematic. It is reasonable that the wife be able to repay her father for his outstanding loan, her previous solicitors and for a further amount to assist in the continued financial support of the children in the absence of any contribution by the husband.
I propose to order that the wife receives the sum of $75,000 by way of interim property settlement.
I also consider that there should not be any uncertainty in terms of the children being able to remain at their school for the present. In those circumstances the outstanding liability of $35,000 should also be paid to B School from the proceeds in the Suitors Fund.
Whether it is within the financial ability of the parties for the children to remain in their current school is a matter yet to be determined.
The wife does not seek to apply any of her interim property settlement towards the payment of the school fees and instead seeks that each of the parties contribute equally to the costs of the children’s education.
Such an order would be a consideration of the parties’ respective child support obligations. I am not able to make that order.
I make orders as appear at the commencement of these reasons.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and thirteen (113) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Berman delivered on 27 July 2018.
Associate:
Date: 27 July 2018
0
4
1