KAPLAN & ODOM

[2019] FCCA 3132

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KAPLAN & ODOM [2019] FCCA 3132

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

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 70NBA

Cases cited:

Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36

Eaby & Speelman [2015] FamCAFC 104

Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286

Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCA 240

Applicant: MS KAPLAN

Respondent: MR ODOM

File Number: PAC 4810 of 2018

Judgment of: Judge Newbrun

Hearing date: 30 September 2019

Date of Last Submission: 30 September 2019

Delivered at: Parramatta

Delivered on: 16 October 2019

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Ms Di Marco

The Respondent appeared in person

ORDERS PENDING FURTHER ORDER

1. That the following interim parenting orders made by consent on 14 November 2018 in Exhibit ‘A’ be discharged:

   (a)orders 4(a), 4(b), 9, 12, 13.

2. That the children are to spend time with the father as agreed, or failing agreement, as follows:

   (a)each alternate weekend from 6:30pm Friday until the immediately following Sunday at 6pm;

   (b)such time as outlined in the above order shall be suspended during school holidays and shall recommence on the first weekend after each school holidays.

3. The Court varies order 4(c) in Exhibit ‘A’ of the Court’s orders of 14 November 2018 so that it reads: ‘For Terms 1, 2 and 3 of the NSW gazetted school holidays, the father shall spend time with the children commencing at 6:30pm on the first Friday of the holidays until 6:30pm on the following Friday.

4. The Court varies order 4(d) in Exhibit ‘A’ of the Court’s orders of 14 November 2018 so that it reads: ‘For term 4 of the NSW gazetted school holidays, as agreed. Failing such agreement the father is to spend time with the children each alternate week commencing at 6:30pm on the first Friday of school holidays until 6:30pm on the following Friday’.

5. During the NSW school terms, the fortnightly changeover is to occur at 6:30pm Friday within the external foyer of the Suburb D Police Station. The father shall return the children to the mother on the immediately following Sunday evening at 6pm, with such changeover to occur within the internal foyer of the Suburb D Police Station.

6. During the NSW school holidays the changeover shall occur within the internal foyer of the Suburb D Police Station.

7. The Court varies order 8 in Exhibit ‘A’ of the Court’s orders of 14 November 2018 by deleting the words, ‘7pm’ and in their place inserting ‘6pm’.

8. The parties are to communicate with each other in relation to children’s matters by email in circumstances where there is a medical or other emergency, or other reasonable circumstances.

9. The Court varies order 25 in Exhibit ‘A’ of the Court’s orders of 14 November 2018 so that it reads: ‘That both parties shall keep the other advised of changes to their telephone number within 48 hours of the change.’

10. That each party shall keep the other advised if they intend to move further than 30km from the other parent, although a specific address may not be provided, at least 14 days prior to such intended movement of address.

11. Each child is to remain enrolled at the Suburb A Public School pending further order.

12. Pursuant to s.62G of the Family Law Act 1975; a report be prepared for the Court by a Family Consultant nominated by the Manager Child Dispute Services about (subparagraph numbers correspond to paragraphs of s.60CC(3)):

    (a)Any views expressed by the child(ren) the subject of parenting orders sought in this case, provided that the child/ren shall not be required to express a view in relation to any matter.

    (b)The nature of the relationships of the child(ren) with each of the child(ren)’s parents and with significant other persons;

    (c)The willingness and ability of each of the child(ren)’s parents to facilitate and encourage close and continuing relationship between the child(ren) and the other parent.

    (d)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 significant person, with whom the child(ren) has/have been living.

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

    (f)The capacity of each parent, or another person, to provide for the needs of the child(ren), including emotional and intellectual needs.

    (g)The maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) other child(ren) and of either of the child(ren)’s parents and any other characteristics of the child(ren) that the reporter thinks are relevant.

    (h)Each parent’s attitude to the child(ren) and to the responsibilities of parenthood.

    (i)Any family violence involving the child(ren) or a member of the child(ren)’s family.

Other:

1. The Family Consultant is requested to complete the report if possible not less than 4 weeks before the adjourned date.

2. The parties shall attend all appointments with the Family Consultant and shall ensure the subject child/ren attend all appointments with the Family Consultant, as requested by the Family Consultant.

3. The Family Consultant may inspect the Court file, and any documents produced on subpoena access to which has been granted to a party or the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

4. The proceedings are adjourned for mention following the release of the Family Report to 9 June 2020 at 9:30am.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

PAC 4810 of 2018

MS KAPLAN

Applicant

And

MR ODOM

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These are short-form reasons in relation to an interim hearing held on 30 September 2019.  The subject children are X, aged nine years, and Y, aged eight years old.  The mother is the primary carer of those children and they live with her and spend time with the father.  The mother presently lives in the Suburb B area and the father lives at Suburb E. 

2. The parties by consent entered into interim parenting orders on 14 November 2018.  At that time the children were attending a school at Suburb G and lived nearby.

3. Since that time, the mother asserts that she resigned from her employment with the Employer F.  She asserts that since that time she has been seeking employment without success.  She asserts that she took up occupation with the children ultimately in a granny flat at Suburb B owned by her new boyfriend thereafter and since about early 2019. She asserts that in about January 2019 the boyfriend said to her that she could pay him $300 per week “whenever you can” for boarding at the granny flat with the children.  The mother asserts that she cannot afford to live in Suburb G because it is too expensive.

4. The children, since about March 2019, have been attending a new school, being Suburb A Public School near Suburb B.  The mother asserts the children are well settled in that new school.

5. The father works and lives in Suburb E.

The parties’ proposals

1. The mother’s proposals were originally set out in her Application in a Case filed 13 May 2019.  At the interim hearing she sought to rely upon proposed orders set out in her Amended Case Outline dated 23 September 2019.

2. The father’s proposals were set out in his Case Outline document, albeit that his proposed interim parenting orders were based on the premise that the children be returned to their previous school at Suburb G.  As will become apparent from these reasons, the Court proposes to permit the children on an interim basis to remain attending at their present school at Suburb A Public School.

3. During the course of the interim hearing the father indicated to the Court what interim orders he proposed in circumstances where the children were permitted to remain attending their new school at Suburb A.

4. During the course of the interim hearing a substantial amount of time was taken up hearing the parties’ competing proposals relating to changeover in circumstances where the children were permitted to remain attending their new school at Suburb A.  Again, the mother’s proposals in relation to changeover in this context were contained within her amended Case Outline.  The father’s proposals in this context were that changeover should occur, during school term times, on the fortnightly Friday night at Suburb D Police Station at 7 pm and the children should be returned by him on the following Sunday night at 7 pm to this police station. 

The parties’ material

1. The mother relied upon her amended case outline and her affidavits sworn 8 May 2019 (73 paragraphs) and affidavit filed 25 September 2019. 

2. The father relied upon his case outline and his affidavits filed 30 May 2019, 12 September 2019, 19 October 2018 and 23 September 2019.  The mother also relied upon exhibit A, being a psychologist’s report of 27 September 2019. 

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 & Marvel (2010) FamCA 240, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia 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 paragraph 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. Of this, the Full Court in Eaby & Speelman (2015) FamCAFC 104 said at [19]:

3. Of this, the Full Court in Eaby & Speelman (2015) FamCAFC 104 said at [19]:

   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 decision of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Banks & Banks (2015) FamCAFC 36, especially at paragraphs 46 to 52.

5. Section 60B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) sets out the objects of Part 7 of the Act relating to children that inform the making of parenting orders. In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, the Court must regard the best interests of the children as the paramount consideration: section 60CA of the Act.

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

7. On the material before the Court, the Court is satisfied that there has been a material and significant change in circumstances, since the Court’s orders of 14 November 2018, relating to the mother’s financial position, such that since leaving her employment with the Employer F she is unable to afford living in Suburb G with the children attending school in Suburb G.  Again, there is a significant suggestion on the material before the Court, inter alia, that the mother cannot afford to leave the granny flat at Suburb B where she now resides with the children.

8. Even if the Court was incorrect in stating that there has been a material and significant change in circumstances, the Court would, pursuant to section 70NBA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), find that, acting in the children’s best interests, the Court’s orders of 14 November 2018 should be varied such as to allow the children to continue attending Suburb A Public School.

9. The Court notes that it heard the father’s Contravention Application initially before the interim hearing and found that the mother had breached an order relating to the mother not denigrating the father in the presence of the children, thus affording jurisdiction under section 70NBA to the Court to vary the Court’s previous orders of 14 November 2018.

Changeover during school term times

1. At this interim hearing, again, there was significant submissions made by each party as to where the changeover location and time should be in the event that the Court was to permit the children to continue attending Suburb A Public School on an interim basis.

2. In this context the parties are in dispute relating to the changeover point on the fortnightly Friday night in particular when the father is due to collect the children to spend time with them.  They are also in dispute in this context as to the mother’s proposal that the father return the children to their school on the Monday morning or at before school care on the Monday morning.

3. The mother proposes that the father pick up the children on the fortnightly Friday night from the Suburb A Public School at 3 pm or from after-school care at Suburb C.She proposes that the father return the children to their school on the fortnightly Monday morning, before school, or alternatively at before school care at Suburb C.

4. The mother asserts that the children’s new school at Suburb A is about 20 kilometres from the father’s residence at Suburb E with Google Maps estimating the drive time between 31 and 36 minutes.  The mother asserts that it is also about 20 kilometres from where the father works in Suburb E with an estimated drive time between 31 to 36 minutes.

5. On the other hand, the father asserts that the Suburb A Public School is over an hour’s drive from his home in Suburb E.  He asserts that the drive from his work to Suburb A does not take 31 to 36 minutes but the drive takes over one hour in Sydney traffic.  He states that it could take half the time if it was not during peak hour in Sydney traffic.

6. The father asserts that he finishes work at 5 pm on Friday afternoons and cannot get to the children’s school by 6 pm which is when after school care finishes.  The relevant after school care organisation charges, for a late pick up, a $15 initial fee and then a fee of $15 per 15 minute increments is also applied.

7. The father asserts that on the Monday morning he needs to be at his work by 8 am so that the children would have to be up by 5 am to leave home around 6 am to be dropped off at school around 7 am at before-school care. 

8. Further, the father asserts that before and after school care is expensive and he already pays extra child support to the mother because she is not working, and he cannot afford this extra expense.

9. On the material before the Court, there is a significant suggestion that the father cannot reliably pick up the children on the fortnightly Friday night by 6 pm from the after school care at Suburb C, if he is unable to pick up the children immediately after school.  It is not reasonable or practical to make an order effectively requiring the father to pay late pick up fees in circumstances where he may well experience financial difficulties in paying such fees.

10. The father, in the alternative, and in the event that the Court found that the children’s schooling at Suburb A Public School should not be changed, proposed that the mother and himself conduct a changeover, about halfway between their two residences at Suburb D Police Station.

11. The mother opposes the changeover at a police station, asserting that she is fearful of the father; she is still anxious having to see the father; leading up to seeing him she gets very bad anxiety to the point that she cannot sleep days prior to having to see the father, and begins to feel nauseous and gets stomach aches at the thought of having to see him, “after years of physical and emotional abuse he has caused me.”

12. In this context, in particular, the mother refers to Exhibit A being a psychologist’s report dated 27 September 2019 referring to her anxiety in the context of coming into contact with the father.  Whilst this report is untested, the Court takes it into account in relation to the mother’s assertion that she experiences anxiety in having to come into contact with the father.

13. The mother makes significant allegations of family violence historically against the father, to which there are significant denials made by the father.  The mother refers to her psychologist recommending that she minimise her contact with the father so that she can get on with her life and reduce her anxiety.

14. In the mother’s Affidavit filed 25 September 2019 she specifically refers to the changeover at Suburb B Police Station since 3 June 2019.  She asserts that since 3 June 2019, changeover has been occurring at that police station.  She states that the father keeps meeting her outside the station and refuses to meet inside.  The mother states that she has instructed her solicitor to advise the father she wishes to meet inside the station but that the father has not complied with this request.

15. Ideally, and in the best interests of the children, changeover would occur at their school or prior to 6 pm at after school care.  Unfortunately, as discussed above, this is impractical for the father.  Changeover, therefore, should continue to occur at this interim stage at a police station.  The Court recognises the mother’s anxiety in having to deal face-to-face with the father.  The Court will make an interim order that at changeover the parties meet inside the foyer of the police station to minimise her anxiety, and which is consistent with her above assertions relating to Suburb B Police Station.

16. Turning then to the locality of the police station, again, the father contends that an approximate halfway point such as Suburb D Police Station would be reasonable and practical.  The mother presently drives a car.  She is presently unemployed, however she is studying full-time for four days per week.  She states that she finishes at about 4 pm classes in the city and arrives home by 5.30 pm.  The mother refers to not being able to afford before and after school care.  At the interim hearing the mother reiterated her contention that the changeover should not occur at a police station by reason of her anxiety and having to meet the father face-to-face.  She did not raise any other specific issue regarding Suburb D Police Station.

1. It will be in the best interests of the children at this interim stage that the fortnightly Friday after school pick up occur from the Suburb D Police Station at 6.30 pm.  Such a changeover location should reduce the father’s driving time, coming home with the children to Suburb E from Suburb D, and increase his time with the children, other than time within the confines of a motor vehicle (noting that the mother would propose Suburb B Police Station being closer to her present home), which will assist in the maintenance and enhancement of his meaningful relationship with the children.

2. As to the fortnightly Monday morning return of the children by the father to the mother at their school, or to before school care, again, the father asserts that he simply could not effect such return, practically, on the Monday morning in circumstances where he must attend and begin work at 8 am Monday.  There is force to this practical contention.

3. In the view of the Court, it will be in the best interests of the children if the father return the children to the mother on the Sunday evening at 6 pm, within the internal foyer of the Suburb D police station.  Again, such location of police station will increase the children’s time with the father and assist in the maintenance and enhancement of his meaningful relationship with the children.

4. As to parental responsibility, the mother seeks an order for sole parental responsibility. 

5. The Court is not satisfied that it will be in the best interests of the children to make an interim order for sole parental responsibility in favour of the mother in relation to major decisions affecting the children.

6. There is no significant evidence before the Court that there are significant looming major decisions affecting the children.  The Court is of the view that an order for sole parental responsibility may well lead to increased conflict between the parties, the Court observing that the father is significantly involved in the lives of the children and the Court refers to its proposed new communication order, discussed below. 

Changeovers on non-school days

1. The mother sought changeovers at the Suburb B Sports Club vacation care, and if that venue was closed, then inside Suburb B police station.

2. The father sought changeover on the same basis as during school term time. 

3. For the reasons discussed above in relation to changeover during school term times, it will be in the best interests of the children that changeover during non-school days occur at Suburb D Police Station.

The children’s time with the father during school holidays

1. Again, the same practicality issues arise in terms of when the father can pick up the children at the commencement of his time and return at the conclusion of his time, as discussed previously. 

2. It will be in the best interests of the children that, in respect of the children’s time with the father during the shorter school holidays, that it be in accordance with order 4(c) in Exhibit A of the Court’s orders of 14 November 2018, but varying such order so that it reads:

   4(c):  For terms 1, 2 and 3 of the New South Wales gazetted school holidays the father spend time with the children commencing at 6.30 pm on the first Friday of the holidays until 6.30 pm on the following Friday.

3. As to the children’s time with the father during the longer school holidays at the end of term 4, it will be in the best interests of the children to make orders in accordance with order 4(d) in Exhibit A of the Court’s orders of 14 November 2018, but varying such order so that it reads:

   4(d):  For term 4 of the New South Wales gazetted school holidays, as agreed.  Failing such agreement, the father is to spend time with the children each alternative week commencing at 6.30 pm on the first Friday of the school holidays until 6.30 pm on the following Friday.

Communication with the children

1. The mother seeks a discharge of order 8 in Exhibit A of the Court’s orders of 14 November 2018.  Whereas the father merely seeks a variation of that order, changing “between 7 pm and 8 pm” to “between 6 pm and 8 pm”.

2. The mother’s proposed order 10 in her amended Case Outline referring to telephone contact “at a reasonable time” is too imprecise and, in relation to these parties who are in high conflict, there needs to be greater precision in relation to such telephone communication orders.  Further, such lack of precision may well result in the children’s time with one or other parents being interrupted with lack of notice.

3. The Court has had regard to the mother’s telephone contact evidence in her Affidavits.  The Court has had regard to the father’s evidence in this context. 

4. The Court will maintain order 8 in Exhibit A of the Court’s orders of 14 November 2018, but, to allow some greater flexibility to the parties, will accede to the father’s proposal to change the telephone times to “6 pm to 8 pm”.

5. It will be in the best interests of the children to discharge order 9 in Exhibit A of the Court’s orders of 14 November 2018 and in its place make the mother’s proposed order 14, which is as follows:

   That the parties are to communicate with each other in relation to the children’s matters by email in circumstances where there is a medical or other emergency, or other reasonable circumstances.

6. In the circumstances of this case where the parties are in high conflict, and taking into account the mother’s anxiety in relation to the father, the immediate above proposed order will significantly reduce unreasonable communications between the parties and assist them in focusing on significant matters relating to the children that require communication between them by email.

Order 25 in Exhibit A of the Court’s orders of 14 November 2018

1. The mother seeks a discharge of order 25 relating to advising of changes to residential addresses and telephone numbers. 

2. The Court refers to the parties’ respective evidence regarding order 25. 

3. The mother asserts that as a result of an alleged incident on 4 January 2019 (referred to in the mother’s Affidavit sworn 8 May 2019) and increasing hostility between the parties, she does not want the father knowing where she resides.  The mother asserts she is afraid that the father will come to her home with the intention of creating an aggressive or a violent situation.  The father, for his part, denies having been aggressive or violent towards the mother or any of her family members.

4. In view of the mother’s immediate above allegations in this context and taking into account her assertions regarding anxiety relating to the father, including taking into account the contents of her psychologist’s report, the Court is of the view that it will be in the best interests of the children to vary order 25 so that it reads:

   That both parties shall keep the other advised of changes to their telephone number within 48 hours of the change.

The mother’s proposed order 12

1. It will be in the best interests of the children to make the mother’s proposed order 12 but varying it so that it reads:

   That each party shall keep the other advised if they intend to move further than 30 kilometres from the other parent, although a specific address may not be provided, at least 14 days prior to such intended movement of address.

2. In this context, the Court observes that the mother has moved once already from the Suburb G region to the area of Suburb B, with not insignificant changes to the children’s routines.  A proposed residential move by a party further than 30 kilometres from the other party’s residence should be the subject of at least 14 days prior notice. 

3. The mother’s proposed order 9 in her amended Case Outline was belatedly sought by her and was not contained in her Application in a Case filed 10 May 2019.  The father was unable to meet this proposed order with relevant evidence. He submitted that the mother’s suggested “flexible working arrangement” of the father was not possible with his employer.

4. As to the mother’s proposed order 13 relating to each child remaining enrolled at Suburb A Public School until they complete year 6, so as to provide certainty to the parties, and to avoid further litigation between them in relation to the change of school, it will be in the best interests of the children to order, pending further order, that each child is to remain enrolled at Suburb A Public School.

5. Again, it will be in the best interests of the children to make the following interim orders and the Court makes the following orders.

6. That the following interim parenting orders made by consent on 14 November 2018 in Exhibit ‘A’ be discharged:

   (a)orders 4(a), 4(b), 9, 12, 13.

7. That the children are to spend time with the father as agreed, or failing agreement, as follows:

   (a)each alternate weekend from 6:30pm Friday until the immediately following Sunday at 6pm;

   (b)such time as outlined in the above order shall be suspended during school holidays and shall recommence on the first weekend after each school holidays.

8. The Court varies order 4(c) in Exhibit ‘A’ of the Court’s orders of 14 November 2018 so that it reads: ‘For Terms 1, 2 and 3 of the NSW gazetted school holidays, the father shall spend time with the children commencing at 6:30pm on the first Friday of the holidays until 6:30pm on the following Friday.

9. The Court varies order 4(d) in Exhibit ‘A’ of the Court’s orders of 14 November 2018 so that it reads: ‘For term 4 of the NSW gazetted school holidays, as agreed. Failing such agreement the father is to spend time with the children each alternate week commencing at 6:30pm on the first Friday of school holidays until 6:30pm on the following Friday’.

10. During the NSW school terms, the fortnightly changeover is to occur at 6:30pm Friday within the external foyer of the Suburb D Police Station. The father shall return the children to the mother on the immediately following Sunday evening at 6pm, with such changeover to occur within the internal foyer of the Suburb D Police Station.

11. During the NSW school holidays the changeover shall occur within the internal foyer of the Suburb D Police Station.

12. The Court varies order 8 in Exhibit ‘A’ of the Court’s orders of 14 November 2018 by deleting the words, ‘7pm’ and in their place inserting ‘6pm’.

13. The parties are to communicate with each other in relation to children’s matters by email in circumstances where there is a medical or other emergency, or other reasonable circumstances.

14. The Court varies order 25 in Exhibit ‘A’ of the Court’s orders of 14 November 2018 so that it reads: ‘That both parties shall keep the other advised of changes to their telephone number within 48 hours of the change.’

15. That each party shall keep the other advised if they intend to move further than 30km from the other parent, although a specific address may not be provided, at least 14 days prior to such intended movement of address.

16. Each child is to remain enrolled at the Suburb A Public School pending further order.

17. Pursuant to s.62G of the Family Law Act 1975; a report be prepared for the Court by a Family Consultant nominated by the Manager Child Dispute Services about (subparagraph numbers correspond to paragraphs of s.60CC(3)):

    (a)Any views expressed by the child(ren) the subject of parenting orders sought in this case, provided that the child/ren shall not be required to express a view in relation to any matter.

    (b)The nature of the relationships of the child(ren) with each of the child(ren)’s parents and with significant other persons;

    (c)The willingness and ability of each of the child(ren)’s parents to facilitate and encourage close and continuing relationship between the child(ren) and the other parent.

    (d)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 significant person, with whom the child(ren) has/have been living.

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

(f)The capacity of each parent, or another person, to provide for the needs of the child(ren), including emotional and intellectual needs.

(g)The maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) other child(ren) and of either of the child(ren)’s parents and any other characteristics of the child(ren) that the reporter thinks are relevant.

(h)Each parent’s attitude to the child(ren) and to the responsibilities of parenthood.

(i)Any family violence involving the child(ren) or a member of the child(ren)’s family.

Other:

1. The Family Consultant is requested to complete the report if possible not less than 4 weeks before the adjourned date.

2. The parties shall attend all appointments with the Family Consultant and shall ensure the subject child/ren attend all appointments with the Family Consultant, as requested by the Family Consultant.

3. The Family Consultant may inspect the Court file, and any documents produced on subpoena access to which has been granted to a party or the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

4. The proceedings are adjourned for mention following the release of the Family Report to 9 June 2020 at 9:30am.

I certify that the preceding sixty-three (63) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Newbrun

Date: 31 October 2019