HUNTER & BASSETT

[2017] FCCA 398

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HUNTER & BASSETT [2017] FCCA 398

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Interim parenting orders – best interests of child.

Legislation:

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

Cases cited:

Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286
Marvel v Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101; (2010) 43 Fam LR 348
SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13
Eaby & Speelman (2015) FLC 93-654

Banks v Banks (2015) FamCAFC 36

Applicant: MR HUNTER

Respondent: MS BASSETT

File Number: PAC 5521 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Newbrun

Hearing date: 2 February 2017

Date of Last Submission: 2 February 2017

Delivered at: Parramatta

Delivered on: 7 March 2017

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Amanda Little & Associates

Solicitors for the Respondent: Able Defence Lawyers

ORDERS PENDING FURTHER ORDER

1. The parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the child X born (omitted) 2013 (‘the Child’).

2. The child shall live with the mother.

3. The child spend time with the father as follows, commencing 11 March 2017:

   (a)During the period from 11 March 2017 to 11 April 2017, each Saturday from 10am to 2pm, and such time shall be in the presence of the mother;

   (b)During the period from 12 April 2017 to 12 May 2017, each Saturday from 9am to 3pm;

   (c)During the period from 13 May 2017 to 13 July 2017, each Saturday from 9am to 6pm;

   (d) During the period from 14 July 2017 to 14 October 2017, each Saturday from 9am until 9am Sunday;

   (e) During the period from 15 October 2017 to 15 January 2018, each alternate weekend from Saturday 9am until 5pm Sunday

   (f) During the period from 16 January 2018 and thereafter, each alternate weekend from 3pm or after school Friday until 5pm Sunday

   (g) The father shall spend further time with the child on special occasions such as Father’s Day, the child’s birthday, Christmas, the Father’s Birthday, and Easter, in accordance with any agreement of the parties.

   (h) The father may spend further time with the child in accordance with any agreement of the parties.

4. For the purposes of changeover the father shall collect the child from the mother’s residence at the commencement of his time and the mother shall collect the child from the father’s residence at the conclusion of the child’s time with the father.

5. The parties shall not denigrate the other party or a member of that party’s family or household in the presence or hearing of the child and each party shall ensure that no third party denigrates the other parent in the presence or hearing of the child.

6. Both parties are at liberty to obtain from the child’s school or preschool copies of all material produced by the school for the benefit of parents including but not limited to school reports and newsletters and attend all events held by the school including but not limited to school assemblies, carnivals and parent teacher interviews.

7. The parties, whilst the child is in their respective care, shall hold the child’s hand at all times when the child is present in or near a car park, roadway or driveway.

8. The father shall provide the mother with a clean chain-of-custody urine analysis test on 2 occasions over a four-month period (one test during each 2 month period), such four-month period commencing from the date of these orders.

9. Pursuant to section 62G(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 the parties and the children of the relationship attend upon a family consultant nominated by the Dispute Resolution Coordinator of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on a date and at time/s to be advised for the purposes of the preparation of a family report, such report to be released on or before 16 January 2018.

10. The Family Report to deal with the following matters:

    (a)The nature of the child/ren’s relationships with each of the child/ren’s parents and other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child/ren);

    (b)The likely effect of any changes in the child/ren’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child/ren of any separation from:

    (i)either of the parents: or

    (ii)any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child/ren), with whom the child/ren has/have been living.

    (c)The capacity of each parent, or another person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child/ren), to provide for the child/ren’s needs, including emotional and intellectual needs.

    (d)The maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child/ren and of either of the child/ren’s parents, and any other characteristics of the child/ren that the report writer thinks are relevant to opinions expressed in the report.

    (e)The attitude to the child/ren, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child/ren’s parents.

11. Proceedings are adjourned to 16 February 2018 at 9.30am for mention.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

PAC 5521 of 2015

MR HUNTER

Applicant

And

MS BASSETT

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This interim hearing relates to the child, X born (omitted) 2013 (“the child”).

2. There are current Interim Orders in place, made by consent on 30 September 2016, that provide for the father to spend 2 hours on a Saturday with the child at a public place as agreed between the parties, or failing agreement, McDonald's (omitted). This time was to be in the presence of the mother for the first 8 occasions only, and for the father to provide to the mother a chain-of-custody urinalysis test prior to the cessation of the mother being present during the father’s time.

3. The mother’s Application in a Case filed 16 January 2017 seeks to vary the Orders to provide for a period of 6 months the child to spend time with the father in the presence of the Mother as agreed, and failing agreement for 3 hours each alternate Saturday at McDonald's (omitted) or (omitted) Park. The mother also seeks an Order that the father provide the mother with a clean chain-of-custody urinalysis test no less than every 2 months in order for such “contact to continue”.

4. The father’s Case Outline proposes interim orders for time with the child on a graduating basis. Initially and for 4 weeks he proposes to spend time with the child twice a week during the daytime in the presence of the mother. Thereafter the time is not to be in the presence of the mother, and to gradually increase to longer periods of daytime time including overnight time.

Material relied upon by parties

1. The mother relied upon her Case Outline dated 31 January 2017, her Application in a Case filed 16 January 2017, and her Affidavits filed 2 December 2016 and 16 January 2017.

2. The father relied upon his Case Outline dated 1 February 2017, his Amended Initiating Application filed 26 September 2016, and his Affidavits filed 26 September 2016 and 1 February 2017.

Issues in dispute in the interim hearing

1. There are three issues in dispute in this interim hearing:

   a)The extent to which the father’s time with the child should be in the presence of the mother;

   b)The duration and frequency of the time the father spends with the child; and

   c)Whether the parties should have equal shared parental responsibility for the child or sole parental responsibility to the mother, or no order should be made.

Evidence

1. The mother is aged 32 years. She is a (occupation omitted) and works two days a week. The father is aged 35 years. His occupation is a (occupation omitted) employed at his father’s business. He works 38 hours per week.

2. The parties’ relationship commenced in around 2000 and lasted about 2-3 years. In 2008 the parties’ recommenced their relationship and began cohabitating. The parties separated and ceased living together in around late 2012 – early 2013.

3. The child was born on (omitted) 2013.

4. The father admits to previously smoking cannabis. He states that he has not consumed any illicit substances since 29 July 2016. He says that he was not a regular user and would occasionally use cannabis. He states that he is willing to undertake anything the Court requires if the Court is concerned regarding the alleged drug use.

5. The mother states that the parties both smoked cannabis during the relationship. The mother states that she ceased smoking marijuana when she found out she was pregnant.

6. The child lives with the mother.

7. On 24 October 2016 the child was assessed by a speech therapist. The speech therapist advised the child was about 6 months delayed with his speech. The mother arranged weekly appointments from early November 2016 for three or more months.

8. The father commenced spending time with the child in the presence of the mother around mid-June 2014. According to the father, this time went from mid-June 2014 until early November 2014 for at least 3 hours per visit, and he visited the child every Friday for up to 8-10 hours and on Sundays also. The father states that he would like to play an active role in the child’s life by dropping and picking him up from school, attending school events and participating in sporting activities with him such as swimming. He would like to take the child camping and play with remote-control cars at the local club where the father is a member. He would also like to have family dinners with the child, his parents and siblings.

9. According to the mother, the child spent supervised time with the father for about 8-10 weeks only, during which time the father would come to the mother’s residence for an hour or so and play with the child. According to the mother, the visits stopped because she was becoming more and more concerned about her safety and the safety of the child during the visits; in this context she states that the father was very unpredictable and it scared her to be around the father. Time recommenced in October 2016.

10. The parties undertook DNA testing to check the father’s paternity for the child. In September 2015 the mother received correspondence from the father’s solicitors in relation to this issue. The DNA testing was completed in June 2016.

11. The mother resides at (omitted). The father resides in (omitted) in a three-bedroom home.

12. The father has not spent time with the child other than in the presence of the mother to date.

13. The father states that he has daily contact with his family as he works in his father’s business. He states that his family will support him in caring for the child by providing assistance whenever he needs it.

14. The father submits that he has previously smoked cannabis however he has not consumed any illicit substances since 29 July 2016.

15. In compliance with the consent orders of 30 September 2016, the father undertook a urine analysis test in December 2016. The test was negative, and the father annexed the results as Exhibit A to his Affidavit filed 1 February 2017.

Relevant legal principles

1. The relevant principles in relation to parenting proceedings, including interim proceedings, are well settled: see Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286.

2. In Marvel v Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101; (2010) 43 Fam LR 348 the Full Court (Faulks DCJ, Boland and Stevenson JJ), discussed the problems associated with making findings on disputed evidence as follows:

   [120] As has frequently been emphasised interim parenting proceedings, and orders made as a consequence, are a necessary but temporary measure until all the evidence can be tested, evaluated and weighed at a final hearing by the making of final parenting orders. Decisions judicial officers have to make in interim proceedings are difficult and, often for very good reason, a conservative approach, or one which is likely to avoid harm to a child is adopted. This is often to the understandable distress of a party who may not achieve the outcome he or she desires, or thinks to be in the best interests of their child or children. Interim parenting orders are frequently modified or changed after a final hearing, and any allocation of parental responsibility made at an interim hearing is disregarded at the final hearing (s 61DB).

   [122] In SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13 the majority (Boland and Thackray JJ) discussed at paragraph [88] of their reasons the care necessary to be exercised in making findings in interim parenting proceedings. Their Honours said:

   In our view, findings made at an interim hearing should be couched with great circumspection, no matter how firmly a judge’s intuition may suggest that the finding will be borne out after a full testing of the evidence.

   [123] Later, at [100] their Honours amplified their comments and said:

   The intuition involved in decision-making concerning children is arguably of even greater importance when a judge is obliged to make interim decisions following a hearing at which time constraints prevent the evidence being tested. Apart from relying upon the uncontroversial or agreed facts, a judge will sometimes have little alternative than to weigh the probabilities of competing claims and the likely impact on children in the event that a controversial assertion is acted upon or rejected. It is not always feasible when dealing with the immediate welfare of children simply to ignore an assertion because its accuracy has been put in issue.”

3. Of this, the Full Court in Eaby & Speelman (2015) FLC 93-654 said at 80, 332:

   [80] As would be immediately apparent, this approach enables the Court to appropriately and carefully deal with contentious issues relevant to the welfare of the child, and for those issues to not be ignored.

4. The Court also refers to the recent decision of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Banks v Banks (2015) FamCAFC 36, especially at paragraph 46 to 52.

5. Section 60B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) sets out the objects of Part VII of the Act relating to children that inform the making of parenting orders.

6. In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration: section 60CA of the Act.

7. Section 60CC of the Act provides that in determining what is in the child’s best interests, the Court must consider the matters set out in subsections (2) and (3).

8. When making a parenting order in relation to a child, the Court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child: section 61DA of the Act. When the Court is making an interim order, the presumption applies unless the Court considers that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for the presumption to be applied when making that order: section 61DA (3).

9. If the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in relation to the child applies, and is not rebutted, the Court must firstly consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child and reasonably practicable.

10. If equal time is found not to be in the child’s best interests, or impracticable, as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in section 60CC, the Court must consider making an order that the child spends substantial and significant time (as defined in section 65DAA (3)) with the parents, unless contrary to the child’s best interests as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in section 60CC, or impracticable.

11. If neither equal time nor substantial and significant time is considered to be in the best interests of the child, or impracticable, then the Court may make such orders in the discretion of the Court that it thinks proper, being orders that are in the best interests of the child, as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in section 60CC: sections 60CA, 60CC, 65D.

The Best Interests of the Child

Section 60CC Considerations

Subsection (2a) - the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents:  a primary consideration.

1. The child has a meaningful relationship with the mother and will benefit from a continuance of that relationship.

2. The child’s relationship with the father would appear to be developing positively (in particular since the child’s time spent with the father since the consent interim parenting orders of 30 September 2016) and the child will likely benefit from a meaningful relationship with the father.

3. Gradually increasing the father’s time with the child, including allowing the father to spend time with the child other than in the presence of the mother (and in this context the Court refers to its discussion below under the need to protect primary consideration), will likely assist in the development and enhancement of a meaningful relationship between the child and the father.

4. In the view of the Court, the mother’s proposed interim order that for a period of 6 months the child spend time with the father in the presence of the mother as agreed between the parties, and failing agreement each alternate Saturday for 3 hours at a public venue, carries the real risk that the child’s relationship with the father will not continue to develop and lead to a meaningful relationship in a timely manner.

Subsection (2b) - the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.

1. The mother alleges that there was a history of family violence perpetrated against her by the father during the relationship. The allegations are denied by the father. In any event, the parties have been separated for almost 4 years, and neither party alleges that there is a current risk of harm to the child. The Court is of the view that there is no unacceptable risk to the child of being exposed to family violence in spending time with the father.

2. The mother, in the context of the interim consent parenting orders of 30 September 2016, states that “things have improved since the second visit”. She states that the father has now told her that he is content with the changes that have had to be made to accommodate the child. The mother states, in her affidavit filed 2 December 2016, that she has concerns about whether the child and the father are bonding.

3. In the mother’s affidavit filed 16 January 2017, she states that she is extremely concerned about the father’s ability to care for the child without her being present at this time. She states that the child “has not bonded” with the father “in the way I had hoped”. She states that the child does suffer some speech and development delays and this could be part of why “the bonding” has not occurred.

4. Further, the mother states that from watching the father with the child, she does not believe the father has had much experience in caring for young children.

5. The mother states at paragraph 10 of her Affidavit filed 16 January 2017 that:

   “I do my best to allow Mr Hunter to take responsibility for caring for X during the time they spend together, but Mr Hunter often steps back and has me attend to X’s needs. It does not give me any confidence that Mr Hunter would be able to manage caring for X alone.”

6. The mother, in her Affidavit filed 16 January 2017, refers to an incident that took place in November 2016 when the parties met in (omitted) at (omitted) for a supervised visit arranged between the parties. The mother states that at the commencement of this visit she removed the child from the vehicle and handed him to Mr Hunter while she was unloading the vehicle. She states at paragraph 11 of her Affidavit filed 16 January 2017 that:

   “Mr Hunter turned around and told X to stand near where the cars were parked. He then turned his back on X for a split second and X was about to run into the car park. If I had not noticed and taken immediate action X could have been hit by a car.”

1. The mother in her Affidavit filed 16 January 2017 refers to a second incident on 2 January 2017 where the child was nearly hit by a car in a car park due to the father not keeping a proper eye on the child. The father had gone to get his keys from his car and the child ran around the back of the father’s car when the car parked next to him was reversing.

2. The father states in paragraph 19 of his Affidavit filed 1 February 2017:

   “During the time that I have been able to spend with X, I have been able to learn how to attend to X’s needs without Ms Bassett’s guidance however, I say that Ms Bassett steps in on most occasions without allowing me the chance to take responsibility for X first.”

3. The father states that when the 10 November 2016 incident occurred he did turn his back for a split second, however it was 11AM on a Thursday and where the parties had parked their car there were no cars around. Further, when the child ran away he was only running on the footpath, and did not run into the carpark at any time.

4. In addition the father states at paragraph 25 of his Affidavit filed 1 February 2017 that: “..the only reason why I had to turn my back was because we both had items to take for X’s birthday, I had presents for X and Ms Bassett had a birthday cake.”

5. The father states, in relation to the incident on 2 January 2017, that he immediately noticed that the child had walked behind his car and that the lady in the car had stopped reversing as she had noticed the child. The father states that the child was also still behind his car by the time he got to him.

6. In the father’s affidavit filed 1 February 2017, he states that he has thoroughly enjoyed his time with the child and they have been able to do a lot of fun activities together. For instance on 23 October 2016, the father bought a quad bike for the child to the visit. The child loved riding the bike. The father states that after the child had stopped riding, the father and the child then sat down for a drink and the child called the father “daddy” for the first time.

7. The father also spent time with the child on Christmas Day 2016 being the first Christmas that the father had spent with the child. The father states that he had a wonderful time with the child opening presents and playing in the play area in McDonald’s.

8. The father states that more recently the child has also started to tell the father that he doesn’t want to go at the end of their visits and has asked the father to get into the father’s car to come with him.

9. The father states that he is eager to further develop his relationship with the child without the need for the mother to be present. He states that he is particularly eager for the child to spend time with his family who he is yet to meet.

10. The mother states she has concerns about the child’s behaviour as it has become more problematic since he has been spending time with the father. The mother is currently organising to have the child assessed by his paediatrician to find out the root cause of the issue. The mother does not provide any particularisation of this allegation in relation to the child’s behaviour becoming more problematic.

11. One reason the mother gives in her evidence for proposing that for a further period of 6 months the child spend time with the father in her presence is her assertion that she has concerns about the child being safe spending time with the father other than in her presence. In this context, the mother gives 2 examples of incidents in car parks where she asserts that the father’s inattention to the child’s physical safety could have led to a serious accident affecting the child. The father, for his part, provides some evidential background and context for these alleged incidents, arguably indicating that the risk to the child was not as great as that asserted by the mother, whilst acknowledging some momentary inattention.

12. The Court is of the view that the risk to the child of being inadvertently exposed to harm in this context can be addressed by an appropriately crafted Court order requiring both parents to hold the child’s hand at all times whilst the child is present in or near a car park, driveway or roadway.

13. A further reason that the mother gives in her evidence for proposing that for a further period of 6 months the child spend time with the father in her presence is her assertion that the child “has not bonded with (the father) in the way I had hoped.” The mother does not provide any particularisation of this assertion and submits in her “Outline of Submissions” document that “the child had no relationship with the father prior to October 2016 and it may be that the child is still adjusting to having another parent in his life.”

14. On the other hand, the father states, giving examples that in the latter part of 2016 the child and himself spent positive time together and that the child for the first time referred to the father as “daddy”. This evidence suggests that the development of the child’s relationship with the father is progressing well.

15. In this context, it is also not without relevance that the interim consent parenting orders of 30 September 2016 provided that the weekly daytime time that the child was to spend with the father was only to be in the presence of the mother for the first 8 occasions, and, thereafter, provided the father provided a clear chain-of-custody urinalysis test, the child could spend time with the father other than in the presence of the mother.

16. In the view of the Court, the father’s proposal that for a further period of four weeks he spend daytime time with the child in the presence of the mother should ensure that the child’s transition, from spending time with the father in the presence of the mother to spending time with him other than in her presence, will occur without the child experiencing any significant emotional detriment. Further, it is likely that the child’s emotional well-being will be ensured by the child’s time with father being gradually increased over time, including a gradual progression to overnight time, although the Court regards the father’s proposed progression of unsupervised time to be a little quick and too extensive, and noting in the latter regard that the mother works part-time.

17. The father submits that he has previously smoked cannabis however he has not consumed any illicit substances since 29 July 2016.

18. In compliance with the interim consent orders of 30 September 2016, the father undertook a urine analysis test in December 2016. The test was negative, and the father annexed the results as Exhibit A to his Affidavit filed 1 February 2017.

19. Acting cautiously, noting the father’s history of cannabis smoking, including his own evidence that his last use of illicit substances was in late July 2016, the Court is of the view that a further interim order that the father provide the mother with a clean chain of custody urinalysis test on a further 2 occasions over a period of 4 months (one in each 2 month period) should provide a reasonable level of safeguard to ensure that when the child spends time with the father he is not under the influence of cannabis.

Section 60CC(3) - Additional Considerations

(a) Any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child maturity or level of understanding) that the Court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views

1. The child is only 3 years of age.

(b) The nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child’s parents; and other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child)

1. The Court refers to its discussion above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration.

(c) The extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken or failed to take the opportunity; to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and to spend time with the child; and to communicate with the child

1. The father, it would appear, has sought for the most part to spend regular time with the child, noting there have been historical concerns of the mother in relation to the child spending time with the father. There was a period of time during which the father sought to have DNA tests to establish paternity.

(d) The likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either of his or her parents; or any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living

1. The child’s meaningful relationship with the mother should not be detrimentally affected should he begin to spend increasing time with the father on a graduating basis.

(e) The practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with the parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis

1. There is no significant cost associated with the child spending time with the father as time has been occurring in a public place to date. There is not likely to be significant costs associated with the father spending time with the child other than in the presence of the mother.

3(f) The capacity of each of the child’s parents; and any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs

1. The mother has been the primary carer since the child’s birth, and has provided for the child’s needs. 

2. The father would appear to have the capacity to provide for such needs of the child.

(i)The attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents

1. The Court refers to the need to protect primary consideration discussed above. Otherwise, the parties would appear to have demonstrated appropriate attitudes to the child and to the responsibilities of parenthood.

(j) Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family.

1. The mother asserts family violence perpetrated against her by the father prior to the child’s birth. The father for his part asserts family violence perpetrated against him by the mother prior to the child’s birth. The father admitted to an incident involving physically placing the mother outside of the property, prior to the child’s birth, and regretted such actions. Neither party asserts that the child is presently at risk of being exposed to family violence whilst in the respective care of the parties.

Equal shared parental responsibility: section 61DA(1) and (2)

1. The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility probably does not apply by reason of the father’s admission in relation to physically placing the mother outside the property, at a time when the mother was apparently “kicking and screaming”. At this interim stage, and in any event, the Court is not satisfied that it will be in the best interests of the child to make an order that the mother have sole parental responsibility for major decisions affecting the child. The Court notes that there is presently no significant conflict between the parties, the mother is proposing that the child’s time with the father continue in her presence, and incidents of family violence alleged by the parties took place before the child was born. At this interim stage, the Court is not satisfied that the parties will be unable to reach agreement in relation to major decisions affecting the care welfare and development of the child. The Court is of the view that it will be in the best interests of the child that an interim order for equal shared parental responsibility be made.

Summary

1. Evaluating the above primary and additional considerations under section 60CC of the Act, the Court is of the view at this interim stage that it will be in the best interests of the child to make interim orders as follows:

   (1)     The parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the child X born (omitted) 2013 (‘the Child’).

   (2) The child shall live with the Mother.

   (3)     The child spend time with the Father as follows, commencing 11 March 2017:

   (a)     During the period from 11 March 2017 to 11 April 2017, each Saturday from 10am to 2pm, and such time shall be in the presence of the mother;

   (b)     During the period from 12 April 2017 to 12 May 2017, each Saturday from 9am to 3pm;

   (c) During the period from 13 May 2017 to 13 July 2017, each Saturday from 9am to 6pm;

   (d) During the period from 14 July 2017 to 14 October 2017, each Saturday from 9am until 9am Sunday;

   (e) During the period from 15 October 2017 to 15 January 2018, each alternate weekend from Saturday 9am until 5pm Sunday

   (f) During the period from 16 January 2018 and thereafter, each alternate weekend from 3pm or after school Friday until 5pm Sunday

   (g) The father shall spend further time with the child on special occasions such as Father’s Day, the child’s birthday, Christmas, the Father’s Birthday, and Easter, in accordance with any agreement of the parties.

   (h) The father may spend further time with the child in accordance with any agreement of the parties.

   (4)     For the purposes of changeover the Father shall collect the child from the Mother’s residence at the commencement of his time and the Mother shall collect the child from the Father’s residence at the conclusion of the child’s time with the Father.

   (5)     The parties shall not denigrate the other party or a member of that party’s family or household in the presence or hearing of the child, and each party shall ensure that no third party denigrates the other parent in the presence or hearing of the child.

   (6)     Both parties are at liberty to obtain from the child’s school or preschool copies of all material produced by the school for the benefit of parents including but not limited to school reports and newsletters and attend all events held by the school including but not limited to school assemblies, carnivals and parent teacher interviews.

   (7)     The parties, whilst the child is in their respective care, shall hold the child’s hand at all times when the child is present in or near a car park, roadway or driveway.

   (8)     The Father shall provide the Mother with a clean chain-of-custody urine analysis test on 2 occasions over a four-month period (one test during each 2 month period), such four-month period commencing from the date of these orders.

I certify that the preceding seventy-three (73) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Newbrun

Date:  7 March 2017