Gizzi and Gizzi
[2010] FMCAfam 696
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| GIZZI & GIZZI | [2010] FMCAfam 696 |
| FAMILY LAW – Interim – parenting orders – s.60CC primary and additional considerations. |
| Family Law Act 1975, ss.13C, 60CA, 60CC, 65DAA |
| Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286 |
| Applicant: | MS GIZZI |
| Respondent: | MR GIZZI |
| File Number: | SYC 2355 of 2010 |
| Judgment of: | Monahan FM |
| Hearing date: | 25 June 2010 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 25 June 2010 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 25 June 2010 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | None |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Johnston Vaughan Solicitors |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | None |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Haydon Fowler Corbett Jessop |
ORDERS
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
All extant applications be adjourned to this Court on 12 August 2010 at 9:30am for mention (“the mention hearing”).
Pursuant to s.13C of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”):
(a)the parties within seven (7) days contact an organisation as agreed or, in default of agreement, Interrelate [suburb omitted] (“the organisation”) to arrange an appointment as soon as practicable for an initial post-separation parenting assessment as to suitability for a program;
(b)the parties attend the appointment at any reasonable location nominated by the organisation and complete the assessment;
(c)if assessed as suitable and the organisation nominates counselling, mediation, including child-inclusive mediation or a program to attend, the parties attend (as the organisation directs) as soon as practicable;
(d)the parties share equally the costs of the assessment and program (if applicable) and comply with the requirements of the nominated program and the recommendations of the program co-ordinator including any referrals to complementary services; and
(e)the organisation notify the Court no later than 48 hours prior to the adjourned date whether or not the parties have completed the assessment and the parties’ progress generally.
AND THE COURT ORDERS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER THAT:
Parenting orders 1 to 4 made on 8 April 2010 in [K] Local Court be discharged on and from the end of school on 2 July 2010.
Parenting order 5 made on 8 April 2010 in [K] Local Court be discharged immediately.
The Applicant and the Respondent have equal shared parental responsibility for the children of the marriage, namely [X] born [in] 1999, [Y] born [in] 2001 and [Z] born [in] 2003 (collectively “the children”).
The children live with the Applicant except as provided for in paragraphs 7 and 8 herein.
Commencing 19 July 2010, the children spend time with the Respondent during school terms as follows:
(a)each alternate week from the end of school, or 3:00pm if a non-school day, on Wednesday until the commencment of school, or 9:00am if a non-school day, on Monday; and
(b)in every other week from the end of school Tuesday, or 3:00pm if a non-school day, until commencement of school, or 9:00am if a non-school day, on Wednesday.
Commencing 2 July 2010, the children spend time and live with the Respondent during school holiday periods as follows:
(a)During the first, second and third school term holiday periods (“the school term holidays”), for:
(i)the first half of the school term holidays in even numbered years; and
(ii)the second half of the school term holidays in odd numbered years;
(b)Subject to paragraph 8(c) herein, during the school Christmas holiday periods (“the Christmas holidays”) each alternate week from 9:00am on the day after the conclusion of the fourth school term until 9:00am seven (7) days later; and
(c)From 3:00pm Christmas Eve until 3:00pm Christmas Day in even numbered years and from 3:00pm Christmas Day until 3:00pm Boxing Day in odd numbered years.
Where not provided for in paragraphs 7 and 8 herein, the children spend time with the Respondent on Father’s Day weekend from 6:00pm Saturday until 6:00pm Sunday.
Where not provided for in paragraph 6 herein, the children spend time with the Applicant:
(a)on Mother’s Day weekend from 6:00pm Saturday until 6:00pm Sunday; and
(b)from 3:00pm Christmas Eve until 3:00pm Christmas Day in odd numbered years and from 3:00pm Christmas Day until 3:00pm Boxing Day in even numbered years.
In the event that either party proposes to travel with the children more than 100 kilometres from that party’s home, then not less than seven (7) days prior to the intended date of travel that party advise the other party in writing, including telephone text messages and emails, as to:
(a)if applicable, flight times and/or train times and dates if relevant;
(b)the proposed destination;
(c)any place where it is intended that the children will stay overnight; and
(d)all details necessary for the other parent to maintain telephone contact with the children.
Each party do all things necessary on his or her part to ensure that the children take any medication prescribed by a doctor at the required times and in the prescribed doses.
The Applicant forthwith purchase a book to be used for essential communication between the parties about the children’s needs, including but not limited to information about their extra-curricular activities and the matters set out in paragraph 12 herein, and the book accompany the children each time they move from the care of one party to the other during weekends or school holidays, and at other times should there be a need for communication about such matters.
Both parties ensure that the children are appropriately supervised at all times but in particular when they are in or near water.
In the event that any or all of the children suffers illness or injury while in the care of a party, that party shall as soon as is reasonably practicable inform the other party of the nature of that illness or injury and provide particulars of treatment including, if relevant, details of any hospital or other emergency health facility caring for the child, and nothing in these orders shall prevent either party from being with the child at that time.
AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:
(A)The purpose of the mention hearing is to set the matter down for a final hearing and see if the parenting issues in this matter would benefit from preparation of a Family Report.
(B)Pursuant to ss.65DA(2) and 62B of the Act, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in Annexure A and those particulars are included in these orders.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Gizzi & Gizzi is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYC 2355 of 2010
| MS GIZZI |
Applicant
And
| MR GIZZI |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This is an application commenced in [K] Local Court by MS GIZZI (“the mother”) seeking various property and parenting orders in relation to [X] born [in] 1999 (“[X]”), [Y] born [in] 2001 (“[Y]”) and [Z] born [in] 2003 (“[Z]”) (collectively “the children”).
In relation to parenting orders, the mother is seeking, among other orders, that:
·the children live with her;
i)the children spend time with the father during school terms from Thursday until Sunday in week one, and
ii)from after school Tuesday and Thursday to 7:30pm in week two;
·the children spend time with the father for half of all school holiday periods; and
·the father be restrained from taking the children from the Sydney metropolitan area without her consent.
Her application is supported by her affidavit sworn on 24 March 2010 and filed on 25 March 2010 (“her first affidavit”) and her affidavit sworn and filed today, 26 June 2010 (“her second affidavit”). She was represented today by her solicitor, Mr Vaughan.
The respondent is MR GIZZI (“the father”) who, in his response filed on 8 June 2010, opposes the orders sought by the mother and is seeking different parenting and property orders.
In relation to parenting matters he seeks orders to the following effect:
·equal shared parental responsibility;
·that the children live with him during school terms in a six-eight arrangement
iii)in week one from after school Tuesdays until the following Monday, and
iv)in week two from after school Thursdays until 7:30pm; and
·half the school holidays.
The father relies on his affidavit sworn 7 June 2010 and filed 8 June 2010. He was represented today by his solicitor, Mr Fowler.
Background
The parties commenced cohabitation in 1989 and married in 1994. They separated finally in September 2008. The father has a new relationship with a Ms B, which he describes as a boyfriend, girlfriend relationship. Ms B is divorced with three children of her own aged between 11 and 16. She does not reside with the father.
The mother similarly has a new relationship according to Dr P’s report. She makes no reference to this in her first affidavit or her second affidavit. In itself, that is an issue of some concern as I understand from submissions made today that she does have a partner now identified as a Mr R. Mr R lives with the mother and the children when the children are with her, and Mr R has two children of his own who spend time with him and, one assumes, the mother and the children.
The application came before the presiding Magistrate in [K] Local Court on 1 April 2010. On that occasion the father was unrepresented, having only been served less than 24 hours earlier.
The Magistrate made orders in terms of paragraph 1 of the mother’s interim application. The matter was also transferred to this Court and came before me on 8 June 2010 where I made various procedural orders in relation to both parenting and property matters, including orders that:
·the parties attend a child dispute conference in relation to parenting matters on 11 June 2010; and
·the matter return before me for mention today.
I also noted in the orders that the purpose of the mention hearing today was to consider the suitability of the matter for any hearing in respect of parenting matters. For reasons that are apparent in the child dispute conference memorandum (“the memo”), I agreed to entertain an interim hearing this morning.
Child Dispute Memorandum
The parties attended with family consultant, Ms S, on 11 June 2010. Ms S subsequently provided the parties and the Court with the memo which she produced from that interview.
Ms S confirmed that while there was no issue of parental responsibility in dispute at this stage, the parties were unable to agree on the ‘live with’ and related arrangements for the children. More specifically,
Ms S states:
“The parties were unable to agree completely on a parenting plan, however agreed on a number of aspects of the plan. Both were motivated to reach an agreement in order to get away from the Court, but in the end remained in disagreement over one night. The mother indicated that she might agree to the children being with her for nine nights and for the father five nights, and the father indicated he might agree to the children being with him for six night [sic] and with the mother for the eighth [sic] night [sic]”
In “Summary of arguments reached”, she states:
“Each parent will advise the other if they intend taking the children out of Sydney metropolitan area, and will advise the other parents of where they are going and provide contact details.
The children will spend half the school holidays with each parent, with the children spending the first half with their father in even years.
The children will spend half of the long Christmas holidays in a week about arrangement with the parents.
At Christmas 2010, the children will be with their father from 3 pm on Christmas Eve until 3 pm on Christmas Day. This arrangement will alternate each year between the parents.
At Easter 2011, the children will spend Thursday night until Sunday night with their mother. This arrangement will alternate each year.
The children will spend from 6 pm the night before Mother’s Day until 6 pm on the Mother’s Day with their mother.
The children will spend 6 pm the night before Father’s Day until 6 pm on Father’s Day with the father.”
Ms S also states how much time the children will spend with each parent during school terms.
Ms S then states the issues impeding resolution:
“The mother has raised concerns about the father’s mental health and how this depression impacts upon his parenting.
The mother has raised concerns about the father’s alcohol intake.
Both parents allege that the other is motivated by the possible financial gain associated with having the children in their care longer.”
Ms S notes that there are no significant allegations of family violence in this matter, and that there are no notifications of child abuse or risk of abuse having been made by a family consultant. She does recommend that the parties be referred to an external agency for assistance, and she suggests Interrelate [suburb omitted] for that purpose, and stipulates that the parents should attend without their partners.
Issues
The issue today focuses on the competing interim applications, and more specifically, the number of nights and the configuration of nights that the children will live with their father, and whether the restraint on the father taking the children from the Sydney metropolitan area should remain, be discharged or be varied in some way.
Agreed and disagreed facts
The parties agree, or are not in any significant disagreement, that
b)Each party should have equal shared parental responsibility and spend a week about arrangement during school holiday time;
c)the mother was the primary carer of the children until in or about 2007 when it appears the father assumed that role to enable the mother to build her business;
d)in 2007 onwards the father, it appears, has not worked for any organisation but has been self-employed as a [tradesman];
e)during much of 2008 and 2009 the parties were separated under the one roof;
f)the parties separated finally in September 2009; and
g)the children lived with their father:
i)on a “five-nine” type arrangement during September,
ii)week about during the school holidays in October; and
iii)then a “six-eight” arrangement during the fourth school term in 2009.
The current arrangements, it appears, have been in existence since February 2010 and followed an apparent dispute, lasting three weeks, where the children appeared to have spent little or no time with the father. The father asserts these arrangements were imposed at the mother’s insistence.
It appears that all three children have health and related issues:
·[X] has been diagnosed with Asperger’s disorder which is now well controlled;
·[Y] is asthmatic, which is controlled by Ventolin; and
·[Z] has some behavioural issues.
The parties disagree on the number of nights the children should spend or live with each other parent. The mother proposes a “four-ten” arrangement:
h)from Wednesday until Sunday in week one; and
i)from after school until 7:30pm on Tuesdays and Thursdays in week two.
The father proposes a “six-eight” arrangement in school terms:
j)from Friday until the following Thursday in week one, and
k)from 5:00pm until 7:30 pm on Tuesday in week two.
They also disagree on the ambit and requirements associated with the current restraint order reflected in paragraph 5 of the interim orders sought by the mother and paragraph 5 of the orders ultimately made at the [K] Local Court in April 2010.
Parties’ submissions
At the commencement of the interim hearing, Mr Fowler handed up a minute of order (“the Minute”) sought by the father, and Mr Vaughan, for the mother, indicated there was agreement in respect of paragraphs 1, 2(b) and 3 of the Minute. Paragraph 1 of the Minute reads:
“That the mother and father have equal shared parental responsibility for the children of the marriage.”
Paragraph 2(b) of the Minute reads:
“During school holidays:
(i)During term 1, term 2 and term 3 school holiday periods, with the father for the first half of those school holiday periods in even numbered years and the second half of those school holiday periods in odd numbered years, and with the mother for the other half.
(ii)Subject to subparagraph (2)(b)(iii), during the Christmas school holiday periods with each parent for alternating seven day periods, and for this purpose the first seven day period shall be spent with the father and shall commence at 9 am on the day following the conclusion of the school term and shall conclude at 9 am on the day which is seven days thereafter.
(iii)The children shall live or spend time with the father from 3 pm Christmas Eve until 3 pm Christmas Day in even numbered years and from 3 pm Christmas Day until 3 pm Boxing Day in odd numbered years, and shall be with the mother from 3 pm Christmas Eve until 3 pm Christmas Day in odd numbered years and 3 pm Christmas Day until 3 pm Boxing Day in even numbered years.”
Paragraph 3 of the Minute reads:
“That if the children are not otherwise living with the father on Father’s Day, the children will spend time with the father on Father’s Day weekend from 6 pm Saturday until 6 pm Sunday, and if the children are not otherwise living with the mother on Mother’s Day, the children will spend time with the mother on Mother’s Day weekend from 6 pm Saturday until 6 pm Sunday.”
There was no consent in respect of the rest of paragraph 2 and paragraph 4, which reflect the father’s proposal as indicated previously.
Mr Vaughan outlined the mother’s concerns when the children are in the father’s care. It appears the parenting styles of each party differ and the father’s may well be described, using my words, as a “laissez-faire” parent, and the consequence of this was the difficulties the mother asserts she has in settling the children down when they return to her care. Indeed, Mr Vaughan asserted that the children’s behaviour was, in his words, “unruly” and “wild”, and they were returned, in his words, “not well kept.”
The mother has concerns that the children’s need for a routine would be threatened by extending the time they spend with the father. She also had concerns about the types of activities that the father undertakes with the children. The mother, in her first affidavit, outlines her concerns about a couple of incidents she alleges have occurred early in 2010 and in May 2010. Her second affidavit attaches an email she sent to the father on 24 May 2010 as Annexure A.
Mr Vaughan also raised the mother’s concerns over the past mental health issues involving depression of the father and her fear that he may not continue with his medication or may mix his medication with excessive alcohol consumption.
In commencing his submissions, Mr Fowler tendered two documents as part of his submissions on behalf of the father: The first, exhibit “RH1”, contains the father’s responses sent on 26 May 2010 to the mother’s email of 24 May 2010. The second, exhibit “RH2”, is an email exchange between the parties that occurred on 21 May 2010, prior to the children going on a camping trip which became the central issue of the email exchange previously in exhibit RH1.
In relation to the mother’s affidavits, Mr Fowler also raised several objections on behalf of the father in relation to a number of the paragraphs in her second affidavit. I will not deal specifically with those objections in this interim decision, but I must agree that despite the Court’s ability to sidestep the rules of evidence in parenting cases, the paragraphs referred to did demonstrate some assertions that appear to lack foundation or were mere opinions. Regardless, it would appear that the father refutes or rejects many of the assertions made.
In respect of the father’s alleged mental health issues, Mr Fowler referred to the reports of the psychologist, Ms W, and the psychiatrist, Dr P that when read together clearly refute any suggestion that the children are at any risk whilst being in the father’s care. Mr Fowler also noted that the mother had chosen not to comment upon those reports in her second affidavit.
Mr Fowler also asked the Court to accept that the orders currently in force as to the spend time are out of step with the arrangements that the parties had between 2007 and early 2010 before the parties had a dispute in relation to the holiday that occurred in January 2010 when the children were spending time with the father.
Indeed, Mr Fowler submitted that the evidence actually supports the father being the primary carer for the period 2007 until separation in 2009 and that the parties had a “six-eight” arrangement in place between October and December 2009.
Mr Fowler also submitted that the mother’s proposals, reflected in the current interim orders, was in his words, “piecemeal”, and that the father’s proposal was less so. He submitted that the father was not, in his words, “Painting a negative picture of the mother”, yet the mother had chosen, again using Mr Fowler’s words, “Painting a dim picture of the father’s parenting capacities”, without proper evidentiary foundation.
As to the restraint now contained in paragraph 5 of the existing orders made on 1 April 2010, Mr Fowler submitted that the order was, in his words, “odd” given its narrowness and its lack of any proper evidentiary foundation for it. He noted that it currently impacts upon the father being able to take the children to visit extended family and friends without the mother’s permission. Ironically, he also submitted that it would not have restricted the father taking the children to places such as [omitted].
In reply, Mr Vaughan asked the Court not to place too much weight on what occurred in 2007 in that the quality of the father’s time as primary carer was questionable.
Law
The Full Court of the Family Court decision of Goode v Goode (2006) FLC 93-286 guides the Court’s approach in making interim decisions and interim orders in relation to parenting disputes. Paragraph 81 of that decision, the Full Court noted and I quote:
“In making interim decisions the Court will still often be faced with the conflicting facts, little helpful evidence and disputes between parents as to what constitutes the best interest of the child.”
This matter is such a case.
More specifically, this raises the reality that the Court cannot fully determine issues of credit today as the evidence being presented by the parties to the Court is not being tested by cross-examination. However, paragraph 81 of the Goode decision also went on to say and I quote:
“However, the legislative pathway must be followed.”
In other words, the relevant provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”), post 2006 shared parenting amendments, must be followed at an interim hearing.
It appears there is considerable animosity between the parties in this case, and no doubt the history of the matter will be the subject of evidence and cross-examination at a final hearing should it be needed. The parties have, nevertheless, agreed that there is no issue of parental responsibility to determine today, and more importantly, have agreed that there should be equal shared parental responsibility. The Court sees no reason to disagree with such an outcome. The dispute is simply limited to the issue of the children’s “live with” time with the father and under what circumstances it will be spent.
Given that the parties will have equal shared parental responsibility, the Court is required, under s.65DAA of the Act, to consider whether the children’s best interests would be served by making an order that the children spend equal time or, alternatively, substantial and significant time with each of the parents. Either outcome requires the Court to consider whether the children spending equal time or substantial and significant time in lieu with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child and reasonably practicable in all the circumstances. In considering the reasonable practicality issue, s.65DAA(5) requires the Court to have regard to:
“(a) how far apart the parents live from each other; and
(b)the parents’ current and future capacity to implement an arrangement for the child spending equal time or substantial and significant time with each of the parents; and
(c)the parents’ current and future capacity to communicate with each other and resolve difficulties that might arise in implementing an arrangement of that kind; and
(d)the impact that an arrangement of that kind would have on the child; and
(e) such other matters as the court considers relevant.”
In relation to substantial and significant time, it is noteworthy that s.65DAA(3) of the Act stipulates that a child will only be taken to spend substantial and significant time with a parent if:
“(a) the time the child spends with a parent includes both:
(i) days that fall on weekends and holidays; and
(ii) days that do not fall on weekends and holidays; and
(b) the time the child spends with a parent allows the parent to be involved in:
(i) the child’s daily routine; and
(ii)occasions and events that are of particular significance to the child; and
(c)the time the child spends with the parent allows the child to be involved in occasions and events that are of special significance to the parent.”
At this point I note that the parties live reasonably close to one another in a residential sense, and that under both proposals the children will be with both parties in times that involves both weekends and weekdays.
Turning to the decision of Goode, the Full Court at paragraph 82 sets out the approach this Court must take in determining interim cases. The starting point was to identify:
l)the competing proposals of the parties;
m)the issues in dispute; and
n)any agreed and uncontested relevant facts which have already been canvassed above.
At this point let me refer to s.60CA of the Act which provides:
“In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child a Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.”
To determine the child or children’s best interests the Court must consider the primary considerations or factors set out in section 60CC(2) of the act, and the additional considerations referred to in subsection (3) of section 60CC where relevant.”
Primary considerations: s.60CC(2)
The Court is required under s.60CC(2)(a) to consider:
“The benefit of the child having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents.”
Meaningful does not mean equal, but it clearly signifies that both parties should be involved with their children and clearly signifies an expectation of time to be spent. The right of a child to spend time with each parent and extended family is clearly a right that the child has enunciated in the act. Consequently, the Court will, in all likelihood, need to give some considerable weight to this factor at a final hearing should such be needed.
The Court is also required under s.60CC(2)(b) to consider the need to protect the child, or children in this case, from physical or psychological harm and being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.
There is no doubt that it would be in the children’s best interests, in this case, to develop a meaningful relationship not just with their mother but with their father. That needs to be balanced in respect of protecting children from any physical or psychological harm and the like.
Given the nature of the allegations here, the Court is satisfied there is a need to test the issues as to whether the children have been exposed to any danger in relation to activities that may be considered unsafe. There is also an issue as to the mental health of the father, although there does appear to be evidence currently before the Court that would not question that the children are not safe in his care. Nonetheless, there are issues here now warranting investigation, and the Court will need to tread cautiously in the interim arrangements that will be necessary today as a result.
Additional considerations: s.60CC(3)
With respect to the additional considerations in s.60CC(3), the Court notes that issues such as any views expressed by the children, the nature of the relationship of the children with each of the child’s parents, and the willingness and ability of each of the parents to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship will be flushed out in the fullness of time at the final hearing. The family report, if ordered, will be crucial in the Court reaching a decision which will assist the Court in finally determining these matters.
The Court notes, at this stage, that there is an issue about the parties willingness and ability to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship. However, I note the submissions made by the father that he is not casting that issue upon the mother but asks the Court to accept that the mother is questioning his parenting capacities.
In respect of the issues such as parenting capacities and the like, these will obviously need to be determined at the final hearing following cross-examination and the like.
The Court is also required to consider the likely effect of any changes in the children’s circumstances and the like. If the father’s proposal is adopted there will be a change for the children. That having been said, the orders currently in place only reflect an arrangement that it appears has been in place for only four months and is more contracted than the arrangements that had apparently been in place after separation in 2009.
Conclusion
Having considered the evidence and submissions in light of the structured discretion contained in the Act, the Court is satisfied today that the children’s best interests warrant a minor increase in the time they currently spend with the father.
In this respect there will be orders, until further order, that the children spend time and live with the father during school terms from after school Wednesdays until before school Mondays in week one, and from after school Tuesday to before school Wednesday in week two. In other words the “six-eight” arrangement. This will not commence until the commencement of the new school term on 19 July 2010 noting, of course, that there will be school holidays commencing on 2 July 2010. This period will provide an ideal transition to the “six-eight” arrangement.
In the circumstances, the parties should endeavour to have the mother’s weekend time with the children parallel that weekend time that her partner now spends with his children. There should also be orders for telephone communication between the children and the other parent that they are not living with as a result of the interim orders that will be made. In default of any agreement as to times and dates, the mother will nominate three time periods to which the father will choose two, and the father will nominate four time periods to which the mother will choose three.
As to paragraph 5 of the orders made on 1 April 2010, I have formed the view that it is too wide in its current application. In lieu, there will be an order that will state words to the following effect:
In the event that either party proposes to travel with the children more than 125 kilometres from the party’s home then not less than seven days prior to the intended date of travel that party advise the other party in writing as to:
(a) Flight times or train times and dates, if relevant;
(b) The proposed destination;
(c) Any place where it is intended that the children will stay overnight; and
(d) All details necessary for the other parent to maintain telephone contact with the children.
There will also be orders that the parties are to ensure that the children take all prescribed medication and are appropriately supervised at all times, particularly when they are in or near water.
There will also be an order requiring the mother to purchase a book to be used as a communication book between the parties in respect of parenting matters only.
The parties will also be under an obligation to advise each other in the event that any of the children suffer any illness or injury whilst in the care of the other.
There will also be an order pursuant to s.13C of the Act requiring the parties to attend an organisation, such as Interrelate [suburb omitted], for a program assessment.
Lastly, I propose listing the matter for a mention following the conciliation conference in August and at that time, should matters still remain in dispute, consider setting the matter down for final hearing and ordering a family report for that purpose.
I reserve the right to settle the reasons for this interim decision.
I certify that the preceding seventy (70) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Monahan FM
Date: 19 October 2010
0
0
0