Leong and Yu and Ors
[2013] FCWA 34
•16 APRIL 2013
JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: LEONG and YU & ORS [2013] FCWA 34
CORAM: MONCRIEFF J
HEARD: 26, 27, 28 FEBRUARY & 1 MARCH 2013
DELIVERED : 16 APRIL 2013
FILE NO/S: PTW 3378 of 2012
BETWEEN: WEI LEONG
Applicant
AND
QIAN YU
First RespondentAND
ZHENG LAU
Second RespondentAND
SHEN YU
Third Respondent
Catchwords:
CHILD RELATED PROCEEDINGS - grandparent primary carer and attachment for very young child - grandparent residing with child overseas - interim orders that child remain with grandparent - review of orders in late 2014 - parents to spend time with child in Malaysia and Australia - security bond by wife and contribution to husband's airfares
Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
(Page 2)
Category: Not Reportable
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: Ms T Farmer
First Respondent : Dr A Dickey QC
Second Respondent : Mr M Nicholls QC
Third Respondent : Mr M Nicholls QC
Solicitors:
Applicant: Legal Aid WA
First Respondent : Clairs Keeley
Second Respondent : GG Legal
Third Respondent : GG Legal
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286
(Page 3)
WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT - PARTIES’ NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED
1[Leong Yu] (“the husband”) and [Qian Yu] (“the wife”) commenced living together on 2 February 2003 and were married on 22 November 2004. They separated in early May 2012. The wife suggests the date of separation was 7 May whilst the husband suggests it was 19 May. For the purpose of the matters that I have to determine little turns on the difference.
2The parties had previously separated for a period of two to three weeks in August 2011.
3The dispute between them relates to the care arrangements of their only child [Callum Yu] [in] 2011.
4Zheng Lau, the second respondent to the proceedings, is the wife’s mother, and Callum’s maternal grandmother. For convenience I propose to refer to the parties as the husband, wife and grandmother respectively in these reasons.
5At the time of trial Callum was living with the grandmother and had been doing so since February 2012. The grandmother resides with her husband [Shen Yu], who was also joined as a party to the proceedings, by consent, on the last day of the trial before me. For ease of reference I shall refer to him as “the grandfather” in these reasons.
6The parties have been unable to agree the care arrangements for Callum and the matter came before me for determination by way of trial on 26 February 2013.
7On 1 March 2013 I made orders with notations by way of interim orders as to Callum’s care in the following terms:
In this order:
“the father” means [Leong Yu], the applicant, the father of [Callum];
“the mother” means [Qian Yu], the first respondent, the mother of [Callum];
“the second respondent” means [Zheng Lau], the second respondent and [Callum’s] maternal grandmother;
[“Callum”] means [CallumYu], who was born on [in] 2011 and who is the child who is subject of these proceedings
THIS INTERIM ORDER IS MADE ON THE BASIS AND UNDERSTANDING THAT:
A.[Callum] is now only 1 year, 9 months old and has for the past 12 months been living with the mother’s parents in Malaysia, and in particular in the care of the second respondent;
(Page 4)
B.[Callum’s] primary attachment is presently to the second respondent and an immediate severance of that attachment could be contrary to his best interests;
C.The mother and the second respondent acknowledge that the father’s financial circumstances are such that he is not able to visit [Callum] often while [Callum] is living in Malaysia and that he should be given financial assistance to do so;
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.Subject to these orders, the father and the mother have equal shared parental responsibility for [Callum].
2.Until 30 November 2014, [Callum] will live with the second respondent who will be responsible for his day-to-day care, welfare and development and who shall have rights of custody in respect of him.
Father’s contact with [Callum] in Malaysia
3.The mother pay or have paid to her present solicitors the sum of AUD $9,000 for them to pay to the father from time to time, upon production of an invoice, such amounts as are necessary to cover the cost of an economy airfare for him to travel to Malaysia to visit [Callum] and return to Perth, Western Australia. The disposition of any balance remaining at the date that this matter is next reviewed by the court will be determined by the court or agreement between the mother and the father.
4.The second respondent do all things reasonably necessary to enable the father to have quiet and peaceable contact and enjoyment with [Callum] in Malaysia. To this end:
(a)the father give the second respondent and the mother at least 21 days notice of his intention to have contact with [Callum] in Malaysia, including dates of his proposed time in Malaysia;
(b)at least 7 days prior to the commencement of the father’s time with [Callum] in Malaysia he is to provide the second respondent or the mother with his contact telephone number in Malaysia and the address at which he will be staying;
(c)subject to paragraph 5 thereof, the times of contact, duration of each period of contact and place of contact be as agreed between the father and the second respondent, or the father and the mother, and the father be at liberty to
(Page 5)
have members of his family, including his mother, spend time with [Callum] during his contact;
(d)the second respondent or the mother be present at each period of contact until the second respondent is satisfied that [Callum] has a sufficient relationship with the father to enable [Callum] to be with him by himself;
Duration of contact
(e)For the purpose of contact on the first occasion that the father travels to Malaysia for contact with [Callum] pursuant to paragraph 4 hereof, his contact with [Callum] will be:
(i)on the first day, for no less than 1 hour with [Callum];
(ii)on the second day, for no less than 1.5 hours with [Callum];
(iii)on the third day, for no less than 2 hours with [Callum];
(iv)and thereafter no less than 3 hours each day with [Callum];
(f)That as far as possible, the father’s time in Malaysia shall coincide with the mother’s time in Malaysia.
Mother’s contact with [Callum] in Malaysia
5.The mother have reasonable contact with [Callum] in Malaysia as agreed between the mother and the second respondent.
6.Subject to compliance by the mother with paragraphs 14 and 29, the Registry release her passport to her, and her name be removed from the Watch List.
Father’s contact with [Callum] in Australia
7.After the making of this order and after the father has visited [Callum] in Malaysia for the first time, the second respondent bring [Callum] to Perth during the calendar years 2013 and 2014 for a period of no less than 4 weeks in each year during a time that the father will be in Perth for the duration of those periods.
8.The costs of the second respondent and [Callum] incurred in complying with paragraph 7 hereof be met by the second respondent and/or the mother in such proportions as may be agreed between them.
(Page 6)
9.In the event that the second respondent travels to Perth with [Callum] at any time other than provided for in paragraph 7 hereof, she is to provide the mother and father with her intended dates of travel as soon as she knows them.
10.While [Callum] is in Perth, the second respondent do all things reasonably necessary to enable the father to have quiet and peaceable contact and enjoyment with [Callum] in Perth for no less than three hours a day, and such contact be on the following basis:
(a)at least 7 days prior to the commencement of the second respondent’s time in Perth, the second respondent or the mother provide the father with the second respondent’s contact telephone number in Perth and the address at which she will be staying;
(b)the times of contact, duration of each period of contact and place of contact be as agreed between the father and the second respondent, or the father and the mother, and the father be at liberty to have members of his family, including his mother, spend time with [Callum] during his contact.
Other contact
11.The father and the mother each be at liberty to communicate with [Callum] in writing or by electronic communication (including telephone, FaceTime and/or Skype) at such reasonable times as are arranged with the second respondent and failing agreement, for the father at 7.00pm every second evening by FaceTime, with the father to text the second respondent if he is unable to have FaceTime on any occasion and the second respondent shall provide to the father a working telephone number for this purpose.
12.For the purposes of communication pursuant to paragraph 11 hereof, the second respondent ensure that the electronic device (such as ipad) is charged and switched on at the correct time, and the father have quiet and peaceable communication and enjoyment with [Callum].
13.The Father have such other and additional contact and communication with [Callum] as may be agreed between the father and the second respondent, or the father and the mother, the consent of the second respondent and the mother not to be unreasonably withheld.
Security
(Page 7)
14.Until further order and within 14 days of this Order, the mother pay or have paid to her solicitors the sum of AUD $40,000 to be held by them. In the event that the mother should remove [Callum] from the day-to-day care of the second respondent or that either the mother or the second respondent should remove [Callum] from Malaysia to a jurisdiction other than Australia without the consent of the father, or the father be unreasonably prevented from spending time with [Callum] by the mother, the second respondent or their servants and agents, in accordance with these orders, the solicitors forthwith pay to the father or to such solicitor as may be nominated by him such amounts from this sum as are reasonably necessary to enable him to institute and pursue proceedings, whether in Australia and/or Malaysia, for orders for the return of [Callum], if appropriate, to Australia, or to enforce the contact between him and [Callum] provided for in this order.
Further orders
15.Not before June 2014 but not later than December 2014, all parties do all things necessary to confer with a family consultant for a child dispute conference to discuss arrangements for [Callum] once he attains the age of 4 years.
16.Each party forthwith notify each other party of any emergency or serious illness affecting [Callum].
17.The second respondent authorise [Callum’s] medical providers and any professionals involved with [Callum’s] health and development to provide to the father and the mother any information that either may seek in relation thereto, and for that purpose the second respondent and/or the mother provide the names and contact information for each of [Callum’s] medical providers to the mother and the father, and keep them so informed.
18.Each party inform each other party of his or her change of residence and/or contact details within 48 hours of any such change.
19.As soon as the child is eligible to be so enrolled, the mother and the second respondent enrol [Callum] in an English-speaking or English language playgroup and provide the details to the father.
20.The Mother’s solicitors are authorized to deposit the sums referred to in paragraphs 3 and 14 into an interest-bearing account, provided that it is immediately accessible.
21.Each party have liberty to apply to the court at short notice to implement these orders.
(Page 8)
Consequential orders
22.The orders made herein on 20 June 2012 and 3 October 2012 be discharged.
23.The applications of the parties otherwise stand adjourned to the Child Dispute Conference pursuant to paragraph 15.
Injunctions
24.The mother, father and the second respondent all be restrained by injunction from commencing or permitting any other family member to commence any proceedings in relation to [Callum] or his welfare in Malaysia, other than:
(a)in accordance with the terms of paragraph 26 hereof;
(b)for the enforcement of these orders; or
(c)the enforcement of the corresponding orders in Malaysia.
25.Each party, and the second respondent’s husband Mr Shen Yu who has agreed to be a party for the purposes of this paragraph of this order only, be restrained by injunction until further order from:
(a)removing [Callum] from Malaysia without the consent of the parties, other than for the purposes provided for in paragraphs 7 and 9;
(b)retaining [Callum] in Australia or preventing him from returning to Malaysia with the second respondent at the end of their visit to Perth pursuant to paragraphs 7 and 9;
(c)denigrating any of the other parties or the second respondent’s husband, or from permitting any other person to do so;
(d)molesting, harassing or abusing any of the other parties or interfering with his or her manner of living or attempting to do so, or allowing any other person so to do; and
(e)the parties are at liberty to apply for the discharge of this injunction on seven days notice to the other parties.
Corresponding orders
26.Immediately after the extraction of a sealed copy of this order the parties are to carry the terms of this order into effect in Malaysia by making a joint application to a court in Malaysia for an order in the following or substantially similar terms:
(Page 9)
“It is ordered by consent that, to the greatest extent possible, the provisions of the annexed orders made by the Honourable Justice Moncrieff of the Family Court of Western Australia be declared to be enforceable, and are enforceable, in Malaysia.”
27.The parties join in doing all things necessary and use their best endeavours to have the corresponding orders made as quickly as possible in Malaysia, including signing all necessary documents.
28.In the event that any party fails to sign any necessary document within 14 days of presentation of those documents to them, the Registrar of the Family Court, pursuant to section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), be authorised to sign such documents on his or her behalf.
Authority
29.The parties each forthwith execute an irrevocable power of attorney directed to his or her solicitors authorising them to do all things necessary to carry into effect the provisions of paragraphs 26 and 27 above.
Application
30.The father’s oral application made this day regarding Australian citizenship for [Callum] stand adjourned to a date to be fixed.
8The matter remains part heard before me and when pronouncing orders on 1 March 2013, I invited the parties to consider whether or not they required written reasons at this stage of the proceedings as I was mindful of the potential for a further negative effect on the already significantly damaged relationship between the parties of some of the findings that I may have to make.
9Fortunately a number of those findings are peripheral to the central issue in the matter, although they occupied a significant portion of the proceedings and were the subject of a significant body of evidence, in particular, whether or not Callum is residing in Malaysia with the consent of each of his parents or only that of the wife and, whether during a meeting in Malaysia between the husband and the grandfather, the husband assaulted the grandfather or the grandfather assaulted the husband.
10Whilst these may remain burning issues, for the husband in particular, they ultimately are not relevant to the interim orders that I have made, which, like any parenting order must be directed to the best interests of the child concerned.
11The pathway that the court must follow is that set out in Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286 and involves a consideration of the factors prescribed in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) and in particular section 66CC which prescribes various matters to which the court must give its consideration in determining what is in a child’s best interests.
(Page 10)
12Section 60CC(2) is as follows:
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 willingness and ability of each of the child’s parents to facilitate, and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent;
(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;
(Page 11)
(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)any family violence order that applies to the child or a member of the child’s family, if:
(i)the order is a final order; or
(ii)the making of the order was contested by a person;
(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;
(Page 12)
(m)any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant.
13In any case not all of the considerations will be relevant and frequently the considerations will overlap.
14Further it was proposed, and I ordered, on an interim basis that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility which requires me to consider whether or not an order for Callum to spend equal time or substantial time with each of his parents is in Callum’s best interests and is reasonably practicable.
Background
15The husband was born [in] 1971 and at the time of trial was 41 years of age. The wife was born on [in] 1984 and at the time of trial was 28 years of age.
16The parties met when they were 31 years of age and 18 years of age respectively and commenced a relationship on or about April 2002 having met in an online chat room in December 2001. Both of the parties were residents of Malaysia although each of them studied in Australia, the wife coming to Australia in 2002 and the husband in 2003.
17The parties commenced residing together in 2003 and they were married in November 2004 in Perth. Each of the parties pursued their studies in Western Australia, the husband in psychology and the wife in commerce and law.
18The husband is now employed as a counsellor and the wife as a solicitor, having been admitted to legal practice in Western Australia [in] 2008. [At that time] she applied for a permanent residence visa in Australia.
19The grandmother and grandfather (“the grandparents”) continued to reside in Malaysia as does the husband’s mother. The husband and wife holidayed in Malaysia annually residing with the wife’s parents.
20Following Callum’s birth in 2011 the grandparents came to Australia to assist the wife with the care of Callum during her confinement.
21There is some dispute about the husband’s involvement in the care of Callum and the circumstances that led to a distinct cooling of the relationship between him and the grandparents. It is the wife’s case that the husband was “disrespectful” to her parents.
22The grandparents stayed in Australia until 7 August 2011. On 8 August 2011 the husband’s mother and his sister came from Malaysia to visit. The husband’s sister, [Louise] was visiting in Perth for a shorter period whilst the husband’s mother was planning to stay for 3 months. At that time Callum was 3 months of age and during the time that the husband’s mother and sister were staying with them there was a disagreement as a result of which the husband suggested that the wife was being “disrespectful” towards his mother, which led to further disharmony between the
(Page 13)
parties resulting in them separating for a period between two and three weeks in August of that year.
23The grandmother returned to Australia on 12 August and assisted the wife in the care for Callum and the wife and Callum resided with her brothers until the parties’ reconciliation on 27 August 2011. By the time of the reconciliation the husband’s sister Louise had returned to live in Malaysia however the husband’s mother and his other sister [Kathy] resided in the house with the husband, the wife and Callum. It is the wife’s case that she had the primary care of Callum during this period and although there may be some dispute about the level of care and contribution to care undertaken by the husband, the wife’s assertion was not seriously challenged and in any event she was on unpaid maternity leave from 1 December 2011 whilst the husband continued full time employment. It is simply more probable that the wife had a greater responsibility for the day to day care of Callum than did the husband.
24It is the wife’s case that the parties were under financial pressure as a result of her not being able to pursue her employment as a solicitor and the family being dependant upon one income, and that if she had returned to work as a junior lawyer the bulk of her income would have been taken up with child care fees, however if she remained away from her employment to care for Callum on a full time basis their household would not be able to cope financially. Further, and I accept that the wife if not the husband, although he denies the proposition, was strongly motivated to secure financial security for the household and in particular to provide for Callum with suitable accommodation and the best for him in terms of a future education.
25It was in this context that the wife developed the idea of allowing the grandmother to care for Callum in Malaysia until he reached the age of four, on the basis that the husband and wife would visit Callum in Malaysia as often as they could and maintain daily visual contact with Callum by way of FaceTime. The grandmother again returned to Australia in December 2011 and stayed with the husband and wife. She cared for Callum whilst the husband and wife were working.
26The grandmother was required to return to Malaysia in February 2012 before her visa expired. In late December flight tickets were purchased for travel to Malaysia, in particular a one way ticket for both Callum and the grandmother with Callum being included on the grandmother’s ticket. The husband says he was unaware of the ticketing arrangements and in his cross-examination denied seeing them despite the fact they had been sent to his email address and despite the contents of his trial affidavit where he deposes that he had “noted” the ticket was one way.
27I accept that prior to Callum’s departure to Malaysia there was communication between the parties, particularly by way of SMS text messages, which strangely appeared to be the preferred method of communication between the parties rather it would seem than direct consultation with each other, which clearly indicated that consideration was being given between the parties as to Callum’s future.
28It is the case for the husband that he did not consent to Callum residing in Malaysia as proposed by the wife and it was the wife’s case that he did. As I have mentioned this was an issue that was agitated significantly at trial but ultimately is not one that is relevant to the interim orders that I have made as the reality for Callum is
(Page 14)
that at least from February 2012, if not from 1 December 2011, the grandmother has been Callum’s primary carer, a proposition that has not been disputed.
29Significantly, the grandmother has had a high level of involvement in Callum’s life from birth.
30On 2 February 2012 Callum, the wife and the grandmother departed Perth for Malaysia. The wife returned to Australia on 18 February 2012 and was collected from the airport by the husband. The wife returned without the child and in cross-examination the husband said he asked where Callum was, to be told that the wife had “left him there” to which he says he replied, “why leave him there?” to which the wife responded that she was “too tired”.
31The husband indicated that he may have asked “much later” when Callum was returning and later that the wife had said, “let me rest then we will consider having Callum back”.
32In any event the parties travelled to Malaysia together on 25 April 2012. The wife stayed with her parents and Callum at her parents’ home and the husband stayed with his mother at her house, which was, according to the wife, “about a 45 minute drive” from her parents’ house and according to the grandmother, “about an hours bus ride”.
33On 6 May the husband sent a text to the wife, “Dear, hav u sorted the internet so u can Face Time bub from perth?”
34The following day was Callum’s first birthday and it was agreed that the husband would visit Callum at the grandparents’ home for his first birthday at about 1.00pm.
35The husband and his mother arrived at the grandparents’ place some time approximating 4.00pm. It is the husband’s case that the grandfather had already threatened, although not directly to the husband, to “beat up” the husband and the husband asserts that upon arriving at the grandparents’ home the grandfather rushed at him and slapped him on the left cheek and yelled at him to get out of the house.
36In almost a direct contrast the evidence of the wife and each of the grandparents was that the husband arrived, became angry, threw the birthday cake that he was carrying to the floor and punched the grandfather, in response to being asked why firstly, he was so late, and secondly, why he had not bothered to visit Callum since 25 April.
37It is the husband’s case that his mother was present although no evidence was adduced from her which may have assisted in clarifying what happened.
38It appears that both of the grandfather and the husband subsequently contacted the Malaysian police and the grandfather sought some medical assistance. In any event nothing came of the reports to the police.
39It also forms part of the husband’s case that upon the parties’ arrival in Kuala Lumpur on 25 April that the grandfather was rude to him and refused to accept a gift of Chivas Regal whiskey, which the husband says, was then thrown to the ground
(Page 15)
outside the station. Again this incident received far more attention in the evidence, particularly in the case of the husband than was warranted and in the case of the husband the incidents between the grandfather and the husband and the disharmony attracted more evidence than did matters that may have been relevant to Callum’s best interests.
40In any event the husband did not see Callum in Malaysia and subsequently returned to Australia.
41On 12 May the wife returned to Australia and moved out of the family home to reside with her brothers.
42Proceedings were commenced on the application of the husband on 15 June 2012.
43On 20 June 2012 orders were made that the husband have contact with Callum by way of FaceTime every night from 7.20pm “for such reasonable time as the child can cope with”. At the same time orders were made restraining the wife by injunction from leaving the Commonwealth of Australia without giving the husband 21 days prior written notice of her intention to do so and further requiring that she deliver up her passport to the Family Court of Western Australia to be retained pending written consent of the parties or further order of the Court.
44To facilitate the order it was necessary for the husband to have an iPad. It appears that the parties have acquired no less than three iPads, two of which had the relevant FaceTime facility.
45The husband’s behaviour over the provision of an iPad for him to use to facilitate the orders of 20 June 2012 can best be described as bizarre. In her trial affidavit the wife describes the events as follows:
104.On 22 June 2012, I told [Tom] I would offer him a brand new iPad with a camera facility so he could have contact with [Callum]. However, he said he wanted the iPad that I have [sic] prior to separation, which he had never used before. I told him that I cannot return him this iPad because it contains my work and personal data. I told him that I had to borrow money to buy him the new iPad. I also asked if I could send the new iPad to his house instead of him coming to my office as any disruption might affect my career. He said it was not his problem and he would not take the iPad if it was not the one that I have [sic] prior to separation.
105.On 25 June 2012, [Tom] came to my office and refused to take the new iPad. He told my receptionist to be careful of me before he left my office.
106.I tried to persuade [Tom] to take the iPad so he can have Face Time with [Callum] but he refused.
46Annexed to the affidavit and referred to in the three paragraphs set out above are copies of messages sent by way of SMS.
(Page 16)
47On 22 June the husband sent a text to the wife in the following terms:
I wil b in and there is an added lock on the door. U hav taken too many valuables from the house. I’m not interested in the new Ipad. I wil collect my Ipad wit the right serial number. Buy ur own Ipad.
48And later:
If I dun get the Ipad I’ll let the court know.
49The wife responded:
Up to u. I said i’m giving u a new ipad and wil drop it off at de house. I don’t want u to come to my office.
50And later:
I don’t want u to come to my office to collect it as I wil lose my job. I’m offering to send it 2 ur hse
51And further:
I have too many personal stuffs which I can’t delete or transfer out from de ipad. Tat’s y i’m offering u a new ipad. I’ll show all these sms to de judge tat i’ve tried my best to accomodate u but u r being too difficult. I’m going to drop off de new ipad to de hse on Sunday nite at de front door.
52The husband then replies:
I’m not goin to accept it. U r not doing wat is agreed wit ur lawyer n court. I wil file an affidavit if u continue this behaviour. Then u defend urself in court.
53To which the wife replied:
As u wish. At least I do my best and I didn’t rescind from de promise as i’m giving u a new ipad for u to see baby and will send it to de hse on Sunday nite. If u come to my office and cause a scene tat make me loss my job then I’ll inform de court.
54To which the husband responds:
I wil stil come on Mon at 8.45am as agreed wit ur lawyers n judge to collect my ipad hd.
55It would appear that the husband did indeed attend at the office of the wife’s employer whose receptionist then sent an email to the wife on 25 June 2012 in the following terms:
(Page 17)
Mr [Leong] came into the office he told me he was here to collect the Ipad, I said could you please sign and date the sheet please.
He read the sheet matched up the numbers and refused to sign because the numbers where different to the ones he had on his bits of paper, he said that the Ipad [Carolyn] had for him was not the original Ipad.
He told me to be careful of [Carolyn] and started telling me what she did to him, I just ignored it and I asked him to leave.
He said have a good day and left the office.
56Additionally on 25 June 2012 there was an email exchange between the parties in the following terms:
Hi [Qian]
Why did you rescind on your promise? We have already agreed with Dr. Dickey and you during court that you will return one of my three Ipad that you have taken so I could see [Callum] on FaceTime today at 7.20pm. You have an Ipad and also our laptop to be able to Skype. What more do you want? This is too much emotional turmoil for me not to be able to see my son.
You are depriving me of shared parenting responsibility.
[Wei Leong]
57In reply:
I did not rescind from the promise. I explained the reasons to you on Friday that I cannot return the old Ipad to you because I have my personal and work stuffs in it and cannot be transferred out. I told you that I will buy you a new IPad with camera facilities for you to see [Callum], even though I need to borrow the money to do this.
You came to my office this morning and my receptionist gave you the new iPad but you refused to take it. As you know [Callum] has one IPad with him in Malaysia and the other IPad one was given to me by your sister without any camera facilities. You have my IPad one which I bought for you. They are not all your three Ipad.
I did all I can for you to see [Callum] so you can have a meaningful relationship with him but you refused to take the IPad and chose not to see him instead.
[Qian Lu]
58In addition to the emails referred to above, the SMS “traffic” between the parties continued regarding the iPad with the wife enquiring on 25 June 2012:
(Page 18)
Why u didn’t take de ipad tis morning? Don’t u want to see [Callum]?
59To which the husband replies:
We have alredi agreed wit ur lawyer. That’s why I went to ur work place today.
60To which the wife responds:
We agreed tat I wil giv u an ipad and i’ve explained de reason why it is a new ipad instead of de old one. U can use it to see [Callum]. It’s not unreasonable.
61And further:
Do u want de ipad or not? I’m not stopping u from seeing [Callum] but u r urself 4 being stubborn and difficult. Wat’s de difference wit de two ipad? U never use both b4
62One is irresistibly drawn to the conclusion reached by the wife that the husband was being both stubborn and difficult over an issue that should have been an utter non-issue between the parties and resulted in the husband himself frustrating his contact with Callum.
63On 25 July 2012 the parties had a Case Assessment Conference. The wife brought the new iPad with her and gave it to the Family Consultant to give to the husband. It appears that finally the husband accepted the new iPad and from that point was able to have contact with Callum.
64The behaviour of the husband over the iPad beggars belief.
65On 28 November 2012 the parties had a Child Dispute Conference with Family Consultant Herberte at the Family Court Counselling and Consultancy Service. In a memorandum produced for the court Family Consultant Herberte reports as follows:
The mother, the father, the maternal grandmother and their legal representatives attended a reportable Child Dispute Conference with the Family Consultant in regard to the child [Callum] born [in] 2011. The maternal grandmother attended by telephone and was assisted by an interpreter. The following matters were discussed:
·The father would like [Callum] returned to Australia, the mother is open to [Callum] returning to Australia and the maternal grandmother would like [Callum] to stay in Malaysia until he is 4 years of age then return to Australia. The mother and father agreed that [Callum] return to Australia within 60 days of a Minute being signed in regard to [Callum]'s living arrangements;
·The mother and father reached agreement in regard to [Callum]'s interim living arrangements when he returns to Australia. The
(Page 19)
maternal grandmother's legal representative is seeking further instruction regarding her position. The maternal grandmother appeared to indicate through the interpreter that she will agree with the mother's position but it needs to be clarified;
·The mother and father agreed on equal shared parental responsibility but the maternal grandmother did not agree. Her legal representative will seek further instruction;
·The parents reached agreement in regard to a number of other arrangements regarding [Callum], including handover and passports and a Minute of Proposed Orders was signed by the mother and the father (attached). The maternal grandmother's legal representative is seeking further instruction regarding her position. If the maternal grandmother agrees to sign the Minute the parties' legal representatives will arrange for the Minute to be filed with the Court; and
·If the attached Minute is filed with the Court, the parties shall meet with the Family Consultant for a further Child Dispute Conference on a date to be advised in April 2013 in regard to reviewing the current arrangements and increasing the time [Callum] spends with the father.
The Family Consultant would like to recommend that the mother and the father separately enroll in, attend and complete the Mums and Dads Forever program at Anglicare.
66Although it appears on the face of the memorandum that an agreement was reached between the parties it appears that the wife had second thoughts about continuing with the agreement and therefore was never formalised by way of a minute. Further the grandmother, who was an active party in the proceedings since July 2012 also did not consent to the orders, although I formed the impression that she was never invited to do so as the wife had very shortly after the conference changed her mind about the agreement.
The husband’s position at trial
67The husband had filed a minute of proposed orders on 2 November 2012 in the following terms:
IN THE EVENT AN ORDER IS MADE FOR THE CHILD TO BE RETURNED TO AUSTRALIA:
1.Within 30 days of the date of these orders, the child of the marriage [CALLUM] born [in] 2011 be returned to Perth, Western Australia.
2.The second respondent will accompany the child back to Perth, Western Australia and in the event she is not able to do so, the applicant is available to pick up the child and accompany him back to Perth.
(Page 20)
3.The first and second respondents will be responsible for the costs of the applicant's airfares in paragraph 2 hereof.
4.Upon the child's return to Australia:
(a)the first and second respondents be restrained by injunction and an injunction be granted restraining the first and second respondents from removing the child out of the Commonwealth of Australia; and
(b)from applying for an Australian passport for the child and/or renewing the child's Malaysian passport without the Applicant's prior written consent.
5.The child live with the applicant father and will spend substantial time with the first and second respondents in accordance with a spend-time-with regime to be agreed between the parties and in absence of an agreement, by the court.
6.In the alternative, the child live with each parent on a week-about basis and child will spend time with second respondent when the child is in the first respondent's care.
7.The applicant and first respondent both have equal shared parental responsibility.
8.When the second respondent is not in Australia, the child will have liberal telephone communication and electronic communication via Face time for such periods that the child can reasonably cope with.
IN THE EVENT AN ORDER IS MADE THAT THE CHILD NOT RETURNED
9.In the event the child is not returned to Perth, Western Australia:
(a)upon giving the second respondent 21 days written notice, the applicant spend time with the child on two occasions in each year and each of those occasions will be for a minimum duration of two weeks with the first and second respondent to pay for the costs of the return airfares of the applicant for those visits;
(b)the money for the return airfares will be secured by an upfront lump sum payment of $2,000 AUD to cover the two trips to be paid within fourteen days of the applicant's departure;
(c)the lump sum payment will be deposited into the applicant's solicitor's trust account;
(Page 21)
(d)the applicant's solicitor will authorise the release of the money to cover the cost of the return airfares for those two trips upon the applicant providing his flight itinerary and invoice;
(e)such further time as may be agreed between the parties in the event the applicant is able to obtain more leave and the applicant will be responsible for the costs of the airfares for those extra visits.
10.In relation to paragraph 9 (a) hereof, the applicant will spend time with the child as follows:
(a)for the first three days of the visit from 9am until 11am and then from 3pm until 5pm daily;
(b)there be a rest day on fourth day;
(c)thereafter on fifth, sixth and seventh day from 9am until 3pm.
(d)there be a rest day on the eight day;
(e)from 9am on the ninth day until 9 am on the tenth day;
(f)there be a rest day on the eleventh day;
(g)from 9 am on the twelfth day until 9 am the thirteenth day;
(h)on the fourteenth day from 9am until 5 pm that day.
11.When the applicant is not spending time with the child face-to-face, he will have daily electronic communication with the child via Face Time from 7.30pm each day for such reasonable time as the child can reasonably cope with.
12.The venue for handover of the child will be at a police station that is closest to the second respondent's residence in Malaysia.
13.The first and second respondents be restrained by injunction and an injunction be granted restraining the first and second respondents from:
(a)changing the child's current residence in Malaysia being [Residence A] , Malaysia;
(b)from removing the child out of Malaysia
14.The second respondent's husband be restrained by injunction and an injunction be granted restraining him from harassing, abusing or
(Page 22)
behaving in an aggressive or intimidating manner towards the applicant.
15.The second respondent's husband shall not be present at handover of the child.
16.The first and second respondents shall notify the applicant forthwith in relation to any emergency or any serious illnesses affecting the child and will not allow the child to undergo any surgical procedure without the applicant's prior written consent unless it is a life-threatening emergency.
68In his trial affidavit his proposed future arrangements for the care of Callum were as follows:
CARE OF [CALLUM]
51.My mother and my oldest sister, [JOAN LEONG], are able and willing to come to Perth to assist me in the care of [CALLUM]. My sister, [JOAN], is 60 years old and has 2 grown-up boys. She is also a volunteer at the local YWCA and is a carer for Down Syndrome [sic] children. Annexure "F" is a copy of her doctor's report dated 28 August 2012 certifying that she is in good health.
52.My sister [JOAN] is able to assist me in Perth for as long as I need her. She is allowed to stay 6 months on her visa. She would then need to return to Malaysia for a few weeks and re-enter Australia and thereafter she can stay a further 6 months. I will be able to look after [CALLUM] when I return home from work so there will be stability in the care-giving arrangement. When [CALLUM] is older, he can attend child care.
53.In order that I am better able to care for [CALLUM] I have already attended a few age-appropriate parenting courses. Annexure "G" is the completion certificate for the seminar on "Love languages and children". Annexure "H" is a certificate of attendance for the 2 hour Parent Education Workshop on "and so to sleep". Annexure "I" is a copy of the certificate from CLAN dated 27 August 2012 confirming I had attended a "About boys" parenting workshop
HOUSING
55.[CALLUM] will reside with me in the family home that he was brought up in before he was taken to Malaysia. The unit at [Residence B] is a 3 bedroom house and is comfortable and appropriately furnished with the usual modern amenities. I am paying $350 rent per week.
OCCUPANTS OF THE HOUSE & RELATIONSHIP (IF ANY) TO [CALLUM]
(Page 23)
56. Only my sister, [JOAN], will be staying at the house with me and [CALLUM] and my mother whenever she visits.
SUPERVISION
58.My sister, [JOAN], will be caring for [CALLUM] when I am at work. When I return home from work, I will be able to care for [CALLUM]. Once [CALLUM] has settled in my care, I intend to enrol him at day-care for two half days per week as I believe it is good for his social development.
TRANSITION
60.It appears [CALLUM] may have a close attachment with the second respondent and may be upset initially as he has been in the sole care of the second respondent since February 2012. However, if the second respondent co-operates, with her help and encouragement, I believe [CALLUM] will soon settle quickly into my care. Since birth, [CALLUM] has been exposed to a number of different people caring for him. There was my mother, my sisters etc and hence, I believe it will be an easier transition for him as compared to a child whose primary carer was the mother and there were no other people involved in his care. I will also have the benefit of "hands on" experience from my mother and my sister which will enhance the smooth transition. My knowledge in developmental psychology from my years of study will further enhance the smooth transition.
61.I love [CALLUM] dearly and miss him very much. I have not agreed to [CALLUM] being raised in Malaysia until he is 4 years old because I do not want to miss out on bonding and attachment with my son. I know from my study in Developmental Psychology that from birth to 5 years of age are crucial years for that bonding and attachment to take place. Ideally, I will never want [CALLUM] to be away from me for more than one day. Unlike [CAROLYN], I do not see my son as a baggage. [CAROLYN] has abandoned her son and she is happy to relegate her parental duties and responsibilities to her mother. I am not. I seek that [CALLUM] be returned to Perth and to me without any further delay.
69Significantly the husband recognises the attachment with the grandmother at least to the extent of an initial upset and proposes that she cooperate in the transition to assist Callum to settle into his care.
70From his studies he purports to provide opinion evidence as to bonding and attachment, which is largely not disputed, however, the position taken by the husband and his opinions based on his expertise fly very much in the face of his practical involvement with Callum to which I refer further later in these reasons.
(Page 24)
71The husband’s evidence at trial was that his sister Joan, who would seem to be the linchpin of the husband’s proposed care arrangements or at the very least significant thereto, has not ever seen Callum and would be a complete stranger to him.
72It is odd given the husband’s hostility towards the grandmother, whom he paints as a a person who is unsuitable to care for Callum because of her compulsive gambling, valium taking habit and over consumption of alcohol and further that she has “employed a Philippino maid to care for Callum”, which the husband surmises “is so that she can pursue her gambling habit” that he would now expect the grandmother to actively participate with the husband in his proposed transition.
73One conclusion is that the grandmother is of such a nature that she has an abundant capacity to forgive and to place Callum’s needs above her own. Sadly it would appear that the same could not be said of the husband and who, notwithstanding his claimed training and knowledge as a result of his studies, has advanced a proposition that is frankly naïve.
74The position taken by the wife and the grandmother is that Callum should stay in Malaysia, that frequent contact will be facilitated with each of the parents and the position will be reviewed before Callum is four.
75The proposals made by the wife and the grandmother are also compatible with the desire of the grandparents to seek permanent residence in Australia and pending the grandparents having the ability to permanently reside in Australia. the grandmother is prepared to spend as much time as may be required to assist the wife in her care of Callum in the future, should she require it, to the extent that she is permitted to stay in Australia subject to immigration requirements.
76In any event, the entirety of the arrangements will be subject to the review that I have ordered.
77In reaching the decision I did, I had regard to the affidavits of the husband relied upon for trial, namely his affidavits filed on 2 November 2012 and 21 December 2012 and the affidavit of his sister [Niu Leong] (also known as Joan) filed on 2 November 2012. The husband also filed a form 13 financial statement on 2 November 2012.
78The husband’s sister was not required for cross-examination.
79On behalf of the wife I had regard to the affidavits relied upon by her being the two affidavits sworn on 31 October 2012 and a form 13 financial statement sworn the same day. The second of her affidavits of 31 October 2012 was filed on 1 November 2012 in support of an application in a case seeking a release of her passport, which application was adjourned to trial and has been the subject of my orders.
80The grandmother relied upon her affidavit and form 13 financial statement filed on 19 November 2012, the affidavit of Shen Yu filed on 19 November 2012, and the affidavit of [Kuen Yu] the wife’s brother filed on 19 November 2012. The wife’s brother was not required for cross-examination but otherwise the husband, the wife and each of the grandparents were cross-examined.
(Page 25)
81I have some quite significant reservations about the evidence of the husband who ran a particularly negative case against the wife and appeared more concerned about being vindicated in his actions rather than being child focused. The wife and each of her parents strike me as being significantly more child focused in their approach to the proceedings and far more willing to compromise and be receptive to positive suggestions to enhance the relationship between Callum and the husband despite having been the recipients of some very unpleasant, and in my finding, baseless allegations made by the husband.
82I turn now to consider the matters set out in section 60CC of the Act that are relevant to my decision.
Primary considerations
The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents
83None of the parties to these proceedings dispute that it is in Callum’s benefit to have a relationship with each of his parents and further I am satisfied that despite the disharmony between the husband and grandparents that the grandparents will during the period of operation of the orders promote and facilitate a relationship with the husband.
84The uncontested evidence of the grandmother was that there are photographs of the husband in the house, although they may not be as prominent as other family photographs and that the husband is mentioned frequently in conversation within the household and Callum is well aware that the husband is his father.
The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence
85The wife alleges that following the separation in August 2011 there was an occasion where the husband pushed her when she entered the house to collect items for Callum. She says that the husband called the police and advised them that the house was being burgled and that she was an intruder in the house.
86The incident appears to have been relatively mild and there is no suggestion that Callum was exposed to any violence on that occasion.
87The more worrying allegation of family violence relates to the episode at the grandparents’ home on Callum’s first birthday. As I have observed there is a clear dispute between the versions of the two parties and the husband had the opportunity to provide evidence corroborating his version of events, which he did not.
88It is alleged that the husband’s assault upon the grandfather was occasioned when he was questioned upon his arrival at the home as to firstly why he was three hours late and secondly why he had not bothered to spend any time with Callum since he had been in Malaysia from 25 April 2012.
(Page 26)
89In my finding both of the questions were reasonably asked.
90I have had the opportunity of observing the husband’s demeanour in the witness box and I have formed the view that he is a man who is quick to anger and whilst he expresses a wish to “mediate” and describes himself as a “mediator”, I formed the view that conciliation is only an option for the husband if it is on his terms. There is no doubt that he has been highly offensive in the way in which he has described the wife and her family in affidavit material and in SMS messages where he has referred to the wife as, “an incapable mother, incompetent and complete failure”, and “a dirty whore”.
91In a similar vain he has made complaints to the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee, the body charged with professional regulation of legal practitioners, in what could have only been seen as an attempt to prejudice the wife’s professional opportunities and to colour her reputation. Such actions are not compatible with a mature and measured desire to resolve matters amicably and are indicative of the husband’s lack of self-control and the singularity of focus upon his own needs.
92It is, however, in my finding unlikely that during the period of the operation of my orders that family violence will be an ongoing issue, however I would strongly urge the husband to seek some professional counselling in terms of how he manages his responses to situations in which he finds himself that may be contrary to his desires.
Additional considerations
The nature of the relationship of the child with:
(a) each of the child’s parents; and
(b) other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child)
93It is not disputed that Callum enjoys a good relationship with his grandmother and the wife. Further, should the husband take the opportunity to be more actively involved in a relationship with Callum than he had to the point of trial, I am sure that he would develop a qualitative and meaningful relationship with Callum. It is regrettable that in the past he has let his own issues get in the way, for example over the provision of the iPad, when ultimately it is his relationship with Callum that suffers.
94As I have indicated I am satisfied that the grandparents will promote a relationship with the husband and were receptive to suggestions to make it easier for him to have FaceTime communication with Callum and the orders have provided a facility for the wife to meet the husband’s costs of travelling to see Callum during the period of the operation of the orders.
95It is both surprising and disappointing that notwithstanding the physical proximity of the husband’s family to Callum in Malaysia that no opportunity has been
(Page 27)
taken for them to spend any time with Callum, particularly in the case of the husband’s mother, who did spend some time in Perth with Callum shortly after he had been born.
The extent to which each of the child’s parents:
(a) has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity:
(i) to participate in making decisions about major long‑term issues in relation to the child;
(ii) to spend time with the child; and
(iii) to communicate with the child.
(b) has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent’s obligation to maintain the child.
96These two considerations are conveniently dealt with together and to some extent have already been considered in these reasons.
97I accept that there is a dispute between the parties about the decision for Callum to reside in Malaysia. That dispute for present purposes has been rendered irrelevant by virtue of the time that Callum has spent in Malaysia with his now primary attachment figure, his grandmother. The husband and the wife have not been able to communicate effectively about decisions affecting Callum’s future post-separation.
98The husband has not availed himself of an opportunity to spend time with Callum when in Malaysia although I accept that he had made plans to travel to Malaysia at the end of 2012 but did not proceed as he understood that an agreement had been reached at the Child Dispute Conference to which I have referred.
99The wife maintains regular FaceTime contact with Callum and when she is able to visit Malaysia, which she has been unable to do since her passport was removed from her and she was restrained from leaving the Commonwealth of Australia, she will have the opportunity to spend time with Callum with her family and I have no doubt she will avail herself of such opportunities. Similarly, her family are no strangers to travel to Australia where indeed all three children of the grandparents reside and they themselves ultimately wish to obtain permanent residence.
100As I have observed the husband now has the opportunity to travel to Malaysia with financial assistance.
101The wife has also provided financial support for Callum. As to the husband’s contribution to Callum’s support he deposes:
I have not been able to fulfil my obligation to maintain [Callum] because [Callum] has been unlawfully retained in an overseas jurisdiction without my consent. I object to paying financial support to the mother as this would be seen as condoning her unlawful act. However, once [Callum] is returned to Perth, I am willing and happy to maintain my son to the best of my financial ability.
(Page 28)
102 Sadly that paragraph underscores the husband’s attitude to these proceedings.
The likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:
(a) either of his or her parents; or
(b) any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living
103It is not seriously disputed by any of the parties to these proceedings that to remove Callum from his primary attachment, namely the grandmother, would have a negative affect upon him.
104I accept that ultimately it is the common intention of each of the parties to these proceedings that Callum will reside in Australia with his parents, although as to what the actual time arrangements may be of course is yet to be settled. Callum’s relationship with his parents in the future will very much depend on the level of input from each of his parents. I accept that he will receive a very high level of input from his mother and I express the hope that will now be matched by positive input from his father.
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
105Clearly the distance between Malaysia and Perth is of significance and impacts upon the ability of Callum to have face-to-face physical interaction with his parents. Whilst I accept that FaceTime is being positively utilised to maintain visual interaction and verbal interaction with Callum logically it is not of the same quality as direct physical interaction and physical exchanges of affection.
106In terms of providing for each of the parties now to have that physical interaction orders are in place and whilst it is desirable for there to be ongoing and regular physical interaction beyond the ability of each of the parties to spend time in Malaysia, it is of course a question of balancing all of the considerations to which I must have regard in determining what is in Callum’s best interests and as I have observed a removal from his primary attachment figure at his age is likely, and is accepted as likely by all parties, to have a negative affect upon him.
107It is for the parties to utilise their best opportunities and endeavours and maximise the time they have available to spend with Callum in Malaysia or whilst he is in Australia as provided for in the orders pending further consideration of future arrangements for Callum, and also thereby, maximise the success of any future transition for Callum from his grandmother to his parents.
(Page 29)
The capacity of:
(a) each of the child’s parents; and
(b) 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
108I have effectively dealt with this consideration elsewhere in these reasons and do not propose to repeat my observations about the abilities of each of the parties to contribute in a positive way to Callum’s welfare, emotional and intellectual development save to reaffirm that I hold the view that each of the parties can make a significant and positive contribution thereto.
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
109Each of the parents and the grandparents come from a Chinese background.
110Much was made of the grandmother’s lack of English speaking skills by the husband in terms of her inability to raise Callum as the husband would see as being appropriate.
111I have ordered that Callum attend an English speaking kindergarten in Malaysia as soon as he is able to do so in accordance with the local expectation, which I understand will see him being enrolled in kindergarten in the very near future.
112The wife communicates with Callum in a mixture of English, Cantonese and Mandarin and the husband is capable of communicating with the grandparents in Hokkien and English.
113I am satisfied that if nothing else Callum will develop with a rich diversity in his understanding of various Chinese dialects and also he will be exposed to English through communication with his parents and through his kindergarten. Additionally, the unchallenged evidence was that the grandparents also communicate with him in English albeit, not very well.
114Callum will also be exposed to the culture and traditions of each of his families which as I understand it are largely common, I do not see the likelihood of any long term negative consequences for Callum in terms of his current lingual exposure, indeed he has unique exposure to language and dialects. Although Callum’s parents and grandparents have divergent religious beliefs they are mutually respectful of each others and this is not a factor that is likely to affect Callum in the period of operation contemplated by the orders.
(Page 30)
Conclusion
115Overall, and for the reasons I have given above I am satisfied that the orders reflect the best arrangements in the interim that will best serve Callum’s interests for their limited period of operation.
116I have not expanded my consideration of the matters that must be considered by me in view of the orders for equal shared parental responsibility, as, given my findings as to Callum’s best interests being served by his remaining with his grandmother in Malaysia, any arrangement for equality of time spent with his parents or substantial time, beyond that ordered, would, for the reasons I have expressed above, be impracticable.
I certify that the preceding [116] paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for
judgment delivered by this Honourable Court
Associate
0
0
0