HARDING & WATSON

[2013] FCCA 1198

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HARDING & WATSON [2013] FCCA 1198

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Application for discharge of final parenting orders – no changed circumstances justifying the recommencement of litigation – summarily dismissed.

Legislation:  
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60I(8), 62G, 117

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth)

Applicant: MS HARDING

Respondent: MR WATSON

File Number: MLC 12820 of 2007

Judgment of: Judge Hartnett

Hearing date: 14 August 2013

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 29 August 2013

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Kordos

Solicitors for the Applicant: Berger Kordos Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Hall

Solicitors for the Respondent: Robinson Gill

THE COURT ORDERED ON 14 AUGUST 2013 THAT:

1. The Initiating Application filed by the mother on 2 August 2013 is dismissed summarily.

2. The parties attend upon a dispute resolution practitioner before the filing of any further application by either of them save for a contravention application.

3. The mother pay the father’s costs of this application fixed in the sum of $3,150. There be a stay on this amount for a period of three months from this date.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT MELBOURNE

MLC 12820 of 2007

MS HARDING

Applicant

And

MR WATSON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The Applicant mother filed an Initiating Application in this Court on 2 August 2013. In support of that Application, she filed an Affidavit sworn by her on 2 August 2013. The mother sought that all times be abridged in this matter, and that the interim orders sought by her be heard on an urgent basis. The Application was not accompanied by a s.60I (8) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (‘the Act’) certificate from a family dispute resolution practitioner, and the mother applied to a Registrar of this Court to be exempt from the requirement of filing such a certificate.

2. A Registrar, on 2 August 2013, considered the matter and determined that the application was made in circumstances of urgency and that the following conditions were satisfied:-

   i)the application was made in relation to a particular issue;

   ii)a Part VII of the Act Order had been made in relation to that issue, within the period of 12 months before the application was made;

   iii)the application was made in relation to a contravention of the Order by a person; and

   iv)the Court was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the person had behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard for his or her obligations under the Order. 

   That determination was made by the Registrar, upon sighting the affidavit material of the mother without any input, obviously, from the Respondent father, who had yet to be served with the proceedings. 

3. The father filed a Response in the proceedings on 13 August 2013 seeking, both on a final and interim basis, that the mother’s application be dismissed, and further, that the Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings.  The father filed an Affidavit sworn by him on 12 August 2013, upon which he relies.

4. The evidence before the Court at this interim hearing, in a duty list, was that contained in the affidavits of each of the parties.  Each of the parties were represented by legal counsel who made submissions on their respective behalf.

5. The Court concluded that the application of the mother was entirely misconceived and acceded to the application of the father that it be dismissed summarily, and that costs follow the event, those costs being calculated in reference to the scale of costs, as set out in the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (‘the Rules’). Further, the Court will order that the parties attend upon a dispute resolution practitioner before the filing of any further application by either of them, save for a contravention application.

6. There is a long history of litigation between these parties.  Final Orders were last made in proceedings between them on 8 October 2012.  Those Orders were made by consent, discharged all previous Orders, and provided for the father to have sole parental responsibility of the parties’ child, X born (omitted) 2007 and that the child live with him.  Thereafter, the Orders provided for time spent with the mother (as set out in paragraph 4 of those Orders), changeover location for that time spent with, and various other parenting orders. They are set out for completeness’ sake herein and are as follows:-

   “1. All previous Orders be and are hereby discharged.

   2.   The Father have sole parental responsibility for the child X born 24th March 2007 (“the child”).

   3.    The child live with the Father.

   4.    The child spend time with the Mother as follows:

   (a)    Each alternate Saturday from 10 am to 5 pm commencing 20^th October 2012;

   (b)    Each Thursday from 4.30pm to 7.30pm;

   (c)Each Mother’s Day from 10 am to 5 pm;

   (d)    Each Christmas Day from 4.30 pm to 7.30 pm;

   (e)As otherwise agreed;

   (f)  Each Thursday from the commencement of the long summer school holiday from 10 am to 5 pm prior to 25th December, in lieu of 4 (b).

   5.   All changeovers in order for the Mother to spend time with the child shall take place in (omitted), opposite the (omitted) Railway Station.

   6.    The Mother’s time with the child shall be suspended:

   (a)    During the June/July holiday or in the event there is a 3 week school term holiday, for that holiday, if not the June/July one.

   (b)    From 26th December each year to the resumption of school term commencing 2012.

   7.   The time on Thursday as defined in Order 4 (b) herein shall be suspended during the remaining 2 school term holidays and in lieu thereof the Mother shall have time with the child from 10 am to 5 pm on the Sunday immediately following her Saturday time following in those holidays.

   8.   Each parent shall notify the other in the event of any change to their telephone number or residential address, such notice to be given within 24 hours of any such change.

   9.   The Father shall notify the Mother of any accident or injury to the child requiring him to be hospitalised as soon as practicable.

   10.The Mother shall notify or cause to be notified the Father by SMS text message of any inpatient hospital admission by her.

   11.The Father shall authorise any school the child attends from time to time to provide to the Mother copies of all reports, newsletters, and documents relating to the child which would ordinarily be made available to parents.

   12.The Parenting Plan dated 13^th March 2012 be and is hereby set aside pursuant to s 63 H (1)(b) and (c).

   13.The Mother shall authorise and direct her mental health care providers to send a report to the Father of her health and compliance with treatment (if any) each 6 months from this date.

   AND THE COURT NOTES the parties shall attend mediation no sooner than July 2013 should variations to time spent be sought by either of them and prior to that mediation the Mother shall provide an updated medical report informing as to her state of health and her compliance with medical direction.

   And it is further noted the Father shall deliver the child on 18^th November 2012 to the (omitted) Club at 2pm and collect him at 5.00pm.”

7. Those final Orders followed the making of earlier final Orders between the parties made by consent on 9 February 2011, which also provided for the father to have sole parental responsibility of the parties’ child, X, and for X to live with him.  He has been X’s primary carer since 2010. 

8. Despite the making of final Orders in February 2011, the Applicant mother brought an application in September 2012 to vary those Orders. The February 2011 Orders had been made by consent during a contested hearing (before Dessau J. in the Family Court of Australia) which had run for four days. Ultimately, further final Orders were made on 8 October 2012 and accompanying such Orders – and as can be seen in paragraph 6 herein, was a notation which provided that further mediation between the parties not occur before July 2013, and that such mediation canvass any variations proposed to time spent with between the Applicant mother and child.

History 

1. The father was born on (omitted) 1966, he is 47 years of age.  The mother was born on (omitted) 1971, she is 42 years of age.  The parties met in or about (omitted) 2006, and their son X was born in (omitted) 2007.   They separated in July 2007.  In November 2007, the father initiated parenting order proceedings in this Court and a trial proceeded over five days between 31 July 2008 and 24 November 2008. The father deposes that it was then aborted, by reason of the mother’s failure to attend Court.  The mother responded by claiming that her mental illness prevented her from attending, and the matter was adjourned to 13 July 2009.  On that day, Federal Magistrate O’Sullivan (as His Honour then was), determined that the matter was too complex for this Court and transferred it to the Family Court of Australia.  The trial in the Family Court of Australia ran for four days before Dessau J. commencing on 25 October 2010 and concluding, with final parenting Orders ultimately made by consent, on 9 February 2011.  Thus, these parties were engaged in litigation in respect of their son X’s care, from November 2007 until February 2011.  In addition, the mother commenced County Court proceedings in respect of property matters, which were commenced in November 2008 and finally concluded in August 2009.  The father deposed, in his Affidavit sworn 26 September 2012, which he annexed to his Affidavit sworn 12 August 2013, that at that time, namely, September 2012, he had incurred legal costs in excess of $240,000.  He said in paragraph 10 of that Affidavit:-

   “…The mother deposed in an Affidavit sworn on 1 June 2009 in the County Court proceedings that she had, at that time, incurred her own legal costs totalling in excess of $400,000.00.”

2. The Application of the Applicant mother was very squarely one whereby she sought a discharge of all previous orders being the final Orders made in October last year.  She sought an Order that the previously ordered sole parental responsibility for X which resides in the father be altered, such that each of the parents have equal shared parental responsibility of X into the future.  The mother sought the continuation of the child’s residence arrangement with the father, an extension of time spent with her, a non-denigration order, a restraint and a placing of the child’s name on the Airport Watch List.

3. The mother further sought that pursuant to s.62G of the Act, a family report be prepared within this Court’s Registry in preparation for an ultimate further final hearing of competing parenting applications between the parties. Given the making of final Orders in both November 2011 and in particular October 2012, which the mother now seeks to discharge, the mother must establish for the Court that there is a changed circumstance that justifies the recommencement of litigation between the parties which to date, has been extensive and very costly. It has also caused stress to the parties, and given each of their respective medical conditions, that is undesirable. Any diminution in the mental functioning of each of his parents, is not in the best interests of X. When going to the mother’s evidence and in listening to the submissions made on her behalf by her Counsel, to ascertain whether there is any significant change of circumstances, it appeared to the Court that there were no such changed circumstances indicative of a necessity to alter the existing Orders, founded upon a fact not known to the parties at the time of entering into consent Orders last year. The mother alleges that the father has breached certain of the Orders made on 8 October 2012. She does not, however, bring a contravention application.

4. Instead, the mother issued an application to discharge all previous Orders and for the Court to adjudicate between the parties and to make further parenting orders in the event same were ultimately not agreed to between the parties.  She sought a further report in the proceedings as between the parties, being a family report to assist the Court in its deliberations in respect of her most recent application.

5. X has changed his enrolment from (omitted) Primary School to (omitted) Grammar School.  He is in Grade Prep.  The mother annexes to her Affidavit sworn 2 August 2013 in annexure “JMH-1”, correspondence between her and (omitted) Grammar School.  Her correspondence to the Grammar School sent Monday, 15 July 2013 was as follows:-

   “Hello,

   My ex-partner Mr Watson has advised me today that our son X will be attending (omitted) School tomorrow.  We have been in litigation for the past six years and about to start the family law process again.  Mr Watson currently is the primary carer.  I will be challenging this through the family law process.  Having said that I am pleased X will be attending (omitted) School.  I was considering (omitted) School when X was a baby. 

   Kind regards

   Ms Harding

   M: (omitted)”

   The response from the school to the mother was to thank her for her email and advise that unfortunately, they were unable to give out any information and that it would be best for her to contact the father directly.  That was on Friday, 19 July 2013.  X had only just commenced at the school a matter of days before that reply.  The father is required under the existing Orders to authorise any school the child attends from time to time to provide to the mother copies of all reports, newsletters and documents relating to the child which would ordinarily be made available to parents.

6. The father instructed his Counsel to make submissions on the hearing of this matter that it is his intention to make these documents available to the mother.  At the time the school corresponded with the mother and she with the school, the mother had only recently been released from The (omitted) Hospital.  The father remains unaware of the reason for admission of the mother, her diagnosis, and the reason for an extended stay in the hospital of 16 days duration.  He is aware that the mother has been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and in particular following the birth of X, and deposed in his Affidavit sworn 12 August 2013 (at paragraph 5 therein) that he noticed a deterioration in the Applicant’s mental health for some months prior to 21 June 2013.

7. The father is aware that the mother suffers mental health issues which include depression, anxiety and psychosis.  Prior to 21 June 2013, her demeanour caused him concern as he deposed in his Affidavit sworn 21 August 2013 at paragraph 5:-

   “… she did not appear to be in control and appeared disoriented.  On some occasions she would attend for time spent arrangements in a dishevelled state.  It was unpredictable as to when she would arrive and she did not directly look at or communicate with X at changeover time.”

8. The mother attended X’s then school which was (omitted) Primary School on 21 June 2013.  The father also attended at the school and his evidence is that he observed the mother to be muttering incomprehensible statements, behaving erratically, and appearing dishevelled and distressed.  On that day, the principal of the school escorted the mother to her office, an ambulance was arranged and the Applicant was taken to The (omitted) Hospital to be hospitalised for an ongoing 16 day period.

9. Subsequently, the father placed X in (omitted) Grammar School and advised the mother, she says, in response to her request for information.  The current Orders provide for the father to make this decision as to what school X shall attend, and from the mother’s own evidence, it appears that she is happy with her son’s enrolment in the school.  Her complaint is one of a lack of communication by the father to her about this matter.

10. The father says as to his enrolment of X at (omitted) School, that he was advised by (omitted) School, following his application regarding enrolment in years 7 and 11, that a vacancy had arisen in the prep year, and that he could if he chose, immediately enrol X and have him commence at the school in term 3 of this year.  The intervening events arising from the Applicant’s increasingly unstable health condition was a factor in the father’s decision to accelerate X’s enrolment at (omitted) School.

11. The father’s evidence in his Affidavit is further that although he has not yet authorised the school to provide information to the mother, he will do so upon satisfactory information being provided to him as to her ongoing health.  He has already spoken to the principal who has indicated that they are willing to direct school reports to the mother and when these are available, she will receive them.

12. The mother further alleges that the father has prohibited her from attending school events and not cooperated with her in terms of interacting with X at those times.  The father’s evidence is that he has not at any time sought to prohibit the mother from attending school events, and his only concern has been as to her behaviour when she does so and, in particular, the behaviour which occurred on 21 June 2013.

13. The mother noted in her Affidavit of evidence sworn 2 August 2013 that the current Orders provide for changeover to occur at (omitted) Railway Station at those times that she spends with X.  She claims that the father regularly interrogates her on a variety of subjects at changeover.  She does not however seek any alteration of the changeover point, save that it occur opposite the (omitted) Railway Station.  How this will impact upon her claim that the father interrogates her is not obvious, but in any event, her claim is not one which justifies a discharge of all previous orders and a rehearing of parenting matters.

14. The mother also claims that the father encourages X to refer to his current partner as his real mother.  The father denies that allegation and claims that he has always encouraged X to maintain a relationship with his mother.  His evidence is that X has never called the applicant “mum” and that the mother seems to encourage X to refer to her as “Ms Harding”.  Similarly, X has always referred to Ms D, his current partner, as “Ms D”, but recently for reasons unbeknown to the father, started referring to Ms D as “mum”. In response, the father explained to X that Ms D was not his mother. He has otherwise encouraged X to maintain his relationship with his mother. 

15. The evidence that the mother provided to the Court in the form of her Affidavit sworn 2 August 2013, contained no evidence of the need for the child’s name to be placed on the Airport Watch List.  When asked as to what relevant evidence there was to support the making of such an order, the mother’s Counsel referred to paragraph 27 of his client’s Affidavit, wherein the mother deposed to the father taking X for a three week vacation to (omitted) in April of this year. The mother claimed to be only made aware of the trip shortly prior to X leaving for (omitted), and upon X informing her of his pending trip.  The father did not specifically answer that allegation in his Affidavit sworn 12 August 2013.  He was short-served with the mother’s Application and was in his Affidavit addressing matters in support of his Application to dismiss the mother’s Application.  The father has sole parental responsibility for X and he, the mother and X reside in Australia and in Victoria and there is no proper evidence or indeed any evidence placed before the Court by the mother that the child would be removed from the Commonwealth of Australia to avoid the jurisdiction of Australia, or that the father intends or is likely to remove X from his current residence in this State. There is no evidence that the father has ever sought to abscond with the child as put by the mother before the Court this day. The mother’s complaint is that the father took the child for a vacation earlier in this year without informing her.  If that indeed was the case and as a consequence, the child’s time spent with the mother as ordered in the Orders made in October last year did not occur, with the father not addressing this issue with the mother and/or making any provision for some form of makeup time, then the mother could have brought at any time thereafter, an application for contravention of orders, or preferably suggested to the father that they attend mediation post-July 2013 to discuss ongoing issues between them. The complaint is a lack of consultation and should have been dealt with by communication had between the parties or correspondence had between their respective solicitors.  There is not sufficient evidence before the Court to seek the placing of the child’s name on the Airport Watch List, and the bringing of such an application is misconceived. 

1. The mother’s most significant allegation is that the father has failed to make X available to spend time with her in recent times and, thereafter, has suggested a limited time spent with supervision before reverting to the current operational Orders.  Again, the mother has not brought a contravention application in respect of this allegation of breach of the existing court Orders.

2. In response the father claims he is acting to protect X and in X’s best interests, and only for a period of time in which it is necessary to do so.  The father is very concerned about the mother’s recent admission to hospital and the reasons for it, and the diagnosis and treatment.  The mother has not satisfactorily answered questions put to her by the father concerning that admission.  The father has subpoenaed the hospital records and is yet to inspect them.  This should not have been necessary.

3. The mother did provide in her Affidavit sworn 2 August 2013 a letter from Dr K, psychiatrist, dated 30 July 2013 and addressed to the mother’s solicitor wherein Dr K confirmed that she had treated the mother at the (omitted) Clinic between 23 February 2012 and 27 May 2013, initially in a shared care arrangement with (omitted) Clinic.  Dr K noted that the mother has a history of schizoaffective disorder and that in November 2010, she required hospital admission for treatment of a depressive episode occurring in the context of multiple medication changes and the court case regarding the care of her son.  She was readmitted in December 2010 following an overdose of medication.

4. The psychiatrist noted that since her then discharge from hospital, the mother’s mental state remains stable except for brief periods of increased depressive symptoms and anxiety related to Family Court hearing/mediation and financial stresses.  The psychiatrist further noted that the mother exhibited very good insight into her illness, and had been compliant with medication and follow-up.  Following her most recent hospital admission in June of this year, she was referred back to (omitted) Clinic for ongoing treatment and monitoring.

5. That evidence of Dr K however, did not set out the reason for the admission in June 2013 nor the reason for its length, nor the current presentation of the mother.  It did not provide medical evidence that there had been a changed circumstance such that the mother’s mental health functioning had been without relapse since the making of the Orders in October 2012, nor that the matters which were before the Court in 2011 and again in 2012 had altered in any significant way.  The mother was ordered in October last year to authorise and direct her mental health care providers to send a report to the father of her health and compliance with treatment (if any) each six months from that date. The father alleges there has been no compliance with that Order by the mother, and says that he observed the mother to be falling into ill health prior to 21 June 2013, and then became aware of her hospital admission.  He has not been provided with the necessary medical information to ensure the ongoing safety of X.  Although the solicitors for the father requested of the mother’s solicitors that the mother provide a medical report as to the recent health episode of 21 June 2013, detailing the cause and subsequent treatment required, together with information as to her current mental state including details of any medication required and other psychiatric report, that has not been forthcoming.

6. The Report from Dr K does not address all of those necessary issues.  It is more historical in nature.  The solicitors acting for the mother in response to the concerns expressed by the father forwarded correspondence to his solicitors of 1 August 2013 which read, in part:-

   “We are somewhat bemused by your client’s current stance in circumstances where the current Orders do not provide for supervision of X’s time with our client or a unilateral suspension of X’s time by your client.”

7. It is correct that the current Orders do not provide for any suspension of time spent with, or supervision of the time spent, but the relevant circumstances are such that the mother has had a recent unexplained and lengthy hospital admission to which the father has responded, and in his proposals put to the mother, for no longer than necessary to protect the health and safety of the child.  A sensible and appropriate response to the father’s requests for information as to the mother’s health would have seen X continuing to spend time with his mother, albeit under supervision for an initial period of time, before a resumption in operation of the current Orders, instead of the launching of these proceedings and the expenditure of further costs by the parties and the occasioning of further stress to them.

8. None of the evidence provided by the mother is a change of circumstances of such degree that warrants a discharge of the previous Orders.  The threshold test has not been met and the mother has not made out her case.  Her complaint about alleged breaches by the father could have been brought before the Court in a contravention application.  The father indicated in submissions from his Counsel at hearing that he would defend any such application on the basis of the necessity of his actions as a consequence of the mother’s health.

9. It is clear that the mother is endeavouring to set aside the earlier Orders and launch into another protracted parenting orders proceeding.  She indicated as much in her communication to (omitted) Grammar School, and her Counsel in submissions made at the hearing made a number of submissions which went to the reopening of matters of parental responsibility and time spent with between X and his mother.  Her Counsel informed the Court that the “bigger issue” needed to be addressed, which was that his client was “entitled”, “able” and “willing” to now share parental responsibility with the father. In particular, because she was now mentally stable. There is no conclusive evidence before the Court as to that fact and indeed some contrary evidence. When submitting that the final Orders made just last year should be substituted by other orders, the mother’s Counsel said relevantly as follows:-

   “The issues of course weren’t ever tested because it was done by consent, and the significant change of circumstance lies in the significant change to the mental status of my client supported by the medical evidence in support of her application. 

   The fact that changing her position from someone who doesn’t have parental responsibility to (someone who does) … is something that I believe needs to be properly aired before the Court, and the continuing breaches of the court Orders is something that needs to be remedied sooner rather than later and not unilaterally by one party.  Now, for all those reasons I believe X needs some stability in his life, and these Orders have proven now to gone beyond the used by date.  To merely dismiss this application, I believe, may expose to everyone to further litigation down the track because it just doesn’t resolve the issues, and I reiterate and emphasise my point once again, it is not the father’s case that he believes the currents orders are working, and therefore, by implication, they must be reviewed…”

10. Time spent with arrangements resumed between X and his mother under supervision on 8 August 2013, to which the father agreed despite the lack of medical evidence received by him, and his ongoing protective concerns for X.  Previous psychotic episodes suffered by the mother have resulted in a reintroduction of time spent with, but on a gradual basis, and the father has proposed that this occur again in this instance.  The father was surprised by the mother commencing this application and instructed his solicitors to write to the applicant’s solicitors requesting they discontinue the present proceedings, in favour of a staged reintroduction of time spent with.

11. The solicitors upon instruction from the father also wrote to the solicitors for the mother, protesting the bringing of the current application shortly following a significant psychotic episode suffered by the Applicant, and questioned whether or not the Applicant herself had the capacity to give instructions.  In that correspondence of 9 August 2013, the Respondent’s solicitors also raised the necessity of satisfying the threshold test. In order to avoid these proceedings, the solicitors for the Applicant were provided by the solicitors for the Respondent with an Affidavit sworn by the father on 26 September 2012, together with reports of Mr P provided to the Independent Children’s Lawyer who acted in previous proceedings, and the psychiatrist Mr E’s report, setting out in detail his opinion of each of the parties’ mental health.

12. Furthermore, that correspondence said:-

    “To suggest in the present application that your client should extend time with X and that your client have equal shared parental responsibility together with the airport watch order and other restraints suggested illustrate an entirely inappropriate approach and, in our view, highlights your client’s lack of capacity.”

    That correspondence suggested that the present application of the mother be withdrawn or that a case guardian be appointed.  It concluded that the existing operative Orders would resume in their operation, subject to the mother providing the necessary medical evidence to the effect that she was now in a position to properly care for X. The matter nevertheless proceeded.

13. The father deposed in his Affidavit sworn 26 September 2012 at paragraph 12 therein as follows:-

    “I have suffered from epilepsy over an extended period of time and acquired a brain injury while undergoing groundbreaking surgery for my epilepsy in 2003.  My Neuropsychologist, Ms S, and my Neurologist/Epileptologist, Dr C, both swore Affidavits in the Federal Magistrates Court proceedings.  Dr C gave evidence and was cross-examined. Suffice to say that stress and anxiety aggravate my symptoms and I am concerned that further litigation in respect of X will negatively impact upon me.”

    The father cares full-time for X as he is not engaged in paid employment, resultant upon his epilepsy and acquired brain injury. 

14. The mother’s application will be dismissed. The Respondent father seeks that costs follow the event and makes an application for the Court to make a costs order pursuant to s.117 of the Act. The Court turns to s.117(2A) of the Act and has regard to the matters set out therein. Each of the parties are in receipt of significant income (the mother approximately $100,000 and the father’s being private disability income). Neither is in receipt of legal aid. The mother has been wholly unsuccessful in these proceedings. The mother alleges contravention of orders, but not in a contravention application and in response to which the father says he acted to protect the health and safety of the child given the mother’s medical condition. The father’s solicitors’ communications to the mother’s solicitors were appropriate, reasonable and responsive to the circumstances in which the parties then found themselves, and were directed toward a resumption of time spent with between the mother and X, but one which protected X. That approach was entirely disregarded by the mother and her solicitors. Those matters put forward by the solicitors acting on behalf of the father to resolve the matter should have avoided the litigation this day.

15. As the Court finds the application unmeritorious, an order for costs will be made against the mother in the sum claimed and as accords with the Rules. The mother will be granted a stay on the payment of same. The issues which are raised by the mother should be addressed in a dispute resolution context and although an exemption was granted from the requirement for a certificate by a Registrar, upon hearing the evidence, it became apparent that no such exemption should have been granted. That is a course which the parties should adopt in future, save in the case of any contravention application.

I certify that the preceding thirty-eight (38) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Hartnett

Date:  29 August 2013