Harland and Harland

[2017] FamCA 54

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HARLAND & HARLAND [2017] FamCA 54

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim – Where the father seeks orders that the child live with him or in the alternative that he spend increased time with the child – Where the father makes that application based on evidence about the mother’s use of drugs at times when the child was in her care – Where the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer oppose the father’s application – Where no orders altering the current parenting arrangement are made – Where the mother seeks orders varying the current orders for urinalysis testing – Where orders are varied restricting the times when the father can give notice for urinalysis testing – Where the mother seeks an order that she be permitted to travel to New Zealand with the child to attend a wedding – Where the parties agree that the mother and the child can travel to New Zealand subject to certain conditions

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Harland

RESPONDENT: Ms Harland

FILE NUMBER: SYC 4699 of 2015

DATE DELIVERED: 9 February 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Canberra

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Watts J

HEARING DATE: 5 December 2016

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Lethbridge, SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: NLS Law

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Campton, SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mills Oakley Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Adams & Partners

Orders

1. Subject to the orders made on 5 December 2016, the father’s Further Amended Application in a Case filed on 11 December 2016 be dismissed.

2. Pursuant to the slip rule, order 5 made 5 December 2016 be amended to read:

   5.  I note that Mr H will be at the family function in New Zealand which is for the purpose of the mother’s trip to New Zealand between 9 and 14 December

(orders 5.12.16)

1. Orders 4 and 5 made by Senior Registrar Campbell on 15 November 2016 be varied as follows:

   1.1.Order 4 reads 48 hours and not 24 hours;

   1.2.There will be an additional order that the request by the father referred to in orders 4 and 5 not be made between 10am on a Friday and 5pm on a Saturday;

   1.3.Order 7 will be varied so that liberty is granted to the father as well as the Independent Children's Lawyer.

2. The child shall be permitted to travel with her mother to New Zealand for a family wedding to which J (the child) is to be a flower girl, between 9 December 2016 and 14 December 2016.

3. The father is not to give notice for urinalysis testing between 9am 8 December 2016 and midnight 14 December 2016.

4. By consent and without admissions, the mother is not to allow the child to have contact with Mr H and the mother is to ensure that no other person allows the child to have contact with Mr H.

5. I note that Mr H will be at the family function in New Zealand which is for the purpose of the mother’s trip to New Zealand between 9 and 14 December.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Harland & Harland has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT

FILE NUMBER: SYC 4699 of 2015

Mr Harland

Applicant

And

Ms Harland

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. On 5 December 2016 I made the orders set out above. I reserved my Reasons for those orders and now provide those Reasons. I also reserved my decision in relation to that part of the father’s application which was not covered by the orders made on that day. 

2. By way of Application in a Case filed 23 August 2016 the father seeks orders increasing his time with the parties’ child, J (“the child”), born in 2012, currently aged four. In an Amended Application in a Case filed 1 December 2016 the father seeks in addition that the child live with him or in the alternative live five days a fortnight with him, for the mother to undertake hair follicle and drug urinalysis testing and other orders. The orders sought in that Amended Application are set out in Schedule 1. The other orders the father sought related to special days, transportation and changeover and telephone calls. The mother’s response sought a blanket dismissal of the whole of the father’s application. The father did not make any submission in respect of these matters. I will dismiss those applications on the basis that the father did not press them, without precluding him from making any future application about those matters.

3. In her Amended Response filed 2 December 2016 the mother seeks orders for the father’s application to be dismissed. She also seeks:

   3.1.That pursuant to Section 65Y(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”), she be permitted to take the child out of the Commonwealth of Australia to New Zealand, departing Australia on 9 December 2016 and returning to Australia on 14 December 2016.

   3.2.That the child spend makeup time with the father, prior to the mother’s departure to New Zealand, on 8 December 2016, from 9am to 1pm.

   3.3.That Order 4 made on 15 November 2016 be varied to provide that, ‘The mother must submit to urinalysis under supervision upon request by the father with such testing to occur within three (3) days of the request being made….’

SHORT HISTORY

1. The father was born in 1975 and is currently 41 years old.

2. The mother was born in 1986 and is currently 30 years old.

3. In November 2010 the parties commenced cohabitation.

4. In 2011 the parties married.

5. In 2012 the child was born. She was almost four at the date of this hearing.

6. The mother says the parties separated on a final basis on 9 January 2015. The father says the parties separated on a final basis on 26 June 2015.

7. On 26 June 2015 the father moved out of the parties’ home. The mother and the child continue to live in the former matrimonial home in Suburb C. The father says (and the mother is silent about his evidence) that by agreement with the mother, between February 2015 and 28 December 2015 the child spent time with the father each alternate Friday from 9.00am until 5.00pm and each alternate weekend from 9.00am until Sunday afternoon.

8. On 25 and 27 December 2015 incidents occurred which are discussed below.

9. On 18 February 2016 following an interim hearing before Senior Registrar Campbell orders were made for the father to spend time with the child each Friday from 9am to 1pm and each alternate Saturday from 9am until Sunday at 4pm. Thus was a reduction of the child’s time with the father. There was no review of the Senior Registrar’s decision sought by the father.   

10. On 15 November 2016 orders were made restraining the parties by way of injunction from consuming alcohol, prohibited or prescribed drugs 24 hours prior to and during any time that the child was in their care. The mother was ordered to submit to urinalysis under supervision and chain of custody upon request by the father. The mother was also ordered to undertake hair follicle broad spectrum drug testing.

11. On 25 August 2016 the mother consumed cocaine while the child was in her care (discussed below).

SHOULD THERE BE A FUNDAMENTAL OR ANY CHANGE IN THE INTERIM PARENTING ARRANGEMENT?

1. The father seeks orders for the child to live with him and spend time with the mother. Both the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer oppose the father’s application for a change in the current interim order which provides the child is to mostly live with the mother.

2. The father makes his application primarily based on incidents that occurred around Christmas in 2015 and August 2016 which he says call into question the mother’s parenting capacity.

Events of Christmas 2015

1. These events took place prior to the previous interim hearing but the father submits that the court was misled by the mother regarding events that took place at her residence over the Christmas 2015 period which led to the father declining to return the child on 27 December 2015 as had previously been arranged. The father submits that documents subsequently produced on subpoena do not correspond with the version put forward by the mother at that hearing.

2. In her affidavit sworn 2 December 2016 the mother gives the following evidence:

   76. On 25 December 2015 I had family and friends over at the [Suburb C] property for a Christmas BBQ. The Christmas celebrations went late into the evening. I had four (4) glasses of wine on Christmas Day. One of the guests accidentally broke a glass cloche during the BBQ and the glass was swept to a corner of the room. The following day, I attended a Boxing Day BBQ at a friend’s home that I had been invited to. I drove to the BBQ. As I was driving, I had only one (1) glass of wine. I stayed at the BBQ for most of the day. I returned home late that evening and felt too tired to clean the house that day.

   77. The next day, on 27 December 2015, I spent the day relaxing from the Christmas festivities. I had not yet cleaned up the house from the Christmas Day BBQ. I took a nap late in the afternoon. I was woken up when I heard noises from the upstairs level. I walked upstairs to find [the father] and our friend, [Ms K] in the house. I understand that [the father] had a key which enabled access. I did not know [the father] had possession of a key. I informed [the father] and [Ms K] that I had been sleeping. He said to me words to the effect of: “I am not returning [the child] to you tonight.” [The father] then left. I was not intoxicated, medicated or under the influence of any drugs or alcohol at the time. 

3. The parties had previously agreed that the father would spend time with the child over Christmas and return her to the mother on 27 December 2015. The father gives evidence that when he attended the mother’s home on 27 December 2015 he could not contact or rouse the mother despite numerous attempts by him. The father subsequently called a neighbour, Ms K, to gain entry into the premises. When he saw the mother he says he formed the opinion that the mother was affected by alcohol or drugs. He says he also observed several empty alcohol bottles on the floor, some of which were smashed. The father subsequently retained the child.

4. On 28 December 2015, following some discussions, the father required the mother to sign an undertaking dealing with her use of prohibited substances. The mother signed the undertaking stating that she would not consume alcohol or drugs (prohibited or prescribed) 24 hours prior to and during any period of time when the child was in her care. The mother says she signed the undertaking under duress as she felt that the child would not be returned to her unless she signed the document.

5. Exhibit 13 contains the police event report for 25 December 2015. The report indicates that the police were contacted by a witness who advised that she could see a male threatening someone with a knife at the mother’s home. The police attended the mother’s home at 9.30am where the report states they “were greeted by a very intoxicated victim and witness. The victim had a minor scratch on his left arm and a small lump near his cheek. All parties present were well affected by alcohol and/or drugs and would not elaborate nor provide any further information other than it was an argument between friends that got out of hand.” The police noted that the mother “provided false details to police and appeared to be affected by illicit drugs”. No further action was taken by the police. This report was not available on 18 February 2016 when the current interim orders were made.

6. The mother does not mention the police attending her residence on Christmas Day in 2015 in her affidavit.

7. Senior counsel for the father submitted that the father’s evidence about his attendance on 27 December 2015 is consistent with the observations made by police on 25 December 2015, namely that the mother appeared affected by drugs or alcohol.

8. Senior counsel for the mother tendered an affidavit of Ms K, the neighbour who attended the mother’s property with the father on 27 December 2015 (Exhibit 12). In that affidavit, sworn 17 February 2016, Ms K states that on that occasion she observed the mother to look as though she had just woken up and “did not appear intoxicated or medicated”. She observed the mother to be tired but did not observe any smashed bottles or glass.

9. In the context of this interim hearing none of the evidence about events over Christmas 2015 has been tested. I am unable to say what version is to be preferred. Whilst the contents of Exhibit 13 raise concerns, the police took no action at the time.

Incidents on 23 – 25 August 2016

1. The mother concedes that she consumed cocaine on 25 August 2016. The father submits that her admission, when it is considered along with the evidence of Ms L, causes concern.

2. Ms L stayed with the mother and the child between 15 and 26 August 2016. In her affidavit filed 25 October 2016 Ms L gives evidence about certain incidents during this time:

   27.1.Ms L states that on 23 August 2016 she caused the mother’s dogs to bark when she returned to the mother’s house at about 3.00am. Ms L heard the child (then aged three years and eight months) crying so went into the child’s room. She says the child told her that she was “sad and scared”. The child subsequently stayed in Ms L’s room that evening. The mother says that Ms L did not inform her about this incident and says she has no knowledge of the child being “sad and scared”.

   27.2.On 24 August 2016 Ms L states that she returned to the mother’s house at about 2.00am. When she entered the house she found the child on the stairs crying. The child told Ms L that she had wet the bed and that her pants were wet. The mother then appeared and took the child back to bed. The mother denies seeing the child sitting on the stairs and crying. She also says that Ms L did not inform her of the alleged incident of the child wetting the bed and did not observe that the child had done so when she picked her up and returned her to bed.

   27.3.On the evening of 25 August 2016 Ms L says that the mother suggested that they take cocaine. Ms L says that Mr H (the mother’s partner at the time) supplied the cocaine. Ms L says that the mother held her in a headlock and told her not to tell the father about the cocaine and she agreed. The mother denies putting Ms L into a headlock. In her affidavit Ms L says that she observed the mother and Mr H inhaling lines of cocaine but does not in her affidavit state whether she also took cocaine. In an email to the father’s solicitor dated 1 September 2016 (Exhibit 15), Ms L says that she did consume cocaine that evening. Ms L then gives evidence of the mother telling her about a friend who was a private call girl and that Mr H spoke about his and the mother’s sexual relationship. Ms L also states that Mr H spoke to her about how to discipline the child. The mother denies these conversations occurred. Ms L says the mother said to her words to the effect of, “I don’t know how to manage [the child’s] behaviour anymore. I have tried time out and I’ve even locked her in the bathroom”. The mother agrees that she implements timeout as a disciplinary strategy but denies ever locking the child in a bathroom.

   27.4.Ms L concludes the email dated 1 September 2016 (Exhibit 15) by stating: “I am concerned now, about how I will manage the back lash that will no doubt unfold from this. But I will stand by this as I believe [the mother] needs help to detox and [the child] needs to feel safe and supported. I have seen [the mother] is a good mother and loves [the child] very very much though at this point in time seems to be behaving reckless, which maybe a cry for help. [The mother] has always come across as being overwhelmed ever since I have known her”.

3. The mother gives evidence that on the evening of 25 August 2016, it was Ms L who suggested they have cocaine. She agrees that it was Mr H who supplied the cocaine and that the three of them each ingested cocaine. No evidence was tendered by Mr H.

4. Again in the context of an interim hearing, there has been no testing of the conflicting evidence of Ms L and the mother and I am unable to make any findings about that evidence.

5. Senior counsel for the mother submitted that the mother expresses her regret at using cocaine on this occasion and acknowledges that it was not an appropriate thing to do. He submitted that there is no indication in the evidence that the mother could not have met the child’s needs if she awoke.

6. The mother alleges that the father has caused surveillance or monitoring to be undertaken of her. The father denies this allegation. Senior counsel for the father submitted that there were potentially three possibilities:

   31.1.The father is causing or has caused surveillance of the mother either directly at his request or through somebody acting on his behalf; or

   31.2.There is somebody else who is causing surveillance of the mother; or

   31.3.There is no surveillance being undertaken of the mother which may be indicative of the mother being paranoid which is also a matter of concern.

7. Senior counsel for the mother indicated that a subpoena had been issued that is aimed at further exploring this issue. This is not a matter about which I can make a finding.

8. The mother has been substantially responsible for the child’s care since her birth.  At the time of this interim hearing the father was spending one night per fortnight with the child and each Friday morning when he takes the child to a swimming lesson. There is no current order for equal shared parental responsibility.

9. I granted senior counsel for the mother limited leave to rely on the report of Ms M, psychologist, as untested evidence. Ms M had previously seen the parties for counselling prior to writing the report but had not remembered she had done so prior to agreeing to prepare the report. In her report Ms M opines that there is potential for significant impact and negative consequences to the child at her age if she were removed from her primary attachment. 

10. Even without this evidence, I infer in the context of this interim hearing that there may be significant impact on a child aged four years if removed from a parent with whom she has her primary attachment.

11. In the Child Responsive Program Memorandum dated 29 June 2016 the Family Consultant opines:

    [The child] appears to be generally developing well. There are no indications at this stage that she is suffering any adverse effects as a result of her parents’ separation or as a result of either parent’s alleged behaviour. [The child] appears to be maintaining meaningful relationships with both of her parents. [The child’s] stage of development and her relationship with her father indicate that she could potentially benefit from spending some more time with him but the current amount of time would be sufficient for her to maintain a relationship with him in the interim, albeit a somewhat limited one.

    …

    There are two significant alleged risk factors that may lead to [the child] being at risk of harm and also impact upon the co-parenting relationship if [the father’s] account of [the mother’s] use of alcohol and drugs and abusive behaviour is accurate, [the child] may be at risk due to exposure to such behaviour, neglect and emotional unavailability of her mother. It is noted that [the father] did not indicate that these issues are necessarily current. If [the mother’s] account of [the father’s] abusive behaviour is accurate, [the child] may be at risk due to exposure to such behaviour and emotional unavailability of her father. It is noted that [the mother’s] description of [the father’s] behaviour might be a coercive-controlling type of violence.

1. The mother makes allegations of family violence against the father which he denies. Again I am unable to make findings in relation to those allegations.

2. Senior counsel for the father submitted that if no orders were made altering the child’s residence then orders should be made increasing the father’s time with the child to no less than five nights per fortnight. The mother opposed this alternative application.

3. In relation to the increase in time, Ms M opines in her report that “it is likely to be difficult for a 3 year old to make the transition from spending one night away from her primary carer to having to do so for four nights. This may well be a goal to consider for the future but would need to be done gradually over a longer period of time so that [the child] has the developmental capacity to manage the change”. She concludes that in the absence of parental cooperation, as in this case, “extreme caution needs to be exercised in changing parenting plans to ensure that [the child] is protected from the increased risk of current and future difficulties in attachment and emotional dysregulation”.

4. The mother seeks to retain the status quo and submits that the father’s proposal would be a radical change in the child’s routine. Senior counsel for the mother submitted that this position was consistent with the views of the family consultant, that is, that the child is happy and content in the mother’s primary care.

5. The Independent Children’s Lawyer proposed a change in the current arrangements to increase the father’s time with the child by commencing the father’s time with the child on a Thursday and thus reducing the changeovers from six to four in a fortnight. As I understand this proposal, the child would spend three nights each fortnight with the father rather than the current one night. Senior counsel for the mother submitted that the proposal did not take into account the detailed evidence set out in the mother’s affidavit about the child’s routine and was not age and developmentally appropriate.

6. Senior counsel for the father submitted that while the mother’s drug use can be monitored, there are other difficulties as outlined by Ms L in terms of the mother’s ability to cope with caring for the child which cannot be monitored. As indicated I can have little regard to Ms L’s disputed evidence.

7. Pursuant to the current orders, the father has the opportunity to observe the mother twice in one week and four times in another week. He provides no evidence (other than the incident on 27 December 2015) of the mother being in a drug or alcohol affected state on any of those changeover occasions.

8. Order 7 of the orders made on 15 November 2016 provides the father liberty to restore the matter on short notice should there be any indication from the results of the drug and alcohol testing of any continuing drug or alcohol use that may impact on the best interests of the child. The mother had no objection to that order being varied so that the Independent Children’s Lawyer also has liberty to restore the matter.

9. I am unable to find at this stage it is in the child’s best interests to make any orders altering the child’s primary place of residence or the child’s time with the father as determined by the interim orders made by the Senior Registrar. 

URINALYSIS TESTING

1. To date the mother has complied with each test request and has ensured the results are available in accordance with the 15 November 2016 orders. Each test has returned a negative result. The father stated that he had been requesting, pursuant to the orders, for the mother to undertake urinalysis testing once every seven days.

2. The parties agreed to vary order 4 of the 15 November 2016 orders to resolve an inconsistency with order 5  so that the mother was to submit to urinalysis testing within 48 hours of receiving a request.

3. The mother seeks an order varying the current orders for urinalysis testing. She seeks that order 4 be varied so that she must submit to urinalysis testing within three days of a request being made rather than within 48 hours. Senior counsel for the mother submitted that requests for the mother to undertake urinalysis testing are usually made on a Friday afternoon requiring the mother to take a test by Sunday afternoon at the latest. The mother’s general practitioner is not available on a Sunday. The mother says she is required to attend upon her general practitioner to satisfy the supervision and chain of custody requirements.

4. The father opposes the mother’s application to vary the orders. Senior counsel for the father submitted that there was no requirement for the mother to attend upon her general practitioner to undergo the testing rather she could attend upon another facility where urinalysis testing was available. Senior counsel for the father also submitted that there was concern that if the mother had three days in which to return a test, the results may not be effective.

5. I will make an order varying the orders made by Senior Registrar Campbell on 15 November 2016 so that no requests can be made by the father for the mother to undergo urinalysis testing between 10.00am Friday and 5.00pm Saturday to eliminate the issue of the mother attending upon her general practitioner on the weekend. 

TRAVEL TO NEW ZEALAND

1. The mother seeks an order that she be permitted to travel to New Zealand with the child from 9 December 2016 to 14 December 2016 to attend a wedding at which the child has been invited to be a flower girl.

2. Senior counsel for the father submitted that the father has no concerns that the mother is a flight risk however the father has concerns about the mother taking the child overseas in circumstances where there was no information that there was a facility to implement the orders for urinalysis testing. The father also had concerns about the mother and child coming into contact with Mr H at the wedding (the mother conceded that Mr H was to be in attendance) due to the evidence that Mr H had supplied cocaine to the mother.

3. The first issue was resolved by the parties agreeing that an order should be made that the father is not to give notice for urinalysis testing to be undertaken by the mother between 9am 8 December 2016 and midnight 14 December 2016.

4. The mother and Mr H were previously in a relationship but this has now ended. At present, the mother has a short term work contract with Mr H which she says will be shortly completed. The mother says that since they ended their relationship, Mr H has accidentally come into contact with the child on one occasion when she accompanied the mother to her workplace. Senior counsel for the mother indicated that the mother did not intend to resume a relationship with Mr H.

5. The mother agreed without admissions to an order that she would not allow the child to have contact with Mr H. She said that she would ensure no contact occurred between him and the child at the wedding in New Zealand as she would remain with the child at all times. Senior counsel for the mother indicated that the mother would communicate with Mr H and advise him that an order has been made that he not have contact with the child. Senior counsel for the father stated that such an order would resolve the father’s concerns about the mother travelling to New Zealand.

6. The mother’s proposal in the mother’s Amended Response for the father to have make-up time with the child was accepted by the father and I note that agreement.

I certify that the preceding fifty-six (56) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Watts delivered on 9 February 2017

Associate: 

Date:  9.2.2017

SCHEDULE 1

A. INTERIM PARENTING ORDERS

Pending Further Order:

1. That the orders of 15 November 2016 are confirmed and all other parenting orders are discharged.

2. That the child, the child J (dob: … 2012) (“the child”) live with the father.

3. That the child spends time with her mother as follows:

   a.Commencing 6 December 2016 on Tuesday at 9.00am until Wednesday at 5.00pm and each week thereafter;

   b.Commencing 16 December 2016 on Saturday at 9.00am until Monday at 9.00am or the commencement of day care and each alternate week thereafter;

4. For the purposes of changeover; the Mother is to collect the child from one of the following venues at the commencement of her time with the child

   a.If on a child care day, N Child Care.

   b.Suburb C Pavilion, Suburb C; or

   c.any other venue, as agreed between the Parties from time to time.

5. For the purposes of changeover above, the Mother is to return the child to one of the following venues at the conclusion of her time with the child:

   a.If on a child care day, N Child Care.

   b.Suburb C Pavilion, Suburb C or

   c.any other venue, as agreed between the Parties from time to time.

6. Either party may communicate with the child at any reasonable time whilst the child is with the other parent and such communication will be facilitated by telephone communication or some other form of electronic media device.

7. The child may communicate with either parent at such times as she wishes whilst the child is with either parent and both parents shall facilitate and encourage such communication by telephone communication or some other form of electronic media device.

8. For the child’s Birthday … the parent who does not have the care of the child, spends time with her at 4.00pm until 7.00pm

9. For the Father’s Birthday in the event that the father does not have the care of the child, the child spends time with him as agreed between the parties and failing agreement:

   i.if such day falls on a day care day / school day for the child then from after day care / school until 7.00 pm that day; and

   ii.if such a day falls on a weekend or a day when the child is not otherwise at day care from 9.00 am until 5.00 pm that day.

10. for the Mother’s Birthday in the event that she does not have the care of the child, the child spends as agreed between the parties and failing agreement:

    i.if such day falls on a day care day / school day for the child then from after day care / school until 7.00 pm that day; and

    ii.if such a day falls on a weekend or a day when the child is not otherwise at day care from 9.00 am until 5.00 pm that day.

11. For Mother’s day weekend, the child spend time with the Mother from Saturday 9.00am until Monday the commencement of preschool.

12. The time that the child spends with the Mother is suspended on the Father’s day weekend from 9.00am Saturday until Monday the commencement of preschool

13. The Mother is restrained and an injunction granted from taking the child to New Zealand in December 2016.

14. All orders for the child to spend time with the mother are suspended in the event that the following occurs:

    i.The Mother returns a test result positive for an illicit substance.

    ii.The Mother fails to provide a sample or obtain or serve a report as required by Orders 15 November 2016.

    iii.The Mother provides a sample which returns w test which has dilute creatinine or irregular temperature or any other irregularities with the sample produced.

    iv.The Mother does anything that may affect the integrity of any hair follicle test or urinalysis screen.

    v.The Mother consumes alcohol to excess twenty-four (24) hours prior to and during any time that the child is in her care.

    vi.The mother is otherwise in breach of Orders 2 (b), (c) and (d).

15. The parties each have liberty to apply for the matter to be relisted in circumstances where the child is not spending time with the mother.

Should the Court not make the Orders 2, 3, 4 and 5 above then in the alternate the court makes the following orders in addition to Orders 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13

1. That the child lives with the Mother.

2. That the child spends time with the Father as follows:

   a.Commencing 9 December 2016, on Friday at 9.00am until Monday the commencement of child care and if Monday is a public holiday until 5.00pm and each alternate week thereafter

   b.Commencing 15 December 2016, on Thursday after child care until Saturday 9.00am and each alternate week thereafter and;

   c.On 12 January 2017 at 9.00am until 23 January 2017 at 5.00pm

   d.At other times as agreed upon in writing between the parties

3. For the purpose of Christmas day, the child is with the Mother from 4.00 on 25 December until Boxing day.

4. For the purposes of changeover; the Father is to collect the child from one of the following venues at the commencement of her time with the child

   a.If on a child care day, N Child Care.

   b.Suburb C Pavilion, Suburb C; or

   c.any other venue, as agreed between the Parties from time to time.

5. For the purposes of changeover above, the Father is to return the child to one of the following venues at the conclusion of her time with the child:

   a.If on a child care day, N Child Care.

   b.Suburb C Pavilion, Suburb C or

   c.any other venue, as agreed between the Parties from time to time.

6. All orders for the child to live with the mother are suspended and the child lives with the father in the event that the following occurs:

   i.The Mother returned a test positive result for an illicit substance;

   ii.The Mother fails to provide a sample or obtain a report as required by Orders 15 November 2016

   iii.The Mother provides a sample which returns a test which has dilute creatinine or irregular temperature or any other irregularities with the sample produced

   iv.The Mother does anything that may affect the integrity of any hair follicle test or urinalysis screen.

   v.The Mother consumes alcohol to excess twenty-four (24) hours prior to and during anytime that the child is in her care.

   vi.The Mother is otherwise in breach of Order 2 (b) (c) and (d)

7. The parties each have liberty to apply for the matter to be relisted in circumstances where the child is not living with the mother.