H and D
[2002] FMCAfam 467
•24 October 2002
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| H & D | [2002] FMCAfam 467 |
| CHILDREN – Contact – Change to long standing arrangement – whether father’s mid-week contact unduly disruptive for child attending pre and primary school. |
| Applicant: | M H |
| Respondent: | L D |
| File No: | DNM 2036 of 2002 |
| Delivered on: | 24 October 2002 |
| Delivered at: | Darwin |
| Hearing date: | 23 October 2002 |
| Judgment of: | Brown FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Black |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Cecil Black |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Story |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Morgan Buckley |
ORDERS
The orders of 3 December 1999 and 21 May 2002 be discharged.
The child, I H, born 8 August 1998, live with the mother.
The father have contact with the child as follows:
(a)during school terms on each alternate weekend from 6 pm Friday and concluding at 6 pm the following Sunday, provided that if it is a long weekend ending on a Monday, contact shall conclude on that Monday at 6 pm;
(b)during school terms prior to the child commencing school, on each Wednesday from 6 pm until 9 pm the following Wednesday, and after the child has commenced school, from after school on Wednesday until the commencement of school on the following Thursday;
(c)for one-half of each school holiday period, at times to be agreed between the parties, and failing agreement to be the second half commencing in 2002 and each even year thereafter commencing at 9 am on the middle day of such period, if an uneven number of days in the period, or at 9 am on the first day of the second half of the period if an uneven number of days in the period, and concluding on the second last day of the period and the first half commencing in 2003 and each odd year thereafter commencing at 9 am on the first Saturday after school has finished and concluding at 9 am on the middle day of such period, if an uneven number of days in the period, or at 9 am on the last day of the first half of the period if an uneven number of days in the period;
(d)from 12 noon Christmas Eve to 12 noon Christmas Day in 2002 and each alternate year thereafter;
(e)from 12 noon Christmas Day to 12 noon Boxing Day in 2003 and each alternate year thereafter;
(f)for three consecutive days over the period identified in each year for the celebration of Greek Easter, such days to be agreed upon between the parties;
(g)if the child’s birthday does not fall upon a contact weekend, for two hours on the child’s birthday and, failing agreement, from
4 pm to 6 pm;(h)if the child’s birthday does fall upon a contact period, the mother shall have contact for two hours on the child’s birthday and, failing agreement, from 4 pm to 6 pm;
(i)on 21 April, 7 March and 4 January in each year if these dates do not fall during a contact period for two hours and, failing agreement, from 4 pm to 6 pm provided that if the child is having contact with the father on 6 April any year, the mother shall have contact to the child for two hours and, failing agreement, between 4 pm and 6 pm:
(i)by telephone on two occasions each week between 6:30 pm and 7:30 pm;
(ii)at other times as are agreed between the parties.
That if Mother’s Day is on a weekend when the child would be with the father, the father shall have contact with the child on the preceding weekend in lieu thereof.
That if Father’s Day is on a weekend when the child would not be with the father, the father shall have contact with the child on the preceding weekend in lieu thereof.
The parties shall each be responsible for making all day-to-day decisions concerning the child when the child is in his or her respective care.
The mother authorise the principal of each school attended by the child from time to time to send to the father:
(a)a photocopy of each school report concerning the child;
(b)an order form for each school photo of the child.
The father and mother each keep the other informed of any major illness or accident suffered by the child when in his or her care and advise the other as soon as is practical of each treating doctor or like professional attended by the child.
That each of the parties be and hereby restrained from denigrating the other parent or discussing any aspect of these proceedings in the presence or hearing of the child.
That each of the parties be permitted to take the child on holiday out of the Darwin area provided that each parent provide the other parent with an itinerary 14 days prior to such holiday which shall contain details of travel involved and telephone numbers on which the child will be able to be contacted.
That until the child commences school, and subject to any agreement to the contrary between the parties, contact handovers occur as follows:
(a)the father or his nominee shall collect and return the child at the commencement and conclusion of each contact period to and from the mother’s home.
That once the child commences school, and subject to any agreement to the contrary between the parties, contact handovers occur as follows:
(a)the father or his nominee shall collect the child from his school at the commencement of contact on Wednesday and the alternate weekend contact on Friday and return him to school at the commencement of school on Thursday, otherwise the contact handover arrangements as specified in order 11 hereof shall apply.
All applications are otherwise dismissed.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT DARWIN |
DNM 2036 of 2002
| M H |
Applicant
And
| L D |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Background
These are ex tempore reasons for judgment in the matter of H and D. The proceedings relate to what are the appropriate contact orders for one child, I H, who is more normally known as ‘H’. H was born on
8 August 1998.
The applicant in the proceedings is M H, whom I will refer to as ‘the father’. The respondent in the proceedings is L D, to whom I will refer as ‘the mother’.
The parties have never been married. They lived together briefly from December of 1997 until September of 1999. They separated when H was just over one year old. The father is 25 years of age and the mother is 23 years of age. For a number of reasons, they do not have an easy relationship with one another. They are not able to talk directly to one another.
However, there is no dispute between them that H should continue to live predominantly with the mother. This is the situation that has prevailed since the parties separated. This situation was formalised by a consent order of the Family Court made at Darwin on 3 December 1999.
That order also provided as follows:
(4)That the father have contact with the child as follows:
(a)from 9 am Sunday until 9 am Monday each week, save and except for Australian Easter Sunday;
(b)from 6 pm Wednesday until 9 am Thursday each week;
(c)for three consecutive days over the period identified in each year for the celebration of Greek Easter, such days to be agreed upon between the parties hereto prior to the commencement of each Greek Easter period;
(d)for one-half of the Christmas holiday period in each year; and for one-half of significant family birthdays and public holidays in each year, the particulars of times to be finalised between the parties hereto prior to each holiday or birthday period;
that for the purposes of contact the father collect the child from the mother’s residence at the commencement of that contact and return him to the mother’s residence at the completion of that contact.
It is this order that the father seeks to change. It is his position that the order is not working. He requests contact on each alternate Saturday, the other Sunday, for half of all school holidays, for specific periods on the child’s birthday and the birthdays of his other significant relatives, Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year’s Day, and other significant days.
He is adamant that the current order, which allows him overnight contact from Wednesday afternoon until the following Thursday morning each week, should continue.
The mother’s position is that the current arrangements are working reasonably well in the circumstances, and that with the assistance of intermediaries and text messages and other technology the parties are able to communicate adequately with one another in respect of arrangements for H.
She is, however, not opposed to some extension of contact. Her proposal is that the father have contact to H each alternate weekend from Friday at 6 pm until the following Sunday at 6 pm, and in the other week from 8 am Saturday until the following Sunday at 8 am. Nor is she opposed to reasonable holiday contact in school holiday periods.
However, her position is that during school terms the father’s contact should be confined to the weekends. She is vehemently opposed to mid-week contact, which she sees as being particularly disruptive for H and likely to become more so as he grows older. She complains that the current Wednesday overnight contact leaves H tired and unsettled at preschool the next day.
It is the father’s position that H looks forward to his Wednesday night contact with his father and that it would be especially disturbing for H to be deprived of this contact, which has been a constant in his life since he was one year old.
The parties are dramatically polarised in respect of this one issue and, at the present time, can see no value in the position adopted by the other. Each of them has valid and compelling reasons as to why their particular position is to be preferred. There is no dispute that there should be regular telephone contact each week between H and the father.
There are some other issues which deal with the collection and return of H for contact, and issues to do with the provision of school reports. However, the parties, to their credit, are largely in agreement in respect of these matters. In addition, in principle the parties agree that it is appropriate that they each be permitted to take H away with them from Darwin for extended holiday.
The central issue in this case remains mid-week contact and the various permutations of weekly contact that the parties each advocate. Both seek to portray the other as unreasonable in this regard, and no middle way can be found. As a result, it falls to me to make the decision.
Applications and evidence
The father commenced these proceedings on 11 January 2002. At that time he was in prison serving a sentence of imprisonment for breaching a home detention order relating to driving offences. In his evidence he indicated that he was found to have some illicit drugs in his possession during a period of home detention and that resulted in the breach.
Much of his application at that stage in January was directed towards him having contact with H whilst he was in prison. Since the parties separated, the father has commenced a new relationship with a person who is only known to me as T. The father and T are the parents of two children, C who was born on 21 April 1999, and M who was born on 4 January 2002. The father was desirous of H maintaining contact with C and M whilst he was in prison.
The father’s affidavit filed on 11 January 2002, with his application, was directed to the issues of contact whilst he was in prison, although his application itself was directed to wider issues.
On 13 February 2002 orders were made with the consent of the parties to accommodate the concerns of the father whilst he was imprisoned. The father’s term of imprisonment concluded in mid-April of 2002.
The mother filed a response to the father’s application and an affidavit in support of her position on 21 May 2002. The mother’s affidavit raised squarely the mother’s concerns about mid-week contact.
On 21 May 2002 the matter was fixed for trial on 23 October and each party was directed to file affidavit evidence. The parties were also referred to mediation. An order was also made, again with the consent of the parties, that the father have contact to H for half of the school holidays in 2002, in particular in June/July, September/October, and for the second half of the school holidays in 2003 in April, June/July and September/October. It was also ordered by consent that he have contact to H by telephone between 6:30 pm and 7:30 pm on two occasions each week. No orders were made in respect of the long Christmas school holiday.
Neither party has filed any affidavit material since. The matter came on for hearing yesterday, 23 October. The parties and their solicitors were at cross-purposes. It was thought that agreement had been reached. This was not the case.
In order to avoid wasting time and the parties’ money, I elected to allow the parties each to present additional oral evidence and be cross-examined by counsel for the other party. No other witnesses were called and no other affidavits were relied upon, apart from those to which I have referred. Given the length of time the matter had been fixed for hearing, and the extent of issues in dispute between the parties, I was not prepared to adjourn the proceedings yesterday.
The parties are both still young. They both live with their parents in the northern suburbs of Darwin. The father lives in Nightcliff and the mother lives comparatively close by, in Nakara. The father is part of a large family of Greek extraction. The mother has an Italian heritage.
T, C and M also live with the father and his family in Nightcliff. The situation is that the father, T, and his young family, live in one dwelling on the property and the father’s family live in the other dwelling.
I think the mother acknowledges that in the past she has had some difficulty coming to terms with the father’s relationship with T. This has, in turn, made her relationship with the father and communicating with him more difficult. However, it seems that, as time has passed, things have become easier for her in this regard.
At the moment, the mother works full-time as a beautician at the Casuarina Day Spa. She works very hard and has a long schedule. Basically, she works most, if not all days, of the week. She works from 9.00am to 5.30 pm each weekday, except Wednesday, which she has off. She works on each Saturday from 9.00am until 5.00pm, and every second Sunday she works from 10.00am until 3.00pm. Having indicated those hours, I have no doubt that she is very busy. Her evidence is that she earns about $600 to $700 per week.
The father pays little, if any, child support. The mother, because of her work commitments, is heavily reliant on her parents to assist with the caring of H. H also goes to day care and swimming lessons. He is at day care about three days a week.
The mother is understandably bitter about the lack of financial support that she receives from the father for H.
The father works as a roofer and builder in businesses with his parents. His evidence in respect of child support for H was unconvincing. He said his wage was between $500 and $600 per week, that child support was taken from his tax return each year at the end of the financial year.
However, apart from this evidence of child support, each of the parties seemed to me to be an honest person. Certainly, and this is of great importance, I have no doubt that each of them love H very much and that each of them want the very best for him in life. Both the father and the mother are good parents.
To her great credit, the mother says this in her affidavit:
“H has a good relationship with his father and the father’s extended family. He also seems to get along well with his half-sister, C.”
This did not seem to me to be a case where the mother is seeking to curtail contact. Rather, it is about what arrangement will be best for H. The difficulty in achieving this end is the suspicion between the parties and their different perspectives as to what arrangement is likely to be the most suitable for H.
I also suspect, to some degree, that one of the motivations for each of the parties in adopting the position that they each have is, to some extent, their own convenience arising from their own commitments during each week.
It is the father’s position that the present arrangement which allows only for Sunday and Wednesday overnight contact is not suitable. He says the shops are closed and he would like to be able to take H to have his hair-cut or to go shopping for clothes and other requirements from time to time.
As I have said, the Wednesday arrangement is, he says, of great importantance for H. He collects H about 6 o’clock. They often walk on the beach, play games with one another, H interacts with C, they have dinner, sometimes they watch a video, and it was his evidence that H is in bed between 8.30 and 9.00 in the evening. It is the father’s position that this is an arrangement that H has known for all his life.
At this stage the prospect of having a full weekend with H every second weekend has no appeal to the father.
The mother says this in her affidavit:
“H turns 4 in August. He is attending preschool at Holy Spirit and is enrolled for next year. Whilst H has been at such a young age, mid-week contact has been good for him. Now that he is attending four to five days preschool a week and will be attending school full-time next year, it is important for him to establish routines and mid-week contact will be disruptive. When H returns from contact he is usually very tired and unsettled and will sleep up to four hours when home.”
It is her position , given H age, that routine is very important for him, particularly when he makes the important transition to primary school.
She says that the mid-week contact will disrupt the school week and this will have unsettling consequences for H, especially as he grows older. She already points to what she sees as being unfortunate consequences of the mid-week contact in that H is tired and grumpy on Thursday mornings.
Also I have no doubt that, given the mother’s busy schedule, the mid-week contact, particularly H returning on Thursday morning while she is getting ready for work, is disruptive for her. It is the mother’s position that her proposal that the father have contact at the weekend represents a compromise between the parties’ competing interests and is likely to be in H best interests.
It is the father’s position that, given H age, this arrangement means that H will go too long between contact visits and will, as a result, pine for his father. As I have indicated, both parties work on the weekend from time to time.
In these circumstances, H spends quite a lot of time with his respective sets of grandparents and also with T. I have not heard any evidence from any of these people, but have no reason to believe that H does not enjoy a close relationship with both sets of grandparents.
Although the mother was, I think, perhaps understandably, suspicious of T and the role that she must inevitably play in H’ life, it seems of late, happily, that this suspicion has reduced.
The relationship, as I say, between the parties is characterised by suspicion and mistrust. It is the mother’s position that the father is not particularly interested in issues to do with H’ health and education, particularly some speech pathology he apparently requires. It is the father’s position that the mother is obstructive in regards to providing the necessary information concerning H’ health and education.
In the context of these proceedings, it is not necessary for me to determine who of the parties is more at fault. It seems to me rather to be indicative of the parties’ inability to communicate with one another easily and see the other’s point of view. Without wishing to appear simplistic or patronising, proceedings such as this one do not assist parents to communicate easily with one another. However, it is not uncommon for separated parents to have difficulty in communicating with one another, especially after what I regard as a fairly brief relationship between the parties of one or two years.
The Law
Having made these comments, it is appropriate for me to set out briefly the law that is applicable to applications such as this one. Applications for contact orders and specific issues orders are parenting orders. They arise under proceedings conducted under Part 7 of the Family Law Act, which is the part of the Act which deals with children.
Section 60B of the Family Law Act sets out what are the objects of the Family Law Act. They are, if you like, the underpinnings and basis of the more specific law relating to children. The primary object of the Family Law Act is to ensure that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential and to ensure that parents fulfil their duties and meet their responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.
Pausing there, the Family Law Act creates a situation where children have rights and parents have obligations and duties towards their children to fulfil those rights.
The principles that underlie this object are set out in section 60B(2) of the Family Law Act. These principles include the following:
2)Children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together.
3)Children have a right of contact on a regular basis with both their parents and without people significant to their care, welfare and development.
4)Parents share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.
5)Parents should agree about the future parenting of their children.
In this case, regrettably, about some issues, the parties are not able to agree about arrangements for H. However, I think it is to the great credit of the parties that they have been able to agree about very many important issues regarding H.
Obviously these objects are subject to the provisions of section 65E which regard the best interests of the child concerned as being the paramount or most important consideration in making a determination concerning the care of children.
The Full Court of the Family Court has said in the case of Brown v Pederson (1992) FLC 92 271 as follows:
“Proceedings for custody or access are not to be viewed as adversarial proceedings in the ordinary sense, but as an investigation of what orders will best promote the welfare of the child.”
In deciding what contact and other arrangements in respect of H will best promote his best interests, I must consider the various matters set out in section 68F of the Family Law Act. This consists of various subsections which list the matters I must take into consideration regarding the child.
The matters that are to be taken into account under section 68F(2) are:
(a)the wishes expressed by the child concerned;
(b)the nature of the relationship between the child with his or her parents;
(c)the likely effect of any change in the child’s circumstances;
(d)the practical difficulty and expense of a child having contact 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;
(e)the capacity of each parent or any other person to provide for the needs of the child, including the child’s intellectual and emotional needs;
(f)the child’s maturity, sex and background;
(g)the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm;
(h)the attitude of the parties to the responsibilities of being a parent;
(i)any family violence that may involve the child or a member of the child’s family;
(j)whether it will be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child concerned.
As you will appreciate, some of these matters are not relevant to the present proceedings and there is some overlap between them.
Section 68F(2) factors – determining the best interests of the child
a) H’ wishes
The first matter I must consider is H’ wishes. He is four. His wishes have not been canvassed in any detail. In any event, given his age, it would not be appropriate for his wishes to be given a high degree of weight in proceedings such as this.
b) The nature of the H’ relationship with his parents
Next I must consider the nature of the relationship of the child with each of his parents and with other persons. H is a lucky child. His father and mother both love him and he has family members from both his paternal and maternal family who share warm and close relationships with him. There is no doubt that H is closely bonded to both his parents. I have also no doubt that H also enjoys a close relationship with his sister, C, and, in time, as M grows older, will develop a closer relationship with him. It is important that H is given the opportunity to maintain his relationship with both his parents and all members on both sides of his family. This is his right and will ensure his appropriate psychological development. Children also generally benefit from spending time with their half-siblings.
Given H’ age and the nature of his relationship with his father, I do not think that to withdraw the Wednesday contact, so that H goes up to five days without a contact visit, will necessarily detrimentally affect the existing bond between father and child.
c) Likely effect of any change in H’ circumstances
The next matter I must consider is the likely effect of any change in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either of his parents or any other child or person with whom he has been living.
Whatever orders are made today, the practical differences between the parties’ competing proposals is small. Whatever orders are made, H will continue to have regular contact with both his parents. In my view, given his age, it is unlikely that H differentiates to any great degree between contact on a Wednesday or the weekend. In real terms, the competing proposals of the parties are close indeed.
In my view, neither involves any great change for H. The important thing, from his point of view is that he maintains his relationship with both his parents and the proposals of each of the parties will ensure this.
It also seems to me, given the close proximity in which the parties live to one another, that the parties themselves are likely to change arrangements to suit their own convenience from time to time.
It is the father’s case that H has become accustomed to overnight contact on Wednesday and to change this would be disruptive to H. As I have already indicated, I suspect the importance of Wednesdays is more in the father’s mind than H’.
However, having said that, in my view there is much to be said for H spending a mixture of time with both his parents. By this I mean that as H grows older and begins to attend school next year, he should spend time with each of his parents at the weekend, in a relaxed atmosphere, and also during the week in the more mundane situation, where the child has to be put to bed at an early hour, tasks completed for homework, and in the morning the child prepared for school.
The effect of this is, in my view, likely to strengthen the attachment between H and each of his parents by allowing both the parties to express a different aspect of their personality in different contexts, to H. That is, during the weekend and the school week.
It would also, in my view, be likely to encourage the involvement of the father in H’ education as he grows older. For this main reason, I am inclined to modify the current arrangement too some small degree, to allow alternate weekend contact, as well as maintain the existing Wednesday contact, to allow the father to be involved in preparing H for school, on at least one occasion per week. The mother should also have the benefit of having contact with H for one entire weekend per fortnight.
d) Practical difficulties associated with contact
The next matter I must consider is the practical difficulty and expense of the child having contact with a parent. The parties live close together in suburban Darwin. There are few, if any, practical difficulties in respect to contact.
The mother complains that the present mid-week contact is disruptive for H. I suspect that the disruption is more to her than to H. In my view, the benefits to H of him having mid-week contact with his father are not outweighed by these short-term disruptions.
H is very young. Children of his age adapt to such disruptions readily. In any event, these disruptions to the mother are likely to be resolved by allowing the father to collect H from school for the mid-week contact and returning him to school at its conclusion, avoiding interfering with the mother’s preparations for work. In my view, there is no impediment to T or another member of the father’s household collecting H at school.
e) The capacity of the parties to provide for the child’s needs
I must next consider the capacity of each parent to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs. There is no evidence to indicate other than that both parents are capable of meeting H’ intellectual and emotional needs.
f) The children’s maturity, sex, background and other characteristics
Next I must consider the child’s maturity, sex and background.
H comes a rich cultural tradition on both his maternal and paternal families’ sides. It is important that H inherits these traditions by maintaining his relationship with both sides of his family. As I have indicated, there can be little doubt that H will maintain strong relationships with both his maternal and paternal family.
g) The need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm caused by abuse or ill treatment, violence or other behaviour
The next matter I need to consider is the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm caused as a result of ill-treatment, abuse, or other violence. In this case, happily there is no evidence to indicate that H needs to be protected from any physical or psychological harm. He is a much-loved child by all who are involved in his care.
h) The attitude to the child and the responsibilities of parenthood
The next matter I have to consider is the attitude of the parties to the child and the responsibilities of parenthood. I am satisfied that each of the parties is committed to responsible parenting other than in one area.
The father’s attitude to paying child support has been remiss, too a large extent. It seems clear to me that the vast responsibility for financially supporting H has fallen on the mother. The father’s attitude can hardly be described as being conducive to the development of a co-operative parenting relationship between the parties. However, otherwise I am satisfied that each of them is a committed and well-motivated parent.
j) Whether it would be preferable to make the order which would least likely lead to the institution of further proceedings in respect of the child
The final matter I must consider is whether it is preferable to make orders that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child. It is desirable that orders be made that will minimise the prospects of the parties returning to court to seek further orders in respect of H. Litigation is expensive in both financial and emotional terms. It also has the potential to exacerbate tensions between the parties.
The parties both acknowledge that the other is a worthwhile parent with much to offer H, and it seems H loves both his parents. I have formed the view that the orders that are most likely not to lead to the parties returning to court are reasonably rigid ones that will delineate contact and the parties’ responsibilities in respect of it and will also allow the father to have the mid-week contact that he seeks.
It will be open to the parties to allow other contact and to change the contact arrangements as they may mutually agree from time to time.
Conclusions
To conclude, the parties agree, in general terms, that the holidays should be shared between them and the term-time contact be suspended during that time. I will make specific orders in this regard. The orders will also permit each of the parties to take a holiday with H, provided some conditions are met.
It is also appropriate that H have contact with both his parents and his siblings, C and M, on significant days. By this I mean his birthday, Father’s Day, Mother’s Day, Christmas Day and, in particular, C and M and the parties’ birthdays.
I accept that Christmas Day is a special day for all families, particularly those including small children. Sadly, the parties are unable to agree about arrangements for this most significant day. As a result, it falls to me to arbitrarily divide Christmas between the parties on what I hope is an equitable and reasonable basis.
There is no difficulty as far as telephone contact is concerned. It is appropriate that the parties keep each other informed of H’ progress at school and in respect of issues relating to his health and any medical treatment he may require from time to time. As I have said, the law emphasis that parents share responsibilities in respect of their children.
I have formed the view that, on balance, as he grows older H’ best interests will be served by him spending alternate weekends with each of his parents and also some time overnight during school terms with his father to ensure that H has some exposure to his father in a mundane and domestic context.
As C grows older, she too will be involved in the preparation for school with H and in doing homework afterwards. This, I hope, will strengthen the sibling bond between the two children, and of course in the years to come, M will also be involved in this process.
I have not been persuaded that this will be unduly disruptive for H. The parties live close together in the suburbs of Darwin. The greatest disruption is likely to be occasioned to the party themselves and, in my view, this disruption will be minimised by having the father, or his nominee, collect and return H to and from school on Wednesdays and Thursdays once H begins school.
For all these reasons, the orders of the court in this matter will be as set out at the commencement of these reasons for judgment.
I certify that the preceding eighty-five (85) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Brown FM
Associate: L Chin
Date: 24th January 2003
0
0
0