Handley and Dantes

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HANDLEY & DANTES

[2009] FamCA 141

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Time spent with Father – Best interests of the children – Section 60CC factors considered – Father’s impaired judgment in relation to the children – Supervised contact ordered

APPLICANT:

Mr Handley

RESPONDENT:

Ms Dantes

FILE NUMBER:

BRF

4356

2002

DATE DELIVERED:

3 March 2009

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

Barry J

HEARING DATE:

18 – 21 February 2008

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Ms Colman, Solicitor from Pippa Colman & Associates appeared for the Applicant Father

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Brasch of Counsel appeared for the Respondent Mother

SOLICITORS FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Anthony Black Family Law Services

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT

CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Fleetwood of Counsel appeared for the Independent Children’s Lawyer

Orders

IT IS ORDERED:

That the children, L born … December 1997 and O born … December 1999 live with the Mother.
That the Mother shall have sole parental responsibility for the children but shall notify the Father in writing in relation to any decisions made for the children affecting their long term care, welfare and development in a timely manner once any such decisions have been made.
That the Father shall have supervised time with the children as may be facilitated at the M Contact Centre for not less than two (2) hours per fortnight and if available up to two (2) hours per week. In the event that the M Contact Centre for any reason is not available on the basis it has withdrawn its services then the parties may agree for supervised contact to occur at another Contact Centre provided it is within reasonable proximity to the Mother’s residence.
The Mother and Father be each responsible to pay one half of the costs of the M Contact Centre or such other Contact Centre as may be selected.
The Mother is to facilitate telephone communication between the children and the Father with such calls not to occur before 8.00 am in the morning or after 7.00 pm in the evening and to be no more than twice each week unless otherwise agreed to between the parties.

Injunctions

The Father is restrained from contacting or approaching the Mother or the children except as provided for by orders of this Honourable Court.
The Father is restrained from entering or remaining in a place of residence, employment or eduction of the Mother or the children.
The Father is restrained from entering or remaining in a place whilst the children are attending extracurricular activities except as may be agreed in writing with the Mother or as otherwise provided for by orders of this Court.
The Mother shall immediately advise the Father in the event that either child is involved in a medical emergency or suffers a serious medical condition.

Overseas Travel

The Mother be permitted to leave the Commonwealth of Australia with the children for the purpose of a holiday not more than once a year (not including any holiday to New Zealand that may be arranged during any school holiday period) for a period not exceeding five (5) consecutive weeks to be taken during the children’s school holiday periods except for a period of not more than one week which may fall outside of school holiday times.
The Father’s time with the children is to be suspended any time the Mother is travelling out of the jurisdiction with the children pursuant to these Orders.
The Mother is authorised to obtain passports for the children.
The Father is not permitted to take the children out of the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Any further application relating to the children is to be filed in the Family Court of Australia and listed before the Honourable Justice Barry.
The Father is at liberty to forward letters and emails to the children but the Mother is given authority to peruse such letters and emails before being given to the children and may refuse to give them to the children if the Mother deems the letters or emails to contain inappropriate material.
The Mother is to advise the Father in writing not less than fourteen (14) days before any overseas travel and the dates she will be out of the country.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

The Independent Children’s Lawyer be discharged.
Pursuant to s 62B and s 65DA(2), the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders, and details of who can assist parties to adjust to and comply with an order, are set out in the document entitled “Parenting orders – obligations, consequences and who can help”, a copy of which is annexed to these Orders.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRF 4356 of 2002

MR HANDLEY

Applicant

And

MS DANTES

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The Applicant Father (Australian born) and the Respondent Mother (a French national) are parents of two children, L born in December 1997 and O born in December 1999.
I am asked to determine whether the children should live with the Father on a week about basis as sought by him (refer Father’s outline of case document dated 14 February 2008) and if not, what time they should spend with their father and whether that time should be subject to supervision.
It is common ground the girls have lived with their mother since separation in June 2002. The Father’s time with his daughters was supervised between 24 November 2003 and 1 August 2005. After the latter date the Father had alternate weekend time with the girls for a period of time which was unsupervised. At the conclusion of the hearing in February 2008 I made orders that the Father’s time with the girls should be supervised at a Contact Centre until a final determination issued.

biographical details and history of litigation

The parties have never been married. They cohabitated from 1996 until June 2002, with a brief separation in 2001. The Mother and children left the shared residence in 2002 to go to emergency housing with no intention of returning.
The Applicant Father has been married three times and had a son, K born in August 1995, in the third marriage. His third wife is Turkish and currently lives with K in Istanbul. The Mother has never been married.
The Father’s turbulent relationship with his son is of some interest here. Exhibit 1 in the proceedings was an agreed bundle of documents tendered by consent. In section 10 of that bundle is a document prepared by the third wife’s attorneys in Istanbul. That document indicates in 1999 the Father attempted to smuggle K out of Turkey, subsequent to unrecognised recovery orders made in Australia. He did so by sedating him and placing him in a travel bag. Perhaps not surprisingly the Father was apprehended by Turkish police, detained and fined. A second abduction attempt was made in 2004, though it was prevented by Turkish authorities when they spotted the Father and son going into an elevator at the Australian Consulate. The Mother’s version of these events is set out in her trial affidavit at paragraphs 165 to 167. She annexes as AD-8 what appears to be an order of the Family Court in Istanbul.

Litigation History

Proceedings in this Court began with an application by the Father for a final order for contact in 2002.
Interim orders of Judicial Registrar Smith dated 4 July 2002 provided that the children were to live with the Mother and allowed for physical contact with the Father during the upcoming weekend and further contact by phone. It was also ordered that the Father pay into the Mother’s bank account the amount of $1200.00.
An application was made on 16 July 2002 by the Father for shared contact on an interim basis.
Orders were made by consent on 21 August 2002 dismissing the interim applications and gave effect to the Minutes of Proposed Order which included an undertaking not to use illicit substances and granted shared contact. The Father also undertook to be on good behaviour and not to commit domestic violence or use weapons. Minor amendments to the orders were made after 21 August 2002.
A Protection Order was made for the benefit of the aggrieved Mother by the Magistrates Court in M on 21 October 2003, preventing contact with the Applicant Father. A temporary Protection Order had previously been made on 13 August 2002.
Trial directions were made by Buckley J and Bell J on 13 March 2003 and 25 June 2003 respectively.
An undertaking was lodged by the Applicant Father on 28 October 2003 which provided that he would not contact or approach the Mother and would not attempt to associate with the children outside supervised contact, including by attending school.
In response to allegations of sexual abuse, Bell J on 24 November 2003 ordered the appointment of an Independent Children’s Lawyer and required that contact be supervised.
A PACE alert was ordered 9 August 2004 and an application by the Mother to take the children to France was dismissed 19 August 2004.
Contact orders by consent were handed down by Bell J on 1 August 2005 providing that the children were to live with their Mother and have graduated contact with their father, starting with day-time contact and progressing to overnights and finally to alternative weekends.
Proceedings relating to the contravention of the consent orders dated 1 August 2005 were transferred by order of Federal Magistrate Slack dated 15 June 2006 to the Family Court. The alleged contraventions by the Father related to the use of marijuana, continued failure to provide separate beds for the children, phoning children outside allocated times, driving on a suspended licence with the children and allowing them to watch inappropriate movies.
The matter came before me on 28 June 2006, in an application of the Mother to have the PACE alert lifted, allowing the children to be taken to France. The decision was appealed and consent orders were entered into before Jordan J on 4 August 2006. Since that time further applications before Bell J and myself on 15 May 2007and 28 August 2008 respectively have permitted the taking of the children to France by the Mother.

orders sought by mother

The orders sought by the Mother as summarised in Counsel’s outline of submissions dated 21 February 2008 are as follows:
·    The girls live with her and she have sole parental responsibility.
·    The Father’s time be supervised at a Contact Centre.
·    Phone communication – once a week and on special days with the Mother to initiate the calls.
·    Various specific orders including orders for overseas travel with the children by the Mother but not the Father.
·    Letters and emails to be vetted by the Mother.
·    The Father be restrained from attending at the Mother’s home or the children’s school or at any school organised curricular activities.

orders sought by the father

In the Father’s outline of case document of February 2008 he seeks orders summarised as follows:
·    When the Father lives within a 20 kilometre radius of the Y Post Office time with his daughters on a week about basis.
·    One half of school holidays.
·    Specific orders in relation to sharing of the Christmas period.
·    Provisions for telephone contact twice a week when the children are living with the Mother.
·    In the alternative if shared care was not ordered or the Father was not to reside within a 20 kilometre radius of Y that the children live with the Mother and they spend time with him every second weekend during school term commencing at the conclusion of school on a Friday with the Father to return the children to school the following Monday.
·    One half of school holiday periods.
·    Provision for regular telephone communication.
·    Detailed orders in relation to handover arrangements and various specific issues.
·    An order for joint responsibility for decision making about the long term care, welfare and development of the children.
·    Both parties be at liberty to attend the children’s extra curricular activities.

history of litigation subsequent to trial

The matter proceeded to trial over four days from 18 February 2008 to

21 February 2008
. The Court was assisted by the appointment of an Independent Children’s Lawyer. Each party was legally represented. At the conclusion of the hearing judgment was reserved.
On 11 June 2008 the Mother filed an application to re-open evidence and to seek orders:
·    Restraining the Father from contacting or approaching the Mother or the children except as provided by Court Orders.
·    Restraining the Father from entering or remaining in the place of residence, employment or education of the Mother or the children except as provided for by Court Orders.
·    Entering or remaining in a place where the children are attending extra curricular activities except as may be provided by Orders of the Court.
For reasons given at the time interim orders were made on 16 July 2008 the Court issued the restraining Orders as sought by the Mother. The Court gave leave to the Mother to adduce the further evidence being an affidavit by herself and a further affidavit of her partner, Mr T, both filed on 11 June 2008.
The Father was given leave to adduce further evidence within twenty-one days from that date. The matter was then adjourned to 28 August 2008.
It was intended that any evidence to be adduced by the Father be by way of rebuttal of the Mother’s affidavit of 11 June 2008 or at least be directed to the issues specifically raised by her.
The Father subsequently sought that he be at liberty to produce a report from a clinical neuropsychologist Dr Z. This was not opposed.
Consent orders were entered into on an interim basis on 28 August 2008. They provided for the injunctions previously issued to continue. The Father’s time with the children continued to be the subject of supervision by the Contact Centre. The Mother’s application to adduce further evidence was dismissed and specific orders were made that the Mother be permitted to leave the country with the children for the December 2008/January 2009 period.
It is somewhat difficult to understand how the Orders of 28 August 2008 could provide for the Mother’s application to adduce further evidence being dismissed. The reality is that on 16 July 2008 an Order had been made giving the Mother leave to adduce the further evidence by way of an affidavit from herself and an affidavit from her partner, Mr T, which affidavits had been filed on 11 June 2008.
For present purposes I take the consent Order at face value that the parties did not intend to place reliance on the evidence contained in the affidavits filed on 11 June 2008 and accordingly I will be making my decision on the basis that such evidence is excluded from consideration.
On 19 September 2008 I was requested to make Orders by consent in Chambers to the effect that the report of Mr Z be received into evidence with a notation that he was not required for cross examination.

material relied upon in the applicant father’s case

The list of documents relied upon by the Father are set out at pages 9 and 10 of his outline of case document dated 14 February 2008. The list contains reference to Orders of various dates, family reports by Ms J, various applications and documents produced under subpoena. The Father relied on his affidavits of 11 January 2008, an affidavit in reply of 25 January 2008, an affidavit in reply by the Respondent Mother of 25 January 2008 and an affidavit of Mr V of 11 January 2008.
Mr V details his observations of the interaction of the Father with the children. As I understood the position Mr V was being proposed as a person who would be suitable to supervise any time between the Father and his children if the Court was of the view that it was appropriate to so order. Mr V did not give evidence before me.

mother’s list of documents

The Mother’s list of documents are set out in document 205 which was filed on 15 February 2008. It lists various subpoenaed documents which are appended to the list. In addition the Mother relied on an affidavit filed on 10 January 2008, an affidavit of a witness Ms S which had been sworn on

7 January 2008, an affidavit of Ms D sworn 30 August 2007, an affidavit of Ms M sworn 8 January 2008, an affidavit of Dr L of 31 August 2007, the further affidavit of the Mother of 25 January 2008, and an affidavit of Mr T filed 10 January 2008.

documents relied on by the independent’s children’s lawyer

The Independent Children’s Lawyer relied on four family reports prepared by Ms J dated 19 August 2002, 16 January 2005, 22 September 2007 and an addendum report of 12 November 2007. The Independent Children’s Lawyer also relied on a report of Dr H of 15 April 2004 when he carried out a psychiatric assessment of the Applicant. There was further reliance on a report of Dr W a psychiatrist annexed to an affidavit filed 28 April 2005 which provides a psychiatric assessment of the Applicant Father.

documents tendered by consent

A list of documents to be tendered by consent was proposed. The documents were as follows:
·Documents 1 – 28 – documents produced under subpoena to Queensland Police.
·Documents 29 – 63 – documents produced under subpoena to Y Medical Centre.
·Document 64 – letter from Dr E regarding Mr T.
·Documents 65 and 66 – documents produced under subpoena to Queensland Health.
·Documents 67 – 85 – documents produced under subpoena to Department of Child Safety.
·Documents 86 – 91 – documents produced under subpoena to Y Real Estate.
·Documents 92 – 118 – documents produced under subpoena to R School.
·Documents 119 – 161 – bundle of email correspondence between the Father and staff of the R School between 2005 and 2007.
·Documents 162 – 172 – documents produced under subpoena to the Residential Tenancies Authority.
·Documents 173 – 186 – letter from Crown Law Queensland relating to documents received from the Istanbul First Family Law Court in Turkey dated 24 January 2008.
In addition there were a total of thirteen exhibits tendered during the course of the hearing including the report of Dr Z which did not come into existence until 29 August 2008.

assessment of evidence of the applicant father

The Father was the only witness in his case. A notable feature of his evidence both in affidavit form and in the giving of his oral evidence was his tendency to blame others if any criticism was directed towards him. Targets included the Mother, the school the children attended, a property developer, banks, to name but a few. Another obvious feature was the Father’s all too apparent narcissism. This is detailed in the reports of both Dr H and Dr W to which reference will be made in due course.
Apart from his grandiose view of his own ability, another telling feature of the Applicant’s evidence was his lack of boundaries in many aspects of his life. Particular reference is made to his laissez faire attitude to child raising and his free spirit attitude to nudity. Confirmation of this observation is to found in the affidavit of the Mother’s partner, Mr T which was filed on 10 January 2008. At paragraph 168 he details a conversation with the child O in June 2006 where the child said to him:
“Daddy breaks the rules all the time, he even breaks the law lots of times. He says he doesn’t care if he breaks the law. That is why he is always getting into trouble. But he keeps on doing it.”
I have no reason to doubt that O said this to Mr T at the time he says.
The Father’s behaviour has led him to being banned from attendance at the children’s school.
In the course of cross examination he agreed he was attracted to a social framework of anarchy.
The evidence of the Father diving fully clothed into the water at Sea World so he could swim with the dolphins bordered on the farcical. The children were with him at the time.

Whether the Father did this in a manic phase or simply has an extraordinarily low level of inhibition is difficult to say but Dr H’s evidence would indicate it is as a result of organic damage to his frontal lobe area caused in an accident many years ago.
The Sea World incident led to the Father being escorted from the premises with the children.
During the course of cross examination the Father did not display the slightest indication of embarrassment or regret at his behaviour on this occasion:
“It was something I wanted to do and I did.”
Another feature of the Father’s behaviour involves his regular use of marijuana. The Father asserts that he attended for his appointment with Dr H, “Stoned”. In the course of cross examination he claimed, “Marijuana is one of the most precious things in life.”
I note Dr H’s evidence that there was no indication the Father was stoned during the course of his assessment. He commented, “If it was true it shows a very serious lack of judgment on the part of the Father as most people would take mental health assessment very seriously.”
On a positive note the Father is an intelligent, imaginative and creative individual. In the course of oral evidence Ms J accepted the girls enjoy their time with their Father immensely:
“There was some warm and affectionate dimensions within the relationship.”
Unfortunately I am unable to place great reliance on the Father’s testimony clouded as it is by outbursts of grandiosity, confused thinking and limited insight into the consequences of his behaviour generally.

mother’s evidence

The Mother’s affidavit for the trial was sworn on 9 January 2008 and filed on the following day. It is a lengthy document covering some 67 pages of evidence. It is an extremely detailed record focused on her concerns about the Father’s behaviour towards his daughters and the Father’s behaviour generally including his anti-social behaviour. I found the Mother to be a very reliable witness using her best endeavours to give an accurate account of events throughout her evidence.

mother’s witnesses

The Mother had filed affidavits from a number of witnesses. The witnesses who were not required for cross examination were Ms D, Ms S and Ms N. The Mother had also relied on an affidavit of Dr L. I have no recollection of this witness not being required for cross examination but on my notes he did not give evidence in the proceedings. As a matter of caution I have not placed any reliance on his affidavit. On the fourth day of the hearing at the conclusion of Ms J’s evidence the legal representative for the Mother indicated the Father had instructed he did not want the Mother cross examined further nor was Mr T required to give evidence. It was common ground at the time no further evidence was to be adduced.
The Mother called evidence from three teachers at the children’s school. These teachers were as follows:
·Ms A.
·Ms R.
·Ms P.
The Mother also called evidence from Ms F.
I shall deal with the evidence of the teachers before moving to an assessment of the affidavit evidence of the witnesses who were not required.

ms a

This witness is the Deputy Principal of the R School at Y. She has held that position since 1995. She gave evidence of entering into email exchanges with the Father after an incident on 30 March 2007. The Father had agreed to be responsible for payment of half the fees for the school but had not done so. There were also complaints that he had inappropriately brought animals to the school.
She made positive observations of interactions of the children with their Mother mainly to the effect that she tries very hard to shield the children from the influence of the Father. She added that the Mother always made herself available to the school and to the children.
After negotiations between the school and the Father he entered into an undertaking not to attend at the school. Every time he was requested to do something he disregarded such request. At various times he was sarcastic and at other times menacing.

ms r

Ms R was the teacher for L in 2005 and O in 2007. She was the grade 2 teacher. She refers to a letter of 20 August 2007 which she had written. This document was in the bundle of subpoenaed material which had been tendered as exhibit 1. It records her observations of the girls prior to and after contact visits.
Ms R gave evidence that on occasions whilst in the Father’s care, he had taken O to a hair salon and had adult hair dyes applied to the child. When the child attended school she would hide her hair. She expressed serious reservations that a letter purporting to have been written by the child could in fact have been authored by her.

ms p

Ms P is the grade 1 teacher at the school. She had been teaching for twenty-five years and had been at this particular school for six years. She had taught both children. She had written a letter of 15 October 2003. She recorded that at a time when the Father was overseas for three weeks in 2003 the child was observed to be less aggressive towards her peers and did not masturbate during the day.
I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the evidence of the school teachers.

ms d

Ms D swore her affidavit in August 2007. She lives with her partner and two daughters in Y. Her daughter was in O’s class room. In her affidavit she records an incident on 20 June 2006.
Whilst I accept the observations this witness made of her daughter and O on the date in question I am unable to make any firm finding that the Father had any involvement or responsibility for such conduct.

ms s

This witness volunteered to do the driving of the children to and from visits to their father after the Court Orders were made in August 2005. At paragraph 4 she observed:
“4.I am extremely worried about the children and the care that they receive while they are with their father. Because of my observation of sleeping arrangements, bathing and watching inappropriate movies for their age level.”
This particular affidavit was not sworn until January 2008.
In the course of the affidavit the witness deposes to a number of concerning incidents reported by the girls, in particular the Father openly smoking marijuana in front of the girls on a trip to Fraser Island in December 2005.

ms n

This witness swore her affidavit in January 2008. She resides with her family in Y. She is familiar with the parties and their daughters. Her affidavit is particularly detailed. Her evidence would appear to corroborate the opinions expressed by Dr H as to the Father’s lack of inhibitions with particular reference to his ability to engage in inappropriate subject matter in the course of conversations.

ms k

Ms K works in private practice in counselling in creative arts therapy as well as play therapy with children. Her file records various sessions she had with L during the course of 2003. I have perused the file. As with the evidence of the other witnesses there are some concerning aspects which raise suspicion. I am unable to make any firm finding.
I find it is not necessary for me to place reliance on Ms K’s affidavits as I prefer to rely on the reports of the two psychiatrists but particularly Dr H and the reports and evidence of Ms J.

dr h

Dr H is a very experienced psychiatrist in private practice in Brisbane. In his report he details the fact that the father recounted how he had been involved in a serious motor vehicle accident in 1987. At page 8 of his report he records the following:
“I asked [the father] how the contact with the children was going. He states that it is at the Contact Centre and this has been since September last year and he sees the children for three hours only. The reason for him seeing the children at the contact centre is because of “sexual abuse allegations”. He is not sure of the precise nature of the allegations but states that “there was redness around one of the children’s vagina” and “penetration has been suggested”. He states he was interviewed by the JAB.”
Dr H’s report is dated 15 April 2004. At page 12 of his report he notes:
“[The father] does describe unusual apophanus experience suggestive of a psychotic disorder, but on the other hand there is no evidence of schizophrenia in his presentation such as blunting of affect or formal thought disorder. Likewise he does not appear to have a delusional psychosis although he does describe a “new age” view of the world and a “new age lifestyle”. I did wonder whether the apophanus experiences he described more an epileptic phenomena given the history of severe head injury. He reports however that he has never had any epilepsy.
With respect to personality I note very significant problems in maintaining relationships and there are also some grandiose and narcissistic elements, however the most important question is whether there has been any personality change as a result of acquired brain damage from the motorbike accident. The extensive retrograde and in particular the anterograde amnesia following the head injury is very significant indeed, indicating that there is probably significant brain damage, the nature of which is however unclear.
I note that he does not appear to have any obvious problems with memory but I wondered if there was any subtle frontal lobe involvement, particularly given the difficulties I had in taking the history and his description of his sister considering that he was less inhibited following the accident. As to whether he has lost substantial sums of money due to poor judgment is a matter that needs further investigation.
Clearly further history is required before the diagnoses are clarified. In particular more detail needs to be obtained about the extent to which there was any brain damage following the motorbike accident. It would be of interest to get an updated EEG and an MRI of the brain if this has not been done. It would be of interest to know whether there is any past psychiatric history and why his sister considers he needs to be on medication.”
In the course of cross examination by Ms Brasch, Counsel for the Mother, Dr H was shown medical records including the CT scans from the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane and Royal Newcastle Hospital. At page 15 of his report he noted:
“The principle clinical issue that needs exclusion or confirmation is whether [the father] has suffered serious brain damage as a result of the motor vehicle accident. While there are no apparent problems with his memory or basic cognitive functioning this does not exclude a subtle frontal lobe disorder. Indeed such a disorder would explain some of the more unusual behaviour described by others indicating lack of judgement and impulsivity.”
Having been shown the medical records from the two hospitals he noted that a small infarct of the frontal lobe had been recorded from the scans. He noted in the course of his oral evidence “what I’m hearing is someone who can’t discern what is appropriate, what is safe/unsafe behaviour”.
In the course of cross examination he firmed in his opinion that it was likely the Father’s behaviour was attributable to organic brain damage suffered in the 1987 accident.
Examples of the antisocial behaviour include driving without a motor driver’s licence, not wearing seatbelts, saying the children should study rules of a contact centre and decide whether to agree with them or not, ongoing use of marijuana on a regular basis, non-compliance with court orders to mention but some.

dr w

Dr W is a psychiatrist also in private practice in Brisbane who regularly gives evidence in this Court. His report is dated 25 April 2005. Under the heading “Mental State Examination” he records:
“[The father] showed up for [the mother’s] and the children’s appointment and stated he did this because he hadn’t had any notice of the change of appointments. Despite confirming with him when his own appointment was he missed this the following week because he was busy on a project. [The father] presented as a man of stated (age) who was dressed predominately in yellow. He made reasonable eye contact and attempted to establish rapport by calling me “mate” all the time. His manner, bearing, tone and content of his speech was somewhat egocentric and narcissistic. His speech was spontaneous, in modulated rhythm of normal rate and volume. His mood appeared euthymic and his affect reactive. His thought content was pervaded with “new age” philosophy and had a distinct narcissistic and paranoid flavour but this was not delusional in intensity. His form of thinking, as evidenced by his speech, was circumstantial. He denied perceptual abnormalities. He was not formally cognitively assessed by he appeared to be in the average range. His insight and judgement was questionable.”
In the final passages of his report under the heading “Opinion”, Dr W concludes:
“[The father] does not appear to have a psychotic disorder such as Schizophrenia or a Delusional Disorder. He has a number of strongly held beliefs that are out of keeping with norm but these are not delusional in intensity. He has a number of beliefs about New Age Philosophy which have influenced periods of his life as well as a number of grandiose and narcissistic beliefs about his own importance. His paranoid beliefs about [the mother] removing the girls to France are understandable based on the loss of his son to Turkey and his own attempts to kidnap him. [The father’s] blatant disregard for societal rules, conventions and the law when it doesn’t suit his purposes, his circumstantial thinking, impulsiveness, poor judgement, insightlessness and grandiosity suggest an underlying Narcissistic Personality Disorder. There is also the possibility that [the father] has an Affective Disorder with slightly elevated mood. Both of these conditions could have been worsened or caused by a significant head injury, especially if it involved frontal lobe damage.
While it is up to the Family Court to weigh up the evidence and risk of further sexual abuse it seems there is little external evidence to support these claims. The main risk to the girls of seeing [the father] for unsupervised contact is his refusal to comply with limitations. [The father] will do whatever he thinks is best for himself and the girls and pays little attention to other viewpoints. His style of parenting is diametrically opposed to [the mother’s] and the girls will have to adapt to very different rules and procedures in the two households. It appears that [the father] does not follow the law as far as seatbelts, marijuana use, DVOs and Family Court Orders are concerned and he therefore places his children at some risk because of his choices.”
Dr W was not required for cross examination. His report is before the Court on an unchallenged basis.

ms j

Ms J has prepared four reports in this matter as detailed earlier in paragraph 34. She interviewed the parties and the children. She describes the parental conflict as “intractable” and the children are “inexorably drawn into it” (refer paragraph 75).
At paragraphs 78 and 79 of the third report she notes:
“78.The Father’s narcissistic behaviour and absence of appropriate boundaries continues to be a focus of concern. He breaks the law and tells the children that this is a good thing to do, provided that they have exercised their personal judgment. He tells them that he might have cancer even though he has never sought a medical opinion. He allows them to watch adult movies with him.
79.In short, his role modelling for the children is unacceptable. He causes them to be fearful and to worry unduly about him. ”
At paragraphs 85 and 86 she notes:
“85.The children continue to have the same rich, imaginative, close relationship with their Father as I have described in my earlier reports. With this in mind it is thus unfortunate to have their relationship with him curtailed further.
86.The gains outweigh the losses however. While they treasure this closeness dearly they need reliability and predictability. They need to be protected from feelings of having to worry about their Father. I support the validity of the Mother’s arguments that he doesn’t live in [Y] and changeovers at school are presently impractical. ”
Notwithstanding the above observations the report writer recommended that the children live with their Mother but time spend time with the Father every second weekend from Saturday morning until Sunday afternoon.
In the addendum report she notes at paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10:
“5.I have covered my concerns about the Father’s irresponsible behaviour and his propensity to say one thing and do another. He has significant narcissistic tendencies and he is passionate that his views are the ‘right’ ones.
7.His behaviour makes the task of parenting more complex for the Mother     than it should need to be since she has to undo some of his teachings.          The Mother’s ongoing frustration and sense of futility is understandable.      He does not demonstrate the ability to negotiate and co-operate with the       Mother.
8.        In my opinion the Mother should have sole parenting responsibility.
9.The question in focus is whether the Father’s parenting warrants     supervision. It is my view that it does not. On balance the benefits to      the children of having a substantial amount of time with their Father outweighs the risks.
10.      If the Father continues to fail to adhere reasonably to normal          expectations of responsible parenting I cannot overrule the possibility of           recommending supervised contact in the future.”
In the course of her oral evidence Ms J agreed that on the basis of the facts as outlined to her the Father’s time with his daughters should be supervised.
The main reason for the change in recommendation by Ms J was the summary of Dr H’s evidence that the Father’s behaviour was likely to be attributable to organic brain damage and was not amenable to treatment. Her view was that she had to that point in time looked at the Father’s behaviour as some personality vulnerability combined with entrenched conflict with the Mother. She had previously been of the view that his failure to comply with normal boundaries was his way of standing up to the Mother.

dr z

Dr Z provided a report of the 21 August 2008 which is annexed to an affidavit sworn on the 24 September 2008. It does not appear that Dr Z had the benefit of perusing the reports of Dr H, Dr W or Ms J. He does, however, record on page 1 that the husband sustained an “infarct of 2 millimetres in his right frontal lobe”. Dr Z’s qualifications are as a counselling and clinical neuropsychologist.
In his report he records the husband as having smoked marijuana on a continuous basis from 1974 through to November 2007 (page 3 of the report). At page 5 of the report he notes that in the father’s case because his baseline intellectual level is in the superior range, scores which are below the 43^rd percentile represent a moderate deficit for him. Under the heading “Intellectual Abilities” based on the results of the WAIS-III, the father’s verbal IQ of 124 was in the superior range (95^th percentile), his performance IQ of 111 was in the high average range (77^th percentile), and his full scale IQ of 120 was in the superior range (91^st percentile). Under the heading “Conclusions”, Dr Z records the following:
“Neuropsychology is the study of brain/behaviour relationships. Assessment of cognitive abilities by qualified neuropsychologists is well accepted within the courts. I have personally been involved in over 10,000 neuropsychological medical legal assessments and have appeared as an expert witness in hundreds of cases in which there was a question of cognitive and emotional deficits resulting from head injuries.
[The father] was self-referred and asked that he be assessed in order to determine whether or not there was any evidence based on psychometric testing to suggest that he was incapable of caring for his children. He indicated that he had sustained quite significant injuries including frontal lobe brain damage as the result of an accident which occurred in 1987.
The results of his neuropsychological assessment identified the following problems and deficits:
1. There were a number of test scores which suggested impairment when they were compared with is overall intellectual level (these scores are followed by an asterisk), however, when compared to the mean performance of those in his age group, generally these scores were in the average range other than as indicated below.
2. There were some indications of impaired ability to recall discrete verbal material, that is verbal material which does not have a theme. After repeated trials his recall improved significantly.
The MMPI-2 was administered, this 567 item test is recognised as the most thoroughly research personality inventory available to psychologists. It contains five scales which indicate yea saying, nay saying, intentional efforts to distort the results and intentional efforts to make a positive impression as well as nine clinical scales. [The father’s] performance was in the normal range on all scales.
There was nothing in [the father’s] test results to suggest that he is not capable of caring for his children.”

I am not minded to place any weight on the opinion expressed by Dr Z that there was nothing in the father’s test results to suggest that he is not capable of caring for his children.
Dr Z was not required for cross examination but it was unhelpful to consider the tests performed by him in isolation. He has not seen the Father with the children, he has not read the reports of the other experts and he has not seen the children with their Mother. The test results may suggest the Father is capable of caring for his children but there is an abundance of evidence to suggest there is a real need for caution in framing orders for the Father to spend time with his children having regard to his past behaviours.

Progress of the Trial

Dr H gave his evidence on the third day of the hearing namely 20 February 2008. On the following day Ms J gave her evidence and made the recommendations as noted above.
At the conclusion of her evidence the legal representative for the Father sought an adjournment of the hearing to allow the Father to see a psychiatrist.
The adjournment was opposed by both Counsel for the Mother and Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
The adjournment was refused and at that stage as noted earlier the legal representative indicated that the Father did not wish to cross examine the Mother further or her partner Mr T. The legal representative for the Father indicated that he had accepted her advice and that further cross examination of the Mother or Mr T would not assist them or the children.

Submissions in course of final address

The Independent Children’s Lawyer submitted that there be an order for day time contact only from 9.00 am until 4.00 pm on one day a fortnight, of a weekend. The major reason for rejecting the option of the Contact Centre was that with an order in those terms it would only be a matter of time before it would break down on the basis that the Contact Centre would refuse to accept the Father because of his inability to comply with the normal conditions of use of the Contact Centre. The Independent Children’s Lawyer indicated there was no evidence the Contact Centre would not have the Father back but suggested that if it did it was only a matter of time before he would be excluded from the Centre.
No attempt was made by any of the parties to actually adduce evidence from the Contact Centre.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer sought that there be an order for sole parental responsibility in favour of the Mother.
In any order for telephone communication it should be for specific times and there was also a recommendation that the Mother should be free to take the children out of the jurisdiction but not the Father.

Submissions on behalf of Respondent Mother

Counsel for the Respondent Mother handed up written submissions and in addition spoke to such submissions in the course of her final address. The Mother did not seek that there be no time spent by the Father with his daughters rather she sought that it be supervised time at a Contact Centre. She sought an order for telephone communication once a week with the Mother to initiate the call and that she have the right to vet letters and emails forwarded by the Father to his daughters. She sought that she permitted to take the children overseas but opposed any order allowing the Father to take the children out of the jurisdiction.
At paragraph 4 of her written submissions it was submitted that the Court could make the following findings:
“a.The Father, through his conduct and beliefs, pose as an unacceptable sexual, physical and or emotional risk to the children.
b.The Father, through his conduct and beliefs has acted with impropriety (even if not actually intended) towards the girls.
c.The Father, through his conduct and beliefs will continue to pose an unacceptable risk of harm and/or impropriety to the girls.
d.The Mother has a reasonable and genuine belief that the Father is a risk to the girls.
e.Given the diagnosis of Dr [H] the Father has no or no sufficient capacity to modify his relevant conduct and beliefs.
f.The benefits to the children in constraining the Father’s risk to and impact upon them outweighs the benefits in continuing an anarchic relationship without limitations and boundaries.”
It was submitted that the Court would find that the Mother spoke with ‘thought conviction and sincerity’ and made appropriate concessions. It was submitted the Court ought to find that she was a witness of ‘truth, veracity and reliability’. I have already made my findings in this regard.
The Mother has been a model of patience and tolerance. She is not of a histrionic personality. She has on occasions displayed considerable anxiety but such anxiety on the evidence has been well founded. She is not a person who overacts and misinterprets innocent events. I accept the submissions made in paragraph 8 of the written submissions in relation to the veracity of the Father, namely that he was alarmingly honest in some areas but at other times disingenuous and evasive.
It is not really necessary for the Court to conclude whether the Father’s conduct arises from organic brain damage or some form of personality disorder. As Counsel notes in paragraph 10 of her written submissions the Court ought, “take the Father as it finds him.” I agree with the submission in these terms although I certainly accept Dr H’s evidence that it is likely the cause of the Father’s condition is of an organic nature.
I accept the force of the submissions by Counsel for the Mother. They are detailed and accurate. Where I am asked to make findings in accordance with the evidence I am minded to do so. By way of example, in paragraph 26 Counsel submitted:
“26.Given the Father’s free, easy and lax views of appropriate conduct in other settings (eg. rules, marijuana, sharing beds, bathing together, adult movies), the Court could well find that the Father had an equally free, easy and lax view as to what constitutes inappropriate sexual conduct. In the circumstances, his response to the question, “While you deny inappropriate sexual dealings with the girls, what constitutes appropriate dealings?”, was disquietening for his inability to articulate.”
At paragraph 24 of her submissions she makes reference to the Father’s evidence in the course of cross examination about frolicking on a bed with the girls and being, “punched in the nuts”. In answer to further cross examination by Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer that became punching and grabbing by the girls.
Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer and Counsel for the Father submitted there was insufficient evidence upon which to base a finding that the Father was an unacceptable risk to the children in terms of allegations of sexual abuse. It is to my mind an academic issue as I am certainly prepared to find that the Father is an unacceptable risk to the children by his behaviour across the board which has been particularised earlier in these reasons. There is evidence extending over a considerable period of time from a number of reliable sources of the Father behaving in a sexually inappropriate way with his daughters. I would not be prepared to make a finding of no unacceptable risk in relation to sexual abuse issues but I accept that various Departments have examined the complaints and no substantiated finding has been made.
In the course of her oral submissions Counsel readily conceded that the children enjoy a good relationship with their Father and would wish to continue to see him.
It was submitted that it would be unlikely that an appropriate independent supervisor could be found.
The view that I take is that there is an obligation on a party where supervision may be ordered, to put forward an appropriate independent supervisor who could then be assessed by the Court and subjected to appropriate cross examination. The Father whilst putting forward Mr V’s name did not attempt to call him or confirm his availability.
It was submitted that even if there was day time unsupervised periods all of the risks articulated in the written submissions were likely to continue. It was submitted with considerable accuracy that in the Father’s case the carrot and stick approach does not work. It was further submitted that to argue a Contact Centre was not appropriate because the Father would contravene the rules was putting the cart before the horse. If a Contact Centre was deemed appropriate to provide a safe environment for the children the responsibility is on the Father to ensure that he complies with the requirements of the Contact Centre. To suggest that the Contact Centre option should not be put in place because of the inevitability that the Father would breach the Centre’s rules was not an appropriate approach. I accept the force and accuracy of a submission in these terms.
The Mother supported an order in terms that if the matter was in any way to be re-litigated it be re-litigated in this Court and be referred back to myself. The Mother indicated she was prepared to bear 50 per cent of the costs of any order for a Contact Centre.

Submissions by legal representative for the Father

Ms Colman quite properly adverted to the evidence of report writers who all speak of the love of the children for their Father and other witnesses who have noted the children’s wish to continue to see him. Her position was that he is seeking as much time as the Court is prepared to give him. He would prefer unsupervised time but if a supervisor was necessary he would accept that. She submitted that the Father had accepted advice not to continue the trial. His attitude was that he had no wish for further litigation. He was prepared to concede that if the matter in any way was to be further litigated it was appropriate to re-list before myself. She submitted that the Father wanted some holiday time with the children. She submitted there was no evidence the Father has sexually abused the children. She sought an order in terms that the Father have telephone communication with the children on a regular basis and that he be entitled to send gifts. The Father was content for letters and emails to be vetted by the Mother.
It was submitted that the Father was prepared to accept an order for ongoing drug tests. It was submitted that the Father was aware there will be restrictions because of his past behaviour but the bottom line was that he loves his daughters and the evidence was they love him.
I am mindful that the Father has given instructions and assurances in the past and later resiled from the stated position.
Whilst the Father may have been instructing his solicitor that he has no wish for further litigation it may well be if he does not get his way he would be minded to pursue that avenue.
It appears to be common ground if that is to occur the matter should be re-listed before myself.

Events since the trial

As outlined earlier the Father continued to spend time after the trial which involved supervised time at a Contact Centre.
The Mother filed an application on 11 June 2008 seeking orders that she be allowed to adduce further evidence and that in the meantime an injunction issue restraining the Father from contacting or approaching the Mother or the children except as provided for by orders of this Court.
The Mother’s evidence was contained in an affidavit sworn on 5 June and filed on 11 June together with an affidavit of her partner Mr T.
On the 16 July 2008 for reasons given at the time I granted the injunctions sought. As noted earlier I do not intend to rely on the contents of the affidavits as evidence of the fact but simply to record injunctions were sought and made.

Orders to issue

For reasons soon to be given I propose to put in place the following orders:
(1)That the children, L born … December 1997 and O born … December 1999 live with the Mother.
(2)That the Mother shall have sole parental responsibility for the children but shall notify the Father in writing in relation to any decisions made for the children affecting their long term care, welfare and development in a timely manner once any such decisions have been made.
(3)That the Father shall have supervised time with the children as may be facilitated at the M Contact Centre for not less than two (2) hours per fortnight and if available up to two (2) hours per week. In the event that the M Contact Centre for any reason is not available on the basis it has withdrawn its services then the parties may agree for supervised contact to occur at another Contact Centre provided it is within reasonable proximity to the Mother’s residence.
(4)The Mother and Father be each responsible to pay one half of the costs of the M Contact Centre or such other Contact Centre as may be selected.
(5)The Mother is to facilitate telephone communication between the children and the Father with such calls not to occur before 8.00 am in the morning or after 7.00 pm in the evening and to be no more than twice each week.
Injunctions
(6)The Father is restrained from contacting or approaching the Mother or the children except as provided for by orders of this Honourable Court.
(7)The Father is restrained from entering or remaining in a place of residence, employment or eduction of the Mother or the children.
(8)The Father is restrained from entering or remaining in a place whilst the children are attending extracurricular activities except as may be agreed in writing with the Mother or as otherwise provided for by orders of this Court.
(9)The Mother shall immediately advise the Father in the event that either child is involved in a medical emergency or suffers a serious medical condition.
Overseas Travel
(10)The Mother be permitted to leave the Commonwealth of Australia with the children for the purpose of a holiday not more than once a year (not including any holiday to New Zealand that may be arranged during any school holiday period) for a period not exceeding five (5) consecutive weeks to be taken during the children’s school holiday periods except for a period of not more than one week which may fall outside of school holiday times.
(11)The Father’s time with the children is to be suspended any time the Mother is travelling out of the jurisdiction with the children pursuant to these Orders.
(12) The Mother is authorised to obtain passports for the children.
(13)The Father is not permitted to take the children out of the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia.
(14)Any further application relating to the children is to be filed in the Family Court of Australia and listed before the Honourable Justice Barry.
(15)The Father is at liberty to forward letters and emails to the children but the Mother is given authority to peruse such letters and emails before being given to the children and may refuse to give them to the children if the Mother deems the letters or emails to contain inappropriate material.
(16)The Mother is to advise the Father in writing not less than fourteen (14) days before any overseas travel and the dates she will be out of the country.

Reasons for Orders

Section 60CC provides the Court must take into account in relation to children as a primary consideration the benefits to the children of having a meaningful relationship with both of the children’s parents but at the same time to protect the children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.
The reasons for making an order in terms as set out in paragraph 117 is my assessment of the evidence of the Father’s ongoing behaviour over a number of years. Details of such inappropriate behaviour include:
·Being non-compliant with Court orders on a regular basis.
·Failure to keep appointments and attend on time when arrangements made.
·Engaging in controlling and manipulative and at times abusive behaviour towards the Mother and children (refer Mother’s trial affidavit paragraphs 52, 58, 59, 73 and 197).
·The Father’s regular use of marijuana at times in the presence of the children (refer Mother’s trial affidavit paragraphs 113, 115 and paragraph 12 of Mother’s Counsel’s outline of submissions).
·Allowing the children to watch adult movies (refer Mother’s trial affidavit paragraphs 142 to 144 and paragraph 12(d) of Mother’s Counsel’s written submissions).
·Attitude to road safety (refer paragraphs 145 to 161 of the Mother’s affidavit).
·Father’s discussion of inappropriate matters with the girls including advising them it is acceptable to break the law and not comply with road safety requirements and not comply with rules of the Contact Centre.
·The Father has displayed a gross instability of lifestyle having numerous changes of address (refer Mother’s trial affidavit paragraph 82).
·The Father is given to impulsive behaviour which he is, by definition, unable to control (the classic example is the Sea World incident).
·Allowing the children to sleep in the same bed despite orders prohibiting same and assurances given by the Father that it would not happen. There is evidence that at times the children have slept with their Father without any clothing (refer Mother’s trial affidavit paragraphs 76 and 93 and Mother’s Counsel’s submissions paragraph 12(b)).
·On occasions behaving in a sexually inappropriate way with the children.
·Failure to abide by arrangements including collecting the children late (paragraph 168 of Mother’s trial affidavit).
·Failing to set appropriate routines and boundaries for the children (refer Mother’s trial affidavit paragraphs 193 to 196).
·Placing undue pressure on the children and making them feel guilty if they are not aligned with his cause.
I have earlier made my observations in relation to the primary considerations. I accept the Father has a good relationship with the girls. It is to the great credit of the Mother that she has fostered this relationship over the years despite the many occasions the Applicant Father has engaged in unacceptable and inappropriate conduct both towards the children and herself.
It is likely part of the attraction of being in the Father’s care for periods of time is that he places no restrictions on the children. I accept he is able to be charming and imaginative with them.
The report of Dr Z would indicate the Father is of above average intelligence and I expect he is able to offer a degree of intellectual stimulation. However for the reasons given in paragraph 119 I am of the view that to permit unsupervised time is to run the risk of the children being subjected to physical and psychological harm.
Turning to the factors enunciated in paragraphs 60CC(3) I note the following:

(a)Children’s wishes
Ms J in her report of 22 September 2007 noted:
“73.The children have an exciting wonderful time with their dad. They are close to him and enjoy all of the time that they spend with him. [L] in particular worries about her dad. It is notable that she voices the same concerns about her Mother and extended family as he does.”

I note the children are currently 8 and 11 years respectively. They have been involved in these legal proceedings for most of their lives. Ms J has prepared 3 reports and one addendum report. The children have been subjected to too much pressure by the Father over the years to give their wishes any weight.
(b)The nature of the relationship of the children with each of the child’s parents and other persons

In paragraph 22 of her written submissions Counsel for the Father argues:
“22.The Father happily admitted to a ‘social anarchist’ approach to life, and encourages the girls towards same. The Father’s relationship with the girls, marked by a lack of appropriate parental judgment, lack of insight, guilt tripping, indoctrination, inability to set appropriate boundaries, and disregard for authorities, is a relationship of ultimate detriment to the girls if not supervised. Ms [J] agreed that while there were positive aspects to the Father-child relationships there were also negatives.”

I accept the force of this submission. The children appear to have a reasonable relationship with the Mother’s partner Mr T. The Father appears to be something of a loner. He did not produce any witnesses in support of his case. The Mother is well integrated into the Y community and appears to have friends there. The children appear to have numerous friends through school and neighbourhood contacts.

(c)The willingness and ability of each of the child’s parents to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the children and the other parent

I expect the Father is regularly too ‘stoned’ to exercise appropriate judgment on such matters. The bulk of the evidence indicates the Mother has been gracious and compliant with arrangements whilst the Father’s conduct has been aggressive, controlling and boorish.

(d) The likely affect of any changes in the child’s circumstances

The critical issue by the end of the hearing was whether the Father’s time should be supervised or unsupervised. As I understood Ms J’s recommendations she was ambivalent on this aspect but leant towards supervised time having previously recommended unsupervised time.
The Father at this stage in effect capitulated and did not seek to further challenge the Mother’s case. The children have been experiencing supervised time with their Father as a result of the orders made at the conclusion of the trial in February last year. The matter has not been referred to me on the basis that there have been any problems between the Father and those in charge of the operation of the Contact Centre.

(e) The practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent

The Mother has offered to pay 50 per cent of the Contact Centre’s fees and as indicated I propose to make an order in those terms. With periods of time outside a Contact Centre the Father has been regularly late in collecting or returning the children as detailed in the evidence.

(f) The capacity of each of the child’s parents and any other person to provide for the needs of the child including emotional and intellectual needs

Previously canvassed in detail in the course of these reasons.

(g) Not relevant other than as previously discussed.

(h) Not relevant.

The attitude to the child and to the responsibilities of parenthood demonstrated by each of the child’s parents

Previously canvassed.

(j -k) Any family violence

There is no evidence the Father has ever been violent to his daughters. There is evidence of violence to the Mother and the Mother’s partner but it would not be of such a level as would lead in ordinary circumstances to direct that the Father’s time with his daughters be supervised.

(l) Preferability of making an order least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings

The parties have been litigating for seven years. I propose to put in place an order that any further proceedings be instituted in this Court and be in the first instance heard by myself. An order in these terms was not opposed by any of the parties.

Parental Responsibility

The Mother sought an order for sole parental responsibility. I am conscious of the presumption for joint responsibility as set out in the legislation but the Father’s ongoing behaviour leads me to conclude that he lacks judgment and is unable to co-operate with the Mother to any meaningful extent. The fact that he is banned by the school would make any order for joint responsibility difficult to enforce.
In view of the time that has elapsed since this matter was previously before the Court I will hear final submissions on the form of orders before such orders issue as formal orders of the Court.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and thirty-two (132) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Barry.

Associate:

Date: 3 March 2009

[2009] FamCA 141

3 March 2009

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Legal Concepts

Injunction

Jurisdiction

Remedies