Greyson and Greyson

[2009] FamCA 702

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GREYSON & GREYSON [2009] FamCA 702

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Contravention – where a parent fails to make a child available to spend time with the other parent without reasonable excuse – where there is insufficient evidence to support a claim that a child was not made available due to medical or health reasons

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 70NAC, 70NAE, 70NEA, 70NEB, 70NEC

APPLICANT: Mr Greyson

RESPONDENT: Ms Greyson

FILE NUMBER: MLC 8527 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 17 July 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Bennett J

HEARING DATE: 17 July 2009

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: In person.

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Orders

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That I find the contraventions by the mother alleged in the father’s application filed 24 June 2009 proved in that:-

   a)   on April 3 2009 the mother failed or neglected to make the child O born … March 2000 available for school holiday time with the father and did so in breach of paragraph 6(b) of the Order made 22 January 2009;

   b)     on 24 April 2009 the mother failed or neglected to make the child O available for weekend time with the father on 5 June 2009 and did so in breach of paragraph 6(a) of the Order made on 22 January 2009;

   c)     on 5 June 2009 the mother failed or neglected to make the child O available for weekend time with the father and did so in breach of paragraph 6(a) of the Order made on 22 January 2009; and

   d)     on 19 June 2009 failed or neglected to make the child O available for weekend time with the father and did so in breach of paragraph 6(a) the Order made on 22 January 2009.

2. That the respondent mother has not proved that she had a reasonable excuse for any of the said contraventions.

3. That the issue of sentencing and penalties be adjourned to 11.30 am on Friday 7 August 2009 (estimated to take one to two hours) AND IT IS NOTED that the husband seeks, by way of sanction, make-up time with O, including on the weekend of 24 August 2009 and the adjournment is to allow the mother sufficient time to obtain legal advice about whether she is prepared to enter into a bond pursuant to Section 70NEC of the Family Law Act 1975.

4. That for the purpose of weekend time today, and notwithstanding orders to the contrary, the mother do all acts and things necessary to ensure that the children C born … October 1998 and O born … March 2000 are delivered to the outside of the H Police Station by the maternal grandmother and her husband at 5.30 pm this afternoon.

5. That my reasons for decision this day be transcribed and, when transcribed, copies be made available to the parties.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 8527 of 2007

MR GREYSON

Applicant

And

MS GREYSON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter involves the application of the husband, filed on 24 June 2009, alleging that the wife has contravened orders made in the Family Court of Australia by Mushin J on 22 January 2009.  The matter was initially listed for hearing before me on 8 July 2009.  The mother sought and obtained an adjournment based on the fact that she had been only served with the application and supporting documents on 3 July 2009 in the late afternoon, and that she required time to collate evidence for use in her response to the father’s case.  The mother had the benefit of seeing the duty solicitor at some length on 8 July 2009.  The matter was adjourned to today for hearing and determination. 

2. The father has appeared for himself at all times, as has the mother. 

3. The father relies on his application and two affidavits sworn by him on 23 and 24 June 2009 respectively.  I have permitted the father to rely only on those parts of the affidavits which are relevant to the alleged contraventions.  The mother has filed no response, nor any affidavit material, but she did tender seven documents, the majority of which were medical certificates.  They are:

   (a)Exhibit M1, being an undated letter signed by Dr N of G Centre, certifying that the child, O is receiving medical treatment and for the period Friday 24 April 2009 to Friday 24 April 2009 he would be unfit to continue his usual occupation.

   (b)Exhibit M2, being a letter from Dr W of M, dated 30 April 2009, certifying that the doctor had examined the mother, O and his sister C on 30 April 2009 and that all three of them would be unfit for normal work/school from 30 April 2009 to 1 May 2009 inclusive.

   (c)Exhibit M3, being a medical certificate from Dr L of P Medical Centre, dated 28 April 2009, in which it is certified that on 28 April 2009 C would be unfit for school from 28 April 2009 to 29 April 2009 inclusive.

   (d)Exhibit M4, being a medical certificate from Dr L of P Medical Centre, dated 28 April 2009, in which it is certified that on 28 April 2009 O would be unfit for school from 28 April 2009 to 29 April 2009 inclusive.

   (e)Exhibit M5 is a letter from Y Community Support from Ms G to the mother, dated 14 July 2009, in which, omitting formal and relevant parts, it is stated: ‘Thank you for your recent referral for your children, [C] and [O].  Unfortunately we are unable to continue with providing a service to you or your children as we are unable to gain consent from both parents.  Please contact this service if you would like to pursue further referral possibilities.’

   (f)Exhibit M6 is a letter from Mr R, psychologist, dated 13 July 2009, addressed to whom it may concern and stating:  ‘I last saw [O] on 9 April 2009.  At the time I raised the issue of contact visits with his father, which subsequently caused [O] obvious distress and anxiety, together with a firm protest.  I therefore suggested to his mother that in order to avoid him further unwarranted distress that his wishes be considered.’

   (g)Exhibit M7, being a letter dated 10 October 2008, from Dr A of F Clinic, certifying that ‘[O] attended for a consultation on 10 October.  Was/is/will be unfit for school from Friday 10 October 2008 until Friday 10 October 2008 inclusive, resulting from medical condition.’

4. The above exhibits, whilst not sworn evidence, are documents to which I can have regard given the amendments to Part 7 of the Act, and the evidentiary provisions in Part 12A. 

5. The original orders, which are the subject of this contravention, were made by consent on 22 January 2009.  Relevantly, they provide that all previous parenting orders be discharged.  The husband and wife have equal shared parental responsibility for the three children, A, who is 16 years of age, C, who is 10 years of age, and O, born in March 2000, who is nine years of age and the only child of the parties with whom this pending application is concerned. 

6. The orders provide that A live with the father and spend time regularly with the mother, and that C and O live with the mother and spend time regularly with the father.  In particular, paragraph 6 of the orders provide that: 

   a)Each alternate weekend, during each of the school terms, from the conclusion of school on Friday (or in the event Friday is a non-school day from the conclusion of school on Thursday) until 4.00 p.m. on Sunday (or in the event Monday is a non-school day then at 4.00 p.m. on Monday), commencing February 2009.

   b)For one half of the school term holidays and the long summer holidays commencing at 5.00 p.m. on the mid-day of the holidays until the last day of the holidays at 5.00 p.m…

   […]

   f)By telephone each Tuesday from 6.00 p.m. until 6.30 p.m. with the child [A] to initiate such phone calls to the wife and the husband to do all reasonable things necessary to enable such calls to be made by the child.

7. Paragraph 10 of the orders provides that changeovers (other than when changeover occurs at the children’s school or for the occasion of the children’s birthdays) should occur as follows:

   a)with respect to the child [A] spending time with his mother, the wife shall collect the child from the [H] Police Station at the commencement of periods when the child is to be in her care and the husband shall collect the child from the [D] Police Station at the conclusion;

   b)with respect to the children [C] and [O] the husband shall collect the children from the [D] Police Station at the commencement and the wife shall collect the children from the [H] Police Station at the conclusion.

8. Paragraph 13 of the orders provides for the appointment of a family consultant for a period of 24 months. That family consultant is to refer the parties to a psychologist or similarly qualified person for the purpose of them ‘attempting to improve their relationship and their parenting of the children.’ Subsection (b) makes it clear that any family report produced hereof must taken into consideration the parties’ difficult financial circumstances.

9. And finally, paragraph 16 of the orders provides that:

   Pursuant to sections 62B and 65DA of the Family Law Act 1975 the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.

10. I note that at the time the final orders were sought and made, the mother was legally represented.  Before Mushin J., Mr Marchetti of counsel appeared for the mother, Mrs Mandelert for the independent children’s lawyer, and the father appeared in person. 

11. As a matter of substantive law and natural justice, it is required that an application under the provisions of Division 13A, such as this application, contains allegations of fact which if proved would constitute a breach without reasonable excuse of a parenting order. 

12. I am satisfied that the particulars of the alleged breaches are sufficient to enable the respondent mother to know the case against her and to meet it.  The alleged breaches in this matter are as follows:

    a)Count 1.  The father alleges that at 5 p.m. on 3 April 2009 at D police station, the wife failed or neglected to make O available for time with the father, and did so in contravention of her obligations under paragraph 6(b) of the orders made on 22 January 2009.

    b)Count 2.  The father alleges that at 3.20 p.m. on 24 April 2009 at S Primary School, the wife failed or neglected to make the child O available to spend the weekend with his father, and did so in contravention of paragraph 6(a) of the orders made on 22 January 2009.

    c)Count 3.  The father alleges that at 3.20 pm on 5 June 2009 at S Primary School, the wife failed or neglected to make the child O available to spend the weekend with his father, and did so in contravention of paragraph 6(a) of the orders made on 22 January 2009.

    d)Count 4.  The father alleges that at 3.20 pm on 19 June 2009 at S Primary School, the wife failed or neglected to make the child O available to spend the weekend with his father, and did so in contravention of paragraph 6(a) of the orders made on 22 January 2009.

13. For ease of reference, I will refer to the alleged contraventions of the orders by the counts appearing above. 

14. The mother admits that the orders operated on each of the dates that the counts were alleged by the father, and that she did not make O available for spending time with the father, at that commencement of such time or at any time during the time provided for in the orders.  She alleges, however, that her failure to comply with the orders was due to a reasonable excuse. 

15. A person is taken for the purposes of Division 13A to have contravened an order under the Act, affecting children if, and only if, where the person is bound by the order, she has intentionally failed to comply with the order or made no reasonable attempt to comply with the order, and has done so without reasonable excuse.[1] 

    [1] s 70NAC

16. Section 70NAE provides that the circumstances in which a person may be taken to have had a reasonable excuse for contravening an order include, but are not limited to, if the respondent believed, on reasonable grounds, that the actions constituting the contravention were necessary to protect the health and safety of a person (including herself or O) and the period during which, because of the contravention, the child did not live with the person, or spend time with the person in whose favour the order was made, was not longer than was necessary to protect the health or safety of the person (O). [2]

    [2] s 70NAE(4)

17. In determining whether the mother had reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the order, or all or any of the four counts alleges against her, the standard of proof to be applied is proof on a balance of probabilities.[3]

    [3] s70NAF(2)

18. The father was confined to his affidavit evidence.  The mother had an extensive opportunity to cross-examine the father.  Much of the mother’s cross-examination was irrelevant, although it informs me that there is a high degree of conflict between the mother and the father, not the least of which is characterised by an apparently calm demeanour on behalf of the father and a rather histrionic demeanour on behalf of the mother. 

19. The topics upon which the mother wished to cross-examine the father at some length related to an underlying medical condition and requirements of O’s in respect of which I had no expert evidence.  She was concerned to ask the father about medical plans for asthma.  It was asserted, and the father agreed, that O has an allergy to certain grass seeds, and in late spring and early summer suffers badly from hay fever.  She says that that progresses into asthma, and if not treated can proceed to infections or viral conditions.  She says that an asthma attack for her is very scary. 

20. Under cross-examination the father said that he had never observed O to have an attack of asthma. However, he had attended a medical appointment in October 2008, at which he received prescriptions from Dr A for asthma medications for O, and has had those prescriptions filled and retains the medication for use by O should he need it.  He says that O does not appear to need it in his care, although he is unsure as to whether O may self-administer preventative medication without his knowledge. 

21. The father’s evidence was somewhat contradictory.  He initially said that at the medical appointment with Dr A in October 2008 there had been no recommendation by Dr A that O should remain in the care of his mother because he was ill on that day.  Subsequently he said that he recalled that the doctor had said the child could stay with the mother, but it was not put as forcefully as a recommendation.  In any event, this was one of the topics which without any underlying evidence as to a medical condition and O’s required treatment, I did not find to be probative of the mother’s contention that her failure to comply with the order was in order to protect O’s health and safety.

22. The other topic upon which the mother laboured was the father’s apparent refusal to engage in post-separation child focused counselling at Y Services.  The father admits that in May or June 2009 he received a letter from Y Services which asked if he wanted to participate in counselling, and indicated that in the event that he did not wish to participate or give his consent to the participation of the children, the children would nonetheless participate.  The father remains unprepared to participate in that counselling or a program to which the mother has apparently referred the family. 

23. This was also a matter which, whilst preoccupying the mother, did not have any bearing on the actual case at hand. 

24. In relation to 3 April 2009, the husband’s evidence is that the mother contacted him on that day and stated that O was ill and could not be moved and that in a couple of days she would ring and let him know when he could come over. The mother rang the father the following day and advised him that she would drop O off if he was alright. She further advised that she would call later him to arrange this. He received no phone call. The father’s evidence was that he tried to make telephone contact with the mother on 4, 5, 6 and 7 April 2009. The phone went to an answering machine and the father did not receive a reply until 8 April 2009. The father contacted the mother’s solicitors by fax on 6 and 7 April but received no response from them. When he finally spoke to the mother by telephone on 8 April 2009, he was told to cease sending faxes to her solicitor as he had been discharged.[4]

    [4] Affidavit of the father sworn 23 June 2009, para 3-6.

25. By way of evidence in support of the wife’s assertion of reasonable excuse, the mother agreed that she did make the phone call attributed to her.  She said that O was ill, but she was unable to find any medical certificate to corroborate the fact that she sought medical advice for O or, most particularly, that O was too ill to attend for the one half of the school term holidays that he was due to have with the father. This is in spite of the several certificates or notes of attendances upon doctors upon which she relied. The wife’s evidence was vague as to treatment for physical ailments. The wife’s evidence included reliance on a letter from Mr R, psychologist, dated 13 July 2009[5], addressed to whom it may concern and stating that: 

    I last saw [O] on 9 April 2009.  At the time I raised the issue of contact visits with his father, which subsequently caused [O] obvious distress and anxiety, together with a firm protest.  I therefore suggested to his mother that in order to avoid him further unwarranted distress that his wishes be considered.

    [5] Exhibit “M6”

26. The consultation was at the end of the time which O should have spent with the father. I do not know what O’s anxiety was based upon. There was no evidence of the professional or the mother seeking to contact the father to advise him or see if anything could be done to ameliorate the situation (if it required amelioration). I am not satisfied that the mother had any reasonable excuse in relation to the first count.  That is, I am not satisfied that the child was too sick to spend time with the father or that the mother’s refusal to abide the order was only for so long as was necessary to protect the health and safety of O.  

27. In relation to count 2, the father’s evidence is found at paragraphs 2 to 4 of his affidavit, sworn on 24 June 2009, in which he states that he phoned S Primary School on 24 April and was advised that O was not at school, although he had been at school the previous day. The father then attempted to call the mother but was unsuccessful. After collecting C from her school, the father again contacted S Primary School and was advised that O had still not attended school. On 26 April 2009, upon returning C, he was informed by the maternal grandmother that she ‘did not know what was going on regarding [O].’[6]

    [6] Affidavit of the father sworn 24 June 2009, para 6.

28. In relation to this count, the mother’s evidence was that O was unwell and suffering from asthma.  She relied on exhibit M1, being the letter from G Centre.  This was a document which the mother had at court on the first hearing date, which was 8 July 2009, and which she used in support of her application for an adjournment.  On the first date, I made the observation to the mother that such a document would be inconclusive and insufficient to satisfy me that O was unfit to attend time with his father because the document does not describe the illness or O’s incapacity. It is evidence in these proceedings, but it is evidence which I do not find to be of a convincing nature and to which I accord insufficient weight to satisfy me that O’s health and safety made it reasonably necessary for the mother to withhold O from the father on 24 April 2009.

1. The mother alleged that not only was the child unwell on 24 April 2009, but his condition continued to deteriorate so that on 28 April 2009, the mother took both him and his sister, C, to another doctor, Dr L, at P. The mother tendered medical certificates to the affect that O and his sister were unfit for school from 28 April to 29 April 2009.[7]

   [7] Exhibits M3 and M4.

2. If O’s medical condition was such that he needed constant medical care, I am certificate evidence that the mother was not in a position to produce a more comprehensive report, as opposed to reports from different doctors in different locations.  I note that she did not obtain continuity of medical treatment. That may be for good reason. I note that O was apparently able to travel, in the mother’s care, from G where he saw the first doctor on Friday 24 April 2009 to P on Tuesday 28 April 2009 to see the second doctor,  Dr L

3. Finally, in relation to this count, the mother produced a certificate from a third doctor, to the effect that on Thursday 30 April 2009, the mother and C and O attended upon Dr W (in M). It was the third doctor’s opinion that ‘all three of them will be unfit for normal work/school from 30 April 2009 to 1 May 2009.’[8] 

   [8] Exhibit M2

4. None of the certificates viewed independently satisfy me that the mother’s actions were necessary to protect the health and/or safety of the child or that the mother has a reasonable excuse otherwise.  When looked at cumulatively, as the mother submits I should, they do not satisfy me that she had a reasonable excuse. 

5. The sort of excuse which would reasonably pardon the mother from complying with an order would be a report, obviously, in relation to the child in which the appropriately qualified person had turned their mind to the child’s attendance to spend time with the father, the sort of environment the child would be in, in his second home, and the care that the father could administer.  The documents relied upon by the wife fall short of satisfying me to the required standard that the mother had a reasonable excuse to withhold O from spending time with the father.

6. In relation to count 3, the mother did not have any evidence tendered, by way of exhibit.  The father’s evidence is found in paragraphs 8 and 9 of his affidavit, sworn on 24 June 2009, and reads as follows:

   On 5 June 2009, I rang [S] Primary School, [D], and was advised that [O] was not at school.  I rang the [P] house and there was no answer.  On 8 June 2009, at the [H] Police Station, I attempted to talk to [the mother], however, she refused to lower her car window. 

7. It is common ground that on each occasion the mother failed to provide O to the father, C did attend for the specified time with her father.  The mother’s evidence, in response to that of the father, was to suggest that he had not tried to speak with her at the H Police Station when he returned C to her care.  I do not accept that was the case.  In any event, this count, as with the count on 24 April 2009 and on 19 June 2009, was not met by any evidence from the mother, corroborated or not, to the affect that she tried to tell the father that O would not be available, that she gave the father any opportunity to speak with the relevant clinician, or that she gave O an opportunity to speak with the father. 

8. In relation to 5 June 2009, her evidence became somewhat rambling and non-specific.  However, I have recorded that she deposed that she had complied with the orders: 

   To the best of my ability due to the fact that he was sick.  He was sick to the extent that I have not willingly withheld him.  His grass allergy is a fickle condition that is difficult to manage and the attacks look very scary. 

   As stated earlier, there was no medical evidence in relation to any illness of O on 5 June 2009. 

9. In relation to 19 June 2009 (Count 4), the husband’s evidence was that in advance of the time, on 11 June 2009, he rang the P house and a message advised that the phone had been disconnected.  The mother does not have a mobile phone or a landline.  The father’s other evidence was, and I quote:

   On 19 June 2009 I rang [S] Primary School and was advised that [O] was not at school.  I checked again later and was advised that he was still not at school.  No reason for his absence was advised.  I have attempted to contact the mother but I have been unsuccessful.

10. In response to the father’s evidence the mother said that she generally sought the indulgence of the court, and claimed that she had done everything in her power to avoid coming back to court and to promote a relationship between O and the father.  She went on to say that if she was not present during O’s time with the father, she could not advise O or the father of what treatment might be necessary.  Her evidence did not traverse anything which I considered relevant to the alleged contraventions at hand or to a defence of reasonable excuse.

11. I am not satisfied in relation to any of the above accounts that the mother has made out a case of reasonable excuse. 

12. Being satisfied that the child was not made available and that there was no reasonable excuse on the part of the mother for any of the occasions, I find the allegations proved and will order accordingly. 

13. I am advised by both parties, and accept, that the mother has not previously been found to have breached a parenting order. 

14. There are three stages in Division 13A for dealing with compliance with parenting orders.  The first stage deals with educating the parties and informing them of their obligations under orders.  I am satisfied in this case that that has been done, and I refer above to the notation to the orders of 22 January 2009.

15. The second stage is identified in Subdivision E, in particular s 70NEA which applies when a primary order, such as the order of 22 January 2009, has been made and the court has found that there have been contraventions committed; that the respondent did not prove that she had a reasonable excuse for the contraventions; and there has been no previous order imposing a sanction or taking an action in respect of a contravention by the person of the primary order.

16. The powers of the court are prescribed in section 70NEB. The court may direct the mother, or any other person, to attend a post-separation parenting program[9].  The court can make an order which compensates the father for time that he did not spend with O as a result of the contraventions[10]. This is the penalty which the father seeks to pursue and he has nominated some dates.

    [9] s 70NEB(1)(a)(i)

    [10] s 70NEB (1)(b)

17. The court can adjourn the proceedings to allow either or both of the parties to seek variations to the primary order of 22 January[11]. This is not a course I would lightly adopt. The primary order is made only recently. The court can make an order requiring the mother to enter into a bond in accordance with s 70NEC[12].  I am not inclined to make any order requiring someone to enter into a bond, although I will offer same to the mother and it will be a matter for her whether she accepts it, or some other penalty.

    [11] s 70NEB(1)(c)

    [12] s 70NEB(1)(d)

18. In addition, the court can make an order requiring the mother to compensate the father for some or all of the expenses which he suffered as a result of the contravention[13].  It can make an order requiring the mother to pay some or all of the costs of the father whether or not any other penalty is imposed[14]. The father indicated that he did not seek orders of a financial nature against the mother.

    [13] s 70NEB(1)(e)

    [14] s s 70NEB(1)(f) or (g)

19. In this matter I find the father’s application proved in that: 

    a)The mother contravened paragraph 6(b) of the orders made on 22 January 2009 by failing or neglecting to make the child, O, born in March 2000, available for school holiday time with the father, and did so without reasonable excuse.

    b)The mother contravened paragraph 6(a) of the orders made on 22 January 2009 by failing or neglecting on 24 April 2009 to make the child, O, available for weekend time with the father and did so without reasonable excuse. 

    c)I find that the mother contravened paragraph 6(a) of the orders of 22 January 2009 by failing or neglecting to make the child O available for weekend time with the father on 5 June 2009 and did so without reasonable excuse.

    d)I find that the mother contravened paragraph 6(a) of the orders of 22 January 2009 by failing or neglecting to make the child O available to the father for weekend time on 19 June 2009 and did so without reasonable excuse.

20. I have asked the mother whether she will enter into a bond pursuant to s 70NEC, which provides as follows:

    (1) This section provides for bonds that a court may require a person to enter into under paragraph 70NEB(1)(d).

    (2) A bond is to be for a specified period of up to 2 years.

    (3) A bond may be:

    (a) with or without surety; and

    (b) with or without security.

    (4) The conditions that may be imposed on a person by a bond include (without limitation) conditions that require the person:

    (a) to attend an appointment (or a series of appointments) with a family consultant; or

    (b) to attend family counselling; or

    (c) to attend family dispute resolution; or

    (d) to be of good behaviour.

    (5) If a court proposes to require a person to enter into a bond, it must, before making the requirement, explain to the person, in language likely to be readily understood by the person:

    (a) the purpose and effect of the proposed requirement; and

    (b) the consequences that may follow if the person:

    (i) fails to enter into the bond; or

    (ii) having entered into the bond--fails to act in accordance with the bond.

21. The mother was unable to say whether she would enter into a bond without having first been able to speak to a lawyer. Obviously, one condition of the bond may be that she will comply with parenting orders. It is an important issue. I will provide the mother with an opportunity to take advice and to consider her position.

22. I adjourn the issue of sentencing and penalties to 11.30 am on Friday, 7 August 2009, estimated to take one to two hours. I note that the husband seeks by way of sanction make-up time including on the weekend of 21 August 2009. 

23. I also make an order that for the purpose of weekend time today the mother do all acts and things necessary to ensure that the children, C and O, are delivered to the outside of the H Police Station by the maternal grandmother and her husband at 5.30 pm this afternoon. 

I certify that the preceding fifty-one (51) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Bennett

Associate: 

Date:  3 August 2009