Guerrero & Guerrero
[2023] FedCFamC1F 971
•14 November 2023
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Guerrero & Guerrero [2023] FedCFamC1F 971
File number: SYC 7701 of 2020 Judgment of: REES J Date of judgment: 14 November 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – FINAL ORDERS – Where the father seeks the children relocate to Country B – Where the children have Country B and Country C cultural links – Where the children are found to be habitually resident in Australia – Where the children will live with the mother in Australia – Where the children will regularly communicate with the father – Where the children will spend time with the father when he visits Australia Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 62B, 65DA(2), 69 and 111CD
Passports Act 2005 (Cth), s 11(1)(b)
Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 (Cth)
Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children
Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 84 Date of hearing: 6 November 2023 Place: Sydney Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Jardine Solicitor for the Applicant: M J Woods & Co Respondent: In Person Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Tran, Legal Aid NSW ORDERS
SYC 7701 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS GUERRERO
Applicant
AND: MR GUERRERO
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
REES J
DATE OF ORDER:
14 NOVEMBER 2023
THE COURT ORDERS:
1.That the mother have sole parental responsibility for X born 2012 and Y born 2015 (“the children”).
2.That immediately upon making any long-term parental responsibility decision affecting the children, the mother shall advise the father of that decision by email.
3.That the children live with the mother in Australia.
4.That the children have video communication with the father each Wednesday and Sunday at 6pm Sydney time and that, to facilitate this order, the mother cause the children to contact the father at those times.
5.That the father spend time with the children during any school holiday period when he is in Australia as follows:
(a)For the first two days of the holiday period, from 11am until 6pm each day.
(b)Thereafter from 9am on the next day of the holiday until 6pm on the day before the father leaves Australia.
6.That in the event that the husband is present in Australia during school term, the children shall spend time with him from Friday afternoon at 6pm until Sunday afternoon at 6pm and on one afternoon during the school week as agreed and, in the absence of agreement, from after school on Wednesday until 8pm.
7.That the father is restrained from removing the children from the Commonwealth of Australia without the written consent of the mother.
8.That pursuant to s 11(1)(b) of the Passports Act 2005 (Cth), the mother is permitted to apply for and renew Australian Passports for the children without obtaining the consent of the father and the mother shall bear the cost of any renewal application of the children’s Australian Passports.
9.That the mother retain all passports for the children.
10.That the father be restrained from applying for or obtaining Country B or Country C passports for the children.
11.That the parents shall not denigrate the other parent or members of the other parent’s family to or in the presence or hearing of the children.
12.That pursuant to Sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) 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 those particulars are included in these Orders.
THE COURT REQUESTS:
13.That the Australian Federal Police give effect to the preceding orders by maintaining the names of the said children X (female) born 2012 and Y (male) born 2015 on the Family Law Watchlist in force at all points of international arrivals and departures in the Commonwealth of Australia until Y’s birthday in 2027.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a Guerrero & Guerrero has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
REES J:
Ms Guerrero (“the mother”) and Mr Guerrero (“the father”) are the parents of two children, a daughter, X, who was born in 2012 and is now 11 years old and a son, Y, who was born in 2015 and is now eight years old (“the children”).
The parents who were both born in Country C and both have Country C and Country B citizenship, married and commenced their co-habitation in Country B. The children were born in Country B and have Country B and Country C citizenship.
Before the Court are competing applications for residence of the children. The mother wishes the children to remain in Australia. The father seeks orders that they return to Country B and live in Country B with their mother, spending regular time with him. The mother told the Court Child Expert that she would return to Country B if the Court ordered the children to live there.
Although there is no dispute that this Court has jurisdiction to determine the applications it is necessary to set out here the basis on which I am satisfied that I have, and should exercise, jurisdiction.
Both Country B and Australia are signatories to the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children signed at The Hague in 1996 ("the Convention").
Section 69 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ("the Act") gives jurisdiction to this Court in respect of parenting matters in specified circumstances, the first of which being that the child is present in Australia. The effect of the Convention is not to deprive this Court of jurisdiction in relation to certain children but rather to prescribe those cases where this Court "may exercise jurisdiction".
Section 111CD of the Act provides that this Court may exercise jurisdiction in relation to a child who is present and habitually resident in Australia. For the reasons that will be made clear in discussing the history of this matter, and having regard to the information provided by the children to the Court Child Expert, I am satisfied that these children are habitually resident in Australia.
The mother and the children came to Australia in 2017. The mother’s sister was then living in Australia. X was five years old and Y was two. The father followed later that year.
The mother deposed that she and the father had discussed settling in Australia permanently and the purpose of the visit was to make a decision about where they would live. The father’s case was that they came to Australia so that the wife could study English and because she missed her sister and that the visit was always intended to be temporary.
In early 2018, the father returned to Country B, where he works in communications and where they own an apartment which was the family home. The mother and the children stayed in Australia. The father maintained video contact with the children twice each week.
The mother started studying English at a college. The father paid the tuition fees.
The father signed documents to permit X to be enrolled in school on 30 January 2018 and he has signed applications for Australian visas for the children.
The mother was granted a student visa in early 2018.
The father travelled to Australia in late 2018 and returned to Country B in early 2019. He continued to provide financial support for the mother and the children and to pay her tuition fees.
In September 2019, the father signed the authority for Y to be enrolled in school.
The father again travelled to Australia in early 2020 and stayed until the following month.
The father has not been in Australia since early 2020. For a time from early 2020, there were restrictions on travel to and from Australia due to the COVID-19 pandemic. After the restrictions eased, he applied for a visa but was refused.
The father stopped providing financial support for the children in mid-2020.
These proceedings were instituted by the mother on 29 October 2020.
In May 2021, the father sought to stay these proceedings to allow him to make an application for the return of the children to Country B pursuant to the provisions of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague (Abduction) Convention”) and the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 (Cth). It is my understanding that the Australian Central Authority declined to accept the father’s application.
An order was made in March 2022 placing the children on the airport family law watchlist.
The father was granted a visa in late 2022 which expires in late 2023. In cross-examination, he said that he had planned to come to Australia in early 2023 but that, when he arrived in Country D, he was told by the mother’s solicitor that he would not be permitted to spend time with the children unless he lodged a bond of $10,000. He did not have $10,000 so he did not come to Australia.
The mother’s unchallenged evidence is that the children are settled in Sydney and in their schools and are doing well at school. Both children have established friendships and are involved in extracurricular activities and social activities. The mother has employment in Sydney and has rented a home for herself and the children. She is continuing her studies. The mother has applied for permanent residence for herself and the children.
There are proceedings in Country B in relation to financial matters.
THE TRIAL
The mother relied on an affidavit sworn by her on 30 October 2023.
The father relied on an affidavit sworn by him on 18 September 2023 and affidavits of three character witnesses, including the mother’s former brother-in-law. The father’s supporting witnesses were not required for cross-examination.
The father appeared by video link from Country B with the occasional assistance of a Country B language interpreter.
An Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) was appointed for the children.
THE REPORT OF THE COURT CHILD EXPERT
A Court Child Expert (“the Expert”) prepared a report in this matter dated 4 July 2023. Her evidence was not challenged.
In preparation she interviewed the father and the mother by video link, (the father from Country B) and the children in person.
The report states,
Given that [the father] lives in [Country B] and was not present in Australia at the time of the assessment, the Court Child Expert did not have the opportunity to meet him in person, or observe him in person with the children. This may have limited the Court Child Experts understanding of [the father] and his relationship with the children.
The Expert reported,
[X] and [Y] present as friendly and happy children, and they appear to be developing well. They attend [E School] at [Suburb F]. [X] is in Year 5 and [Y] is in Year 3. [X] impressed as being quite a bright, confident and animated young girl. She appears to be quite preoccupied with friendships at this stage of her life, and she spoke at length with the Court Child Expert (CCE) about her friends and friendship dynamics at her school. [Y] appears to be slightly more reserved than his sister, and he initially seemed nervous about speaking with the CCE. He seemed to become more relaxed as time passed though, and he ended up speaking at length with the CCE. [Y] seems to have a great love for, and is reportedly quite talented at, [sport]. The children attend tutoring, art/craft classes, and [Y] has several days of [sport] training through the week.
Of the interview with the father, the Expert reported,
[The father] believes that it is in the children’s best interests to return to live in [Country B], so that they can have a relationship with both him and [the mother]. In addition, he says that all of [the mother’s] family, except her […] sister, live in [City G]. He said that [the maternal grandmother] lives very near to him (he lives in the former matrimonial home). [The father] suggests that [the mother] and the children would benefit from this additional family and support in [Country B].
[The father] said he would be agreeable to whatever care arrangement [the mother] wishes should she return to [Country B], so long as the children have regular time with him. He suggested arrangements such as the children coming to him every weekend or every second weekend, or a combination of some time on the weekend and days during the week.
I propose to set out in full the Expert’s report of her interviews with the children.
[X] (aged 10 years)
61.As previously noted, [X] presents as a very outgoing, animated, and bright young girl. [X] said that she likes school, and she spoke at length about her school friends. She also spoke animatedly about her life outside of school, which involves attending tutoring, craft classes, spending time with friends, going to the cinemas and the beach, and frequent attendance at [Y’s sport] trainings and games, where she plays and chats with other children who are also in attendance.
62.[X] described a close and loving relationship with her mother. She described her mother as kind and caring.
63.[X] said that she has memories of living in [Country B], and she described memories she had of moments spent with her father, and her old childcare and former best friend from her childcare. There was a sense from [X] that, when she was living in [Country B], she had a warm and loving relationship with her father, although it is clear that [the mother] has always been the children’s primary carer.
64.[X] said that she wants to remain living in Australia, and it appeared from discussions with [X] that she is very happy and settled in her life in Australia, and attached to her school, friends, and community.
65.[X] said that she loves her father and acknowledged that she misses him and would like to see him. She also, however, expressed some criticisms of her father. Specifically, [X] said that her father says things during their phone calls that upset her. She said that, for this reason, she does not like speaking with him on the phone.
66.There was a sense that [X] may be aware of difficulties between her parents, and that the strained relationship between her parents has had a negative impact on her relationship with her father and is burdening her. For instance, [X] indicated that she finds calls with her father difficult, not only because her father says things that upset her, but also because her mother does not want her father to know details of where they are living so she must be careful about what her father sees or hears of their surrounds on video calls. [X] also seemed to express love for her father and a desire to see him and she became quite emotional and cried when discussing this, but she seemed keen to also criticise her father for saying inappropriate things to her in calls. [X] also expressed resistance/hesitation when asked if she would like to go spend time with her father in [Country B], even though she had not long before been speaking wistfully about some of her positive childhood memories of [Country B]. When attempts were made to explore why she was resistant to returning to [Country B], [X] struggled to provide reasons for this, but it did seem to emerge that [X] has some awareness of her mother’s worries about her going.
[Y] (aged 8 years)
67.As previously noted, [Y] appeared to be somewhat reserved initially, but then seemed to become comfortable. He generally appears to be a happy and jovial young boy.
68.[Y] said that he likes school and he has many friends there. The children initially spent some time together with the CCE before being individually interviewed, and during this meeting [X] said that [Y] is very popular in the school, which caused a large grin to appear on a somewhat bashful [Y].
69.[Y] said that he loves [sport] and he trains for, and plays, [sport] several days per week. He spoke very excitedly about the sport and his team.
70.[Y] described a close and loving relationship with his mother. Like his sister, he described his mother as being very attentive, kind and caring.
71.[Y] said that he thinks he remembers playing in the snow in [Country B], but nothing else about [Country B]. [Y] said that he loves his father and he remembered playing wrestling with his father the last time he visited Australia. [Y] said that he misses his father and would like to see him.
72.[Y] said that he sometimes finds video calls with his father difficult. He said that his father sometimes says things that upset him. He provided the example that one time, when his mother was feeding him some food, his father said something about him being “a baby” as his mother was feeding him.
73.[Y] wishes to remain living in Australia, as he likes his school, his friends, and he is very attached to his [sports] team. He seemed to quite like the idea of travelling to [Country B] to spend time with his father.
The expert observed a warm and affectionate interaction between the mother and the children. She described the children as “generally happy” and “developing well”.
She was unable to observe them interacting with their father. She wrote,
The children were unable to be observed in person with their father due to his being in [Country B]. Consideration was given to the possibility of the children being observed via video conference with their father although, given that observations are not generally conducted via video conference, and given that concern had been expressed that the children had recently been refusing video calls with her father, it was considered that observation of a video call between [X] and [Y] and their father may not provide a very accurate or fair understanding of the children’s relationship with their father, and might only place further strain on the relationship.
The Expert was clearly alert to the dilemma facing the parents. She stated,
[The children] are, however, in the unfortunate situation that their parents reside in different countries, and their parents are in dispute about where they [X and Y] should live. While the children appear to be generally happy, it appears that they miss their father and wish him to be more present in their lives. The children have lived in Australia for many years though and seem to wish to remain living in Australia. The dilemma is, of course, if they remain living in Australia, they may miss out on being able to share a close and meaningful relationship with their father and have him significantly involved in their lives.
The Expert noted that, despite his absence, the children love their father and want to spend time with him but that their relationship with him is not as close as the relationship with their mother. She reported,
While the children expressed love for their father, it seems that their relationship with him is becoming somewhat strained. There may be many possible reasons for this. One such cause appears to perhaps be, at least in part, the result of the natural difficulties involved with maintaining a relationship via video/telephone communication. Indeed, children are often preoccupied with play, and the “here and now” and they can find it bothersome to break from whatever activity they are engaged in to communicate on a telephone or video call, and it can be difficult to maintain a relationship with someone they have had limited in person contact with. [X] and [Y] may thus, understandably, find it somewhat tiresome and possibly frustrating at times, to engage in regular phone calls with their father, particularly when they would prefer to see him in person. Ideally, as an interim measure, [the father] would have been able to spend time with the children in person but, unfortunately, the parents have been unable to agree on arrangements for this to occur.
The Expert stated,
It would seem the children are settled living with their mother in Australia, it would likely be distressing for the children to be required to return to [Country B] to live and it would cause quite significant disruption to their lives. The dilemma clearly is that, if the children remain living in Australia, they may miss out on sharing a relationship with their father. From a purely child-centric perspective, [the father] would ideally move to Australia. [The father] does not seem to rule out this possibility completely, but he appears resistant to moving. His reasons for this appear understandable, as he may indeed struggle to find consistent work. This would impact his ability to support himself and provide for the children.
The Expert stressed the importance of the children’s maintaining regular video calls with their father and suggested that, when the children are older, they be at liberty to contact him, and he them, whenever they want.
CONSIDERATION
It is not in dispute that the children will benefit from having a meaningful relationship with both their parents.
any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child’s maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views;
X told the Expert that she does not want to live in Country B. She is described as a bright child who is doing well academically and hoping to go to a selective high school.
Considerable weight should be given to her views.
Y also said that he wants to live in Australia. Although he is only eight years old, some weight needs to be given to his views.
the nature of the relationship of the child with:
(i) each of the child’s parents; and
(ii) other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
It is clear from the Expert’s report that the children’s primary attachment and their most important relationship is with their mother.
They both expressed love for their father and they both want to spend time with him.
There is no evidence of their relationship with any other family members.
the extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity:
(i) to participate in making decisions about major long term issues in relation to the child; and
(ii) to spend time with the child; and
(iii) to communicate with the child;
The mother is critical of the father’s infrequent visits to the children but, having regard to the circumstances, including his visa having been refused and the restrictions on travel, I do not accept her criticisms are valid.
I accept that the father has valid reasons for wanting to remain in Country B and the mother has valid reasons for wanting to remain in Australia.
The father told the Expert that he does not believe that he would be able to find work in Australia so as to provide for himself and his children. He said in cross-examination that the mother has suggested that he could work as an Uber driver which, not unreasonably, he rejects.
Neither is willing to move to the other’s country of residence.
the extent to which each of the child’s parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent’s obligations to maintain the child;
The father has not properly maintained the children since mid-2020. He told the Expert that it is important for the children to live in Country B so that, amongst other things, “he can provide support to them”. He gave no explanation for failing to provide financial support to them for the past three years.
the likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:
(i) either of his or her parents; or
(ii) any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living;
The mother concedes that, if the children are to return to Country B, she would go with them so it is not contemplated that they would be separated from her.
The children have lived separately from their father for more than six years and it is a situation to which they are now accustomed.
While the children live in Australia, they are able to have a relationship with their mother’s sister. They lived in the same home as their aunt for some time after coming to Australia and it is reasonable to assume that they have a relationship with her. If they were to live in Country B, they would be deprived of that relationship but would be able to have a relationship with their maternal grandmother and other members of the extended maternal family whom they have not seen for six years.
The children told the Expert that, if they go to Country B, they would miss their school and their friends and Y would miss his sports team.
Although X speaks the language of Country B, Y is not fluent and a move to Country B might initially cause him some stress while he learns the language.
The Expert opined,
It would seem the children are settled living with their mother in Australia, it would likely be distressing for the children to be required to return to [Country B] to live and it would cause quite significant disruption to their lives.
Either option poses problems for these children. If they move to Country B, their lives will be disrupted and their mother will be unhappy.
If they stay in Australia, their relationship with their father will not be as close as it could be if they lived close by to him and saw him regularly and frequently. The Expert raised the possibility that, if the children move to Country B, they may resent their father and,
… if their mother is distressed, and there is significant discord between their parents, and if [the father] cannot be relied upon to be sensitive to the children’s emotional needs, the children could experience a very unhappy period of time in their life following relocation. This could be very problematic, particularly given [X] is at an age where she is on the cusp of adolescents, and she may turn to anti-social behaviours as a rebellion or outlet for her distress.
The Expert stated,
Other factors which will likely impact the children’s ability to adapt to such a change is the parents’ relationship and the parents’ ability to support the change. For instance, if the children return to [Country B] and there is significant discord between their parents, this will likely be very distressing for the children and have a negative impact on their ability to adjust. Furthermore, it is likely that [the mother] will be distressed by the move and … it may be very difficult for her to support the children to be positive and adapt to the change.
the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis;
If the father remains in Country B and the children live in Australia, it is difficult to envision that he will be able to travel to Australia more than once each year, or perhaps twice at the most. In addition to the costs of his travel, he will be required to rent suitable accommodation for himself and the children in Australia and there is no suggestion from the mother that she is either willing or able to make a contribution towards those costs.
If the mother and the children live in Country B, then those practical difficulties are alleviated.
the capacity of:
(i) each of the child’s parents; and
(ii) any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs;
Each parent is critical of the other.
The mother criticises the father’s commitment to the children because he has not made more effort to come to Australia to spend time with them and his lack of financial support.
The father criticises the mother’s lack of commitment to their relationship with him and there is some justification for that criticism.
The Expert reported,
[The mother] indicated that she is resistant to prioritising the children’s relationships with their father over them having a good life in Australia, particularly in circumstances where she believes that [the father] has not shown that he is very committed to the children…
If the children are to return to live in [Country B], however, as previously noted, this would likely be distressing for the children, and would likely be destabilising for the children. A change could thus have a negative impact on the children’s development, although children are generally resilient and, given time, they would likely adapt to the change, hopefully without any significant impact on their development, although this may depend on circumstances surrounding the transition.
While children are generally quite resilient, and [X] and [Y] would likely adapt to a return to [Country B], there are some factors which may make it difficult for the children to adjust to being made to relocate from Australia to [Country B]. That [Y] does not speak the language well may make it particularly difficult for him to move from Australia to [Country B], at least in the short term. The children may feel resentful towards their father for being made to leave their friends, their school, [Y’s sports] team, and the place that they consider home. As such, while a move back to [Country B] might help the children have the possibility of spending time with their father, their relationship might be negatively impacted by the move, as they will may [sic] feel angry with him for the move.
Each parent is capable of physically caring for the children and providing for their intellectual needs.
It was impressive that both parents conducted the proceedings in English and were able to prepare their documents in English which, for each of them, is their third language.
There is no dispute that the children are thriving in the care of the mother.
the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child’s parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant;
These children have Country C and Country B heritage and, now, Australian cultural links. They have never been to Country C. Their connection to Country B is slender. Y was only two years old when they left. The majority of their lives has been spent in Australia.
the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents;
I accept that the children’s best interests would probably be served if the parents live proximate to one another. I also accept that neither parent is prepared to sacrifice his or her wishes and preferences for that to occur.
CONCLUSION
The benefits and detriments of either option for these children are finely balanced.
Ultimately, I give greatest weight to the children’s desire to remain living in Australia and their attachment to their school, friends and community.
The children will remain in Australia.
PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
The father conceded that, if the children were to remain living in Australia, the mother should have sole parental responsibility for them, subject to her promptly providing information to him about matters concerning their welfare.
WHAT TIME SHOULD THE CHILDREN SPEND WITH THE FATHER?
The mother wishes to change the current arrangement for video contact between the children and the father from Wednesday and Saturday to Wednesday and Sunday because the children have activities on Saturdays. The father agrees.
The father asked that the electronic contact not be by telephone but by a method which enables him to see the children and them to see him.
The question of time with the father during holiday periods is more complex. Both the mother and the ICL submitted that the father’s time with the children should be supervised, daytime only, between 11am and 6pm. There were no submissions on behalf of the mother directed to that application and the ICL conceded that there was little evidence, if any, to justify supervision or daytime only. There was no evidence about the cost of providing a professional supervisor and the mother does not propose to contribute to that cost. There is no evidence that the father can afford to pay a professional supervisor.
The father accepts that block time with the children must take place during school holiday periods. There has been at least one occasion when the father has travelled to Australia to work and it is possible there may be other opportunities in the future.
I do not accept that there is any necessity for the father’s time with the children to be supervised or be limited to daytime only.
The orders will provide that, during any school holiday period when the father comes to Australia, the children are to have daytime only contact with their father for the first two days of the visit and thereafter they stay with him for the block period of his visit.
If the father is able to come to Australia during school terms, the children will spend time with him on each weekend he is in Australia and on one evening in each week as agreed and, in the absence of agreement, on Wednesday.
The mother, in her affidavit and in her interviews with the Expert, expressed her concern that the father will abduct the children and take them to Country C. Although the father denied that he has any such intention and that he would not be permitted to travel to Country C because of his family’s past affairs, I accept that the mother continues to be worried about that possibility. For that reason alone, the orders placing the children on the family law watchlist will remain in force until 2027 when Y will be 12 years’ old and X will be 14. After that date, the children can travel to Country B for holiday periods if the parents agree.
I certify that the preceding eighty-four (84) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Rees. Associate:
Dated: 14 November 2023
0
0
5