Hill and Noble
[2008] FMCAfam 610
•5 March 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| HILL & NOBLE | [2008] FMCAfam 610 |
| FAMILY LAW – Parenting – interim application by the father for 19 month old child to spend increased overnight time with him – on a final basis the mother seeks to return to the United States with the child. |
| Family Law Act 1975 |
| Goode & Goode [2006] FLC 93-286 |
| Applicant: | MR HILL |
| Respondent: | MS NOBLE |
| File Number: | SYC 8739 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Sexton FM |
| Hearing date: | 4 March 2008 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 4 March 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Dubbo |
| Delivered on: | 5 March 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr G Kenny |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Campbell Paton & Taylor |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr A Gee |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Baldock Stacy & Niven |
THE COURT ORDERS PENDING FURTHER ORDER THAT:
Each party have parental responsibility for decisions as to [A]’s day to day care, welfare and development during periods when he is in the care of that party.
[A] live with the mother.
[A] spend time with the father as follows:
(a)Each Tuesday and each Wednesday from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m;
(b)Each alternate weekend from Saturday at 9 a.m. until Sunday at 5p.m.;
(c)On Father’s Day from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m.; and
(d)On 8 August from 4 p.m. until 6 p.m. unless other times are agreed.
Order 3 be suspended as follows:
(a)On Mother’s Day from 9 a.m.; and
(b)From 3 p.m. Christmas Eve until 3 p.m. Christmas Day.
The mother provide the father with a written note as to [A]’s daytime sleep pattern and night time routine on the first occasion [A] spends time with the father after the making of these orders, and the mother keep the father informed as to changes in [A]’s sleep pattern.
The father use his best endeavours to ensure [A] has daytime sleeps at his home or at the paternal grandmother’s home (if applicable), in accordance with [A]’s daytime sleep routine when with the mother.
In the event the father is unable to spend time with [A] on any Tuesday or Wednesday in accordance with Order (3)(a), [A] spend that time with the paternal grandmother provided that if the paternal grandmother is unavailable, the father forthwith contact the mother to give her first option to care for [A].
In the event the father is unable to spend time with [A] in accordance with Order (3)(b), [A] remain with the mother on that weekend.
Changeover occur at Interrelate [X] and each party forthwith complete the intake procedures for that service provided that until Interrelate is able to provide the changeover service, or in the event that Inter-relate is unable to provide a changeover service at any relevant time, changeover occur inside the [X] Police station.
The parties share equally the costs of the Interrelate changeover service.
Each party keep the other informed as to his/her mobile telephone number and to advise the other within 48 hours of any change of telephone number.
In the event [A] requires urgent medical treatment, the party caring for [A] immediately, or as soon as practicable, notify the other party.
Each party provide the other with written advice as to any medical condition concerning [A], as to any medication or treatment he requires, and contact details for any medical practitioner he has attended in relation to such treatment and/or medication.
Each party authorise any medical practitioner [A] has consulted to discuss [A]’s condition with the other party.
Each party be restrained from moving [A]’s place of residence or place in which he spends time from the [X] district.
Neither party denigrate the other party in the presence or hearing of [A] and each party use his/her best endeavours to ensure no other person does so.
Pursuant to section 13C of the Family Law Act 1975 the parties must within 7 days contact Interrelate ([X] office) on [ph:1] to arrange an appointment as soon as practicable for an initial post-separation parenting assessment and counselling for the purpose of improving their communication and co-parenting skills.
The parties must attend the appointment nominated by Interrelate and complete the assessment.
If assessed as suitable and Interrelate nominates counselling, mediation or a program to attend, the parties must attend as Interrelate directs as soon as practicable.
Pursuant to section 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in Annexure A and these particulars are included in these orders.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The proceedings be transferred to the Family Court of Australia in Parramatta to be listed for directions before a Registrar on 27 March 2008 at 9:30 a.m.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Hill & Noble is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYC 8739 of 2007
| MR HILL |
Applicant
And
| MS NOBLE |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
These reasons are given orally.
This case concerns interim parenting arrangements for [A], aged
19 months. The parties separated in October 2007 when [A] was 14 months. Each party lives in [X], the mother in accommodation provided by the [X] Housing Association Incorporated.The mother has two children by a previous relationship, [C] aged 14 and [D] aged 10. [C] and [D] live with the mother. The father has a daughter [B], from a previous relationship. [B] lives in the [X] district with her mother and spends time with her father. She is almost 12 years of age.
The father was born in Australia and grew up here. He was however living and working in the United States when he commenced cohabitation with [A]’s mother in August 2006. [A]’s mother is an American citizen. [A] was born in the United States and the parties came to Australia in October 2006 and specifically to the [X] area with [A], [C] and [D] when [A] was two months of age.
The father’s extended family, including his mother, his siblings and their children, some of whom are close in age to [A], live in the [X] area. The mother has no family support in Australia. The parties married in February 2007 and purchased land in [X] with the intention of building a family home. They took steps towards that goal before separating nine months after marriage last October.
The mother says she did not like [X] from the time of her arrival and she now wants to return long-term to the United States with [A] and her older children. She says her relationship with the father had been deteriorating even before they left the States and she only came because the father told her he would never prevent her returning if she did not want to stay. She says she feels lonely and isolated from her friends and family and as a consequence has lost a lot of weight. She says she suffers from anxiety. On a final basis, the mother seeks orders to permit her to return with [A], [C] and [D] to the United States to live.
The father, for his part, says the party’s intention at the time of leaving the States to come to Australia was to live here permanently and he strongly opposes the mother’s application to relocate. He wants the mother to remain here with [A] so [A] can enjoy a close and loving relationship with each of his parents.
Counsel on both sides agree that the matter at final hearing will be hotly contested. Counsel agree the matter will take well in excess of three days of hearing because in addition to an expert witness each party proposes to call at least three additional witnesses at final trial. As a result of resource issues this will mean the matter must be transferred to the Family Court for final hearing.
It is in the context of this final contest the result of which is likely to have far reaching consequences for [A], as well as for each party, that this interim matter was heard.
The party’s relationship is at a low ebb. They are barely communicating. In their lengthy affidavits much of the contents of which relate to matters which will be addressed at final hearing they give vastly different accounts of the last 20 months. Each is highly critical of the other’s conduct.
The mother claims the father is abusive and intimidating and that at separation she was forced to obtain housing for herself and her children through a women’s refuge network. As a result of her alleged fear of the father, the mother does not want the father to know where she is currently living. The mother would not meet the family consultant, Mr Waddell, in the presence of the father prior to this hearing.
In his affidavit material the father is highly critical of the mother’s conduct during the relationship. Although the father’s counsel asks me to accept the level acrimony between these parties is not as significant as this Court might sometimes see, I am not persuaded the level of acrimony between these parties is less than significant.
I accept as counsel pointed out that the parties did attempt mediation shortly before separation and tried to work out parenting arrangements in the event of separation. I accept that the father readily agreed to an order I propose for the parties to work on their communication and co-parenting skills with the assistance of a counsellor at Interrelate.
Although the mother also agreed to such an order, I formed the view through her counsel that she saw little prospect for improvement in the party’s co-parenting ability. I agree with Mr Waddell when he said in oral evidence at hearing that: “the bad feeling between the parties is very problematic.”
There are no current parenting orders. [A] has been living with the mother since separation and initially after separation was spending three days a week with the father from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. each day. Each party gives a different account of the outcome of mediation. The father says the parties reached an agreement, and the mother then breached that agreement. The mother denies she breached any agreement. Whatever the truth of that matter, it is common ground that since January, [A] has been spending each Wednesday all day with the father while the mother works and alternate weekends from Saturday morning and Sunday afternoon with the father.
As already noted, each party gives a very different factual history. In a hearing of this kind, I am unable to resolve most of those factual differences. The mother says the current parenting arrangements are not working well for [A] who she says is very unsettled on his return from the father demanding her full attention for at least 24 hours. She says he requires more frequent breastfeeding during those periods and will not be put down. She says [A] has been more unsettled since spending overnight time with the father. She says he screams to be picked up and will not go to sleep until late at night.
The father for his part says [A] is contented and easily settled when in his care and he reports no symptoms of distress when [A] is with him. The father wants to spend more time with [A], although he modified his amended application at hearing. At hearing he sought orders that [A] spend time with him in two weekly cycles: week 1 each alternate weekend from 8 a.m. Saturday to 6 p.m. Sunday and Tuesday 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Wednesday. In week 2 from 8 a.m. Monday to 6 p.m. Tuesday and Wednesday from 8 a.m. to midday or until after the mother finishes work, if she is working on that day. The father sought an order that if the mother was working on other days then the father or the paternal grandmother would care for [A].
The mother sought orders for [A] to live with her and to spend alternate weekends from 9 a.m. Saturday until 5 p.m. Sunday with the father as well as Tuesdays and Wednesdays each week during the daytime only while the mother works. The mother proposed a further four hours for [A] to spend with the father in the alternate week if the Court decides the time gap between [A] spending time with the father in the off week is too long for him.
Although the mother’s counsel questioned the basis for the injunctive relief sought by the father in relation to the mother’s place of residence, the mother confirmed her intention to remain in the district pending final determination of her relocation application. She was prepared to consent to a mutual order that neither party remove [A] from the district for the purpose of living or spending time with pending final order.
The father is 38 and the mother 31. Both parties are healthcare professionals and both have worked on a shift arrangement at [X] Base Hospital. The mother complains she was forced to give up her fulltime position to accommodate the father’s shift work and his availability to care for [A] after separation. She says she has lost employee entitlements and income as a result.
While I cannot determine the truth or otherwise of the mother’s assertion, there is no dispute that the mother is now working one full day a week on a casual basis and has been offered a further full day a week. Those days being Tuesday and Wednesday. The father is working fulltime on a shift work basis doing night work on a four consecutive night roster.
Issue
The issue for determination at this interim stage is how much time [A] should spend with each party pending final determination of the proceedings. The following factors in this case make the Court’s task particularly difficult. Firstly, there is high tension and poor alliance between the parties. Secondly, the final hearing concerns international relocation. Thirdly, [A] is only 19 months of age. Although Mr Waddell, the family consultant, saw the parties for family dispute resolution just prior to hearing, Mr Waddell has not yet had the opportunity to conduct a full assessment for the assistance of the Court and Mr Waddell has not observed [A] with either party. Mr Waddell told the Court he did not have a well-formed view as to what was best for [A] on an interim basis.
I raised with each party’s counsel the recent report published by Dr Jennifer McIntosh and Professor Richard Chisholm, a former Judge of the Family Court of Australia, concerning their preliminary findings that the negative consequences for children who are required to spend equal or substantial time with each parent, particularly very young children, when their parents are in continuing conflict. Neither party’s counsel invited me to have regard to the findings in this paper.
I will refer briefly here to parts of that research paper. Paragraph 2 says[1]:
"In discussing implications to family law practice and legislation we suggest that it will be important for lawyers and dispute resolution practitioners to give careful attention to the likely consequences for children, good or ill, of shared care arrangements. Predicting such consequences will never be an easy task, but may be assisted by attending to the relevant factors outlined here. Professionals in family law, we suggest, need to have regard both to relevant social science findings and to the legislative guidelines as they try to assist conflicted parents towards developmentally sound post-separation care arrangements whether agreed or adjudicated."
[1] McIntosh, J & Chisholm, R “Shared Care and Children’s Best Interests in Conflicted Separation: A Cautionary Tales from Current Research”, Australian Family Lawyer, Vol 20, No 1
At page 7 of the report the authors consider the nature of the strain imposed for very young children and infants by developmentally inappropriate living arrangements. At page 4 the authors say this:
"Part of the developmental conundrum posed for young children of divorce is this: their attachment formation is likely to be poorly affected (or to become ‘disorganised’ in theoretical terms) when that infant does not have a continuous experience of reliable care with either parent. Shared care arrangements that involve frequent moves from one parent to another can, inadvertently, bring about this experience. Frequent transitions of care and absences from each parent necessarily interrupt the infant’s experience of care with each parent, especially their relationship with a primary carer when there has been one. This brings about potential developmental difficulties for infants, particularly those with parents who remain acrimonious and struggle to facilitate a smooth transition for the infant.
It is well documented that conflict between parents has an adverse impact on their ability to parent sensitively, and inter-parental conflict brings a higher likelihood of harsh styles of discipline and diminished emotional responses, which are parenting behaviours associated ultimately with the child’s emotional insecurity and social withdrawal."
Further on they say:
"There are important developmental reasons,…, to be cautious about the recommendation of substantially shared care for children under four. Indeed we hope we have shown in this section why caution becomes more urgent in the case of the infant and the young child of high conflict divorce."
Legal principles
The principles governing parenting cases are set out in Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975. The Full Court in Goode & Goode [2006] FLC 93-286 says in interim proceedings, as in final proceedings, the Court must follow the legislative pathway.
Section 60CA provides that I must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. To determine the child’s best interests I must consider the 2 primary considerations set out in section 60CC(2) and the 13 additional considerations set out in section 60CC(3) as far as they are relevant to the case. Section 60CC(4) requires me to consider also the extent to which each party has fulfilled his or her parental responsibilities, and has facilitated the other parent in fulfilling his or her parental responsibilities.
THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS
The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both the child’s parents.
The primary considerations are of particular importance as they are consistent with the objects of the Act however as noted I must regard [A]’s best interests as the overriding or paramount consideration.
Each party acknowledges the benefit to [A] of having a meaningful relationship with the other parent and this is a factor to which I give weight.
The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm and from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
In relation to the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm and from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse neglect or family violence. The mother alleges the father was verbally and physically abusive towards her and her older children after their arrival in Australia. She alleges her older children are scared of the father and only wanted her to work while they were at school.
She gives examples of the father behaving harshly towards her older children and examples of his verbal abuse toward her. The mother alleges that in July 2007 the father called her derogatory names while she was removing clothes from the clothes-line and during this verbal altercation the mother alleges the father pushed her backwards so she fell and then punched her in the nose with a closed fist. She says she suffered bruising around both eyes as a result. The mother says this incident triggered the end of the relationship.
The father gives a different version of what happened during that incident. He alleges the mother has frequently complained that he treats [B] more favourably than her older children and that on this occasion she was deliberately obstructing his efforts to take [B] to a special dinner arrangement.
The father says the mother provoked an argument, struck him on the face inflicting scratch marks causing bleeding, punched him in the back and shoulder and under extreme provocation he momentarily lost his temper and hit her which he very quickly regretted. The father claims the mother frequently used foul language towards him, was aggressive towards her older son and displayed considerable irritability and mood swings during their relationship. The paternal grandmother also comments on the mother’s mood swings.
Ms D, the father’s former partner and [B]’s mother, says the father was not aggressive during their relationship but that does not assist me to make findings in this case. Ms D does confirm that [B] was not comfortable spending time at the father’s home after that July incident.
While I am unable to make a precise finding as to what happened on 20 July last year, I am satisfied the parties had a serious altercation on that evening. I can make no finding as to whether or not the father’s conduct towards the mother or her older children has been aggressive at other times, nor as to whether the mother has behaved aggressively towards her children or the father. I am persuaded on the basis of each party’s evidence that there has been considerable conflict in the party’s household since before separation and this is a factor I take into account.
RELEVANT ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The child’s expressed views and the weight those views should be given.
In relation to additional considerations; [A] is only 19 months so his views are not relevant.
The nature of the relationships between the child and each parent and the child and other persons.
In relation the nature of [A]’s relationships, as already noted each party acknowledges [A] has a close relationship with the other parent. I am unable at this stage without expert evidence to make findings as to the relative strength of his attachment to each parent.
The paternal grandmother says she has had a lot of involvement with [A] from the time they arrived in Australia when [A] was only two months assisting with child-care when the parties were working. She says she and [A] enjoy a close relationship. She says, as does the father, that [A] enjoys good relationships with his paternal grandfather, his uncles, aunts and young cousins and with his half-sister, [B].
Although the mother is critical of the paternal grandmother’s management of [A] at times when he has been with her and denies the frequency of her involvement with [A], the mother does not deny the significance of that relationship to [A]. The mother does not comment on [A]’s relationships with other members of the father’s extended family. But I accept that [A] enjoys those relationships.
As [A] has always lived with the mother’s older two children, I find it likely he is close to them, and the father says [A] enjoys a good relationship with his daughter, [B], and I accept that evidence.
I take these matters into account.
The willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent; the capacity of each parent and any other person to provide for the needs of the child including emotional and intellectual needs; the attitude to the child and to the responsibilities of parenthood demonstrated by each parent.
Neither party raises significant issues as to the capacity of the other to care for [A]’s physical needs although the mother says she has always been [A]’s primary carer and has always been the one to put [A]’s needs first.
The mother says [A] has been breastfed and is still breastfed when he is with her. She says when on night shift the father would bring [A] to the hospital for a feed or she would go home to feed him. The mother says [A] has always been an unsettled baby and she has sought mothercraft nursing assistance. She says until separation [A] has never been away from her for longer than an eight hour shift. She says [A] did not sleep through the night until after separation but that as he has his own room, he is more settled in his sleep pattern. She says he is only unsettled now after his routine is disrupted by spending overnight time with the father.
The mother says the father is not meeting [A]’s needs for two daytime sleeps which means [A] becomes overtired. She alleges the father objects to having his time with [A] wasted on [A] sleeping. The father says he has been actively involved in [A]’s care and looked after [A] when the mother had been working her shift at the hospital including looking after him when the mother worked overnight.
The paternal grandmother says she has observed the father caring competently for [A]’s basic day-to-day needs. The father denies [A] becomes overtired or is unsettled when with him. The parties agree that [A] was left with the father overnight during the marriage when the mother worked and I am satisfied that the father is a competent and capable carer.
The parties also agree that [A] is being breastfed and although the father disputes any suggestion that [A] needs to be breastfed from the purposes of feeding, I find it likely [A] continues to gain comfort by being breastfed and this is a factor to which I have some regard.
There is no issue that each party has ensured [A] spends time with the other party and acknowledges the importance of each party to [A]. Although I accept the father has been disappointed not to have enjoyed more overnight time with [A], I am satisfied the mother has facilitated the continuation of [A]’s strong relationship with the father.
The extent to which each parent has fulfilled or failed to fulfil his or her responsibilities as a parent including spending time with the child, participating in decision–making about his/her welfare, and facilitating the other parent to do the same, and the extent to which each parent and party has fulfilled his or her obligation to maintain the child.
In relation to the extent to which the parties have fulfilled their responsibilities in the past including after separation, I have little more to add. The father says he has paid and continues to meet his obligations to pay child support and there is no issue that each party has not shown a commitment to his or her responsibilities as a parent.
The likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances.
In relation to the likely effect of any change in the child’s circumstances; as Mr Waddell says [A], like all young children, needs routine and a stable base. This is a factor to which I have regard. Neither party proposes [A] be separated from the other parent or from any other significant person in his life.
Practical difficulties and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent.
Practical difficulties are not an issue in this case.
The maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child’s parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant.
The fact that [A] is only 19 months of age is a significant factor to which I give substantial weight.
Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family.
In relation to family violence; there are no family violence orders. I have already canvassed the evidence about alleged family violence. There are no additional factors in 60CC(3) about which I am able to make findings at this interim stage.
PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
Section 61C provides that each parent has parental responsibility for the child but by section 61C(3) the joint parental responsibility is subject to any order the Court may make. Parental responsibility relates to decision making and not the amount of time the child will spend with each parent. 61DA requires the Court to apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibilities.
61DA(3) provides that in interim proceedings the presumption applies unless the Court considers it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for the presumption to be applied when making that order. Neither party’s counsel made oral submissions on the question of parental responsibility although the mother’s counsel submitted in writing that the Court should not make such an order. Neither party sought an interim order for equal shared parental responsibility.
An order for equal shared parental responsibility requires the parties to consult and make every attempt to reach agreement about major decisions concerning [A]. Given my finding as to the present poor state of the party’s communication and the present tension between them, I am not satisfied it is in [A]’s best interests for an order to be made at this time for equal shared parental responsibility.
Although I am not mandated to consider therefore equal time or substantial and significant time, a Court must always consider all possible arrangements for children whether or not the presumption applies.
As already noted, the father modified the orders he sought at hearing from those sought in his amended application. In his amended application filed on 3 March 2008 in relation to [A]’s time with him, he sought three days, two nights in week 1; two days, one night in week 2 followed by two nights and two days in the same week such that [A] would spend five days and four nights consecutively with him in one period during each two week cycle. The father also sought six weeks block time a year but not more than three weeks in one block.
At hearing, after hearing from Mr Waddell the father sought less time; two nights and four days broken up into two periods of two days and one night in week 1 and two and a half to three days and one night in week 2. The father’s counsel submitted that given one option for the Court at final hearing is to permit the mother to move back to the United States with [A], it must be in [A]’s best interests to build the strongest possible relationship base with the father now to give [A] any chance of maintaining a relationship with the father from the other side of the world.
The mother sought that [A] have one night each fortnight with the father and four full day periods and possibly four and a half days if the Court considered this was best for [A]. As Professor Chisholm and Dr McIntosh say in their introduction to the research paper to which I earlier referred, the new Australian data on the emotional wellbeing of children in substantially shared cared arrangements where separated parents are in continuing conflict most particularly when children are very young provides a cautionary note to legal advisers and to decision makers.
Mr Waddell said a child [A]’s age needs a strong stable base from which to operate. He says a child [A]’s age could cope with moves between households if the circumstances were right, however although he does not form a view as to the best arrangement for [A], Mr Waddell said it is clear in this case there is very limited cooperation and poor alliance between the parties which is very problematic for [A].
Conclusion
As already noted I am satisfied the parties are in continuing conflict and that the father’s proposal for three overnights per fortnight and six to six and a half days per fortnight amounts to substantial time. Although only preliminary at this stage the research I have referred to asks the Court to be cautious about ordering children and particularly very young children to spend substantial time with each parent. I am not satisfied the father’s proposal for substantial time is in [A]’s best interests at present.
The mother says [A] is unsettled, particularly since overnights have started with the father, that being one overnight per fortnight. Although it is not possible to make findings as to precisely as to why [A] might be presenting in this way with the mother, I have decided to err on the side of caution and not to risk increasing emotional stress on [A].
I have given consideration to [A] only spending daytimes with the father. However given [A] has been in one overnight a fortnight routine with his father since January and the mother seeks continuation of that routine, I have decided to leave that overnight in place. [A] will however return to the mother at 5 pm on Sunday not 6 pm given his age.
The mother proposes [A] spend an additional day each week with the father while she is working and I propose to order that [A] have that day with the father. If the father is unavailable [A] will spend the day with his paternal grandmother.
Given the factors I raised earlier in these reasons which cause particular concern in this matter, I do not propose to increase [A]’s time with the father any further. I will require the father to ensure [A] has sleeps at his home consistently with his sleep routine when with the mother in the hope [A] settles better when returned to the mother.
I am not persuaded by the father’s counsel’s submission that [A]’s relationship with his father can only be strengthened if [A] spends more time and more overnight time with him. There is no dispute that [A] has a loving relationship with his father. I am not satisfied that this loving relationship will be compromised by [A] having minimal overnight time at this stage, as long as [A] spends regular time with his father which he will do.
I am persuaded that [A]’s interests are best served in the circumstances of this case by him sleeping in the same place with the same predictable night routine. I urge the father to do his best to follow that same routine. I am satisfied the orders I am about to make are in the best interests of [A] at this interim stage.
I certify that the preceding sixty-eight (68) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Sexton FM
Deputy Associate: Annabel Pope
Date: 17 June 2008
0
0
1