KUBAT & KUBAT

[2019] FamCA 671

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KUBAT & KUBAT [2019] FamCA 671

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – FINAL PARENTING – making orders enforceable in Turkey following agreed withdrawal of a Hague return proceeding – jurisdiction curtailed where Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children has entered into force.

Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children
Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Child Abduction Convention Regulations 1986 (Cth)

State Central Authority v Shanli [2018] FamCA 715

APPLICANT: MS KUBAT

RESPONDENT: MR KUBAT

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: MR M FINN

FILE NUMBER: DGC 1336 of 2019

DATE DELIVERED: 12 September 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Bennett J

HEARING DATE: 12 September 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Kildea

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Littleton Hackford

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: MST Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER Mr L Marchetti

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER Clark Family Lawyers

Orders

1. Leave is granted to the wife and the husband to make a mutual joint oral application for final parenting orders pursuant to Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 and IT IS REQUESTED that pursuant to section 68L(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 the same independent children’s lawyer be appointed in this proceedings as in the Hague proceedings in the Matter of State Central Authority & Kubat – file No. (P)MLC7938/2019.

BY CONSENT IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Discharge of previous orders

1. The parenting orders made by the Federal Circuit Court at Dandenong on 10 July 2019 in the absence of the father be and are hereby discharged.

2. Further to paragraph 2 of this Order, all orders made in these proceedings (in case number MLC7938/2019) restraining the overseas travel of the children:

   a.X born … 2004 (“X”);

   b.Y born … 2007 (“Y”); and

   c.Z born … 2009 (“Z”),

   (“the children”) and placing their names on the Family Law (Airport) Watchlist, along with any interim parenting orders, be and are hereby discharged and the independent children’s lawyer forthwith serve a copy of these orders upon the Australian Federal Police with a request the children’s name be removed from the Watchlist.

Parental responsibility

1. The mother and the father (“the parents”) have equal shared parental responsibility for the children the subject of these proceedings:

   a.X born … 2004 (“X”);

   b.Y born … 2007 (“Y”);

   c.Z born … 2009 (“Z”),

   (“the children”); and for

   d.W, born … 2003 (“W”) who is present and habitually resident in Turkey.

Children’s care arrangements

1. The children live with the mother in Australia and spend time with the father as follows:

   a.In Australia, if the father lives in Australia and for any periods of time he is visiting Australia:

   i.      During school term time, in alternate weeks, commencing on the date of his arrival in Australia on each occasion and fortnightly thereafter provided that the children attend school and extra-curricular activities unless otherwise agreed; and

   ii.     On occasions of special significance to the children, including but not limited to the children’s birthdays, the father’s birthday, Father’s Day, at times to be agreed and failing agreement, for a period of three hours as nominated by the father in writing;

   b.     In Turkey, upon registration of these orders in Turkey, if the father lives in Australia or overseas, or in Australia upon the election of the father:

   i.For two weeks in November 2019, departing Australia on or after 1 November 2019 as nominated by the father, and including X’s birthday and the Cup Day long weekend, if the orders have been registered by then;

   ii.From 2020, for three weeks coinciding with the June/July school holidays in each year and with the children to take some additional time off school if approved by the children’s school; and

   iii.During the Australian long school summer holidays, from 2 to 30 January in each year;

   c.        At such further or other times as the parents may agree in writing; and

   d.        The children’s time with the father pursuant to this order be suspended:

   i.During the first and third school term holidays and for the long summer school holidays save for from 2 to 30 January each year;

   ii.In the event the parents are both in the same location, on occasions of special significance to the children, including but not limited to the children’s birthdays, the mother’s birthday and Mother’s Day, at times to be agreed and failing agreement, for a period of three hours as nominated by the mother in writing; and

   iii.At such further or other times as the parents may agree in writing.

2. For the purpose of paragraph 5 herein:

   a.The father provide the mother with at least 30 days prior notice in writing of his intention for the children to spend time with him in Australia; and

   b.The father provide the mother with at least 60 days prior notice in writing of his intention for the children to spend time with him in Turkey and then, at least 30 days prior to the children’s travel to Turkey, he provide the mother with flight details, copy confirmation of return flight bookings, travel itineraries and contact details for the duration of the children’s travel.

3. The mother facilitate the children communicating with the father and/or their brother, W:

   a.At least once each week by Skype or other electronic medium at 7.00pm on Tuesday AEST or as may otherwise be agreed in writing, with the mother to facilitate and encourage the calls;  and

   b.Using their own devices, by Skype, phone, text message, email or other electronic means at all other reasonable times, which communications may be initiated by the children or either parent;

   and the father do likewise in respect of facilitating the children’s communication with the mother during periods the children are in his care pursuant to these orders.

W

1. The father facilitate and encourage W to:

   a.Communicate with the mother and the children by Skype, phone, text message, email and other forms of electronic communication at all reasonable times; and

   b.Travel to Australia with him to spend time with the mother and the children;

   IT BEING NOTED W is aged 16 and both parents acknowledge he will likely act in accordance with his own views.

2. In the event W travels to Australia, the mother do all things as may be required to assist W to return to Turkey if W informs either of the parents he wants to return to Turkey.

Cost of travel

1. The father meet the cost of:

   a.His travel to and from Australia (including accommodation in Australia) for the purpose of the children spending time with him in Australia; and

   b.W’s travel with him to Australia and to spend agreed time with the mother in Australia;

   c.Return economy flights for the children to Turkey for the long summer school holidays each year.

   Access to information and attending events of importance to the children

2. Each of the mother and the father:

   a.Be and are hereby authorised to receive reports, notices, newsletters, photographs, and the like from the school(s) and providers of sporting and extra-curricular activities attended by the children including W;

   b.Be at liberty to attend parent-teacher interviews for the children including W, in person or by phone or electronic means if available;

   c.Be at liberty to attend all school, sporting and extra-curricular activities and functions and events of importance to the children including W to which parents are invited;

   d.Keep the other advised at all times, of their current residential address, email address, landline telephone number (if applicable) and mobile telephone number respectively, and notify the other as soon as practicable of a proposed change to residential address, and within 24 hours of changes to any of the other contact details;

   e.Keep the other advised at all times, and as soon as practicable, of any medical emergency, illness or injury requiring treatment of, or consultation with, a medical practitioner or health professional, involving the children including W whilst in their care respectively;

   f.Keep the other advised at all times, of any medications prescribed for, or administered to, the children including W whilst in their care respectively;

   g.Keep the other advised at all times, of the names and contact details of all medical practitioners and health professionals treating, or consulting with, the children including W;

   h.Do all such acts, and sign all such documents, as may be required to authorise, as soon as practicable, such medical practitioners and health professionals, to communicate directly with the other party about the children including W; and

   i.Be at liberty to provide a copy of these orders to any school, medical or health practitioner, psychologist or counsellor attended by the children including W.

Children’s passports

1. Each of the father and the mother do all such acts and things as may be required to ensure each of the children including W at all times hold valid Australian and Turkish passports (“the children’s passports”) and to renew at least six months prior to expiry their Australian passports (and Turkish passports if possible), at the mother’s expense in respect of the Australian passports and the father’s expense in respect of the Turkish passports.

2. The mother retain the children’s Australian passports and the father retain the children’s Turkish passports for safe keeping on the condition that they each provide the other with a certified copy of the passports forthwith upon the request of the other.

3. In the event of the children travelling overseas to spend time with a parent pursuant to these orders or with the other parent’s consent in writing, the other parent provide the children’s Australian passports for the purpose of the children’s  travel and such passports be returned to that parent upon the children’s return from their overseas travel.

Non-denigration

1. Each of the mother and the father be and are hereby restrained from denigrating the other parent, or any member of the other parent’s family, within the hearing or the presence of the children including W or in any online forum.

Criminal charges in Turkey

1. The father not actively pursue or support the mother being prosecuted for any potential offences in Turkey relating to her actions bringing the children to Australia in 2018 and remaining with them in Australia in 2019 and the father do all things and sign all documents as may be within his authority to abandon or withdraw any charges or investigations related thereto whether filed already or pending IT BEING NOTED this order is not to be construed as an admission by the mother of any guilt, wrongdoing or liability.

Registration of orders in Turkey

1. The parents forthwith do all such things as may be required to register these orders in Turkey pursuant to the  Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children 1996 (“the Child Protection Convention”) IT BEING NOTED it is intended these orders have effect as child protection measures in Turkey pursuant to the Child Protection Convention.

2. IT IS FURTHER REQUESTED by the parties that there be direct judicial communication to facilitate the enforcement of this Order in relation to the children in Turkey and the making of this Order in relation to the child W.

3. Pursuant to s 111CG of the Act IT IS REQUESTED that the Australian Central Authority request under Article 9 of the 1996 Convention that a competent authority in Turkey agree to this Court in Australia assuming jurisdiction to make this Order relating to W (which is also a Commonwealth personal protection order).

Counselling for Z

1. The mother do all such things as may be required to ensure Z receives ongoing counselling and assistance from her current treating psychologist or such other specialist psychologist as may be agreed by the parents (“Z’s psychologist”) for so long as recommended by that psychologist or as recommended by Z’s GP and for the purpose of this order:

   a.The parents provide Z’s psychologist with a copy of these orders and the regulation 26 family consultant report dated 26 August 2019; and

   b.Z’s psychologist is hereby authorised to communicate with and provide information to each of the mother and the father in respect of such counselling.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE COURT:

1. That the independent children’s lawyer shall meet with the children, as may be facilitated by the coordinator of Child Dispute Services of the Melbourne Registry of this Court, on 16 September 2019, at 2.15pm, to explain the outcome of the proceedings and the parenting arrangements.

2. That the appointment of the independent children’s lawyer be discharged following his meeting with the children, pursuant to paragraph 19 above.

3. That there be liberty to the parents to apply at short notice with respect to the implementation of these Orders, through a request to the chambers of the Honourable Justice Bennett – email … - , or the Honourable Justice Williams – email … - or Judge Stewart of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and the matter be listed as soon as practicable, subject to judicial availability.

4. My reasons for decision this day be transcribed and when settled placed on the Court file and a copy provided to the parties.

5. A copy of this Order and my reasons for decision be placed on the file MLC7938 of 2019 between the State Central Authority & Kubat.

6. That the r 26 Hague report of Ms B dated 26 August 2019 prepared in proceedings number MLC7938/2019 be copied and the copy be placed on this file.

7. That all extant applications be otherwise dismissed and this matter be removed from the docket of the Honourable Justice Bennett.

8. Pursuant to sections 62B and 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act, 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 the parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.

9. That a Registrar of this Registry of the Court provide a sealed copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria at C Town for inclusion in Case Number … together with a copy of the Intervention Order made on 20 August 2019 for the purpose outlined in Notation A to this Order.

IT IS FURTHER DIRECTED:

1. That the signed minute of consent orders be marked Exhibit “A” and remain on the Court file.

2. That the minute of orders of the Court as amended be marked Exhibit “B” and remain on the Court file.

AND THE COURT FURTHER NOTES:

A.The mother undertakes she will make an application to the Magistrates Court at C Town to vary the intervention order made on 20 August 2019 in the absence of the father (“the intervention order”), to have the children removed as affected family members named on the intervention order.

B.These orders are otherwise intended to permit:

a.The children to spend time and communicate with the father;

b.The father to attend at events and medical appointments with the children; and

c.The father to communicate with the mother about the children and the matters provided in these orders;

without the father contravening the intervention order.

C.That the school term time referred to in paragraph 5(b)(ii) is to, where possible, be at the end of term 2 rather than the beginning of term 3.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Kubat & Kubat has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER:  MLC 7938 of 2019

MS KUBAT

Applicant

And

MR KUBAT

Applicant

And

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. There was an application brought by the State Central Authority for Victoria seeking the return of the children, X (12 years old), Y (nearly 10 years old) and Z (nearly 15 years old), to Turkey pursuant to the Family Law Child Abduction Convention Regulations1986 (Cth) (“Child Abduction Regulations”).  Those proceedings were instituted on 16 July 2019 and the final hearing of that application was to commence before me yesterday.  The return application has been dismissed by consent and I am asked to make parenting orders under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) in relation to the three children who are present in Australia and their older brother, W, who is 16 years old, present and habitually resident in Turkey. 

2. In the Hague return proceedings, I requested that the interests of the three children in Australia be represented by an Independent Children's Lawyer.  In forum selection proceedings the role of the Independent Children's Lawyer includes collating evidence, explaining the proceedings to the children and according them the respect they deserve as young persons who will be significantly impacted by a return (or non-return) decision.  It included arranging a specialised Hague mediation (three sessions) for the parents and ensuring that the proceedings are conducted so as to cause as little harm to the children as possible.  The Independent Children's Lawyer is required to be independent of the parents and make submissions to the Court suggesting what course of action is in the best interest of the children.  The Independent Children's Lawyer must ensure that any views expressed by the children (or any of them) in relation to matter to which the proceedings relate are fully put before the Court.  Mr Mark Finn was appointed Independent Children's Lawyer on 17 July 2019.  In that capacity he met with the three children on Wednesday 4 September 2019 in the company of a senior Family Consultant.  The Independent Children's Lawyer’s impressions of the children’s views are set out in an outline of submissions filed in the Hague proceedings on 9 September 2019 [folio 16 in MLC 7938 of 2019].  I have requested that Mr Finn be appointed in these parenting proceedings.  Although his work in this case is concluded, the fact that the children have been provided with an opportunity to be heard, within the meaning of Article 23(2)(b) of the Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (“1996 Convention”), should be a matter of record. 

   RECORDED  :   NOT TRANSCRIBED

3. A brief history of the matter is that the parents met in Turkey in or about April 1999 whilst the mother was travelling.  The mother is Australian.  The father is Turkish.  The parents married in Turkey in 1999 before moving to Australia to live in 2000.  The parents lived in Australia from 2000 until 2012.  Their four children were born here.  The mother told the father that she wanted to separate in September 2018.  On 15 November 2018, the mother and three youngest children travelled to Australia.  The mother’s case is that the parents agreed that she would travel firstly with the three youngest children to Australia, with W and the father to join the family within 6 to 12 months for the purposes of relocating/returning to live in Australia.  The father says that the agreement was that the mother and three youngest children would return to Turkey by 31 March 2019.  W remained in Turkey in the care of the father.  Ultimately it was not necessary for me to determine the extent of the father’s consent for the children to travel to Australia.  However, on either parent’s case there was considerable preparation around the departure of the mother and three youngest children from Turkey and their arrival in Melbourne. 

1. On 31 March 2019, the mother via WhatsApp communicated to the father that the marriage was over and that she and the children would not be returning to Turkey.  The children have been in Australia since November 2018 and have been attending school in Australia.  In the Hague proceedings, the mother raised the following issues:-

   a)The father’s consent and whether it was intended for the children to remain permanently remain in Australia;

   b)Whether the children had ceased to be habitually resident in Turkey prior to 21 March 2019;

   c)That the children objected to being returned to Turkey and that as they are of particular ages and levels of maturity, the Court should take into account their views;

   d)Whether a return would expose the children (or any of them) to a grave risk of psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation by virtue of the mother’s refusal to return to Turkey based, she alleges, on her mental health.  That is, that she would not be able to function adequately as a mother if she returned to Turkey due to long standing mental health issues;

   e)The impact on the children of remaining separated from their older brother W, in the context of any resulting discretion to refuse return consequent upon an exception under r 16(3) of the Child Abduction Regulations being made out.

2. There was a social science report prepared by a Family Consultant, that is, Ms B.  The report is dated 26 August 2019.  The opinion expressed by Ms B has not been tested in cross-examination but it appears to be a thorough and insightful assessment which discusses the family in detail and gives voice to the children’s views of the predicament wherein their mother will live in Australia and their father and W are in Turkey. 

3. The parents participated in three sessions of specialised Hague mediation which was provided by Victoria Legal Aid, free of charge.  The mediation did not resolve all issues.  However, it provided the parents with an opportunity to prepare for outcomes.  That is, what each would do if a return was ordered and if a return was not ordered.  The father attended the mediation by video link.  I gather that throughout the Hague proceedings, the father was represented by Ms Amanda Humphreys, who is a private solicitor with a wealth of experience in these cross-border family matters.

4. Happily, yesterday the parents resolved the differences between them for the benefit of all of the children.  The parents are to be highly commended for reaching a resolution independently of the Hague application. 

5. The parents have agreed that the Hague return proceedings ought to be dismissed, and that they will cooperate to achieve a uniformity of orders between Australia and Turkey in relation to all four children. 

6. It is clear that I can make orders, as requested, in relation to the three children who were the subject of the return application under the Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.  Either they are now habitually resident in Australia and my jurisdiction is pre-eminent pursuant to Article 5 of the 1996 Convention or  alternatively, if they are habitually resident in Turkey (which I doubt), Article 7 of the 1996 Convention does not present an impediment because the father now acquiesces to the retention of the children in Australia.  

7. I am satisfied as to jurisdiction in relation to the three younger children. The Independent Children's Lawyer endorses the orders sought by the parents. I am satisfied that the orders sought for all four children are proper within the meaning of s 65D(1) of the Act and are consistent with the children’s best interests being the paramount consideration as discerned through s 60CC of the Act.

8. There is very good reason for all of the children to be dealt with together. However, there is somewhat of an impediment in relation to W. The 1996 Convention entered into force between Australia and Turkey on 1 February 2017. When that occurred, both countries curtailed their jurisdiction to make orders in relation to children who were not habitually resident in that country. In Australia, that curtailment finds expression in s 111CD(1)(c) of the Act.  W is in Turkey and habitually resident in Turkey.  Making an order in relation to W, such as I have now been asked to make, should in every orthodox sense follow a successful request to the appropriate authorities in Turkey for this Court in Australia to assume jurisdiction in relation to W.  No such request has been made. 

9. Relevantly, Article 9 of the 1996 Convention provides that, if I consider that this court in Australia is better placed in the particular circumstances of the case to assess W’s best interests, I may request a court in Turkey (where W is habitually resident) to authorise this Court in Australia to exercise jurisdiction to take measures of protection which this Court considers necessary.  The request to assume jurisdiction can be made through the Central Authorities for Turkey and Australia or through the courts or via direct judicial communication between the International Hague Network of Judges.  There may be an exchange of views between competent authorities under Article 9(2) of the 1996 Convention.  Finally, Article 9(3) of the 1996 Convention provides that:

   “The authority initiating the request may exercise jurisdiction in place of the authority of the Contracting State of the habitual residence of the child only if the latter authority has accepted the request.”

10. I am satisfied that this Court in Australia is better placed to assess W’s interests by reason of both parents participating in proceedings here and W being interviewed by a Family Consultant from Child Dispute Services. The Court’s Child Dispute Services Section comprises expert psychologists and social workers with a high level of training and experience in child development and parenting after separation and divorce. Family Consultants, such as Ms B, are employed directly and exclusively by the Court and Child Dispute Services is located within the Registry. Regulation 26 provides that in proceedings under the Child Abduction Regulations, such as these, the Court may direct a Family Consultant to report to the Court on such matters relevant to the proceeding as the Court considers appropriate. This service is provided free of cost to the parties. This is how the report in the Hague proceeding was prepared.

11. A further pre-requisite to making a request to assume jurisdiction is that W must have a substantial connection with Australia.  Article 8(2) of the 1996 Convention qualifies Australia as a jurisdiction which can ask Turkey for a transfer of jurisdiction because W is a national of Australia having been born here in 2003 during the family’s residence in Australia from 2000 to 2012. 

12. I will now communicate that to the Hague Network Judge in Turkey and request also that the Central Authority, insofar as it can, communicate to its counterpart in Turkey. 

13. In all respects, it would be preferable for me to have sought the transfer of jurisdiction before purporting to make any order about W.  However, the personal and emotional needs of the children are very much better met by them being able to see that their care arrangements are expressed in one order made now in the knowledge that both parents have agreed to this course.  This has the effect of recognising the legal reunification of the family to which the parents have laudably agreed.  Optimally, the parents and the Independent Children's Lawyer should have foreseen that orders may be sought in relation to W and asked me to seek a transfer of jurisdiction much earlier, such as at the mediation stage.  I will now proceed to do what the parties should have asked me to do earlier.  My sincere hope is that the Turkish authorities will agree for me to assume jurisdiction over W in which case I will then restate the order nunc pro tunc.

14. I need to record that the enforcement provisions of the 1996 Convention does not work as envisaged in Turkey.  By virtue of Article 23(1) of the 1996 Convention, this Order in relation to the younger children in Australia will be recognised by operation of law in Turkey.  Insofar as the order relates to W, recognition of it could be refused because it is a measure taken by me not based on one of the grounds of jurisdiction provided for in Chapter II of the 1996 Convention (see Article 23(2)(a)).  However, recognition does not equate to enforceability and it is the intention of the parents that the parenting orders I make now will be enforceable in Australia and Turkey. 

15. Article 26(2) of the 1996 Convention requires contracting states to apply a “simple and rapid procedure” for a declaration of enforceability or registration for the purpose of enforcement.  Australia has a simple and rapid procedure.  Unfortunately, Turkey has no such procedure.  I commented on this deficiency in State Central Authority v Shanli [2018] FamCA 715. Through direct judicial communication in Shanli’s case, it was ascertained that a foreign order such as those now made by me can be homologated in Turkey only if one or other parent institutes parenting or divorce proceedings in the domestic courts in Turkey. 

16. This is not an unusual case.  The deficiency of Turkey having no simple and rapid procedure means that the 1996 Convention does not operate as seamlessly as it should.  There may be many reasons why a couple may not want to litigate in Turkey but the children of such couples should not be deprived of the protection of orders being enforceable in the jurisdiction which it is contemplated they will be present, to visit or live.  Children in cross-border families are vulnerable in particular ways.  Australia has been enriched by immigration from Turkey and the strong links forged between our countries.  I request that the Australian Central Authority take steps to encourage Turkey to establish a simple and rapid procedure as soon as practicable so that Turkish Australian children have the protection which the 1996 Convention provides. 

17. I have reserved liberty to apply urgently in relation to enforcement of this Order.  That liberty is to be exercised initially by contact being made to my Associate.  If my Associate or I am not available, then contact should be made with the Associate of Justice Williams who is a Hague Network Judge.  If Justice Williams is not available, Judge Stewart’s Chambers, in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia in Melbourne, will take the matter.  It is essential that the time the children are entitled to spend with the father is not disrupted or cut short in the event of a dispute arising before or during the visit of the father and W to Australia.  I am content for my Chambers to be notified of any proposed visit.  My intention is that any dispute will be resolved quickly and with a minimum of formality so that the time proceeds as envisaged by the Order. 

18. I express my appreciation to the Independent Children's Lawyer who has crossed from one proceeding, for which he was funded by Victoria Legal Aid to this parenting proceeding for which, I suspect, there will be no funding.  He has been instrumental in securing an outcome for all four children which I am satisfied is in their best interests.   

I certify that the preceding twenty-one (21) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Bennett delivered on 12 September 2019.

Associate: 

Date:  18 September 2019