Higgins & Best
[2024] FedCFamC2F 995
•25 June 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Higgins & Best [2024] FedCFamC2F 995
File number(s): BRC 7580 of 2024 Judgment of: JUDGE BERTONE Date of judgment: 25 June 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Parenting – interim hearing – mother seeks recovery of child – child aged two – father alleges child is at risk in mother’s care – child to be returned to mother – child to spend time with father four nights a fortnight – child impact report ordered. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975, ss 60CA, 60CC, 60CG, 67ZBD Cases cited: Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346
Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97
M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 62 Date of last submission/s: 25 June 2024 Date of hearing: 25 June 2024 Place: Brisbane Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr O’Brien Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Casey Solicitor for the Respondent: Chomley Family Law ORDERS
BRC 7580 of 2024 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR HIGGINS
Applicant
AND: MS BEST
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE BERTONE
DATE OF ORDER:
25 JUNE 2024
BY CONSENT THE COURT ORDERS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER:
1.That the child X born in 2022 (“the child”) communicate with the other parent each Tuesday and Wednesday between 4:30pm and 5:30pm via FaceTime or videocall.
2.That the parents are restrained from recording or allowing any third party to record any FaceTime or videocall the child has with the other parent.
3.That each parent is to keep the other parent informed of any changes in their mobile phone number and shall communicate with each other by mobile phone, either by text message or voice call.
4.That the mother will inform the father of the area (not the exact address) of her residence and notify the father within forty-eight (48) hours of such change.
5.That each parent will notify the other within forty-eight (48) hours of any new adult who moves into that parent’s house as their primary residence.
6.That the parents are to enrol in and complete a Triple P parenting course and provide the other parent with a certificate of completion within fourteen (14) days of receiving such certificate of completion.
THE COURT ORDERS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER:
7.That the child be returned to the care of the mother by 6:00pm today, Tuesday 25 June 2024 with changeover to occur at McDonalds at Town B and to be effected by the paternal grandmother delivering the child to McDonalds and the maternal grandmother collecting the child.
8.That the child live with the mother.
9.That commencing Thursday 4 July 2024, the child spend time with the father each alternate weekend from 4:00pm Thursday until 9:00am on Monday.
10.That changeovers shall occur at the child’s daycare on a daycare day, or at McDonalds Town B on a non-daycare day.
11.That in the event the child is not otherwise spending time with the father on the Father’s Day weekend, the child spend time with the father from 4:00pm on Saturday to 4:00pm on Sunday.
THE COURT ORDERS:
Child Impact Report
12.That pursuant to section 62G of the Family Law Act 1975, the parties and the child X born in 2022 shall attend upon a Court Child Expert (practicing under their appointment as a family consultant) nominated by the Court Children’s Service (the “Court Child Expert”) for the purposes of the preparation of a Child Impact Report at the dates and times below, or as otherwise directed by the Court Child Expert.
13.That:
(a)Part 1 of the event will occur by video, using Microsoft Teams, on 3 October 2024 with:
(i)the Applicant to attend at 9.00am; and
(ii)the Respondent to attend at 10.30am; and
(iii)Microsoft Teams links will be provided to the parties by the Court Child Expert prior to the event.
(b)Part 2 of the event will occur in person at the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Level 3, Commonwealth Law Courts, 119 North Quay, Brisbane on the morning of 4 October 2024. Specific details regarding the attendance of the parties and the child on this date will be provided to the parties in Part 1 of the event.
14.That each party will do all things necessary to ensure the child attend upon the Court Child Expert pursuant to Section 62G(3A), unless otherwise determined by the Court Child Expert that Section 62G(3B) applies.
15.That the parties and the child shall continue to attend at such times, dates and places as the Court Child Expert may advise.
16.That by no later than 4.00pm on 9 July 2024, the parties must provide their contact telephone numbers and email addresses to [email protected].
17.That the Court Child Expert will be at liberty to inspect any material filed by the parties and any material produced under subpoena in the proceedings.
18.That pursuant to Order 12 herein, the Court Child Expert shall provide a written report to the Court and the report shall deal with the following matters:
(a)any agreement reached between the parties;
(b)identification of key issues requiring resolution;
(c)any other matters that the Court Child Expert considers important to the welfare or best interests of the child.
19.That upon completion, the Child Impact Report shall be provided to the Court for release to the parties, including by way of order made in Chambers.
20.That in preparation of the Child Impact Report, the Family Consultant is at liberty to inspect and have regard to:
(a)any material filed by the parties including all Applications and Responses (including Amended Applications and Responses), Affidavits, expert reports and Notices of Family Violence, Child Abuse and Risk;
(b)judgments, orders, reports or other material produced by the Court in the current proceedings;
(c)material produced to the Court under a subpoena or a s.67ZBD or s.67ZBE order.
21.That unless otherwise ordered, no person shall release the report, or provide access to the report to any other person.
22.That pursuant to Section 13C(1)(b) of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth), the parties and their legal representatives (if any) shall attend:
(a)Part 1 of the confidential Court-based Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) Conference with a Registrar (as Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner) on a date to be fixed, with each party to attend separately at times to be advised; and
(b)Part 2 of the confidential Court-based FDR Conference on a date and at a time to be fixed but not later than seven (7) days after the date referred to in order 22(a).
23.That the matter shall be referred to the Executive Director – National Registrar Operations and Practice for allocation and listing of the FDR Conference dates.
Part 1 of the FDR Conference
24.That Part 1 of the confidential FDR Conference shall proceed by telephone and each party must, within two (2) days of receiving notification of the dates of each part of the FDR Conference, notify the Court by email of their best contact telephone number (and include details of the file name and Court file number).
25.That unless otherwise directed by the Registrar conducting the FDR Conference, the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s appearance shall be excused from Part 1 of the FDR Conference.
26.That by no later than 4.00 pm seven (7) days prior to Part 1 of the FDR Conference, each party must:
(a)ensure that all documents required to be exchanged between parties pursuant to Chapter 6 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 have been exchanged;
(b)ensure that any private expert report that is relevant to the proceedings has been filed;
(c)provide to the Court by email and to the other party a single collated bundle of documents comprising:
(i)a Confidential Outline of Case (Dispute Resolution);
(ii)a detailed minute of Orders Sought;
(iii)details of any previous or current family violence orders; and
(iv)a copy of any document exchanged between the parties which is directly relevant to an issue remaining in dispute (with relevant passages highlighted).
FDR Conference
27.That the parties shall otherwise comply with any other necessary order, direction or request made by the Registrar to facilitate the FDR Conference.
28.That the Registrar may vacate the FDR Conference in the event:
(a)of non-attendance by either party at Part 1 of the Conference; or
(b)that pursuant to Regulation 29 of the Family Law (Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners) Regulations 2008, the Registrar is no longer satisfied that the conference is appropriate.
Next Court Date
29.That the Court event on 16 July 2024 before a Judicial Registrar be vacated.
30.That the matter is adjourned for mention to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) at Brisbane at 9.00am on 18 November 2024.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE BERTONE
This judgment was delivered orally and has been corrected for comprehension.
These are competing parenting proceedings in respect of the child X, born in 2022. The application has been made by the Father in circumstances of urgency and at a time when the Mother also was completing her application for parenting orders. In this regard, the Father has filed his application first in time, and so he is deemed the applicant in these proceedings to which the Mother has responded.
The Father’s case is set out in his case outline document, and the documents to which he has relied on and referred me to are set out at part B of that document. Included also are two exhibits, exhibits 1 and 2, which were two of the annexures to the Father’s affidavit filed 21 June 2024 that have been tended on his behalf.
The Mother’s case outline, which was tendered on 21 June 2024, sets out, at part B, the documents upon which she relies. And also, exhibit 3 is a document which was annexed to the Mother’s affidavit filed 14 June 2024.
These parents are in dispute as to the living arrangements and care arrangements for X. The Father has brought his application and seeks orders for X to live with him and due to the risk that he says exists in the Mother’s household, which he says is unacceptable, the child should spend only supervised time with her Mother.
The Mother’s case in response is that the Father has withheld X from her primary care, and she seeks the return of X to her care.
The Mother initially, in her response document, sought an order that X should only spend supervised time with her Father. During the course of proceedings today, her Counsel, Mr Casey, rightly conceded, in my view, that the Mother’s concerns for X in the Father’s care do not rise to the level of unacceptable risk, even though they might remain concerns in the Mother’s view. The Mother’s case, therefore, is for X to return to live with her, commencing at 5pm or 6pm today and then to have unsupervised time with the Father from Thursday after day care until Monday before day care on a fortnightly basis.
The parents are before me today. The parents have agreed to certain orders by consent, which set out that X should have video face calls via FaceTime or other application with the other parent on Tuesdays and Wednesdays between the hours of 4.30pm to 5.30pm. During the course of submissions, the parents also agreed that these calls ought not to be recorded, and I will go into that later in these reasons.
The Father’s solicitor, at the outset, did raise an issue that the section 67ZBD of the Family Law At 1975 (“the Act”) had not been returned to the court, even though such an Order was made by a Registrar of this Court. Mr Casey, Counsel for the Mother, opposed any delay in the hearing of this application, submitting to me that the determination of this matter was urgent given the Mother’s case that she says X has been withheld from her primary care.
After hearing submissions from both the Father’s Solicitor and the Mother’s Counsel, it seems to me to be common ground that the documents were being sought to be read or relied upon by the Father in respect of an incident that occurred in August 2022, which seems to be the catalyst for the parents’ separation because they separated soon after. The Father’s Solicitor, Mr O’Brien, submitted to me that there are disputes as to the versions of each of the parent’s perceptions of that incident and the potential information to be provided by either Queensland Police Service or Child Safety Agency, rather, would then provide further illumination for the Court to determine about that incident.
In my view, the incident which occurred two years ago and any information contained from various agencies about that particular incident is not a determinative factor in this case before me today for this reason. It was an incident that occurred two years ago, about which both parties have differing views.
As the Full Court said in Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346 and the cases that have followed, the difficulties a Judicial Officer faces in an interim hearing is the inability to test the evidence to ascertain and make findings about incidents that parties have differing recollections and give conflicting evidence about.
I cannot make findings today about those matters that are in dispute, and it is clear in the documents that the parents have very different views about the incident that occurred in August 2022.
Notwithstanding that incident, the parents, from August-2022 until May 2024, have been able to arrange the parenting of X in a way that, both parents conceded, through their evidence and submissions, shows the following uncontested facts:
(1)That the parents have been separated since 17 August 2022;
(2)That at that time X was about five months old;
(3)That at the age of five months old at the time of separation, the Mother was still breastfeeding X, and X stayed in the Mother’s primary care; and
(4)Between August 2022 and May 2024, X spent substantial time with the Father, including overnight time, and that time was not supervised.
The Father’s evidence is that the Mother dictated to him the times that he was able to see X. I cannot make a finding today about whether or not it was the Mother who dictated terms to the Father or whether it was the Father who was uncooperative with the Mother. What is apparent from the evidence and from submissions made to me by the legal representatives is that between 2022 and May 2024, X spent increasing amounts of time with her Father, to the extent of being most recently, in early 2024 until May 2024, three to four nights per fortnight with her Father unsupervised.
In addition to those fortnightly periods, there have been periods of block time where the Mother has left X in the Father’s care for times that the Mother was outside of Brisbane for work. The most recent time the Mother left X in the Father’s unsupervised care was during the period 15 May 2024 until 23 May 2024. I note this is a period of eight days.
That since 24 May 2024, X has remained in the Father’s care and has not had face-to-face time with her Mother since that time.
The Father has arranged FaceTime or video calls between X and her Mother on four occasions since May 2024, since she has been in his full-time care.
The Father has recorded three out of these four calls, he says, because of comments made by the Mother during the first call. I do not need to make any findings about the appropriateness of the Mother’s comments or the decision-making of the Father in choosing to record those video calls because during submissions the parents, through their legal representatives, agreed to an order that the video calls that X has with the other parent, that is, the parent with whom she is not living at that time, would occur on two occasions per week, being Tuesdays and Wednesdays, between the hours of 4.30pm and 5.30pm.
They also agreed that those phone calls or video calls would no longer be recorded. Those are the agreed facts.
I now turn to the competing cases that require my determination today. The Father’s case is essentially this, that he has had concerns about X in the Mother’s care for many years, including shortly before or directly after separation and up until May 2024, and it seems he still has some concerns. The basis of the Father’s Orders sought are on a case stated by him that X is at unacceptable risk of harm in the Mother’s care. I will go into more detail about this later in these reasons.
The Mother’s case is that she was the primary carer for X until the Father retained X in his care and that she should be returned to live with the Mother. The Mother also agrees to X spending regular overnight time with her Father.
In proceedings regarding the parenting arrangements of the child, I am required by section 60CA of the Act to have regard to X’s best interests as the paramount consideration. Section 60CC sets out the factors that I must take into account to determine X’s best interests. Section 60CC(1)(a) requires me to consider the matters set out in subsection (2) and require me to ensure that the orders I make would promote the safety of X and the persons who are responsible for her care.
I am required by section 60CC(1)(b) to consider those matters in subsection C if the child is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child.
IS THE CHILD AT UNACCEPTABLE RISK IN THE MOTHER’S CARE?
The Father advances a case that the concerns he has for the child living in the Mother’s care are based on the following concerns, and I will list them out:
(1)That the Mother lied to him about X returning to her care on 23 May 2024 when the Mother had, in fact, arranged for her parents, the Maternal Grandparents, to collect X from day care on that day.
(2)That the Maternal Grandparents, and in particular, the Maternal Grandfather, poses unacceptable risk to X because of an allegation, the Father says, the Mother made during their relationship, that she, the Mother, was subjected to harm by her Father. The particular paragraph that the Father sets this out in his evidence is contained at paragraph 36(g); and
(3)That X is at unacceptable risk of harm in the Mother’s care because of the exposure to inappropriate nudity by the person, Mr C, who was the partner of the Mother and also due to X being naked at a time when both the Mother and Mr C were taking a video and then this video of X being naked was subsequently posted on social media.
I gave the Father’s Solicitor every opportunity to explain to me what it is that the Father’s concerns were based upon, and it fell into these three categories above. I am not surprised that the Father would be disturbed by the Mother, in his view, telling a lie in circumstances where it seems to me that both these parents have a very high distrust of the other. I am not surprised that the Father would not accept the explanations proffered by Mr C about his accidental nudity in front of the child, again because of the high distrust these parents have of the other. But I have to decide whether this evidence reaches the level of unacceptable risk.
I have to ascertain, as the authorities articulated in Full Court decision of Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97 and the cases decided in the High Court, starting with the decision in M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69. I have to identify what the risk is, is that risk unacceptable, can that risk be ameliorated and how can that be ameliorated and then make Orders that are in the child’s best interests in respect of that risk.
Even taking the Father’s evidence in its totality, that it was a lie that the Mother said that she would collect the child from day care but instead it was the Grandparents, I am not persuaded that such evidence rises to the level of unacceptable risk because the maternal grandparents, on both parties’ concessions, have been in this child’s life since she was born.
The Father could not point to any specific incident prior to May 2024 in which the maternal grandparents posed any risk to the child or harm to the child in any way.
The Father’s solicitor pointed to an incident that occurred on 24 May 2024 when the Maternal Grandparents attended his property to collect the child.
I accept the Father’s evidence that the Maternal Grandfather and Grandmother banged on the door and may have used raised voices, but I am not presented with any evidence about any particular actions beyond those that occurred either in the presence of the child or directly to the child.
The lie that the Father says the Mother told him resulted in him choosing to retain X even though, for the two previous years, X had been moving easily back and forth between her parents.
The next concern the Father had was in respect of Mr C and the evidence of Mr C. Even if it was inappropriate nudity, I am not saying it was, I am not able to find it, but the evidence of Mr C is that he is no longer in the child’s home and has, in fact, ended the relationship with the Mother sometime in early 2024.
So in terms of a risk to the child, I am not satisfied that Mr C presented a risk to her, but if I am wrong about that, Mr C not being in the house any longer, not being in a relationship with the Mother, there not being any evidence that Mr C is going to have anything to do with X is an amelioration of any risk, even though I have not found that risk to be unacceptable.
In respect of the Maternal Grandparents, I am not satisfied that the grandparents present an unacceptable risk of harm to the child.
I intend to make Orders that will regularise the contact between these parents and to reduce the time that these parents are going to be spending together, for example, at a changeover, and that should ameliorate the risk of any conflict between these parents.
If they send their nominee, for example, a relative, knowing that the Court proceedings are on foot, that, effectively, the Court is watching, I would hope that these parents and their relatives would reflect on their conduct moving forwards to ensure that they all move in a child-focused and appropriate way.
Though not articulated as a particular risk, I have to consider the family violence Orders that have been made in this matter. There are mutual Orders, and by that I mean the Father has a final protection Order against the Mother as the respondent, and the Mother also has a protection Order against the Father with she being the aggrieved.
I was not pointed to any evidence and, in fact, Mr O’Brien properly conceded that there was no evidence of any findings that were made in Court about any family violence, and, in fact, the Order that the Mother has against the Father was made with the Father consenting to it on a without-admissions basis. Therefore no findings have been made in another court about the family violence as between the Mother and Father on the Mother’s application.
I was told from the bar table by Mr O’Brien that the Father’s application against the Mother where he is the aggrieved was applied for by Queensland Police and was made final in the absence of the Mother or in default of her appearance. Again, I have no evidence of any finding having been made against the Mother in the context of the Father’s application for a protection order against her brought by Queensland Police Service.
I asked for submissions during the hearing today as to whether there have been any breaches of the protection Order, either by Mother against Father or Father against Mother, and I was told by each of the legal representatives that there have been no breaches, to their knowledge, of the protection Orders.
Now, I note that these protection orders were made in 2022. The Order that is where the Mother is the aggrieved, is in force against the Father in the Mother’s favour without admissions until late 2027. The Order taken by Queensland Police on behalf of the Father where he is the aggrieved is also annexed to the Father’s initiating application. That is dated August 2022 and is in force until August 2027.
On the evidence currently before me, it seems there has been no further incidents of family violence between these parents since the protection Orders have been made and I can make no findings in respect of any incidents from the August 2022 incident.
So, in terms of the obligation to consider the risk of family violence under section 60CG, I am satisfied at the moment that the family violence Orders each parent has against the other are doing their job and that the orders that I am going to make will not expose these parties to any further risk of family violence and nor expose the child to any family violence.
SECTION 60CC FACTORS
Returning to the section 60CC factors, I am satisfied on the uncontested evidence that, prior to X remaining in the Father’s care in May 2024, that she was living in the Mother’s primary care and that returning to the Mother’s primary care is an order that would promote her safety and would not expose her to any family violence, abuse, neglect or other harm.
Section 60CC(2)(b) – any views expressed by the child
X is two, and even though the parents, each of them, in their affidavits do make mention of X expressing a desire to spend more time with the other parent, firstly, I would accept that X is loved by both of her parents and extended family and she would no doubt be saying to her loved ones that she wants to see them and wants to spend time with them.
But I do not consider her age and level of maturity is in any way enabling me to put weight on her views one way or the other about where she should live.
Section 60CC(2)(c) – the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child
The child having lived in the primary care of the Mother for the last two years and being able to spend substantial time with her Father is an order that, in my view, would promote the child’s development, psychological, emotional and cultural needs. I will return to the issue of the child’s Aboriginal heritage, but I note at this juncture that the Mother will ensure that the child’s cultural needs are met when she is living with the Mother.
Section 60CC(2)(d) – the capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs
I am not making an Order today about the allocation of parental responsibility. In my view at the moment, the dust needs to settle in this matter and some calm needs to be restored and some regularity.
At this stage, I consider that each of the parents has the capacity to make good decisions for this little girl even though it seems the heat of the moment might have created a lot of conflict and distrust in a short period of time. Considering the relatively long period of time, basically all of X’s life, that the parents have somehow managed to co-parent, in my view, they have the capacity to continue to make good decisions for her.
Section 60CC(2)(e) - the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child's parents, and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so
I accept on the evidence before me that each parent wants the child to have a relationship with the other parent but that the Father and the Mother each had their own concerns about the other parent’s ability to care for the child.
In this regard, I accept the evidence in exhibit 1 from the Father’s GP which tells me three things:
(1)That the Father has engaged with the same GP since 2010;
(2)The Father is taking appropriate medical advice and treatments from his GP, as evidenced by the GPs note that the Father is taking medication and there is no indication he is not taking the medication inappropriately or in a way that is not prescribed; and
(3)That the Father has returned a negative urine screen showing that there were no illicit drugs in his system.
Whilst there is no handy piece of paper for me to persuade the Father that the child will be safe in the Mother’s care, the Father might draw some comfort from the fact that, for the past two years, X has been living with her Mother, has obviously spent some time, even though he does not know how much time she has been spending with her Maternal family. The Father has the knowledge that, for the past two years, X has been cared for by her Mother, seemingly meeting her milestones and also in a situation where he was able to see X regularly.
I am satisfied that the Mother is able, under subsection (e), to – the child will benefit from having a relationship with the Mother and it is safe for her to do so.
Section 60CC(2)(f) – anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child
Whilst raised as a concern but not something that was rising to the level of unacceptable risk, the Father did raise the question of the Mother not having permanent housing. The Mother’s evidence and submissions confirmed that she does live in rental accommodation in Region D. The Father is concerned the Mother was going to relocate unilaterally with the child to Victoria, and the Mother’s evidence and submissions made on her behalf by Mr Casey today have been that the Mother does not intend to relocate outside of Region D but that she will need to find rental accommodation.
An Order was made by consent that the Mother is going to inform the Father of the area in which she is going to move to. It was confirmed that, in the past two years, the Father has not had the exact address of the Mother but has known the area in which she has lived, and I am satisfied that, moving forwards, the Mother notifying the Father of the area where she lives is an appropriate one.
Again, the Mother’s concern about the Father’s mental health is, in my view, satisfied by the letter from the Father’s GP. The concern the Mother had over the Father’s use of drugs has been answered in respect of the urine drug test and noting also that the Mother has, for the past two years, been confident leaving the child for significant periods of time overnight with her Father.
Again, this does not rise to the level of an unacceptable risk and certainly was not submitted to me that it was an unacceptable risk, but it is a matter that I have taken into account in the making of these orders.
I therefore make the Orders as set out at the beginning of these Reasons.
In terms of the Mother’s Orders sought in her case outline, Orders have been made for the preparation of a child impact report.
I am not inclined at this stage to make an Order appointing an Independent Children’s Lawyer for reasons that follow:
(1)these parents have protection Orders against each other but there are no breaches and there is no current evidence of family violence as between them, and the distrust does not rise to the level of a high conflict at this stage;
(2)both parents are legally represented;
(3)there are no issues of unacceptable risk that I have found at this stage; and
(4)In terms of an Independent Children’s Lawyer, an Order can be made down the track if that becomes necessary.
Finally, the Orders sought by the Mother in respect of the Father’s attending on a private psychologist: I have dealt with that in terms of my satisfaction that the Father is appropriately attending his general practitioner, who has not, in exhibit 1, outlined any significant concerns about the Father’s mental health, and I also note the Father is self-employed and seems to be gainfully employed in that field.
Those are then my reasons.
I certify that the preceding sixty-two (62) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge Bertone. Dated: 31 July 2024
0
3
1