H and O'N - [2003] FMCAfam 534

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

H & O’N

[2003] FMCAfam 534

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Contact – children resident with Father – Father opposed to contact – whether Mother had abandoned children – whether now relevant to contact – Mother’s psychiatric health – whether desirability of contact outweighs the risk – whether contact the best interests of children.

Family Law Act 1975, ss.60B, 65E, 68F

Applicant:

J L H

Respondent:

M J O’N

File No:

MLM 7741 of 2002

Delivered on:

1 December 2003

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Hearing date:

26 November 2003

Judgment of:

Phipps FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Ms Nancarrow

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Wightons Lawyers

The Respondent appearing in person.

ORDERS

That the Mother and the Father have joint responsibility for making decisions about the long-term care, welfare and development of the children J L O'N born 12 April 1998 and A K O'N born 3 November 1999 ("the children").
That the Father have sole responsibility for decisions about the day-to-day care, welfare and development of the children.
That the children reside with the Father.
That the Mother have contact with the children as follows:
b)from 6 p.m. Friday until 6 p.m. Sunday each alternate weekend commencing 5 December 2003;
c)for one week in each of the school term holidays as agreed between the parties and in the absence of agreement the first week;
d)for one week in the long summer school holidays in 2003/2004, two weeks in 2004/2005 and three weeks in 2005/2006 and each year thereafter, at times as agreed, and if not agreed immediately preceding the children commencing the first term of the school year;
e)for not less than three hours on each of the children's birthdays and the Mother’s birthday;
f)from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m. on Mother’s Day where the same falls on non-contact weekend;
g)from 4 p.m. Christmas Eve 2003 until 4 p.m. Christmas Day 2003 and in each alternate year thereafter and from 4 p.m. Christmas Day 2004 until 6 p.m. Boxing Day 2004 and in each alternate year thereafter;
h)by telephone to a landline provided by the husband on each Thursday from 6 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. and at such other times as agreed between the parties;
i)as may otherwise be agreed between the parties.
That contact pursuant to paragraph 4(a) be suspended during school term holidays and long summer holidays commencing with summer holidays 2005/2006.
That contact changeover is to take place at the F Street railway station outside the police kiosk unless otherwise agreed.
That each of the parties be and is hereby restrained from denigrating the other or allowing others to denigrate the other party in the presence and hearing of the children.
That the Father provide 14 days written notice to the Mother of any requirement that he be transferred to a location outside of a 100 kilometre radius of the central business district of M, interstate or assigned overseas due to his employment obligations, save that the Father is not required to make any disclosure prohibited by the laws governing his membership of the A A F.
That the Mother continue attending Dr Kokkinias as recommended by him and that she continue to take any medication prescribed by him and undertake any treatment recommended by him.
That the Mother provide 14 days written notice of her intention to take the children during contact to stay or holiday in any other place than her place of residence.
THAT pursuant to s.65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in Annexure A and these particulars are included in these orders.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MLM 7741 of 2002

J L H

Applicant

And

M J O’N

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This application concerns two children of the relationship between the parties J L O'N born 12 April 1998 and A K O'N born 3 November 1999. The parties commenced living together in 1996. The father was a 25-year-old soldier and the mother 18 years old and unemployed when they met and commenced living together.
They met in A. They then moved to M and at the end of 1999 or the beginning of 2000 the father was transferred to T. He then took a posting to E T for a period of six months. The mother remained in T in defence housing.
In May 2000 the mother resolved to separate. She intended to travel to A for a holiday. She intended to take the children with her but the children went to friends of the father. The father returned from E T. About three weeks after this the mother went to A on her own. She returned and continued to live in the I area. The children were living with the father who was caring for them, it seems with the help of his mother and friends. In the affidavits of the mother and father there are differences about what occurred during this period. Precisely what occurred is not now of importance. It was not explored in cross-examination. A report was prepared by Mr Roman Jansen. He says that in this period, according to the mother, she was feeling confused, overwhelmed and experiencing voices in her head, and reasoned that travel would be restorative.
The mother says that for a period up to May 2001 she stayed in the father’s home, sleeping with A. The father denies this. He says that by this time he was in a relationship with a new partner and would not have allowed the mother to stay with him. Again, precisely what occurred is not now of importance. It was not explored in cross-examination.
The mother went to A and then to M. At Christmas, the father and his new partner and the children visited the father’s parents at S in the V. The mother came to the property. The father says that they were sleeping in a caravan at the back of the property. The mother removed J from her bed and was prevented from taking her away by the father. The mother admits that she did this. She denies that she was intoxicated as alleged by the father or that she threw rocks on the roof of the father’s parents house, again as alleged by the father. Contact was agreed the next day, Boxing Day, at G Lake, S. The father alleges conduct by the mother suggesting she might have had a plan to abduct the children. The mother denies it.
Face-to-face contact did not occur again until Christmas 2002, after the proceedings had been commenced. The mother says she made attempts at telephone contact. She telephoned the children's day care centre and was able to arrange to ring once a week. There is some dispute about the circumstances surrounding the arrangements for this telephone contact.
The mother filed an application on 5 September 2002. On the first court date, 28 October 2002 the father did not appear. An order was made that he file and serve a response and affidavit within 21 days and the application was adjourned to 9 December 2002. A consent order was made providing for contact for two hours on 24 December, again at G Lake S, supervised by the paternal Grandmother and telephone contact each Wednesday. The application was adjourned to 7 January 2003.
On 7 January 2003 a consent order was made for contact from 10 a.m. Saturday until 6 p.m. Sunday each fourth weekend. The application was adjourned to 18 March 2003. On that date, a consent order was made that the mother have contact from 10 a.m. Saturday to 5 p.m. Sunday each fourth weekend, and from 10 a.m. until 5 p.m. Sunday each intervening fourth weekend. The effect was that the mother was then having fortnightly contact. It was also part of the consent order that there be contact for three hours on each of the children's birthdays and the mother’s birthday at times to be agreed. An order was made by consent for telephone contact each Wednesday 5:30 p.m. Procedural orders were made, including an order that the mother obtain a psychiatric assessment and provide a copy to the father’s solicitors, and the application was fixed for hearing.
The father was represented until 18 March 2003. He appeared in person at the hearing.
The mother seeks the following contact:
a)from 6 p.m. Friday until 6 p.m. Sunday each alternate weekend;
b)from 4.30 p.m. until 7 p.m. each alternate Wednesday;
c)for one week in each of the school term holidays as agreed between the parties and in the absence of agreement the first week;
d)for three weeks in the long summer school holidays being the three weeks immediately preceding the children commencing the first term of the school year;
e)for not less than three hours on each of the children's birthdays and the mother’s birthday;
f)from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m. on Mother’s Day where same falls on non contact weekend;
g)from 4 p.m. Christmas Eve 2003 until 4 p.m. Christmas Day 2003 and in each alternate year thereafter and from 4 p.m. Christmas Day 2004 until 6 p.m. Boxing Day 2004 and in each alternate year thereafter;
h)by telephone to a landline provided by the husband on each Thursday from 6 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. and at such other times as agreed between the parties;
i)as may otherwise be agreed between the parties.
The mother seeks orders that contact change over continue at F Street railway station outside the police kiosk and there be an order that there are to be in the absence of the father’s partner, that each party provide the other with their current residential address, a non denigration order and an order that the father provide 14 days written notice to the mother of any requirement that he be transferred to a location outside of a 100 kilometre radius of the central business district of M, interstate or assigned overseas due to his employment obligations.
The father proposes supervised contact:
a)from 10 a.m. Sunday until 5 p.m. Sunday on every other alternate weekend;
b)for three hours on the weekend closest to the actual date of the children's and mother’s birthday;
c)from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. on Mother’s Day if on a non-contact weekend and until 1 p.m. if it falls on a contact weekend;
d)from 4 p.m. Christmas Day 2003 until 12 p.m. Boxing Day 2003 in each alternate year thereafter and from 5 p.m. Christmas Eve 2004 until 12 p.m. Christmas Day 2004;
e)by telephone to a mobile number provided by the father on Wednesday between 5:30 p.m. and 5:45 p.m. and at such other time as agreed between the parties.
The father sought a number of other orders.
Evidence was given by the mother and for her, Ms T, a housing support worker who was assisting the mother and Dr. Kokkinias, a psychiatrist. The father gave evidence and called no other witnesses. Mr Jansen prepared a report and gave evidence.
After she returned from A in mid 2000, the mother had many changes of residence. She stayed in emergency accommodation in I and then went to A for six weeks and then in July 2001 returned to M. Dr. Kokkinias records in his report that since then she has moved more than 20 times.
She now has a three-bedroom house in W provided through B Youth Housing Group. It is there that she has the children during contact.
Ms Y is a youth housing support worker engaged at B Youth Housing group. She is the worker assigned to the mother. The mother has been assisted by the group since July 2002. As well as assisting her with housing, the mother has been provided with assistance and support in her endeavours to have contact with her children. Initially the mother was supplied with transitional housing and now has long-term accommodation through the office of Housing. Ms T visits the mother on a regular weekly basis at her home. She makes occasional unannounced visits.
Ms T said that the mother has maintained an exceptional standard of presentation in relation to the accommodation. The children have appropriate furniture bedding and toys and books in the rooms. She said that the mother manages her finances herself well. She budgets well, pays her rent on time and keeps food in the house. She said that she has observed that cupboards and refrigerator are stocked with appropriate food. She said that on occasions when visits have taken place immediately prior to scheduled contact visits she has observed her making homemade sausage rolls and salads.
Dr. Kokkinias prepared a report and affidavit to which the report was annexed. He gave oral evidence. The history the mother gave him included that she had been diagnosed with schizophrenia at the age of 14 or 15. On his initial assessment on 23 May 2003 he discovered that she had attended a psychiatrist in A between the ages of 14 and 15 and subsequently saw a general practitioner between December 2000 until January 2003 but then ceased. Dr Kokkinias was unable to obtain access to the notes of the psychiatrist who had seen the mother when she was 14 or 15 but did have access to a psychological report prepared about that time.
The mother told Dr Kokkinias that her mother "dumped" her at her grandparents at the age of 22 months. An older brother lived with her at this stage as well and he became a ward of the state before she did. During her primary school years she was a ward of the state as her grandparents had by this stage separated. She then lived with her Grandmother for a period of time in A. She described significant violence during her school years and said that she was a bully towards other children.
Dr Kokkinias said that the mother did not display any formal thought disorder. There were no overt psychotic symptoms, in particular, there were no paranoid or persecutory themes. There were mild themes of anger with regard to the predicament but no depressive themes. There were no cognitive deficits of note. He said that over the years it is clear that the mother had suffered from symptoms which are suggestive of a cluster B personality style, that is borderline and antisocial traits. This had been manifested in her extensive drug and alcohol history as well as her deliberate self harm attempts and suicidal ideation, and poor relationship history. He said that however, she also has a number of strengths including her ability to maintain relationships long-term and her ability to survive despite the adverse conditions. His assessment was that it was very unclear whether or not she suffered from a psychotic illness or disorder. She described vague paranoid thoughts and gave a description of "voices", however, Dr Kokkinias was not convinced that this was as a result of a schizophreniform type psychotic illness. He said that this may be in keeping with her cluster B personality style. On balance he felt it was safer to assume a psychotic illness and to recommend ongoing use of her antipsychotic medication. His initial plan was to continue to monitor her.
He reviewed the mother again on 20 June 2003. He said she was subsequently poor in attendance for appointments. In total, he saw her on three occasions since that time; the last being on 29 September at 2003. His overall impression has been that he has been unable to essentially engage with the mother in order to determine what her actual psychological capabilities and as to what her mental state has been between appointments. On 20 June she described to him that she had taken a minor overdose two weeks previously because she was sick of her ex-partner problems as she described them. She did not lose consciousness and did not attend medical help. She told a friend and stayed with this friend for a week. At the time she was not suicidal and did not want to die.
Dr. Kokkinias concluded his report by saying that he is still fairly unclear as to what the mother’s actual diagnosis is apart from the summary he had described in his report. In terms of her past psychotic symptoms he felt that it would be safer to say that there may be a psychotic illness underlying these and therefore this requires ongoing treatment. She had been fairly erratic with ongoing follow-up with him and compliance with medication and he felt that this would be detrimental to the ongoing follow-up. He said that, however, she does display many strengths and has engaged with a variety of other health and allied health professionals over the last year or so.
In his report, Mr Jansen referred to the possibility of Dr Kokkinias requesting a case manager be appointed from the local mental health service. The purpose of this would be that such a person could liaise with her solicitor in order to suspend or reinstate contact short the mother’s mental state mean she was unable to have contact. Dr Kokkinias said that given the mother’s stable presentation it is unlikely that an area mental health service would accept her for case management. He said that he will continue to review regularly and if the situation changes he will refer her for case management. He said that he intended to see her monthly. The fifth advantage of case management by an area mental health service is that it has means of intervention.
Dr. Kokkinias said that if the mother did have some form of episode she would be unlikely to be a danger to the children. The most likely thing would be that she would neglect them.
Mr Jansen reports the father as having the view that the mother should not be "rewarded" with contact because she "abandoned" the children. He told Mr Jansen that he had no harboured concerns regarding the mother’s mental state or parental capacity until he received a telephone call in E T which was to tell him that she intended to separate and travel to the U S. He was shocked by this. He said that he had resolved that she should have no further contact with the children and asserted that his new partner, whom he subsequently met in an internet chat room, agreed with him. Mr Jansen says the father stated the mother disappeared for two years and she decided she just wants to walk back into the kids’ lives, but as far as he is concerned it's just not on. He asserted that his new partner and he both want the mother out of their lives. The father was also critical of the mother badmouthing him. He said that the children seemed to behave badly on their return. The father said that he did not intend to co-operate with contact unless it suited him and said that he would unilaterally change or cancel it as necessary. He told Mr Jansen that when he had been away for a month he rang her to cancel contact so he could spend the weekend with the children. He said that she has just got to get used to it. Evidence by both the father and the mother showed that first-day contact as orders had not taken place. On Mother’s Day, a contact day for the mother, the children were not made available until 1 p.m. The father said that his partner was entitled to have the children for part of Mother’s Day.
Mr Jansen said that in summary, the Father attached no intrinsic importance to the children's relationship with the mother and argued that she had relinquished a right to have contact. He indicated that he would not comply with contact regime unless it was convenient for him to do so.
The mother gave Mr Jansen a similar history to that given to Dr Kokkinias. She said that she did not feel she had abandoned the children and explained that she was experiencing voices over 2001 and 2002, not receiving psychiatric help and believed that travel would provide relief for her. She admitted that she didn't really know what to do. As to why she did not pursue contact more vigorously she argued that after arriving in M she did not issue proceedings because she lacked a stable home and could not visit the children in Q through lack of money.
Mr Jansen's summary of her was that she presented as an unassuming woman with a history of mental illness who has apparently achieved stability of lifestyle and adherence to a medication regime. He said that although auditory hallucinations continued to affect her periodically, she claims to be able to suppress them.

Mr Jansen says of the child J that her confidence and capacity for relating suggested the existence of a positive self-concept whilst an extensive vocabulary reflected the timely attainment of developmental milestones. Her account of her mother suggested that contact is a positive and affirming experience. However she is aware that it lacks the approval of her father and his partner. She referred to the father’s partner as "mum".
Mr Jansen reported that A seems secure. His behaviour was age-appropriate. His indication of a family indicated that the father and his new partner were "mummy and daddy". He said that he likes to see J (the mother). Mr Jansen interview the father’s new partner. She saw herself as the children's mother and obviously felt threatened by the mother wanting contact Mr Jansen remarked that her failure to prepare the children for the interview with him and meeting with the mother seem to reflect an inability or unwillingness to set aside her own feelings in order to emphatically assist the children to cope with a stressful situation.
Mr Jansen noted in his report that the children avoided their mother in the waiting room however returned her overtures in the privacy of the office. Ms T accompanied the mother to the meeting at Mr Jansen's office and was in the waiting room with the mother the father and the children. She said that in the waiting room both children indicated that they wished to approach the mother and had their arms outstretched for her. She said that the father stopped them. Then later when the father went into the interview room and his new partner was with the children, she stopped them going to the mother. The father disputed this. His new partner did not give evidence, although she was at court.
In his evidence, the father repeated the view which he had put to Mr Jansen; that is, that he did not wish the mother to have contact with the children. The behaviour in the waiting room which Ms T described is consistent with this view. There is no reason why Ms T would invent this evidence. She is obviously sympathetic to the mother, understandably so, because her task is to assist and support the mother. Nevertheless, Ms T is acting in a professional capacity. If the father is correct and Ms T not, then Ms T must have invented the evidence. That is highly improbable. I find that the description of what occurred in Mr Jansen's waiting room is correct.
That the children had not avoided the mother in the waiting room strengthens Mr Jansen's observations and opinion. J referred to the mother as "mum" and invited her to join her at the doll's house. The mother engaged with her warmly. Mr Jansen reports that the children appeared to enjoy themselves, playing and interacting with each other and their mother. He said that similarly the mother related in a spontaneous, relaxed and nurturing manner.
In his assessment/conclusion Mr Jansen noted that the conflict between the adults was not assisting the children to deal with the stress of transitions. He said it is reasonable to surmise that the disparagement of the mother in the father’s household and the blatant undermining of contact is going to cause the children stress, particularly when they reached 7 to 10 years of age and their capacity for thought and empathy leads them to feel anxious, torn and constricted.
Mr Jansen said that whilst it is extremely unfortunate that the children's relationship with the mother was disrupted over 2001 and 2002 the mutual positive regard observed between the mother and the children during the observation and interview suggests that the relationship is affirming to the children. He said that knowing their mother will enhance both their sense of identity and self-esteem. However, he felt that not enough was known about the mother’s mental health and said that a longitudinal perspective from Dr Kokkinias would be helpful. He suggested, as already referred to, the appointment of a case manager from the local mental health service. Once this was in place and Dr Kokkinias had forwarded his assessment (provided it was positive) he recommended that fortnightly contact commence.
In his report, Mr Jansen said nothing about school holiday contact. In his oral evidence he said that a week in term holidays would be appropriate but that three weeks at Christmas might be too much for A, given his age, and a gradual introduction commencing with one week would be preferable.
The application must be dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the relevant sections of the Family Law Act 1975. Section 60B sets out the objects of Part VII, which includes that unless it is contrary to a child’s best interests, a child is entitled to contact with both parents.

Section 65E provides that the paramount consideration is the best interests of the child. Section 68F sets out matters which the Court must take into consideration in considering what is in the best interests of the child. I consider that the relevant matters are these.
(a) any wishes 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 wishes.
Both children told Mr Jansen that they like seeing their mother. While both are young, in circumstances where the father, the resident parent, is opposed to contact, except in a limited way, this must be given some weight.
(b) the nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child's parents and with other persons.
Mr Jansen found that the children's relationship with their mother is affirming to both of them. His opinion is that knowing their mother will enhance both their sense of identity and self-esteem. The contact the mother has had with the children for nearly 12 months is significant. Overnight contact has been taking place. Overall, the contact which has taken place shows that the mother has a good relationship with the children which is to their benefit.
(e) the capacity of each parent, or any other person, to provide to the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs.
The evidence shows that so long as the mother’s mental state remains stable she does have the capacity to provide for the needs of the children during contact.
(g) the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm caused or that may be caused, by:
(i)being subjected or exposed to abuse, ill-treatment, violence or other behaviour;
There is some risk that the mother may suffer a psychotic or depressive episode and so expose the children to harm caused by her behaviour.

I find that the risk is low. If she continues treatment the risk of such an episode is low. If it does happen, Dr Kokkinias considers that she would be unlikely to harm the children. She might neglect them. The past behaviour shows that when she does become so depressed that she felt she could not cope she will take steps to inform somebody. In the year 2000 she informed the farmer.
(h) the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents;
The mother’s behaviour when she went to A in the middle of 2000 is obviously of concern. There has to be some sympathy for the father’s view that she abandoned the children. At that point his occupation as a soldier required him to be in E T, of necessity away from the mother and the children. He had to inform his commanding officer that his wife had told him she was taking the children to A. He was returned urgently to A. Plainly, in the circumstances which existed, it was not in the children's best interests to be taken to A with a mother who said she was so depressed she felt the need to get away. Whatever difficulties she had, the support mechanisms for her as an army partner in A must have been significantly greater than any she could have had in A. However, whatever criticisms may be made of the mother’s behaviour at that time, the decision which has to be made more than three years later about contact must look at what is now in the best interests of the children. If it is in the best interests of the children now that they have significant contact with the mother, that is what the Court must decide.
The father wishes the children to have no contact with their mother. His formal position is that there should be daytime monthly supervised contact. He does not propose a supervisor. In practical terms such an order will probably mean no contact. It may be that the father is aware of this. He does not wish the children to have a relationship with their mother. Unless there is some good reason for this, this is not in the children's best interests. The father wishes his new partner to be the sole mother in the children's lives. The probability is that contact between the mother and the children, therefore, will only take place in accordance with Court orders.
The object contained in s 60B of the Family Law Act that unless it is contrary to a child's best interests that child is entitled to contact with both parents is of significance in this case. However, the paramount consideration remains the best interests of the children. The mother was the children's primary carer until the middle of 2000. Then, she had little contact for over 2 years. She has re-established a relationship with them through contact. Mr Jansen's evidence shows that knowing their mother is of a significant benefit to the children in their development. It is in their best interests that they have regular contact with their mother.
The only countervailing factor is any risk to the children because of their mother’s mental state. I consider that there is only a slight risk. The mother is now stable. If she continues seeing Dr Kokkinias and follows his directions including taking prescribed medicine she will remain stable. Even if she does not, she is unlikely to do anything that will harm the children. A precautionary measure is to include in any order a requirement for the mother to continue attending Dr Kokkinias as recommended by him and that she continue to take any medication prescribed by him and undertake any treatment recommended by him.
Fortnightly contact and holiday contact is in the children's best interests. The mother seeks alternative Wednesday contact from 4:30 p.m. until 7 p.m.. That presents practical difficulties. The parties are agreed on changeover at F Street railway station. The father does not wish to disclose his address to the mother. He raises the issue of legislative restrictions on the disclosure of his whereabouts. Whether this is so was not explored in the submissions. The father is the resident parent. There is no particular reason why the mother needs to know his address. The father fears that the mother might attend at his address. The mother’s past behaviour shows there is some risk of that. There is no significant reason why it is in the best interests of the children that the mother should know the current address. I do not propose to make the order.
The father raises difficulties in getting the children to F Street station given his time of finishing work. In the circumstances, alternative Wednesday afternoon contact is impractical. Later than the time proposed is not desirable given the age of the children and the mother’s need to travel by train. Weekly telephone contact is desirable.
The mother sought an order that the father’s partner not be present at changeover. This is because of hostility between the two and alleged denigration. The father raised difficulty about a contact changeover by 6 p.m. on Friday. Mostly he finishes work in time but sometimes he might not. The benefit to the children of the two nights of overnight contact outweighs any difficulty in the changeover. It may be that the partner can bring the children. Any risk off hostility which might affect the children at changeover is offset against the desirability of the two nights overnight contact. Changeover is to take place outside the police kiosk at the station. That should provide sufficient incentive for appropriate behaviour.
The father said that the child J has now started Saturday morning activities. Little athletics is one. This should not prevent contact. If the father wishes J to attend these activities on Saturday mornings he will need to tell the mother of the location and she can take the child.
The mother seeks an order that the Father give her 14 days notice of any change of the location of his posting in the army. The objection the father raises is that there are security considerations. It is desirable that the mother has advance notice of any possible move by the father and therefore the children. The order will take into account any restrictions there might be on the father’s whereabouts or posting not being revealed.
The father sought a number of other orders. These were that the mother not come within five kilometre radius of the father’s address, that she not come within the vicinity of the father’s workplace, his partners work place, J’s school nor A's daycare, that she notify of any medical treatment sought by her for the children while the children are in her care, that the father be permitted to holiday overseas with the children and that the mother sign passport applications of the children, that the mother provide 14 days written notice to the father of any intention to take the children to stay or holiday in any other place than the place of residence.
Of these, the only one which I consider is currently in the best interests of the children is that the mother provide notice of her intention to take the children to stay or holiday in any other place than the place of residence. This is an additional and suitable precaution given the mother’s risk, even though small, of change of mental state.
Most of these additional claims were contained in an Amended Response filed on 11 November, without leave being given. While the evidence was relevant to a number of these orders sought, there was nowhere near sufficient evidence to allow the application for overseas holidays and passports to be dealt with.
The orders will be in accordance with these reasons.

I certify that the preceding fifty-five (55) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Phipps FM

Associate:

Date: 1^st December 2003