Kingley and Arndale (No 2)

[2009] FamCA 1219

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KINGLEY & ARNDALE (NO. 2)	[2009] FamCA 1219
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim parenting orders – The Mother’s capacity to promote a relationship with the Father – The Father’s substance abuse – Supervised time with the Father ordered – Paternal Grandmother to be supervisor
APPLICANT:		Mr Kingley

RESPONDENT: Ms Arndale

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Dart, Solicitor of Legal Aid

FILE NUMBER: BRC 1363 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 3 December 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Barry J

HEARING DATE: 3 December 2009

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Harrison of Counsel appeared for the Applicant Father

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Smith & Associates

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Baston of Counsel appeared for the Respondent Mother

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: John-Paul Mould Solicitors

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER Ms Dart, Solicitor, Legal Aid Office

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The proceedings be adjourned for case management review to 9.30 am on
   28 May 2010 at the Brisbane Registry of the Family Registry with the parties given leave to appear by telephone.

2. Orders 11 – 30 inclusive and Order 33 of the Orders made by this Honourable Court on 30 October 2009 be discharged.

IT IS ORDERED UNTIL FURTHER ORDER THAT:

UPON THE UNDERTAKING OF THE FATHER FILED 3 DECEMBER 2009 NOT TO CONSUME ANY ALCOHOL AT ALL WHILE THE CHILD IS IN HIS CARE OR TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS PRIOR TO SUCH TIME:

1. The Father spend time supervised by the paternal grandmother, with the child, C born … December 2006, within a 50 kilometre radius of the W Post Office:

   a.            from 9.00 am until 4.00 pm on Saturday 5 December 2009;

   b.from 9.00 am until 4.00 pm on Saturday 12 December with the child to be collected and returned to the reception area of the W Police Station.

2. The Father spend time supervised by the paternal grandmother, with the child at the house of the paternal grandmother or such other venue as the Father and paternal grandmother may agree:

   a.from 9.00 am on Saturday 19 December 2009 until 4.00 pm on Sunday 20 December 2009;

   b.from 9.00 am on Friday 25 December 2009 until 4.00 pm on

   
   

   27 December 2009;

   c.from 9.00 am on Saturday 2 January 2010 until 4.00 pm on Monday 4 January 2010;

   d.from 9.00 am on Saturday 16 January 2010 until 4.00 pm on Monday 18 January 2010;

   e.thereafter each alternate weekend commencing Saturday 6 February 2010 from 9.00 am on the Saturday until 4.00 pm on the Sunday.

3. The Mother and Father are not to be present at handovers.  As from 19 December 2009 handover is to be at such place as nominated by the legal representatives of the parties, in the event of no agreement then the N Police Station or the P Police Station as determined by the Independent Children’s Lawyer

4. The Father is to advise the Mother in writing or by text message not less than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the commencement of any time with the child where the child will be spending the night on each such occasion.

5. No photos are to be taken at the changeovers.

6. The Father is to pay to the Mother’s legal representatives within seven (7) days of the date hereof $200 as a contribution to the Mother’s travelling expenses for the time spent with the child pursuant to the terms of paragraphs 4(a) and (b) being a rate of $50 for each return trip by the Mother.

7. By 30 December 2009 the Father is to pay the Mother $200 as a contribution to the Mother’s travel expenses for the time spent with the child pursuant to the terms of orders 4 (c) and 4 (d).

8. By 30 January 2010 the Father is to pay the Mother $200 to cover travel expenses of the Mother for the following month and on the second last day of each month thereafter.

9. In the event there is any breach of the undertaking by the Father filed

   
   

   3 December 2009 the paternal grandmother is to forthwith make arrangements to return the child to the Mother’s residence and she is to notify the Independent Children’s Lawyer in writing.

10. The Mother and Father shall undergo random blood tests of their Carbohydrate Deficient Transferren levels and a urine alcohol and drug screen as required by the  Independent Children’s Lawyer, such tests to be undertaken within twenty-four (24) hours of a request being received, the costs of which are to be borne by the parties.

11. In the event the results of the drug and alcohol tests undertaken by the parties pursuant to Order 10 hereof are provided to the parties directly, such results are to be disclosed immediately upon receipt to the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the other party or their solicitor.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

1. Neither party denigrate the other, or the other party’s family to, or in the presence of, or within hearing of the child.

2. The parties be restrained and an injunction be granted restraining the parties from discussing any Court proceedings between them in the presence of, or within hearing of the child.

3. The parties use their best endeavours to ensure that no third party denigrates either of the parties in the presence of, or within hearing of the child.

4. Each party be at liberty to apply to re-list on forty-eight (48) hours notice to the other parties.

5. Pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 the hearing on 28 May 2010 is one proper for the attendance of Counsel.

6. Pursuant to s 62B and s 65DA(2), the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders, and details of who can assist parties to adjust to and comply with an order, are set out in the document entitled “Parenting orders – obligations, consequences and who can help”, a copy of which is annexed to these Orders.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER:  BRC 1363 of 2008

MR KINGLEY

Applicant

And

MS ARNDALE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 30 October this year I made orders which extended over some 38 paragraphs. They were particularly difficult to draft, but the orders in paragraph 11 provided for the father to have supervised time with his daughter, C, who is turning three later this month.  The time was to be at a contact centre and the order was that it was to be at the O Contact Centre.  If the mother was saying that she couldn’t have the child delivered to the centre, the order then provided the time was to be at such other contact centre in Southeast Queensland as nominated by the independent children’s lawyer.  Suffice to say there has been no time the father has spent in the last month with his daughter, pursuant to the orders that were made.

2. On today’s date the complexion of the matter has changed in that the father now seeks orders in terms of proposed interim orders which were produced and handed up to the court at the commencement of the hearing.  The father seeks that he spend time at all such times as may be agreed between the parties.  Now, I don’t want to sound too cynical, but I’d be of the view that there are very limited prospects of the parties reaching any form of agreement.  I may be wrong about that, but that would be my present perspective. 

3. The father is seeking Saturday 5, December, and I’ll have discussions later about the actual dates.  He is seeking initially daytime contact, which clearly would have to take place, one would expect, in the general vicinity of where the child resides.  Thereafter, from just before Christmas he is seeking increasing periods of overnight time with his daughter.  He is seeking times for telephone communication.  I gather that is at least something that has taken place.

4. He is seeking unsupervised time.  I don’t propose to elaborate with any reasons why I’m not amenable to that.  I would have thought the evidence of the case speaks for itself.  The father’s fallback position is that his time be supervised by his mother, the paternal grandmother.  To that end he annexes a letter from her.  He has also annexed to his latest affidavit photographs of her property in the Y District, and I have to say it seems to be a very pleasant rural setting.  He proposes handovers at the maternal grandmother’s residence, but there is no indication that she is willing to agree to her residence being used for handovers.  I will be putting in place orders in the alternative in that regard. 

5. The mother’s position has changed somewhat in that in her affidavit she is proposing the father’s time be supervised by Ms T, a resident of W.  Annexure 10 to the mother’s affidavit is a letter from Ms T.  There are some difficulties with the proposal, not the least of which is that Ms T is unable to offer her services until February next year; her costs are about $80 an hour, and she doesn’t indicate the extent of her availability by hours or by days. 

6. There are various sections of the legislation passed by the Federal Parliament which are relevant.  Section 60CC says how a court determines what’s in a child’s best interests.  The primary considerations are very important, and they are the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents.  Now, that’s a given.  Everybody who’s ever worked in this field knows the importance of a child having a meaningful relationship with both parents.  But the other primary consideration is:

   “The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.” 

   One only has to read the newspapers or watch television news to know the extent to which children are exposed to abuse, neglect or violence in our society.

7. There are then a series of additional considerations and a Judge has to take into account factors such as the wishes of the child.  Well, young C is only two years old and one would normally read her intentions by observing her, not by what she says, but just how she reacts and interacts with adults, including her parents.  I have to consider the nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child’s parents and other persons, including any grandparent or other relative of the child.  The willingness and ability of each of the child’s parents to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent.  I have to consider any likely effects of changing the child’s circumstances, practical difficulty and expense of spending time, often referred to as the tyranny of distance, and the capacity of each of the child’s parents and any other person to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs, the attitude to the child and to the responsibilities of parenthood demonstrated by each of the child’s parents, issues of family violence, and things of that nature.

8. The law provides that there’s a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility when making parenting orders.  Now, that doesn’t say equal time, it says responsibility for decisions about the child’s life - later in life does she go to a private school or a public school, does she go to a co-ed school or a school exclusively for young girls?  They’re the types of decisions, what medical treatment she should have, etcetera.  The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that satisfies the court that it should be in the interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility, so I have a discretion on that matter.  It’s not a large issue on an interim basis.  It will loom large at the trial.

9. Section 65DDAA says:

   “The court to consider the child spending equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each parent in certain circumstances.”

   And it then sets out how a court should assess substantial and significant time to be spent with the, what’s nominally called “the non-primary parent”.  The court has a good deal of evidence before it in the form of expert reports.  There’s a report of a psychiatrist, Dr D, who did an assessment of the parties back in September 2008.  I have the assessment report of Mr P, the family consultant, who has been in court on both occasions, on 30 October and today, and I do pass on the court’s thanks for his assistance. 

10. A report from Dr E, the father’s treating psychiatrist for alcohol dependency, report of psychologist, Ms X of May 2008 and the affidavit of Ms L, a co-ordinator at the O Contact Centre.  I have had regard to all of that material.  In looking at Dr D’s report, he wrote to Ms N, who is a social worker who prepared an earlier report.  This letter is appended to Dr D’s report.  It’s a letter of 24 April this year:

    “Dear [Ms N],

    Re [Arndale Kingley] Matter.

    As we’ve discussed in the past, in my professional opinion, both parties would benefit from ongoing psychiatric treatment.”

11. It is to be hoped the parties will take note of that and avail themselves of the doctor’s recommendation.  At page 12 of his report, under the heading Opinion, he summarises his assessment of the parties.  He says:

    “[the mother] is a 39-year-old woman who has an almost two-year-old daughter with [the father].  She left the relationship when she was six months pregnant, due to alleged abuse, and has since taken out two DVOs against [the father].  She has cited his violence as the reason why she wanted his contact with [the child] supervised, yet has spent significant amounts of time alone with him after the separation, and even after the assault charge and the DVOs.  She’s concerned about [the father’s] alcohol use, yet by her own admission drinks more than the AMA guidelines for safe drinking and by the reports of others, may even drink more heavily in a binge pattern. 

    She has raised concerns about [the father’s] lifestyle, given his association with hookers and strippers, yet she herself worked [in this industry] and boasted of enjoying a lap dance at a strip club in Surfers Paradise.  She was concerned about his ability to look after [the child’s] physical needs initially, but then stated that he had developed a great relationship with her.  She was concerned about [the father’s] alleged narcissistic personality disorder traits, yet [the mother] herself displays personality disorder traits of narcissistic and histrionic subtypes.  Given her concerns about the phone line being tapped and her reported behaviour at the contact centre, there is the possibility that she has some paranoid personality disorder traits as well. 

    [The father] does have a number of features of narcissistic personality disorder but he does not have enough to meet the full diagnostic criteria to justify this diagnosis according to DSM-IV.  [The father] does meet DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for alcohol abuse disorder.  While he was minimising his problems at my interview, it’s highly likely, given Ms [X’s] history, that he also has an alcohol dependence disorder.  This is the main concern about [the father’s] ability to care for a child on an ongoing basis. 

    Ms [X] made a number of valid treatment suggestions, but I’m unaware of whether [the father] has pursued any of these after he was sentenced.  [The father] needs to be in long-term treatment with a psychiatrist who specialises in the treatment of alcohol dependence.  This person should be given permission to breach confidentiality if they have any concerns about [the father’s] alcohol use that may impact on [the child’s] safety. 

    In summary, if [the father] is in treatment for his alcohol problems and is testing negative to abuse of alcohol and other substances, I see no reason why he should not be able to have unsupervised time with his daughter.  This should start with half a day for several days a week for a month and then build up to full days at least twice a week before going to overnight contact.”

12. Now, I have had regard to the observations and opinion of Dr D, and I will have something further to say about that shortly.  In Mr P’s assessment report at pages 4, 5 and 6, he makes the following observations:

    “Although I observed each parent to show some awareness of [the child’s] situation in the current matter, I was not convinced it’s to a level adequate to be assured that they fully and accurately perceive her needs.  Furthermore, I was struck by each party’s limited insight into just how potentially harmful their respective past and present actions could be to their young daughter’s wellbeing.  I felt both parents minimised this possibility. 

    Summary:  this assessment provides initial expert advice to the family and the court about [the child’s] needs at this point.  The parties present with undeniable histories that when coupled with evidence that their relationship was and continues to be characterised by dysfunction and strong conflict, immediately caused me to hold significant reservations about their capacity to effectively co-parent.  It is apparent from the court material that any agreement between the parties is short lived and there are worrying signs that the parties are fast developing a pattern whereby they rely entirely on litigation as a way of solving their inter-parental problems.”

13. In the third paragraph on page 5 of his report, Mr P notes:

    “In the case of the mother, I believe the court requires further information about her actual willingness and capacity to promote and facilitate [the child’s] relationship with her father.  Based on the impressions I get, I have some doubt as to her genuine motivation to ensure this occurs, but the reasons are not clear.  Another issue that relates to the mother’s role in the parties reaching the goal of effective co-parenting, and one which I suspect is in a way related to the previous issue, is [the mother’s] capacity and readiness to adjust to the post-separation phase of her relationship with [the father].  Although it’s far too premature for me to say with any certainty, there does appear to be some suggestion in the available material that [the mother’s] relationship with [the father] is of a hostile, dependent nature.”

14. On the final page of his report he says:

    “Despite there being a number of significant issues in this matter, it’s evident that [the child’s] relationship with both her parents should be preserved and given every opportunity to continue.  Even though she is reluctant to admit it, I suspect [the mother] recognises it is advantageous to [the child] to have a continuous relationship with her father.  [The father] clearly cherishes his relationship with his young daughter, and I cannot imagine he would not make every effort to ensure its future.” 

15. He then makes a series of recommendations.  I have had the benefit of the oral evidence of Mr P today.  He was of the view that the father is motivated, but one of the more significant lines uttered in today’s hearing was by counsel for the mother, when he said, “If the father really was serious he would give up alcohol altogether.”  That’s the only safe course, and there are various ways of doing it, but Mr P went on to say that he thought the father did have improved insight and he compared the earlier report from Ms X, the psychologist, to the recent report of Dr E.  Certainly I think most people would look at it and say, “Look, abstinence is the way to go for the next 12 months of your life,” and take it from there.  He made observations of the mother, who seems to be very much embedded in the conflict.

16. The two core issues – and I accept his assessment – are the father’s alcohol use and the secondary factors that flow from that, such as risk of drink driving, greater difficulty with anger management.  But the other core issue that I detect very strongly in the material is the mother’s ability to foster the relationship with the father, and I would again, on the material, have grave reservations that she is serious about fostering that relationship. She may give token acknowledgement to it, but her conduct or actions belie her words.

1. I turn to briefly consider the affidavit of the father filed on 27 November.  He says at paragraph 26:

   “To satisfy any potential concerns, I’m happy to give an undertaking not to consume any alcohol at all while [the child] is in my care or 24 hours beforehand.” 

2. I’m going to require a written undertaking to the court, and that will be in the form provided, and the father better believe me that I take any promises from a citizen seriously.  Paragraph 27 he says:

   “I accept that it is my own conduct that has put me into this position, but I believe that I have done all that I can to satisfy the court that I have addressed my past issues in relation to alcohol and I can protect [the child].”

3. At paragraph 33 and 34 the father accepts credit for certain fraud charges being dismissed.  The charges had been preferred by the police against the mother.  Counsel for the mother gives a totally different view on that aspect.  The father seems to be taking credit in circumstances where he deserves no credit at all.  If, in the fullness of time, I make findings along those lines, it’s going to reflect very poorly on the father’s credibility.  I know that’s a critical issue for both litigants.

4. The father proposes his mother to be the supervisor.  He annexes a letter from her, and as I said, the photos of the property are impressive.  There seems to be quite a delightful environment with a warm family atmosphere with chooks, small horses and dogs.  I was impressed with the evidence of the paternal grandmother.  I hope my confidence in her will be borne out.  I think it’s a given that she would not put the child at risk at any time, but she’s going to have to be vigilant to ensure that if there’s any transgressions by the father, the independent children’s lawyer is notified, and if necessary the weekend time is curtailed and the child returned to the mother.

5. Now, the affidavit of the mother doesn’t appear to have been professionally drawn.  For example, the numbering sequence is not as one would normally expect.  She has a series of subheadings and then starts with paragraph 1 under each subheading.  There are other passages where the language is quite intemperate and I wouldn’t expect that to have been drawn by a legal practitioner.  For example, paragraphs 24 to 26 she says:

   “I believe that [the father] continues to do everything in his power to avoid agreeing with me on any issue and is deliberately acting in a manner to cause me maximum financial harm and practical inconvenience and to disable me from facilitating his contact with [the child] so that the court sides with him in his attempts to gain unsupervised access with [the child] prior to undertaking meaningful treatment of his various issues.”

6. Paragraph 25:

   “I believe that his behaviour in this regard is tantamount to him being a sociopath.

   26:

   I believe that any order from this point that supports a requirement that [the child] and I be caused to travel, as we have, characterises the court as an unwitting abetter of domestic violence perpetration against me and my family in similar fashion to any support of an order requiring that I be disassociated from [the child] as outlined earlier in this affidavit.”

7. Quite frankly, the mother’s comments border on the offensive.  The series of headings - at page 5 is a subheading. Ms S.  For the next 48 paragraphs the mother goes on, in great detail, about Ms S.  It covers six pages.  The word that came to mind when I was reading that was “rant.”  It was just a complete rant about anything and everything to do with Ms S.  Ms S is a secondary player in this whole episode.  She will be around.  I am not putting any prohibition, but the reaction from the mother seems to be because, in the orders of 30 October, I said, “Well, it’s only going to be a couple of hours on the weekend.”  I saw no reason why Ms S shouldn’t be permitted to attend.

8. The mother suggests in her affidavit that there is no relationship between the father and Ms S.  Paragraph 4:

   “I do not believe that Ms [S] is or ever has been in a de facto relationship with [the father] and that her relationship with [the father] has been one of mutual dependency and was borne out of [the father’s] needs for clerical assistance with his legal matters with me and driving support, consequence on his DUI charge – -“

   etcetera. 

9. The mother annexes a letter as annexure 3, which is a letter written by the father’s then lawyers, Jones Mitchell, back in February 2008, where they say:

   “Since [Ms S] has been working with [the father], they have developed a relationship.  In answer to your questions, [the father] is not able to give a definite date as to when his friendship with [Ms S] developed into the current state of the relationship.  It happened over time.”

   It does say they’re not living in a de facto relationship at that point in time, but it’s quite clear, from the information given to me today, the father is living in an apartment and he’s living with Ms S.  Whether it’s some form of morbid jealousy or whatever, I really can’t quite get a clear picture on the mother’s position, but she seems to have an almost irrational hatred towards Ms S and an unrealistic denial of the fact that there is, in fact, a de facto relationship between the father and Ms S. 

10. I am prepared to find there is no risk to the child if the father spends time with her, providing such time is supervised by the paternal grandmother.  I propose to make a series of orders and then I will hear submissions on any further orders.  What I am proposing is that it be either the Sunday, but I will get the mother to elect now, and it is her election, but once it’s locked into place, that will be it, but it will be, for example, Saturday the 5^th and the 12^th, in the W district, from 9 to 4.  If they want me to define the W district, I will, but we will say “area of 50 kilometres from the [W] post office.”

11. The following weekend would be the weekend of Saturday, 19 December, and it’s to be from Saturday 9 am till Sunday, 4 pm.  Now, the father is not to be present and the mother is not to be present at the handover.  The handover is to be at such place as nominated by the legal representatives of the parties.  They can negotiate on that.  I am suggesting, in default, it be, say, the N or P police stations.  I don’t believe I’m going to make an order for a contact centre to be used, mainly because contact centres may not be open, may not be available, too many complications.  Preferably, it will be at the home of the maternal grandmother, where the mother could safely just drop the child there, leave, the father could be left at a nearby service station or whatever and the paternal grandmother collects the child, with Ms S and anybody else who happens to be in the vehicle at the time; her partner, or whatever.

12. No photos at any changeover.  There’s suggestions Ms S has used photos.  If the parties want to tape each other, I don’t see any difficulty with that.  It’s some evidence of what’s gone on, I suppose, but also, if they know they’re being taped, they’re far more likely to be on their best behaviour, because otherwise it’s going to get played back at them in court in a couple of months time.

13. The father is to pay to the mother’s solicitors, within seven days, the sum of $200 to cover the first four trips, if the contact is to occur in N.  It’s $50 a trip to cover the mother’s fuel and expenses from W down to the N area or P area, whatever it be, and that payment is to continue and to be paid monthly in advance.

14. The father is to lodge his undertaking today.  That can be drawn by his legal practitioners and approved by the independent children’s lawyer and filed with my court officer. 

15. There be an order that, in the event there is any breach of that undertaking by the father, the paternal grandmother is to forthwith make arrangements for the child to be returned to the mother’s residence and is to notify the independent children’s lawyer in writing. 

16. Now, the independent children’s lawyer is to require ongoing pathology testing of both parties.  Now, there was a suggestion that there be counselling between the paternal grandmother and the mother.  Under my orders, they won’t be coming into contact and I don’t see the need for counselling.  It would be nice if they could send Christmas cards to each other.  It would be nice if they could open lines of communication by telephone and not have ongoing conflict.  That’s going to be very important, but it’s not something I’m going to make as part of an order, but I would suggest that they do something about it all the same.

17. I am going to turn then to the other draft orders.  I don’t have to spell out how the supervision is to take place.  It’s been explained to the paternal grandmother.  She is to be there 24/7 with the child;  not a case of, “I’ve just got to duck down to the shop and get something.” 

18. Now, I will hear submissions on Saturday/Sunday.  I will hear submissions as to the handover arrangements, but I can leave those flexible.  I do say to the parties that the order will be:  the time is to be as agreed between the parties.  If there’s a request going either way, in writing or email or however, to say, “Can we change it from Saturday to Sunday,” and if you’re able to comply, it becomes a swings and roundabouts-type situation, where you may need to change the dates and you would hope the other party would reciprocate.  I don’t propose to make orders about schools and health care professionals and all of those.

RECORDED   :   NOT TRANSCRIBED

1. The child is two.  One would hope that the maternal grandmother would ensure there is no denigration of the mother in the child’s presence, but one would hope that the mother would also ensure – and I can say to the mother that I have no reason to doubt the summary given by her counsel of the litigation history and any citizen would be extremely angry at the father’s behaviour and would be justifiably incensed at what has gone on. 

RECORDED:   NOT TRANSCRIBED

1. I am not going to have weekly times.  It is too much on the paternal grandmother, but it will be from 9 am, Saturday, 20 December to 5 pm, Sunday.  Now, the first two lots of day time only contact have to happen in the W district, after that, there is no limitation that it has to be at Y, but I would have thought that’s a great environment for the child.  I was not minded to give the father Christmas Day.  I understand he hasn’t seen the child since August, but the child does have siblings, sisters, family members there, but I will give the father from 9 am, 26 December, to 5 pm, 28 December.

RECORDED:   NOT TRANSCRIBED

1. I will leave it at 9 o’clock, at this stage, on 25 December through to 27 December.  So it will be two nights that I am ordering as Christmas holiday time.  A week in the life of a three-year-old is an extremely long period of time.  Thereafter, I propose from 4 January to 6 January.  Sorry, that is 2 January to 4 January, 16 January to the 18^th, and thereafter, until the matter can come back before court, it will be each fortnight thereafter from 9 am on the Saturday till 5 pm on the Sunday.

RECORDED:   NOT TRANSCRIBED

1. So specify the dates up until Christmas day and then, once the parties get into the New Year, it’s each alternate weekend, the first weekend of the New Year to be with the father.

RECORDED:   NOT TRANSCRIBED

1. It is coming back before me at 9.30 on 28 May.  I will also give liberty to apply on 48 hours notice. 

I certify that the preceding thirty-nine (39) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Barry

Associate: 

Date: 3 December 2009