Hall and Hall (No. 2)
[2014] FamCA 405
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| HALL & HALL (NO. 2) | [2014] FamCA 405 |
| FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim Orders – supervision – father sought orders for the removal of the requirement of supervision – mother sought independent supervisor be appointed – father previously failed to comply with supervision orders – best interests of the children – benefit to the children of meaningful relationship must be balanced against the risk of psychological and physical harm – children to spend time with father to be supervised by an independent supervisor. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA |
| Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286 |
| APPLICANT: | Ms Hall |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Hall |
| FILE NUMBER: | ADC | 3671 | of | 2013 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 17 June 2014 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Adelaide |
| PLACE HEARD: | Adelaide |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Dawe J |
| HEARING DATE: | 14 March 2014 19 May 2014 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Mr Ackman, QC (with Mr Werner) |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Barnes Brinsley Shaw Lawyers |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr O’Shannessy |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Kennedy Partners |
Orders
BY CONSENT IT IS ORDERED THAT
The husband shall immediately nominate, and notify the wife of, a general practitioner to whom he will take the children when they spend time with him (if necessary), and the wife shall immediately thereafter provide that practitioner with a copy of the children’s medical records.
In the event that the husband takes the children to a medical practitioner (which shall only take place in the case of reasonable necessity) he must notify the wife immediately in the communication book and the wife has liberty to communicate with that practitioner.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT
UPON NOTING paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 of the Order of 9 December 2013 and the Order of 19 May 2014 are continued pending final hearing
The husband’s Application in a Case filed on 1 May 2014 is dismissed.
Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Order of 9 December 2013 are continued until such time as the parties confirm, through their solicitors, that the independent supervisor referred to hereafter has been arranged.
Within fourteen [14] days the husband and wife make all appropriate arrangements for an independent supervisor to be appointed from either J Supervisors or O Supervisors to act as independent supervisor at all times the children spend with the husband pursuant to the Orders of this Court:
(a)the cost of such independent supervisor to be borne by the husband;
(b)if the parties are unable to agree upon the independent supervisor within the said fourteen [14] days then the independent supervisor to be appointed will be the one able to provide the supervision for the longest period if there is any difference of availability of time either on each occasion or overall future periods or if there is no difference then the independent supervisor who is available at the lesser cost;
(c)the wife’s solicitors provide the independent supervisor with a copy of these Orders and this judgment
Upon the appointment of the agreed independent supervisor until further order the children spend time with the father:
(a)during school terms:
(i)each alternate Sunday from 9.00 am until 7.00 pm;
(ii)each Thursday from the cessation of school until 8.00 pm on the basis that the husband:
A. take the children to their regular activities;
B. provide them with dinner; and
C. ensure that all homework is completed;
(b)during school holidays each Sunday from 9.00 am until 7.00 pm
The time the children spend with the husband is at all times conditional upon the children’s time with the husband being supervised at all times by an independent supervisor agreed upon between the parties.
The wife is permitted to provide to the independent supervisor copies of both Family Reports of Dr A.
Paragraph 15 of the Order of 9 December 2013 is discharged and in lieu thereof the parties shall maintain a communications book to be exchanged at handovers subject to the following:
(a)each parent is responsible for informing the other parent about each child’s health, wellbeing and development, their daily routine, activities and interests, upcoming special activities and any significant issues including referrals for professional interventions;
(b)all communication shall be mutually respectful;
(c)neither child shall have access to reading or writing in the communications diary;
(d)in the event of an emergency each parent shall inform the other parent via text messaging;
(e)any unexpected change to handover times shall be communicated to the other party via the independent supervisor.
The parties attend upon Dr A not before 1 October 2014 for a further updated family report about the best interests of the children.
The parties are requested to read the Fact Sheet “Parental Conflict and its effect on children” which will be attached to the Engrossed Order.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Hall & Hall (No. 2) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE |
FILE NUMBER: ADC 3671 of 2013
| Ms Hall |
Applicant
And
| Mr Hall |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
The wife Ms Hall and the husband Mr Hall seek further interim orders in relation to the two children of their relationship K born in 2003 and D born in 2005.
Consent interim orders were made on 9 December 2013 which provided for the children to live with the wife and spend time with the husband with such time to be supervised by the persons listed and other related incidental orders.
Subsequently, further applications by way of interim orders have been made by both parties. There was a hearing before Justice Berman in January 2014, when the Applications in a Case filed by the wife and the husband were both dismissed.
On 14 March 2014 when further numerous interim applications were heard before me, the husband was represented by Mr O’Shannessy and the wife by Mr Ackman, QC. After hearing submissions in relation to the numerous interim matters (both in relation to children and financial matters) judgment was reserved.
Before any interim judgment was delivered, the husband filed a further Application in a Case seeking other interim orders in relation to the children, and in particular, that the order in relation to the supervision of his time with the children be discharged or in the alternative that two new supervisors be approved. The husband also sought “compensatory time”.
One of the issues dealt with by Justice Berman when he dismissed the husband’s Application in a Case filed on 14 January 2014 was for “make-up time”.
In response the wife sought that the husband’s application be dismissed and that “independent supervisors be appointed to supervise the children’s time with the husband”.
These fresh applications were heard by me on 19 May 2014 when Mr O’Shannessy appeared for the husband and Mr Ackman,QC for the wife.
At the hearing before me on 14 March 2014, the wife proposed that orders be made providing for the discharge of orders made on 9 December 2013 which related to the husband spending supervised time with the children (paragraphs 3, 4 and 5). She proposed instead that orders be made which would provide for the children to spend time with the husband each alternate Sunday from 9.00 am until 7.00 pm, each Thursday from the conclusion of school until 7.00 pm (provided the husband take the children to their regular activities, provide them with dinner and ensure that all homework is completed).
The wife’s proposed orders were that the children’s time be supervised by an independent supervisor from O Supervisors or J Supervisors. She also sought detailed particular orders concerning incidental and related matters concerning counselling, therapy and reports.
The wife proposed that a review take place in October 2014, after Dr A had prepared an updated report.
At the hearing on 14 March 2014 the order sought by the husband was that the children live with him each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school on Friday (or 4.00 pm if the children were not at school) until the commencement of school on Monday (or 9.00 am if the children were not at school), to be extended to Tuesday if Monday was a Public Holiday. He also sought that the children spend time with him each alternate Wednesday from the conclusion of school (or 4.00 pm if the children were not at school) until the commencement of school (or 9.00 am if the children were not at school) on Thursday.
In the alternative he sought that paragraphs 1 to 4 of the Order of 9 December 2013 continue, including during the school holidays. The husband also sought related and incidental orders which included that Dr A’s report be released by 31 July 2014.
At the hearing before me on 19 May 2014 the submissions on behalf of the husband included seeking a discharge of the orders providing for supervision of the husband’s time or in the alternative the appointment of one of the proposed supervisors named in the Application in a Case. The husband no longer sought the variation to include one of the previously proposed supervisors. The husband continued to seek what was described as “compensatory time”.
At the hearing before me on 19 May 2014 the wife continued to seek orders providing for independent supervisors to supervise the husband’s time with the children.
Relevant background and summary of documents relied upon by the parties
Proceedings were commenced in October 2013. Since then there have been numerous documents filed and a significant number of interim hearings. There are substantial financial matters outstanding between the parties including a pending appeal from previous interim orders.
The current applications before the Court relate to the Applications in a Case filed by the wife on 9 October 2013, by the husband on 1 May 2014 and the Response by the wife filed on 9 May 2014.
There are numerous affidavits filed by each of the parties making significant allegations in relation to the behaviour of the other parent. Of significance in this matter are the reports of the Family Consultant, Dr A, dated 5 December 2013 and 8 March 2014 (annexed to affidavits of Mr Q filed on 17 December 2013 and Mr R filed on 12 March 2014).
The wife is a healthcare professional aged 42. The husband is employed in the property industry and is aged 62. The parties were married in 2001 and separated in September 2013. Litigation commenced and has continued since October 2013.
The children K (aged 10) and D (aged 8) have resided with the wife since the separation. Following upon allegations made by the wife, the South Australian Police obtained an Intervention Order against the husband, protecting the wife and children. This order was obtained in September 2013 and continues to be in force according to counsel for the parties.
A review report of the Family Consultant, Dr A was completed on 8 March 2014.
The Court takes into account the significant allegations contained in the affidavits filed by each of the parties since the commencement of the proceedings in October 2013 and in particular the affidavits upon which the parties have relied since the Consent Orders made in December 2013.
As well as the documents already on file, by 19 May 2014 I received an affidavit of the wife sworn on 19 May 2014 and the affidavit of a Private Investigator, Mr Z, sworn on 19 May 2014. That affidavit provided evidence of the investigator’s observations of the time the children spent with the husband on 16 May 2014, which indicated that no supervisor had been present when the husband collected the children from school.
At the hearing before me I also received the affidavit of the wife sworn on 19 May 2014 which included the following:
On the evening of Friday 16 May 2014 the children, after the return from their time with their father, both commented that they had spent their time with their father without any supervisor present at any stage.
On 19 May 2014 Counsel agreed that I should receive information from Counsel for the husband. That information was that the husband admitted that he had spent time with the children on Friday 16 May 2014 from the commencement of his time to the conclusion of his time without any supervisor being present. His explanation for this through his Counsel was that his cousin was meant to supervise but an incident had happened at the cousin’s restaurant which meant that the cousin would not attend as a supervisor.
At the conclusion of the hearing when I reserved judgment, an order was made by consent which provided that:
If the husband has no approved supervisor available for any occasion when time is to be spent with the children the husband forward an SMS message to the wife if possible not less than one [1] hour prior to the proposed commencement of the time.
The existing orders of 19 December 2013 requiring the time to be supervised by the named supervisors were continued.
Significant Issues
The Court is unable on an interim basis to determine all of the disputed facts relating to some significant issues, including some s 60CC factors which relate to the determination of the best interests of the children.
However, the benefit to the children of having a meaningful relationship with each of the parents suggests that an increase in time the children spend with the husband may benefit the children. Balanced against this is the wife’s position that the children’s psychological and physical health are at risk because of the allegations concerning their welfare in the care of the husband. On her behalf it is maintained that the children will benefit if the time with the husband is supervised.
The husband maintained that it was in the best interests of the children that supervision not be required and if the supervision was required that the persons he nominated be chosen, other than the appointment of independent supervisors.
The Law
The provisions of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) set out detailed provision in relation to children’s matters which apply whether the orders are on an interim or final basis. The most relevant sections are s 60CA, s 60CC, s 61DA:
Section 60CA
Child's best interests paramount consideration in making a parenting order
In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.
Section 60CC
How a court determines what is in a child’s best interests
(1)Subject to subsection (5), in determining what is in the child’s best interests, the court must consider the matters set out in subsections (2) and (3).
Primary considerations
(2)The primary considerations are:
(a)the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents; and
(b)the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
Note: Making these considerations the primary ones is consistent with the objects of this Part set out in paragraphs 60B(1)(a) and (b).
(2A)In applying the considerations set out in subsection (2), the court is to give greater weight to the consideration set out in paragraph (2)(b).
Additional considerations
(3)Additional considerations are:
(a)any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child’s maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views;
(b)the nature of the relationship of the child with:
(i) each of the child’s parents; and
(ii) other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
(c)the extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity:
(i) to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and
(ii) to spend time with the child; and
(iii) to communicate with the child;
(ca)the extent to which each of the child’s parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent’s obligations to maintain the child;
(d)the likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:
either of his or her parents; or
any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living;
(e)the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain person relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis;
(f)the capacity of:
(i) each of the child’s parents; and
(ii) any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs;
(g)the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child’s parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant;
(h)if the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child:
(i) the child’s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture); and
(ii) the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right;
(i)the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents;
(j)any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family;
(k)if a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child’s family – any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following:
(i) the nature of the order;
(ii) the circumstances in which the order was made;
(iii) any evidence admitted in proceedings for the order;
(iv) any findings made by the court in, or in proceedings for, the order;
(v) any other relevant matter;
(l)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;
(m)any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant.
Consent orders
(5)If the court is considering whether to make an order with the consent of all the parties to the proceedings, the court may, but is not required to, have regard to all or any of the matters set out in subsection (2) or (3).
Right to enjoy Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture
(6)For the purposes of paragraph (3)(h), an Aboriginal child’s or Torres Strait Islander child’s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture includes the right:
(a)to maintain a connection with that culture; and
(b)to have the support, opportunity and encouragement necessary:
(i)to explore the full extent of that culture, consistent with the child’s age and developmental level and the child’s views; and
(ii)to develop a positive appreciation of that culture.
Section 61DA
Presumption of equal shared parental responsibility when making parenting orders
(1)When making a parenting order in relation to a child, the court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child's parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.
Note:The presumption provided for in this subsection is a presumption that relates solely to the allocation of parental responsibility for a child as defined in section 61B. It does not provide for a presumption about the amount of time the child spends with each of the parents (this issue is dealt with in section 65DAA).
(2)The presumption does not apply if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent of the child (or a person who lives with a parent of the child) has engaged in:
(a)abuse of the child or another child who, at the time, was a member of the parent's family (or that other person's family); or
(b)family violence.
(3)When the court is making an interim order, the presumption applies unless the court considers that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for the presumption to be applied when making that order.
(4)The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that satisfies the court that it would not be in the best interests of the child for the child's parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.
The Full Court decision of Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286 referred to the application of the legislation to the interim parenting orders and said:
In making interim decisions the Court will still often be faced with conflicting facts, little helpful evidence and disputes between the parents as to what constitutes the best interests of the child.
However, the legislative pathway must be followed.
In an interim case that would involve the following:
i)identifying the competing proposals of the parties;
ii)identifying the issues in dispute in the interim hearing;
iii)identifying any agreed or uncontested relevant facts;
iv)considering the matters in s 60CC that are relevant and, if possible, making findings about them (in interim proceedings there may be little uncontested evidence to enable more than a limited consideration of these matters to take place);
v)deciding whether the presumption in s 61DA that equal shared parental responsibility is in the best interests of the child applies or does not apply because there are reasonable grounds to believe there has been abuse of the child or family violence or, in an interim matter, the Court does not consider it appropriate to apply the presumption;
vi)if the presumption does apply, deciding whether it is rebutted because application of it would not be in the child’s best interests;
vii)if the presumption applies and is not rebutted, considering making an order that the child spend equal time with the parents unless it is contrary to the child’s best interests as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in s 60CC, or impracticable;
viii)if equal time is found not to be in the child’s best interests, considering making an order that the child spend substantial and significant time as defined in s 65DAA(3) with the parents, unless contrary to the child’s best interests as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in s 60CC, or impracticable;
ix)if neither equal time nor substantial and significant time is considered to be in the best interests of the child, then making such orders in the discretion of the Court that are in the best interests of the child, as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in s 60CC;
x)if the presumption is not applied or is rebutted, then making such order as is in the best interests of the child, as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in s 60CC; and
xi)even then the Court may need to consider equal time or substantial and significant time, especially if one of the parties has sought it or, even if neither has sought it, if the Court considers after affording procedural fairness to the parties it to be in the best interests of the child.
Discussion and findings
The history of the relationship between the parties and the children, both during their relationship and following the separation, is set out in significant detail in the affidavits of the parties and the family reports.
It does not appear contentious that the conflict and difficulties in cooperation between the parents have put the children at risk of psychological harm. The disputes also raise the issues concerning the children being at risk of physical harm.
As indicated by the Family Consultant’s reports, the children have lived with, and are primarily attached to, the wife. There is a need to take into account the children’s level of anxiety in relation to the relationship with the husband.
In the reports reference is made to the children’s anxiety about any increase in arrangements and in particular, overnight time.
The first report dated 5 December 2013 sets out Dr A’s recommendations which included that the time spent with the husband during the interim period be under supervision by the husband’s brother or the brother’s partner.
The more recent report of Dr A is dated 8 March 2014. That report was completed following further interviews with the parties, individual interviews with the children and home visits and observations with the children at both the home of the wife and the home of the husband. The report also included reference to telephone consultations with counsellors.
The detailed report set out concerns about the children’s ongoing difficulties in their relationship with the husband. The report also includes reference to the allegations made that K had been hit by the husband, which supported the wife’s allegations. (The husband maintains that the injury caused to K was as a result of an accidental interaction between the two children and not as a result of any abuse by him).
The recommendations in that report included the recommendations that during school term the children spend time with the husband one full day each alternate weekend from 9.00 am until 7.00 pm and “touch base” with the husband on one day each week after school until 7.00 pm or 7.30 pm if it is a Friday. Specific recommendations were made in relation to other times and communication between the parties and the children. The recommendations included sub-paragraph (f) which provided that:
All times spent with the father to be under supervision until it is appraised that the healing and restoration of [K’s] relationship with the father has sufficiently advanced such that supervision is not required
a. Suitable supervisors to be appointed by the Judge
The recommendations also included further counselling for the parties and therapy for the children.
In the interviews for that report remarks were made by the children that the supervisors were not always present.
The evidence now before the Court confirms the husband’s failure to comply with orders to ensure that a supervisor was present at all times during the children’s times with him.
In his affidavit filed on 16 May 2014, the husband responds to the wife’s affidavit. In that responding affidavit he refers to the time spent with the children on 27 April 2014. He provides his explanation for the children being with him unsupervised after he had delivered his daughter Ms P (the supervisor that day) to the airport. Included in this affidavit is paragraph 4.3:
We left [Suburb L] at approximately 4:00 pm. Shortly after our departure, [K] told me he had left the communication book behind. He was quite anxious about this, so I dropped the children and [Ms P] and [T] off at my cousin’s home, and then returned to [Suburb L] to retrieve the communication book.
The affidavit then indicates that the husband sustained a “flat tyre” and as a result was concerned that the children would be returned late and that his daughter would miss her flight if he returned the children first. He admitted the children were with him unsupervised after he delivered his daughter to the airport.
The husband instructed his counsel to admit that a supervisor had not been present at all when he spent time with the children on Friday 16 May 2014. This admission came after the Court received the affidavit of the private enquiry agent.
It appears from the affidavit of the husband he has given K (10 years old) the significant responsibility of the communication book.
It is not possible on an interim basis to determine the allegations of each of the parties concerning the incident which occurred when K was hit in December 2013. This will be possible only to be determined after the evidence has been appropriately tested.
Section 65DAA
The consent orders of 9 December 2013 provided for the parties to have equal shared parental responsibility for the children. The Court is therefore required to consider whether the children spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the children and whether spending such equal time is reasonably practicable. The Court is also required to consider the children spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents if that would be in the best interests of the children and orders for equal time are not made.
On this interim basis the matters which are in dispute and the significant issues raised by the wife (albeit denied in some part by the husband) together with the consistent recommendations in the two reports from the Family Consultant indicate that it is not in the children’s best interests to spend equal time with each of the parents, nor to spend substantial and significant time with the husband.
When considering what is in the best interests of the children the Court takes into account the matters which are hereafter discussed under the provisions of s 60CC.
The primary considerations of s 60CC emphasise the benefit to the children of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm, from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
Section 60CC(2A) requires the Court to give greater weight to the considerations in relation to protecting the children from harm.
On this interim basis the Court is not able to determine whether the wife’s allegations concerning the physical harm caused to the children are proven. The comments the children have made to the Family Consultant and the Family Consultant’s assessment of their relationship with the husband, again placed emphasis on the need to protect the children’s emotional and psychological development.
The Family Consultant’s report sets out the recommendations based upon detailed interviews with the parties and the children. Appropriately, the emphasis in the Family Consultant’s report is the need to protect the children from psychological harm. This issue of psychological harm is not entirely restricted to allegations of abuse, neglect or family violence, but is significantly related to the allegations concerning the husband’s lack of capacity to understand the children’s needs and the limits in the existing relationship with the children. (These matters can be considered also under s 60CC (3)(b) and (f)).
It is appropriate on this interim basis, considering that the legislation emphasises the need to protect the children from harm, to act with considerable caution.
The Family Consultant’s report also sets out the views expressed by the children. The Court also takes into account the children’s ages and the length of time during which they have not been in the care of the father.
Significant factors are the capacity of each of the parents to provide for the needs of the children, including their emotional and intellectual needs, taking into account the matters contained in the Family Consultant’s report.
Notwithstanding the ongoing litigation and the serious concerns expressed by the wife about the need for the children to be comforted by the presence of a supervisor during the time they spend with the father, the father has now admitted that he has not complied with this order. On one recent occasion he did not have a supervisor present at all during the time he spent with the children.
Taking into account the significant recommendations of the Family Consultant’s report and the concerns of the wife about the husband’s past inappropriate behaviour, I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of the children that the orders be made similar to those sought by the wife. The supervisors, although not known to the children, will be reliable and independent. Their presence will provide the children with the security and support which will enable them to relax. This will help promote a meaningful relationship with the husband. Their presence will also give the wife assurance which will enable her to promote the time the children spend with the husband and thus increase the capacity for the children to maintain a meaningful relationship with the husband.
The husband’s proposed new supervisor is alleged by the wife to be a person not known to the children. I accept that the independent paid supervisors are also not known to the children, however, their independence is more likely to promote the best interests of the children and their emotional and psychological security.
The husband in his Application in a Case filed on 1 May 2014 sought orders for “compensatory time”. His affidavit filed on the same date refers to the time which he claims to have foregone on 11 April 2014.
This was the last day of school term. The correspondence between the parties’ solicitors at the last minute indicates that the wife maintained that because school concluded at 12.30 pm thereafter it was not “school term time” and there was no order for time to be spent. The husband maintained that because it was the last day of school it was “term time”.
The husband also sought “compensatory time” for what he claims to be the time that he missed on Sundays in January 2014.
The ongoing dispute between the parties and their inability to agree arrangements for the husband to spend time with the children have existed for a considerable period of time.
Taking into account the history of dispute between the parties, the children’s sensitivity and psychological issues, particularly the matters set out in the Family Consultant’s reports, it is not in the best interests of the children at this stage that any extra time be ordered.
I certify that the preceding sixty-six (66) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Dawe delivered on 17 June 2014.
Associate:
Date: 17 June 2014
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Consent
-
Costs
-
Remedies
0
0
0