Lamison & Calderwood
[2024] FedCFamC2F 1263
•12 September 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Lamison & Calderwood [2024] FedCFamC2F 1263
File number(s): TVC 668 of 2023 Judgment of: JUDGE COPE Date of judgment: 12 September 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – where the mother seeks orders that the children live with her and she have responsibility for major long-term decisions, where the children have lived with the paternal grandparents since late 2021, where there are issues of family violence, alcohol and drug abuse, child neglect and child protection – where it is in the best interests of the children to remain in the primary care of the paternal grandparents Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss60B, 60CC, 60CG, 61CA, 61D, 61DAA, and 61DAB, 61F, 64B, 65D, 65DAB Cases cited: A v A (1998) FLC 92-800
Allied Pastoral Holdings Proprietary Limited v the Commissioner for Taxation (1983) 1 NSW LR 1
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-092
LC v TC [1998] FamCA 47
M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 134 Date of last submission/s: 18 July 2024 Date of hearing: 16-18 July 2024 Place: Cairns Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Lawrence Solicitor for the Applicant: CLT Family Law Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Arnold Solicitor for the First Respondent: Statewide Family Law Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents: Mr Kerr Solicitor for the Second and Third Respondents: MK Family Law Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Mrs Bassano Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Lehmann Featherstone ORDERS
TVC 668 of 2023 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MS LAMISON
Applicant
AND: MR CALDERWOOD
First Respondent
MS PALMER
Second Respondent
MR B CALDERWOOD
Third Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE COPE
DATE OF ORDER:
12 SEPTEMBER 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Decision Making
1.The paternal grandparents Mr B Calderwood and Ms Palmer have joint responsibility for decisions about major long-term issues as defined in s 4(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) for the children, X born in 2014, Y born in 2016, and Z born in 2019.
(hereinafter referred to as “the children”) including but not limited to:
(a)The children’s education (both current and future);
(b)The children’s religious and cultural upbringing; and
(c)The children’s health.
2.That, other than in an emergency, if the paternal grandparents intend to make a major long-term decision affecting the children, they must:
(a)Give notice to the mother and the father in writing of the decision they intend to make and the reasons for that decision, allowing seven days for the mother and the father to respond in writing with their views;
(b)Consider any written response by the mother and the father; and
(c)Within 14 days of their first communication, inform the mother and the father in writing of the decision they have made and the reasons for that decision, including, if relevant, why they did not accept the mother’s or the father’s contrary reasons.
Living Arrangements
3.The children shall live with the paternal grandparents.
4.The children shall spend time with the father as agreed to by the paternal grandparents.
5.The children shall spend time with the mother whilst she resides in the City C area as follows:
(a)For two non-consecutive weekends during each school term provided that the weekends shall not be at the beginning or end of any school holiday period and are reasonably spaced between each visit:
(i)With one weekend occurring in City D from 11.00 am Saturday until 2.00 pm Sunday except where Monday is a public holiday when the changeover will be 2.00 pm Monday, with the mother to nominate in writing to the paternal grandparents which weekend 10 days prior to the commencement of the school term. The mother to be responsible for travel to City D. Changeovers to be at F Venue; and
(ii)With the second weekend occurring in City C from 11.00 am Saturday until 2.00 pm Sunday except where Monday is a public holiday when the changeover will be 2.00 pm Monday, with the paternal grandparents to nominate in writing to the mother which weekend five days prior to the commencement of the school term. The paternal grandparents to be responsible for travel to City C. Changeovers to be at G Venue.
(b)During the term one, two and three school holidays:
(i)From 10.00 am on the first Saturday of the school holiday period until 10.00 am on the second Saturday of the school holiday period.
(c)During the Christmas school holidays as agreed between the paternal grandparents and the mother in writing, and failing agreement, as follows:
(i)For two weeks of the school holidays with the mother to nominate in writing which two weeks, 30 days prior to the start of the holidays provided that such two-week period may include Christmas Day/Boxing Day in each even numbered year and shall not include Christmas Day/Boxing Day in odd numbered years with changeovers to be on Saturdays at 10.00 am.
6.Unless agreed otherwise in writing or stated otherwise in these Orders changeover shall occur at the H Centre area at 10.00 am.
7.In the event the mother is deployed away from the City C area and unless otherwise agreed in writing:
(a)any weekend term time contact between the children and the mother shall occur in the City D area;
(b)the mother to nominate in writing by 31 January which two weeks she shall spend with the children in either the term two or term three school holiday periods each year;
(c)The mother to spend all the Easter school holidays with the children in odd numbered years;
(d)The mother to nominate in writing by 30 June which two weeks she shall spend with the children in the term four school holiday period provided that such two-week period may include Christmas Day/Boxing Day in each even numbered year and shall not include Christmas Day/Boxing Day in odd numbered years;
(e)Changeovers shall occur at City D airport; and
(f)The mother to be responsible for all travel costs provided that the father and the paternal grandparents shall contribute $300 towards each holiday period and shall pay the same to a bank account nominated by the mother within seven days of the end of the mother’s time with the children.
8.The children shall communicate with the mother and paternal grandparents when they are not otherwise in their respective care, each Sunday and Wednesday between 6.00 pm and 6.30 pm.
Information Sharing Orders
9.The parties will communicate with each other as agreed and failing agreement via the Talking Parents App and in circumstances of urgency, via telephone or text.
10.The paternal grandparents, mother and father shall notify each other as soon as practicable, but within at least two hours, if a child requires urgent medical attention, is admitted to hospital or receives a referral to a specialist medical practitioner whilst the child is in that person’s care.
11.The paternal grandparents, mother and father shall:
(a)Keep each other informed at all times of their residential address and mobile telephone contact numbers and advise of any change to same within 48 hours; and
(b)Keep each other informed of all names and addresses of any and all medical practitioners or other health practitioners who may be treating the children.
12.These Orders shall, without more, act as authority to the children’s school/ kindergarten to provide to the paternal grandparents, mother and father (at that party’s expense) information about the children’s education progress, school related activities, copies of school reports, photograph order forms, certificates or awards obtained by the children and other school communications ordinarily provided to parents and each party is permitted to provide a copy of these Orders to such education facility.
13.The paternal grandparents, mother and father are at liberty to attend at the children’s school and all educational, extra-curricular functions, events and activities in which the children might be involved or to which parents are normally invited or which are within the guidelines of the school or service provider, subject always to the discretion of the school or service provider.
14.These Orders shall, without more, act as authority to each of the children’s medical practitioners (including counsellors and psychologists) to provide to the paternal grandparents, mother and father (at that party’s expense) information about medical condition/s, treatment and copies of medical records and reports, subject always to the discretion of the medical provider and each party is permitted to provide a copy of these Orders to such medical provider.
Restraints
15.The parties be restrained and an injunction issue restraining the parties from:
(a)Denigrating the other parties or allowing any other person to denigrate the other parties in the presence or hearing of the children;
(b)Consuming illicit drugs whilst the children are in their care or 24 hours prior to the children coming into their care;
(c)Consuming excessive amounts of alcohol whilst the children are in their care or 24 hours prior to the children coming into their care;
(d)Physically disciplining the children or permitting a third person to do so;
(e)Swearing or using foul language in the presence of or in the hearing of the children or exposing the children to any domestically violent behaviour;
(f)Questioning the children in relation to the personal lives of the other parties or a party’s household; and
(g)Discussing adult issues (such as where and with whom a child shall live) or these proceedings with the children or in the presence or hearing of the children or showing the children any documents filed in or relevant to these proceedings, including correspondence, or allow the children to be in the presence of any person discussing adult issues, including matters relating to these proceedings.
16.The mother is restrained and an injunction issue preventing the mother from leaving the children unsupervised in the care of Mr J.
17.Where the children travel by car, each party shall ensure that the children travel in an Australian Standards approved child restraint that is properly fastened, anchored and adjusted and is appropriate for the child’s age and size according to governing laws.
18.That during the time the children are with any party, that party shall:
(a)Respect the privacy of the other parties and not question the children about the personal life of the other parties;
(b)Speak of the other parties respectfully; and
(c)Not denigrate or insult the other parties or the other parties’ partner, family members or associates to or in the presence or hearing of the children and use their best endeavours to ensure that others do not denigrate or insult a party or other party’s partner, family members or associates in the hearing or presence of the children and shall remove the children from any environment where a third party is doing so.
Procedural Orders
19.That the Independent Children’s Lawer be discharged 28 days from the date of this Order or, in the event an Appeal is filed, at the conclusion of the Appeal.
20.All outstanding application be removed from the pending cases list.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.Pursuant to s 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders are set out in Attachment A and these particulars are included in these Orders.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE COPE
The Court is asked to determine the parenting arrangements for the children, X, born in 2014, Y, born in 2016, and Z, born in 2019. At the time of the trial the children were 10, seven and five years of age.
The parents had an on/off relationship, with final separation occurring in 2020.
The applicant in these proceedings is the children’s mother who was 28 years old at the time of trial. The mother identifies as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. The first respondent is the children’s father who was 34 years old at the time of trial. The second respondent is the paternal grandmother, and the third respondent is the paternal grandfather, aged 53 and 54 years respectively at the time of trial.
The father and paternal grandparents live in City D. The mother has relocated to City C and is employed by the defence force.
The father’s three adult siblings live in the same house as the paternal grandparents. The father has another two siblings who live independently. The paternal grandfather has a 12-year-old daughter K, however she does not live permanently in the home.
The mother lives with her partner Mr L and they have a daughter, M, who was born in 2023.
The father has a three-year-old child with Ms N. Ms N has a seven-year-old child from a previous relationship. The father’s evidence is that he and Ms N have separated.
Living arrangements
During the relationship, the parents and the children lived in the home of the paternal grandparents for significant periods of time, in particular from late 2016 until final separation in March 2020. During periods of separation the mother would at times return to her home in Town O, Region P.
Post separation the children lived with the mother in City D, then returned to community in Town O where they lived for about a year. They then moved to Town Q for a month where the mother and the children lived in temporary housing and then on to Region AA where they lived until housing became available. The paternal grandparents visited the children when they returned from Town O.
In late 2021, the mother placed the children in the care of the paternal grandparents. In late 2021, she also moved in with them but was asked to leave in early 2022 due to her drinking. The children have lived in the sole care of the paternal grandparents since then. They were left in the care of the paternal grandparents by agreement when the mother left in mid-2022 for basic training with the defence force.
After her training was completed, the mother was posted to City C and proposed to take the children there to live with her and her partner. The paternal grandparents however refused to return the children to the mother’s care, giving evidence that they were acting protectively based on disclosures of neglect made by the children.
The mother attempted to remove the children on 16 November 2022 and left with the youngest, Z, travelling with him to City C. The father and paternal grandfather travelled to City C to collect the child and the police required the mother to return Z to their care as a consequence of the terms of a Protection Order naming the father as the aggrieved.
The interim parenting Orders made on 24 July 2023 provide for the children to live with the paternal grandparents and spend time with the mother each week, alternating between City D and City C. That involves travel for the children, noting that it is about a four to five-hour drive between City D and City C. The mother’s evidence is that this time did not always occur as she could not always travel, suffering significant pain during her then pregnancy. Further Orders were made on 25 October 2023, which provided for monthly time in City C and block holiday time.
The youngest child made disclosures that the mother’s brother touched him on his penis in late 2023. As a consequence, the paternal grandparents required time between the children and their mother to take place in City D and during the day only, however the mother failed to travel for that time. At the time of trial in July 2024, she had not spent time with the children since January 2024.
The mother is two years into her posting in City C and conceded under cross examination that while the defence force will consider her preferences for future posting, it is not guaranteed that she will remain in City C. She could be posted anywhere in Australia, noting that she is currently nondeployable. That may however change in the future.
Issues for determination
The risk factors in this matter are family violence, drug and alcohol abuse, mental health and child safety. The Court must make findings as needed and then determine:
·Are the children at risk of harm in the mother’s care?
·If so, what is the level of that risk, noting that the paternal grandparents conceded that it was not an unacceptable level of risk?
·How can that risk be ameliorated?
·Arising from those findings, the Court must determine the living arrangements and related orders that are in the best interests of the children.
COMPETING PROPOSALS
The parties each seek detailed orders. This section summarises the main orders as regards living arrangements and parental responsibility. Additional orders are proposed as regards communication, changeovers, cost of travel, counselling and so forth.
The mother seeks orders that the children live with her, and she have sole responsibility for making decisions about major long-term issues. She proposes to consult with the father prior to making a decision. She proposes that the children spend time with the paternal grandparents for two weekends each term, a week during the mid-year holidays and two weeks during the Christmas holidays. The mother proposes that the father spend time with the children when they are in the care of the paternal grandparents and supervised by the paternal grandparents.
In the event that she is not successful in her application that the children live with her, the mother proposes that the children live with the paternal grandparents and that they jointly make decisions about major long-term issues. She proposes that the children spend supervised time with the father as agreed with the paternal grandparents. The mother proposes that the children will spend time with her for two weekends each school term, with the capacity for additional time in City D on notice, a week during the mid-year holidays and four weeks during the Christmas holidays.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer seeks orders in terms of the Family Report writer’s recommendations. Significantly, that is for the paternal grandparents to have responsibility for making decisions about major long-term issues and the children to live with them. The proposed orders require them to consult with the parents prior to making any major long-term decisions.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer proposes that the children spend time with the father as agreed with the paternal grandparents. It is proposed that the children will spend time with the mother two weekends each term, a week during the mid-year holidays and two weeks during the Christmas holidays. The burden and costs of travel are to be shared.
The father and the paternal grandparents seek orders in similar terms to the Independent Children’s Lawyer, however with the mother to bear the burden of the cost for travel.
THE EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES
Material relied on
The Court was assisted by the Outlines of Case filed by each party. The material considered in reaching this determination was as read and relied upon by the parties during the trial and the tendered material as reflected in the Exhibit List. The Court also had the benefit of and considered the cross-examination of witnesses and the submissions.
The mother
The mother was polite, respectful, considered and answered questions freely. She made sensible concessions as to her failures post separation including her failure to ensure the children’s attendance at school and their dental care, though did note that some of the issues arose from the restrictions imposed in remote communities by the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of those concessions were however necessary as independent evidence existed.
The mother is to be commended for choosing to work on her life choices, for completing her defence force training and, on the evidence before the Court, turning her life around. She is employed, she has a letter of commendation from her commanding officer, she is in a stable relationship, and she seeks the return of the children to her care.
The father
The father was only briefly in the witness box. It was difficult to make any assessment in the limited time, however he is not seeking orders that the children live with him or that he have responsibility to make major long-term decisions for the children.
He did however speak as if it will be his decision if the children ultimately come to live with him, which he conceded was his hope. He also had misconceptions that the boys could choose where they live once they turn 16 years of age. Court Orders are, however, enforceable until children become adults – which is at 18 years.
The paternal grandmother
The paternal grandmother was a strong minded and passionate witness. I am satisfied that she has the best interests of the children at heart. As the cross examination progressed her presentation became flat. She said at one stage that she was going against the parties in trying to protect the children and that she had a lot of love and respect for the mother. I am persuaded that she is acting protectively and struggles with doing so. Because of that, I am satisfied that the paternal grandmother is not just going to deliver the children to the father as he seems to hope, but rather that she will comply with court orders and protect the children from any future risk of harm.
I am also satisfied that she will continue to facilitate the children’s relationship with both parents in a way that is safe. The paternal grandparents did the majority travel for time with the mother until the disclosures of harm earlier this year. The mother’s name is included on all enrolment forms that the maternal grandmother has completed. I am satisfied that she is not attempting to exclude the mother.
In the paternal grandparents’ care the children attend school regularly, they attend extra-curricular activities, and all three children attend counselling.
The paternal grandfather
The paternal grandfather answered questions directly. I am satisfied that he is a good and loving grandfather. I am satisfied that he is child focussed and that he acted protectively of the children in reporting their disclosures to the children’s counsellor.
Mr L - the mother’s partner
The mother’s partner was a young and enthusiastic witness. I was left with no doubt that he loves the mother very much and will do anything that he can to support her and her children.
Cross-examination clearly showed that he has little insight into or understanding of the challenges that the children will face if removed from the care of the paternal grandparents, and into the care of the mother in City C, with him and their baby sibling.
Mr R - the maternal grandfather
This witness gave affidavit evidence in support of the mother. His evidence is that the children were well cared for by their mother in the time they lived in Town O. He did not specifically address the allegations of the children being cared for by others, begging for food and their poor school attendance and dental care. Under cross examination he conceded that he did not know everything that occurred in the mother’s home.
Ms S - the mother’s sister
This witness gave affidavit evidence in support of the mother. She lived across the road from the mother and gave evidence of daily contact, taking the children on day trips and caring for each other’s children. Her affidavit did not specifically address the allegations of the children being left unsupervised, begging for food, poor school attendance or poor dental care.
In the witness box she gave evidence that she had instigated the fight with her sister. Her evidence was that she had gone around at night when the mother and children were in bed asleep, that the mother had asked her to leave and that they ended up outside. Although she conceded that she made a lot of noise, she only reluctantly conceded it was possible that the children had woken up.
Dr T - Family Report writer
Dr T prepared a detailed Family Report filed on 12 March 2024. She identified as a limitation that she was unable to observe the children with the mother.
Her recommendation in the report was that the children live with the paternal grandparents and that they have shared parental responsibility for the children, to the exclusion of the parents.
Conditional on the mother providing negative hair follicle test, she recommended that the children spend time with the mother for two weekends each school term, the first week of the school holidays, mid-year holidays to take place in City C and a two-week block during the Christmas holidays. Her recommendations included where that time should occur and where changeover should occur. In effect, her recommendation is that travel be shared between the mother and the paternal grandparents.
In relation to time with the father, it was recommended he continue to see the children at the home of the paternal grandparents and be able to have unsupervised outings in the community once each month. She recommended consideration of increased and unsupervised time, leading to an overnight on a weekend and ultimately, block time during school holidays once that build up had been completed.
She also recommended that final orders include clauses that restrain the parties from consuming alcohol above the legal limit for driving, from using any illicit substances when caring for the children, from denigrating the other parties, from questioning or discussing with the children court or adult matters, from exposing the children to family violence or removing the children from the care of another party unless agreed in accordance with the final orders.
Under cross-examination it was confirmed with Dr T that she had reviewed the updating material. Her evidence was that her opinion remained unchanged.
Dr T was not subjected to cross-examination by either parent or the paternal grandparents and as such her opinions and recommendations are unchallenged. Those opinions are however only one part of the evidence before the Court.
FINDINGS
Family Violence
In considering the issue of family violence s 4AB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) provides the following definition:
Definition of family violence etc.
(1)For the purposes of this Act, family violence means violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person’s family (the family member), or causes the family member to be fearful.
(2)Examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence include (but are not limited to):
…
There was a domestic violence Protection Order between the father and mother, naming the father as the aggrieved and the mother as the respondent. This Order expired in late 2023. The father alleges that the mother drove past his workplace and at another time entered his workplace and yelled and screamed abuse, to the point that she had to be escorted from the premises. He also alleges family violence perpetrated by the mother during the relationship.
The mother concedes attending at the father’s workplace and confronting the father, and she concedes sending threatening texts to his partner. She did not attend court for the Protection Order hearing, as by then, she was living in community and COVID-19 travel restrictions were in place. In his trial affidavit, the father gives evidence that the mother’s behaviour caused him “stress”, that he felt “victimized in the workplace” and that he felt “unsafe in the workplace”. Whether the father was fearful in the context of the legislative definition is not, however, something I am able to make findings about on the limited evidence before the Court.
The mother conceded that when she was living at the grandparents’ home prior to leaving for the defence force training she would leave on the Friday afternoon and return Monday morning and that sometimes she would be drunk on her return.
There are allegations of family violence in the maternal family; between the mother’s siblings and between herself and her sister. The mother did not concede family violence with her sister involving the police, although she did concede fighting with her sister in her front yard at Town O. She would not concede that the children could have woken up and heard the fight. She did concede that she had left Town O and had not returned due to family conflict.
The mother gives evidence that she was the victim of family violence perpetrated by the father against her during the relationship. The mother gave evidence of an assault in late 2013 after an argument, and assaults in 2015 while she was holding X causing her and X to fall to the ground. Further, the mother deposes to the father assaulting her in 2015 and smashing her phone when she tried to call the police, as well as threatening to cause an accident in 2015 with the child X in the car. In early 2020, she alleges there was an argument where the father punched walls and a cupboard, and then the father had a physical fight with his brother in front of the children, before the father got a kitchen knife and waved it around.
The father did not address the mother’s allegations of family violence in his trial affidavit. This failure leaves him open to the Court’s consideration that this was a deliberate avoidance.
I do not accept the fact that the mother visited the paternal grandparents before relocating to Town O in and of itself contraindicates that she was the victim of family violence. The paternal grandparents have been a protective factor for her, and the evidence is that she had their support.
Under cross examination, the mother’s evidence was that she had attended the police station with the paternal grandmother to obtain a Protection Order against the father, had then been redirected to a women’s support centre but as she had decided to go to Town O she did not follow it up. Her uncontested evidence was that the paternal grandmother had supported her in that process.
I accept the evidence of the paternal grandparents, which confirms that the father picked up a knife and the paternal grandfather had to intervene. I accept their evidence that the children have been exposed to the family violence between the parents. I am satisfied that the father perpetrated family violence against the mother, that the family violence carried a real risk of lethality due to the use of a knife and that the mother would have been fearful as a consequence of the father’s behaviour. The father has since completed the Men’s Behaviour Change program and other courses. The Family Report writer formed the view that the father had gained some insight and was a low risk to the children. It was not explored with the father in cross-examination, nonetheless due to the severity of the conduct, those risks cannot be discounted.
I accept the evidence of the paternal grandfather that he has suffered emotionally and been physically abused and threatened by the mother. The paternal grandparents have been caught in the middle of the family violence and have acted to protect the children, and at times the mother. They have supervised the father’s time with the children. They have been on the receiving end of the mother’s efforts to retrieve the children.
I have considered that there is a current Protection Order in place between the father and his subsequent partner with the father named as the respondent. I have also considered that the father has since completed the Stopping Family Violence program.
As noted earlier, the paternal grandparents advised the mother that they would not return the children to her care after she completed training due to child protection concerns based on disclosures made by the children. In late 2022, the mother attended the paternal grandparents’ home with two other people and attempted to remove the children. The mother was able to remove Z only. The children were exposed to a high conflict and no doubt highly emotional confrontation. The removal of Z was in breach of the Protection Order made for the benefit of the father and it was necessary for the police to be involved to arrange his return. I prefer the paternal grandfather’s evidence as to the events. Because the mother attended with two other people, it is my view that she intended to forcibly remove the children, succeeding as regards the youngest.
In August 2023, the mother attended changeover with her current partner. The mother’s evidence is that the two older children were reluctant to leave her care, that the paternal grandfather threatened to call the police and that led to an argument about the children’s living arrangements, that the paternal grandfather started swearing at her partner including telling him to “shut the fuck up before I knock the fuck out of you” and formed a fist towards him. The paternal grandparents’ evidence is that the mother’s partner instigated this event. This event occurred in the presence of the children. I prefer the evidence of the paternal grandparents about these events as they have consistently acted protectively of the children.
There was a Temporary Protection Order between the paternal grandparents themselves for about a month in 2011, during a period of separation. Under cross examination, the paternal grandmother gave evidence that this was when she had found out that the paternal grandfather had an affair and was having a child. She withdrew the application. I am satisfied that there are no current issues of family violence in the home of the paternal grandparents. That is based not only on the passage of time but also the evidence that the child of that affair has been welcomed into the paternal grandparents’ home.
The records from the Department of Child Safety, Seniors and Disability Services reflect they formed the view that the paternal family perpetrated systems abuse through the father obtaining a family violence order and then enforcing that to report the mother for relatively harmless breaches such as communicating with the child through a messaging app but also to facilitate the return of Z after the mother removed him in mid-2022. The Court, however, has the benefit of sources of information that were unavailable to the Department, including the material filed and tendered and seeing the parties in the witness box. I do not share the Department’s view and I am satisfied that the paternal grandparents were again acting protectively of the children.
Drug and Alcohol Issues
The paternal grandparents give evidence that the mother has issues with drinking, drug use and gambling. The father gives evidence the mother drinks alcohol until she passes out, with the children neglected because of her drinking. The paternal grandparents advised the Family Report writer that the mother would disappear and leave the children in the care of others for days on end when the mother and children lived in Town O.
Under cross examination, the mother conceded that when she lived with the paternal grandparents between late 2021 and early 2022, she at times drank alcohol to excess and returned to the home of the paternal grandparents still under the influence of alcohol after a weekend away. She conceded that they asked her to leave because of this behaviour. The mother has however undertaken CDT testing during these proceedings which reflect that her alcohol intake was not excessive at the times those tests were undertaken.
The paternal grandparents allege that the mother’s partner uses and sells illicit substances. There is no independent evidence to support that allegation and I discount it.
The mother denies using drugs, however in early 2022, she was admitted to hospital on an Emergency Examination Authority with a suspected drug induced psychosis. She was found to have illicit drugs in her urine.[1] The mother has, to date, declined to undertake a hair follicle test, alleging that it is unnecessary as she does not use drugs. She characterises the episode in early 2022 as a drink spiking incident. She expressed that she was of the view that the paternal grandparents had allowed time to occur despite her failure to undertake the hair follicle test and therefore she regarded it as a non-issue.
[1] Family Report dated 12 March 2024 at paragraph 34.
The Court is not so complacent. The mother was ordered to undertake a hair follicle test in late 2023, and she has still not done so. While she provided a clean urine test during the trial, I accept that a urine test does not provide data for the three month window that a hair follicle test would provide. Due to that failure, I cannot be satisfied that the mother has dealt with her drug and alcohol issues.
The father has completed drug tests which were negative and CDT tests which did not reflect excessive alcohol consumption. I am satisfied that he has addressed any issues with drug and alcohol abuse.
Mental Health
The mother experienced what was thought to be a drug induced psychosis in early 2022. The mother alleges the father takes medication for anxiety and depression and has an anger management problem. There is no independent evidence of any current mental health issues for the parents.
Child Protection, Child Neglect Issues
There are allegations that the children were neglected and the eldest child, X, was parentified in the mother’s care. There is evidence that the children did not attend school regularly when in the mother’s sole care post separation, and that the eldest child, X, changed schools four times in just over a year. There is also evidence that in Town O, X was caring for the younger children and begging neighbours for food, and that when the children did go to school it was without any breakfast and with no lunch provided.
The paternal grandparents allege disclosures from the boys of risks in the mother’s care, including the following:
(a)Before the mother moved to City C, the mother would return the children earlier than planned and the children disclosed that there was no food at her home. The mother denies this.
(b)Z disclosed inappropriate touching by the mother’s brother when they visited her in City C in late 2023 and reported that the mother called him a liar when he told her. The mother denies this.
(c)The maternal grandfather smacked X with a belt and when the mother was asked about this, she said that X lied.
(d)That the mother travelled in a motor vehicle with the children unsecured and told them to hide on the floor of the vehicle which had a hole in it. The mother concedes travelling off road very slowly with the children in the back of the motor vehicle.
(e)That the child X was left home alone unsupervised and that he was afraid. The mother denies this.
(f)That the mother runs out of food and the boys are hungry. The mother denies this.
(g)That the mother has coached the boys, asking them to retract their disclosures and their statements about where they want to live. The mother denies this.
(h)That the mother questions the boys and has asked them to report anything the paternal grandparents did wrong. The mother denies this.
(i)That in late 2022, the mother turned up unannounced with two friends and removed the youngest child, Z. This is conceded.
(j)The children are frightened that their mother will take them away. This is denied by the mother who gives evidence that the children do not want to leave her care at the end of their time together.
(k)That the mother goes to sleep leaving the children to play unsupervised on her laptop, where they have viewed pornography. The mother denies this.
I accept the evidence of the paternal grandparents about the disclosures made by the children. I am satisfied that they are not fabricating these stories as they have consistently acted protectively and continued to facilitate time between the children and the mother up until the disclosures made by the children as to inappropriate touching by the mother’s brother. In the witness box the paternal grandmother still spoke highly of the mother. I accept the evidence of the Family Report writer that there is no evidence of coaching.
The mother alleges risks in the father’s care through family violence. The paternal grandparents share those concerns as they require the father’s time with the children to be spent at their home. The paternal grandfather gave evidence that the father had completed the Men’s Behaviour Change program and was satisfied that the father had learned from that course. I am satisfied that the paternal grandparents can be trusted to continue to act protectively of the children.
The mother alleges that the child X disclosed to her that the father kicked him on the leg and the paternal grandparents did nothing about it, and that Y disclosed that the paternal grandmother yelled at him about a broken toy and grabbed his arm and slung him on the couch. The paternal grandparents deny this. The Court notes their history of behaving protectively of the children and for that reason I do not accept that the paternal grandparents have acted abusively towards the children.
THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Child Matters
This application is governed by the principles set out in Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). The court is generally guided by s 60B of the Act which sets out the two objects of Part VII of the Act. Those objects are:
(a)to ensure the best interest of children are met, including by ensuring their safety; and
(b)to give effect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New York on 20 November 1989.
In accordance with s 65D of the Act, the Court may make such parenting orders “as it thinks proper”, subject to s 65DAB which requires the Court to have regard to any parenting plan to the extent that doing so is in the best interests of the child.
In determining what parenting order to make, the best interests of the child remain the court’s paramount consideration. Section 60CC of the Act sets out how the Court determines what is in a child’s best interests.
This is a matter where s 61F and s 60CC(3) apply and the Court must have regard to any kinship obligations, and child-rearing practices, of the children’s Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture and the right of the children to enjoy their culture and maintain connections with family, community, culture, country and language.
Section 64B of the Act defines a parenting order and sets out the powers that this Court holds – what type of orders the Court is able to make in a parenting matter. The types of orders the Court can make includes orders about with whom a child is to live, the time a child is to spend with other “persons”, the allocation of parental responsibility, the communication a child is to have with other “persons” and “any other aspect of the care welfare or development of the child or any other aspect of parental responsibility for a child”.[2]
[2] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 64B(2).
The use of the word “person” or “persons” as opposed to “parent” gives the Court wide powers as does the catch all clause at s 64B(2)(i) of the Act. In this case the second and third respondents are non-parents, however I am satisfied the wording of the legislation empowers the Court to makes the orders they seek, should the Court form the view that those orders would be in the best interests of the children.
There is no longer a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. While the definition of parental responsibility has not changed, the way that the Court determines parental responsibility and whether that should be “joint” has changed. The relevant provisions regarding decision making include ss 61CA, 61D, 61DAA, and 61DAB of the Act.
A key consideration for the court in determining whether to make orders for sole or joint decision making for major long term issues is safety. The Court will consider family violence and its impact.[3]
[3] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC(2A).
The Court will also ensure that any order made is consistent with any family violence order and does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence to the extent that doing so is consistent with the child’s best interest being treated as paramount.[4]
[4] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CG.
In M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69, the High Court held that a parenting order ought not be made if such order exposes the child to an “unacceptable risk” of harm.[5] The “unacceptable risk” test has since been authoritatively applied to any potential risk of harm to a child and is not limited to sexual abuse.[6] The Court will consider “unacceptable risk” in light of each party’s parenting proposals and the availability of any appropriate safeguards.
[5] M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 at 78.
[6] A v A (1998) FLC 92-800 at 84,996; M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 at 77.
The Full Court in Isles & Nelissen has clarified that the test relating to risk is one of possibility rather than probability with a consideration of the severity of harm that would arise from the risk.[7] Nothing about the new legislation impacts or varies the application of those tests.
[7] (2022) FLC 94-092 at 81446.
Evidence
In this matter there was some consideration of the rule in Browne v Dunn[8] as there was limited cross examination of some witnesses. The Family Report writer was not cross examined as to her opinions and the father was subject to limited cross examination and none about the mother’s allegations of family violence perpetrated by him during the relationship.
[8] Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67.
The rule in Browne v Dunn requires that where a party intends to challenge another party’s evidence or where their evidence is at odds, then the evidence or the case upon which it is intended to rely in that challenge must be put to the witness in cross examination. This was somewhat softened by Hunt J in Allied Pastoral Holdings Proprietary Limited v the Commissioner for Taxation (1983) 1 NSW LR 1 wherein at page 16 his Honour said:
It has in my experience always been a rule of professional practice that, unless notice has already clearly been given of a cross‑examiner's intention to rely upon such matters, it is necessary to put to an opponent's witness in cross‑examination the nature of the case upon which it is proposed to rely in contradiction of his evidence, particularly where that case relies upon inferences to be drawn from other evidence in the proceedings[9].
[9] My emphasis.
In the family law jurisdiction, evidence in chief is taken by way of affidavit. Each party well knows the case of the other party and thus it may not always be necessary to put each allegation to the parties in cross examination. That was confirmed by the Full Court in LC v TC [1998] FamCA 47 where the Full Court upheld Graham J in his ruling that notwithstanding the rule in Browne v Dunn, due to the voluminous nature of the affidavits relied upon, it would not be held against either party if they did not put something to the other party in cross examination.[10]
[10] LC v TC [1998] FamCA 47 at [39].
In this case, in her evidence in chief filed on 12 June 2024, the mother made specific and detailed allegations of family violence perpetrated by the father. The father did not address those allegations of family violence with any specificity in his trial affidavit filed on 9 July 2024. His evidence in chief about family violence during the relationship was limited to general evidence as to arguments occurring about the behaviour of the mother and her family. The father was not cross-examined about the mother’s allegations of family violence, nor did he cause the mother to be cross examined about those allegations.
That made it challenging to make findings as I do not know what the father says about those allegations of family violence perpetrated by him, nor did I have the opportunity to assess his credit as regards the mother’s allegations during cross-examination, or indeed to assess the mother’s credit as regards her own allegations. I was, however, assisted in my determination by two factors. The first is the very fact that the mother’s evidence as to the alleged family violence perpetrated by the father was unchallenged by the father at trial. Secondly, while the father chose not to respond to those allegations, the paternal grandparents provided some corroborating evidence in their affidavit material as to certain events.
The mere fact that the father avoided the topic in his evidence in chief and in cross-examination of the mother, together with the mother’s choice not to cross examine him about those matters, does not prevent this Court making findings based on the evidence to hand. To suggest otherwise would mean that parties could leave large tracts of evidence out of their affidavits, then simply come to court, decline to cross-examine and tell the court that no findings can be made. To put it colloquially, I don’t think so.
Likewise, a party who chooses not to put their case to the Family Report writer cannot then make submissions that the opinions of that expert should be discounted because they had not considered certain evidence. The relaxation of the rule in Browne v Dunn in the family law arena does not, in my opinion, stretch that far.
APPLICATION OF THE LAW
The relevant considerations as regards best interests are reviewed below. Giving consideration to the evidence and the findings made, noting that the Court must also give consideration to any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child, and any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child’s family.
There are risks in the mother’s care. Although no one argues unacceptable risk, the risks are serious, including the failures to ensure regular school attendance, failures to attend to regular dental hygiene and care, and the risks that arise from lack of supervision. While the drug and CDT tests undertaken by the mother are reassuring, I note that despite court Orders, a hair follicle test was never done. That certainly leaves it open to the Court to consider that there may be a reason for that failure. The mother may say she thought it was a non-issue, but it is not a non-issue as regards the safety and wellbeing of children.
There are risks of emotional harm if the Court removes the children from the care of the paternal grandparents. To do so is contrary to their wishes and it means everything must change for the children. That includes limited time with the paternal grandparents due to the tyranny of distance. While the mother proposes orders that the children attend counselling in her care, that would likely be with a new counsellor closer to their new home. I further considered the evidence that she has to date been unable to afford to contribute to the cost of the children’s counselling. I am left to consider that, however much she may wish to enrol the children in counselling, she may be unable to afford to do so. This is particularly so noting that she and her partner have another child together with her limited insight into the impact on the children of removing them from the care of the paternal grandparents.
I have considered that while in their mother’s care post separation the children moved a lot, with changes of school on each occasion.
In the context of an Indigenous family from a remote community, I am not overly concerned that siblings and family members came to stay with the family for long periods of time for purposes of education and the like. Or indeed where the mother and children lived in temporary accommodation while trying to find housing. Further, given the rental shortage Australia wide, there is no shame or discredit in that.
While the submission was made by the paternal grandparents that the mother’s failure to ensure school attendance is the cause of X’s academic problems, that cannot be a certain link. No doubt it did not help, but there may be multiple causes for academic challenges.
I do not accept the submission that the mother’s visit to the paternal grandparents’ home with the children post separation disproves that she was fearful of the father. In and of itself, that does not mean that the mother was not fearful. Victims of family violence can act in a variety of ways. It is however one piece of evidence that I consider in making my assessment.
I do not agree that completion of a Men’s Behaviour Change program means the father has necessarily gained insight. That is to be established by his conduct and his evidence. I have considered that the breaches perpetrated by the father in 2022 occurred before he did the course, and there is no evidence of breaches since that time. I trust the paternal grandparents to be vigilant and to ensure the children’s safety and wellbeing. Certainly, the Family Report writer formed the opinion that the father had gained some insight.
I am satisfied that the one constant safe haven for these children has always been the paternal grandparents.
The paternal grandparents give evidence that the boys have told them that they want their mother to visit them in City D and that they feel safe and do not wish to have any sleepovers. This was certainly repeated by the children to the Family Report writer, and she was confident that this was not due to coaching. Her opinion is that they are old enough to remember the neglect they experienced in the mother’s care in Town O.
On the mother’s side, the children have connections in both the Torres Strait and the Aboriginal communities in the Region P area. The mother’s paternal family are from Region U and on the maternal side her family are from a clan in the Town O community. The Family Report writer reports the father’s heritage to include Country V and European.
It is vital that these children have the opportunity to maintain connections with their First Nations heritage. In particular, I have considered the affidavit of the maternal grandfather who continues to live in Town O, as does the maternal grandmother and the mother’s siblings. I accept the maternal grandfather’s evidence as to his role in teaching the children about their culture. I accept the mother’s evidence as to her family visiting her when she lived in City D and more recently in City C over the Christmas 2023 period.
I accept the mother’s evidence that, although connection to her community is important to her, she rarely returns. Significantly, at the time of leaving Town O in or about early 2021, she did so because of risk factors for her in the community. Her own evidence is that she last attended community for a significant cultural event in 2015, and the last time she went to community was prior to her posting which occurred in or around early 2022.
That said, quite clearly the mother and her family are best placed to maintain the children’s connection to their First Nations culture, knowledge and understanding of their ceremonies and belief system.
The paternal grandparents have a proven history of facilitating the children’s relationships with their parents, noting that they drove the children to City C for the children to spend time with their mother after the making of the October 2023 Orders, other than on 1 January 2024 when the mother drove to City D.
The paternal grandparents also gave evidence that they are the ones who initiate calls for the children to speak to the mother twice a week. They also gave evidence that the mother does not always take the calls. Ultimately, the paternal grandfather says he asked the mother to initiate the calls. I accept that evidence.
The paternal grandparents have a proven capacity to meet the children’s practical and physical needs. A question is raised by the fact that no contact has taken place for some time, however the evidence of the paternal grandparents, which I accept, is that they are acting protectively. I also accept the evidence of the paternal grandmother, that she would be much reassured by a restraint preventing contact with the mother’s brother, who on the evidence of the paternal grandparents, is named by both Z and Y as having inappropriately touched Z.
Both parents are paying child support. The mother advised the paternal grandparents that she was unable to afford to contribute to the cost of the children’s counselling and that is certainly supported by the financial statement that she filed. The paternal grandparents gave oral evidence of the father assisting when they travelled to City D by providing money for snacks or fuel.
The Family Report writer was concerned about the mother’s statement that she had done nothing wrong. The Family Report writer was of the view, and I agree, that this reflects a lack of insight and a refusal to accept responsibility for even the conceded conduct, being the lack of school attendance, lack of dental care and the forceful removal of Z. If she is so reluctant to accept what occurred in the past then I cannot be satisfied that she will protect the children in future. Further, her work will take her away for periods of time and her partner is untested as a carer for three young and active children, in addition to their own baby.
The paternal grandparents have ensured the children’s school attendance, organised counselling, attended parenting group and facilitated relationships. They assist with homework and have worked hard to help the children catch up after the schooling that they missed. They are to be commended.
Each of the parties wisely concedes the importance of the children having a relationship with the other parties. If the children remain living with the paternal grandparents then they will be far from their sister, M, who lives with the mother. If they move to live with the mother they will be far from their sibling, W, who lives with the father’s former partner in City D. They will also be remote from the paternal grandparents and the father.
DETERMINATION
Are the children at risk of harm in the mother care?
Based on the findings that I have made, I am satisfied that there continues to be a level of risk in the mother’s care. I cannot be satisfied that she has addressed her issues of alcohol abuse or that the suspected drug psychosis was indeed due to drink spiking. I cannot be satisfied that she has the emotional intelligence to support the children in transitioning homes. I cannot be satisfied that she will meet their practical day to day needs given her past failures to do so and her reluctance to accept that she has done anything wrong.
If so, what is the level of that risk, noting that the paternal grandparents conceded that it was not an unacceptable level of risk?
I am satisfied that the risk of harm is not unacceptable and that it can be managed through orders and restraints.
How can that risk be ameliorated?
The risks can be ameliorated through a variety of restraints which I address later in these reasons.
Arising from those findings, the Court must determine the living arrangements and related orders that are in the best interests of the children.
This is addressed below.
Living arrangements
Based on the findings outlined earlier in these Reasons, I am satisfied that the safest arrangements for the children and the living arrangement that will ensure their needs are best met is in the care of the paternal grandparents.
The status quo is far from being a decisive factor in deciding the children’s living arrangements, but in this case it is a significant factor. The home of the paternal grandparents and their involvement in the children’s lives has been a consistent and stable factor. When the mother left with the three children at separation, the children lived elsewhere in City D, before travelling to Town O for about a year, then briefly to Town Q and then Region AA, before moving back to live with the paternal grandparents. With each move there was a change of school, a change of home, a change of every aspect of the lives of the children. That is not necessarily a bad thing - where those moves are planned, and the children are well supported in that process. I am satisfied that was not the case here. The mother moved at times impulsively, to escape conflict and family violence, but there is no evidence of forethought or of ensuring the children’s needs were met. Even the arrangement with the paternal grandparents to care for the children while she underwent training with the defence force, while a return to a familiar environment and care, was out of necessity.
Given the mother’s own limited attendance in the community and at cultural events, I am satisfied that the children do not need to live with their mother for that connection to be maintained. The mother can attend to that aspect of their education and connection when they are in her care. I am satisfied that if there are significant cultural events then the paternal grandparents will facilitate the children’s attendance.
I accept the mother’s evidence that she has a home in City C, where she lives with her partner and the baby, M, and that is suitable to accommodate the children.
If the children live with the mother as she proposes, they will spend significant time in day care. The mother starts work at 7.30 am and is usually there by 7.00 am. Her partner is an apprentice tradesperson, and his work hours commence even earlier. The mother then completes work at 4.00 pm, however she readily conceded that if ordered she may be required to stay later.
If the children live with the mother, they will move to City C, change schools, live in a different home with the mother and her partner and sibling, they will have different counsellors, presuming the mother does take the children to counselling, and have different friends and sports teams. They will also be geographically distant from their father, their sibling through the father, and from the paternal grandparents who have been a stable and consistent presence and support throughout their lives.
If they live with the mother, the children will spend time in out of school hours care every day, they will return to an environment where in the past their basic needs were not met, and they will be far from the watchful care of the paternal grandparents. The mother’s employment may in the future take them even further away.
In the paternal grandparents’ care, the children live across the road from their school and attend neither before nor after school care. The paternal grandparents have a proven capacity to meet the children’s needs through regular attendance at school, medical supports and practical day to day needs.
I propose to make orders that the children remain living with the paternal grandparents as I am satisfied that is the one place where they are safe, where their needs are best met and where their relationships and connections with both parents and extended family will be facilitated and encouraged.
While I accept that the mother loves the children very much, her history of failing to meet their needs, her admitted history with alcohol, the suspected drug induced psychosis followed by her failure to provide a court ordered hair follicle test, together with her lack of insight as demonstrated to the Family Report writer and under cross-examination, does not support the children transitioning back to her full time care.
I propose to order that the mother spend regular time with the children, as I am satisfied that the restraints proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer will address the issues. In particular, I propose to make the restraint that the children not be left unsupervised with the mother’s brother. A disclosure of the type made by more than one of the children should not be discounted. Whilst I understand that it may be hard for the mother to accept that it was a genuine disclosure, it is important that protective measures be taken.
I do not propose to make another order requiring the mother to undertake a hair follicle test. She has failed to comply to date. I have considered that she provided a urine test that was clean. I have also considered that she is in full time employment with the defence force, and thus is subject to monitoring through the very fact of that employment. Again, I rely on the paternal grandparents to be protective.
I have limited information about the financial circumstances of the respondents, however I do not propose to order that the mother be solely responsible for the cost of contact. She is paying child support as assessed. It is important that she maintain contact with the children and there is no reason why the father and paternal grandparents should not contribute in the way proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer. The mother works with the defence force, which means she has had to leave City D. What flows from that is a level of expense which I propose be shared to reflect the importance of maintaining the children’s relationship with the mother.
I propose to make an order that the father’s time with the children be as agreed by the paternal grandparents. In the event they have concerns, I am satisfied that they will act protectively. I am also satisfied that the paternal grandparents will not just hand the children over to live with the father as feared by the mother and half hoped by the father. I am satisfied that the paternal grandparents will comply with court orders and continue to provide the children with a safe, stable and secure home where their practical, medical and emotional needs are met.
I am conscious that the ideal placement would be with a parent, however each of these parents has challenges and each has failed the children at times. The Court does not lightly make orders that place children with extended family, however, in this case I am satisfied that it is in their best interests to do so.
Responsibility for major long-term decisions
The mother and the paternal grandparents have a long history of a supportive and positive relationship. Ideally, the mother and the paternal grandparents should be able to continue that. Unfortunately, when the parental grandparents intervened to protect the children, the mother sought to force a return of the children to her care, attending their home with two others and removing the youngest child, Z, in a scene of high drama. This no doubt caused distress for all concerned but particularly for the children. The paternal grandfather reported physical abuse and threats, and I accept his evidence about those events.
The events in August 2023, where there was a confrontation at changeover, confirm that the ability for the mother and paternal grandparents to work together has been lost. It may be that they will come back from the current situation, but as at the time of the trial, I was not satisfied that it would be safe to make orders for joint responsibility. That way lies arguments and difficulties which would risk exposing the children to further conflict and the risk of further litigation.
Other orders
I propose to make the other orders, including authorities and information sharing orders, as sought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer. That will ensure that the parents are able to keep themselves informed and gain documents directly from schools, doctors and the like. It will also ensure that the lines of communication are kept open.
IN CONCLUSION
I do not doubt that both parents and the paternal grandparents love these children very much. I am hopeful that with the finalisation of these proceedings they will work together to ensure that these children retain vital connections with their parents and with the community.
I am satisfied that the orders I now make are in the best interests of the three children, X, Y and Z.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and thirty-four (134) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Cope. Associate:
Dated: 12 September 2024
0