Holt & Stiller
[2020] FamCA 1132
•17 December 2020
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Holt & Stiller [2020] FamCA 1132
File number(s): BRC 4104 of 2018 Judgment of: BAUMANN J Date of judgment: 17 December 2020 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – application for interim international relocation by the mother to New Zealand with the child – orders made allowing international relocation on an interim basis Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 60CC, 102NA Cases cited: Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36
Beaton & Beaton [2020] FamCAFC 297
Malcolm & Munroe and Anor (2011) FLC 93-460
Morgan & Miles (2007) FLC 93-343
Sawant & Karanth [2014] FamCAFC 235
Stringer & Nissen(No. 2) (2019) FLC 93-922
Number of paragraphs: 35 Date of hearing: 17 December 2020 Place: Brisbane Applicant: Self-represented Respondent: Self-represented Independent Children’s Lawyer: Ms K Cherry
Cherry Family LawyersORDERS
BRC 4104 of 2018 BETWEEN: MR HOLT
Applicant
AND: MS STILLER
Respondent
INDEPDENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
BAUMANN J
DATE OF ORDER:
17 DECEMBER 2020
UPON THE UNDERTAKING OF THE MOTHER:
A.That she will return to Australia to appear in person for a Final Hearing of these proceedings, should that be required, and upon compliance with Order 1 hereof.
THE COURT ORDERS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER:
1.That the mother shall forthwith cause a bond of $2,000 to be paid to the Collector of Public Monies of the Brisbane Registry of the Family Court of Australia, with such funds to be deposited by the Collector of Public Monies into a non-interest bearing account.
2.That upon receipt of payment in accordance with Order 1 hereof, the Collector of Public Monies of the Brisbane Registry is to notify the chambers of the Honourable Justice Baumann so that an Order may issue from chambers to provide for the removal of the child’s name (namely X born … 2016 (“the child”)) from the Airport Watch List.
3.That upon the Registrar of the Family Court of Australia being satisfied that the proceedings have been finalised, the monies paid to the Court by the mother are to be released to the mother as soon as possible.
4.That in the event that the mother fails to return to Australia for a Final Hearing of these proceedings, the monies paid to the Court pursuant to Order 1 hereof may be released to the father to assist meeting legal costs to seek the return of the child to the Commonwealth of Australia.
5.That upon satisfying Order 1 hereof, the mother be permitted to relocate the residence of the child to New Zealand on an interim basis.
6.That upon relocation to New Zealand, the mother shall inform the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer of her residential address, telephone and email contact details, and shall file a Notice of Address for Service with the Court, providing the Court with updated contact details. The mother shall keep the father, the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the Court informed should such details change prior to a Final Hearing.
7.That the father is restrained from being under the influence of alcohol and/or illicit drugs at any time that he is having Skype/Facetime or telephone communication with the child.
8.That as soon as practicable the parents shall each register for the Divvito parenting App for the purposes of exchanging information about the child X.
9.That the Independent Children’s Lawyer be at liberty to apply.
10.That these proceedings be adjourned for Case Management Hearing at 9.30am on 12 March 2021 in the Family Court of Australia at Brisbane.
11.That the mother have leave to appear by telephone on 12 March 2021 (from New Zealand) by using the “AAPT GlobalMeet” telephone conferencing system as follows:
(a)She shall telephone … (with the necessary international dialling codes) by 9.25am (Queensland, Australia time) on 12 March 2021;
(b)She shall then enter the pass code …; and
(c)Hold the line until the Court is ready to connect and proceed with the matter.
12.That these proceedings be set down for Final Hearing for not more than three (3) days commencing at 10.00am on … June 2021 in the Family Court of Australia at Brisbane.
THE COURT ORDERS BY CONSENT UNTIL FURTHER ORDER:
13.That the child spend time and communicate with the father at all times as may be agreed upon between the parents, and failing agreement, as a minimum, as follows:
(a)Until such time as the mother relocates with the child to New Zealand:
(i)each Saturday and Thursday from 9.00am until 10.00am;
(ii)with such time to be supervised by Ms B;
(iii)with the father to meet the child and Ms B at the mother’s apartment building; and
(iv)with the father to be at liberty to bring other family members to spend time with the child on the visits which occur on Saturdays.
(b)that time will not occur on Saturday, 26 December 2020 due to Ms B not being available, however in lieu therefore, there shall be a visit on Monday, 28 December 2020 at 9.00am, on the same conditions as set out above; and
(c)upon the mother relocating with the child to New Zealand:
(i)by Skype or Facetime communication each Saturday at 1.00pm (New Zealand time), and each Wednesday at 3.00pm (New Zealand time);
(ii)that the mother will facilitate such communication by ensuring the child is available to take the Skype or Facetime call and has sufficient technology available to her to facilitate such communication; and
(iii)by telephone or other electronic communication at all other reasonable times as agreed and as may be facilitated at that time.
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 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Holt & Stiller has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Settled from the oral reasons delivered)BAUMANN J:
The Respondent mother, Ms Stiller, now aged 26, met the now 33 year old tradesperson, the Applicant father, Mr Holt, and commenced cohabitation during 2014 and were, in their relationship, blessed with the birth of their daughter X on … 2016. X is now four years of age. At final separation in April 2018, X was two years of age.
Although this is an Interim Hearing and the evidence has not been fully tested, I am satisfied that, particularly towards the end of the relationship and, at times, during it, the relationship was volatile. The mother asserts that the father was domestically violent towards her, some of which the father accepts and some of which he denies.
The mother says that the father’s behaviour towards her, at times in the presence of the child, was shaped by the father’s drug use. The father today acknowledges some past extensive drug use. In fact, he called it “drug abuse”. The mother admits herself to prior drug use, however with testing requested by the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”), the mother was able to demonstrate consistently negative detection of illicit substances, both in the hair follicle test and subsequent urine analysis. Whilst there may have been some uncertainty about the father’s drug use, his own admission, I believe, with a degree of honesty, is that he has continued to use drugs but did not use it for the 48 days he was on remand, having been released on … December 2020. Certainly it is a matter of record that the hair follicle test undertaken by the father detected illicit substances. The father failed to undertake urine analysis as directed by the Court, including one shortly before he was incarcerated on remand. In any event, after separation the mother unlawfully and unilaterally returned to her native New Zealand, in particular, C Town in the North Island, with X, where she had both family and financial support. Although the father filed proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on the 17 April 2018 for a recovery order and pace alert, while seeking the child live with him and spend supervised time with the mother, by the commencement of those proceedings the mother had left the country.
The mother acknowledges that Hague Convention proceedings caused her to return, voluntarily, after being directed to do so, no doubt, by the District Court of New Zealand. Upon her return she did engage in the Court process in Australia, filing a Response on 7 June 2018 supported by an affidavit and Notice of Risk. In the short Notice of Risk that she filed at that time in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, the mother identified and her affidavit asserted, that the father had assaulted her, in the presence of the child, and that the father was a consistent user of methamphetamines, as well as cannabis.
The father had not, in his filed material, totally responded to those allegations but has done so today with a hint of honesty, in my view, looking at his evidence when put in the witness box to give oral evidence. The father in his Notice of Risk filed 17 April 2018 identified, and his affidavit asserted at paragraph 18, that the mother had effectively attacked him with a metal pole while he was holding his daughter. The mother denies those particulars, but did acknowledge, both in her initial affidavit (at paragraphs 28 and 31) and today, that there was an incident between the parents, in December 2017, but denies attacking the father with a pole. She does admit to damaging his car, which she says she paid to be repaired. This incident does neither parent any credit but does appear to have occurred approximately four months before final separation, reflecting the deterioration of the relationship then apparent. There is no record that the Police intervened in the December 2017 incident.
Both parents’ competing proposals, including the mother’s Response in June 2018, in which she has maintained an application to be given permission to relocate to New Zealand on both an interim and final basis, were pleaded by June 2018. However, for reasons not entirely clear to me, it was not until 12 February 2019, some eight months later, that the Federal Circuit Court of Australia made some proscriptive Orders for time. The Orders of 12 February 2019 inter alia provided for those arrangements and are set out as follows:
1.The child X born … 2016 (“the child”) live with the Mother
2.That the child spend time and communicate with the Father at all times as agreed between the Father and the Mother but failing agreement at least:
Pending The Father Providing A Clear Drug Test
a. Supervised at D Contact Centre for two hours each Saturday for a maximum of two (2) hours with each Parent to pay one half of the costs of supervision
Upon The Father Providing A Clear Drug Test
b. Each Wednesday from 1.00pm to 5.00pm and each Saturday and Sunday from 9.00am to 3.00pm with all changeovers to occur at McDonalds Suburb E with neither of the grandparents to be in attendance at changeover
3.That the Mother and Father are to undertake hair follicle testing with F Service (Telephone …) within 24 hours of the date of the Order at their own expense and provide a copy of the results to the other Party
(As per original)
It is clear that around February 2018 the mother conceived, with a man named Mr G, the child Y who was born on … 2018. The mother says the conception was a “one night stand”. Y remains in her full time care. The mother is not totally aware of where Mr G lives but she thinks he might be in New Zealand, and she gave me the impression, as far as she was concerned, in the best interests of Y, she would seek to make some inquiries when in New Zealand, if permitted to relocate temporarily, so that Y could get to know his father.
The ICL appointed on 12 February 2019, Ms Cherry, has made a request for the parents to undertake drug testing, both hair follicle and urine analysis. I have already dealt with the results there. They lead to the clear inference that, at least until the father was put into custody, which he says occurred on 23 or 24 October 2020, he was a constant user of drugs, both cannabis and probably methamphetamines. He even acknowledges that when released from incarceration or remand on 10 December 2020, having been convicted of his own plea of certain charges, that to calm himself down he also used cannabis again.
It was because the father had been unable to produce a “clear drug test”, as the Orders of 12 February 2019 set out, that his time with X, which recommenced on 9 March 2019 and continued until 26 September 2020, have all been supervised at D Contact Centre. The evidence of Ms J, the contact supervisor at D Contact Centre, in an affidavit filed 16 November 2020, with annexed observation notes for all visits reveals that:
(a)33 weekly one hour contact visits (all with the paternal grandmother, Ms K, being present) occurred between 9 March 2019 and 2 April 2020, with 22 scheduled visits missed due to illness or other explained reasons;
(b)the mother ceased visits on 2 April 2020 because of alleged concerns about using public transport during the COVID-19 pandemic;
(c)visits to a public place (L Park) recommenced on 29 June and also took place on 3 and 10 August 2020 but the notes of Ms J reveal that she cancelled further parklands visits as she “did not believe [she] could supervise Mr Holt properly”; and
(d)three further visits occurred on 12, 20 and 26 September 2020 at D Contact Centre, but then the notes reveal that because the father owed $230 for past visits and the outstanding monies had not been paid, visits ceased. As I understand it, the monies have still not been paid, however, what we now know is that approximately a month after the visits stopped, the father was arrested and placed in custody.
The effect of this chronology is, therefore, that there have been no visits since 26 September and, in effect, over the last eight months, only six visits have taken place between the father and X. This is, in my view, an important context for the observations made by Mr H, the family report writer, in interviews on 8 November 2020, leading to the report of Mr H dated 19 November 2020, which is before me.
That matter was allocated to the trial pool on 7 November 2019, and came into my docket for the first time for a trial allocation on or about 5 August 2020, when the father was likely to be unrepresented, and I made a discretionary order under s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) so that he had representation for the trial. I also ordered the father to submit to a urine analysis as required by Legal Aid Queensland protocols and listed the matter for hearing after 1 November 2020 but before 31 December 2020, as follows:
UPON NOTING that the parties intend to cross-examine each other at the trial of the proceedings, and that there is an allegation of family violence between them and further noting that the parties have each been advised by the Court:
A.that pursuant to these Orders, neither party may cross-examine the other party personally;
B.that pursuant to these Orders, any cross-examination of either party may only be conducted by a legal practitioner acting on behalf of the other party;
C.as to the availability of the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross- Examination of Parties Scheme and the means by which they may apply to that scheme for the provision of a lawyer; and
D.that a copy of these Orders will be provided by the Court to Legal Aid Queensland, which administers the said scheme.
THE COURT ORDERS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER:
1.That the requirements of s 102NA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 will apply to any cross-examination occurring in the proceedings on or after 11 September 2019.
2.That within twenty four (24) hours of a random request by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, the mother and father attend upon their general medical practitioner to obtain a referral to a reputable pathologist in their local area for the purpose of undertaking supervised urine analysis testing for illicit drug abuse.
3.That by no later than 4.00pm on 26 August 2020 the Applicant father file and serve an Affidavit:
a.explaining his use of illicit substances that caused detection of illicit substances in a urinalysis test undertaken by him in February 2019; and
b.providing a reason for failing to comply with the request made by the Independent Children’s Lawyer in November 2019 for urinalysis testing by him.
4.That these proceedings be set down for Final Hearing before 31 December 2020 but after 1 November 2020, in the Family Court of Australia at Brisbane.
5.That these proceedings be adjourned for Case Management Hearing at 12.00pm on 4 September 2020 in the Family Court of Australia at Brisbane.
6.That all parties have leave to appear by telephone on 4 September 2020 by using the “AAPT GlobalMeet” telephone conferencing system as follows:
a.They shall each telephone … (within Australia only) (toll free) by 11.55am on 4 September 2020;
b.They shall each then enter the pass code …; and
c.Hold the line until the Court is ready to connect and proceed with the matter.
I was satisfied on the evidence that the mother’s continued residence as a single parent of two young children without family support and any financial support by the father, effectively meant that the matter was urgent. By 4 September 2020, whilst concerned about the father’s failure to appear, I was aware the ICL had secured funding for a new family report and the matter was on track for a Final Hearing before me.
However, we now know it was on 23/24 October 2020 when the father was arrested and placed in custody for alleged breaches of a Domestic Violence Order (“DVO”) and other offences in respect of another former partner, a 34 year old lady. As a result the father could not attend family report interviews as arranged.
Today, the past criminal record of the father was tendered and marked Exhibit 2. The father acknowledged that there were serious charges about which he was charged, relating to contraventions of DVOs and other offences to which he pled guilty. He was convicted on his own plea on 10 December 2020 and, in addition to a three month suspended sentence, he was placed on probation for a period of two years. He acknowledges that a condition of his probation is that he submit, as directed by his probation officer, to a random urine analysis. He ought to know that there is a strong likelihood that if he did not comply by providing a clean drug screen or did not comply at all, there is a prospect that he will be imprisoned, at least for the three months of his suspended sentence.
I have read the report of Mr H, which is before me, and I note the father’s apparent inability to be present for the family report interviews on 8 November 2020. We now know why that is the case. I listed the matter for today to consider whether, as the mother has, as an unrepresented litigant, consistently urged, that she be permitted to relocate, even on an interim basis, to New Zealand.
It was good that, today, the father was able to appear. The record will show that I took further evidence from the mother and father to assist me in making this decision. Neither had legal representation. I identified on the last occasion for the mother to consider some of the areas that I might need to be satisfied about in relation to considering her relocating with X to New Zealand. I made the observation, of course, that I had no control over freedom of movement of adults both between Australia and New Zealand in most cases. This case is about whether it is in the best interests of X that she relocate with her mother. On the last occasion I indicated to the mother that she should make inquiries as to her capacity to travel to New Zealand; whether she is able to provide any security to the Court that she would return for a trial and consider what time electronically the father was able to spend with X pending a Final Hearing.
In accordance with the directions I made, the ICL circulated to both parents a minute of order which has been marked as Exhibit 1. Both parties have considered that minute of order and have made submissions on it.
PRINCIPLES
Clearly, the paramount consideration is the best interests of the child. In determining a parenting order, including interim location, the Court must consider the objects of the Act, which are set out clearly, one of which, importantly, in this case, is the right of the child to have the opportunity to have a meaningful relationship with each of their parents, provided it is safe.
I acknowledged it is somewhat unusual, but certainly not unheard of, to consider relocation on an interim basis, particularly overseas, but it is clearly within the power of the Court to do so. Recently, in Beaton & Beaton [2020] FamCAFC 297 Ainslie-Wallace J, when considering an order for interim relocation by a Federal Circuit Court of Australia Judge, discussed the well-known authority of Boland J in Morgan & Miles (2007) FLC 93-343 and the oft-quoted comments at paragraph 88 that:
It appears to me that the very difficult issues in cases involving a relocation, which difficulties are highlighted in the cases … make it highly desirable that, except in cases of emergency, the arrangements which will be in the child’s best interests should not be determined in an abridged interim hearing, and these are the type of cases in which the child’s present stability may be extremely relevant on an interim basis.
In rejecting the submission that Boland J’s Decision constituted a guideline, Ainslie-Wallace J observed at paragraph 35 that:
… it is apparent from the multitude of decisions of judges in interim hearings confirmed on appeal, that the principle issue in relocation cases is not whether the case is “an emergency”. The determination of issues regarding children whether on an interim basis or at a final hearing is by reference to the best interests principle …
referring to Malcolm & Munroe and Anor (2011) FLC 93-460 at paragraphs 106 to 107, Sawant & Karanth [2014] FamCAFC 235 at paragraphs 9 to 10 and Stringer & Nissen(No. 2) (2019) FLC 93-922 at paragraphs 26 and 27.
I am also mindful of the guidance given by the Full Court in Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36 which indicates that attention should be focused on those s 60CC(2) and s 60CC(3) considerations of most relevance on the evidence in respect of the dispute in mind. Before turning to those matters, I formally note that I am satisfied that every opportunity has been afforded to the father and the mother to present their cases today. They both had notice of the fact that the Court would deal with the matter on an interim basis.
They had the chance to read the report of Mr H and they also understood the position of the ICL through the minute of order. It was, in my view, beneficial that the father was able to attend today and present his case and then give evidence as I directed. The most relevant evidence, in making his recommendations at paragraphs 101 and 107 that the child be permitted to relocate to New Zealand on a final basis, of the report writer, Mr H, is at paragraphs 95 to 97 where he made some observations which I will incorporate in these Reasons. It supports and identifies the areas of concern which are, indeed, the Court’s areas of concern, namely:
95.While recommending a parent leave the country is not usually a position for any report writer, however considering Mr Holt’s complete lack of insight in his behaviour, his inability to follow orders either state or federal and most importantly the needs of X, along with the maternal grandmother Ms Stiller noting in her affidavit that she and her partner are willing to support Ms Stiller and the children in C Town, New Zealand, should they return to New Zealand, it is the recommendation of the Report Writer that Ms Stiller be granted permission to relocate to New Zealand for family and financial support in the best interests of X.
96.X demonstrated a close and secure attachment with her mother on the day of her observation and a very close attachment with her baby brother, Y. The research in sibling dynamics and contact recognises that it has an essential connection or relationship for children, noting that this relationship usually lasts longer than the parent-child relationship.
97.From this writer’s observation, the sibling relationship is essential for X. This relationship for X is extremely important as it fosters a relationship of trust and significance for her, which is in line with the array of research around sibling relationships as they are likely to be one of the most enduring of a child’s life. This relationship also contributes to X’s growth and development as it is a very distinctive relationship offering both positive and negative reactions for her and Y and for this reason it is essential that X remain in the care of Ms Stiller no matter where she resides.
(As per original)
The opinions expressed by the expert, although acknowledged by Mr H as limited by his inability to interview the father and observe him with X, were, to some degree, ameliorated by the extensive and positive notes of the supervised visits.
It is, on my reading of those notes, the consistent presence of the paternal grandmother (with whom X clearly bonded) that allowed the father’s interaction to be undertaken and that she did enjoy the time with her father. I am, however, prepared to accept that from the notes, X enjoyed, as I say, the time with her father and was looking forward to spending time with him.
The real difficulties in this matter is that this young mother is under enormous pressure living in Australia without family support and financial support. She gave evidence that she has only been able to do so since returning to Australia by Orders because of the financial support of her grandmother. She calculates that support is close to $80,000. It includes, at the moment, payment of one week’s rent each fortnight. Without that payment, the mother would not be able to survive in Australia. It seems clear to me that with the modest Family Tax A and B payment of about $500 per fortnight, once a week’s rent is paid, there is very limited monies available for food, clothing and support of this child and yet the mother has achieved that now for over two years, to her credit.
She has also, to her credit, other than occasions where there has been sickness, facilitated X’s time with the father by complying with Orders of the Court made for supervised time. Those involved further expense to the mother or the need to engage support, limited that she has in Australia, to assist her to get to the D Contact Centre.
The financial support of her family in New Zealand cannot be regarded as unlimited. The mother’s parenting of X is likely to be adversely affected by the isolation from her family in New Zealand; the pressures of financial support and the uncertainty of these proceedings. I am satisfied that she will be in a better position, at least initially, if she is permitted to return to New Zealand with X.
Although I accept the child will benefit from a meaningful relationship with the father, both the opportunity for that to occur and the risk of other forms of unsupervised contact which, in normal circumstances, after over 12 months of supervised time, the Court, for X’s development needs, would normally consider, are brought into sharp focus by the evidence I have heard today. In particular:
(a)the father acknowledges that at least since April this year and for a period of some six months until he was arrested, his behaviour has been fuelled by his use of drugs and has involved anti-social and, perhaps by definition, domestically violent behaviour towards a former partner. He is now on probation. He now knows that further conduct of that nature will have serious ramifications on his liberty;
(b)the fact that the previous failure to comply with a request for drug testing infers that the father has, as he now acknowledges, continued to abuse drugs up until his incarceration on remand in October 2020. That is a very significant risk to the child;
(c)there is a lack of evidence from his mother, Ms K, about the level of support she might be able to provide him, although I note today he is supported by his cousin, who also lives in the house with his mother; and
(d)the Court can provide no greater incentive to this man to get his conduct into control than the prospect of having a more functioning relationship with his daughter. However, it is a concern to me that this mother should not be required to almost remain captive in this country whilst the father gets his house in order. That cannot be in the child’s best interests.
I intend to make an interim order at this stage that the child be permitted to relocate to New Zealand. It will be important, before the mother leaves, on an interim basis, and based on the undertaking she is prepared to offer to the Court, which I accept, about the payment of monies into public funds and her undertaking to return for trial at a date which will be given, that the child spend some time with the father.
It would have been good if the father’s conduct had been better such that the Court might have been able to consider some form of unsupervised time. The Court is not prepared to consider, in view of the father’s recent history, unsupervised time. However, I will engage Ms Cherry, the ICL, to discuss with the parties today what options for time between X and the father can take place between now and 28 January 2021, or whichever date the mother is able to go but not before 28 January 2021.
28 January 2021 is a date that would allow the child to begin a school year, at least temporarily, in New Zealand, as a precursor to commencing school for what is the requirements in New Zealand for a five year old to commence school formally on or around their fifth birthday.
I will accept the order that the ICL proposes but I would want the order to be amended by a provision that the child will, at least, spend twice a week by electronic means, Skype or FaceTime. I presume it may be possible to do it, for example, on a Wednesday, and one of the weekend days, so that the father can actually see his daughter.
Telephone communication, which apparently is more difficult on the farm where the mother intends to move temporarily, a farm operated by her grandmother, who has provided her with this enormous support is, she says, less likely, but can be achieved, but I want the Skype time to actually occur.
I will also Order the matter return to my list in March. Hopefully the father will then have engaged, as he says he will, with the lawyer that will be available to him by reason of my earlier declaration under s 102NA. The mother will, before she leaves this country temporarily, have the opportunity to do so as well, and she should do so, so that when the matter comes back to me in March, I should have both lawyers and will be in a better position to determine whether there are some prospects of this matter resolving or if it is a trial that will take as long as three days, which will be the time that I would propose to allocate to it. The matter will come back before me on 12 March 2021.
In terms of a trial, and I accept the father’s concerns about being satisfied that a trial will take place quickly because of the interim nature of these Orders, and anticipating that mid-year may be a time when the child will not be at school, I propose to list the matter for hearing for three days commencing 16 June 2021 in my Court list.
I certify that the preceding thirty-five (35) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Baumann. Associate:
Dated: 9 March 2021
0
3
1