H and K
[2000] FMCAfam 1
•18 July 2000
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| H & K | [2000] FMCA fam 1 |
| FINAL PARENTING ORDERS – Section 60B (2)(b) FLA |
| Applicant: | D A J H |
| Respondent: | T L K |
| File No: | ZP000281 of 2000 |
| Delivered on: | 18 July 2000 |
| Delivered at: | Parramatta |
| Hearing Date: | 11 July 2000 |
| Judgment of: | Ryan FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Testart, |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Carriss & Co, Solicitors, 290 High Street, Kew, Victoria, 3101 |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Wager |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Beilby Wager, Solicitors, DX 28451, Parramatta |
That the Applicant Father have contact to A S H born 28 October 1996 as follows:
(a)19 August 2000 – 27 August 2000;
(b)28 October 2000 – 5 November 2000;
(c)23 December 2000 – 31 December 2000;
(d)17 February 2001 – 25 February 2001;
(e)14 April 2001 – 22 April 2001;
(f)16 June 2001 – 24 June 2001;
(g)18 August 2001 – 26 August 2001;
(h)20 October 2001 – 28 October 2001;
(i)2 January 2002 – 16 January 2002.
That upon A commencing school in 2002, contact take place as follows:
(a)For the whole of the Easter and Spring NSW school holiday vacations; and
(b)For one half of the June/July Winter NSW school vacation; and
(c)For one half of each Christmas school holiday period, being the second half of the 2002/2003 Christmas school holidays, alternating with the first half in the following year and in an alternating pattern thereafter.
That for the purpose of contact pursuant to Order 2(i) and (ii) of these orders, contact shall commence on the first day following the completion of the relevant school term.
That the Applicant Father have telephone contact as follows:
(a)Each Tuesday between 7 pm and 7.30 pm. The Respondent Mother shall telephone the Applicant Father and put A on the telephone;
(b)Each Sunday between 7 pm and 7.30 pm. The Applicant Father shall telephone the Respondent Mother and the Respondent Mother shall put A on the telephone.
That until April 2002, the Respondent Mother or Mr G K will travel with A when contact is to take place in Melbourne and deliver A to the Applicant Father at Tullamarine Airport.
That until April 2002, the Applicant Father shall return with A to Sydney and deliver A to either the Respondent Mother or Mr G K at Sydney airport.
That the Applicant Mother ensure that A is at Tullamarine Airport for the commencement of contact by 11 am and the Respondent Father ensure that A is returned to the Mother at Sydney Airport by 3 pm at the conclusion of any contact period.
That each party shall pay the costs of their own travel associated with accompanying A.
That prior to April 2002, the Respondent Mother shall pay for a one way ticket for A for travel between Melbourne and Sydney on four occasions in each twelve month period and the Applicant Father otherwise meet the costs of A’s air travel.
That commencing with Easter 2002 holiday contact and on each subsequent occasion of contact, the Respondent Mother shall provide a one way ticket for A for travel between Sydney and Melbourne and the Applicant Father shall provide a one way ticket for A for the Melbourne/Sydney return journey.
That the Respondent Mother be and is hereby restrained from permitting A to use the term ‘Dad’ or ‘Daddy’ or any other term that denotes paternity in reference to any person other than the Applicant Father.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA |
ZP 000281 of 2000
| D A J H |
Applicant
And
| T L K |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
These proceedings comprise an application for contact and specific issue orders by D A H (“the Father”) concerning his daughter A S H.
Background
The Father, D A H was born on 26 June 1963. He is 37 years old. The Respondent Mother (“the Mother”), T L K (formerly H) was born on 1 July 1969 and is 31 years old. The parties married on
21 November 1992. They have one child, A S H born 28 October 1996, who is now 3 years and 8 months. The parties separated on
8 June 1997. At separation, the Mother left Melbourne where the parties had been residing and returned to live in a suburb of Sydney with her parents and A. The Father has continued to reside in Melbourne. A was 8 ½ months old at separation.
On 23 April 1999, a Decree Nisi was pronounced which became absolute on 24 May 1999.
Both parties have repartnered. On 4 December 1999, the Mother married G K. The Mother had known Mr K for approximately fifteen months prior to their starting to live together during 1999. On 18 May 2000, Z K, A’s half-sister, was born.
The Father resides with A C who is aged 33 years. They have known one another for approximately 3 years and have been living together for five months. Ms C’s three daughters, A aged 6 years, J aged 9 years and B aged 10 years reside with them.
The parties entered Consent Orders on 21 August 1998 in the Family Court of Australia, which essentially provided:
(1)That the applicant Mother have joint responsibility in consultation with the respondent Father for making decisions regarding the long term care, welfare and development of A.
(2)That A live with the applicant Mother.
(3)That the applicant Mother have sole responsibility for making decisions regarding the day to day care, welfare and development of the child.
Directions were made as to the disposition of the balance of the proceedings.
Further consent orders were made on 25 June 1999 relevantly relating to contact between the Father and A. These orders provided:
(1)That the Applicant/Father have contact to A S H born 28 October 1999 as follows:
(a)From 5.00 pm to 7.00 pm today;
(b)From 9.30 pm on 26 June 1999 until 1.00 pm on 27 June 1999: The Husband to pick up and deliver the child to the Wife’s residence:
(c)From 6.30 pm on 16 July 1999 until 3.00 pm on 18 July 1999: The Husband to pick up the child from the Wife’s residence at the commencement of contact and the Wife to collect the child from 6 S Street, Q H at the expiration of contact:
(d)From 31 July 1999 until 2 August 1999: The Wife will accompany the child to Melbourne to implement contact. The travel costs associated with contact to be borne equally by the parties:
(e)From 17 September 1999 until 19 September 1999: The Husband shall pick up the child at 3.00 pm from pre-school at the commencement of contact and the Wife to collect the child from 6 S Street, Q H at 3.00 pm at expiration of contact:
(f)From 2 October 1999 until 4 October 1999: The Wife will accompany the child to Melbourne to implement contact. The travel costs associated with contact to be borne equally by the parties:
(g)From 13 November 1999 until 16 November 1999: Wife will take A to Sydney Airport to meet Husband who will take the child to Melbourne for the contact period. Husband will return with the child to Sydney Airport where the Wife will collect the child. Husband will pay all costs of such contact.
(2)In the event the said child becomes significantly emotionally upset during any period of contact and the child indicates a desire to contact the wife during the contact period, the husband shall:
(a)Forthwith console the child and offer her the option of cancelling contact;
(b)Forthwith allow and assist the child to contact the Wife;
(c)If it be proper and necessary so to do having regard to the said child’s emotional state such contact to end forthwith and make necessary arrangements to return the said child to the Wife as soon as possible.
(3)Such further contact to the said child as may be agreed.
AND THE COURT NOTES
(4)The parties intend the contact Orders herein to serve as a preparation for the said child to have block contact with the Husband in Melbourne.
In effect, these contact orders came to an end on 16 November 1999.
Without further orders the parties were able to agree on additional contact. This contact took place in Melbourne and occurred for extended periods. Contact occurred between 4 and 12 February 2000 and 29 April until 7 May 2000.
There were then further proceedings in which Interim Orders were made after a hearing on 23 June 2000. These orders provided:
(1)That A have contact with her Father from 10 am on 24 June 2000 to 29 June 2000.
(2)That the contact take place in Melbourne.
The court record contains a notation that A was to be accompanied by one of her parents or Mr K for the purpose of the trip to and from Melbourne. The balance of the proceedings was then listed for final hearing.
Applications
The Father’s Application for Final Orders was filed in the Family Court of Australia at Parramatta on 1 May 2000. The Mother’s Response was filed on 22 June 2000. The Application and Response respectively addressed the contact arrangements that each party proposed until A commences school in 2002. During the course of the proceedings, I invited the parties to formulate contact orders that each sought to put in place to have effect after A started school. The parties varied the orders they sought accordingly. The additional orders sought by the Father once A starts school are:
(1)That he have half Christmas school holidays, alternating between the first and second half.
(2)The entirety of all other school holidays.
(3)That this contact take place in Melbourne.
The Mother proposed that after A starts school, the Father exercise contact in Melbourne:
(1)For one week during each school holiday period,
(2)For two weeks during the Christmas school holidays, and
(3)Upon A starting primary school, at about 8 years of age for one half of all school holiday periods.
Issues before the court
These issues appear to be:
b)The frequency of contact;
c)The duration of contact;
d)Where contact should take place;
e)At what age A should travel as an unaccompanied minor when travelling by aeroplane between Sydney and Melbourne;
f)The exclusive use of the term ‘Dad’ or ‘Daddy’ by the Father.
The applicant father’s case
The evidence in support of the Applicant Father’s case is contained in his Affidavit sworn 4 July 2000 and his oral testimony.
The respondent mother’s case
The evidence comprising the Respondent Mother’s case is contained in her Affidavit sworn 7 July 2000, the Affidavit of G K sworn 7 July 2000 and the Mother’s oral testimony. Mr K was not cross-examined.
Relevant law
Contact orders and specific issue orders are parenting orders. They arise in proceedings conducted under Part VII of the Family Law Act. Section 60B sets out the objects of Part VII and the principles which underline those objects. They are subject to Section 65E in that in determining the outcome the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration. That is the overriding principle.
Section 60B(2)(b) has particular relevance in these proceedings. It provides, in effect, that children have a right of contact, on a regular basis, with both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development.
Subparagraph (b) refers to the right of contact on a regular basis. Fundamentally, it emphasises the desirability of contact. Regular carries with it a clear understanding that contact should be as frequent as is appropriate and by the various means which are considered to be in the child’s best interests.
In deciding the contact arrangements that will promote the best interests of a particular child, the court must consider the various matters set out in Section 68F(2). Its sub-sections comprise a list of matters that must be considered to the extent that each is relevant to the particular case. Paragraph (l) permits the court to take into account “any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant”. This ensures that the infinite variety of individual children’s circumstances can be addressed. B and B: Family Law Reform Act (1997) FLC 92-755.
Section 68f – determining the best interests of the child
a) The child’s wishes.
A has not expressed any wishes concerning contact with her Father. Both parties agree that A enjoys her contact with her Father. The Mother gave evidence that A has “a wow of a time”. On her return from Melbourne after the April/May 2000 contact and again after the June 2000 contact, A told her Mother and Mr K respectively that she did not wish to go to Melbourne anymore. A’s statements occurred following these initial occasions of longer periods of contact in Melbourne. This context indicates that A’s statements do not reflect a disinclination for contact with her Father. They are rather statements by a three-year-old, which indicate she has missed her Mother and is unsettled after these first occasions of longer visits. Given her age and age appropriate level of understanding A’s expressions of opposition to Melbourne have little weight attached to them in their contribution to the ultimate decision.
b) The nature of the child’s relationships.
Both parents agree that A has a good relationship with each parent. A has resided with her Mother all her life. On occasions when her Mother has returned to part-time employment, A has been cared for by family members and had the opportunity to attend daycare and pre-school. A now attends H Pre-school one day per week and is otherwise fully supervised by her Mother. Mr H acknowledged that A is a well adjusted child. When speaking about A, the Mother spoke in warm and loving tones. I accept that she is deeply committed to her daughter’s welfare and is an effective and capable parent. She is A’s prime care-giver and the person to whom A has her deepest attachment.
A’s relationship with her Mother is showing some short term signs of anxiety on her recent returns from the longer contact periods in Melbourne. This has been demonstrated primarily by disturbed sleep, regression in toileting and language and anxiety at separation. There have been instances of rebellion that I accept are out of character for A.
When he was speaking of his daughter, the Father similarly spoke with warmth and obvious love for her. His recognition of A’s deep attachment to her Mother is reflected by the consent orders giving the Mother residence of A and his answers to questions in which he expressed his desire to always have A with him, however recognised the need for her to be with her Mother. The Mother made no criticism of the Father’s relationship with A and I am satisfied that the relationship is a healthy and happy one.
A has had contact with Ms C between 15 and 18 times. I accept that this is an appropriately supportive relationship and that A too enjoys a friendly relationship with each of Ms C’s daughters.
Similarly, it is clear from the Mother and Mr K’s evidence that A has a close and appropriate relationship with Mr K. She calls him “Dad” and he is able to console her when she is upset. I accept the Mother’s evidence that A and Z have a close sisterly relationship.
c) The likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances.
One of the primary issues raised by the Mother is her concern that the duration of contact proposed by the Father causes A to become distressed and regress. The Mother’s case is not that A is inadequately cared for whilst with her Father, but rather that she is unable to cope emotionally with separation from her Mother for the longer periods proposed by the Father. The Father resists the Mother’s concerns and considers that the regressed and upset behaviour A has demonstrated on her return from Melbourne is within the range of normal adjustment behaviours.
Both parents agree that for A, with familiarity in routine will come comfort. The Mother’s evidence is that each time A has returned from contact the period of upset and regressed behaviour has been different. On her return from the most recent contact the period of upset and regressed behaviour has not been as severe for A as that experienced previously. The Mother has demonstrated skill and insight in managing this period of maladjustment for A. I am satisfied that she will continue to do so and that the unsettled periods for A on return will become shorter in duration and lessen in their intensity. This is also a consequence of A getting older.
d) The practical difficulty and expense associated with contact.
A resides in her Mother’s home at 33 R Road, A B in New South Wales. A B is north of Sydney. The travelling time by car, dependent upon the traffic, varies between 1 hour and 1 hour 20 minutes. The Father resides at 16 D Street, D C in Melbourne. He and his partner have purchased a new home at 11 P Close, D C. They will take possession of that new property in early August 2000. This is where A will exercise contact to her Father when she travels to Melbourne. The Father’s home is approximately a 20 minute drive from Melbourne airport, although it may extend to about 40 minutes in heavy traffic. Taking into account the vagaries of travel, the parties are in broad agreement that it will take between 4 and 4½ hours on average for the journey from A B to D C to be completed on those occasions when the main travel is by aeroplane. The parties intend that A’s travel will be by aeroplane.
Mr K says that Friday afternoon traffic is always heavy and will inevitably add to the strain and time taken for the journey. I accept this and will adjust the contact arrangements so that travel can take place outside this peak time.
The parties have modest earnings. The Father is in full-time employment as an Automotive Transmission Re-builder, earning approximately $28,000.00 per year. He is in secure employment and has worked with his current employer for fifteen years. Mr Wager questioned the Father about his financial capacity to meet the travel costs that arise if he is successful. The Father agreed that he is currently in arrears of his child support obligation. Arrears have arisen as a direct consequence of the expense he has incurred in bringing these proceedings. He has otherwise been a reliable payer of child support. Subject to the contribution to costs that will be made by the Mother, I accept his evidence that he will meet the necessary costs that contact will create.
The Mother attends to the full-time care of her daughter’s and does not have an independent income. Her Husband is in full-time employment as a Program Co-ordinator with the Department of S & R. He has been employed in that area since 1993. There is no evidence of his income before the Court. Mr K has offered to pay the costs of a one way ticket for A and an adults return airfare at
12 weekly intervals for the purpose of facilitating contact between A and her Father. Once A is able to travel as an unaccompanied minor, the extent to which the Mother’s household can contribute to the purchase of tickets for A will increase by dint of the circumstance that it will no longer be necessary to purchase an adult return ticket coincidental with each occasion of contact.
Both parents and Mr K have demonstrated a commitment to contact and there is agreement as to collection and return at Sydney and Melbourne airports respectively. Similarly, there is agreement that an adult will accompany A for so long as it is required.
The Father acknowledges cost and distance must have a significant impact on the nature and frequency of contact that he can enjoy with his daughter. He gave evidence that he would have preferred a contact arrangement whereby he exercised alternate weekends and half school holiday contact with his daughter. He acknowledges that this common construct is not appropriate for his daughter given the location of the parties’ homes. Both parties gave evidence that the effort associated with travel is tiring for A and that she takes some time physically to recover. I accept the Fathers evidence that it takes her a good day to settle in and recover from the effort of travel.
Part of the Mother’s proposal includes that the Father exercise access to A in Sydney at the frequency specified in her documents. She proposes that he could stay with unspecified friends or in a motel. The Father has previously exercised contact in this fashion and I accept his evidence that the quality of contact that he can enjoy with his daughter is less than that which is achieved when she is with him in his home. Friends with whom he has previously stayed in Q H have left New South Wales and there was nobody identified in the evidence with whom the Father or A had a sufficiently close relationship that contact in their home would be comfortable and appropriate. The Father appeared quite genuine when he said that he would not feel settled in motel style accommodation and that he believes that this would then cause his daughter to be unsettled. This is a reasonable concern.
e) Capacity of the parents to meet the child’s needs.
Both parties presented as insightful and caring parents who wished to fulfil that role to the best of their ability. Each spoke with warmth and affection of their daughter. Both have the capacity to settle A if she were to become upset and to ameliorate any adjustment difficulties she has as she moves between the two homes for the purpose of contact.
The Father seeks contact for total periods that are greater than the four week recreation leave he is entitled to annually. By working every second Saturday, he is able to accrue four days leave in lieu of pay in an eight-week block. His intention is to work on those weekends when his stepdaughters are exercising their alternate weekend contact with their Father. If occasion arises and he is not available to be at home for each of the days A is on contact with him, then his partner, Ms C or one of his extended family will care for A. These arrangements are entirely appropriate and I am satisfied that A’s needs will be well attended to in the Father’s home whilst she is on contact with him.
f) The child’s maturity, sex and background and other characteristics.
A is a happy and healthy child aged 3.8 years. She is bright and has had the opportunity for socialisation beyond her family provided at her pre-school.
g) The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm caused by abuse, ill treatment, violence or other behaviour.
These issues do not arise.
h) The attitude to the child and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents.
A deal of the evidence already refereed to in these reasons is relevant to this sub-paragraph. I will not restate it. Although I am satisfied that the Mother is committed to promoting A’s relationship with her Father, she has taken a number of decisions that may well have the unintended affect of subtly undermining the importance of the Father in A’s life.
Firstly, at separation, the Mother left Melbourne and relocated with A to Sydney. The Mother returned to reside with her parents and I make no criticism of her for this. It did, however, put in place a significant barrier to A’s opportunity to enjoy regular and frequent contact with her Father.
Next, the Mother has changed the child’s surname by common usage so that she is now known variously as H-K, H and K. This is a decision that the Mother was not entitled to make without reference to the Father and indeed, in the absence of his consent, an order of the Court. The name by which A is known is a matter regarding her long term care, welfare and development and is clearly within the ambit of Order 1 of the orders made 21 August 1998. The use of any surname other than H for A cannot be maintained by the Mother until the Father consents or she obtains an order.
Next, the Mother has permitted A to refer to her step-Father as ‘Dad’. The Mother gives evidence that A is clear that Mr K is ‘Dad’ and the Father is ‘Daddy’. I accept the Father’s concerns as realistic that this will create uncertainty for A, in the event it has not already done so. There is a real risk if the term ‘Dad’ and blended surnames are continued, that A will become confused as to the identity and significance of her biological Father. The reality that A cannot see her Father as frequently as might otherwise be ordered if they lived nearby, means that the Mother must positively re-enforce the significance of her Father to A. The subtle undermining that the Mother has demonstrated in these two later instances means that face to face contact between A and her father must be maximised to ensure their relationship is securely maintained.
Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family.
This does not arise.
j) Any family violence order.
This does not arise.
k) Whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child.
The parties both agreed that finality of issues relating to contact is desirable and their applications were adjusted to take the impact of these proceedings beyond the time at which A will start school. It is undesirable both in financial and personal terms for these parents to engage in further litigation concerning their daughter.
l) Any other fact or circumstances the court thinks relevant.
The Father’s family resides in Melbourne. He gave evidence of close relationships with his extended family and I accept that A’s involvement in his extended family is in her interests. The best outcome for children is that they have effective relationships with both their parents and the opportunity to enjoy their parents in the broad family environment. The Father will include A in activities with his extended family and it is necessary to ensure that the contact is of sufficient duration that A has time for these activities as well as time to enjoy exposure to a quieter home life with her Father.
Conclusions
A is a fortunate child in that she has two parents who are committed to her welfare. As is not uncommon, in parents who are separated, they have not been able to communicate as effectively with each other about their daughter as is desirable. In her affidavit evidence, the Mother deposes to a conversation with the Father in which she was enquiring of A’s bedtime when she was on contact. The Father’s response was unnecessarily sarcastic and reflective of his belief that his dealings with the Mother concerning contact have been frustrating and unsatisfactory. The Mother, for her part, is concerned that the Father does not adhere to a routine for A that is consistent with the routine that the Mother has in place for A.However, the Mother has not communicated to the Father the details of A’s routine saying that she does not believe the Father would be interested. A’s capacity to benefit from contact can only be enhanced if her parents communicate effectively with each other about matters that concern her welfare.
At the conclusion of the proceedings, I was satisfied that each party had reflected on the impact upon A of their inability to communicate and believe that each will make considerably greater efforts in their dealings with the other in the many years that lie ahead in parenting A.
It is common ground in these proceedings, that certainty of arrangements and A getting older will positively influence her capacity to separate from her Mother without distress on her return. She is already showing signs that this is indeed the case. I do not consider that the Mother’s proposal in its broad construct is sufficient to enable A to develop and maintain the deep relationship that is available to her with her Father. The effect of travel upon her interferes with the benefit she can enjoy on the days of travel to and from Melbourne. Her Father’s discomfort about contact taking place in a motel will inevitably be communicated to A and, in turn, undermine her capacity for maximum enjoyment of her time with him. The Father’s financial circumstances do not enable him to include in Sydney based contact his partner, her children and his extended family with any reasonable frequency. Thus, it would be that the Mother’s proposals would seriously inhibit the development and maintenance of valuable extended family relationships with A’s paternal family, particularly when compared to the proposals advanced by the Father.
I am not satisfied, however, that contact for periods greater than the core 9 days at a time is appropriate for A prior to her being ready to start school. The routine of contact both in terms of frequency and duration will be important contributors in A continuing to successfully adjust to separation from her Mother. Increasing the contact too soon may undermine the improvements that have already started and diminish the benefits of contact in both the short term and long term for A. By the time A is starting school in 2002, the effect of these orders will be that she will have experienced aeroplane travel between Sydney and Melbourne on many occasions. It is common ground that the plane journey is approximately 1 hour and 20 minutes flying time. I am satisfied that the combination of familiarity with plane travel, socialisation skills achieved through effective parenting and pre-school in an intelligent child who will nearly be six, means that by Easter 2002 A will be able to travel as an unaccompanied minor.
For the reasons given earlier in these reasons, I will order that the Father exclusively is to be known by the term ‘Dad’ or ‘Daddy’.
Orders
(1)That the Applicant Father have contact to A S H born 28 October 1996 as follows:
(a)19 August 2000 – 27 August 2000;
(b)28 October 2000 – 5 November 2000;
(c)23 December 2000 – 31 December 2000;
(d)17 February 2001 – 25 February 2001;
(e)14 April 2001 – 22 April 2001;
(f)16 June 2001 – 24 June 2001;
(g)18 August 2001 – 26 August 2001;
(h)20 October 2001 – 28 October 2001;
(i)2 January 2002 – 16 January 2002.
(2)That upon A commencing school in 2002, contact take place as follows:
(a)For the whole of the Easter and Spring NSW school holiday vacations; and
(b)For one half of the June/July Winter NSW school vacation; and
(c)For one half of each Christmas school holiday period, being the second half of the 2002/2003 Christmas school holidays, alternating with the first half in the following year and in an alternating pattern thereafter.
(3)That for the purpose of contact pursuant to Order 2(i) and (ii) of these orders, contact shall commence on the first day following the completion of the relevant school term.
(4)That the Applicant Father have telephone contact as follows:
(a)Each Tuesday between 7 pm and 7.30 pm. The Respondent Mother shall telephone the Applicant Father and put A on the telephone;
(b)Each Sunday between 7 pm and 7.30 pm. The Applicant Father shall telephone the Respondent Mother and the Respondent Mother shall put A on the telephone.
(5)That until April 2002, the Respondent Mother or Mr G K will travel with A when contact is to take place in Melbourne and deliver A to the Applicant Father at Tullamarine Airport.
(6)That until April 2002, the Applicant Father shall return with A to Sydney and deliver A to either the Respondent Mother or Mr G K at Sydney airport.
(7)That the Applicant Mother ensure that A is at Tullamarine Airport for the commencement of contact by 11 am and the Respondent Father ensure that A is returned to the Mother at Sydney Airport by 3 pm at the conclusion of any contact period.
(8)That each party shall pay the costs of their own travel associated with accompanying A.
(9)That prior to April 2002, the Respondent Mother shall pay for a one way ticket for A for travel between Melbourne and Sydney on four occasions in each twelve month period and the Applicant Father otherwise meet the costs of A’s air travel.
(10)That commencing with Easter 2002 holiday contact and on each subsequent occasion of contact, the Respondent Mother shall provide a one way ticket for A for travel between Sydney and Melbourne and the Applicant Father shall provide a one way ticket for A for the Melbourne/Sydney return journey.
(11)That the Respondent Mother be and is hereby restrained from permitting A to use the term ‘Dad’ or ‘Daddy’ or any other term that denotes paternity in reference to any person other than the Applicant Father.
I certify that the preceding fifty-three (53) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Ryan FM
Associate:
Date:
0
0
0