HARDWICK & SPURR
[2018] FCCA 1552
•5 July 2018
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| HARDWICK & SPURR | [2018] FCCA 1552 |
| Catchwords: SURNAME – Mother making a last minute application to change the child’s surname to the name of her husband – opposed by the father – where the child is part of a family in which all members use the step-father’s surname and where she currently identifies with that surname – order made for a change of surname. |
| Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss.60CC, 61DA |
| Cases cited: Darley & Darley (2015) FCCA 317 |
| Applicant: | MR HARDWICK |
| Respondent: | MS SPURR |
| File Number: | ROC 106 of 2010 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Terry |
| Hearing dates: | 27 and 28 July 2017 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 28 July 2018 |
| Delivered at: | Newcastle |
| Delivered on: | 5 July 2018 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Moon |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | McGowran Lawyers |
| Solicitor Advocate for the Respondent: | Ms O’Rourke |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Legal Aid NSW Gosford |
ORDERS
The mother shall have sole parental responsibility for [X] born 2017 (“the child).
The child shall live with the mother.
Unless otherwise agreed by the mother in writing, with such consent not to be unreasonably withheld if the child expresses a wish to spend time with and communicate with the father, the child shall spend no time with and have no communication with the father.
The mother shall promptly notify the father if the child is involved in a medical emergency or accident requiring admission to hospital or is diagnosed as suffering from a serious medical condition.
The child currently referred to as [X] born 2007, shall be known as [X], with such change to be reflected on the child’s Birth Certificate, Medicare card, school enrolment and any and all other relevant forms of identification for the child.
For the purposes of Order 5 above, the mother shall be authorised to apply to the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages in Queensland in the approved form to note the name change of the child to [X] pursuant to Section 17 of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003 and the father’s signature be dispensed with and pursuant to s.106A of the Family Law Act 1975 a Registrar of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia be appointed to sign any such change of name application and to do all acts and things necessary to ensure that the change of name application of the child is validly executed on behalf of the father.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Hardwick & Spurr is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT NEWCASTLE |
ROC 106 of 2010
| MR HARDWICK |
Applicant
And
| MS SPURR |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
The issue I must determine is whether there is anything the court can do to reignite a relationship between the father and his daughter [X] aged 10.
[X] has spent very little time with her father since an incident of family violence when she was about 2 ½. Shortly after this the mother left Town A with [X] and relocated to the Region 2. The father visited the Region 2 on a few isolated occasions but he last saw [X] in September 2013 when she was nearly 6 and last spoke to her on the telephone in April 2014.
The father has continued to live in Town A and in January 2016 he filed an application seeking orders for [X] to spend time with him. [X] now lives with her mother, step-father and three younger siblings on the Region 1 of NSW and he proposed that she spend time with him twice a year in Town A during the school holidays.
The mother has been adamant from the start that [X] should not be reintroduced to the father. The matter therefore went to trial and by the time of closing submissions the father had considerably modified his position and no longer pressed for immediate visits in Town A.
He sought an order that he have Webcam/Skype/Facebook Video Messenger communication with [X] each Wednesday for four weeks and then each Wednesday and Sunday. He proposed that he travel to the Town C six months after those calls commenced and remain there for a week. He proposed that he spend two consecutive supervised visits with [X] at a contact centre and then two four hour unsupervised visits and then one overnight from 5pm one day until 9am the following day.
He proposed that after that [X] commence spending time with him for the whole of the June/July holidays and half of the Christmas holidays each year. He proposed that the parents each bear half each of the cost of [X] flying between Town A and Town C.
The father struggled to understand why the mother was so stridently opposed to [X] spending time with him. He admitted that he subjected her to family violence during their short relationship but pointed to the fact that notwithstanding that she consented in June 2010 to orders that he spend extensive time with [X] and did not challenge at trial his evidence that there was no violence in his current relationship.
It was the father’s case that insofar as [X] was saying that she did not want to see him, it was because the mother had deliberately and forcefully influenced her to reject him and view him as someone to be feared and that if [X] met him and saw that he was not a monster her views would change.
He said that it was particularly important that [X] have the opportunity to reconnect with him because he was Aboriginal and through him [X] could connect with her Aboriginal culture and heritage.
The father’s counsel submitted that if orders were made for [X] to be reintroduced to the father, the mother would have to comply with them and [X] would then at least have a chance to decide for herself whether she wished to know her father.
The mother’s position from the moment proceedings commenced was that [X] should spend no time with and have no communication with the father and she never shifted her position one iota.
The mother said that she did not accept that the father had changed and that the idea of [X] going to Town A to spend time with him made her feel ill. She said that it was not just her; [X] felt the same and did not want to see the father and she should not be forced to spend time with someone who had become a stranger to her.
The mother said that her husband Mr Spurr, who was [X]’s father in all but biological connection, was also Aboriginal albeit from a different part of the country to the father and [X] could learn about Aboriginal culture and learn to value her Aboriginality through him.
The mother made a late application for an order permitting her to change the child’s surname from Hardwick to Spurr which is the surname she and her three younger children use. She said that [X] was known as [X] not [X] in areas of her life where she could choose what to be called such as at church or when she played sport. She asked for it to be made official so that [X] could be known as [X] at school.
The father opposed the application for a change of the child’s surname.
I heard this matter in July 2017 and I deeply regret that it has taken me so long to deliver this judgment. 2017 was a very difficult year in the Newcastle Registry. A judge was taken out of the Registry to do other work and was not replaced for nine months placing a heavy burden on the remaining two judges. I was obliged to give up many of my judgment writing weeks to meet the needs of the Registry. I was still able to deliver many judgments in a timely fashion but fell behind with some and regrettably this was one. I apologise to the parties for the delay in the delivery of this decision.
The evidence
The father relied on his affidavits filed on 5 & 24 July 2017, the affidavit of his partner Ms J filed on 6 July 2017 and the affidavit of the paternal grandmother Ms B filed on 10 July 2017. He prepared a brief written document responding to the mother’s application to change the child’s surname.[1]
[1] Exhibit D
The mother relied on her affidavit and the affidavit of her husband Mr Spurr both filed on 10 July 2017 and in respect of her application to change the child’s surname, she relied on a handwritten proof of evidence dated 27 July 2017.
A Family Report was prepared by Mr A, a Regulation 7 Family Consultant.
The mother, father, Ms B, Mr Spurr and Mr A were cross-examined. Ms J was not required; her evidence went in unchallenged.
Background
The father is 34 and the mother 33. There was a dispute about when they commenced a relationship; the father put it in 2006 and the mother in January 2007 but nothing turns on which is correct.
The parties have one child, [X], born on 2007.
The mother alleged that the father was violent on numerous occasions during the relationship. The father made some admissions about this but not complete admissions and I will need to make findings about the family violence allegations in due course.
The date on which the parties separated is unclear. The father said that it was in 2009 and the court file indicates that he filed an application for parenting orders in the Federal Magistrates Court as it then was in February 2010. However, the parties seem to have been in a relationship of some kind well after that because the incidents of family violence on 9 & 10 April 2010 involved a door being damaged and the parties going shopping together for a new door and then arguing in the bedroom when they got home.
Following those incidents a Protection Order was made for the mother’s benefit and shortly afterwards the father was charged with breaching the order and the mother spent a short period in a refuge.
On 22 June 2010 final parenting orders were made by consent. They provided for the parties to have equal shared parental responsibility and for [X] to live with the mother and spend time with the father for two nights each week, for block periods on 4 occasions each year prior to her commencing school and for half of the school holidays once she commenced school.
The mother said that she and the father also agreed (although it was not referred to in the orders) that she would relocate to the Region 2 and that the father would stay in Town A and complete an anger management course and then join her on the Region 2.
The timeline is less clear from the father’s affidavit but I am satisfied that the mother’s evidence is correct because what she said was agreed is in fact what happened.
The mother and [X] moved to the Region 2 shortly after the orders were made and the father enrolled in a course called “Stopping Family Violence Men’s Group”. He attended sixteen group sessions between May and October 2010 and had seven one on one face to face counselling sessions. Later in October he went down to the Region 2 and moved in with the mother and [X].
However there was an incident of violence after the father had been there for only a few weeks and he went back to Town A.
The mother said that he came back in February 2011 but there was another incident of violence and he again went back to Town A.
In early 2011 the mother formed a relationship with Mr Spurr.
The father came down to the Region 2 for [X]’s birthday in 2011 and stayed with the mother and [X] for nearly two weeks but again there was an incident of violence and again he went back to Town A. The mother reported the November 2011 incident to the police.
In November 2012 the father came down with the paternal grandmother for two nights and saw [X] for her birthday.
He came down again in July 2013 and it would appear, although the time line is not entirely clear, that he remained until September. He spent time with [X] and the mother allowed [X] to stay with him overnight on one occasion. However she was concerned about his unstable living circumstances and about reports of conflict with his housemates and after an incident where [X] returned to her care and told her that the father threw his phone at the wall in frustration after a conversation with her, she told him that she would not agree to him spending any further time with [X].
September 2013 is the last time [X] spent any time with the father.
The mother and Mr Spurr were married on 2013.
In 2014 the father initiated mediation and an agreement was reached for him to have telephone communication with [X]. However it was the mother’s evidence which I accept that he only called on four occasions and that the last time he spoke to [X] was April 2014.
Later in 2014 the mother and Mr Spurr moved to the Region 1.
The father filed his application in January 2016 and after the mother filed a response in July 2016 a family report was ordered and it was released in December 2016.
The family consultant did not support the father’s proposal for [X] to spend time with him in Town A immediately, saying that it would be very likely to place the child under a great deal of anxiety and stress. He noted that [X] expressed strong opposition to seeing her father and that the mother was also strongly opposed to [X] spending time with the father and refused to allow the family report writer to conduct an observation session between [X] and the father for the purposes of preparation of the family report.
The family consultant was conscious of the family violence allegations but noted that if an order was made for [X] to have no time with the father she would very likely never know her father or have a familial connection to her Aboriginal culture should she ever want it.
The family report writer recommended that the child be referred to 10 sessions with a clinical psychologist for clinical intervention and preparation for the observation of interactions between the child and the father as required by the court and potentially the possibility of the child spending more time with the father.
He also recommended that telephone communication occur weekly after two months of the child seeing the clinical psychologist unless the psychologist considered that this would not be in the child’s best interests.
He recommended that the court consider whether a further family report should be prepared following the above psychological intervention and support for the child.
The mother would not consent to the child attending any sessions with a clinical psychologist and continued to press for a no time order. As a result the matter was listed for final hearing.
The family violence allegations
Before making findings about the s. 60CC (2) & (3) matters which I must do in order to determine [X]’s best interests, I need to make findings about the family violence allegations.
The mother alleged that the father was physically violent and that he damaged property and threatened and intimidated her on numerous occasions continuing until mid-2014.
The mother alleged that after [X] was born the father:
·Grabbed and shook [X]’s pram while [X] was in it during an argument when [X] was 8 weeks old. The mother said that she apologised to the father to calm him down.
·Followed the mother into the bedroom and raised his fist causing the mother to lie over [X] to protect her, then grabbed her shirt and lifted her up and down on the bed and punched the bed near their heads.
·Came into the bedroom and threw food at her when she didn’t want to get up and cook dinner.
·Pushed her against the TV unit when she was holding 10 week old [X].
·Threw the maternal grandmother to the floor fracturing some of her ribs and breaking her glasses.
The mother said that on 9 April 2010 the father elbowed the bedroom door during an argument and put a hole in it. She said that on 10 April 2010 the parties went shopping for a new door. Upon returning home they began arguing and she went to her bedroom telling the father to fuck off. The father said “Go on say that one more time.” The mother did and the father threw a can of diet coke at her. The mother said that [X] was in the bedroom and started crying.
The mother tried to leave with [X] and the father snatched [X] from her and said that she wasn’t leaving and charged at her causing her to fall back onto the lounge. The mother said that the father grabbed her by the arms squeezing her. The mother said that she just wanted him to stop so she kept saying “I’m sorry.”
The mother said that she tried to get her bag and phone but the father took her phone. Eventually the mother was able to leave and she went to the police station and reported what had happened.
Documents produced on subpoena confirm that the mother went to the police and that the police took a photo of a bruise on her right bicep area and attended the home the next day and took a photo of the damage to the bedroom door. They applied for a Protection Order.[2]
[2] Exhibit H
On 17 April 2010 the father came to the mother’s home late at night and demanded entry. The mother said that when she wouldn’t let him in he struck the wooden door heavily several times causing damage to the central and lower parts of the door. The mother told him to go away and he went around the side and used his fist to smash a large plate glass window. The mother said that glass landed on [X] and on her bed. The mother called the police and the father left.[3]
[3] Exhibit J
Documents produced on subpoena confirm that police who attended observed the broken window and damage to the front door. The father was charged with breaching the Protection Order and pleaded guilty and was fined $150.00.
Police referred the mother to a program called “Breaking the Cycle” and on 7 May 2010 she went to a refuge and stayed there for a few days. While she was there some security devices were fitted at her home.[4]
[4] Mother’s affidavit paragraph 23 and Annexure C
In June 2010 the orders earlier referred to were made in the Federal Magistrates Court and shortly afterwards the mother and [X] relocated to the Region 2.
In October 2010 after doing a lengthy perpetrators program in Town A the father joined the mother on the Region 2.
The mother said that while the father was staying with her on the Region 2, there was an incident where he chased her up the stairs and threw her further up the stairs and pushed her head against the stairs. She drove the father to the train station the next day and he returned to Town A.
In early 2011 the father came back to the Region 2 and again moved in with the mother and [X]. The mother said that they argued and the father threw a beer bottle at her which missed and then grabbed her head and smashed it into the oven. She said that her arm was burnt with hot oil that spilt. The mother called the police who did not come and she then took the father to the train station and he again went back to Town A.
In 2011 the father came to the Region 2 for [X]’s birthday and stayed with the mother and [X]. The mother said that they argued and the father told her that she needed to call herself fat and ugly and threatened to punch her in the face if she didn’t. The mother left the home briefly and when she returned there was graffiti on her garage door saying “slut” and a photo of her and [X] on which the word “whore” was written. She said that there were also scrambled eggs thrown around the house.
The mother said that she drove the father to the train station and on the way he again demanded that she call herself a slut and when she refused slapped the side of her face. She said that he punched the CD player causing it to break and when she got out at the station to pay for his ticket he spat on her car.
The mother went to the police station and made a report and the father was again charged with breaching the Protection Order and was fined $600.00. [5]
[5] Exhibit K
The mother said that the parties argued when the father came down to see [X] in 2013 after she viewed his living conditions and that he chased her and [X] to the car.
The father made very limited admissions about family violence and the tenor of the information he provided about it was that the mother was blowing things out of proportion or was part of the problem.
The family consultant who interviewed the father on 30 November 2016 said as follows:
The father simply denies the degree of violence that the mother describes and refers to verbal arguments with blame attributable to both parties. The father alleges that the mother has used a history of domestic violence to extenuate her perception of ongoing risks because she simply wants to pretend that the father is not part of her, or the child’s life. He acknowledges breaking a window as his only act of violence, and states this was in the context of the mother refusing him time with the child. He suggests that the existence of family violence within his current family and life now is non-existent and there is no risk of family violence occurring around the child at all.[6]
[6] Family Report paragraph 21
In his trial affidavit the father said that he disagreed with a lot of what the mother said had happened during their relationship but regardless the point was that things had changed since then. He said that he did not want to go into what had happened prior to 2010 but that there had been domestic violence and both parties were guilty of losing their temper.
During cross-examination about specific incidents, the father made some admissions which he had not previously made. He said:
I might have punched the bed but I don’t remember putting my fist anywhere near [X] or her.
When asked if he threw food at the mother he said:
Possibly.
He admitted that the maternal grandmother was injured in an altercation with him but denied that he had deliberately injured her. He said that she attacked him with a broom and he grabbed hold of the broom and she fell back. He said that he was trying to protect himself.
He agreed that “back then” he might have been verbally abusive to the mother. He also said that he did hit the mother’s head on the oven and he agreed that he spat on her car.
I accept the mother’s evidence about the incidents of violence which she alleged occurred during the relationship. Although corroboration is not essential before allegations about family violence are accepted, it is relevant to note that the mother’s evidence is partially corroborated by contemporaneous police reports and the father admitted to the family report writer that the smashed a window and he made some further admissions during trial.
There is absolutely no doubt that the violence was coercive and controlling violence. It was not “couple violence” in which each party gave as good as they got. The father made a bald assertion to this effect but he did not give a single piece of evidence about the mother abusing him or of him being injured or of him being frightened as a result of the mother’s threats or abuse.
The one action by the father that I do consider to be a ham-fisted joke rather than an example of family violence is his comment on a photo of [X] on Facebook in 2014 “the sooner I get my Gun licence the better I think.” I accept the father’s explanation that it was an attempt at humour arising out of his daughter being an attractive young girl who a father might wish to protect from suitors.
However while that can be excused looked at objectively by someone who has not experienced violence at the father’s hands, it is understandable that the mother would have reacted differently to it given what she experienced and even if this post can be explained away the text message the father sent the mother at or about the same time cannot. It said:
The pain that you have caused me is nothing compared to what I will do to you in time to come ….[X] knows who her real father is and she will soon learn.[7]
[7] Mother’s affidavit paragraph 50
That was threatening and intimidating. The mother subsequently applied for and obtained a Protection Order from Southport Magistrates Court.
The father’s current circumstances
The father lives in Town A, a suburb of Town A. He lives with Ms J, who had been his partner for 2 ½ years at the time of trial and her children aged 22, 15, 12 & 6.[8] Ms J’s children also live part of the time with their father.
At the time of trial the father was engaged in home duties. Ms J who is 43 was an (occupation omitted) and was studying to be a (occupation omitted).
The father said that he and Ms J went fishing and camping with Ms J’s children and he looked forward to taking [X] fishing and camping and introducing her to the bush life he enjoyed.
The father has a large extended family in the Town A and Region 3 area including the paternal grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins. The paternal grandmother, who lives in Region 3, gave evidence. She said that she would like to reconnect with her granddaughter.
The father is an Aboriginal man through his mother and her connection is with tribes in the Northern Territory. The father has family in the Northern Territory including his sister Ms S who is an (occupation omitted) in Town B.
The mother’s current circumstances
The mother lives on the Region 1 with Mr Spurr and their three children who are aged five and under.
The mother is engaged in home duties. Mr Spurr works for the (employer omitted).
Mr Spurr is also Aboriginal. He said that he was a descendent of the people of the tribe whose country is in New South Wales.
[X] attends school on the Region 1 and is a keen (hobby omitted). She also attends Church with her mother and Mr Spurr.
The mother said that [X] used the surname Spurr when she played (hobby), at church, when she attended NAIDOC weeks with her step-father and in other settings where she was not required to use the name on her birth certificate. She said that [X] was known as “Hardwick” at school and for medical appointments and that she answered to the name Hardwick if it was used. However she said that [X] wished to be known as “Spurr” rather than “Hardwick”.
[X]’s best interests
Any orders I make about [X] must be orders determined by treating her best interests as the paramount consideration and s. 60CC (2) and (3) of the Family Law Act contain the matters to which I must have regard in order to determine her best interests.
The primary considerations in s. 60CC(2) are:
a)the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents; and
b)the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
S. 60CC (2A) provides that in applying the considerations set out in subsection (2), the court is to give greater weight to the consideration set out in paragraph (2) (b).
The additional considerations in s. 60CC (3) include matters such as the child’s views, the nature of her relationship with each of her parents, the capacity of each parent to provide for the needs of the child and whether there has been family violence.
Sometimes it is necessary to make findings about the s. 60CC (3) matters to inform considerations of the s. 60CC (2) matters. This is such a case and I intend to start by considering the matters in s. 60CC (3).
The first of the s. 60CC (3) matters is any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child's maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child's views.
[X] was 9 at the time of the family report interviews and she expressed strong opposition to spending time with her father or even seeing him. The family consultant said as follows:
[X]’s views in regard to future parenting arrangements and the father’s proposals were expressed by the child as a complete resistance to have any contact with the father at all. The child, when asked, stated that she would not be curious about him if he was sitting in another room, would not even want to have a peek at him, would not want to talk to him or cuddle him, would “run the other way” if he came into the room, and she also stated that she had no interest in knowing him when she was older.[9]
[9] Family Report paragraph 60
The family consultant went on to say as follows however:
It was noted by the report writer that the child was completely emotionless, and exhibiting no anxious responses despite the content of her conversation, and was very rehearsed in nearly all of her responses. As stated above, the child would almost always refer to her feelings as “we feel” rather than “I feel”.[10]
[10] Family Report paragraph 60
The family consultant felt that the child’s views arose out of the mother’s “complete and utter resistance to the potential for a relationship between the child and the father” rather than out of any independent recollections of the child. He said that he was not suggesting that the mother had deliberately imparted her negative views to the child[11] but it became clear during cross-examination of the mother that this is exactly what had happened.
[11] Family Report paragraph 55
In answer to a question in cross-examination the mother said as follows:
I had to have a chat with her just before the family conference. I felt in my heart that I needed to tell my daughter what he was really like.
She also said as follows:
Every time I come to court I talk to [X] about it. I’ll just say ‘your Dad’s lying. Your Dad said he didn’t smash the phone that day but you saw it didn’t you so Dad’s lying”. [X] doesn’t remember much of him anyway and now all this is happening I have to remind her.
Another exchange was as follows:
Father’s counsel: You told her he has been to jail but he hasn’t.
Mother:He had to go into the witness box and I call that jail.
The mother told the family consultant that [X] referred to her father as “a stranger” but made the following admission during cross-examination:
I told her he was a stranger and she agreed with me. If you don’t know someone they are a stranger.
During closing submissions, the mother’s solicitor said that the court should find that given that [X] was almost 6 in 2013 when the last incident between the parents occurred [X] might well have her own independent recollection of some violent behaviour by the father which might have influenced her decision to reject him. It is impossible for me to discern whether this is the case however when everything is overlaid by the mother’s forceful and deliberate influencing of the child.
It is open to me to find that it would be difficult for [X] to assert any interest in the father without incurring the mother’s extreme displeasure.
The family consultant’s opinion was that the child’s views should be given weight to an extent in that it would be unwise to make an order for her to spend time with the father immediately, but should not be given what he called “sufficient weight” because they may well be views imparted by the mother, either deliberately or by way of strong alignment with the mother.
He noted that while the child was strongly negative about the father, she was also lamenting that her father did not love her and for this reason and also because of his concern about the child being cut off from knowing about her Aboriginality, he recommended that rather than the child’s views determining the outcome, she be referred to a clinical psychologist for an assessment for clinical intervention and preparation for the child being observed with the father and spending time with the father if the psychologist deemed that to be in her best interests.
I must consider the nature of the child’s relationship with each of her parents and other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child).
The family consultant said that his observation of the mother and [X] suggested the child had a sense of security with her mother.
At the time of the family report interviews [X]’s three siblings were aged 4, 2 and 11 days old and everything suggests that [X] enjoys being a big sister.
Mr Spurr did not attend the report interviews but [X] described a good relationship with Mr Spurr to the family report writer.
[X] does not have a relationship with the father or with any member of the paternal family.
The mother flatly refused to agree to an observation session taking place between the father and [X] for the purposes of preparation of the family report and to make sure that there was no possibility of this occurring she refused to attend the report interviews on the same day as the father. As a result the father chose not to come to New South Wales in person for the interviews.
It is sad to note that only does [X] not have relationship with her father or any member of her paternal family, if the family report is accurate she also does not have a relationship with significant members of the maternal family. The mother told the family consultant that the maternal grandmother had abused alcohol during her childhood which ruined their relationship to a degree and that she hadn’t seen her father for some time, believing him to be a racist and not supportive of her relationships in the past.
I must consider the extent to which each of the child's parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child, to spend time with the child and to communicate with the child.
The father made only desultory attempts to spend time with [X] after June 2010. He joined the mother on the Region 2 in October 2010 but did not stay long, spent a brief period with the mother and [X] in February 2011, visited [X] on her birthday in 2011 and 2012 and spent some limited time with her in 2013. He initiated mediation in either late 2013 or early 2014. No agreement was reached about him spending time with [X] at that mediation and he ceased telephoning her in April 2014.
The father did not commence proceedings until January 2016.
The father did not satisfactorily explain why he had not made a greater effort to spend time with [X] after 2010. Insofar as he blamed the mother for this I do not accept that she was in any way at fault, indeed she continued to facilitate him spending time with [X] despite experiencing family violence at his hands during visits on the Region 2.
The mother’s solicitor said that as a result of the father taking so long to do anything, he was now a stranger to [X]. That is true but that would not necessarily be fatal to the success of his application. However his failure to act earlier has meant that [X] has become entrenched in a family unit which does not include the father and which sees his reappearance on the scene as a threat. The mother went to the barricades after the father reappeared and from the start stridently opposed [X] becoming reacquainted with him. It is this which may be fatal to the success of his application.
I must consider the extent to which each of the child's parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent's obligations to maintain the child.
The father does not pay child support. The mother has not sought it and the father is unemployed and would not be in a position to pay very much anyway.
The mother is not working as she has three young children as well as [X]. Mr Spurr is the principal financial provider for the household.
I must consider the likely effect of any changes in the child's circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either of his or her parents or any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living.
If [X] met the father and liked him and they formed a bond then this would be beneficial for [X]. Through the father she could get to know other members of the paternal family and learn about her Aboriginal heritage.
However if orders were made which attempted to force [X] into counselling or force her into spending time with the father and the mother did not support the orders, the impact on [X] could be quite destructive.
I must consider the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child's right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis.
Town A and the Region 1 are about 1300kms apart. The only practical way for [X] to travel between them is by air and it would involve [X] travelling to either Sydney or Town C and changing planes in Brisbane.
In the application he had on foot at the commencement of the hearing the father proposed that he and the mother initially share in the task of accompanying [X] on the flights. He also proposed that they share the cost of travel and estimated that it would cost them less than $1,500.00 per annum each.
Even in his final proposal to the court the father proposed that he and the mother share the cost of the child’s travel to and from Town A. He is not paying child support and there is some lack of sensitivity in this proposal. Added to that the father did not make clear whether he could meet all the costs of travel if it was ordered.
I must consider the capacity of each of the child's parents and any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child) to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs.
The principal issue the mother raised about the father was the risk of [X] being exposed to or even subjected to family violence in his care which I will consider in detail in a later section of the judgment. She did not express a concern about his capacity to provide for her day to day needs and it is not open to me to find that any of the issues which plagued the father on the Region 2 such as housing instability are a problem for him in Town A.
I have a concern about the father’s capacity to provide for the child’s emotional needs and this is relevant given the child’s strong opposition to spending time with him and the fact that this would have to be worked through.
The father is not high on empathy. The last sentence in his trial affidavit was not calculated to persuade the mother to put aside her reservations and trust him to look after [X] for block holiday time. He said as follows:
If Ms Spurr can’t facilitate [X] coming up and spending time with her aboriginal side of the family, then maybe [X] should relocate and live with myself and her Grandmother in Town A.[12]
[12] Father’s trial affidavit paragraph 79
There was also no sign that the father had thought through the wisdom of proposing that the mother pay half of the cost of the child’s travel to Town A.
The mother is doing a good job providing for [X]’s day to day and educational needs. However it is open to question whether in aligning [X] to reject the father she is appropriately providing for [X]’s emotional needs.
The family consultant noted that this was a somewhat complex issue because the father did perpetrate family violence and the mother might reasonably be concerned about [X]’s safety in his unsupervised care. However the mother’s behaviour in aligning [X] to her view of the father and refusing to consider any form of reintroduction whatsoever could be seen as lacking in child focus. The family consultant said as follows:
The child was reported to be both refusing to see the father, and also lamenting that the father did not even love her. The child is obviously confused specifically in regards to her own relationship with the father, and indeed, how the father feels about her (his daughter). This is likely to impinge on the child’s well-being if the influence of the mother overshadows the child’s likelihood or willingness to get to know her father, or to develop a relationship with him.[13]
[13] Family Report paragraph 35
I need to consider the impact on the mother of an order which would involve the child becoming re-acquainted with the father.
There was no evidence which would allow me to find that the mother’s capacity to parent [X] would be impacted on by such an order. However the mother’s distress about the order and resistance to time occurring could impact adversely on [X]. It may well place her in an impossible situation which she would deal with by continuing to strongly align herself with the mother.
I must consider the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child's parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant.
This is not relevant as a separate consideration.
I must consider if the child is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child the child’s right to enjoy her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture) and the likely impact any proposed parenting orders under this Part will have on that right.
[X] is an Aboriginal child and this is an important aspect of the case.
The father’s aboriginality is through the paternal grandmother who comes from the Northern Territory. She and her mother are from the tribe whose lands are in the area. Her father was from country near (omitted).
The father said that he wished to take [X] to the Northern Territory in the future so that she could meet extended family there and experience the aboriginal culture of which she was a part.
In closing submissions the mother’s counsel pointed out that the father had never been to the Northern Territory himself and that there was no evidence of the father being involved in any activities in the Town A area which turned on him being Aboriginal.
However the father’s sister is an (occupation omitted) in Town B and I accept that the father is genuine in his wish to foster the child’s connection with the people. Having the child spend time with the paternal grandmother would be a start in her making that connection. The father and paternal grandmother are the people best placed to assist [X] to connect with this part of her heritage.
The mother said that [X]’s lack of connection with the father was not a problem because although she was not Aboriginal Mr Spurr was.
Mr Spurr has taken [X] to his country and helped her to connect with that country. [X] meets other Aboriginal people through Mr Spurr, she has participated in College and a Koori choir and attended NAIDOC week events.
Mr Spurr said that [X] had also listened to stories from elders and been taught Aboriginal stories and Aboriginal art.
Mr Spurr’s country is not however the father’s country. Australia is a very large place with a diverse Aboriginal population. [X] may learn to value and be proud of her Aboriginality as a result of her connection with Mr Spurr but she will not learn anything about her father’s people that way. Learning the stories connected with a tribe from NSW does not connect her with tribes from the Northern Territory. In an ideal world [X] would have the opportunity to connect to the people through people who share that culture.
I must consider the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents.
It was the father’s case that the mother demonstrated a poor attitude to the child and the responsibilities of parenthood in that she had blocked him having a relationship with [X].
The matter is not that simple however.
The mother may be blocking him at present and has been intent on doing so since 2016, but between 2010 when she left the Region 2 and 2013 when the father last saw [X], the mother facilitated him seeing the child whenever he made an effort to do so notwithstanding the abuse she endured at his hands. She said and I accept that she made a decision to stop facilitating time only after yet another incident of the father screaming at her on the phone and because of her concern about his unsatisfactory living arrangements.
Even then the mother facilitated telephone communication and I accept that it stopped happening because the father stopped calling.
After the mother was found and served with the father’s application she made it clear that she opposed time recommencing but I am satisfied that this arises out of her experiences of the father.
It is regrettable that she is unable to consider the impact on [X] of cutting her off so completely from half of her heritage but I have referred to that issue when discussing the mother’s parenting capacity.
I must consider any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family.
The father committed numerous acts of coercive and controlling family violence during his relationship with the mother. He damaged property; he injured the mother; he subjected her to demeaning taunts and verbal abuse and he spat on her car. Some of the incidents such as the father trying to smash his way into the mother’s home or assaulting her while she was driving would have been extremely frightening for the mother.
[X] was present on many occasion when this violence occurred. However due to the mother’s extreme efforts to ensure that the child rejects the father, it is not possible for me to determine the extent to which [X] actually remembers any of the incidents or the impact on [X] of exposure to the violence.
The mother did not suggest that [X] was resistant to spending time with the father or expressed fear of him up to 2013 when her last visit with him occurred.
The father accepts responsibility for his violence only to a limited extent. He made minimal admissions during these proceedings about his perpetration of violence. He made none in his affidavit, simply asserting that he and the mother argued and were each responsible for what happened. He made one or two admissions during cross-examination.
There is nothing to suggest that the father has the slightest insight into the impact on the mother of being subjected to demeaning and frightening attacks and threats. He maintained until after the trial commenced his stance that the mother was being “deliberately obstructive of his rights and the child’s rights to be able to develop a relationship.”[14] He belatedly offered an apology to the mother, and his counsel submitted that when in the witness box he demonstrated some insight into the impact on the mother of the family violence but I cannot be sure that such a belated apology and such a belated acknowledgement of the impact of his actions is the result of real insight rather than the father realising that maintaining his previous stance was not assisting his case.
[14] Family Report paragraph 23
The father’s lack of acknowledgement of the extent of the violence and lack of insight into its impact on the mother has several implications for the case. One is that if the father does not accept responsibility for his actions he is not a good role model for the child. Another is that the mother may be rightly concerned about what he might say to the child although she did not raise that as an issue at trial. The third is that if the father does not admit the extent to which he perpetrated violence he is not well placed to ensure that he does not commit acts of family violence in the future.
The father did a perpetrators course and counselling in 2010 but from his subsequent actions toward the mother it would appear that he learnt little if anything from the course.
However there is merit in the submission by the father’s counsel that it is not open to the court to find that there is an unacceptable risk of [X] being exposed to family violence in the father’s care at present. Ms J was not required for cross-examination and she said that there was no violence in her relationship with the father and that he was a calm person. There was no evidence that the father had been in trouble with the law in Town A in respect of domestic violence or any other violence since he commenced his relationship with Ms J.
The problem is that while I as the Judge may come to that conclusion, I can also accept that the mother might remain concerned. She experienced family violence at the father’s hands on numerous occasions when he was upset and angry. She felt forced to apologise to him to try and placate him. She paid for his train tickets to get him away from the Region 2 and back to Town A. It is easy to understand why the thought of [X] going up to Town A alone would “make [the mother] feel sick.”
The family violence is not in the past as the father would like to believe. It is a very live issue for the mother and the father’s inability to empathise or connect with the impact on the mother of his actions means that he is ill-placed to work sensitively through any resistance [X] might display to spending time with him.
However cases involving family violence are complex and the fact that the father was violent to the mother or even the fact that he has no insight into the impact of the violence on the mother and shows no sign of developing such insight does not mean that [X] should never have a relationship with him. During closing submissions the father changed tack and asked for an order that [X] spend supervised time with him for the first two visits and then spend brief periods of time with him during the day in Town C. He wanted that to be fairly rapidly followed by visits to Town A but the court is not bound by the parties proposals and a wide range of options were always open in this case.
I will have to weigh up all the evidence to decide what if anything can be done and a matter which makes this case particularly complex is that while the mother is not willing to forgive the father or to accept that he has changed she has done exactly that in respect of Mr Spurr.
Mr Spurr came to the attention of the police on a number of occasions when he was living in Town D.
There was an incident with a security guard when Mr Spurr was very young, but more importantly in January 2011, not long before he commenced a relationship with the mother, Mr Spurr’s former partner with whom he had been for seven years and with whom he had two children with aged 3 and 1 made a complaint to the police about his behaviour.
His former partner told police that she was being continually threatened and intimidated by him. She said that in November 2010 he tried to take children from her and punched and kicked her. He then took the children and returned them only after she promised to stay with him and marry him. They later separated and he began visiting the children but he abused and threatened her, calling her a slut, a cunt and a houso. He told her that when she didn’t have the children with her he was going to make sure that she got hurt. She described an occasion when she drove off and Mr Spurr drove in front of her and continually braked and then stuck his finger up. On another occasion he said he would get a gun and use it if she fucked up. He also told her that he had someone watching her house and told her in detail who had been there.[15]
[15] Exhibit M
This is eerily similar to the complaints the mother made about the father’s behaviour and Mr Spurr like the father made minimal admissions about his behaviour. When asked during cross-examination if he had called his former partner a slut, cunt or houso he said he did not call her a slut but did call her a cunt and couldn’t recall if he called her a houso.
There were court proceedings between Mr Spurr and his partner in 2012. The mother said that Mr Spurr did not let her read the affidavit the mother of those children filed and that she did not want to read it. She maintained that Mr Spurr let the matter go because it was causing him depression and anxiety.
Mr Spurr’s limited admissions and the fact that he is not seeing his older two children and walked away from court proceedings about them suggest that there is fire beneath the smoke in the police report.
The mother refused to consider that Mr Spurr might have behaved violently to his former partner but said that regardless she was not concerned about him because he was now a Christian. When she was asked why she seemed to accept that Mr Spurr had changed but would not accept that the father had changed she said that it was because people only changed through Jesus.
The evidence about Mr Spurr’s behaviour is deeply troubling. I cannot make any concluded findings about what happened but nor can I find that nothing happened and it could mean that the mother will face a problem if her relationship with Mr Spurr ends. An argument that past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour applies just as much to Mr Spurr as it does to the father.
However while this situation is troubling, I do not on reflection consider it relevant to the issue of whether I make orders which might facilitate [X] having a relationship with her father. I have no reason to believe that Mr Spurr has been violent to the mother and her belief that he has changed is based on her experience of him. She has not had that experience of the father and while her knowledge that people can change makes her intransigent attitude to the father difficult to swallow, there are other issues in that situation such as the father’s lack of insight into the impact of family violence on the mother which make it a complex case.
I must consider if a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child's family any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following the nature of the order, the circumstances in which the order was made, any findings made by the court in, or in proceedings for, the order and any other relevant matter.
On 15 April 2010 a Protection order was made for two years by Town A Local Court for the protection of the mother and [X]. It prohibited the father contacting the mother or [X] directly or indirectly except for the purpose of spending time with [X] or with the mother’s consent in writing.
It also required the father to be of good behaviour toward the mother and [X] and not commit domestic violence.
A similar order was made on 21 September 2011 for 6 months although the previous order was still in force.
On 1 September 2014 a Protection order was made for two years with the mother being the protected person requiring the father to be of good behaviour and not commit domestic violence. It was extended on 31 August 2016 to expire on 16 May 2017.
I have considered the behaviour which led to these orders in some detail and considering the orders as a separate matter will not assist me.
I must consider whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child.
The order least likely to lead to further proceedings is an order for no time, but whether that is a desirable outcome is open to question.
I must consider any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant.
There are no other relevant matters,
I now return to the primary considerations.
If no order is made for [X] to spend time with the father or at least to attend on a psychologist to explore whether it is feasible for her to meet him then she will not have any relationship with him, let alone a meaningful one.
However unless the mother changes her attitude, it is most unlikely that either of these Orders would result in [X] developing a relationship with the father. They would more likely simply place [X] in a situation of intolerable stress.
The second primary consideration is the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence and this consideration takes priority over the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of her parents.
Neglect is not an issue in this case and the father’s counsel submitted that it was simply not open to the court to find that there was an unacceptable risk of the child being subjected to or exposed to abuse or family violence in the father’s care when there was no evidence of family violence in his relationship with Ms J and particularly so when Ms J, who asserted this to be the case, was not required for cross-examination.
He submitted that it could not be argued that past behaviour was the best predictor of future behaviour, even if such an argument was valid in this case given the situation with Mr Spurr.
There is merit in the submission that the risk of [X] being exposed to family violence between adults if she spends some unsupervised time with the father at present is not unacceptable given the lack of any recent history of the father being violent let alone violent in a domestic situation.
The family consultant said that there was a risk of [X] acting out if forced to spend time with the father and of the father not handling that well but this is not a major issue in this case because unless [X] can be made to engage in the preliminary steps of either counselling or supervised time this situation will never arise.
Parental Responsibility
The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in s.61DA of the Family Law Act does not apply because there has been family violence and in the end the father consented to the mother having sole parental responsibility.
I could have made no other order given that [X] will continue to live with the mother and that the mother and father have no capacity to communicate.
The father sought an order that the mother notify him if a major long term decision needed to be made about the child and allow time for him to provide input into the decision. This would require a level of communication which these parents simply do not have and a knowledge of [X] which the father does not have and I do not intend to make that order.
Conclusion
[X] has not spent time with her father for a number of years and this has its foundation in the fact that between 2010 and when he commenced proceedings in 2016 the father made either desultory or no efforts to spend time with her.
As a result the father is a stranger to [X].
That in itself is not fatal to him having a relationship with her in the future. Children can be re-introduced to parents and relationships rebuilt and I have seen that successfully happen. However a common factor in cases where re-introduction gets off the ground is the agreement of the resident parent to it being attempted and the willingness of the child to give it a go.
What confronts me in this case is a resident parent who makes absolutely no effort to disguise from either the court or her daughter her fierce opposition to the child spending time with the other parent and a child who has taken that on board and is adamant in her turn that she does not want to see the other parent.
I have some sympathy for the father. He was not completely frank about his perpetration of family violence but he made some admissions about it in cross-examination. There was no evidence of family violence in his current relationship and although he has not been consistent in wanting to spend time with his daughter, he has sought it on and off and I accept that he genuinely wishes to have a relationship with her.
I do not know how he would get on with [X] if I made an order that she spend time with him. They might not take to each other. The gap in them spending time with each other might be too big a gap to get over but they might find that they had things in common and get on well.
This case of course is about the child not father although adults often find the distinction difficult to draw but it will be a great loss for [X] if she never connects with her father and his family. She is an Aboriginal child and being connected with Aboriginal people through Mr Spurr is not the same as knowing where she comes from. One day she may be very proud to know that regardless of her feelings about the father.
The mother does not appear from her affidavit to have a strong connection with members of her own family and if the child is cut off from the father’s family as well, she could find herself very isolated if the mother’s relationship with Mr Spurr ends. Also while [X] has taken on her mother’s stance and rejected the idea of spending time with the father, at the same time she feels abandoned by him.
It is troubling that the mother is so unwilling to even contemplate that the father might have changed when she knows that Mr Spurr has changed after a period in his life when he too was violent to a domestic partner.
However there is a limit to what the court can do to promote a child having a relationship with both of her parents in the face of opposition as fierce as the mother’s when a change of residence is not an option.
The father certainly pushed the mother’s back hard against the wall by making his starting point in 2016 for [X] spending time with him in Town A. I do not necessarily blame him for that; when he filed his application it was only a little over two years since he had seen [X] and that application may have seemed a natural one to make, but by the time the mother was found and served, another six months had passed and the mother saw only that application and did not look behind it. She never stopped to consider whether some other form of introduction to the father might be appropriate, she just went into overdrive resisting [X] travelling to Town A.
Regrettable as it may be, the reality of the situation is that the mother has taken that stance however and has stamped her own views on [X]. The best I could order would be the counselling with a clinical psychologist as the family consultant recommended, and the chances of that succeeding given the mother’s vehemence is remote. It would be more likely to result only in the child being exposed to considerable stress and distress.
I could not make that as a final order, I would need to make it as an interim order and although I flagged during submissions the possibility of adopting that course, I would not be prepared to adopt it when the likelihood of the mother supporting the order was non-existent.
Every case turns on its own facts and a combination of facts leads me to the view that there would be no benefit to [X] in me trying to force the issue of her spending time with the father.
The mother is vehemently opposed to it and her attitude is not likely to change.
[X] has absorbed the mother’s attitude and is also vehemently opposed to spending time with the father. She would be acutely aware of the mother’s distress and anxiety around the issue and she is now 10 years old; she will be 11 in. She is of an age when physically forcing her to go into a room or go to a place where she does not want to go is becoming out of the question.
The family consultant pointed out in his report that there was for [X] an element of feeling that the father had abandoned her and that can lead to a child feeling unloved and unvalued. That makes it particularly sad that there is no likelihood of overcoming the mother’s resistance but it does not alter the fact that there is no such likelihood.
The father has to accept responsibility for what has happened. He let too much time pass in which he did little or nothing to rectify the situation. The last couple of years are not his fault; the matter has not sped through the court system. However between 2010 and 2015 he either marred the little time he spent with his daughter by being violent to her mother or he simply did nothing for lengthy periods. This has let the mother’s attitude to him and [X]’s absorption of that attitude become entrenched and unshakeable.
The father also does not properly accept responsibility for his violence. I do not accept that he has any real insight into its impact on the mother, he made limited admissions about it and he blamed the mother for not getting over what happened. He has not lain any groundwork which might lead to a softening of the mother’s attitude.
I do not have a solution to the problem which would not come at too high a cost for [X].
I am not going to make an order for no time and no communication with no “out” but I am going to make an order that the father spend no time with and have no communication with [X] except with the mother’s consent in writing which is almost the same thing but leaves the door open a chink.
I intend to make an order that the mother inform the father if the child is seriously injured or diagnosed with a serious illness, the reason being that in the event of such a dire situation people may wish to rethink their positions about whether any time or communication should occur.
I do not however intend to order that the father be able to obtain school reports or copies of school photographs and other information from the school. It would not benefit [X], it may give rise to resentment and it would serve no purpose if the father is not be seeing [X].
I also do not intend in the circumstances of this case to order that the father be permitted to send the child letters, cards or gifts.
This is a deeply troubling matter. The mother’s resistance to the child spending time with the father has a legitimate foundation in what she experienced at his hands but the father is not all bad. Part of the child’s identity is tied up in him, part of her is the father, and for the mother to demonise the father and recognise not an ounce of good in him has a strong potential to impact negatively on the child. In an ideal world the child would be given a photograph of the father and more balanced information about him so that she did not run the risk when she got older of feeling that she needed to reject parts of herself because they derived from the father, but we do not live in an ideal world. I cannot make an order which will deliver this outcome for [X].
The application to change the child’s surname
I accept the mother’s evidence that [X] identifies with the Spurr surname; she has been brought up in the Spurr family since she was about four. Her mother, siblings and step-father all have this surname and she uses it in a number of important areas of her life.
Arguments in favour of a change of surname are that issues may arise later on such as when the child is eligible for a drivers licence or if she obtains a passport. She may then wish to use the name that she has predominantly used as her surname.
Arguments against a change of surname are that [X] is managing at the moment without her surname being legally changed. The mother did not make an application about this when she filed her response in 2016. It was a last minute proposal when the trial commenced. This does not suggest that the surname issue is causing any particular problems for [X] or for her mother. To change the surname creates one more obstacle to [X] remembering her father.
The father’s counsel referred me in submissions to Darley & Darley,[16] a 2015 case where the mother sought to have children’s names changed to a hyphenated surname which included Darley but also another name of her choice. The father opposed the application and the judge in that case refused to sanction a change of surname.
[16] Darley & Darley [2015] FCCA317
The facts in that case included that the children identified with the surname Darley, that there was considerable lack of clarity about anyone’s identification with the other surname the mother proposed, that the father had an ongoing relationship with the children and that the father would be resentful and upset if the surname was changed and in the judge’s opinion might not be able to shield the children from his displeasure.
The Full Court recognised in Flanagan & Handcock[17] that every surname case turned on its own facts. The facts in this case are very different to the facts in Darley & Darley and although I have some concern about the father being expunged from the child’s identity by his surname ceasing to be used, I intend to bow to the reality that child is part of a family where all members but her use the surname Spurr and make an order that she be known by this surname. This does not fill me with enthusiasm but the situation in which [X] finds herself is not her fault, it will be more comfortable for her if she is able to use the same surname as the rest of her family and the father will remain on her birth certificate as her father so to that extent he will remain a known part of her identity.
[17] Flanagan & Handcock (2000) FLC 93-074
I have used a form of order for the change of surname which I am informed by the Queensland registry of this court is used in Queensland notwithstanding some disquiet about whether this is an appropriate circumstance to make a s. 106A order.
For all of the above reasons the orders of the court will be as set out at the beginning of this judgment.
I certify that the preceding two hundred and twenty nine (229) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Terry
Date: 5 July 2018
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
0
0
2