Hagan and Langdon

[2017] FCCA 2538

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HAGAN & LANGDON [2017] FCCA 2538

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – undefended – where father has long history of drug and alcohol abuse – where father failed to comply with orders for drug testing – family violence – sole parental responsibility – child spend time with father at a contact centre.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.61DA

Applicant: MS HAGAN

Respondent: MR LANGDON

File Number: AYC 145 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Hartnett

Hearing date: 21 June 2017

Delivered at: Albury

Delivered on: 20 October 2017

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Dart

Solicitors for the Applicant: Rama Myers Family Lawyers

The Respondent: In Person

Independent Children’s Lawyer: Ms Wearne of Reid Family Lawyers

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. All previous parenting orders are discharged.

2. The mother have sole parental responsibility for the child X born (omitted) 2013 (‘the child’).

3. The child live with the mother.

4. The child spend no time with the father, save for four visits per year supervised by the (omitted) Children's Contact Centre (‘the contact centre’) if such visits can be accommodated by the contact centre and only if such visits can so be accommodated, and at such times and on such days as directed by the contact centre and agreed to by the mother.

5. Pursuant to s.68 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), X is restrained and injuncted from:-

   (a)contacting the mother or the child or either of them by any means  whatsoever, including third parties, save for the following:-   

   (i)by telephone to speak to the child at such times and on such days  as the mother proposes to the father in writing;

   (ii)to send cards, gifts and/or letters to the child to a postal address nominated by the mother from time to time;

   (b)approaching the mother or the child or either of them at any time or causing or encouraging any person to do so on his behalf;

   (c)attending at or being within 500 metres of any address at which the mother resides or works from time to time; and

   (d)contacting or attending at or being within 500 metres of any day care, preschool, kindergarten, school or extracurricular activity from time to time attended by the child.

6. The order appointing the Independent Children’s Lawyer is discharged.

7. Otherwise all extant applications are dismissed and the matter removed from the list.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALBURY

AYC 145 of 2015

MS HAGAN

Applicant

And

MR LANGDON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 14 February 2017 the Court made the following orders:-

   “1. The matter be adjourned to the Albury circuit sittings of the Federal Circuit Court on 21 June 2017 for final hearing.

   2. The parties file any affidavit of evidence in chief on which they rely by 22 May 2017 and not thereafter. In the event the father fails to file an affidavit of evidence in chief then there is liberty to the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer to seek to proceed undefended.

   AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:

   A. The party responsible for the payment of any fee including a setting down or hearing fee do pay or cause to be paid such of the fees as shall be payable by that party in accordance with, and within the time specified in, the Family Law (Fees) Regulations 2012 (Cth).

   B. The father requested an adjournment. It was not opposed.”

2. The father failed to comply with order two of the orders made 14 February 2017 and on 21 June 2017, Counsel for the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer sought to proceed with the proceedings on an undefended basis.  The Court granted those parties leave to do so. Final parenting orders were sought by the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (‘ICL’).  The father did not appear on the hearing of the undefended proceedings, although he had attended at Court earlier in the day.

3. The proceedings have a lengthy history in the Court. The mother first filed her application for parenting orders on 8 April 2015. The matter had its first return date on 20 April 2015 before Judge Harman. The father was relevantly required to file a response and affidavit, and the orders otherwise provided for the parties’ child to live with the mother, spend unsupervised and overnight time with the father and provided further, in order 7 therein, for the father to undergo supervised drug urinalysis.

4. On 17 June 2015 Judge Harman made orders including, relevantly, that an ICL be appointed; that a s.62G of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (‘the Act’) family report be prepared; that the parties be assessed for suitability to engage in a Parenting Orders Program; that a s.69ZW of the Act response be provided to the order made by the Department of Family and Community Services; and otherwise the proceedings were adjourned for further mention and directions on 14 December 2015. So commenced considerable resource allocation and court appearances for this family. Expert evidence was obtained from a psychiatrist and two family reports were prepared. All of the evidence went to determine, essentially, whether the father could continue to spend time with the subject child and in what circumstances such time should be spent.

5. In the final undefended hearing the mother relied upon only one affidavit of evidence sworn by her on 8 May 2017, which set out the progress of the matter including the history of the parties prior to proceedings commencing and the history as the proceedings progressed. The affidavit evidence supported an amended application filed by the mother on 30 January 2017.  In that amended application the mother sought orders that made very limited provision for the father to spend time with the parties’ nearly four year old child, X, born (omitted) 2013 (‘the child’).

6. In a previous amended application the mother had sought no contact occur between the child and his father.  That position, that no time be spent or contact in any form be had between the child and his father was a position preferred by the ICL. However, the ICL indicated to the Court that she had no objection to the Court making the orders as sought by the mother, albeit she expressed the view that such facilitation of time spent with may not be practicable.

7. The mother sought a regime of time spent with between the child and his father to occur on four occasions in each year, and to be supervised at a contact centre.  This new proposal of the mother accommodated the recommendations of Ms D in her family report prepared in the course of the proceedings and which is before the Court in evidence, as shall be referred to hereafter, and unchallenged.  The father, in his response filed 17 June 2015, had sought the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility apply such that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility of the child.  He further sought an order that the child live with each of his parents on a shared care week about (for the most part) basis.

8. The ICL placed evidence before the Court in tendered documents marked ‘exhibit ICL 1’ to ‘exhibit ICL 7’ inclusive.  That documentary evidence went to the following:-

   a)the ICL’s request of the father, not complied with, for urinalysis (drug screen) testing and carbohydrate deficient transferrin (CDT) testing of 2 November 2016, 13 April 2017, 23 May 2017 and 13 June 2017;

   b)(omitted) Medical Centre clinical notes of Dr N of 16 November 2016 with respect to the father’s ongoing drug usage;

   c)(omitted) Medical Centre clinical notes of Dr D dated 16 November 2016 with respect to the father’s ongoing drug usage;

   d)intake notes of Primary Care Connect drug and alcohol counselling service dated 24 November 2016 with respect to the father’s ongoing drug usage;

   e)(omitted) Clinic results of drug testing undertaken by the father on 21 March 2017 and 30 January 2017;

   f)(omitted) medical report of Dr J dated 21 February 2017; and

   g)a case closure note of the (omitted) Children's Contact Centre dated 9 January 2017.

9. Additionally, the ICL relied upon the unchallenged evidence contained in the expert psychiatric assessment of the father by Dr T dated 19 April 2016; and the family reports of family consultants Ms M dated 8 December 2015 and Ms D dated 19 December 2016.

10. Statements of fact in these reasons are findings of fact on the balance of probabilities.

Background on the mother’s evidence

1. The mother in these proceedings was born on (omitted) 1985 and is currently aged 32 years. The father was born on (omitted) 1976 and he is currently aged 41 years. The parties had an “on-again, off-again” relationship which commenced in approximately August 2011 and concluded in May 2014. At the time of the separation the child was aged approximately seven months. Prior to the parties residing together, each of the parties had a child of a previous relationship.  The mother’s child, A, was born on (omitted) 2004, and she is now aged 13 years.  She has always lived with her mother and spends no time with her father.  Her father lives in (omitted).  The father’s older child from a previous relationship lives in (country omitted) and the father has spent no time with that child during the relevant period.

2. At the time the parties commenced their relationship the father was addicted to the drug, ice. In (omitted) 2011 he voluntarily admitted himself into (omitted) for treatment in relation to drug-induced psychosis. Initially he stayed at (omitted) for only one night, but approximately two weeks later he readmitted himself and stayed for a further three nights.  Following his discharge from (omitted) the father continued to use the drug, ice.  He used it daily and would spend approximately $1000 per week on drugs. 

3. The father’s behaviour was very erratic and very paranoid.  He would lose his temper easily and he believed people were following him. He threatened to kill the mother when she tried to stop him using drugs. On one occasion, the mother sought the assistance of the (omitted) Police.  The mother advised the police of the father’s drug addiction and his threats to harm her, and they charged him with stalking and intimidation.  He did not appear in court in respect of those charges.  Prior to Christmas 2011, being some three months after the parties had commenced their relationship, the father moved to (omitted) in Victoria to find work.  At this time the mother and her daughter, A, stayed in (omitted). 

4. In January 2012 A and the mother went to stay with the father in (omitted). The father’s behaviour continued to be dangerous and erratic and his drug and alcohol abuse impacted adversely upon his behaviour.  At around this time, the father was taken to hospital under the influence of drugs and alcohol as a consequence of a traffic accident he had been involved in.  The father was driving at night with his headlights off.  The father told the mother that he wanted to kill himself.  Following this incident, the father commenced the CAT program through the (omitted) Hospital.  This was an at home mental health program.  A and the mother stayed living in (omitted) with the father during this period of time.

5. The father’s drug use continued to be problematic.  He expended considerable sums on drugs and so the parties had little money to live on.  The father broke into his ex-girlfriend’s house and stole items from her, he was charged with theft in relation to that incident.  He was also convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol on Easter Sunday in 2012 and again shortly after. In October 2012, the parties again separated. The father moved to (omitted) and A and the mother moved back to (omitted).

6. In mid-November 2012 the mother and father had again reconciled, and A and the mother moved to (omitted) to reside with the father.  By (omitted) 2013 the mother was pregnant, albeit the parties were continuing to have relationship problems and the mother was seeking help from a psychologist as she was extremely unhappy in the relationship.

7. In July 2014 the parties again separated.  The father had recommenced using ice each weekend. The mother and A moved back to (omitted) and in (omitted) 2013 the mother gave birth to the child. Following the child’s birth the mother travelled to (omitted) with the child and A each alternate weekend so that the father could spend time with the child.  When they travelled to (omitted) the mother and children would stay with the father and during this time, the mother and father again commenced to rekindle their relationship.

8. In January 2014 the father began to travel to (omitted) to spend time with the mother and children on each alternate weekend. During such time the mother would be largely present, and she remained the parent responsible for all of the child’s needs.  When the child cried the father became impatient and would give the child to the mother. By March 2014 the mother and father had reconciled again and the father moved to (omitted) to live in the household of the mother, A and the child.

9. In May 2014 the parties separated on a final basis.  Upon separation, the father moved into a caravan park in (omitted).  He would visit the mother and child at the mother’s home on weekends.  In August 2014 the mother allowed the father to move back into her home as he had considerable financial difficulty.  The parties did not reconcile and the father later moved into his own accommodation in October 2014. 

10. There was an agreement between the parties at that time, as to the father spending time with the child. Such time did include overnight time.  Neither the mother, nor Ms M in her report of 8 December 2015, considered that the arrangements entered into between the parties for the father to see the child, who was a very young baby at the time, promoted the child’s best interests.  The mother was the primary carer and primary attachment figure for the child.  Ms M described the attachment process as being:-

    “The most critical developmental task of the infancy which forms the base from which a child’s further relationships develop.”

11. Ms M went on to say:-

    “It would have been a better option for X that he was not separated from his mother, his primary attachment parent, quite regularly for extended periods during his first year of development.”

12. The reason for the arrangement entered into by the mother and father on the mother’s evidence was that she felt pressured into agreeing to the arrangements wanted by the father.  The mother did not believe them to be appropriate for the child nor in the child’s best interest, but she was avoiding conflict, including verbal and physical conflict, with the father.  The father, however, was at the time continuing to use the drug ice and in November 2014 he was not in a fit state to care for the child, and the mother refused to hand the child over for a period of some two to three weeks.

13. Throughout 2015 the mother endeavoured to support the relationship between the child and his father.  She herself started studying a (course omitted) in (omitted).  She enrolled the child in day care. Unfortunately, the father began collecting the child early from day care and not in accordance with the parties’ agreement.  There were occasions when the father over held the child.  He did not act in the child’s best interests at the time.  Because of the father’s refusal in the early part of 2015 to return the child to his mother’s care, the mother initiated her proceedings by way of initiating application filed 8 April 2015.

14. During the course of 2015 the mother observed the father’s behaviour and became very concerned that he was again using the drug, ice, heavily.  His previous habitual use of ice had rendered him paranoid and delusional.  He was erratic and aggressive in his behaviour.  He was required to undergo drug screen analysis, and in September 2015 orders were made that his time spent with the child be supervised by his mother, Ms J. 

15. The father throughout 2015 ignored the Court orders if they did not suit him, and he over held the child on three occasions during the course of the proceedings.  On the final occasion on which he over held the child, further orders were made wherein his contact with the child became supervised at the (omitted) Children's Contact Centre (‘the contact centre’). Those orders were made on 18 December 2015 and so started supervised time spent with which occurred for two hours each fortnight. The mother was, however, agreeable to the father spending additional time with the child supervised at the contact centre, and on occasion the contact centre did attempt to arrange additional visits.

16. Just prior to this time, the family report of Ms M had been completed and released to the parties.  Although it was somewhat historical by the time of these undefended proceedings being heard, Ms M’s recommendations are useful to include.  They were that:-

    a)the child continues to reside with the mother and spend supervised time with his father in accordance with the orders made on 2 October 2015;

    a)the father continue to attend random drug screening and keep the ICL informed about the outcome;

    b)the father attend a psychiatric assessment and provide the Court with the report regarding his mental health status;

    c)the child continues to attend a (omitted) childcare centre;

    d)the parties do not hit or yell at the child;

    e)the parents keep each other informed about any serious medical conditions/injuries suffered by the child and any significant medical treatment received by the child.

Evidence of Dr T

1. Dr T’s evidence is pivotal. He noted that he had perused the family report prepared by Ms M, subpoenaed documents and the affidavit material of the parties prior to the time of his assessment which occurred on 14 April 2016. 

2. Dr T commenced his report which was before the Court in affidavit evidence, by noting that the subpoenaed material indicated long-term intravenous drug use by the father which supported the mother’s stated concerns about the father’s use of illicit and prescription drugs. 

3. The father described to Dr T a longstanding history of substance abuse of alcohol and drugs.  The father began taking speed at 18 and was smoking marijuana.  He was originally snorting speed, and by 28 he was using it intravenously. This habit continued on and off for eight years.  The father then began using ice in 2012, when the parties moved to (omitted). The father further described to Dr T a psychiatric history.  Dr T noted from the subpoenaed documents that:

   a)in (omitted) 2011, the father had attended the Emergency Department at (omitted) Hospital with paranoid ideation and persecutory delusions in a context of ice, believing that people were plotting against him. He confirmed regular amphetamine abuse.  He was noted to be guarded and hostile, and discharged himself; 

   b)on (omitted) 2011, the father presented to the (omitted) Hospital in the company of police requesting a supply of his regular medications following a recent admission to (omitted), having been managed with Zyprexa (an antipsychotic preparation).  This was occasioned when he was released from police cells and was experiencing suicidal ideation and had lost his job, and was taking amphetamines “last used yesterday evening”; 

   c)the father was admitted to (omitted) Hospital on (omitted) 2010 in the context of his suspicions that his partner, Ms C, was cheating on him. The father adamantly denied to Dr T that he had been substance abusing at the time, but the admission notes clearly referred to him using speed intravenously:-

   “Had formed a bit of a habit, last night injected.” 

   d)The father re-attended (omitted) Hospital after a motor vehicle accident on (omitted) 2012 and stated on arrival that he was trying to kill himself.  He was noted to be verbally aggressive, non-compliant with requests, and was admitted under section 10.  Subsequently, he was non-cooperative. He attended at (omitted) Hospital again on (omitted) 2012 in the context of a drug-induced psychosis (differential diagnosis schizophrenia), having been referred by the mother following deterioration in his mental state, secondary to non-compliance with medication and co-morbid drug abuse. 

1. The father told Dr T that he had not undergone any psychiatric treatment and was not having any current psychiatric treatment.  He had not sought drug and alcohol counselling, and he adamantly stated that he did not need such treatment, nor did he require assistance in respect to his history of abuse as a child in dysfunctional family circumstances.  The father confirmed, as reported to Dr T, a strong family history of psychiatric illness.  His mother and one sister suffer from bipolar illness.  His brother has an undiagnosed mental condition and is a drug addict. 

2. In respect of his forensic history, the father confirmed a criminal history of driving offences, a conviction of stalking and intimidation on (omitted) 2011 and a failure to appear in court as required by bail undertakings. In addition, Dr T noted that the mother, in (omitted) 2011, had attended the police in the context of the father pulling a 20 centimetre knife with a serrated edge on her and making threats to kill including slitting her throat when she reported his drug abuse to his drug dealer, requesting that he not be provided with drugs.  On (omitted) 2015, the father came to the attention of police having produced a Stanley knife at a hotel following an argument. 

3. Dr T canvassed with the father his relationship history, his relationship with the mother and with her daughter A, and his then emotional state.  Dr T noted on a mental state examination that the father’s mood was anxious and often irritable.  His affect was pre-occupied and tense.  His account was accompanied by minor distress. Dr T noted the father’s speech was pressured at times.  There was:- 

   “A conveyed sense of victimisation, displacement of responsibility onto others for his various behaviours, deep-seated enmity toward Ms Hagan, and plaintive cries and requests for increased contact with X.  There were persecutory and anxious themes and a deep mistrust of women set against a longstanding series of superficial relationships, alcohol and substance abuse.”   

   Dr T noted that insight was lacking. 

4. Dr T diagnosed the father as suffering from conduct disorder of childhood, personality disorder (dependent narcissistic antisocial traits and substance abuse).  He noted that:- 

   “At all times, Mr Langdon impressed as a man who carries within him a deep narcissistic wound, and it was readily apparent that his inability to continue to control Ms Hagan and, for that matter, The child has led him to conduct a campaign of vilification of her character, including a malicious report to FACS.  His enmity and hostility toward Ms Hagan were readily evident at interview. He impressed as a man who was inclined to misplace responsibility for his various behaviours on to others, was highly critical of the legal system, and contends that he has evidence that he will produce at court showing Ms Hagan to be an unfit mother.”

5. Dr T concluded that the father had a disordered personality and longstanding substance abuse.  He noted the father demonstrated little insight as to his contributions to the relationship breakdown between himself and the mother, preferring to focus on her various alleged inadequacies.  He noted the father had not had appropriate treatment in regard to his longstanding developmental history of abuse and the damage that that had caused him, and that it was not likely he would engage in appropriate treatment required in the circumstances.  

6. Following the release of that report in April 2016, the parties attended one joint counselling session together, and the child’s time spent with his father continued, supervised at the contact centre.  The mother was willing to support the ongoing relationship between the father and child and, to that end, she was a willing participant in the counselling session and would have attended further sessions, save the father cancelled two further arranged sessions. 

7. The father’s last visit with the child at the contact centre was on 17 August 2016.  The father has not seen the child since that time, save for the occasion when the mother and her current partner supervised time spent between the father and child on 28 December 2016 to enable the father to provide Christmas presents to the child.  The contact centre refused to facilitate further visits between the father and child because the father had a significant outstanding account owing to the contact centre. 

8. Additionally, the father had child support arrears in late 2016, and when the mother requested that he attend to those arrears, she received very strange messages and emails from the father which were abusive, at times incoherent and, the mother thought, possibly delusional.  The mother became very concerned by the text messages from the father, but did not report the receipt of same to the police as the father was living in (omitted), and thus some physical distance from her. 

Ms D

1. At the end of December 2016, Ms D’s family report dated 19 December 2016 was released to the parties. Ms D made recommendations, relevantly, that: 

   a)consideration be given to the mother having sole parental responsibility and that the father be able to receive information about the child’s education, progress and welfare; 

   b)that the child live with the mother; 

   c)that the child’s time with the father be determined by the Court.  

2. In respect of any finding that the Court might make that the father poses an unacceptable level of risk to the child in regards to substance abuse and/or mental illness concerns, Ms D noted in paragraph 47 of her report the following: 

   “Consideration could be given to telephone communication between the father and son, and for Mr Langdon to be able to send letters, emails and/or gifts to X as this may be helpful for identity purposes and X’s long-term wellbeing.  If the (omitted) Children's Contact Service has the resources to provide a service to the parents involving a limited number of annual visits over the longer term, this may well be worth considering.  Ms Hagan opposes Mr Langdon being provided with her future address, and provision may need to be made for another mailing address to be provided to Mr Langdon to facilitate such parenting arrangements.” 

   It is from this suggestion that the mother’s proposed orders derive. 

Consideration

1. The child’s current circumstances with his mother are supportive.  His mother resides with he and his sister in (omitted) in rented accommodation.  Each child has their own bedroom.  The home has a large backyard which has in it a trampoline, shell pools and a climbing frame.  The mother has continued her studies and additionally works part time.  The child attends daycare on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, and otherwise is cared for by his mother.  She receives sporadic and small payments from the father in respect of child support.  There is considerable arrears owing. 

2. There are no safety concerns whilst the child is in his mother’s care.  He is happy and settled.  He does not generally ask about his father.  He has a close and loving relationship with his sister A.  Whilst the mother would, and the evidence bears this out, be very happy for the child to have a relationship with his father which would involve spending regular and unsupervised time with him, that is simply not able to be facilitated, given the risk the father presents to the child. That risk results in the parties’ inability to communicate on even a basic level. The father is controlling and verbally abusive.  His text messages are degrading and threatening. 

3. The family consultant observed the mother and the child to have a warm relationship. The mother exhibits considerable insight into the emotional, physical and financial needs of the child. The father exhibits none, although Ms D observed that the child had an apparent warm familiar relationship with his father and appeared relaxed and comfortable in his father’s presence when observed by her during the preparation of her report. 

4. Ms D noted in paragraph 22 of her report the following:- 

   “Ms Hagan said that she has experienced episodes when Mr Langdon has “lost his mind” when he has suffered with paranoid delusions which has been highly concerning and frightening to her in regards to safety issues.  Ms Hagan commented that due to safety concerns she had needed to leave her home and location quickly, and also had needed to safeguard her pet dogs from harm from him.  She stated that about a month prior to the family report interview, she received an email/text message from Mr Langdon whereby it is apparent to her that Mr Langdon was delusional.  She said that she has been dealing with the effects of Mr Langdon’s intermittent episodes of paranoid delusion since 2011.  Ms Hagan stressed that she could not contemplate X spending unsupervised time with Mr Langdon until the father had sustained regular appointments with the psychiatrist over a long period.” 

5. Ms D noted that the father’s lack of insight about his behaviour when not returning the child to his mother on the three occasions that he over held the child was very concerning.  On the information available to Ms D, Ms D noted it was not apparent that the father had the parenting capacity that would ensure the child’s best interests in relation to living in an equal time or shared care parenting arrangement as proposed by the father.  She also noted that any time the father spent with the child would depend upon his capacity to ensure the child’s safety and wellbeing in relation to concerns about substance abuse and mental illness.  While she noted the child would inevitably benefit from being able to spend increasing periods of time with his father, that was subject to the father not posing an unacceptable level of risk to the child’s physical and emotional wellbeing.

6. The tendered documentary evidence of the ICL went to matters which established the father’s ongoing drug usage and failure to cooperate with Court orders and directions of the ICL. 

7. The father’s long history of alcohol and drug abuse and its continuation to include, since at least 2012, use of the drug ice has become more adversely impactful on his behaviour and more apparent to the mother, enforcement authorities, the medical profession and anyone within his environs. His drug use remains, on the evidence, ongoing.  The behaviours referred to have included, of course, the father’s withholding the child from the mother, contrary to orders of the Court, on three occasions. 

8. The evidence details a history of family violence that rebuts the s.61DA of the Act presumption, and requires an order that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the child. The father does pose an unacceptable risk to the child. The child is a young and vulnerable child who cannot be left in the care of his father. He is a father who has mental health issues and significant substance abuse issues, which he fails to address.

9. Although the evidence would support the orders as sought by the ICL that no contact take place between the child and his father, the mother seeks orders which will eradicate the need for her to engage in a dialogue with the father concerning the father’s ongoing desire to spend time with the child, and which will ensure that the child continues to have an opportunity to see his father with whom he has an obvious relationship as observed by Ms D.  That obvious relationship has been assisted in its development by the mother’s actions from the time of the child’s birth until such time as she could no longer promote the relationship between the father and child because the father presented an unacceptable risk to the child’s safety.

10. The Court has determined that the child’s best interests will be served by making orders which are sought by the mother and which are supported by the ICL. 

I certify that the preceding forty-nine (49) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Hartnett

Date:  20 October 2017