KOCH & KOCH

[2013] FCCA 480

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KOCH & KOCH [2013] FCCA 480

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – interim – recovery application by father – mother appears on second warrant for her arrest – children aged 14 and 8 have not seen father for two years – order made for recovery of children – urgent Child Inclusive Conference ordered – oral evidence taken from Family Consultant – enmeshed relationship between eldest child and mother – three options considered – children split supported by ICL – eldest child remains with mother and youngest with father – mother viewed as ongoing flight risk – counselling to repair relationships – psychiatrist assessment of parties ordered – mother placed on bond – father to have sole parental responsibility.

Legislation:  

Family Law Act 1975, s.60CC

Goode and Goode [2006] FamCA 1346; (2006) FLC 93-286
MRR v GRR [2010] HCA 4

Applicant: MR KOCH

Respondent: MS KOCH

File Number: BRC 4667 of 2011

Judgment of: Judge Purdon-Sully

Hearing date: 3 May 2013

Date of Last Submission: 3 May 2013

Delivered at: Brisbane

Delivered on: 3 May 2013

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Self represented

Solicitors for the Respondent: Self represented

Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Barbara Fox Solicitor

ORDERS

1. That the child [Y] born [in] 2004 live with the father.

2. That the father have sole parental responsibility for the child [Y].

3. That the child [X] born [in] 1999 live with the mother.

4. That pursuant to s.65L(1)(a) of the Family Law Act1975 the parenting orders be supervised by a Family Consultant nominated by the Manager of Child Dispute Services of this Registry of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Brisbane.

5. That [Y] and [X] spend time with the father pursuant to Order 4 herein at 2.00pm on Wednesday, 8 May 2013.

6. That Family Consultant, Mr H prepare a memorandum to the Court in relation to [Y], [X] and the parties’ attendances upon him pursuant to Order 4 hereof.

7. That the parties are to attend upon a Psychiatrist on a time and date as nominated by the Independent Children’s Lawyer for the purpose of the preparation of a psychiatric assessment.

8. That the mother and father attend upon their general medical practitioner to obtain a referral to a reputable pathologist in their local area for the purpose of undertaking supervised urine analysis testing for illicit drug abuse.

9. That neither parent is to use, or be under the influence of any illicit drugs including in the presence of the children.

10. That the mother and father undergo such urine drug analysis within seven (7) days of this Order and/or as directed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

11. That any testing under these Orders be verified by a certificate to include a temperature endorsement thereon, with a copy of the certificate to be forwarded to the Independent Children's Lawyer and the other parties lawyer within 48 hours of receipt of such certificate.

12. That the Warrant of Arrest issued on 13 December 2012 is discharged and MS KOCH is to be released on a bond.

13. That pursuant to section s.70NEC of the Family Law Act 1975, the Mother enters into a Bond.

14. That pursuant to section 91B of the Family Law Act1975 the Court requests the intervention of the Director-General of the Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services in the proceedings relating to the children [X] born [in] 1999 and [Y] born [in] 2004.

15. That the said Director-General have liberty, upon application to the Registrar, to search and take copies of the documents on the Court file in relation to the said proceedings.

16. That the parties and their legal representatives (if any) be granted leave to view all subpoena material currently before the Court.

17. That this matter be adjourned to 9.00am on 10 July 2013 in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Brisbane.

IT IS NOTED:

A.That pursuant to section 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in Attachment A and these particulars are included in these orders.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT BRISBANE

BRC 4677 of 2011

MR KOCH

Applicant

And

MS KOCH

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

A.These reasons were delivered ex tempore and corrected for literal and grammatical errors.

Introduction

1. These proceedings concern two children, [X], aged 14, born [in] 1999, and [Y], aged 8, born [in] 2004, the children of Mr and Ms Koch.  In these reasons I shall refer to Mr Koch as “the father” and Ms Koch as “the mother”.

2. Since the parties separated on 19 December 2009, on the father’s case, the children have remained in the care of their mother.  They have not seen their father, again on his case, since January 2010, that is over three years ago.

Some background to the present application

1. By Initiating Application filed on 2 June 2011, Mr Koch brought proceedings for parenting orders seeking inter alia to spend time with the children.  He was not seeking to change their primary care, but to spend alternate weekend time with them and time on special occasions. 

2. His application was not served on Ms Koch as he did not know her whereabouts.  Location orders were made directed to Centrelink, the Child Support Agency and the Department of Education.  There may have been others, but certainly to those authorities.

3. However, service upon the mother was unable to be effected.  Whilst location orders were made, they were unsuccessful in locating the mother.  On 7 June 2012 a warrant was issued for her arrest.  That warrant was executed and she was finally brought before the court on 13 September 2012, at which time the court made orders, inter alia, discharging the warrant and appointing an Independent Children's Lawyer to represent the children in these proceedings.

4. Orders were also made that the mother file Response documents by 26 October 2012.

5. The matter was then adjourned until 8 November 2012.  The mother failed to appear on 8 November 2012 or at any court event thereafter.  She failed to file Response material as ordered.

6. Ms Fox, the Independent Children’s Lawyer who represents the children, informed the court today that the mother was granted legal aid and that a solicitor was appointed to act for her. However, the solicitor was unable to locate her. The mother denies that she was informed that she was granted legal aid, notwithstanding, she accepts, that she made the application and followed up with the Legal Aid office.

7. On 13 December 2012 a further warrant was issued for the mother’s arrest.

8. Nearly two years after the father first issued proceedings and some twelve (12) court events later, the court was informed yesterday that the mother had been arrested.  It was not possible to bring the matter before the court yesterday.  My chambers were informed by the police that the mother had been taken to hospital.  She appeared before the court today.

9. After taking submissions from the Independent Children’s Lawyer, Ms Fox, the father and the mother, I issued a warrant for the recovery of the children who were being cared for by a family friend.

10. It was my preference that the children be brought to the court without the need for the involvement of the Federal Police.  The mother did herself no service by her conduct this morning and what I find to be a failure to assist the court in locating the whereabouts of the children.  It is difficult for me to accept that the mother was unable to assist the court in locating them in a transparent way.  At best it evidenced a laissez-faire to her parenting responsibilities and at worst it was deliberate obfuscation.

11. I made an order that the parties attend upon Mr H, a Family Consultant with this court.

12. The mother was afforded an opportunity to see the Duty Lawyer.

13. The children were recovered and they were presented for interviews with Mr H.  I took his evidence orally this afternoon.  I propose that a transcript of that evidence be made available to the parties and to the Independent Children’s Lawyer. 

Mr H’s evidence

1. Mr H outlined two options for the court and he discussed the advantages and disadvantages of each option, as he did a third option that was presented by Ms Fox.

2. Those options are:

   a)Firstly, that the children live with the mother, the preferred option if the court is satisfied that the mother will cooperate in the court process;

   b)Secondly, that the children live with the father.

   c)Thirdly, that the children are split and that [Y] lives with the father and [X] with the mother.  That was the proposal of the Independent Children's Lawyer.

3. Whatever option is put in place it was proposed by Mr H that there be a reintroduction of the children with the father through a counselling process to be monitored by the court and to be conducted by the court and that that process continue for at least four weeks and that there be a review thereafter.

4. Having heard Mr H’s evidence I took submissions from the parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer.  I did afford the parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer an opportunity to ask any questions of Mr H.

5. The Independent Children’s Lawyer indicated her preference as being option three before the parties were called upon to ask Mr H questions.

Competing proposals

1. In terms of the proposals that are before the court, the father recognises that for [X] to be placed in his care would be fraught with difficulty.  He, however, supports the counselling process recommended by Mr H and he also supports the proposal of the Independent Children’s Lawyer that [Y] be placed in his care.

2. The mother seeks that the children be returned to her. She has indicated to the court that she will cooperate with the process and that she will support the children engaging in the counselling process recommended by Mr H.

3. The Independent Children’s Lawyer supports - initially, as I understand it - the third option, that is that [Y] be placed in the care of the father and [X] remain with the mother.  She recognised at the end of the submissions, however, that it is a decision for the court that rests largely on whether the court is of the view that the mother will cooperate with the process. However, during the course of her submissions she outlined her concerns in that regard.

4. The Independent Children’s Lawyer also supports the making of a section 91B order which would be an order that would invite the Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services (“the Department”) to intervene in these proceedings should they choose to do so.

Some personal details

1. The father is aged 40, having been born [in] 1972.  He is an [omitted] by occupation.  On his evidence he has been in consistent employment throughout the period of the relationship and subsequently.  He resides on the Gold Coast.

2. The mother has not filed material so what personal details I have come from the father’s Initiating Application. On his evidence she is 41 years of age, having been born [in] 1972.

3. On the father’s evidence the parties commenced to live together in 1996, married [in] 2000 and separated on 19 December 2009.  There is no evidence that they have divorced.

4. There is no evidence that a property settlement has been effected.  Indeed one of the orders that the father sought is his Initiating Application was property adjustment.

Material considered

1. I have considered the evidence of Mr H.

2. I have also had regard to the subpoenaed material which was provided to me by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.  She kindly flagged those parts of the material that she wished to bring to the attention of the court.  I propose to make that material Exhibit 1 as a bundle in these proceedings.

3. That material consists of material subpoenaed from the Queensland Police in relation to any criminal convictions and their involvement with the family in relation to domestic violence.

4. It also involves subpoenaed material to the Department involving a notification that was made on 27 March 2008 to the Department which seemed to involve issues involving a verbal disagreement between the parties and the information was assessed as a child concern report, with an outcome that it did not meet the threshold for a child protection notification.  The matter was screened.  No harm had occurred to the subject child, the subject of the notification.  That child was [X].  There was no evidence to suggest that the subject children were at an unacceptable risk of significant harm.  That was the outcome of the Department’s investigation.

5. I have also considered the father’s Initiating Application and supporting Affidavit and the history of the orders made in this matter.

Discussion of the evidence

1. These proceedings are, of course, interim proceedings.  The mother has not filed any sworn material.  On the first occasion that she was brought before the court she raised issues to do with family violence.  She does so again today.  She referred to the father this morning as “a psychopath”.  She also asserts that he has been stalking her, amongst other concerns that she raises.

2. The father annexed to his Initiating Application a copy of a Protection Order made on a “without admission” basis by the [omitted] Magistrates Court on 25 March 2008 in favour of the mother, with the father as the Respondent.  The orders continued until 25 March 2010.  These orders were varied by consent on 9 March 2010 to again provide that the father be of good behaviour towards the mother and not commit domestic violence.  The orders continued until 25 March 2012.

3. I am not aware of any other Protection Orders currently in force.

4. The father outlined in his material the circumstances giving rise to the orders and his subsequent breach of the domestic violence order and a fine.  He sets that out at paragraphs 32 to 39 of his Affidavit filed on 2 June 2011 under the heading “Family Violence”.

5. His version is different from the version that the mother has provided to the court.  I have viewed the subpoenaed material in relation to the family violence concerns.  That material does not support, as asserted by the mother, a finding that the father engaged in domestic violence or that he broke into her house as asserted by her.

6. It will, of course, however, be a matter for tested evidence to get to the bottom - hopefully - of the facts.  I am not able to make findings on the untested evidence.  What I can say is that the evidence before the court does not present as a history of long standing domestic violence concerns, notwithstanding the father having been dealt with for a breach of a domestic violence order on 21 December 2009, at which time no conviction was recorded and he was fined $800.

7. He has no other criminal record.  There is no evidence that the father has engaged in further breaches or that he has been charged with stalking or that any complaint has been made by the mother to the police or that she sought a further Protection Order in her favour, notwithstanding the mother’s concerns about the father and the expiry of the varied Protection Order over 12 months ago.  As I said, I am unable to test disputes of fact.  This is not a trial.  No one gets in the witness box and is cross-examined save, of course, we have had some evidence from Mr H today and I afforded the parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer a brief opportunity to ask him questions.

8. Any allegation of family violence must be treated seriously.  The mother was afforded an opportunity last year to place some evidence before the court - to have her voice heard.  She did not do so.  She affords an explanation for that.  It is an explanation that I have to say, even at this preliminary stage, that I am challenged to accept.  She was aware when she came before me that an Independent Children’s Lawyer had been appointed because I made that order when she was present.  The Independent Children’s Lawyer has a duty to represent the children’s interests in these proceedings.

9. Many litigants act for themselves in this court.  I accept it is not an easy pathway.  However, they inform themselves, they are provided with access to a Duty Lawyer.  They can access community-based legal services.  Here, the mother, I am informed, was granted legal aid and a lawyer to represent her.  She denies that she was contacted by a lawyer.  However, it is difficult to accept.  Whilst I am not able to work my way through that particular issue today, it is difficult for me to accept, knowing that these proceedings were on foot and in the circumstances under which she was brought to the court - that is, she was arrested - that she could not have thereafter engaged in the process in some fashion.

10. Having been brought before the Court after being arrested should be a salutary lesson, or would be a salutary lesson for most people.

11. There is no evidence to support the mother’s concerns that the father has a longstanding, serious drug problem.  That is not to suggest, and I am not making a finding, that he has not had a historical drug problem.  There is no evidence that he has been charged with any drug offences by way of example.

12. In his Affidavit filed on 2 June 2011 in support of his application, the father deposed to not seeing the children since January 2010.  This is a very concerning matter.  It is his case that the mother has deliberately secreted the children.  In that context, Ms Fox submits that the children have not been attending school since early 2011.  She submits that the police expressed some concerns about the mother’s living circumstances and mental well-being when they attended upon her home last year.

13. I have had an opportunity to review the subpoenaed material in that regard relevant to the police attendance at the mother’s residence.  I have difficulty trying to locate the particular date, but I think it is 29 October 2012 when the police attended at her residence and had concerns for the welfare of the two children after visiting the address, and they set out the basis of those concerns, including concerns with regard to the mental health of the mother and subsequent inquiries made in relation to the children’s attendance at school.

14. The mother is, of course, before the court today on a second warrant for her arrest.  She was aware that the proceedings were on foot prior to that.  It is open on the evidence to conclude that she has simply chosen to ignore the court proceedings and hide the children.  They have, as I have said, not attended school since early 2011.  The eldest child is 14 and that would mean that he has likely or possibly has not attended high school, although, as I understand it, there was a period of time when he was attending school.

15. I am presented with the three options, which I accept are the only options open to the court, all of which present with risk for these children.  The decision is what order I should make in their best interests between now and the short period of time when I intend that this matter come back before me - which will be on 11 July, when I shall take a further report from Mr H.

16. Mr H, in his evidence, outlined the risks that present with respect to each option.  I accept that each pathway is fraught.  I accept that each pathway presents difficulties for these children.  I place significant weight on the evidence of Mr H at this stage of these proceedings and as a basis for the orders I intend to make.  He is an independent expert.  He has professional qualifications.  He is a social worker.  He has had the opportunity to see the children and he has had the opportunity to interview the parties.

17. Clearly, the first option will have the least impact on the children in the short term.  However, it is predicated on the court having confidence in the mother’s cooperation.  I regret that I have concluded that I do not have that confidence.  Whilst the mother says that she will cooperate, the history suggests otherwise.  She has had an opportunity this morning to prove her bona fides and a change of heart by providing information that would have avoided the need to issue a recovery order for these children.  She fell short.  The court must consider making orders least likely to lead to further proceedings.  Here, a return to the mother raises a significant concern that that course will likely lead to further issues of compliance given the mother’s history.

1. Whilst the mother asserts that she will cooperate, as I have said, Mr H was not able to assist the court in making an assessment as to whether, in his view, the mother was likely to cooperate.  I have concluded on the evidence, the mother having now been brought to the court twice under warrant, continues to present as a significant flight risk were the children to be returned to her.

2. The mother presented today in a concerning fashion. I say this notwithstanding the circumstances in which she was brought to the court and her lack of legal representation.  In my view, a psychiatric assessment of both parties is warranted and I accept the evidence of

   
   

   Mr H in this regard, in relation to the basis for that.

3. It would not be in the children’s interests that the mother again attempt to remove them, necessitating police recovery.  I accept, however, that to place [X] in the care of the father at this point is fraught with extreme difficulty for the reasons that Mr H outlined.  He has a real fear of his father.  There is a real risk hat he will not comply with a court order.  Even if he does, there is a risk to him given his level of anxiousness and I have concluded that to be an unacceptable risk.

4. If I make the orders in line with the option or the proposal of the Independent Children’s Lawyer, then it would separate two children who have lived together the whole of their life.  A court would be most reluctant to do that unless there is a good reason.  I find, however, there are reasons made out on the evidence and the circumstances of this case are such for the court to take that serious step for the reasons advanced by the Independent Children’s Lawyer and Mr H.

5. It affords [Y] a chance to have a relationship with his father, which may not be open to him given his brother’s strident and oppositional views. [Y] is only eight and a half years of age. He deserves that opportunity. If I was to leave him with the mother and she again absconded it may not be an opportunity that again presents. I am not prepared to take that risk. If I make a section 91B order, which I intended to do and which I view as appropriate, then if the Department did intervene, that will not happen overnight and their intervention will not address the risks of the mother absconding with the children in the meantime.

6. I find for the reasons advanced by Mr H that the father presents a low risk to the children of domestic violence.  He has, of course, not viewed the subpoenaed material.  However, I accept, having viewed the subpoenaed material myself and having heard the submissions of Ms Fox, that observation is open on the evidence.

7. In relation to the allegations of drug use, I can respond to that by requiring the father to undergo random tests and by making orders that neither party consume illicit drugs.

8. In relation to the risk of separating the children, I accept the evidence of Mr H in this regard.  We are talking about a few days before the children will be reunited on Ms Fox’s proposal and [Y] will be reunited with his mother.  We are talking about a period of re-introduction or affording the children an opportunity for a period of re-introduction under the supervision of the Family Consultant, Mr H.

9. Leaving the boys together and embarking on this process is fraught with difficulty.  There is a risk that [Y] may not engage if [X] chooses not to engage.  There is a real risk that [X] will not choose to engage.

10. The process proposed on the proposal of the Independent Children’s Lawyer may assist [Y] by easing his fears and it may have a rippling effect on [X].  However, even if it does not – even if it is sadly too late for [X] to have a relationship with his father, that does not mean that [Y] should be deprived of that opportunity in his interests.

11. There are many disputed facts.  These are interim proceedings and as I have said previously, I cannot test the evidence.  However, I assess placing [Y] in the care of the father at this stage, under the watchful eye of the court with an Independent Children’s Lawyer – an experienced Independent Children’s Lawyer, I should add – involved, I have concluded that that does not pose an unacceptable risk to [Y] notwithstanding it would involve a separation from his brother, which the court would view seriously and importantly, and again, the court will view seriously a separation from his historical primary carer.

12. Of course, such an order will place a child in the care of a parent whom he has not seen for three years.  He would have been only about six years of age when that happened.  However, there is nothing in the presentation of the father that raised concerns from Mr H.  I accept his evidence in that regard.

13. The father has complied with court orders.  He has a history of secure employment.  He presented on every occasion in this court as a somewhat mild man, not open to strident criticism of the mother and accepting with some stoicism what I find to have been a difficult situation in which he found himself.  He has acted for himself and attempted to navigate, what I also accept, would be a difficult pathway for him.  He has evidenced a remarkable degree of patience with the process, given that he has been engaging with the court for nearly two years.  That evidences commitment and resolve to see things through.  It will be a quality that he will need if I placed [Y] in his care and he embarked upon at least a number of weeks of re-introduction with [X], who is presenting as most oppositional.

14. Whilst it presents a significant change for [Y], it must be balanced against all of the options and the risks that each present for [Y].

15. It is an outcome supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, seized with the responsibility of representing the children’s interests.

16. It is an outcome not rejected by Mr H and one to which, when it was presented to him, he considered carefully and considered the various advantages and disadvantages, balancing all of those in the contexts of the risks that presented.

17. With respect to the views of the children, I place little weight on those views at this stage.  This is because of the amount of contact that they have had with their father and [X]’s involvement in the dispute and enmeshment with his mother’s views, on Mr H’s evidence.

18. Mr H also described the mother as presenting with rigidity.  It would be unrealistic to think that her views in the circumstances that have presented and on the evidence of Mr H, having interviewed [X], would not have influenced [X] in the circumstances of this case.

19. Had the mother not presented as a strong flight risk then leaving the children in her care would have been a clear option open to the court – a preferred option.  However, it is not an option that I am satisfied on the evidence is open to the Court.  Having concluded that she is a flight risk in my view - and in my view, she remains a significant flight risk - and having concluded that placing [X] with the father presents an unacceptable risk by virtue of [X]’s fears and high levels of anxiety, that then leaves the third option.  It is by no means a perfect option.  Perfect options rarely present in this court, but it is the option that poses the least risk for the children in the unhappy circumstances that present in this case.

20. I am otherwise unable to make findings on the other section 60CC factors which loom large for my consideration in this case at a final hearing.

Determination

1. Having regard to the considerations I am obliged to take into account under section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 and the legal path I am required to follow, even at this interim stage when the Court is not able to make findings on disputes of fact, that legal pathway, having been expounded in a number of Full Court decisions including Goode & Goode[2006] FamCA 1346; (2006) FLC 93-286 and also by the High Court in MRR v GRR [2010] HCA 4 I find that at this interim stage I should place [Y] with his father and leave [X] with his mother.

2. I propose that the children be brought to the court weekly, commencing next week at a time to be arranged with the court.  That will need to be done in consultation with Mr H. I would ask the Independent Children’s Lawyer to liaise with Mr H and then with the parties in relation to that and that thereafter there be a period of reintroduction whereby [X] is afforded an opportunity to be reintroduced with his father in a counselling environment. [Y] will also be able to engage in that process.  The children will be able to spend time with each other and [Y] will be able to spend supervised time with his mother.

3. I accept the process as outlined and particularised by Mr H in his evidence today. I propose that Mr H provide a further report to the court at the end of that period and that the matter be reviewed at that stage. At that time the mother would have been afforded an opportunity to place sworn evidence before the court, to access legal assistance through the Legal Aid Office of Queensland and hopefully be represented on the next occasion the matter comes back before the Court.

4. It is unclear on the evidence what the situation is in relation to the child attending school.  The mother says that the child has been attending school and that the child is being homeschooled.  The report to the police to which I have referred earlier, that is the report when the police attended the mother’s home on 29 October, the report indicated that enquiries had been made with the [omitted] High School in regard to a blanked named and that could only reveal that he had left school on 21 March 2011 and they had no knowledge of any further schooling.

5. Now, that may well be because he was being homeschooled and homeschooled at this particular place.  I do not know what the situation is.  The point is that some enquiries need to be made in relation to what the status is with respect to his school and Ms Fox will do that, but I am placing the child in the care of the father.

6. The father needs orders which will give him the authority to do that and make enquiries.  He has indicated appropriately, in my view, that he is going to take some time off work.  He is conscious of not removing the child from a school environment if the child is attending school.  The point is we do not know what the situation is there, but the father needs to be afforded that opportunity and to have the necessary authority to make decisions in relation to schooling if those decisions need to be made.

7. In the course of my reasons I indicated, and I will reiterate in the context of the decision that I intend to make here, that these are not final proceedings.  These are interim proceedings only.  We are talking about a short period of time before this matter comes back before the court.  At which time the mother can re-agitate what she wants to advocate before the court, including variations of the orders that I intend to make.  The Independent Children’s Lawyer has raised properly on the evidence the need for an order to be made in favour of the father for sole parental responsibility.  That is a serious order to make, particularly at an interim stage, but I am satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances and there is cogent evidence before the court to justify making that order.  I do make that order.

8. I find that the orders that I intend to make are in the best interests of [Y] and [X].

Orders

1. The orders then that I propose to make are as follows.

2. I am proposing that the mother be released today on entering into a bond.  The mother will need to wait before she leaves today because that will need to be explained to her and the bond that I am intending that she enter into as follows:

   a)The bond will commence on 3 May and it will continue in force and effect until the mother appears in person or by telephone in the court at the directions hearing at 9.30am on 11 July 2013 and that will be at the Federal Circuit Court of Australia sitting at Southport.

   b)That the mother be of good behaviour during the time that this bond is enforced; and

   c)That the mother comply fully in all respects with the orders made by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Brisbane on 3 May and appear on the next return date at 9.30am on 11 July in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Southport.

3. Registrar Kane will take the mother through the terms of that bond and it will be necessary for the mother to sign that.

4. The bond will be without surety and without security.

5. I am proposing that [Y] live with the father until further order.  I order that the father have sole parental responsibility in relation to decisions to do with the child’s education.

6. I am proposing that [X] live with the mother until further order.

7. I order the parties to engage with Mr H as I have outlined.

8. I intend to make a section 91B order.

9. I am proposing that the mother file and serve her Response material within 28 days of today’s date.

10. I ask Ms Fox to arrange for the parties to be psychiatrically assessed and a report prepared for the assistance of the court.  In relation to that, the basis for that is outlined in the evidence of Mr H and also the evidence in the subpoena material before the court in relation to the police concerns in relation to the mother’s presentation last year.

11. I am proposing to order, if I have not already done so, that the parties and their lawyers have leave to inspect the subpoenaed material.  It may well have been that order has previously been made, but I wish to state it again because the mother is now in court and I wish for her to hear that and for that to appear in the court order.

12. I am proposing to order a transcript of the evidence of Mr H today to be provided to the parties and their lawyers and the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

13. I intend to publish my reasons.

14. I adjourn this matter to the Southport sittings of this Court at 9.30am on 11 July 2013.

I certify that the preceding ninety-two (92) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Purdon-Sully.

Associate:

Date:              7 June 2013