Haywood and Wilde

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HAYWOOD & WILDE

[2014] FCCA 1102

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – relocation – whether children aged 9 and 7 should live with the mother in the Northern Territory or the father on the Central Coast.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.60CC, 61DA, 65DAA

Mazorski & Albright (2007)37FamLR 518
Morgan & Miles (2007) FamCA 1230

Applicant:

MR HAYWOOD

Respondent:

MS WILDE

File Number:

NCC 1478 of 2013

Judgment of:

Judge Terry

Hearing dates:

28, 29, 30 April 2014

Date of Last Submission:

30 April 2014

Delivered at:

Newcastle

Delivered on:

5 May 2014

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Boyd

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Legal Aid NSW

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Duane

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Felicio Law Firm

ORDERS

MADE 29 MAY 2014

The parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children X born (omitted) 2004 and Y born (omitted) 2006 (“the children”).
The children live with the father.
The children spend time with the mother as follows:
3.1During the Term 1, 2 & 3 school holidays for the school(s) the children attend from the first Saturday of the holidays to the last Tuesday of the holidays.
3.2During the Term 4 school holidays for the school(s) the children attend for half of that school holiday period as follows:
3.2.1In 2014 and each even numbered year, the second half;
3.2.2In 2015 and each odd numbered year, the first half;
3.2.3the time at 3.2.1 above shall commence on the day that represents the midpoint of the time period.
3.2.4the time at 3.2.2 above shall commence on the first day after the school(s) officially break up and end on the day which represents the midpoint of the time period.
3.3During school terms:
3.3.1The mother may spend time with the children on the Central Coast for up to 3 weekends during a school term from a Friday after school to Monday morning before school; OR
3.3.2The mother may spend time with the children for up to two x 4 night periods on the Central Coast during the weekdays/weekends providing the children are not absent from school during those times; OR
3.3.3The mother may choose to have a mix of time periods at 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 so the maximum nights the children will spend away from their primary residence for this purpose is not more than 9 nights during any school term; and
3.3.4In any event, the mother shall give the father 14 days written notice of her intentions to spend time with the children during school terms including the dates and times of those periods of times.
3.4At such additional or alternate times as may be agreed between the parties.
For the purposes of the children spending time with the mother
4.1the mother is responsible for the payment of all return airfares for the children between Sydney/Newcastle and Darwin;
4.2the father is responsible for making appropriate arrangements for the children’s transfers to and from their residence to Sydney or Newcastle airport.
The time with the mother during school holidays (order 3.1) may be spent on the Central Coast or in Darwin.
If the time with the mother during school holidays (order 3.1) is not to be spent on the Central Coast or in Darwin, the mother shall provide the father with 28 days written notice of her intention to travel with the children within the Commonwealth of Australia or outside of the Commonwealth of Australia, and provide the father with their travel itinerary and contact details and copies of the children’s air tickets, if applicable for that period of time.
For the purposes of communicating information about the children the mother and the father shall:
7.1Communicate by telephone matters of an urgent nature and otherwise;
7.2Communicate about day to day matters concerning the children including their arrangements by SMS text message or by telephone.
Each parent shall ensure that the other parent is kept informed of:
8.1Any medical problems or illnesses suffered by the child/ren;
8.2Any medication that has been prescribed for the child/ren which a parent or carer will be required to administer to the child/ren whilst they are in their care
8.3Any social, school or religious functions which the child/ren are to attend;
8.4The residential address and telephone number of the parent; and
8.5Any other matter which may impact on the welfare of the child/ren.
The parents shall each be entitled to attend all events involving the chid/ren where parents are invited to attend, whether those events fall on a week day or a weekend including:
9.1Sporting activities and fixtures;
9.2Extra-curricular activities, including but not limited to religious activities, that allow for parental attendance;
9.3School functions and events that allow for parental attendance but not limited to concerts, assemblies, sports days, parent and teacher interviews, canteen duties and social functions; and
9.4The parent who has the children in their care on the day of such activity will be responsible for their day to day care at such events and the children’s transportation to and from that event.
Each parent shall ensure that the other parent is advised of any medical or other emergency concerning either or both children within one (1) hour of such emergency or as soon as practicable, and each parent shall be at liberty to consult with any medical practitioner that attends upon the child in those circumstances.
The mother may communicate with the children when they are with the father by telephoning the father’s mobile phone each Monday, Wednesday and Saturday and the telephone call should commence between 6.30pm and 7.30pm (Eastern Standard Daylight Saving Time or Eastern Standard Time) and if the children will not be within mobile service area during that time the father will notify the mother prior to that time and make an arrangement with the mother to contact the children for a telephone call at the next practicable time.
When the children are spending time with the mother the father may communicate with the children by telephoning the mother’s mobile phone each Monday, Wednesday and Saturday and the telephone call should commence between 6.30pm and 7.30pm (Eastern Standard Daylight Saving Time or Eastern Standard Time) and if the children will not be within mobile service area during that time the mother will notify the father prior to that time and make an arrangement with the father to contact the children for a telephone call at the next practicable time.
When the children are speaking with a parent on the telephone the phone shall not be placed on speaker phone mode.
In the event that the father wishes to take the children on an overseas holiday during the times the children would normally be living with him he shall provide the mother with 28 days written notice and provide the mother with their travel itinerary and contact details and copies of the children’s air tickets, if applicable, for that period of time.
If the mother is on the Central Coast at Christmas time in years that she is not usually spending time with the children in accordance with these orders she is at liberty to spend time with the children for 3 hours on Christmas Day and failing agreement as to the times, from 10.00am until 1.00pm.

NOTATIONS:

A.The children may spend regular time with the maternal grandparents and extended maternal family and for such purposes the family member seeking time with the children shall make contact with the father to make such arrangements with 7 days’ notice and if the children already have activities arranged for the requested period of time the father and the family member may make some arrangements for the children to spend time with that person on some other suitable date.
B.Each parent is at liberty to make contact with the children by way of Skype communication on two (2) occasions each week when the children are living with the other parent.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT NEWCASTLE

NCC 1478 of 2013

MR HAYWOOD

Applicant

And

MS WILDE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

These reasons for judgment were delivered orally and have been corrected from the transcript. Grammatical errors have been corrected and an attempt made to render the decision amendable to being read.
I have before me parenting applications in relation to X, 9, and Y, 7. The dispute is about whether X and Y should live with the father on the Central Coast or with the mother in the Northern Territory.
It is a sad case because as it progressed it became clear that there were two major issues tugging in opposite directions.
One was the children’s attachment to the mother, who has been their primary carer for most of their lives, and the other was the risk that if the children went to live with the mother in the Northern Territory that she would not promote a relationship between the father and the children and comply with orders about the children spending time with the father.
There are other issues in the case of course but those two issues stood out.
It is also a sad case because the children will be the losers no matter what order the court makes.

The Evidence

The father relied on his Amending Initiating Application filed on 3 April 2013, his affidavit filed on 2 April 2014 and the affidavits of the paternal grandfather Mr H and his sister-in-law Ms L filed on 3 April 2014.
He also relied on a report from Dr B dated 10 April 2014 concerning his health.
The mother relied on her affidavit and the affidavits of her partner, Mr B and the paternal grandfather Mr M which were all filed on 28 April 2014.
Mr N, a Regulation 7 Family Consultant, prepared a family report after interviews in October 2013.
The father, the mother, Dr B, Mr B and Mr N were cross-examined.
Mr Haywood, Mrs Haywood and Mr M were not required and in my view the decision by counsel not to cross-examine them was a very sensible decision. One thing which stood out in their affidavits was that although they all had some negative things to say about the party who was not a member of their family there was a pleasing lack of animosity generally displayed in those affidavits toward that other party.

The parties as witnesses

I had some concerns about the credit of both the father and the mother.
The father told Mr N that there had been no assault charges against him but he assaulted a previous partner in 1997. The charges were dropped, so technically the father was being honest when he told Mr N there were no charges against him, but the assault was serious and in my view his failure to reveal that incident to Mr N means that he was less than frank with Mr N.
The mother’s evidence about what occurred between January and June 2013 in connection with the children spending time with the father was misleading. She made out in her affidavit that her refusal to allow the children to spend time with the father during this period was all about the father’s health but it was clear from the text messages that were tendered and from the mother’s answers in cross-examination that this was only one issue and not the original issue.
There was a flavour therefore in the evidence of both parties of them tailoring their evidence to create the best possible impression of themselves and to obscure anything which might go against them and I will have to bear that in mind when I come to assess the evidence and what I do with it later in the decision.

Background

The mother and father were in a relationship between 2003 and either December 2007 or August 2008, and it really does not matter after this length of time which date of separation is correct. They have two children: X, born on (omitted) 2004, and Y, born on (omitted) 2006. Whatever the date of separation Y was under 2 and X under 4 when the parties separated.
The father has an older child, A, born in 1996. He separated from A’s mother when A was very young but he has spent regular time with A throughout A’s life. It was alternate weekend time originally and some school holiday time and then it was school holiday time only after A and his mother moved to Queensland when A was about 14 or 15.
I consider it likely that the mother was X and Y’s primary carer prior to separation. There was a little bit of dispute about this but I consider that likely. The mother took two lengthy periods of maternity leave it would seem and the father had a (omitted) business which would have kept him somewhat busy. I consider it likely that the mother was the primary carer but I also accept that the father was involved in the care of the children.
After separation the children lived with the mother and spent time with the father.
The parties were living in (omitted) when they separated but they both had strong ties on the Central Coast and the mother returned there immediately after separation and the father followed her back. The father said that once the parties were both back on the Central Coast the time was each alternate weekend and I consider this likely to be true.
The mother tried to create the impression that the father was somewhat unreliable about spending time with the children but on the whole of the evidence I consider it likely that the parties’ disputes were over niggling little things like pick-up and drop-off times and that those were the issues rather than the father letting extensive amounts of time go by when he didn’t see the children at all.
The mother said that the father spent no time with the children when he went to (omitted) with a girlfriend. The father said that he was only there for two months and travelled back on alternate weekends. I consider the father’s version of events, that he travelled back to spend time with the children, more likely than not to be true given his level of interest in spending regular time with all three of his sons throughout their lives.
In 2009 the parties attended mediation about parenting arrangements. A parenting plan was prepared but not signed. There was a dispute between the parties after this about holiday time, and in particular about whether the father declined the opportunity to have holiday time or whether the mother refused to allow him to have it. I cannot make any findings about where the truth lies about that; there is simply not sufficient detailed evidence to assist me there.
From separation, whenever it might have been in 2007 or 2008, until January 2013, I am satisfied that the father spent regular time with the children, but in January 2013 the mother stopped allowing the children to spend time with him. I will return to the issue of why later but the fact is that between about late January and June 2013 the children spent only one day (oddly enough Mother’s Day) with the father and saw him on another occasion which was facilitated by the maternal grandparents not the mother.
The mother formed a relationship with Mr B in about September 2012 and sometime around March 2013, and again fixing the exact date will not assist, they started living together.
Mr B, at the time he commenced a relationship with the mother, was a fly-in-fly-out worker for a company which was working in (omitted) in Western Australia.
Mr B was based in (omitted) when in New South Wales and the mother and Mr B felt that fly-in-fly-out was not conducive to their relationship.
The mother at the same time or around the same time was unhappy or concerned about her situation at work and the mother and Mr B both began looking for work away from the Central Coast. They looked in (omitted) and (omitted) and eventually in Darwin, and they decided that Darwin was the place where they would both be able to obtain work and where they would like to go.
In April 2013 the mother rang the father about moving interstate. I think that at that time the suggestion may have been (omitted) or (omitted). In May she rang him again and according to the father told him that she and Mr B were moving to Darwin in mid-July.
The father said that he was taken aback and did not initially say much one way or the other and that a couple of days later he told the mother that he did not agree to her taking the children to Darwin. The mother said that the father initially consented and two days later said that he changed his mind.
I cannot make any findings about where the truth lies there and in my view not a lot turns on it. It is possible that both parents are telling the truth as they perceive it: that the mother may have misinterpreted the father’s silence or noncommittal response to the proposal as consent when it was not. In any event the father almost immediately commenced proceedings seeking orders designed to stop the mother from taking the children away from the Central Coast.
On the first return date of the proceedings the mother made it clear that she was going to the Northern Territory regardless of whether she could take the children and an interim order was made that the children live with the father on the Central Coast and spend time with the mother during school holidays. An order was also made for telephone communication.
The mother said during cross-examination that she did not anticipate that the court would refuse to allow her to take the children to Darwin given that she had always been their primary carer. In the light of cases such as Morgan & Miles[1] it is difficult to see how the mother, properly advised, would not have anticipated that this was possible indeed even a likely outcome at an interim stage.
[1] Morgan & Miles (2007) FamCA 1230
In any event interim orders were made that the children were to live with the father on the Central Coast pending a final hearing and the mother did exactly as she said she would and relocated to Darwin on 12 July 2013. She has remained there pending the final hearing.
A family report was ordered. It did not assist the matter to settle and the matter was listed for hearing.
The parties’ positions at hearing were similar to what they were at the beginning of the matter but not identical. The mother still sought an order that the children live with her in Darwin. The father originally proposed that the children live with the mother and spend time with him if the mother lived on the Central Coast but he changed that position and said that he now sought an order that the children live with him and spend time with the mother regardless of whether the mother decided to return to the Central Coast or not.

The father’s circumstances

The father is 41. He lives on the Central Coast and as far as I can gather has done so for most of his life.
The father’s family is on the Central Coast: the paternal grandfather, father in particular and the father’s brother and his brother’s wife Ms L and their children aged 9 and 4. There was evidence in Mrs Haywood’s affidavit of regular interaction between her family and her children and the father’s children. It was not challenged and I accept that evidence.
The father has re-partnered with Ms R. Ms R did not give evidence and sometimes that is concerning in a case of this nature but in this particular case I am not concerned about it. That is because the mother raised no issue about the father’s partner and there was no suggestion that the children had any issue with her.
Ms R has her own home. She has two children and she and her children spend some time at the father’s home and sometimes the father and his children spend time at Ms R’s home.
Ms R appears to be very interested in the children, because in the period between January and June 2013 when the mother would not allow the children to visit the father she made her own arrangement to go to the mother’s house so that her children could see the boys.

The father is renting a two-bedroom cottage near the beach at (omitted). It is adequate for him and the children but it is very crowded when his partner and her children visit.
An important fact about the father is that in about 1998 he had a number of grand mal seizures and on investigation it was found that he had a brain tumour. The brain tumour was assessed to be inoperable and the father has had a number of different treatments over the years in relation to the tumour and in an effort to control the seizures which it causes.
Grand mal seizures, when and if they occur, are completely disabling, but after the father’s initial treatment his seizures were mostly in the nature of him having an aura followed sometimes but not always by a focal seizure.
Focal seizures do not completely disable the father. If he has one his head turns to the right and he cannot prevent that happening but he is conscious of what is going on around him and the seizure only has control of him, if you like, for a very limited period of time.
The father has had treatment over the years for the brain tumour and for the purpose of trying to deal with the seizures and there have been periods of time it would appear when he has not had seizures.
The father had a seizure or seizures in 2012 and a number of seizures on several different occasions in 2013.
On 2 May 2013 he had a focal seizure while riding his motor scooter which resulted in him having an accident. He then had three seizures on his birthday in September 2013 and at that stage it was decided by his medical team that he should be given radiation treatment.
The father had the radiation treatment over a number of weeks and since the end of that treatment he has had no seizures.
Dr B was a very impressive witness. He said that the father had had an excellent response to the radiation treatment and that there had been a 30 per cent reduction in the size of his tumour and the tumour was not active.
Dr B said that there were hopeful signs that the seizure activity may now be completely under control although he could not say for sure and he said that it was reasonable to expect that the father would have a life expectancy of at least 10 to 15 years.
The father currently does not have a driver’s licence as a result of the incident in May 2013 but Dr B considered it likely that the father would be able to get his licence back in the not too distant future due to the fact that the seizure activity had now been effectively controlled.
The father is in receipt of a Disability Support Pension. He has worked as a (omitted) in the past but has not worked full time for some years. He said that he stopped work in 2010 when he began experimental chemotherapy which lasted for 12 months and he was too tired when undertaking the radiation to do much work outside the home.
The father has done some work at odd times although it is difficult on the state of the evidence to get an idea of how often that might have been. It seems to have been irregular. He is on a Disability Support Pension and there was no evidence to suggest that he was likely to return to full-time work in the future or even to regular part-time work.
An issue raised in the case was whether the father could relocate to Darwin. He does not have ties of home ownership or employment to prevent him doing so. He has a partner but he does not live with her and in theory the father relocating to Darwin is something which is feasible.
In my view however it would not be reasonable to ask the father to consider doing this.
It is not just that he has always lived on the Central Coast and has family there. His treating medical team are on the Central Coast. The maternal and paternal family are close by so that if the father needs assistance as a result of his illness, although hopefully he will not in the immediate future, he has support there.
The father has never been to Darwin. It is a very different place to the Central Coast. If the father moved to Darwin he would know no one there and he would not be able to work and establish ties in the community that way.
I accept that it would not be reasonable to ask the father to solve the problem of the children’s parenting arrangements by moving to Darwin.

The mother’s circumstances

The mother is 36. She lives in (omitted), which is a suburb of (omitted), a satellite city near Darwin.
The mother lives with Mr B and has been employed since about September 2013 in a (omitted) job. It is a good job compared to what would be available to her in New South Wales. Mr B also has a good job and he works out of Darwin.
The mother and Mr B are renting what would appear from photographs to be a very pleasant home in (omitted) and the mother would like to buy a home in the future. It is fair to say that the mother is ambitious and is motivated to get ahead with her employment and financially.
The mother was asked if she could move back to the Central Coast. Mr B was previously doing fly-in fly-out work from (omitted) and the mother had a job on the Central Coast. Her family live there. She knows that area and she would be comfortable there from that perspective. The mother said however that it would be difficult for her to obtain the kind of employment she wanted on the Central Coast and that may well be true.
The mother was cross-examined about whether she could get work in Sydney and I cannot come to a concluded view about whether that might be possible but the mother has now been in the Northern Territory for nine months. She likes it there. She has a better job there at a higher level and possibly with better pay than she could get in New South Wales. It is not unreasonable for the mother to want to make her own decisions about where she should live and it is not unreasonable for her to want to have the opportunity to get ahead financially if she can.
The mother has no health problems.
The final issue in relation to the mother is that Mr B has a seven year old son, B, who lives with Mr B’s former partner and spends time with Mr B regularly during the holidays.

The children’s best interests

Any orders that I make about X and Y must be orders determined by treating their best interests as the paramount consideration, although in a relocation case – and in some respects this is a relocation case – I must also have regard to people’s right of freedom of movement and for that reason that I am not critical of the mother for making the choice to live in the Northern Territory. That is her choice. She has made it for a good reason and she is free to make it.
In order to determine the children’s best interests I must have regard to the considerations in s.60CC(2) & (3) of the Family Law Act and the primary considerations in s.60CC(2) are:
a)the benefit to the children of having a meaningful relationship with both of the children’s parents; and
b)the need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.
I have to treat as the most important consideration the need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence and I am going to deal with that issue first and see where that primary consideration takes me in this particular case.
There was evidence that the father had committed at least one act of violence. In 1997 he was charged with punching his then domestic partner in the face three times. She went to hospital to seek treatment and the father was spoken to by the police and arrested and charged. The charges were dropped but there is no doubt in my mind that this event occurred and the fact that the father’s domestic partner chose to drop the charges, which sometimes happens in these cases, does not make the situation any less serious.
The father has also been involved in some other incidents. Police records show that in 2001 A’s mother called the police after the father went round to her unit in the early hours of the morning. The father said that he was not aware that the police had been called and he did not seem to remember much if anything about the incident. It is there in the police records and I am satisfied that it occurred but it is possible that the police did not speak to the father; I cannot determine from the records whether they did or not.
A’s mother alleged that her car was damaged although she could not be certain that the father had done it. I cannot be certain of that either but the entry and the police records suggests that the father made a bit of a nuisance of himself in the early hours of the morning.
There is then a reference in the police records to what I will call the letterbox incident but that is all a bit mysterious and I do not think there is anything I can make of that.
The mother alleged that in about 2007 or 2008 the father was violent to her on a couple of occasions. She alleged that he threatened to slit her throat open with a butter knife and that in 2007 he grabbed her and pushed her against a wall and there was another incident in which he allegedly grabbed and pushed her.
The mother also alleged there was an incident in 2009 when a door was slammed. There is a discrepancy between what the mother said in her affidavit happened to the door and what the police records at the time say she complained about because that particular incident was reported to the police.
The father denied that he had ever threatened the mother with a butter knife and it certainly seems an unlikely thing to threaten to seriously harm somebody with. He also denied the pushing. I have a little bit of a sense of unease about whether the father is necessarily being entirely truthful with me about those incidents. As I said at the beginning of my judgment I had a feeling in relation to both parties that they were inclined to emphasise the favourable things about themselves and try to hide the things that were less favourable and the fact that the father hit A’s mother in 1997 does cause me to be a little bit concerned about whether he is being truthful with me about whether he pushed the mother.
The evidence certainly suggests that the father has a bit of a temper. The father admitted that. He admitted sounding off at the mother in a very unpleasant way verbally on occasions.
So I have a definite incident of family violence in 1997, I am unconvinced that absolutely nothing happened with the mother in relation to the pushing and I have the incident where the father made a nuisance of himself at A’s mother’s unit and the father admitting that he has used some choice language in relation to the mother, but the question is what to make of that in the context of these parenting proceedings.
The incident where the father punched his partner, A’s mother, happened 17 years ago. The incident at the unit with A’s mother was 13 years ago and it was isolated. It is not followed by A’s mother applying for an ADVO or by complaints about a whole series of other harassment. The father has always spent regular time with A. That has never been an issue for A’s mother despite what might have happened in the past.
In relation to the allegations that the mother made about the father, even if those allegations are true the fact is that after these incidents occurred namely the 2007 incidents of alleged physical violence and the 2009 incident with the screen door – there may have been one other incident in 2009 but I will have to check that but in any event it was not physical violence – despite those incidents the mother never made an issue up to the date of these proceedings about the children spending time with the father on the basis that if they did they might be exposed to family violence. I am therefore a little bit unclear exactly what the mother wants me to make of the fact that the incident in 1997 occurred, that there was the harassment of A’s mother in 2001; and that on the mother’s case, at least, there were the incidents in 2007 which seems to have been close to separation and then the screen door incident in 2009.
Given that the mother has never used those incidents in the past as any reason to prevent the father spending time with the children I am puzzled as to exactly what she wants me to do with them now and she certainly did not propose that in the future there should be any restriction on the father spending holiday time with the children.
There was no evidence that there were any issues between the father and his current partner and in addition the mother left the children with the father in July 2013 and went to the Northern Territory and has been there now for nine months, which does not suggest, given that she on her case is a very concerned and protective mother, that there is any reason why I should be concerned that if the children either live with or spend time with the father in the future they are likely to be subjected or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.
The allegations about the father’s behaviour may have some other relevance but those are my finding in relation to that particular aspect of it.
In relation to the mother there were no allegations that she was a violent person or that there had ever been any violence in her household and there was no suggestion that she would neglect the children as neglect might be defined within that section.
I must also have regard to the other primary consideration, that is the importance of the children having a meaningful relationship with both of their parents, and this is a very important issue in this case.
A meaningful relationship has been defined as a relationship which is significant, important and valuable to the child[2] and children can have a meaningful relationship with a parent who lives at a distance from them, especially when, as in this case, they already have a good relationship with a parent to build on.
[2] Mazorski & Albright (2007) 37FamLR 518
The mother has demonstrated how a parent living at a distance can continue to have a meaningful relationship with children by coming down here to visit the children and showing a keen interest in what is happening at their school and making inquiries about it. The parent who lives at a distance from X and Y in theory will be able to have a meaningful relationship with them.
Parents can have a meaningful relationship if they live at a distance from a child but things can prevent that happening and in my view I have to be seriously concerned in this case about whether the father might be prevented from having a meaningful relationship with the children if they live with the mother in Darwin.
There are twin problems here. One is whether the mother will comply with Court orders about sending the children down to spend time with the father and the other one is whether the mother’s attitude to the father might undermine the children’s relationship with the father if they do not see the father frequently.
The high point of the mother’s case in regard to her complying with Court orders and sending the children to spend time with the father was that they did that regularly for four and a half to five years prior to time ceasing in January 2013. The mother might argue that the problems in the six months before relocation are insignificant when viewed against a background of four and a half to five years of her regularly allowing the children to spend time with the father.
The difficulty with that argument though is that the problems in the last six months before the mother relocated were major and they directly preceded the mother’s relocation, so they are recent and were not followed by a period in which there were no problems.
In January 2013, the mother stopped the father seeing the children completely. She would not agree to any time at all after that except for one day on Mother’s Day in May. In her affidavit the mother tried to create the impression that this was all about the father’s health but it is clear from the text messages that were tendered that this is not correct and that the initial reasons why the mother became difficult about sending the children to spend time with the father were financial and perhaps in relation to the children attending a birthday party.
The health issue raised its head later and in April 2013 the mother sent a letter to the father’s solicitor raising an issue to do with the health, but this was not the only reason and it was not the initial reason why the mother stopped the children spending time with the father. There is a flavour in the text messages of it being mostly about money initially and the evidence in the mother’s affidavit at paragraph 50 is simply not an accurate representation of the situation.
After the father’s motorbike accident on 2 May 2013 the mother had a legitimate reason to be concerned about the children spending time with the father because of health issues and she could not have been blamed for wanting some evidence that the children would not be at risk with him after that accident. The problem was the mother went overboard. She wanted that evidence but she also would not agree to the father spending any time with the children.
The father proposed a number of people who could supervise his time. It is true that he also said that he wanted to spend a little bit of time with the boys on his own but instead of the mother responding to that by saying, “No, I am not willing for that to happen. Your time has to be supervised” she just responded by saying, “No. You are not going to see the boys.” The mother was not proactive in trying to make sure that time resumed except on Mother’s Day when the children were able to spend time with the father.
Around this time the father’s sister-in-law Ms L tried to arrange to see the children. She could not. The mother would not agree to that except on her terms, which was that it happened at the paternal family’s home and there was no good reason advanced for that.
It was while all this was going on that the mother announced that she wanted to move, first interstate and then to the Northern Territory. She put forward no concrete proposal about the father spending time with the children except to say that it could be worked out if the father provided a medical certificate.
The mother’s counsel said during submissions that after hearing the evidence of Dr B the mother was now comfortable about the health issue and the implication was that the Court should not fear that there would be any difficulty in the future with the children spending time with the father.
I am not sure it is quite that simple because the issues were not just health; they were also things to do with finances and that problem still exists because the father is not working and is not likely to be paying a high amount of child support in the future.
The other thing that concerns me is that the mother presents as a very, very determined person with a strong sense that she is right about various things. She might try to argue reasonable excuse if she did not send the children, so I am not necessarily convinced that, simply because the health issue is resolved, there should be no concern about the mother complying with Court orders in the future if the children go to Darwin and are to visit the father in New South Wales in the school holidays.
While contravention proceedings can be brought if people do not comply with Court orders that is unsatisfactory if the children are at a distance and are only spending time during the school holidays with the other parent, because it means that up to six months can pass when a child does not spend time with a parent.
I said earlier that the problem was a twin problem and the other concern is the mother’s attitude to the father. She does not think very much of him. She used the term “loser” in the text message exchange. She shows little empathy for him in regard to his health problems and little willingness, if any, to give him credit for his sustained interest in his sons over the years. The father has never been a father who has walked away. Year in and year out he has spent time with his sons and wanted to spend time with his sons.

The mother’s attitude to the father could flow through and start to affect the children. In the family report Mr N said that X referred to Mr B as “a doer”. In my view if the children live with the mother most of the time and spend time with the father during the school holidays – only during the school holidays – then there is a risk of the mother’s attitude to the father infecting the children and that would be compounded if for some reason there was a breach of the orders and a visit was missed.
If the boys come to think of their father as second rate and a loser it is really damaging to any prospect of them having a relationship with him which is significant, valuable and important to them.
I hasten to add that this is not the end of the matter. There are other considerations and in the end I am going to have to weigh and balance them all but I am concerned that there is a risk of the boys not having a meaningful relationship with the father if they live with the mother in the Northern Territory.
The mother would no doubt say to me that I should also be concerned about what might happen if the boys lived with the father. The father is rude to the mother on occasions – very rude – and uses offensive language to her. He had a very unpleasant name for her on his phone for what may have been a lengthy period although I really cannot be certain how long it was.
The difference though in my view is that the father does not have the comprehensive disdain for the mother which she appears to have for him. His responses to her – his words to her – have been situational, arising out of difficulties about his time with the children, so I do not have the same concern that the father might infect the boys with a negative view of the mother if they lived with him.
The father is untested about complying with Court orders but given that he does not have any comprehensive hostility to the mother or disdain for her I could not put the risk of him not complying with Court orders as high.
The mother said that the father had not complied with the telephone communication orders and that this should concern me. The difficulty with this is that the evidence about it was not very detailed or precise. I should be probably thankful for that because there is nothing worse than getting pages and pages of detailed complaints about failure to comply with telephone communication orders but it is very difficult for me on the state of the evidence to make a finding that there has been a comprehensive failure by the father to make the children available.
I think it is more likely to be, as with the pick-up and drop-off in the past, little niggling issues between the parents about compliance rather than any comprehensive failure to comply.
I must also have regard to the additional considerations in s.60CC (3) and the first of these is the children’s views.
The only real view the children expressed to Mr N was that they were sick of the parents fighting over them. They both said that and Mr N did not press them to express a preference between their parents.
The children did say that they liked Darwin. They did say they liked Mr B and according to the mother and the father they have said on occasions since the mother moved to Darwin that they would like to live with the mother in Darwin.
The father admitted this in quite an emotional piece of evidence in the witness box, but it is not necessarily a clear cut issue. In the family report one of the things that X said to Mr N was that living with his Dad had been good so far and also, at the end of paragraph 60, Mr N recorded X as saying that he viewed being with each of his parents as pretty much the same.
Y commented about positive things he enjoyed when living with the father including surfing and playing with his pet rabbit. He indicated he was sometimes cuddled by the father.
Y made various positive comments about the mother of course but there is nothing in the family report to suggest a burning desire on the part of the children to necessarily live with one parent rather than the other and it is possible that the things the children say from time to time – the emotion they exhibited recently for example after spending some time with the mother when she came down to New South Wales – are evidence of the strength of their attachment to her and grief over her going away or not going to be there for very long, rather than necessarily evidence that they have a strong view about wanting to live with one parent rather than the other.
I also take into account the evidence of the maternal grandfather who said that the boys were upset every time they left their mother but again that is only to be expected and it could be evidence of their attachment rather than evidence of them having a particular pervasive view.
As for their relationships the children have a good relationship with both of their parents. Mr N noted with some concern that neither party played with the children but there is nothing I can do about that.
There is absolutely no doubt though that the children’s primary attachment is to their mother. Y would not remember living anywhere else prior to July 2013 and X has lived with his mother for much of his life.
The children have a good relationship with Mr B and no issues were raised about the children’s relationship with the father’s partner and the children are a loved part of extended family on both sides.
I must have regard to the extent to which each parent has taken the opportunity to spend time with the children and make decisions about the children.
The mother, by relocating to Darwin, has not spent all the time she could have with the children in the last nine months, but that is more something to be considered in another part of the judgment.
The mother alleged that the father had been unreliable about spending time with the children in the past but I have already indicated it is difficult for me to make a finding about that. I suspect it is more an issue of the parents having difficulty with pick-up and drop-off arrangements than with the father being uninterested in the children for periods of time.
I must have regard to the child support issue.
At present the mother is paying child support and no issue was raised in the proceedings about any difficulties with child support in the last nine months.
The mother was unhappy about the father’s financial contribution to the children prior to her going to Darwin. She felt he should have been paying her more.
It is not possible for me to make a finding that the father was not paying an amount commensurate with his income, whatever it might have been, from part-time work. The evidence simply was not there to enable me to make that finding and the mother never tested the situation with a child support departure application, so it is simply not open to me to find on the evidence that the father has failed to contribute financially to the children in accordance with his capacity to do so.
It is possible that some of the problem about finances arose from the parties making an unrealistic decision to enrol the children at a school which charged fees of $10,000.00 per year for example.
I must consider the likely effect of any change in the children’s circumstances.
The children moving to the Northern Territory to live with the mother would represent a major change for them.
The mother has been their primary carer for most of their lives and I am satisfied is their primary attachment figure and it is highly likely in my view that the boys would adapt to a move to Darwin. However a possible effect of the change is a loss of their meaningful relationship with their father and even a loss of respect for the father and at the end of the case I will have to weigh up this issue as one of the issues in order to try and arrive at a decision in the matter.
I must have regard to the practical difficulty and expense of the children spending time with a parent.
Darwin is about 3000 kilometres from the Central Coast by air. There is a flight time of four hours plus. Time during school holidays is the only practical time if the children live in the Northern Territory and the father remains on the Central Coast. No evidence was given about the cost of travel. The mother said that she could afford the return travel for the school holidays and she was not challenged about that.
The children are old enough to fly as unaccompanied minors. They have been accompanied on the flights to date. It is a matter for the parents how the children fly. That is not something I have to make a decision about.
Part of the mother’s proposal was that the father could visit the children in Darwin for up to nine days each school term. The difficulty with this is that the father is on a Disability Support Pension. In order to avail himself of that time he would have to find the money for air fares and accommodation and it seems highly unlikely that the father would be in a financial position to take advantage of any such proposal.
The mother is in a stronger financial position and has family on the Central Coast so it would be feasible for the mother, providing she could get some time off work, to come down to the Central Coast to spend some time with the children here; perhaps visit the children’s schools. That would be achievable for the mother whereas it is not something which is likely to be achievable for the father if the children lived in the Northern Territory.
I must consider the capacity of each parent to provide for the needs of the children.
The mother, up until leaving for the Northern Territory in July 2013, did a very good – perhaps even an exceptional job – caring for the children. She has always ensured that they got a good education. She took care to choose a particular school for them that she thought would meet their needs. She has been assiduous in attending to their medical needs. She took charge of that and she did the absolute best she could for her sons to make sure their medical needs were looked after.
The father until July 2013 did not have the opportunity to show what he could do in regard to the children, but in the last nine months he has done a very good job of looking after them. The mother admitted in cross-examination that he had surprised her and Ms L said as follows:
Since the children came into Mr Haywood’s full-time care in July 2013, my expectations of his parenting have been more than exceeded. He has taken to the role with even more commitment than I had anticipated and exhibits and expresses a great sense of responsibility to ensure the children’s transition from the mother’s care was as stressless on them as possible.[3]
[3] Ms L’s affidavit paragraph 35
Another very good advertisement for the father’s parenting in the last nine months is contained in exhibit F, which was the email the children’s school sent to the mother.
In that email the school commented that the boys were always on time. They seemed to be doing well. Y’s teacher reported that Y had been at school before the bell every day since Dad started treatment. She had had no difficulty getting his homework returned in that period even though she had indicated to the father that she would be willing to be a bit forgiving about that, and her final comment was – and this is in December 2013:
Y is continuing to progress well. He is becoming more confident in class and is now reading Level 5! He has built some strong friendships in this last semester and I can see that his speech sessions and the consistent reinforcement at home have really started to pay off. I have no concerns for Y. He is really starting to come out of his shell. He is a polite and happy boy.
This was the situation after the children had been in the father’s care for five months.
X’s teacher was similarly positive. She said that she was impressed with how X had been going and continued:
Even though I offered him to do only whatever homework he can cope with, all homework has been done and handed in on time this term. I do not recall any instance of him being late for school. In general, X has been doing fine with no significant changes in his behaviour either.
There could not be a better advertisement for the fact that the father, when called upon to do so, stepped up to the mark and looked after his children really well.
The father also has X playing soccer and has enrolled both children in Nippers, and he went to considerable lengths to make sure that the children were properly looked after when he was having his radiation treatment later in the year.
There was no evidence – and I indicated this in discussion during the case because it seemed to me to be what was emerging – there was no evidence that the father’s health was likely to impact on his capacity to care for the children in the immediate future, and as I also observed during submissions, if there was some unexpected issue, the advantage of the children being on the Central Coast with the father is that there is family on both sides to provide a safety net.
The father’s accommodation is not spacious – two bedrooms – and is crowded when his partner is visiting but all the evidence about how the children are going suggests the children are managing with that.
The mother has better accommodation in the Northern Territory.
The father does not have a drivers licence – that is a bit of a drawback – but he has had the support of his family in relation to transport when he has needed it and he has made good use of public transport. There was evidence about him accompanying the children on the bus back and forth to school and getting some assistance from a neighbour. Dr B said that he expected that the father would get his drivers licence back shortly.
The father admitted to Mr N that in his thirties he drank heavily. He said that he ceased when he was 37 or 38, which is only a few years ago, but there was no evidence to suggest that there was any reason to be concerned about the father’s alcohol consumption at present.
In summary while the mother has certainly done an exemplary job in the past on a day to day basis and in meeting the children’s educational and medical needs the father has more than stepped up to the mark since July 2013 and I am confident that he would be able to properly provide for those needs in the future as well.
I must also have regard to the capacity of the parents to provide for the children’s emotional needs and I have some serious concerns here about the mother.
Until she went to the Northern Territory in July 2013 the mother was the children’s primary carer and primary attachment figure. She went off and left the children with the father when in the prior few months she would not even let him have supervised time. It turned out to be a decision which has worked out well for the children but the mother was not to know that at the time. She believed him unsuitable to care for the children. So I have to ask myself, what was she thinking? Was she willing to sacrifice her children to make a point?
The mother was not able to make a point because the father stepped up to the mark and provided good care for the children but she did not believe that he would and her decision is as incomprehensible to me as it was to Mr N.
Even if the father had not had health issues it must have occurred to the mother that the boys would miss her, but she put her own needs and desires first and went to the Northern Territory. There was no evidence that the mother stopped to think about what emotional impact that might have on the children. Mr N referred to that at paragraph 16 of his report and I agree that it is concerning.
When the mother was asked about this during cross-examination she was initially silent and what seemed to come through was that the mother has difficulty seeing things from anyone else’s point of view.
The mother believed that she was right about the relocation. There was no evidence that she stopped and thought for a moment about what impact it would have on the children if she was allowed to take them and they were not able to see their father or on what impact it would have on them if she left them behind. Her answer to me when she was pressed about why she left the children when she had concerns about the father was that she put her trust in the court. That did not make sense to me when she said it and it still does not make sense to me.
I must also consider the father’s capacity to provide for the children’s emotional needs and of course the children did not accompany the mother, their primary attachment figure, because the father opposed the relocation. However given that the mother had not allowed the father to see the children except once in five months prior to this in my view that was an entirely reasonable position for the father to take. I do not consider that it is an indication that the father lacks the capacity to provide for the children’s emotional needs.
I must consider the children’s maturity, sex and background.
I have some evidence about the children themselves. There are letters from 2010 which suggest that Y had a receptive language difficulty and some learning difficulties and needed speech therapy and that X had ODD and ADHD.
The mother was assiduous in arranging speech therapy for Y and she elected to put X on a special diet rather than putting him on Ritalin. She is to be congratulated for that. However the father has continued the special diet and there was nothing to suggest that those issues for the children were having any immediate impact on them at school just at the moment.
I must consider the parties’ attitude to the children and the responsibilities of parenthood.
I again express concern about the fact that the mother relocated and left the children behind.
I am also concerned about her attitude to the children’s relationship with the paternal family. The mother knows the paternal family is interested in the children. The father’s sister-in-law attempted to arrange to see the children and to arrange for the maternal grandfather see the children during the period when the mother was not letting the father see the children. The mother must know that the children have spent Christmases with the father’s family.
The mother was cross-examined about the children’s relationship with the paternal family and was asked to acknowledge that the children had a good relationship with Ms L. Her dismissive answer was:
They know Ms L, yes
I must consider any issues of family violence and I believe that I have comprehensively covered that when discussing the second primary consideration.
There are no family violence orders in this matter.
I must consider whether it is preferable to make the order least likely to lead to further proceedings.
It is always very difficult to predict what that order will be. I have some concerns about contravention proceedings if the mother moves to the Northern Territory but the parents do not get on terribly well and further proceedings are possible no matter what order I make.
I must consider any other relevant matter.
A relevant matter is that the parties’ communication is very poor.
There are faults on both sides. The mother complains about the father not answering her emails and the father has a sad and misguided tendency to respond in quite a nasty fashion sometimes when he feels that the mother is being unreasonable. None of that is helpful to the parents being good parents of these children and regardless of where the children live from this day on the parents are going to have to try to do something about that because it is ultimately damaging and difficult for the children.
The father could have done a much better job keeping the mother advised about medical issues in the second half of 2013. She ought to have been told about the radiation treatment. It was wrong for that to be hidden. I can understand why the father may not have wanted to tell the mother about it. He might have feared her reaction but she should have been told, she had a right to be told, and the father hiding things about medical issues simply breeds problems in a matter like this. It means that the mother then perhaps overreacts to gossip and hearsay.

The only other relevant matter is that the father has a good relationship with the maternal grandparents and has facilitated the children spending time with them on the Central Coast.

Parental Responsibility

I have some misgivings about whether the father has been entirely honest with me about the issue of pushing the mother during the relationship. The kicking of the screen door or slamming of the screen door, whatever it might have been, does not qualify as family violence because the mother told the police it did not make her afraid and it was an isolated incident.
I cannot be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that family violence occurred and therefore the presumption in s.61DA of the Family Law Act applies but even if it does not I can still make an order for equal shared parental responsibility and that is what both parents asked me to do.
It is in the children’s best interest that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for them. The children need input from both parents who are going to continue to be involved in their lives.
I am concerned about how it will work. The mother has traditionally, apart from the relocation decision in which she was thwarted by the father bringing an application to the court, just made the decisions about major long term issues including medical treatment or choice of school or whatever and the father has not done anything about it.
The mother does not strike me as someone who is going to be particularly good at listening to anyone else’s point of view and the father tends to become defensive when the mother does something he does not like and responds all too easily with nasty comments, so I am not sure how the parties are going to manage trying to make decisions together.
Hopefully not too many major decisions will be required in the immediate future but the parents are going to have to try to be respectful, to consult with each other if decisions are required and try to reach agreement because I am going to make the order for equal shared parental responsibility.

The Family Report

The mother’s counsel was critical of Mr N’s approach to his task and suggested that he had treated it as one where he had to consider whether the mother should be permitted to relocate. The fault there is probably in the court asking that question of Mr N when the report was ordered, but in my view it was clear that Mr N recognised the issues in the case and that is apparent from paragraph 13 of the report.
Mr N recommended the children should live with the father and remain on the Central Coast. However I cannot, as I have said repeatedly in other cases, make orders simply because the family report writer recommends them. I have to make my own assessment after hearing evidence and making findings about the s.60CC (2) and (3) matters.
Reports are valuable but I cannot simply say that because the family report writer has recommended something that is what I am going to do.

Conclusion

Because I intend to make an order for equal shared parental responsibility I am required to consider whether equal time or substantial and significant time would be in the children’s best interest and reasonably practicable.
Either of those things would be in the children’s best interests but they cannot happen because the father is on the Central Coast and the mother is in the Northern Territory. They both have their reasons for being where they are, and although the ultimate outcome for the children of the parents living 3000 kilometres apart is a loss, that is the reality I have to deal with and I cannot make an order for equal shared time or significance substantial time.
I must make a decision which will result in the children living with one parent and spending school holiday time with the other parent and perhaps some time during school terms if that parent travels to where the children live.
It is a difficult decision and whichever parent the children live with the outcome will represent a loss for the children.
The father’s counsel submitted that this was a case which involved two good parents. To a degree that is true. Neither parent has mental health issues or issues with drugs or alcohol and I can understand why that was said prior to the mother’s material being filed.
I do not quite agree that it is a two good parent case, because while the parents have their strengths they also have deficiencies which have the potential to impact negatively on the children.
The mother has many strengths as a parent. She did an excellent job providing for the children’s day to day needs prior to July 2013, she was tenacious in pursing good medical and educational outcomes for them while she lived in New South Wales and the children are strongly attached to her.
The mother is ambitious. She is motivated to get ahead in the workplace and financially. She is a good role model for the boys in that regard. She has worked hard to obtain a university degree and she is keen for X in particular to go to university. Y is a bit young for anyone to have formed any views or goals about him.
The father also has strengths as a parent but he is a very different person to the mother. He was diagnosed with a serious illness 17 years ago. He does not have the mother’s drive and ambition to get ahead. He is someone whose history is of doing physical work so given his illness he is probably never going to be able to get ahead in the way that the mother will in the workplace or financially.
The father’s greatest strength up to July 2013 was that he had always been there and wanted to be part of the life of all three of his sons, and to the surprise of his sister and the mother he has done a very good job of caring for the two boys the subject of these proceedings since the mother went to the Northern Territory.
Sometimes not having strong ambition and single-mindedness can be no bad thing, because sometimes people who have that can create intense pressure on children who feel valued only if they are able to meet the parents’ standards. The father is perhaps more likely to allow the children to be themselves whereas the mother is going to have a drive for the children to achieve just in the way that she has done.
But those are the children’s parents and the children will benefit from having the influence of both of them in their lives.
So both parents have their strengths, but they also have their weaknesses.
To deal with the father’s first there are some unsavoury background incidents in his past including the assault on a domestic partner in 1997. The father can respond in a nasty fashion verbally on occasions and in that respect is not a good role model for his sons. However there was no evidence of any recent violence or family violence in his life and no evidence that children were abused. The father may yell at them sometimes but even when X was saying that to Mr N he also said that it had been good so far living with the father so the problem seems not to be something that I should be unduly concerned about.
The mother’s weakness is her lack of capacity to provide for the children’s emotional needs, and the fact that the evidence suggests that perhaps her desire to get ahead and her desire to prove a point about the father blinded her to the needs of the children in July 2013. She was also blind to the children’s emotional needs when she prevented them spending time with the father for five months in the first part of 2013. She put her desire for financial recompense ahead of the needs of the children.
I find it almost incomprehensible that the mother left the children behind and went to the Northern Territory in July 2013 in circumstances where she tells me that she had serious concerns about the father. The mother seeks to justify it but to be frank it must have seemed to the children like they had been abandoned. The mother has a serious lack of capacity to provide for the children’s emotional needs.
The children love their mother and I am satisfied that they would settle with her in the Northern Territory. She can provide a good home for them. She is a good role model for them. I know that she would look after them educationally, financially and medically. The difficult issue is whether this outweighs the concerns I have about her capacity to provide for the children’s emotional needs and the risk that their relationship with the father will be undermined if they live with the mother in the Northern Territory.
The children need a relationship with their father. He has been an excellent role model for them in adeptly caring for them since July 2013. They are part of an extended paternal family who love them very much. They have a half-brother A who has always spent time with the father and they are loved by the father.
To have that relationship cut off and the father diminished in the children’s eyes because he does not measure up to the mother’s standards as far as achieving financial goals is concerned would be very damaging for the children; maybe not today or tomorrow, because today or tomorrow they might not notice, but damaging in the longer term.
A possible solution to the matter that I tossed around in my mind during the course of the hearing, because I think about these things and I never find these decisions easy to make, a possible solution to the problem would be to respect the children’s primary attachment to the mother, to place considerable weight on the mother’s undoubted skills as a parent on a day-to-day basis, medically and educationally, and to make an order that the children live with the mother in the Northern Territory but to indicate that if the children were not sent back on any holiday then in the event of a contravention application being filed the matter be very promptly listed before me.
I considered this but it does not deal with the issue of the children gradually losing respect for the father if they live primarily with the mother and only spend time with him during school holidays.
On balance in my view the order that I need to make is an order that the children live with the father and that will mean them remaining on the Central Coast.
Whenever the children see the mother the fact that she has gone to the Northern Territory and left them no doubt becomes fresh in their mind again and they grieve over that, they grieve about when they are going to see her again. It is a sad outcome for the children because they love their mother and I know that she would do a good job looking after them in the Northern Territory, but the father has proved himself a very capable parent in the last nine months, and if the children remain in the care of the father it gives them the best hope of having a meaningful relationship, a good relationship, a valuable relationship with both of their parents in the longer term.
The mother, unlike the father, can afford to come to New South Wales on occasions during the school terms. She can stay with her parents so she will not have to pay for accommodation. If the children lived with the mother in the Northern Territory then the father would not be able to do that.
I am unhappy for the children but there is no outcome which would make me happy for them; either outcome represents a loss.
Somehow the parents are going to have to find a way to improve their communication and the father needs to keep in the forefront of his mind that the mother deserves to know if something goes wrong not just if something goes right. The father needs to trust the mother with that knowledge and pass that information on to her.
Apart from ordering that the parties do a parenting after separation course I am not sure that there is much I can immediately do to improve the parties’ communication.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and eleven (211) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Terry

Associate: Candice Bell

Date: 29 May 2014

[2014] FCCA 1102

5 May 2014

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Civil Procedure

Legal Concepts

Jurisdiction

Costs

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Appeal