Lalit and Rana

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LALIT & RANA

[2016] FCCA 79

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – where the children should live – how much time they should spend with the other parent.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA

MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4

Applicant:

MS LALIT

Respondent:

MR RANA

File Number:

SYC 2160 of 2013

Judgment of:

Judge Altobelli

Hearing dates:

17 – 19 June 2015, 20 November 2015

Date of Last Submission:

20 November 2015

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

1 February 2016

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Ms Shearman

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Browns The Family Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Livingstone

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Armstrong Legal

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Mr Ladopoulos
Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Legal Aid NSW

ORDERS

That the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children, X born (omitted) 2004 and Y born (omitted) 2005 (“the children”).
That the children shall live with both parents equally on the following basis, unless otherwise agreed in writing:
(a)During school terms and in school holidays through the school year, the children will live with each parent on a “week about” basis with handover of the children to occur at the end of school or 3:30pm each Friday, at school during school terms or at the home of the parent from whom the children are being collected outside of school terms;
(b)The children will spend half of the NSW Christmas (summer) school holidays with each parent as follows:
(i)The children will live with the mother for the first half and with the father for the second half of the 2015/2016 summer holidays and each alternate summer thereafter;
(ii)The children will live with the father for the first half and with the mother for the second half of the 2016/2017 summer holidays and each alternate summer thereafter.
(iii)The children are to spend the first week or partial week of the new school year with the parent with whom they have spent the second half of the summer holidays, and are to be handed over to the other parent on the first Friday of term.
That notwithstanding other orders, the children will spend time with each parent on special occasions as follows, unless otherwise agreed between the parties:
(a)The children shall spend time with each parent on the birthday of that parent from 3pm on the day of the birthday until the start of school or 3pm the following day.
(b)The children shall spend time with the parent with whom they are not living on the days of each of the children’s birthdays for at least 4 hours as agreed, failing agreement to be from 3pm until 7pm if a school day and from midday until 4pm if it is a non-school day
(c)The children will spend time with the mother on Mother’s Day weekend each year from 5pm on the Saturday until the start of school on the Monday.
(d)The children will spend time with the father on Father’s Day weekend each year from 5pm on the Saturday until the start of school on the Monday
(e)The children will spend time with the mother from 3pm on Christmas Eve until 3pm on Christmas Day and with the father from 3pm on Christmas Day until 3pm on Boxing Day in 2015 and each alternate year thereafter.
(f)The children will spend time with the father from 3pm on Christmas Eve until 3pm on Christmas Day and with the mother from 3pm on Christmas Day until 3pm on Boxing Day in 2016 and each alternate year thereafter.
That on occasions where the children are not being delivered to and collected from school, handover of the children will occur by the parent with whom the children are about to spend time collecting them from the home of the other parent.
That each parent will be free to contact the children by telephone, Skype or other electronic communication between 7 and 7:30pm on any Tuesday or Thursday when the children are in the care of the other parent, and the parent with whom the children are currently living is to facilitate the children receiving such communication and speaking to their other parent in private.
That the parties are to communicate directly with each other about matters concerning the care of the children, by text message or email except in the case of an emergency, and are not to use the children to pass messages between the parents.
That the parties are each restrained from speaking negatively about the other parent or any member of that parent’s family in the presence or hearing of the children.
That the parties are each to keep the other advised as soon as practicable of any significant illness or injury occurring to either of the children while in their care, including the names and contact details of any medical practitioner consulted by the child and the details of any medication prescribed for the child, and the parties are each hereby authorised to obtain information from any medical practitioner consulted about the diagnosis and treatment of the children.
That the parties consult in relation to the child's attendance on any medical specialist, including any specialist medical practitioner, dentist, orthodontist, speech pathologist, occupational therapist, or other therapist ("Consultant") and that:
(a)In the event that the child is referred to a consultant, the party who obtains the referral inform the other party in writing as soon as recently practicable after obtaining the referral of any specialist medical;
(b)The party who obtains a referral do all things necessary to ensure that the other party is provided with copies of any test results, letters of referral, reports and letters received from and by the consultant;
(c)Both parties be permitted to attend on such appointments, those attendances to be the sole discretion of the consultant and such attendance may be in person or by telephone or other electronic device; and
(d)The party who obtains the initial referral or appointment time, as soon as possible after the initial appointment is made at least fourteen (14) days prior to the first appointment, authorise the consultant to discuss a referral to the other party.
That the parties are each to ensure that the child X continues to attend for speech therapy until such time as her treating speech therapist advises that it is no longer necessary.
That each party do all things necessary to notify the other party of a change in their contact telephone number(s), email address or change of residential address within twenty-four (24) hours of any such change.
That each parent is responsible for ensuring that the children attend school on time on all school days when the children are in their care, unless they are ill.
That the parties are each entitled to directly contact any school at which the children are enrolled to obtain information about the progress of the children, to receive copies of school reports and other documents provided to parents, and to attend any school events and functions to which parents are invited.
That the parties are each to ensure that the children attend all extracurricular activities in which they are enrolled while the children are in their care, providing that neither parent enrols the children in any new activities without the written consent of the other parent, and that the parent who has enrolled the children in any activity is responsible for the costs of that activity. The court notes that the children currently attend music lessons at the expense of the father and swimming lessons (except during winter) at the expense of the mother.
That the names of the children, X (born (omitted) 2004) and Y (born (omitted) 2005) be removed from the Airport Watch List.
That unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing, the Mother and Father be permitted to travel with the children out of Australia during school holiday periods when the children are living with them, subject to the following:
(a)That the parent intending to travel with the children give the other parent not less than sixty (60) days written notice of their intention to travel with the children, with the terms of the written notice to include an accurate itinerary of the departure and return dates, the country or countries that the children will be travelling to, details of where the children will be staying each night and the telephone number and address at which the children can be contacted;
(b)That the parent travelling with the children provide a copy of the return tickets for both children to the other parent;
(c)That the parent travelling with the children notify the other parent of any change to the itinerary as soon as practicable, after such change is made; and
(d)That the parent not travelling with the children be at liberty to telephone the children at all reasonable times during the period of travel.
That between overseas travel (and within seven days of their return from overseas trips), X’s passport be returned to the mother and Y’s passport be returned to the Father for safekeeping.
That both parties will ensure that the children have valid passports at all times, and to facilitate this Order, both parties sign all documents necessary to obtain an Australian passport or a renewal thereof for the children and the cost of the Passport Application or Renewal be borne equally by the parents.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT WOLLONGONG

SYC 2160 of 2013

MS LALIT

Applicant

And

MR RANA

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This case is about two children, X born (omitted) 2004, who will be nearly 12 by the time these reasons for judgment are delivered, and her brother Y born (omitted) 2005, who is 10 years old. X and Y’s parents are unable to agree about where they should live, and how much time they should spend with each parent. The Mother is the Applicant. She is 31 years old. The Respondent is the Father. He is 40 years old. They met in 2001, married in 2002 and separated on a final basis in March 2012. The present proceedings were initiated by the Mother in Campbelltown Local Court on 4 April 2013. The case was finally heard commencing on 17 June 2015 for three days and then a final day on 20 November 2015.

Background

Apart from the early years of the relationship it seems that X and Y’s parents may have been very unhappy for many years before they finally separated. Their unhappiness continued to be manifested after separation in the form of the present dispute in relation to the children. It is undisputedly the fact that these parents are unable to communicate constructively and have very little faith or trust in each other’s capacity to parent the children. The Mother has re-partnered. Her new partner is 23 years old.
Each parent makes quite serious allegations against the other parent, in their respective Affidavits. By the time of closing submissions, however, many of these concerns appeared to have abated as they are not reflected in the final proposed orders. Indeed, in many respects, the case that started on 17 June 2015 bore little resemblance to the case that ended on 20 November 2015.
The parents were both capably represented by solicitors and Counsel, with Ms Shearman appearing for the Mother, and Mr Livingstone appearing for the Father. The children were represented by an Independent Children's Lawyer, and Mr Ladopoulos of Counsel appeared on her behalf.

Proposals

By the time of closing submissions the Independent Children's Lawyer proposed that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility, and that the children live with both parents equal time on a week about basis. The precise Orders sought by the Independent Children's Lawyer is set out in the first schedule to these reasons.
The Mother’s proposal by closing submissions was that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility, but that the children live with her. They would spend time with their father each alternate weekend from after school on Thursday to before school on Monday and for half of the school holidays. The precise Orders sought by her are also reproduced in the first schedule.
The Orders sought by the Father as at closing submissions also provided for equal shared parental responsibility, but he proposed that the children live with him. He proposed that the children spend time with their mother from the conclusion of school on Friday until the commencement of school on Wednesday, or in the alternative, on a week about shared care basis. His detailed proposal is also set out in the first schedule to these reasons.
The current Orders provide for the children to spend time with their father for three nights each fortnight and one night in the alternate week and for half the school holidays. This arrangement reflects interim orders made 13 August 2013.
One of the more significant changes that occurred during the course of the hearing was that the Mother abandoned her initial proposal to relocate the children to the (omitted) area on the New South Wales (omitted).

The Evidence

The Mother relied on the following documents:
·Amended Initiating Application filed 4 August 2014;
·Affidavit of Ms Lalit filed 25 May 2015; and
·Affidavit of Mr A filed 25 May 2015.
The Father relied on the following documents:
·Further Amended Response filed 1 August 2014;
·Affidavit of Mr Rana filed 14 May 2014;
·Affidavit of Mr Rana filed 1 August 2014;
·Affidavit of Mr Rana filed 12 May 2015;
·Affidavit of Ms S filed 14 May 2014;
·Affidavit of Mr K filed 14 May 2014; and
·Affidavit of Mr J filed 14 May 2014.
Only the Father was required for cross-examination.
The evidence led in the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s case consisted of a Family Consultant Memorandum to Court dated 9 August 2013, a Family Report dated 18 October 2013 and a Family Report dated 12 November 2014, all prepared by Family Consultant Matthews. Ms M was cross-examined.
By way of outline of these reasons for judgment, after setting out the applicable law, the evidence of the Family Consultant will be set out and considered. Her evidence was considered to be both expert, and independent, but otherwise receives no special weight.

The Applicable Law

In determining parenting matters under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’) the Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration: s.60CA.
The objects and principles of Part VII are set out at s.60B:
60B Objects of Part and principles underlying it
(1)    The objects of this Part are to ensure that the best interests of children are met by:
(a)    ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child; and
(b)    protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and
(c)    ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and
(d)    ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.
(2)    The principles underlying these objects are that (except when it is or would be contrary to a child’s best interests):
(a)    children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together; and
(b)    children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development (such as grandparents and other relatives); and
(c)    parents jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and
(d)    parents should agree about the future parenting of their children; and
(e)    children have a right to enjoy their culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture).
(3)    For the purposes of subparagraph (2)(e), an Aboriginal child’s or Torres Strait Islander child’s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture includes the right:
(a)    to maintain a connection with that culture; and
(b)    to have the support, opportunity and encouragement necessary:
(i) to explore the full extent of that culture, consistent with the child’s age and developmental level and the child’s views; and
(ii)    to develop a positive appreciation of that culture.
At the very core of Part VII of the Act is the creation of a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in s.61DA. Section 61DA provides:
61DA Presumption of equal shared parental responsibility when making parenting orders
(1)    When making a parenting order in relation to a child, the court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.
(2)    The presumption does not apply if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent of the child (or a person who lives with a parent of the child) has engaged in:
(a)    abuse of the child or another child who, at the time, was a member of the parent’s family (or that other person’s family); or
(b)    family violence.
(3)    When the court is making an interim order, the presumption applies unless the court considers that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for the presumption to be applied when making that order.
(4)    The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that satisfies the court that it would not be in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.
If the presumption applies, the Court is required to consider certain things:
65DAA Court to consider child spending equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent in certain circumstances
Equal time
(1)    If a parenting order provides (or is to provide) that a child’s parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, the court must:
(a)    consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and
(b)    consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable; and
(c)    if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents.
Substantial and significant time
(2)    If:
(a)    a parenting order provides (or is to provide) that a child’s parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child; and
(b)    the court does not make an order (or include a provision in the order) for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents; and
the court must:
(c)    consider whether the child spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and
(d)    consider whether the child spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable; and
(e)    if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the child to spend substantial and significant time with each of the parents.
(3) will be taken to spend substantial and significant time with a parent only if:
(a)    the time the child spends with the parent includes both:
(i) days that fall on weekends and holidays; and
(ii)    days that do not fall on weekends or holidays; and
(b)    the time the child spends with the parent allows the parent to be involved in:
(i) the child’s daily routine; and
(ii)    occasions and events that are of particular significance to the child; and
(c)    the time the child spends with the parent allows the child to be involved in occasions and events that are of special significance to the parent.
(4)    Subsection (3) does not limit the other matters to which a court can have regard in determining whether the time a child spends with a parent would be substantial and significant.
Reasonable practicality
(5)    In determining for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) whether it is reasonably practicable for a child to spend equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the child’s parents, the court must have regard to:
(a)    how far apart the parents live from each other; and
(b)    the parents’ current and future capacity to implement an arrangement for the child spending equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the parents; and
(c)    the parents’ current and future capacity to communicate with each other and resolve difficulties that might arise in implementing an arrangement of that kind; and
(d)    the impact that an arrangement of that kind would have on the child; and
(e)    such other matters as the court considers relevant.

Because s.65DAA refers to the best interests of the child the Court must then go back to consider s.60CC which specifies how the Court must determine what is in a child’s best interests.
Determining child's best interests
(1) Subject to subsection (5), in determining what is in the child's best interests, the court must consider the matters set out in subsections (2) and (3).
Primary considerations
(2) The primary considerations are:
(a) the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents; and
(b) the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
Note: Making these considerations the primary ones is consistent with the objects of this Part set out in paragraphs 60B(1)(a) and (b).
(2A) In applying the considerations set out in subsection (2), the court is to give greater weight to the consideration set out in paragraph (2)(b).
Additional considerations
(3) Additional considerations are:
(a) any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child's maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child's views;
(b) the nature of the relationship of the child with:
(i) each of the child's parents; and
(ii) other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
(c) the extent to which each of the child's parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity:
(i) to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and
(ii) to spend time with the child; and
(iii) to communicate with the child;
(ca) the extent to which each of the child's parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent's obligations to maintain the child;
(d) the likely effect of any changes in the child's circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:
(i) either of his or her parents; or
(ii) any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living;
(e) the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child's right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis;
(f) the capacity of:
(i) each of the child's parents; and
(ii) any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs;
(g) the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child's parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant;
(h) if the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child:
(i) the child's right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture); and
(ii) the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right;
(i) the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents;
(j) any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family;
(k) if a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child's family--any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following:
(i) the nature of the order;
(ii) the circumstances in which the order was made;
(iii) any evidence admitted in proceedings for the order;
(iv) any findings made by the court in, or in proceedings for, the order;
(v) any other relevant matter;
(l) whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child;
(m) any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant.
In MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4, the High Court said
8. Sub-section (1) of s 65DAA is headed "Equal time" and provides:
"If a parenting order provides (or is to provide) that a child's parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, the court must:
(a)    consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and
(b)    consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable; and
(c)     if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents." (emphasis added)
Sub-section (2) makes provision for where a parenting order provides that a child's parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child (par (a)) but the Court does not make an order for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents (par (b)). In such a circumstance the Court is obliged to:
"(c)   consider whether the child spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and
(d)    consider whether the child spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable; and
(e)     if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the child to spend substantial and significant time with each of the parents."
Sub-section (3) explains what is meant by the phrase "substantial and significant time".
9. Each of sub-ss (1)(b) and (2)(d) of s 65DAA require the Court to consider whether it is reasonably practicable for the child to spend equal time or substantial and significant time with each of the parents. It is clearly intended that the Court determine that question. Sub-section (5) provides in that respect that the Court "must have regard" to certain matters, such as how far apart the parents live from each other and their capacity to implement the arrangement in question, and "such other matters as the court considers relevant", "[i]n determining for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) whether it is reasonably practicable for a child to spend equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the child's parents".
A little later in the judgment the High Court said:
13. Section 65DAA(1) is expressed in imperative terms. It obliges the Court to consider both the question whether it is in the best interests of the child to spend equal time with each of the parents (par (a)) and the question whether it is reasonably practicable that the child spend equal time with each of them (par (b)). It is only where both questions are answered in the affirmative that consideration may be given, under par (c), to the making of an order.

The Evidence of the Family Consultant

The evidence of the Family Consultant will be set out, where relevant, and then discussed, sometimes with the benefit of observations made by the Court in relation to the totality of the evidence.
Ms M’s first involvement with the family occurred on 9 August 2013 in the context of a Child Dispute Conference. She records the Mother’s allegations against the Father about violence and abuse, and his denials in relation to the same. She records the Mother’s allegation that in 2009, when X was about 5 years old, she made disclosures about the Father inappropriately touching her. The Joint Investigation Response Team (“JIRT”) became involved, but as there was no disclosure in interview, no action was taken. The Mother foreshadowed that unless there was an agreement about parenting matters she would have to revisit the issue. The Family Consultant formed the view that, at the time, the Mother was the children’s primary carer and that the children had a close relationship with their father. She recorded his desire to have equal time. The Father raised a number of concerns about the Mother’s parenting.
The Family Consultant noted a number of other things. For example, she noted that the Mother was living with her 20 year old boyfriend, with whom she had been living for six months. She worked five days a week for four or five hour shifts, generally between the hours of 8:00pm and 1:00am, or 4:30am and 8:30am, and the children were left in the care of the boyfriend in this time. The Father worked three and a half days per week and had the benefit of extended family to provide assistance with child care.
The Family Report dated 18 October 2013 was prepared on the basis of interviews held in October. At the time the parents were living quite close to each other and the Father spent time with the children every second weekend from after school on Friday to before school on Monday, and then in the off week from after school on Thursday to before school on Friday, as well as half the school holidays. The Mother was content for the current arrangements to continue, but the Father proposed equal time on a week about basis.
It is interesting, and significant, to note that both parents openly described a history of conflict between them. She described physical and verbal abuse, as well as controlling behaviour over time. He described frequent arguments, often over family matters and what he considered to be her derogatory comments about his family.
She alleges that there was a violent incident in November 2009 in which the children were present. The police became involved. The parents had very different perspectives on what happened in that incident. The Father agrees he was arrested and charged with common assault and an Apprehended Violence Order (“AVO”) made. It is common ground that the parents reconciled and resumed cohabitation, but that there were ongoing arguments and conflict. The assault charge was dismissed.
Final separation took place in March 2012 following an incident which took place, apparently in front of the children, and in which it is alleged that the mother assaulted the father. Again, the police were involved.
In any event, the Mother moved out, taking the children out of their school for a few weeks, but then returning them there.
X was interviewed. She described a good relationship with each parent and that she likes her mother’s partner, Mr A. X was quit aloof about saying anything about future parenting arrangements. The child Y also appeared to have good relationships with both parents.
The Family Consultant was concerned because both children appeared to have been exposed to the parental conflict.
The Family Consultant’s evaluation commences at paragraph 50. She noted that whilst both children appear to have good relationships with each parent, they have been exposed to conflict between their parents for many years. It was possible that the children had witnessed, or had been exposed to, physical violence. In relation to violence the Family Consultant observed at paragraph 52:
The available information indicates that, at the very least, there has been conflict instigated violence between Mr Rana and Ms Lalit. This means that there have been occasions when one or other parent has been overwhelmed by conflict, unable to resolve it and has used violence. Mr Rana denies the extent of the violence alleged to have been perpetrated by him. Ms Lalit denied that she had been violent towards Mr Rana.
The Family Consultant explained that the significance of the alleged violence by the Father to the Mother related to the most appropriate parenting arrangement, particularly if that involved the parents coming into contact with each other, but also as regards whether the Father was a risk of being violent to the children. She noted, however, that no allegations had been made about violence towards the children, and that parenting arrangements could be structured in a way so that they did not come into contact with one another.
The Family Consultant thought that there were risks in both parents’ homes. At paragraph 64 she says:
Risks have been identified in both the mother's and the father's homes. The major risk associated with the father is a possibility that he is prone to violence and that he may distort the children's reality. The major risks associated with the mother is a possibility that she is prone to violence and that she has shown poor judgement in allowing a young, inexperienced man to care for her children overnight and allow X to ride pillion on a motorcycle.
However, the children love the parents and the parents love the children. Ultimately, in her first Report the Family Consultant was of the view that the parents should share parental responsibility, and the children live with them in an equal time arrangement.
The second Family Report dated 12 November 2014 was based on interviews held in October 2014. One major change the Family Consultant noted was that the Mother had applied to relocate to (omitted) with the children. The parenting arrangements had not changed between Reports. In interview, the Mother explained that she was in fact seeking to relocate to the New South Wales (omitted), with the children spending time with their father each alternate weekend from Friday evening until Sunday evening, with changeover at McDonald's (omitted), a (omitted) Sydney suburb. The Father proposed, in response to that, that the children live with him and spend time with the Mother each alternative weekend.
By the time of the interviews for the second Report the Mother was no longer working, as she was due to have a baby in 2015. Initially she wanted to relocate as soon as possible, but after some discussion about how this might affect the children she agreed that she could postpone relocation until the end of 2015, when X finished primary school,
At paragraphs 14 and 15 of the second Report, the Family Consultant records what the Mother said in relation to speech therapy for X:
14. Ms Lalit said that Mr Rana organised speech therapy for X and that, because he is paying for the sessions, he takes her to the appointments. She said that, if Mr Rana were to organise activities or appointments during the time that the children are due to be with her, she would be happy to take them in the future. It is not clear whether or not this offer has been made to Mr Rana.
15. Ms Lalit said that Mr Rana picks X up from her home in order to take her to the speech therapy appointments. She said that Mr Rana has often been 10 to 20 minutes late, and so she asked him to change the appointments to be on the weekend when the children are in his care. Ms Lalit said that she and Mr Rana argued about this, and she indicated that she felt intimidated by him.
X’s need for speech therapy, and how both parents have attempted to meet these needs, became a significant issue during the final hearing. At paragraph 20 the Family Consultant made an observation about the Mother, which also became relevant at the final hearing. She records:
Ms Lalit appeared to find it difficult to articulate her views and feelings during interview. She noted her difficulty in expressing herself as being similar to X’s difficulties. Ms Lalit said that she did not receive any support when she was at school because that type of support is not offered in (country omitted). She appeared quite suggestible during interview.
In interview with the Father, he expressed that he did not want the children to move away as they were settled, were well-supported at school, and had the benefit of an extended family. He was concerned about X’s progress at school and her need for speech therapy. He expressed a concern about the level of support the Mother was providing X with her speech therapy.
X was interviewed. She explained that at first she was excited about the prospective move, but then realised she would not have enough time to see her father, and thus was not sure if she wanted to move or stay. She later told the Family Consultant she would be upset if she moved away and could not see her father as much. She thought the current parenting arrangements were alright and was unsure about the issue of the time to spend with each of her parents. Y was nervous about changing schools if he moved to (omitted), as well as how long it would take his father to pick him up. He would be sad if he did not see his father as much.
The Family Consultant spoke with X’s school counsellor, and speech pathologist. The school counsellor confirmed that she had conducted psychometric testing with X, and had thus formed the view that she had special needs. The speech pathologist reported that the Father had always been her appointed contact and that she had never met or spoken with the Mother. She thought X was functioning at an average level for her age, but would require classroom support throughout primary school and tutoring when in high school. The speech pathologist told the Family Consultant that the Father had been doing everything that she had recommended in terms of support and homework for X.
The Family Consultant’s evaluation commenced at paragraph 53 of her Report. She clearly was concerned about the impact on the children’s relationship with their father if relocation were permitted. She noted that he was actively involved in their children’s lives, particularly with their schooling, and this would not be possible if the children lived either on the (omitted) or in (omitted).
In relation to X’s special needs, the Family Consultant states at paragraph 56:
X has special needs which have been identified by the school and addressed by the school and by Mr Rana. Ms Lalit does not appear to have a good understanding of X’s special needs. Mr Rana, on the other hand, does appear to have a good understanding of X’s special needs. He appears to recognise the importance of addressing these issues now, so that X will be in the best possible position, socially, emotionally and academically to begin high school. It is in X’s best interests to remain in Sydney where her father can continue to provide that support. It is also in X’s best interests to remain at her current school, where the teachers are aware of, and have implemented strategies to support her special needs.
The Court observes that the Mother’s evidence in fact confirms the Family Consultant’s impression that the Mother does not appear to have a good understanding of X’s special needs.
At paragraph 58 the Family Consultant observed:
Ms Lalit appears to have some trouble with expressive language. The Family Consultant is unable to provide an assessment in this regard, but on self-report, Ms Lalit confirmed deficits in this area. Given that she does appear to have been given information about X’s special needs but does not appear to recognise the significance of this, it is possible that Ms Lalit also has some deficit in the area of receptive language.
This will be seen below, this issue became relevant in assessing credit issues pertaining to the Mother.
At paragraph 61 the Family Consultant raises concerns about the Mother’s proposal for relocation:
Ms Lalit’s proposal for the children to move to (omitted) or to the (omitted) is not supported. Apart from concerns about the children’s future needs being met, there is too much uncertainty about Mr A and Ms Lalit’s plans. Mr A’s appointment to the (employer omitted) and his future work location is not confirmed. The Family Consultant has some doubt that housing in the areas that Ms Lalit and Mr A have nominated are generally cheaper than in (omitted). If Mr A does start employment with the (employer omitted) in September 2015, he will be required to spend the first three months in (omitted) and further periods of time away throughout the first year. Mr A believes that his family will support Ms Lalit if she lives locally to them. This support is untested and cannot be assessed.
She explained that the children would not only miss their father, and his family, but also lose the very positive support that he offered. But likewise, putting the children in their father’s care was problematic as she had been their primary carer in their lives. Again, the Family Consultant recommended an equal time arrangement.

The Family Consultant was extensively cross-examined on the first day of the hearing. The matters emerging from her evidence are summarised below, in point form:
·Her recommendations remained unchanged, even though the Mother and her partner had married, their first child was born in April 2015, and the Mother’s proposal was now to relocate to the New South Wales (omitted) area.
·The children had been exposed to conflict and probably family violence. If either parent had obfuscated or misled about family violence, it would be psychologically damaging for the children, who could not differentiate between truth and fiction.
·The family violence that was described to her was what she described as conflict-instigated family violence, and thus if the parents were kept separate and apart, the issue could be managed. She doubted whether there was likely exposure to ongoing family violence. The violence that had been described to her manifested itself in situations where the parents could not manage stressful situations and resorted to family violence. She described it as situational in nature.
·A relocation for the children would have a significant impact on the children, as it would take them away from a father who was very actively involved in their lives, including in their schooling, and speech pathology. The children experienced their father as a warm and loving parent and would miss him and his frequent involvement in their lives.
·The Family Consultant remained sceptical about the capacity of the Mother to keep the Father informed about and involved in the lives of the children given that the Mother had made it very clear to her that she did not want anything to do with him.
·Given the flexibility of the Father’s work, as described by him, it certainly would not be out of the question for him to remain involved in the children’s lives after relocation, but it was nonetheless impractical in the long term, given the distance.
·The Mother experienced expressive language difficulties, that is, to explain her thoughts and feelings. In the context of a stressful discussion over important issues for the children, this would be difficult for her.
·X was clearly in need of assistance, and this would continue into high school. If the Mother did not accept this, or was not conscious of it, it would be a real concern from X’s perspective.
At the end of the Family Consultant’s evidence, it is clear to the Court that she remained firmly of the view that the children should remain living in Sydney and live in an equal time shared care arrangement with both parents.

The Mother’s Evidence

In closing submissions, Counsel for the Father submitted that the Mother was a very poor witness in cross-examination and that the manner in which the Mother gave evidence could not be explained by any contention that she suffered from auditory delay issues. Counsel for the Father urged the Court to be very cautious indeed before accepting the Mother’s evidence over the Father’s evidence in relation to contentious issues. Regrettably, this is a case where the Court is called upon to make findings of fact in relation to events that appear to be quite important, particularly in the Mother’s case.
The Court became so concerned about the manner in which the Mother was giving her evidence in cross-examination that it called an adjournment between about 3:20pm and 3:50pm on 17 June 2015. The Court was concerned about whether, in fact, the Mother had the capacity or cognitive ability to understand the questions that she was being asked. The adjournment was necessitated, in the Court’s opinion, in order to be fair to her. Her evidence until the adjournment was characterised by what could only be described as extreme unresponsiveness to the questions asked, and inordinate pauses that were very hard to understand.
It must be remembered that the only evidence about any auditory processing issues that the Mother has is set out in the Family Consultant’s Report, and the Court would need to be careful about the weight given to this evidence as it could not be asserted that the Family Consultant had the requisite expertise to diagnose and assess whether the Mother suffered from a particular disability, and if so, what it was. The Court interprets the Family Consultant’s evidence (paragraph 20 in the second report) as being a description of the Mother’s behaviour during the report interviews, rather than her diagnosis. The description used during the hearing of the Mother suffering from auditory processing issue was merely descriptive, and not based on any expert evidence. Indeed, it is common ground that the Mother adduced no evidence at all about any auditory processing delays and, in fact, indicated to the Court after the adjournment granted, that she was happy to proceed.
The difficulty for the Mother, of course, is that this meant the Court was entitled to make findings in relation to her evidence without any expert explanation and thus, to submit as the Father’s Counsel did that she was frequently unresponsive, is in fact an understatement. Her lack of responsiveness was, moreover, quite selective. It almost always coincided with a topic where her evidence was less than flattering. Thus, for example, she was unresponsive, and her demeanour demonstrated acute discomfort, when she was cross-examined about the children’s absences from school for no reason. Unresponsiveness, and obvious discomfort manifested in demeanour, can easily evolve into evasiveness. The Mother demonstrated this when cross-examined about the time when she took the children out of school in order to inspect a car at a car dealership. Her evasiveness was again apparent when cross-examined about the nature and extent of her involvement in X’s speech pathology. She manifested extreme discomfort when cross-examined about the extent to which she may have contributed to the conflict with the Father and to the communication difficulties. She was, once again, quite evasive when cross-examined about the topic of taking the children out of their school at separation, enrolling them in another school, and then their pattern of attendance at that school. She was less than convincing when cross-examined about her allegations of the Father’s violence and abuse. Her evidence about financial and emotional control lacks credibility. The explanation she gave for not putting the Father down as an alternative emergency contact on the children’s school enrolment forms lacked plausibility.
Sometimes unresponsiveness and evasiveness can morph into blatant deception. That, in fact, was the case in relation to her evidence about the children’s attendance at (omitted) Public School after separation. It was put to her the children did not attend school, but she maintained they did. Then she acknowledged that the children did not start school straight after being taken out of (omitted) Public School. At first she maintained that the children went to school for the entire period that they had been taken out of (omitted) Public School (two weeks), but then she conceded that they were at (omitted) Public School “probably a week”. The Mother’s evidence in this regard was plainly deceptive. This evidence could not possibly be explained by reference to some form of auditory reception or processing issue. The Mother lied.
The Court fully appreciates the dangers and limitations of making adverse findings against witnesses based on their demeanour. The Court has adopted a cautious approach in this regard. The Mother’s conduct in the witness box goes far beyond any threshold of caution. In the absence of any other plausible explanation, the long pauses in answering seemingly simple questions, when coupled with incomplete and evasive evidence, to which is added a blatant deception, the Court feels it can comfortably conclude that the Mother’s evidence needs to be very carefully scrutinised before it would be accepted in preference to evidence given by the Father. This is indeed unfortunate. The Court accepts that it should, generally, avoid making adverse credit findings against a parent in a children’s case, but equally the Court should not be reluctant to make findings about credit where they are necessary for the ultimate determination of the issues before the Court.
Putting aside credit issues, there are other aspects of the Mother’s evidence that are quite disconcerting. The main issues will be summarised below, in dot form.
·The Mother has in the past been less than diligent about the attendance by the children at school. When confronted with the problem she provided no adequate explanation. The Court finds that on one occasion she took the children out of school in order to inspect a car at a car yard with her then partner.
·The Mother has been less than diligent in providing X with the support that she needs in relation to her speech pathology issues. She appeared in evidence to be remarkably ambivalent about the nature and extent of X’s problems in this regard and even gave the impression of being disinterested about the therapy itself. She was quite content to delegate this important issue to the Father. Indeed, in evidence she expressed the preference that the Father take X on his time, not hers, citing problems with getting the child Y to school. If the Mother had any sense of the psychological importance to X of knowing that her Mother was interested in this important aspect of her health and wellbeing, she failed to demonstrate this in evidence.
·Her insistence that she was not a contributor to the conflict with the Father was both naïve and disingenuous. This is not to blame her for the conflict any more than to blame the Father, but it does reflect a real lack of insight on her part as to the role that her own behaviour plays in the conflict that, both parents agree, the children have been exposed to.
·The Mother’s proposal to relocate the children to the New South Wales (omitted) in order to facilitate her partner’s career ambitions was both ill-considered and ill-conceived. Indeed, she gave the impression of giving it merely superficial consideration. If she had thought about the potential impact on the children of losing a father who was very actively involved in their lives, she certainly failed to demonstrate that in the evidence.
·At paragraphs 121 and 122 of her trial Affidavit, in responding to matters raised in the Family Report, the Mother deposed that X did not suffer from a learning disability, and did not know why it was necessary for X to continue to attend speech therapy. This evidence is disconcerting because of the dogmatic way in which it was expressed, and her willingness to ignore the independent, expert evidence that reflected consultation with the professionals working with X. In effect, the Mother was closing her eyes to the obvious.
·A consistent theme of the Mother’s evidence was to minimise the nature and extent of the Father’s involvement in the children’s parenting. The corollary of this was that she sought to emphasise, indeed exaggerate, the nature and extent of her parenting of the children. This ignored the reality that for many years the Father was working part time, she was working part time, and thus they were both actively involved in caring for the children. She only reluctantly conceded this when pressed in cross-examination.
·The Court holds real concerns about the Mother’s willingness to facilitate and encourage the Father’s involvement in the children’s lives. The Court does not accept, for example, that she told the Father about Y’s election to the Student Representative Council, despite the importance of this event in Y’s life and the significance of having the Father present.
·The Mother’s allegations of financial control and isolation were plainly inconsistent with the evidence. At most, even if there is some substance in her concern, or even (giving her the benefit of the doubt) she perceived, subjectively, the Father’s actions as being abusive or controlling, her allegations are grossly exaggerated.
·Indeed, there is evidence that she sought to control the Father’s relationship with the children after separation. She unreasonably withheld consent for the children to attend with their father at a traditional Indian wedding and certainly did not communicate with him about the reasons for her decision.
·Another example of seeking to control the children’s relationship with the Father, or alternatively seeking to exclude him from their lives, is her blatant omission to tell the Father about X’s hospital admission following an injury at school on 7 November 2014. X was taken by ambulance to hospital, having injured her arm. Nothing she said in evidence could provide any reasonable, plausible explanation for her failure to act.
·Another example is the expression of interest that was lodged for X to attend (omitted) High School in 2016. So too in relation to Y, but as regards (omitted) Public School. At times, the Court felt the Mother simply struggled to understand what all the fuss was about and why it might be important to include the Father in decision-making.
·The Mother’s failure to understand the significance of X’s special needs was, rather sadly, demonstrated in the evidence she gave about X attending (omitted). Her evidence created the impression that she regarded attending (omitted) as a privilege or reward for X, rather than having anything to do with recognising her special needs. Even if she did not understand what this was about before X attended, it was incumbent on her to find out afterwards.
·There is an element of truth in the Mother’s allegations about the Father’s violence, but what precisely happened is impossible to tell on the Mother’s own evidence because of her propensity to obfuscate and exaggerate. Nonetheless, she agreed that the Father was not a threat to the children as a result of whatever may have happened to her during the relationship.
·She continues to experience the Father as intimidating, but it is not possible for the Court to determine whether this has a reasonable objective basis, or whether it has a purely subjective basis. It is the Mother’s own unreliability as a witness that creates the obstacle in this regard.

The Evidence of Mr A, the Mother’s Partner

Mr A is the Mother’s husband. He has lived with the Mother and children since (omitted) 2013. They were married on (omitted) 2015 and now have a child of their own. He has clearly been actively involved in X and Y’s life. Both he and the Mother work different shifts, thus meaning that there were periods, indeed often frequent and extensive periods, when he was primarily responsible for their care. The proposal to relocate to (omitted) and/or the (omitted) appears to have been precipitated by Mr A’s career aspiration to join the (employer omitted) and to be posted to the (employer omitted) with the specific aim of working on (omitted) which are based there. Specifically, his aspiration is to become an (occupation omitted). Despite the firm proposal (as it was before it was abandoned during the hearing) to relocate in time to start the 2016 school year, he had not been formally accepted for enlistment with the (employer omitted) and could not even be sure that, if he were accepted, he would in fact be posted to (omitted) to fulfil his career aspiration.
His career aspirations attracted attention during cross-examination. It rapidly became clear that he had not really considered the potential impact of (employment omitted) on his family life, particularly if he were redeployed elsewhere. He agreed, for example, that if he were deployed to (omitted), he would have to go. He agreed that he would have to go with or without the Mother, X, Y, or their baby. Indeed, he conceded that he will join the (employer omitted) irrespective of the outcome of this case.
Regrettably, Mr A presented as a naïve, immature young man who had been thrust into a parenting role for three young children, and who lacked insight about the needs of the children for a stable parent in their lives. Regrettably, it seemed to the Court that his career aspirations were his priority, rather than supporting the Mother in the parenting of X and Y, let alone with their own baby. The Mother’s case was, implicitly if not explicitly, that her husband, Mr A, would provide a support for her in parenting the children. Clearly, Mr A has played an important role in this regard hitherto, but his own evidence hardly engenders confidence that he will be available to the Mother, let alone to their baby and X and Y in the foreseeable future.

The Father’s Evidence

By contrast to the Mother’s evidence, the Father was a much more impressive witness. He gave his evidence in a matter-of-fact way. He was always responsive. He made appropriate concessions. His evidence about the nature and extent of his involvement in parenting the children both before and after separation could not be shaken in cross-examination.
Like so many parents in cases that need to be heard in the Family Law Courts, when his evidence is tested and subjected to the critical scrutiny of the litigation process, double standards, if not hypocrisy, becomes evident. Thus, for example, he was quick to criticise the Mother in relation to issues about the children’s school attendance, but then conceded in cross-examination that some of his own actions contributed to, for example, the children getting to school late. Thus, because he took X to speech therapy in the morning, and often ran late in doing so, this caused the Mother to be late in taking Y to school. To his credit, he conceded this point, whilst nonetheless asserting that when the children were in his care, unless there was a legitimate reason, they attended school. When it was put to him that, in reality, he was a major contributor to the children being late for school or not attending school when they were in his care, he refuted this firmly and convincingly. He accepted that there were times during cohabitation when the children were late for school or missed school. Ultimately, and much to his credit, the Father accepted the hypocrisy in some of his concerns about the children’s school. It must be recorded, however, that that does not detract from the Court’s concerns about the children’s attendance at school in the post-separation period. In this regard, the Mother’s attempt to sheet responsibility to the Father for unexplained absences in the post-separation period clearly failed. His evidence is to be preferred over hers in this regard.
The Father’s double standards was also evident in the evidence about the school enrolments that he had lodged, where he had noted the paternal grandfather as the second contact, rather than the Mother.
What became evident from the Father’s evidence, consistent with the Mother’s evidence, is that both of them were incapable of implementing any agreements that they might have been somehow able to arrive at pertaining to the children. The need for clear Orders, expressed in prescriptive terms, was very much apparent. Their inability to communicate was palpable. Their lack of trust towards each other manifest.
The Father was cross-examined about his attempts to control and dominate the children’s time on special events. Whilst he resisted this, the impression formed from his evidence was there was an element of truth in the contention made by the Mother. In relation to Mother’s Day, whether or not the Mother should have tried harder to spend time with the children on this significant day, the Father’s evidence reflected an attitude that suggested that the Mother was not important to the children, an attitude that undermines their relationship with her. His evidence was that that was not his intention, and whether that is correct or not, it was certainly the effect of his actions.

The Father agreed in cross-examination that the paternal grandparents and his wider family assisted him in caring for the children and were involved in the children’s lives. There is nothing inappropriate about this.
The Father’s actions on separation were plainly unacceptable. In effect, he excluded the Mother and the children from the home. He knew that she had no immediate family in Sydney. He gave no satisfactory explanation as to why he could not have vacated the home, moved in with his family, and allowed the Mother and children to return to the former matrimonial home. His explanations for this were glib and unconvincing. Even if, as is probably the case, the separation was proceeded by her assault of him, that was no excuse.
The Father probably exaggerated the circumstances of the assault immediately before separation in his report to the Police. He readily conceded that he had never asserted then, nor does he assert now, that the Mother is at risk of harm to the children. He said that his main concern was the children being hit by the maternal grandmother, who was there at the time.
The Father was challenged about his assertion of the Mother’s assault of him on the 12^th of March 2012. His evidence in this regard is more convincing than hers. It was an assault in the sense that she grabbed him on the collar and tried to hit him. His evidence that she was screaming at him is probably correct. In the end, and when pressed, he conceded that he should have helped her more at the point of separation, could have provided more tangible assistance in terms of the contents of the home, and probably should have let her move back into the home.
He was cross-examined about the violent incident in 2009 involving the Mother and her telephone. His evidence was less than clear. He agrees there was a struggle. He agreed that she had marks, swelling and bruising and he caused that. The incident was probably not exactly as the Mother asserts, but clearly there was violence. The context of this must not be overlooked, however. The parties resumed cohabitation after this indeed for a period of years. The Father agreed that he was charged with assault. The police record of the event was put to him. He disagreed with many of the aspects of the factual matters asserted in the report. The matter can be taken no further, as there is little objective evidence in the report, which is based on the Mother’s account to the police. The Court has already expressed its concerns about the Mother’s evidence generally.
The Father conceded that the children had been exposed to high levels of conflict and violent incidents. He eventually conceded, when pressed, that he had inappropriate conversations with Y about events that he had observed.
Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer explored with the Father in cross-examination about the viability of equal shared parental responsibility. He acknowledged there were communication difficulties, but thought that they could work through these. It would be better, he thought, if the Mother responded to his requests, and if they were both more proactive about the children. He accepted that the Mother might perceive him as being aggressive and that was something he needed to be more conscious about. He preferred communication by text message, rather than by email, as he felt that she never responded. He agreed that getting information from the schools directly might be a more effective way of being informed in relation to the children’s educational lives.
The Father’s evidence is much easier to accept than the Mother’s, as a general proposition. He demonstrated a reflective capacity that she did not. He made concessions about his own double standards that were appropriate. On balance, the Court accepts the Father’s evidence.

Other Witnesses

The paternal grandfather, paternal grandmother and paternal aunt all provided Affidavits in the Father’s case, but were not required for cross-examination. Their evidence confirms that the Father’s family is close-knit, and that the children’s relationship with them is close and positive. Their observations of the Father’s parenting capacity is likewise positive. Their evidence is unchallenged and thus accepted by the Court.

The Submissions Made and Discussion

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer has submitted that the evidence indicated that both parents love their children and their children love them. There were issues between the parents before separation and continuing issues about trust and communication after separation, but viewed objectively the evidence did not establish any risk of harm concerns for the children. The Court agrees.
Implicit in this submission is a contention that the Court need not be concerned about issues of meaningful relationship and protecting the children from harm. The Court agrees. On all the proposals advanced before it, the children will have meaningful relationships with both parents and there is no objective evidence about the need to protect them from harm.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer’s Counsel submitted that the real issue in this case was about the capacity of the parents to provide for the children’s intellectual and emotional needs, and to a lesser extent the attitudes that they had manifested about the children, and to their responsibilities of parenthood. The main issue was significant communication difficulties. There were no concerns about the parents’ ability to provide for the children’s physical needs, except to the extent perhaps that the Mother did not seem to fully appreciate that X had special needs that needed to be diligently and persistently attended to. The Court agrees with this assessment.
It was submitted that the parents offered the children different things and thus the Court might conclude that the Mother might be better able to provide for their emotional needs, and the Father better able to provide their intellectual needs. The Court agrees. An objective appraisal of the evidence is consistent with this.
It was submitted that both parents had proposed equal shared parental responsibility despite the manifest communication issues. There was no reason to make any order to the contrary. The Court agrees. Indeed, as Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer further submitted, when the various communication problems are closely examined, generally the parents seem to manage to sort things out without too much difficulty for the children. There was evidence, for example, about uniforms and schoolbooks being left behind in the home of one parent, but the evidence equally demonstrates that the parents found a way around this issue. To that extent, the submission was made that the parents managed to co-parent, and in any event this was the longstanding reality in the children’s lives. The Court agrees. This represents the evidence.
It was submitted that the Mother struggled to accept that X had special needs that needed to be attended to, but the Father had not only demonstrated a better appreciation of the issue, but a willingness to address it in practical terms. This is unquestionably the case. Indeed, the Court observes the Mother’s inability to appreciate her daughter’s issue is somewhat surprising.
Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer submitted that there was benefit to the children in increasing their time with the Father. He submitted that once the Court accepted the benefit to the children of the Mother’s own proposal of the children spending 4/14 nights with their father, then the existing communication problems would not be exacerbated if the time were increased to 5, 6, or 7 out of 14. Indeed, Counsel submitted that an equal time arrangement may well reduce the opportunities for confusion and misunderstanding. Implicit in this submission is the contention that an equal time arrangement was both reasonably practicable and in the children’s best interests. Ultimately, the Court accepts this submission.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer submitted that there was little or no evidence of either parent seeking to undermine the other when the children were in their care. The Court accepts that this is a fair observation of the evidence in more recent times, but in the immediate post-separation period it is more likely than not that each parent has subtlety, and possibly even inadvertently, done and said things that might have undermined the children’s relationship with the other parent. Whether they did this or not, it clearly did not succeed. The children have very good relationships with both parents.
Counsel for the Mother described the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s proposal, in the circumstances of this case, as mere optimism and speculation. She submitted that on any realistic appraisal of the evidence the parental communication was poor, as was the prognosis. In the circumstances, to increase the Father’s time was neither reasonably practicable nor in the children’s best interests. She described the two households as being East Berlin and West Berlin.
The difficulty with Counsel’s submission is three-fold. Firstly, the Berlin Wall has come down, an historical fact that might never have been anticipated before it happened. The end of litigation and the making of prescriptive Orders have the potential to defuse the communication and trust issues between the parents. The second problem with Counsel’s submission is that the Family Consultant clearly believed that an equal time arrangement was both in the children’s best interests and reasonably practicable, and could not be convinced to the contrary in cross-examination. It is not enough for Counsel for the Mother to simply submit that the Family Report was an exercise in vague optimism. Thirdly, Counsel’s submission does ignore the fact that, despite the communication difficulty, these parents do appear to have managed in a way that has not exposed their children to distressing situations in the post-separation period.
In response to the submission that if 4 out of 14 could be successfully navigated, then why could not 5, 6 or 7 out of 14 be navigated; Counsel submitted that greater time presents the opportunity for greater problems. That may be the case. It depends on how Orders are framed. Minimising transitions, the opportunities for conflict at changeover, and minimising disruption to the children’s routine may well result in greater time not leading to greater issues of reasonable practicality.
Counsel for the Mother downplayed the significance of the Mother’s partner and his future plans. She submitted that the Mother could cope on her own, but that is not the impression formed by the Court on the evidence. It would be a substantial re-organisation of her life if her partner did, in fact, join the (employer omitted) and her evidence about how she would cope was minimalistic.
To the extent that the Mother’s case was based on her allegations of the Father’s violence and control, the Court accepts the submission made that this may well explain the communication problem. But to then submit that credit issues should be resolved in favour of the Mother is plainly against any objective view of the evidence. She was a most unsatisfactory witness. There is no need to once again go over the reasons for this. The violence, in any event, ceased on separation. On an objective appraisal of the totality of the evidence, its nature was mutual at times and separation instigated.
It was in closing submissions that Counsel for the Mother indicated to the Court that the parents had agreed to where X will be going to school in 2016, that is, at (omitted) School in (omitted). The Court is delighted that the parents were able to reach this agreement, and indeed praises them for doing that. However, it is hardly consistent with Counsel’s submission that the parents’ inability to communicate about matters to the children presents a serious issue in this case. Indeed, it merely confirmed that whilst these parents struggle with communication issues, they eventually sort it out.
Whilst Counsel for the Father did not formally resile from the Father’s preferred position that the children live with him, there was a real sense in which he, as experienced Counsel, seemed to recognise that the evidence before the Court would not support the Father’s preferred result, but certainly supported his alternative of an equal time arrangement.
Counsel for the Father recognised the communication difficulties, and how the evidence had demonstrated that this had raised practical problems about parental communication and cooperation, but he too submitted that on any objective view of the evidence the parents had managed. Indeed, he submitted, quite correctly the Court believes, that the Father brings an organisational skill set to the children’s lives that the Mother clearly does not.
Counsel was critical of the Mother in terms of her lack of attention to X’s special need, her lack of knowledge about the children’s school lives, her proposal to relocate announced on the eve of the first trial, but then abandoned during the second trial. He suggested, in effect, that these and other matters demonstrated that there were times when the Mother struggled to prioritise the children’s needs over her own. The Court accepts that there is substance in this submission.
Counsel for the Father made submissions about the reliability of the Mother’s evidence, and credit issues. The Court has already dealt with this and will not repeat its findings.
Counsel submitted that it was very much to the benefit of these children to have their father involved in their lives much more than he is at the moment and that there were no issues of reasonable practicality that prevented the Court making an order for equal time. The Court ultimately accepts this submission.

Orders in the Best Interests of the Children

The Court believes that the Orders proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer are in the children’s best interests, as well as being reasonably practicable. The reasons for this are reflected above. Such an order is not inconsistent with the children’s views. It is not so great a change in the children’s lives that it could not be managed by them, particularly when the Court believes that there are such significant benefits to them of having a greater involvement of their father in their lives. Increasing the Father’s time might even have the benefit to the Mother of enhancing further her parenting capacity. There are no other issues that suggest the order would be unworkable in the s.65DAA(5) sense, or otherwise contrary to the children’s best interests.
The Orders proposed are consistent with the expert evidence. The orders are sufficiently prescriptive so as to minimise opportunities for misunderstanding or conflict. The orders proposed by the Father in the sense of the children living primarily with him, but spending time with their mother, would be too much change for these children in circumstances where their mother has been their primary carer for most of their lives and in circumstances where, unquestionably, she still has much to offer them. The Mother’s proposal, which was essentially maintenance of the existing spends-time-with arrangement, is contrary to the expert evidence and is inconsistent with the findings that the Court has made. Ultimately, the Court concludes that the Orders it will make in this matter are in the children’s best interests.
There is no evidence, which the Court accepts, which would justify the maintenance of the Watch List order, or to restrict the children’s overseas travel.

I certify that the preceding ninety-six (96) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Altobelli

Date: 1 February 2016

Schedule One

Minute of orders proposed by the ICL

That the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children, X born (omitted) 2004 and Y born (omitted) 2005 (“the children”).
That the children shall live with both parents equally on the following basis, unless otherwise agreed in writing:
(a)During school terms and in school holidays through the school year, the children will live with each parent on a “week about” basis with handover of the children to occur at the end of school or 3:30pm each Friday, either at school or at the home of the parent from whom the children are being collected;
(b)The children will spend half of the NSW Christmas (summer) school holidays with each parent as follows:
(i)The children will live with the mother for the first half and with the father for the second half of the 2015/2016 summer holidays and each alternate summer thereafter;
(ii)The children will live with the father for the first half and with the mother for the second half of the 2016/2017 summer holidays and each alternate summer thereafter.
(iii)The children are to spend the first week or partial week of the new school year with the parent with whom they have spent the second half of the summer holidays, and are to be handed over to the other parent on the first Friday of term.
That notwithstanding other orders, the children will spend time with each parent on special occasions as follows, unless otherwise agreed between the parties:
(a)The children shall spend time with each parent on the birthday of that parent from 3pm on the day of the birthday until the start of school or 3pm the following day.
(b)The children shall spend time with the parent with whom they are not living on the days of each of the children’s birthdays for at least 4 hours as agreed, failing agreement to be from 3pm until 7pm if a school day and from midday until 4pm if it is a non-school day
(c)The children will spend time with the mother on Mother’s Day weekend each year from 5pm on the Saturday until the start of school on the Monday.
(d)The children will spend time with the father on Father’s Day weekend each year from 5pm on the Saturday until the start of school on the Monday
(e)The children will spend time with the mother from 3pm on Christmas Eve until 3pm on Christmas Day and with the father from 3pm on Christmas Day until 3pm on Boxing Day in 2015 and each alternate year thereafter.
(f)The children will spend time with the father from 3pm on Christmas Eve until 3pm on Christmas Day and with the mother from 3pm on Christmas Day until 3pm on Boxing Day in 2016 and each alternate year thereafter.
That on occasions where the children are not being delivered to and collected from school, handover of the children will occur by the parent with whom the children are about to spend time collecting them from the home of the other parent.
That each parent will be free to contact the children by telephone, Skype or other electronic communication between 7 and 7:30pm on any Tuesday or Thursday when the children are in the care of the other parent, and the parent with whom the children are currently living is to facilitate the children receiving such communication and speaking to their other parent in private.
That the parties are to communicate directly with each other about matters concerning the care of the children, by text message or email except in the case of an emergency, and are not to use the children to pass messages between the parents.
That the parties are each restrained from speaking negatively about the other parent or any member of that parent’s family in the presence or hearing of the children.
That the parties are each to keep the other advised as soon as practicable of any significant illness or injury occurring to either of the children while in their care, including the names and contact details of any medical practitioner consulted by the child and the details of any medication prescribed for the child, and the parties are each hereby authorised to obtain information from any medical practitioner consulted about the diagnosis and treatment of the children.

That the parties consult in relation to the child's attendance on any medical specialist, including any specialist medical practitioner, dentist, orthodontist, speech pathologist, occupational therapist, or other therapist ("Consultant") and that:
(f)In the event that the child is referred to a consultant, the party who obtains the referral inform the other party in writing as soon as recently practicable after obtaining the referral of any specialist medical;
(g)The party who obtains a referral do all things necessary to ensure that the other party is provided with copies of any test results, letters of referral, reports and letters received from and by the consultant;
(h)Both parties be permitted to attend on such appointments, those attendances to be the sole discretion of the consultant and such attendance may be in person or by telephone or other electronic device; and
(i)The party who obtains the initial referral or appointment time, as soon as possible after the initial appointment is made at least fourteen (14) days prior to the first appointment, authorise the consultant to discuss a referral to the other party.
That the parties are each to ensure that the child X continues to attend for speech therapy until such time as her treating speech therapist advises that it is no longer necessary.
That each party do all things necessary to notify the other party of a change in their contact telephone number(s), email address or change of residential address within twenty-four (24) hours of any such change.
That each parent is responsible for ensuring that the children attend school on time on all school days when the children are in their care, unless they are ill.
That the parties are each entitled to directly contact any school at which the children are enrolled to obtain information about the progress of the children, to receive copies of school reports and other documents provided to parents, and to attend any school events and functions to which parents are invited.
That the parties are each to ensure that the children attend all extracurricular activities in which they are enrolled while the children are in their care, providing that neither parent enrols the children in any new activities without the written consent of the other parent, and that the parent who has enrolled the children in any activity is responsible for the costs of that activity. The court notes that the children currently attend music lessons at the expense of the father and swimming lessons (except during winter) at the expense of the mother.
That the names of the children, X (born (omitted) 2004) and Y (born (omitted) 2005) be removed from the Airport Watch List.
That unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing, the Mother and Father be permitted to travel with the children out of Australia during school holiday periods when the children are living with them, subject to the following:
(a)That the parent intending to travel with the children give the other parent not less than sixty (60) days written notice of their intention to travel with the children, with the terms of the written notice to include an accurate itinerary of the departure and return dates, the country or countries that the children will be travelling to, details of where the children will be staying each night and the telephone number and address at which the children can be contacted;
(b)That the parent travelling with the children provide a copy of the return tickets for both children to the other parent;
(c)That the parent travelling with the children notify the other parent of any change to the itinerary as soon as practicable, after such change is made; and
(d)That the parent not travelling with the children be at liberty to telephone the children at all reasonable times during the period of travel.
That between overseas travel (and within seven days of their return from overseas trips), X’s passport be returned to the mother and Y’s passport be returned to the Father for safekeeping.
That both parties will ensure that the children have valid passports at all times, and to facilitate this Order, both parties sign all documents necessary to obtain an Australian passport or a renewal thereof for the children and the cost of the Passport Application or Renewal be borne equally by the parents.

Minute of Order proposed by the Mother

Parental Responsibility
(1)That the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the children of the relationship namely:
(a) X born (omitted) 2004
(b) Y born (omitted) 2005
( “the children”)
Live with order

That the children live with the mother except as provided in these orders.

Spend Time with Order

That the children spend time with the father as follows:-
(a)     During school term:
(i) On each alternate weekend from after school on Thursday to before school on Monday;
(b)    In the event that any period on which the father spends time with the children falls on a long weekend including a Monday, then such period shall be extended to before school Tuesday.
(c)     For one half of all school holidays in every year. Where the parties cannot agree on which half of such holidays such period should take place, such period shall occur in the first half of such holiday in every year ending in an even number and for the second half of such holiday in every year ending in an odd number. Zero is deemed to be an even number.
(d)    At such other times as the parties mutually agree.
(e)     Unless otherwise as agreed between the parties, such period of spending time with the children during school holiday periods pursuant to these orders:-
(i)      Shall commence at 9.00am on the first day of such period.
(ii)     Shall conclude at 5.00pm on the last day of such period.
(iii)    Will be calculated from the day after the last day of school until and including the day immediately before school resumes.
(iv)    Pupil free days are deemed to be part of school holidays.
(v)     After the school holidays end, the periods upon which the Party 2 spends time with the said children outside of school holiday periods shall resume on the first weekend after school has resumed if the parent with whom the children do not live has spent time with the child during the first half of the holidays AND on the second weekend if the parent with whom the children do not live has spent time with the child during the second half of the holidays.
vi)    Where the number of days in the school holidays is an odd number then the number of days deemed to form the holiday period shall be rounded down to the nearest even number.

Special Occasions

Notwithstanding the arrangements otherwise provided for by these orders, the following arrangements shall prevail on the following occasions:
(a)     The children shall spend time with each parent on the birthday of that parent from 3pm until 3pm the following day
(b)    The children shall each spend time with the mother from 3pm on the day before the birthday of each child until 3pm on the day of such birthday in every year ending in an odd number and from 3pm on the day of the birthday of each child until 3pm the following day in every other year.
(c)     The children shall each spend time with the father from 3pm on the day before the birthday of each child until 3pm on the day of such birthday in every year ending in an even number and from 3pm on the day of each child until 3pm the following day in every other year.
(d)    The children shall spend time with the mother from 3.00pm Christmas Eve to 3.00pm Christmas Day in every year ending in an even number and from 3.00pm Christmas Day to 3.00pm Boxing Day in every other year.
(e)     The children shall spend time with the father from 3.00pm Christmas Eve to 3.00pm Christmas Day in every year ending in an odd number and from 3.00pm Christmas Day to 3.00pm Boxing Day in every other year.
(f)     The children shall spend time with the mother from 3.00pm on 30 December to 3.00pm New Years Day in every year in which New Years eve falls in a year ending in an even number and from 3.00pm on 29 December to 3pm 30 December in every other year.
(g)    The children shall spend time with the mother from 3.00pm on 30 December to 3.00pm New Years Day in every year in which New Years eve falls in a year ending in an odd number and from 3.00pm on 29 December to 3pm 30 December in every other year.
(h)     The children shall spend time with the mother for the entire weekend on Mother’s Day in every year , and should mother’s day fall on a weekend upon which the father would usually spend time with the children , then his time with the children shall be suspended on that weekend and the father shall spend time with the children on the following weekend in lieu of the mother’s day weekend.
(i)      The children shall spend time with the father for on the Father’s Day weekend in every year from 6pm Friday to 7.30 pm Sunday , and should father’s day fall on a weekend upon which the father would not usually spend time with the children , then his time with the children shall be suspended on the following weekend.
(j)      The children shall spend time with the father from 3pm Good Friday to 3pm Easter Monday in every year ending in an odd number
(k)     The children shall spend time with the father from 3pm Good Friday to 3pm Easter Monday in every year ending in an even number

Pick up Arrangements

That unless otherwise specified, and except where collection is to take place directly to and from school the father is to collect the children at the commencement of each period upon which he is to spend time with the children pursuant to these orders and the mother is to collect the children from the father at the conclusion of such period.

Communication

That the mother make the children available for telephone conversations, face time or Skype conversations with the father between the hours of 7pm -7:30pm every Tuesday and Thursday.

Passport and Overseas travel

That each party shall sign any document and do any act or thing as may be required from time to time to apply for an Australian passport for the child.
That the children shall not be permitted to travel outside of the Commonwealth of Australia without the consent of both parents, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.

Other matters

That each party shall immediately notify the other in the event of any serious injury or illness of the children while in their care respectively.
Each parent shall be permitted to attend any extra-curricular activity in which the children are involved.

Minute of Order proposed by the Father

Parental Responsibility

That the Mother and the Father have equal shared parental responsibility in relation to the major long term issues effecting the care, welfare and development of the children of the marriage; X born (omitted) 2004 (“X”); and Y born (omitted) 2005 (“Y”)) (Collectively referred to as "the children").

Live with

That the children live with the Father.
That the mother be restrained from relocating the children’s residence further than 40km from where they presently reside or changing the children’s school.
That unless otherwise agreed between the parties, the children spend time with the Mother during school term as follows:
(a)From the conclusion of school on Friday (or 3.00 pm if it is not a school day) until the commencement of school on Wednesday; and
(b)At any other time as agreed between the parties in writing from time to time.
In the alternative, the children live with each parent on a “week about” basis with handover of the children to occur from the conclusion of school on Friday (or 3.00 pm if it is not a school day).

School holidays

That unless otherwise agreed between the parties, the children spend time with the mother for the first half of the holidays in odd numbered years, and second half in even numbered years.
That unless otherwise agreed between the parties, the children spend time with the father for the first half of the holidays in even numbered years, and the second half in odd numbered years.
That for the purposes of calculating school holidays, the first day be defined as the first Saturday following the last day of term, and the last day be defined as the day before the first day of the new term.

Significant occasions

Notwithstanding any other Order, the children spend time with the Mother at the following additional times and occasions:
(a)For Easter 2015, and each alternate year thereafter, from 3pm on Easter Thursday after school until 3pm on Easter Saturday;
(b)For Easter 2016, and each alternate year thereafter, from 3pm on Easter Saturday until 5.30pm on Easter Monday;
(c)On the children's birthday each year, if the birthday falls on a day the children are not otherwise spending any time with the Mother, for a period of 2 hours, as agreed between the parties, but failing agreement from 3:00pm until 5:00pm;
(d)On the Mother's birthday each year, if the birthday falls on a day the children are not otherwise spending any time with the Mother, for a period of 4 hours, as agreed between the parties, but failing agreement from 3:00pm until 7:00pm;
(e)On the Mother's Day weekend each year, as agreed between the parties, but failing agreement from 3:00pm on Saturday to 3:00pm until Sunday; and
(f)At any other time as agreed between the parties.
That notwithstanding any other Order, the children live with the Father at the following additional times and occasions and the time the children would have been spending time with the Mother on such days and at such times be suspended:
(a)For Easter 2016, and each alternate year thereafter, from 3pm on Easter Thursday after school until 3pm on Easter Saturday;
(b)For Easter 2015, and each alternate year thereafter, from 3pm on Easter Saturday until commencement of school on Tuesday immediately following Easter Sunday;
(c)On the children's birthday each year, if the birthday falls on a day the children are not otherwise living with the Father for any time, for a period of 2 hours, as agreed between the parties, but failing agreement from 3:00pm until 5:00pm;
(d)On the Father's birthday each year, if the birthday falls on a day the children are not otherwise living with the Father, for a period of 4 hours as agreed between the parties, but failing agreement from 3:00pm until 7:00pm; and
(e)On the Father's Day weekend each year, as agreed between the parties, but failing agreement from 3:00pm on Saturday until 3:00pm on Sunday;
(f)At any other time as agreed between the parties.

Changeover

That unless otherwise agreed by the parties, changeover is to take place as follows:
(a)On a school day: changeover take place at the children’s school at the commencement or conclusion of school; and
(b)On a non-school day: the Father is to collect the children from the Mother’s place of residence at the commencement of the children’s time with him; and the Mother is to collect the children from the Father’s place of residence at the commencement of the children’s time with her.

Communication

That both parties have liberal telephone communication with the children whilst the children are in the care of the other party and for the purposes of telephone communication:
(a)The parties be at liberty to telephone the children on the other party’s residential landline telephone number, the other party's mobile telephone number and/or the children's mobile telephone (if applicable); and
(b)The parties encourage the children to have telephone communication with the other party by providing the telephone to the children to answer the telephone at all reasonable times and to encourage the children to return a missed called by a party as soon as reasonably possible.
That each party do all things necessary to notify the other party of a change in their contact telephone number(s), email address or change of residential address within twenty-four (24) hours of any such change.
That for the purpose of communication between the parties, the parties communicate by email or SMS text message. For matters of an urgent nature the parties communicate by telephone.

Travel

That the children, X ((omitted) 2004) and Y (born (omitted) 2005) be removed from the Airport Watch List.
That unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing, the Mother and Father be permitted to travel with the children out of Australia during school holiday periods when the children are living with them, subject to the following:
(a)That the parent intending to travel with the children give the other parent not less than sixty (60) days written notice of their intention to travel with the children, with the terms of the written notice to include an accurate itinerary of the departure and return dates, the country or countries that the children will be travelling to, details of where the children will be staying each night and the telephone number and address at which the children can be contacted;
(b)That the parent travelling with the children provide a copy of the return tickets for both children to the other parent;
(c)That the parent travelling with the children notify the other parent of any change to the itinerary as soon as practicable, after such change is made; and
(d)That the parent not travelling with the children be at liberty to telephone the children at all reasonable times.
That between overseas travel (and within seven days of their return from trips with their Mother) the children's passports be provided to the Father for his safekeeping.
That both parties will ensure that the children have valid passports at all times, and to facilitate this Order, both parties sign all documents necessary to obtain an Australian passport or a renewal thereof for the children and the cost of the Passport Application or Renewal be borne equally by the parents.

Medical

That if the children are hospitalised or receives medical attention, the party who has the care of the children at that time will notify the other party immediately after the initial attendance with the medical practitioner, medical centre or hospital, with that notification to include details of the illness, injury, treating doctor, the prognosis and treatment, if known.
That both parties ensure that the other party is kept informed as soon as is reasonably practicable of:
(a)Any medical problems or illnesses suffered by the child/ren whilst the child/ren is in their care;
(b)Any medication which has been prescribed or recommended by a medical practitioner for the child/ren; and
(c)Both parties ensure the child/ren are provided with any medication as required during the time they are living with or spending time with them.
That the parties consult in relation to the child's attendance on any medical, specialist, including any specialist medical practitioner, dentist, orthodontist, speech pathologist, occupational therapist, or other therapist ("Consultant") and that:
(a)In the event that the child is referred to a consultant, the party who obtains the referral inform the other party in writing as soon as recently practicable after obtaining the referral of any specialist medical appointment;
(b)The party who obtains a referral do all things necessary to ensure that the other party is provided with copies of any test results, letters of referral, reports and letters received from and by the consultant;
(c)Both parties be permitted to attend on such appointments, those attendances to be the sole discretion of the consultant and such attendance may be in person or by telephone or other electronic device; and
(d)The party who obtains the initial referral or appointment time, as soon as possible after the initial appointment is made at least fourteen (14) days prior to the first appointment, authorise the consultant to discuss a referral to the other party.

Other parenting orders

That both parties be at liberty to attend any school events and other extracurricular activities in which the children are participating in.
That the Mother refrain from making critical or derogatory remarks about the Father or members of his family in the presence or within the hearing of the children and the Mother do all things reasonably necessary to ensure that no other person makes any critical or derogatory remarks about the Father or other members of his family in the presence or within the hearing of the children.
That the parties are each to ensure that the child X continues to attend for speech therapy until such time as her treating speech therapist advises that is no longer necessary.
That unless otherwise agreed between the parties, both parties do all things necessary for the child X to be enrolled and attend at the (omitted) School located at (omitted) New South Wales.
That the Father refrain from making critical or derogatory remarks about the Mother or members of her family in the presence or within the hearing of the children and that the Father do all things reasonably necessary to ensure that no other person makes any critical or derogatory remarks about the Mother or other members of her family in the presence or within the hearing of the children.
That in the event of either party refusing or neglecting to execute any Deed, document or instruments necessary to give effect to all or any of these Orders, then the Registrar of the Court be appointed pursuant to Section 106A the Act to execute such Deed, document or instrument in the name of the said party and do all acts and things necessary to give validity and operation to the Deed, document or instrument upon the Registrar being provided with verification of such refusal or failure by way of Affidavit.

Notation
(A)That both parties financially contribute in equal shares to the children’s education and medical expenses.

[2016] FCCA 79

1 February 2016

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Legal Concepts

Jurisdiction