Kaplan & Kaplan
[2022] FedCFamC2F 1748
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Kaplan & Kaplan [2022] FedCFamC2F 1748
File number(s): MLC 6744 of 2016 Judgment of: JUDGE HARLAND Date of judgment: 16 December 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – parenting – threshold hearing – whether or not there has been a significant change of circumstances. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4, 69ZN Cases cited: Garza & Hammill [2022] FedCFamC1A 142
Marsden & Winch [2013] FamCAFC 177
Miller & Harrington (2008) FLC 93-383
Oberlin & Infeld [2021] FamCAFC 66
Rice & Asplund [1978] FamCA 84
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 56 Date of hearing: 30 November 2022 Place: Melbourne Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Renou Solicitor for the Applicant: Patford-Smith Legal Services Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Dunlop Solicitor for the Respondent: Ryan Carlisle Thomas ORDERS
MLC 6744 of 2016 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR KAPLAN
Applicant
AND: MS KAPLAN
Respondent
order made by:
JUDGE HARLAND
DATE OF ORDER:
16 DECEMBER 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application for Final Orders filed 26 August 2022 be dismissed.
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 Kaplan & Kaplan has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE HARLAND:
X and Y are 12 and 10 years old and live with their mother in the Town B area. They spend time with their father three weekends in a four week period, who lives in the Town C area approximately 1.5 to 2 hours away. The father seeks to revisit parenting orders the parties consented to on 7 May 2018. He says there has been a significant change of circumstances since those orders were made and that it is in the children’s best interests that those orders be revisited. The mother seeks a summary dismissal of the father’s application relying on the principle developed in Rice and Asplund [1978] FamCA 84. The parties acknowledge that due to the distance between the parties’ homes it is not feasible for there to be a more shared care arrangement. The orders the father seeks would reverse the children’s living arrangements.
The argument was heard as a threshold matter with oral and written submissions without cross-examination. The father prepared his affidavit without a lawyer but was represented by counsel at the threshold hearing.
Legal Principles
The principle developed in Rice & Asplund is well-known. In that case, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia had to consider what principles should apply when a court is faced with an application to change an earlier parenting order. Evatt CJ said the following:
The principles which, in my view, should apply in such cases are that the court should have regard to any earlier order into the reasons for material on which that order was based. It should not lightly entertain an application to reverse an earlier custody order. To do so would be to invite endless litigation… Change is an ever present factor in human affairs. Therefore, the court would need to be satisfied by the applicant that… there is some changed circumstance which will justify such a serious step, some new factor arising or, at any rate, some factor which was not disclosed at the previous hearing which would have been material.
The trial judge has discretion as to whether to consider the Rice & Asplund principle as a preliminary issue or after a full contested hearing. It is important to bear in mind that the principle in Rice & Asplund is merely a manifestation of the best interests’ principle.
In Marsden & Winch [2013] FamCAFC 177 the Full Court stated at paragraph 58:
Nevertheless, there are significant changes that occur and which do require a court to reconsider decisions previously made. Whether in a particular case a court should be willing to embark upon another hearing concerning the child and parent, or whether to do so would itself be demonstrably contrary to the best interests of the child, is a decision to be made in each particular case. How is that decision to be made? The court must look at:
(1)The past circumstances, including the reasons for the decision and the evidence upon which it was based.
(2)Whether there is a likelihood of orders being varied in a significant way, as a result of a new hearing.
(3)If there is such a likelihood, the nature of the likely changes must be weighed against the potential detriment to the child or children caused by the litigation itself. Thus, for example, small changes may not have sufficient benefit to compensate for the disruption caused by significant re-litigation.
In Miller & Harrington (2008) FLC 93-383 the Full Court pointed out that s.69ZN of the Family Law Act 1975 requires the Court to consider the impact of proceedings on children.
Given the nature of the hearing before me I am required to take the father’s evidence at its highest. I am also able to consider other evidence including the respondent’s evidence and evidence as to the circumstances of the orders being entered into at the time.
The father’s identification of changed circumstances
The parties had been in litigation for about 2 years when they agreed to the final consent orders in 2018. The parties had received a family report which the father relied on at the threshold hearing without objection. As the parties resolved the matter before the trial, none of the evidence was tested.
The father makes a number of complaints forming the basis of his application to revisit the orders. The father prepared his affidavit without legal assistance. Unsurprisingly his affidavit includes submissions and argument. It is the father’s evidence, not submissions that I must take at its highest.[1]
[1]Garza & Hammill [2022] FedCFamC1A 142.
Some of his complaints include issues that predate the final orders and were addressed by the orders. He identifies the following changes at paragraph 4 of his affidavit affirmed on 2 November 2022 as supporting his application:
(1)The mother’s unilateral decisions breaching the order for equal shared parental responsibility;
(2)The mother’s changes of residence and cohabitation;
(3)The birth of the father’s twins and the closeness of the siblings;
(4)The children’s voices should be heard as they are 4 years older and want more time with him.
(5)The mother continuing to raise allegations with respect to the father’s mental health concerns and family violence.
The father relied on the family report dated 26 April 2018 before the parties entered into the final consent orders, which is marked as Exhibit 1. The father places great weight on paragraphs 78 and 85 of the report which is as follows:
[75]While as is often the case the truth of the matter lies somewhere in the middle of the accounts provided by the parties, influenced by differing perspectives and perception it was nonetheless, concluded by the writer that [Ms Kaplan] appears to have misrepresented to a large degree the history of [Mr Kaplan]'s behaviour and her current degree of co-operation and encouragement of the relationship between the children and [Mr Kaplan]. Further to this it does appear that there is a high degree of denigration and negativity relayed to the children about [Mr Kaplan] and notwithstanding her statements at interview with the writer, it appears more likely that [Ms Kaplan] has actively sought to remove [Mr Kaplan] from the children's lives and seeks to undermine the relationship between them.
[85]While a change of primary caregiver does not appear in the children's best interests at this time, there needs to be a very strong consideration and therefore message provided to [Ms Kaplan] that should the current style of interactions and blocking of the relationship between the children and [Mr Kaplan] continue that: Firstly, the impact upon the children's wellbeing is likely to be profoundly damaging and secondly, would likely result in serious consideration of a change of primary residence for the children on the basis that a significant and substantial relationship with both parents is in the children's best interests. Should [Ms Kaplan]'s encouragement and facilitation of the relationship not change [Mr Kaplan] is more likely and better able to actively co-facilitate the relationship between the children and [Ms Kaplan] than [Ms Kaplan] has been doing.
The underlying theme in his material and the submissions is that those predictions have come to pass. It is apparent from his material and the email exchanges that he has wanted a change of residence for years.
The Mother’s Multiple Changes in Residency.
The father complains about the mother moving four times since the parties separated. The moves which predated the 2018 orders are not relevant to the consideration of whether or not there has been a significant change of circumstances. Notation C of the 2018 orders specifically anticipates the mother moving and her intention that any move would not involve the children changing schools or the changeover location. Section 4 of the Family Law Act defines what major long-term issues are and includes reference to a move that makes it significantly more difficult for the other parent to spend time with the children. The mother’s moves do not fall within this definition. The father does not identify how the mother’s moves have impacted on the children other than to complain that the children were told to conceal it from him. He does not say how the moves have impacted on his travel time or the operation of the spend time with arrangements. What is apparent from his material is his continuing dismay at the mother having moved prior to the 2018 orders were made which created the geographical distance between their homes. The distance between the parties homes limits the practicalities of spend time arrangements with the children during the week. The father acknowledges in his affidavit that the orders permit her to move and only require her to inform him of change of details with 24 hours.
The father complains about doing the majority of driving for changeovers despite the mother unilaterally relocating and says he was advised to raise this in mediation as per notation A of the 2018 orders. The handover location specified in the 2018 orders has not changed. The mother does not propose that there be any change to the handover location as being the children’s schools and the Suburb D or Suburb E McDonald’s.
Changes to the parties’ living arrangements and additions to family.
The father also complains that at the time of the orders the mother was not living with her partner, but since then they have moved in together. The mother says she took her relationship with Mr F slowly and they did not start living together until August 2020. They bought a house in June 2022. The father does not raise any concerns about Mr F.
The father also refers to the fact that he and his wife had twins in 2019. The father says at the time of the 2018 orders he and his wife did not think they could have children together.
Without more these are the types of changes that are typical of people moving on with their lives and do not warrant further proceedings.
Complaints about unilateral decision-making
The father says that despite the parties having equal shared parental responsibility, the mother excludes him from the decision making process in a variety of contexts, particularly with respect to the children’s schools, medical issues and counselling. The mother disputes this and says what the evidence shows is the parties continuing to have differences of opinion and difficulty communicating which existed at the time when final orders were made. She says that many of the complaints and the difficulties that the father refers to is simply a reflection of the parties going through that process, which can be difficult. The mother’s counsel also submitted that significantly, the father seeks that the parties retain equal shared parental responsibility but does not propose any mechanism that addresses his complaints. It is necessary then to examine his complaints.
School
The father makes complaints about the mother unilaterally enrolling the children in their primary school and kinder without consulting him. However, these predate the 2018 final orders and are not relevant to change of circumstances since the orders were made.
X starts high school next year. The father wants X to attend G School. This is only practical if the living arrangements are reversed. The father says the orders do not address high school as the 2018 orders refer to changeovers at B School and McDonald’s at Suburb E or Suburb D.
The mother acknowledges that with X attending high school next year the changeover after school will change, but says that H School is a 10-14 minute drive from B School and that the secondary college concludes at 3.15pm and the primary school concludes at 3.30pm, which will enable the father to collect the children from their respective schools without difficulty.
The father complains about the mother not wanting to discuss X’s high school with him directly and instead initiated mediation at the end of 2021. It was perfectly appropriate for the mother to initiate mediation with respect to such a major issue. The father complains in his affidavit that that the mother did not indicate her preferences for X’s high school but simply named 4 schools in her school zone. If she had named her preferred school it is likely the father would have complained that she had already decided on the high school. It was reasonable for her to refer to schools within her residential zone given the arrangements under the final orders.
It is clear from the evidence, that the parents are not able to communicate with each other constructively in person as much as he may wish it was otherwise. It is unfair of him to lay responsibility for this solely at the mother’s feet when it is clear from his material that he was never content with the final orders and still focuses on things the mother did prior to the 2018 orders.
The father complains that the mother unilaterally enrolled X at H School but this is not a fair reflection of what happened. The mediation service was unable to accommodate a child inclusive mediation. It is also apparent from the affidavits and the letters exchanged between the mother’s lawyers and the father that the father was tying in X’s choice of high school with his desire to change residence and not a choice of high school based on the living arrangements in the 2018 orders. X toured various schools and discussed his preferred schools with his parents. This all took place over a period of some months. It was only after this and after the father initiated proceedings that the mother sent the father enrolment forms for H School on 1 September 2022. It was appropriate to secure a place for X pending further court order or agreement. The father has now agreed to X attending H School but without prejudice to his application for a change of residence. If the children change residence they would also need to change schools.
Medical
The father makes complaints about the mother’s actions towards the children’s medical conditions. His complaints include not being consulted by the mother such as X undergoing ear surgery. It is clear that he also feels that she acts too quickly to take the children to the doctor, yet he also complains about the mother not following up on the children’s medical issues and refers to his dispute with the mother where she says Y has asthma.
The father annexes several medical reports with respect to X dating back to 2019. What these reports show is both parents engaging with the J Hospital with respect to X having recurrent ear infections and both providing the doctors with their observations of X. The reports show the doctor has clearly considered the parents’ differing views and concluded that his infections have settled and noted this may have been due to the cessation of swimming during Covid-19 restrictions. This does not reflect the mother taking unilateral actions and the father being excluded, but rather shows both parents being actively involved in the appointments over a period of months and their views and observations being considered by the doctors. This is equal shared parental responsibility at work. It does not always work smoothly and can be difficult.
Counselling for the children
The 2018 orders provide for X to engage in “regular and ongoing counselling with his school counsellor or other nominated counsellor” and for Y to undertake similar once she commences school, “as required and as assessed as being required by the said counsellor”. In 2020 the mother proposed that the parties attend mediation to discuss the children’s counsellors.
The father says in his trial affidavit the children have attended counselling on 9 occasions from early 2021 to September 2022. The father complains that he solely organises the counselling for the children and that this takes place during the school holidays occasionally via Zoom. The father says that this is not in line with the final orders. The final orders provide for the children to see counsellors at their schools.
The mother does not agree with the father’s characterisation with respect to the counselling appointments and refers to the father only being willing to agree to practitioners located in the Suburb K area. She says he made arrangements for the children to attend counselling without her knowledge and they have been attending there since April 2021. She further says that as she cannot drive them there during the week because of her work, the children have been having regular Zoom appointments.
It troubles me that the father in his notice of risk refers to the children attending court ordered counselling, stating that "the abuse is psychological being very hard to prove or provide evidence for.” He refers to the children being asked to keep secrets and being reprimanded when they have shared things with him that they were not supposed to and also complains about the mother and her partner denigrating him and his family. He also says that the mother has convinced the children that they may have medical conditions that are not supported by diagnosis. He says the children visibly struggle with anxiety and are fearful of discussing their feelings with others. He also raised complaints that date back to when the children were still in nappies. There is no evidence from the children’s schools or counsellors to support the father’s contentions. What is very clear is that the children remain caught in the middle of their parents’ conflict. This is a difficult psychological space for children who feel conflicting loyalties. The mother acknowledges this and acknowledges that this can at times make it difficult to express themselves. The father does not show the same insight.
The father’s mental health, family violence and drug use
The mother raises issues with respect to the father’s compliance with the orders, particularly with respect to order 18 requiring him to continue to attend with his treating psychiatrist. She expresses concern about his mental health and refers to the letter that the father annexed to his affidavit which implies that the father did not attend for 2 ½ years and which does not explicitly state that he no longer needs to attend. Whilst raising these concerns, she does not seek any changes to the orders. At the hearing I expressed concern about that order as it is a stand-alone order requiring the father to continue treatment which the court does not have power to make.[2]
[2]See Oberlin & Infeld [2021] FamCAFC 66.
In his affidavit, the father references the fact that during the previous proceedings the mother raised concerns about his drug use. He comments that the mother has not raised any issues with respect to drug use in the current proceedings. He annexes a copy of a urine drug screen analysis dated 22 October 2022. This complaint is misconceived. The fact that a risk concern has been addressed in itself does not justify revisiting the orders. This is a not a case where the father’s time is restricted or supervised. What is clear is that the mother raised concerns about family violence, drug and the father’s mental health but was satisfied to resolve the matter on the basis of the consent orders with the injunction and the requirement for the father to continue treatment.
The father also comments that the mother has only raised issues of family violence during court proceedings or when court proceedings have been suggested and not at any other time. The mother says that the 2018 orders ensure the children are protected from family violence and psychological harm and raises concerns that the father’s proposed orders would increase the children’s exposure to family violence and that the father will continue to use coercive control to manipulate the children and involve them in adult issues.
The Co-Parenting Relationship and the Children’s Views
The father complains about the mother’s co-parenting, and refers to the comments made in the family report prepared prior to the 2018 consent orders. In his affidavit, he complains that she limits his time, where possible, interferes with his communication with the children and complains he is harassing her and attempts to discuss issues relating to the children outside mediation. The father does not provide any specific examples but makes these general complaints. The father does not provide evidence to support his contention that he is unable to have a meaningful relationship with the children because of the mother’s inability to encourage his relationship with them. This complaint is without substance as clearly the children have a loving and meaningful relationship with both parents. Furthermore the father ignores the fact that the mother has agreed to additional time, most significantly the additional time occurring during lockdowns but also through Skype. The mother says that when it has been logistically possible, she has accommodated the father’s requests for additional time and gives examples of the twin’s birthday and the father’s birthday in 2021 and Melbourne Cup Day in 2022.
The father complains about difficulties with Skype communications, including saying that there have been multiple times that the arranged time had changed because of children’s commitments. The mother refers to the agreement they reached in July 2020 at mediation for an additional skype call on the Wednesday in the week the father does not see the children. She says the Skype calls often go for more than half an hour and at times there have been issues with connectivity because they have been arranged on different days and that the parties also agreed to changing times. The mother disputes the father’s complaints and says that this has probably occurred on five occasions in five years and says as the children spend three out of four weekends with the father and Skype several times a week, there are limited opportunities for them to have social activities.
The mother says the co-parenting relationship continues to be challenging with respect to long term decisions such as the children’s health and X’s high school which results in discussions breaking down. The father states that he believes that the communication difficulties they have when exercising shared responsibility will not continue if the children are in his primary care. He does not say how this would be the case.
The mother says she tries to have a business like relationship with the father and says that the father raises old grievances and when she does not respond to those he complains she is not communicating with him. As noted, some of the matters the father raises are historical, including some that predate the 2018 orders.
The father makes general complaints about the mother’s conduct and attitude at changeovers. He further makes complaints about the children not being with his family for special days or their birthdays since they separated in 2015 unless it falls within his time and says he is reluctant to raise this with the mother in case she complains he is harassing her. Again he does not provide the examples of this. The father also complains about the length of time it took to discuss and reach agreement about the children participating in remote learning. He refers to the agreement eventually being reached and the children being in his care four nights a week, three weeks out of four and says that the children quickly settled into their day-to-day routine with the siblings and that they did very well. The mother was working during this period and the father was not.
The mother annexes a sample of their correspondence about major issues from 2019 to 2022. I accept that this is a sample she has selected. The correspondence shows discussions back and forth about high school. The father complains about the mother refusing his invitation of informal talks and opting for mediation but given the judgmental and critical tone this is not surprising. I note that the father also made general complaints in his trial affidavit of the mother attempting to discuss issues relating to the children outside of mediation. The correspondence makes it clear that the parties were discussing schools in the catchment area, but also G School which could only occur with a change of residence.
The father refers to comments the children make to him, taking them on face value and assuming they are accurate. Both parents refer to the other parent denigrating them to the children. The difference is that the mother points out in response that she does not report everything the children say to her as her concern is that she does not want to make it worse for them. She is aware the children experience a conflict of loyalty.
It is clear too that throughout the exchanges the father has wanted to pursue a change of residence. It is also clear that it is the mother who raised mediation to discuss high schools.
With respect to the children’s views, the most the father says in one of his emails is that X has expressed a desire to go to school with his step-brother L and his other siblings in due course. The mother agrees the children want to spend more time with the father. She says that the reality is that because of the geographical distance it is not possible to increase his time. It is also clear that the parents are well settled in their respective areas, the mother having bought a home with her partner and the father living with his wife and their children on a property owned by his parents with his parents nearby in a separate dwelling. The mother says that the children have settled in well and transition between the two homes pretty well. She says the children are going well at school and she does not think still changing residences would be in their best interests.
The father says that given the ages of the children it is important that their voices be heard and their views obtained. I flagged at the commencement of the argument that there is no current Family Report or Child Impact Report with respect to the children’s wishes. Counsel for the father submitted that when the 2018 family report and the parties’ evidence is considered in totality, it is clear that the children want to spend more time with their father. This is acknowledged by the mother but she says the reality is that because of the distance between the parties’ homes which existed at the time of the orders, the only way that could be accommodated would be a reversal of residence, which would also involve the children changing schools. She says that nowhere in the material do the children raise wanting to move from their mother’s primary care to the father’s primary care and that when considering the father’s complaints and the orders he seeks that many of the difficulties he raises existed at the time the final orders were made.
As noted, the father relies on the family report released on 26 April 2018. At that time the mother was living with the children at the mother’s home with plans to return to work and move into independent accommodation in 2019 when Y commenced school. The father was living in a home on his parent’ property with his fiancé (who he has since married and her two children who are the same ages as X and Y). He was spending time with the children two weekends a month.
Dr M observed that both parents appeared to be intelligent caring parents caught in a pattern of conflict about primary care and shared parenting. She refers to the parties’ differences in accounts being so great that it was not just a difference in perception, but one of them being disingenuous. She is critical of the mother stating that after speaking with the parties and extended family, she thought the mother had overstated the degree of her cooperation and encouragement of the relationship between the children and the father. I note however that the report writer spoke to the father, his fiancé and parental grandfather but did not speak to either of the mother’s parents. The report writer is also critical of the mother for not disclosing her relationship and makes strong conclusions that the mother has actively sought to remove the father from the children’s lives. The basis for the strength of the report writer’s views is not entirely clear. She acknowledges in the report that she is not the trier of fact.
It is clear that the father is keen to create a picture of the mother behaving in the way the report writer was critical of in her report to support his application to change residence. However, the evidence before me does not support this.
What orders does the father seek?
In order to consider the father’s application in context it is necessary to look at what changes he seeks to make to the 2018 orders.
The father seeks to reverse the live with and spend time arrangements. His proposed orders for communication have the same quantum. The 2018 orders address Christmas and Easter. The father’s proposed orders reduce the mother’s time at Easter. He includes proposed orders for the children to spend time with the mother on their birthdays from after school until 7pm on a school day and from 10 to 4pm on a non-school day. The order is not practical with respect to school days given the distance between the parties’ homes.
The father does not seek to continue the injunctions made in the 2018 orders. The injunctions include a non-denigration order. It is significant that the father’s orders do not seek to continue that order given his complaints that the mother denigrates him and his family.
The father seeks to retain equal shared parental responsibility with the mother. He does not propose any additional orders in support of that order to address the complaints he makes. His material assumes that the mother has made unilateral decisions and excluded him from decision-making. However, the evidence does not establish this. Rather the correspondence annexed to his affidavit as well as hers shows that the parties had different opinions about appropriate medical options. Exercising equal shared parental responsibility is not always easy. The obligation is on the parties to consent with each other and reach a consensus. This does not necessarily happen easily or quickly. Many separated parents are not able to discuss these issues personally and have to put in writing. The underlying assumption in the father’s material is that the difficulty lies with the mother. He relies on the narrative in the family report. There is nothing in his material that supports the notion that a change of residence would assist their communication difficulties.
Conclusion
I have given consideration as to whether a child impact report should be ordered prior to making this determination, given the children’s ages, noting that I raised this at the commencement of the hearing. The mother’s counsel acknowledges that at the time of the family report Y was too young to be interviewed and X was 7, but submitted that it would not assist in circumstances where the mother agrees with the father’s evidence that the children want to spend more time with their father. The distance between the parties’ homes limit this. Counsel also pointed out that when it was practical for the children to spend more time with the father during Covid lockdowns and remote learning, the mother made arrangements to accommodate this and the children spent additional time with the father which enabled him to assist with their schooling.
It is significant to observe that when considering the circumstances surrounding the making of the 2018 orders and any change of circumstances since then, the children have not changed schools and the moves the mother made were contemplated in the notation to the orders have not changed the handover arrangements.
The changes to the orders the father seeks are significant. They would reverse the living arrangements and would require both children to change schools. The father’s evidence taken at its highest falls well short of establishing a significant change of circumstances.
There is a real possibility that further proceedings would not result in a change of residence and could lead to tweaking of the orders. The parties have been able to agree on changes such as the time of Skype calls previously. It is also possible that there would be change to the handovers which the father seeks as he wants the driving to be shared equally. The changeover locations in the orders were made with the distances between the parties’ homes being similar to what they are now.
The children want to spend more time with their father. The children have been seeing a counsellor. There is no evidence from the counsellor. There is no evidence that children are struggling. The evidence does not establish that the mother has made unilateral decisions and sought to exclude the father. The father says that the changes and concerns he has had have been incremental and that the parents report such differences and that the children have said that their voices need to be heard. Certainly the parents report the children saying different things to them and complain about negative things said about the other. However these things are reflective of the conflict between the parents which was present when the 2018 orders were made. The proposed changes to the orders will not fix the underlying problems of the parties’ communication and differences of opinion, but would involve the children in further proceedings including a family report and the stress and uncertainty of that which comes with court proceedings.
I am not satisfied that the matters raised by the father, considered individually and together amount to a significant change of circumstances to warrant a revisitation of the 2018 orders. I also find that it would not be in the children’s best interests for there to be further proceedings. It is clear the children are aware of the conflict between the parents and the father’s desire for the children to live with him. Further proceedings would subject them to further assessments and more pressure. I dismiss the father’s Application.
I certify that the preceding fifty-six (56) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Harland. Associate:
Dated: 16 December 2022
0
4
0