John & John
[2022] FedCFamC2F 1360
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
John & John [2022] FedCFamC2F 1360
File number(s): PAC 2085 of 2020 Judgment of: JUDGE STREET Date of judgment: 18 October 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – INTERIM PARENTING ORDERS – where the matter was listed for final hearing – where all parties were unrepresented – where Legal Aid failed to assist pursuant to a previous s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) order – adjournment of final hearing – concerns expressed by the parties as to the delay on their relationship with the children – where the Court has the benefit of a recent family report – interim parenting and procedural orders made Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) pt 7; ss 69ZL, 102NA Cases cited: Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346 Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 29 Date of hearing: 6 October 2022 Place: Parramatta Solicitor for the Applicant: In person Solicitor for the First Respondent: In person Solicitor for the Second Respondent: In person Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Mr C Sperling Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Kathryn Renshall Lawyers ORDERS
PAC 2085 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR JOHN
Applicant
AND: MS JOHN
First Respondent
MS ROWE
Second Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
order made by:
JUDGE STREET
DATE OF ORDER:
6 OCTOBER 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The hearing dates of 6 and 7 October 2022 are vacated.
2.The matter is fixed for a final parenting hearing commencing at 10:00am on 13, 14 and 15 March 2023 via video and or audio link pursuant to Part 6 Division 6 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth).
3.Order 8 of the orders of Judge Newbrun dated 16 November 2021 is varied so that it now provides that, pursuant to s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), neither the applicant or the first respondent is permitted to cross-examine the other personally.
4.The applicant father is to file and serve an updated consolidated trial affidavit together with an amended application on or before 10 February 2023.
5.The first and second respondents are to each file and serve a consolidated trial affidavit, together with an amended response, on or before 24 February 2023.
6.The applicant father is to file and serve a case outline, together with a list of any objections, on or before 3 March 2023.
7.The first and second respondents are to each file and serve a case outline, together with a list of any objections, on or before 8 March 2023.
8.The ICL is to file and serve a case outline on or before 10 March 2023.
9.Leave is granted to the parties to provide electronic tender bundles by USB or email 7 days prior to the hearing.
10.Leave is granted to all parties, including the ICL, to issue more than five (5) subpoenas for the purpose of the final hearing.
11.Leave is granted to all parties, including the ICL, to have photocopy access to any material produced on subpoena, subject to the filing of any Notice of Objection.
12.Liberty is granted to the parties to provide consent orders, to be made in chambers if appropriate.
13.Liberty to apply on 3 days’ notice.
Interim Parenting Orders
14.The children V born in 2006, W born in 2007, X born in 2009, Y born in 2010 and Z born in 2010 spend time with the second respondent, their grandmother, in accordance with their wishes, and the first respondent mother is to facilitate the children who wish to spend time with her doing so (albeit any cost in that regard is to be met by the second respondent).
15.The children V born in 2006 and W born in 2007 are permitted to spend time with the applicant father in accordance with their wishes, and that the first respondent mother facilitate and accommodate their wishes in that regard.
16.The children X born in 2009, Y born in 2010 and Z born in 2010 are to spend time with the applicant father on alternate weekends, commencing this weekend, from 9am to 5pm on Saturday and from 9am to 5pm on Sunday.
17.The parties are to cooperate in relation to a safe handover of the children.
18.Within 7 days of a request by the ICL, the applicant father is to undertake urine and or hair follicle drug testing, and the ICL may make more than one request.
19.The Court reserves its reasons for the above interim parenting orders.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.As a result of Order 3 above, the applicant father and the first respondent mother are entitled to Legal Aid through Commonwealth funding for the purpose of attending the above final hearing.
B.The applicant father will forward his recent urine analysis test results to the ICL today, together with an updated Notice of Address for Service and contact details.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym John & John has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE STREET:
Introduction
This is a parenting matter which was fixed for a final hearing on 6 and 7 October 2022 as a result of orders made on 8 February 2022. The proceedings are one in respect of which an order had been made in November 2021 under s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”), but that had been framed in such way as it related only to one party.
There is an Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) representing the five children (collectively, “the Children”), being:
·V, born in 2006;
·W, born in 2007;
·X, born in 2009;
·Y, born in 2010; and
·Z, born in 2010.
There was also joined to the proceedings the paternal grandmother, being the second respondent.
before the court
The applicant father is self-represented today, the first respondent mother is self-represented today, and the paternal grandmother second respondent is self-represented.
The applicant father had taken steps to contact Legal Aid early this year, and the Legal Aid representative apparently made contact with some person in the registry of the Court without checking with this Court, or the Court’s associate, and without checking with the ICL, and apparently formed the view that the proceedings were only fixed for an interim hearing in respect of the parenting proceedings. Legal Aid failed to assist the applicant father further in the preparation for the final hearing. This is a most unfortunate outcome as it was plain, at the time that the matter was fixed for final hearing, that it was a final hearing, and it is most unfortunate that no other steps were taken, either by the parties or the representative at Legal Aid, to contact the ICL, or the Court itself, to confirm the nature of the hearing. Regardless of the issue of that unsatisfactory position, the Court is at a point of time where adequate material representation has not been provided to the applicant father, nor is the respondent mother represented.
At present, the Children are living with the first respondent mother. The applicant father has had no physical contact with any of the Children for almost two years. The Court was informed that the applicant father is speaking to the children approximately three times a week via video and or audio means.
The ICL provided a case outline, identifying the unsatisfactory state of affairs in respect of the final hearing, and the inability, due to the absence of material from the parties in compliance with the orders that have been made, for the ICL to have formed point of views in relation to the matter.
The Court conveyed to the parties that it was inclined to vacate the hearing date and fix the matter for a fresh hearing date in March 2023. Not unsurprisingly, the applicant father expressed his dismay at the prospect of another five months before any determination of the final parenting issues. It was in these circumstances that the Court made inquiry of the respondent mother as to whether she had any difficulty with the father having access to the Children from 9am to 5pm each alternate weekend on Saturday and Sunday. The respondent mother indicated that she had no such difficulty, provided that the applicant father was not affected by drugs or alcohol. The respondent mother did not, at this stage, on inquiry from the Court, agree to overnight time. However, there was no opposition by the respondent mother to the commencement of alternate weekend access from 9am to 5pm on Saturday and Sunday. The first respondent mother indicated that she and the applicant father indicated that they could cooperate in relation to appropriate steps for a safe handover or changeover of the Children.
The Court has taken into account the principles in s43 of the Act, its obligations under pt 7 of the Act in making an interim parenting order, the primary and additional considerations, the paramountcy of the best interests of the children, prevention of family violence and the statutory pathway. The Court has also taken into account Division 11, that there were previous family violence orders and is satisfied the proposed orders are not inconsistent with any current family violence order. The Court is entitled, under s 69ZL of the Act, to issue reasons in short form.
chronology
A chronology of the matter is as follows:
Date Event 1955 Date of Birth of Ms B (“Paternal Grandmother”) Second Respondent 1971 Date of Birth of Ms John (“Mother”)
Born in City C, Country D1978 Date of Birth of Mr John (“Father”) C 2000 Date of Birth of E (child of Mother and another)
Child resides in Country D
#50 Fam ReportC 2003 Date of Birth of F (child of Mother and another)
Child resides in Country D
#50 Fam Report2005 Father and Mother meet in Country G Mother alleges it was late 2005
#2 MA 9/7/20202006 DATE OF BIRTH OF V
Child of relationship
Currently aged 15 years
Child allegedly born in Country D21 February 2007 Father alleges date of commencement parties live together 2007 DATE OF BIRTH OF W
Child of relationship
Currently aged 14 years2009 DATE OF BIRTH OF X
Child of relationship
Currently aged 12 years2009 Date of marriage 2010 DATE OF BIRTH OF Y
Child of relationship
Currently aged 12 years2010 DATE OF BIRTH OF Z
Child of relationship
Currently aged 12 years2019 Father alleges Mother went to Country D for 4 weeks to celebrate her father’s (MGM) 90th birthday.
Father and children remain in Australia.
Father alleges MGF subsequently dies while Mother in Country D and Mother did not return for a further three and a half weeks.
#6-9 FA 6/5/2020September 2019 Paternal Grandmother moves from Sydney (Suburb H) to Region J
#15 PGM 11/2/2022Late March 2020 Father alleges children’s passports not where they were and 20-30k of her jewellery not present
Father alleges he attended neighbour to discuss matter and police subsequently attended on him “in response to a complaint made by that neighbour”.
#15 FA 6/5/2020Late March/early April 2020 Father alleges incident with Mother and mother subsequently called the police.
Father alleges police speak to them both and then leave.
#16-17 FA 6/5/2020C 4-5 April 2020 Father alleges furthe4r incident with Mother and a Mr L (aka Mr K ) and police subsequently attend.
Father alleges police speak to them both and then Mother leaves without the children.
#18-22 FA 6/5/20206 April 2020 Father alleges Mother returns to home father alleges they speak by the leaves for work and is subsequently told by his daughter that the children and the Mother had left. He alleges child informed him where they were going (M Shopping Centre) Father alleges he called the police. Father alleges he attend M Shopping Centre finds mother and children. Father alleges incident with Mr L where Father hit him.
Father takes children. Police attend and arrest Father.
#23-28 FA 6/5/20206 April 2020 Date of Final Separation 6 April 2020 Father alleges Mother and children depart from former matrimonial home at N Street, Suburb O 6 April 2020 Court Attendance Notice
Father charged with Assault occasioning actual bodily harm on 6/4/2020
Listed for Suburb M Local Court 2 June 20206 April – 6 May 2020 Father alleges he has no contact with the children or the Mother and have their phone turned off 6 May 2020 Father files Initiating Application (signed 5/5/2020, Notice of Risk, Affidavit of non-filing of certificate and Affidavit 8 May 2020 Father files two Applications in a Case (seeking same orders)
Notice of Risk (as per Notice of Risk of 6/5/2020)
Affidavit (as per Affidavit of 6/5/2020)21 May 2020 (Thursday) Father alleges he receives a telephone call from Mother alleges saying “the children can come and get them or you can come and get them or I will take it to the school”
#6 FA 26/6/202025 May 2020 (Monday) Father alleges he attended O School and P School to see the children
#7 FA 26/6/202026 May 2020 (Tuesday) Father alleges he attended O School and P School to see the children
#7 FA 26/6/202028 May 2020 (Thursday) Father alleges he attended O School and P School to see the children
#7 FA 26/6/202028 May 2020 (Monday) Father alleges he took XY and Z home so they could pick up their school uniforms and then dropped them back to school during their lunch break.
Father alleges he then went and tool V and W to the home got some items and dripped them at the bus stop.
#7 FA 26/6/2020Late may/early june 2020 Father alleges children do not attend school for 3 days and he requests police welfare check. Father alleges the police inform him they will not be doing a welfare check “because they have been relocated as the children are currently in the case of FACS”.
#10 FA 26/6/2020June 2020 Father alleges telephone calls from the children and the Mother
#11-15 FA 26/6/202018 June 2020 Father alleges telephone call from the children X, Y and Z.
Father alleges Y (then almost 10) says “sometimes mummy says she is going to lock me in the laundry in the dark and lave me there”. Father alleges he hears Mother and hears Y starts to cry and call ended. Father alleges he calls police to do a welfare check.
Father alleges during call to police he asks about documents but is told they can’t tell him over the phone
#16, 23 FA 26/6/202019 June 2020 Father alleges he locates and takes V to her home and sees Mother and children X and Y and Z there with Mother.
Father alleges Mother informs him of AVO (not yet served on him)
Father alleges he requests for the children to have dinner with him and that occurs
#19 FA 26/6/202019 June 2020 Father alleges children with him.
Father alleges children inform him they are hit by mother and also that the Mother leaves it up to them to themselves ready for school.
Father alleges he calls the Mother and said “I will return the children not sure when it will be either tonight or tomorrow”.
Father alleges further conversation and that the Mother agreed the children could stay with him for the weekend.
Father retains the children with him.
#20-24 FE 26/6/202019 June 2020 Mother alleges “Mr John took all 5 children from me on 19 June 2020”
#8 MA 9/7/202020 June 2020 Father deposes he is served with ADVO returnable 29 June 2020 in the Local Court at Suburb Q.
Order is provisional ADVO for protection of Mother2020 Father deposes “I was concerned that she (Mother) had made promises to get the children to come back so when I was served I would not be able to see or approach the children. I then decided not to drop the other children home. I dropped V home Saturday morning as she had plans for her friends to sleep over for her birthday party”.
#19 FA 26/6/202020 June 2020 Mother alleges V returned home
#9 MA 9/7/202020 June 2020 – July 2020 Children (other than V with the Father) 21 June 2020 Paternal Grandmother comes to Sydney and is with the Father and children until 21 July 2020
#34-49 PGM 11/2/202026 June 2020 Father files Amended Initiating Application
Notice of Risk
Affidavit7 July 2020 Mother alleges V went to see her siblings in presence of FACS workers
#12-19 MA9/7/20207 July 2020 Mother files Response to Initiating Application Notice of Risk and Affidavit 8 July 2020 Orders of the Court (Judge Newbrun)
Adjourn to 9/7/2020
S69ZW request to Police and Department of Communities and Justice9 July 2020 Orders of the Court (Judge Newbrun)
Directions for filing affidavit that day
Adjourn recovering order to 9/7/2020 at 3pm9 July 2020 Orders of the Court (Judge Newbrun)
Reserve decision to 10/7/202010 July 2020 Orders of the Court (Judge Newbrun)
Consent orders re drug and alcohol testing
Adjourn recovery order to 21/7/202021 July 2020 Orders of the Court (Judge Newbrun)
Father to deliver children to Mother 3:30pm 21/7/2020
Recover order to lie in chambers
Mother to take all reasonable steps to ensure children attend school
Restraint on removal of children from Australia
Time with Father and children at a supervised contact centre or professional contact service supervision 2 hours per week
Without admission Mother not physically chastise children
S68L appointment
CIC for 14/8/2020
Adjourn for mention 4/9/202013 August 2020 Telephone call with Father and Family Consultant CIC memo 14 August 2020 Telephone call with Mother and Family Consultant CIC memo 13 August 2020 Telephone call with Father and Family Consultant CIC memo 17 August 2020 Interview with Mother and Family Consultant in person CIC memo 4 September 2020 Orders of the Court (Judge Newburn)
Consent orders re telephone calls 3 times a week (Tues Thurs and Sat) up to 1 hour between 6 and 6:30pm
Adjourn to 21/7/20208 September 2020 Independent Children’s Lawyer request chain of custody urine
No response
Single Expert Report p311 September 2020 Interview with children and Family Consultant in person CIC memo 16 September 2020 Independent Children’s Lawyer request chain of custody urine
No response
Single Expert Report p321 September 2020 Orders of the Court (Judge Newbrun)
Enrolment of each child in Anchor Program
Without admission amend prior order to read both parents not physically chastise children
Adjourn to 13/11/2020
Notation At mention court will consider the father previous compliance with random drug testing requests by Independent Children’s Lawyer.
Notation Court will ascertain if Father has obtained any relevant information relating to participating in illicit drug relapse prevention.
Notation includes Father has sought to comply with previous orders, there is a 6 month waiting period in contact centres he has contacted6 October 2020 Independent Children’s Lawyer request chain of custody urine
Single Expert Report p312 October 2020 Father undertakes urinalysis drug test
None detected6 November 2020 Independent Children’s Lawyer request chain of custody urine
No response
Single Expert Report p313 November 2020 Orders of the Court (Judge Newbrun)
Consent orders supervision by R Contact Centre.
Mother to complete and provide intake documents by 16/11/2020
Mention 2/12/2020
Notations include
The court is informed that the father has recently obtained legal representation
The Independent Children’s Lawyer and the mother submit that the father has Not complied with recent requests by the Independent Children’s Lawyer for drug testingNovember – December 2020 Father spends time with children
21/11/2020,
28/11/2020,
6/12/2020,
12/12/2020,
19/12/2020 and
26/12/2020
supervised by R Contact Centre
Family report of 25/5/20212 December 2020 Orders of the Court (Judge Newbrun)
Family report
Adjourn to 28 May 2021 for mention12 December 2020 Independent Children’s Lawyer request chain of custody urine
No response
Single Expert Report p316-20 December 2020 Paternal Grandmother comes to Sydney and is with the Father and children
#52-55 PGM 11/2/202219 December 2020 Independent Children’s Lawyer request chain of custody urine
No response
Single Expert Report p326 December 2020 Independent Children’s Lawyer request chain of custody urine
No response
Single Expert Report p3March April 2021 Interviews for Family Report of Ms U 25 May 2021 Orders of the Court (Judge Newbrun)
Release of Family report26 May to June 2021 Paternal Grandmother comes to Sydney and is with the Father and children
#59-63 PGM 11/2/202228 May 2021 Orders of the Court (Judge Newbrun)
Adjourn to 10 September 2021 for mention
Arrangement for COMP13 August 2021 Orders of the Court (Judge Campbell)
No orders made10 September 2021 Orders of the Court (Judge Newbrun)
Adjourn to 25 October 2021 for mention
Notation COMP (mediation) on 6/10/202125 October 2021 Orders of the Court (Judge Newbrun)
Adjourn to 16 November 2021 for mention
Notation father seeking legal representation16 November 2021 Orders of the Court (Judge Newbrun)
Directions for filing prior to callover 1/4/2022
S 102NA13 December 2021 Orders of the Court (Judge Newbrun)
Callover and compliance listing before court on 1/4/2022 vacated
Listed before Judge Street on 8/2/20228 February 2022 Orders of the Court 25 March 2022 Orders of the Court (Judge Street)
Ms S joined as second respondent
Matter fixed for hearing
S62G report
2nd respondent to file consolidated affidavit by 28/5/2022 and list of objections and case outline by 2/9/202219 July 2022 Interview with Family Consultant and Mother via Teams 8-16 August 2022 Paternal Grandmother comes to Sydney and is with the Father
#8 PGM 5/9/202210 August 2022 Interviews with Family Consultant and Father and Paternal Grandmother via Teams 11 August 2022 Interviews with Family Consultant and children in person 17 August 2022 Paternal Grandmother alleges she is informed child X(aged 13) “had been taken to hospital by ambulance from school yesterday because he was suicidal”.
#16 PGM 5/9/202226 August 2022 Family Report Ms T 2 September 2022 Orders of the Court (Judge Street)
Release of Family Report dated 26/8/20225 September 2022 Affidavit of Paternal Grandmother 13 September 2022 Orders of the Court (Judge Street)
Release of Family Report dated 26/8/20226-7 October 2022 Hearing Dates
the family report
In this case, the Court has the benefit of a very recent family report. The Court has taken into account the information in that family report, dated 2 September 2022 in considering how best to apply the said principles and considerations given the need to re-fix the matter for a final hearing..
The report writer had the benefit of interaction with all five of the Children, and with the two parents. The report writer identified the different accounts of the relationship, and the time spent together with the parties. The report identified that there was an Apprehended Violence Order for the man who took the Children from the applicant father’s home. The report writer noted that the Children’s accounts, indeed, do support the applicant father’s intervention surrounding the situational couple’s violence.
The report writer identified the potential lasting effects or impacts of family violence, and also identified the significant potential adverse impact if there was a cessation of contact between the Children and the applicant father, and the second respondent paternal grandmother.
There was identified a difference in parenting styles. The report recorded that the first respondent mother agreed that, should the applicant father be free from substances, she would support the Children spending time with him. It is also apparent that the Children have expressed wishes to have a meaningful time with each parent.
The report writer noted that the Children have loving and supporting parents, and a grandmother, who all love and care for them. It was recommended that these relationships continue. It was also recommended that the Children continue to spend time with the paternal grandmother as per their wishes.
The report writer suggested that this may be an appropriate matter where there should be shared parental responsibility, and made reference to the prospect of blood tests in relation to the applicant father, and a plan to be put in place to assist the Children re-establishing their relationship, with a view to alternate weeks with each parent, and school holiday time. It was suggested a different course should be followed if there was a positive result, and made reference to the potential assistance from a family dispute resolution practice.
submissions
Given the need for new procedural orders for final hearing the Court turn to what orders would be in the best interests of the children and most likely to prevent any family violence and best promote a meaningful relationship between the applicant father and the Children through significant and meaningful time, without there being an unacceptable risk. The ICL, in response to the Court raising the possibility of alternate weekends and at a time identified from 9am to 5pm on Saturday and Sunday, did not identify any specific unacceptable risk other than the possibility of drug and alcohol abuse. The applicant father identified he had recently undertaken a test result and had sent it to the ICL, and that the result was negative.
It was apparent from the applicant father’s submissions that he appeared lucid, clear, and extremely keen to re-engage in a relationship with the Children. The prospect of a further five-month delay in the determination of the matter where there has not been access for two years by the father was one that caused the Court to explore whether it was appropriate to consider making an interim parenting order in light of the material before it, taking into account the said principles and statutory pathway in Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346 at [65]. The Children have been living with the first respondent mother, and she has had sole parental responsibility. This is not a case where, at this stage, the issue of joint parenting responsibility, or a change of the living arrangements, can be determined on the material available at this procedural and interim stage. The only issue that was being advanced was the development of significant and meaningful time by the applicant father with the Children, as well as the second respondent paternal grandmother wanting to have time with the Children.
There is no opposition by the first respondent mother to the proposition that the Children should spend time with the second respondent paternal grandmother in accordance with their wishes. That was also the recommendation of the family report writer. No unacceptable risk could be identified in respect of the second respondent paternal grandmother having access to the
Children in accordance with their wishes. The Children are at an age where they are well capable of expressing their wishes and communicating effectively with their parents and the second respondent paternal grandmother.
The Court also heard submissions from the second respondent paternal grandmother as to her anxiety about ensuring the Children’s advancement in school.
CONSIDERATION And findings
The Court is satisfied that it is an appropriate and in the best interests of the Children in which to make an interim parenting order under Part VII of the Act to ensure that the Children can spend time with the second respondent paternal grandmother in accordance with their wishes. It appears that the second respondent paternal grandmother lives in Region J, which is quite a distance away from where the first respondent mother and Children are living. The Court proposes to make an order requiring the first respondent mother to facilitate the Children spending time, in accordance with their wishes, with the second respondent paternal grandmother. The cost, if any, in respect of the same should obviously be met by the second respondent paternal grandmother.
Turning to the issue of significant and meaningful time in the interim for the father in the context of the need for a meaningful relationship, pending the final hearing date, the Court is satisfied that there is no unacceptable risk to the Children, on the evidence currently before it, with the Children spending alternate weekends from the Saturday at 9am to 5pm and 9am to 5pm on Sunday with the applicant father. The Children are all of an age where they are capable of expressing their views to their parents, and if it were to be the case that the applicant father failed to ensure that he was able to meaningfully interact with the children, the children are of an age where that could be communicated to the parents.
The Court is also satisfied by the fact that there has been a recent negative test from the applicant father, which has been sent to the ICL. The ICL also asked for an order that the applicant father undertake further tests if so requested by the ICL, and the Court accepts that is a satisfactory step, in the circumstances of the present case, to adequately address any suggestion of an unacceptable risk in respect of the applicant father’s alleged problems with alcohol or drugs.
There is no other opposition by the ICL, or the first respondent mother, to the proposed orders in relation to the Saturday/Sunday time access for alternate weekend time access for the applicant father. The Court is satisfied that the proposed meaningful relationship time interim parenting orders for the Children with the applicant father are in the best interests of the Children and are most likely to prevent family violence.
As indicated the Court will make orders facilitating the matter coming on for final hearing in five months’ time, during which, no doubt, significant opportunity will have been provided for the rekindling and advancement of the meaningful relationship between the Children and the applicant father and, hopefully, a fostering of growth of that relationship, by the respondent mother, where it may have progressed consensually to overnight time. The parties may even then be able to reach agreement in respect of the future parenting arrangements for the five children.
The Court notes that the two older children are at an age where the Court would not impose any outcome other than one in relation to the children’s wishes, and the interim parenting orders the Court proposes to make will reflect that position.
The Court can see no reason why it ought not to facilitate the three younger children spending time, in accordance with their wishes, with the second respondent paternal grandmother. It is also an adequate and sufficient opportunity for the rekindling of that relationship, for the reasons the Court has earlier given.
The Court was informed of the significant material that had been subpoenaed by the ICL, and that the ICL had not yet had an opportunity of reviewing that material. In determining what interim orders should be made in the best interests of the Children, the Court has had the benefit of the very recent family report as referred to above in respect of the appropriate interim procedural and parenting orders.
It is for these reasons that the Court has made the interim orders as identified.
I certify that the preceding twenty-nine (29) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street. Associate:
Dated: 18 October 2022