LETSOS & VAKROS

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LETSOS & VAKROS

[2013] FamCA 217

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parental Responsibility – Time with child – Whether orders should be made that the child spend time with the father – Where the mother denies that the father is the father of the child – Where the mother refuses to carry out DNA testing to determine biological parentage of the child – Where the Full Court of the Family Court upheld the determination from the Federal Magistrates Court that the father is the father of the child – Where the mother refuses to allow the father access to the child – Where the mother’s actions have caused the child to be fearful of the father – Where both alternatives open to the Court are likely to cause emotional and psychological harm to the child – Where court expert recommended alternative that is likely to cause the least amount of harm – Where Court accepts the recommendations of the court expert.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTAGE – Birth certificate – Where mother has in her possession a birth certificate that has the incorrect details on it with respect to the child’s parentage – Where the use of the incorrect birth certificate promulgates a falsehood about the child’s parentage – Ordered that the mother be restrained from using the incorrect birth certificate for any purpose – Ordered that the mother return the incorrect birth certificate to the Registrar of Birth Deaths and Marriages.

Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW) s 59(3)
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60B, s 61DA(1)

APPLICANT:

Mr Letsos

RESPONDENT:

Ms Vakros

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Harper

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

2710

2007

DATE DELIVERED:

21 March 2013

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

PLACE HEARD:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Rees J

HEARING DATE:

3, 4, 5 December 2012

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

In Person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Battley

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Lees & Givney

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Harper

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Jennifer Weate & Associates

Orders

IT IS ORDERED

That the application of the father be dismissed.
That the mother have sole parental responsibility for the child B born … January 2007.
That the mother be restrained from using, for any purpose, the original or a copy of any birth certificate of M showing Mr Tekosis to be the child’s father.
That the mother be restrained from using, for any purpose, the original or a copy of any birth certificate referring to the child as M Tekosis.
That the mother immediately return to the Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages the original and any copy of the birth certificate naming the child as “M Tekosis” and showing the mother’s partner, Mr Tekosis, to be M’s father.
That the Registrar of the Family Court of Australia, Sydney Registry, cause a copy of this order to be forwarded by post to the Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages, New South Wales.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 2710 of 2007

Mr Letsos

Applicant

And

Ms Vakros

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

background

The proceedings before the Court concern a child, M (“the child”) born … January 2007. The child’s parents are the applicant, Mr Letsos (“the father”), and the respondent, Ms Vakros (“the mother”). The parents did not live together but were in a relationship which ended before the child was born. The mother has always denied, and continues to deny that the father is the child’s father. It is her position that the father should not spend any time with the child or have any contact at all with her. The father seeks to spend time with the child.
The mother has re-partnered and has a baby with her current partner. The mother asserts that her partner is the child’s father, despite the fact that a declaration has been made, and upheld in the Full Court, that the father is the child’s father.
The father is not presently in another relationship. He has two sons from his first marriage.
The father first filed an application in the Federal Magistrates Court on 7 April 2007 seeking orders that he have time with the child and that the Court order the parties to take DNA testing to determine whether he was the child’s father. Thus, when the father initiated proceedings, the child was almost three months old. The mother opposed the father’s application, both as to DNA testing and his spending time with the child.
The issue of parentage testing was determined over three days being 7 December 2007, 14 February 2008 and 10 November 2008 and judgment was delivered on 25 August 2009. The order of the Court was that the parties should undergo approved parentage DNA testing and the matter was adjourned to 14 December 2009 at 9.30 am for mention. On that day there was no appearance by or on behalf of the mother. It is not disputed that the mother did not comply with the orders for parentage testing. The father then sought a declaration that he was the child’s father. The hearing in relation to that issue commenced in the Federal Magistrates Court on 8 February 2011 and continued on 9 February 2011. It was then adjourned part-heard to 4 August 2011 but on that day the solicitor for the mother appeared indicating that counsel, who had appeared on the earlier days, was no longer briefed and seeking an adjournment for the mother to obtain fresh legal representation. The adjournment was granted and the matter was stood over to 26 and 27 September 2011.
When the hearing resumed on 26 September 2011, the mother appeared in person. In the course of the hearing on that day, the mother indicated that she intended to leave and, although the Federal Magistrate requested that she stay, she left the court room and did not return. After hearing submissions from the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”), the Federal Magistrate made a declaration that the father is the father of the child and further ordered that the mother sign documents that were required to ensure that the father was recorded on the child’s birth certificate with the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages as the child’s father. The birth certificate has been rectified and a new certificate has issued.
The mother lodged an appeal in relation to that decision. The appeal was heard on 2 February 2012 and judgment was delivered on 16 March 2012.
Relevantly for the purpose of these proceedings, the Full Court upheld the declaration that the father was the father of the child.
On 30 March 2012, the matter was transferred to the Family Court of Australia.
The matter first came before the Court on 12 July 2012 when the parties were directed to file all affidavits upon which they sought to rely by 12 September 2012. The mother filed in accordance with the directions.
On 28 September 2012, the matter was listed for directions and the father did not appear. The matter was adjourned to 2 November 2012 at which time both parties were present. On that day the father confirmed that he would rely on affidavits already filed and it was ordered that each party provide to the other a list of the documents upon which they sought to rely within seven days. It may be that there was some confusion on the part of the father as the transcript of the proceedings on that day indicates that the final questions from him were to confirm that he was allowed to rely on one affidavit only. The matter was listed for a compliance check on 27 November 2012 and it was found that the father had not complied with the earlier direction in relation to the provision of a list of documents. The Registrar ordered that all affidavits be filed by 28 November 2012. The affidavit upon which the father sought to rely at trial was sworn on 28 November 2012 and filed on 29 November 2012.
It is necessary to set out the history of the proceedings because, on the first day of the trial, the matter having been listed for three days, the mother made an application for an adjournment. Ultimately that application was only partially successful in that the matter was adjourned until the following day and the father was permitted to rely upon the affidavit sworn on 29 November 2012. In making those rulings I indicated that I would provide reasons.
From the history of this matter it can be seen that the matter has been in the list for five and half years, just a few months short of the child’s lifetime.
In support of the application for the adjournment, counsel for the mother submitted that because of late service of the affidavit, contrary to directions already made, he was not in a position to prepare the matter. It is noted that the affidavit was served on 29 November 2012 and the hearing commenced on 3 December 2012. The father submitted that there was nothing in the affidavit sworn on 29 November 2012 which had not been contained in earlier affidavit material.
Counsel for the mother submitted that, because the proceedings before the Federal Magistrate were related only to the issue of paternity, the affidavits which were then filed by the father had not been read in the light of the preparation of argument or cross-examination in relation to parenting orders.
Because the matter has been before the Court for more than five years and because hearing days had been made available for the determination of the matter, the application by the mother to adjourn the hearing was refused. Instead, the matter was adjourned until 10.00 am the following day to allow the mother to prepare cross-examination based upon the affidavit sworn on 29 November 2012 by the father upon which he was given leave to rely.

the evidence

At trial the father relied upon the affidavit sworn by him on 29 November 2012 and he also issued subpoena to give evidence, to four witnesses, only one of whom appeared on the first day of the trial. Ultimately, the father did not pursue the attendance of the other three witnesses.
The mother relied upon affidavits sworn on 12 September 2012 by herself, her present partner Mr Tekosis, and Mr D, the brother of her present partner.
The Court was assisted by a memorandum prepared by a Family Consultant, Ms E, following approximately an hour of time in her presence between the child and the father, and a Family Report dated 31 October 2012 prepared by Family Consultant, Mr F. Both Ms E and Mr F gave oral evidence.
At the conclusion of the hearing the counsel for the mother and the ICL made oral submissions and the father was permitted to rely on written submissions.
In these reasons all quotes are set out with their original spelling, grammar and punctuation.

the issues

In his Further Amended Initiating Application filed 20 October 2010, the father seeks orders that he spend time with the child overnight every week plus every second weekend and half the school holidays. The father asks for orders that decisions in relation to the child’s schooling and significant issues be made jointly. He also seeks a non-denigration order and that the child’s name be placed on the Airport Watch List. In response, the mother seeks the father’s application to be dismissed and that the Court make an order that she have sole parental responsibility for the child.
There was no dispute that the child will continue to live with her mother.
It was the father’s case that the child should spend time with him so that she has the benefit of knowing him as her father and to dispel, by presenting as a kind and loving father, the child’s current fearful view of him. He denied the mother’s allegations that he was a violent and abusive man.
Both parents attacked the credit of the other. While these reasons will not deal with all of their various allegations, it is necessary to examine their respective credit in light of the mother’s allegations that the father was violent towards her.
Both parents conducted the proceedings as a forum to vindicate past actions and justify their respective positions. These reasons will not satisfy either of them. It is not necessary to make findings about the voluminous complaints of either of them against the other to conclude that the conflict between them is intractable. However, because of the significance in parenting proceedings given to family violence, it is necessary to examine the evidence in relation to that issue.
The issues to be determined are:
1.Is the conflict between the parents intractable?
2.Credit;
3.The mother’s allegations of family violence towards her;
4.Can any mechanisms be put in place which would allow the child to have a relationship with her father, protected from the parents’ conflict?
5.Parental responsibility;
6.Whether the mother should be restrained from using the birth certificate which shows her partner to be the child’s father.

parental conflict

In order to understand the evidence of the Family Consultant to the effect that the level of conflict between the parents is, in his words, “unique” it is only necessary to set out the allegations they each make against the other.
The father gave evidence that the mother lies on oath, sought to extort money from him and has committed criminal acts. He categorized the mother’s partner as controlling, abusive and alcoholic and the mother’s father as controlling and vindictive. He asserted that the mother’s father was corrupt, associated with known criminals and engaged in corrupt dealings with police and the judiciary. The father has made those allegations in the Local Court and in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
He denied that he was in any way responsible for the conflict between the parties and stated that the only way that he could reduce the conflict is to “walk away and say I’m not the father”.
The mother’s case was that the father is a violent man who was violent towards her. She has vehemently denied that he is the child’s father, despite there being a declaration to that effect. She alleged that he stole the sum of $150,000 from her, causing her present financial difficulties. She has adamantly refused to have a DNA test performed to prove that her partner is the child’s father and told the Court in her oral evidence that she would do nothing to facilitate the child’s having a relationship with her father. Her partner gave evidence that he would not have a DNA test to prove that he was the child’s father and that he wanted nothing to do with the father.
The mother alleged that in January 2006, the father forged her signature on an application for finance from Wizard Home Loans and that he caused her to be appointed as a director of a company in which the shares were owned by him and his father without her knowledge. She further alleged that her credit rating was adversely affected when the company failed to meet its obligations and that she was then involved in litigation in relation to that company.
In March 2006, the father was arrested on information given to police by the mother. He was refused bail and kept at the Sydney Police Centre for seven days before being taken to the Metropolitan Remand Centre (“MRC”). At the MRC he was bashed, stabbed and sexually assaulted. He was taken to hospital by ambulance. He believes that the mother’s father organised and paid for those assaults by other prisoners upon him. He was released on bail in April 2006. The charges against him were ultimately dismissed.
After the father was released on bail, there was a series of complaints by each against the other to police in relation to allegations of threats and harassment. There were numerous attendances in the local court.
The father believes that, as a result of telephone calls made by the mother while he was imprisoned, finance for his business project, a hospitality business, was withdrawn. He said that as a consequence of finance being withdrawn, he lost his house and made substantial financial losses.
On 4 August 2006, the father wrote to the mother by email saying:
you caused this I hope you are happy and will cause the next chapter.
In the same email he said:
I told you to stop what destruction you are doing now, but no you just wanted to lie and cause further problems for people, this is nothing what’s going to happen is much much worse, that is no threat that is a PROMISE, you didn’t listen to me before now look what you have done, every action has a consequence, keep on doing what you are doing and running where you should not run and you will get much worse to you.
In December 2006, the mother commenced proceedings against the father in the District Court seeking the return of the sum of $150,000 she had advanced to him during the relationship. In his defence, the father asserted that he had been “Stabbed, Bashed and Sexually Assaulted by the Direct Actions of the Plaintiff” and that “The Defendants suffered Heart failures and needed to be hospitalized due to the stress that was caused Directly by the Plaintiffs actions”.
In March 2007, there were proceedings between the parties in the Supreme Court of NSW.
In March 2007, the father wrote a letter to the mother’s solicitor where he stated:
Firstly I am quite disjointed but nevertheless did not really expect your client to be reasonable and this clearly shows her vindictiveness and her hatred to me, despite her claiming that I am the father of her bastard child, (Which I do not believe as your client was quite popular with the men who wanted a quick and one night stand).
In the same letter the father said:
Just for the record I hope you will represent your client in her upcoming Criminal Charges which we anticipate will be laid soon, which include but no limited to, Extortion, Blackmail, Perverting the Course of Justice, Perjury and Swearing a False Affidavit, knowing to be False, so as you can see she will need more than a country law firm to try and save her from jail but she will need God to stop her from being placed in custody, but not even God can stop her from what the law will do, because your clients actions were so Criminal and Unethical that your client should spend so much time in custody not only for her not to do it again but also to stop any other Vindictive and Sour Women doing that to any other male again…(emphasis and capitals from original).
The mother alleged that the father stole $150,000 from her. There is no doubt she advanced that sum to him. He gave evidence that in return, she received shares in the company which was developing the hospitality business. The venture floundered and the mother’s money was lost.
On 29 November 2007, the mother again commenced proceedings in the District Court for the repayment of the sum of $150,000, the previous proceedings being discontinued mid 2007. She alleges that the father avoided service.
The mother then commenced proceedings against the solicitor who drafted the relevant documents and those proceedings were settled in favour of the solicitor. The mother has not recovered her money.
The mother has told the child that the father stole her money.
In June 2011, the father instituted proceedings against the mother and her father in the District Court seeking damages. He alleges in his Amended Statement of Claim:
1.The Plaintiff has suffered Mental, Physiological, Emotional and Physical damage caused by the Hideous Crime inflicted upon the Plaintiff when the 1^st Defendant had caused the Plaintiff to be Incarcerated by the untruth statements made to Police and Fabricating Evidence.
2.The 1^st Defendant went with the 2^nd Defendant to [H Town] Local Police and made False Allegations in which directly caused the Plaintiff to be Arrested, Refused Bail and Incarcerated.
3.The Plaintiff claims and pleads that the 1^st and 2^nd Defendant have acted and or caused the following:
(a)   Public Mischief
(b) Malicious Prosecution
(c) Malicious Institution of Proceedings
(d) Malicious Process
(e) Malicious Arrest
(f)   Abuse of Legal Process
(g) Malicious Use of Process
(h) Malice
…
11. Whilst in custody the Plaintiff was Stabbed, Bashed and Sexually Assaulted.
12. Whilst in custody the Plaintiff was advised that this Brutal and Hideous Criminal Act was caused by the direct instructions for the 2^nd Defendant who paid an amount of money to have this Criminal Act executed.
…
(underlining omitted)

Those proceedings are still on foot in the District Court.
The mother annexed to her affidavit a number of copies of articles from newspapers which portrayed the father in a poor light. Although the articles themselves were not probative evidence, the fact of their being annexed by the mother is further evidence of her animosity towards him.
In November 2011, the father filed an Amended Application in the Family Court seeking to have the mother dealt with for contempt pursuant to section 112AP of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). That application was heard and determined by Justice Ryan, judgement being delivered on 7 September 2012. The application was dismissed.
On 24 November 2011, after the father spent time with the child pursuant to court orders in the company of Ms E, he wrote a letter to the mother which read:
The time will come when both you and your boyfriend will have your chance to go to jail when you BOTH will be giving evidence in the witness box, and that is when you both will be spending time in the SPC and then Maliwa for you and the MRRC for your boyfriend than I will take care of our child and raise her the way she should be raised…
The current proceedings have been before the Family Law Courts since April 2007. The father estimated that, on the first day of hearing, he had been to court 137 times. At all times the mother has been implacably opposed to the father’s application to be recognised as the child’s father and to have a relationship with her. Her opposition continued unabated throughout the hearing to the extent that she gave evidence that she would not cooperate in any way with orders requiring her to make the child available to spend time with the father or do anything to facilitate or encourage their relationship.
The Family Consultant reported that the father and the mother appear to have a highly conflicted relationship. I agree with that assessment.
Nothing in the evidence in the proceedings before me suggests that there is likely to be any resolution or abatement of their conflict.

credit

On 16 March 2012, the Full Court upheld the declaration of paternity in favour of the father. Notwithstanding that fact, the mother continues to maintain that he is not the father and that her partner is the child’s father. Both the mother and her partner gave evidence that they would not undergo DNA testing to verify their claims that he is the child’s father. The only inference that can be drawn from that evidence is that both the mother and her partner know that DNA testing would not confirm that he is the child’s father and that the father is, in fact, the child’s father.
That matter alone suggests that the mother is willing to maintain on oath a position that she knows to be factually incorrect and that her evidence should be treated with extreme caution where it is not independently corroborated. However, that is not the only instance of the mother’s evidence being unreliable.
It is the mother’s evidence that she last had sex with the father in January 2006 and that they physically separated on 1 February 2006. After 1 February 2006, she says the father harassed her by sending emails making threats against her. She made a complaint to police on 1 February 2006.
A very different picture emerges from the exchange of emails between them.
When the mother was shown the bundle of emails commencing on 19 January 2006 and ending on 6 June 2006, she admitted that the emails were sent from her work email address but denied sending them. It would be quite extraordinary that another person at Business C impersonated the mother in a chain of very personal emails to the father and her only other proposition was that the father had forged the emails. I accept the emails to be genuine and that those emanating from the mother’s address were sent by her.
On 13 February 2006, the mother emailed the father, commencing with the words “Good Morning Sunshine”. She enquired about a new car and concluding “Enjoy your day and don’t work too hard. What’s tomorrow??????” and signed “[Ms Vakros]”. The father replied “Good Morning to you too Sunshine” and said, inter alia, “As for buying another car, that’s great and i will help you, NO Problem, we will go car and House shopping together….”
On 14 February 2006, the mother emailed the father saying “Thank you very much for the lovely not to mention expensive flowers you lashed out on. I don’t know what to say but that they do not fit on my desk as they are big and heavy.” She adds “So do you know about to day or did I remind you or are you a true romantic???” and “I need to pick myself off the floor and do some work. I must admit noone has ever given me as many flowers as you have in a short time we have been together”. The father responded “Thank you for the 99% sweet message and you re welcome”. Referring to a sentence in the mother’s email, the father says “My concern is and i don’t know what do you mean are you you are still confused and you need sorting out, what are you confused about, US, You or Me, or if you want to be with anyone or just be single and free.” On 15 February 2006, the mother responded in an email entitled “good afternoon I need space right now” which includes the sentence “Our home will always be your home I don’t belong in that house” and concludes “love. Maybe future countess [Ms Vakros]”. The parties in their emails referred to each other from time to time as “Count” and “Countess” and this email is addressed “Dear Count”.
On 16 February 2006, the mother emailed the father saying “Good morning Count, Hope you are well and happier today. Enjoy your day, love Countess”. The father responded “Good morning to you too. This is one of the most nicest messages i have ever seen, see when you assist how BEAUTIFUL this can be. KEEP ON SENDING THESE MESSAGES ONLY. Enjoy your day sweetheart and give me a call when you can. From your Count”. The mother responded signing “love from sleeping beauty”. The father replied “I hope you stayed up for the right reason and you enjoyed it as much as me” and signed “From YOUR Count”.
On the afternoon of 16 February 2006, the mother emailed the father saying “The flowers are still looking great on my desk. Its nice to see your gorges great smiling clean cut face that does not look 42 at all. the eyes killed me. Bad boy” and signed “THE COUNTESS”. On the same afternoon the mother emailed the father thanking him “for taking me out to a beautiful place for dinner last night” and signed “Love [Ms Vakros]”. The father responded “Dear Loved One. Your emails just get better.” And says “Good luck with the oldies tonight remember tell them what your heart says NOT what they want to hear. I will stand by you and support you all the way, now there is NO turning back”.
On 17 February 2006, the mother sent an email to the father expressing concern for his health and signed “Please be alright and call me ASAP. Love Countess”. The emails continued.
The mother said she commenced a sexual relationship with her current partner in March 2006.
On 8 March 2006, the father was arrested and refused bail on the information of the mother. Inexplicably, on his release, their relationship continued.
On 18 April 2006, the father emailed the mother commencing “Good Morning Sweet Princess” and saying “THANK YOU for a great and loved weekend, not to mention the 25 times of exercise”. The mother responded.
On 21 April 2006, the mother emailed the father “Hi sweetheart. Thank you for your great email…” and concluding “The princess. [Ms Vakros]”. Later the same day the mother sent an email about payments on the Wizard loan which commenced “Sorry sweetness” and concluded “Please enjoy your day Love [Ms Vakros]”. The father emailed the mother later in the day saying, inter alia, “But I still Luv you” and “Don’t ever say I don’t understand and I am not supportive”. The mother replied saying, inter alia, “Thank you for the sweet message”.
On 24 April 2006, the mother emailed the father saying “Nice to hear your cheerful voice” and concluding “Also thanks for the great present sorry I forgot it, but as we are not together maybe you could return it or give it to someone special who deserves it. xoxox” (Which I infer to mean kisses and hugs).
On 26 April 2006, the mother emailed the father commencing “Hi there [Mr Letsos]” and concluding “P.S. sorry we broke up at easter sorry about the gifts as I bought a gift for you and the boys please don’t throw away the gifts you bought…” and signs “Anyway keep in touch . Bye for now”.
On 27 April 2006, the mother emailed the father saying “…and as you mentioned subpoenas I do not wish to email you any longer…”.
On 8 May 2006, the father emailed the mother asking her to call him and she responded “WHAT LANDLINE NUMBER CAN I CALL YOU ON NOW”.
On 6 June 2006, the mother emailed the father saying “Well there are a lot of incorrect things in your emails and I don’t want to go into it, we are different and think different and you cant see so I wont bother trying to explain it to you. For your info I am a family person and I wish I could find the RIGHT person to have a family with as I LOVE children and I want my own, I do not want to spend the rest of my life raising someone else’s just like you hated the fact that your ex had a boyfriend and you hated the fact some other man was going to raise your children or seeing them more than you. So try and understand others feelings and I can not be with a man who wants to control me as I like to think for myself. I can too be nice when you are nice to me I can be nice back. So when is the concert details please” She signed “[first initial]”.
In none of the emails did the mother allege that the father had been violent, that he harassed her or that he threatened her.
Having regard to the emails passing between them, I do not accept the evidence of the mother that the relationship ceased on 1 February 2006 or that the father harassed and threatened her at that time, as she claims. I do not accept her evidence that she did not see the father between 1 February 2006 and 22 February 2006. I find that the mother has given a version of the events that suits her case that her partner is the child’s father and she has done so knowing that evidence to be false.
It is not only on that basis that I make adverse findings about the mother’s credit.
The father tendered the mother’s mobile phone accounts for billing periods ending in March, April, and May 2006. Between 21 February and 5 March 2006 the mother called the father over 20 times. Although she denied that he drove her to the Local Court for the purpose of her withdrawing her complaint seeking an ADVO on 22 February 2006, the phone records show that she telephoned him on that day at 9.07am; 9.09am; 12.09pm and 12.26pm. I accept the evidence of the father that the afternoon calls were to arrange for him to collect her from the Local Court. The ADVO application was dismissed.
Between 11 April and 19 April 2006, the mother made approximately 40 calls to the father. Between 20 April and 18 May 2006 the mother called the father over 50 times. Indeed, the telephone records tendered show the mother speaking to the father for substantial periods of time on 9 April 2006, 12 April 2006, 22 April 2006 and 24 April 2006.
The father gave evidence that in the period when the mother claims that they were not in a relationship, she called him 491 times and he tendered her telephone records.
It is inconceivable that the mother made that number of calls to the father if he had been harassing and threatening her and I find that she fabricated that evidence.
The mother in cross-examination denied any proposition that was put to her that did not support her case and denied that emails clearly written by her were hers. She denied that she knew any person named Ms J until confronted with a series of emails between them in June and July 2012 where she asked Ms J to provide information to her about the father and his relationship with the children of his first marriage. The mother was not a witness of truth.

the allegations of violence

The father denied the mother’s allegations that he had been physically violent towards her. Because of my findings in relation to the mother’s credit, I accept those denials.
The mother also alleged that the father was verbally abusive towards her. Having regard to the tone of his written communication with her, and the manner in which he conducted himself from time to time in Court, it is likely that he has been verbally abusive towards her.
She has also been abusive towards him and threatened him. On 6 June 2006 the mother sent a text message to the father under the subject “u fucken pedifile” which read “listn here u fuken pedifile go back with ur litle slut lets see when ur in jail if she cums n sees u ”.
Attached to the father’s affidavit is a letter which I accept was sent by the mother after orders were made for supervised contact at a contact centre. The mother denied that she sent the letter. It was not suggested to the father that he had created the document. The sentiments expressed are the sentiments of the mother and it is more likely than not that she sent the letter. The handwritten envelope in which the letter was received was also annexed to the affidavit. It was not suggested to the father that he had performed a somewhat elaborate hoax by posting the letter to himself. The letter read:
What part of fuck off and leave us alone don’t you understand. You better leave us alone and don’t do anything with my daughter or you will find yourself where you belong leave us the fuck alone. I don’t care what the fucken judge says or what you say my daughter is my daughter and I will do what I like and not you or the court or a fucken judge is going to tell me what to do with my daughter. Contact centre you must be fucken joking I will not let you see my daughter of the queen asked for it go back to you 19 year old and fuck her and leave us alone last warning.
On about 1 October 2011, the father received a letter which said:
What the fuck are you doing asking about my child’s birth certificate if you cause any problems for us or do something that will piss me off or upset my family you will suffer the consequences.
The sentiments expressed in the letter are the same as the mother expressed in her evidence, albeit without swearing. Again the envelope is annexed. I accept the father’s evidence that she sent the letter.
The father received another letter, in an envelope addressed in the same hand as the previous letters, which said:
Listen here you fucken pedifile leave us the fuck alone you will never see my daughter and I don’t give a fuck what fucken judge says you made your decision when you went with that little slut now go back to her and leave us the fuck alone leave us alone or else and I am not fucken joking.
The spelling of the word “pedifile” is the same spelling as the mother used in her text message and it is more likely than not that she was the author of the letter.
It was submitted by counsel for the ICL that the father had committed acts of family violence within the provisions of section 60CC(3)(j) because there was evidence that he had been convicted of an assault on his first wife. It was submitted that the terms of the section “any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family” were satisfied because the father was a member of the child’s family.
The father gave evidence that the conviction did not arise from any injuries to his first wife and that the Magistrate who conducted the matter was found to be corrupt and was dismissed. He gave evidence that he appealed the conviction but withdrew the appeal when he reached an agreement with his first wife about spending time with their children. In the circumstances of this case, it is not necessary to determine whether the ICL’s interpretation of the section is correct.

can orders be made which will protect the child from the conflict?

On 24 November 2011, a supervised session was arranged for the father and the child with Ms E, a Family Consultant. Ms E prepared a report of the session. Ms E said that when the child arrived the mother was questioned about what the child had been told. The mother advised Ms E that she had said to the child “you will go in a room with some strange people who you don’t know”. Ms E formed the view that the mother had done little to positively prepare the child for the time with her father. Ms E’s report of the observation of the child and her father is set out in full:
Throughout the observation, the child alternated between appearing able to engage with (the father) and then “fretting” for and asking for her mother. On several occasions (the father) was able to be distracted from her distress about her mother but, eventually, of his own volition (the father) decided to terminate the time a half hour earlier to allow the child to be reunited with her mother. This decision by (the father) was assessed to be child focused and appropriate given the child’s psychologically distressing predicament.
(The father) had purchased the child a range of different presents which the child appeared to enjoy receiving. He spoke to the child in an affectionate and engaging tone and made considerable effort to engage the child at her level. There were occasions where the child felt able to look, smile and talk to (the father). While evidently not comfortable to receive physical affection from (the father), toward the end of the time, the child was noted (for a short time) to be able to sit on (the father’s) knee to watch some of a video on his laptop computer.
At one point, (the father) explained that he was the child’s “Daddy” but the child appeared to become somewhat confused and distressed by such comments. She commented that “[Mr Tekosis]” is her “Daddy”. The Family Consultant explained to the child that children can have many different “types” of “Daddy’s” (such as a Daddy they live with and a Daddy that they do not live with). As a result of the child’s evident distress about this topic, (the father) was discouraged from engaging in further discussion with the child about this topic.
(The father) was able to engage the child in other discussions about movies that she liked (such as “Finding Nemo” and “Shrek”) and the child was noted to engage (the father) in this discussion. At one point, (the father) made reference to a time he and the child had spent together about which the child appeared to recall having a “special cup” that she had at his home. About this cup, the child said that it was “a nice cup” and “I like it”.
When it was time for the child to leave to return to her mother, (the father) told the child that he loved her. At that point the child was carrying a Teddy Bear (with a love heart on it) that (the father) had given her. The child … responded to (the father’s) comment about him loving the child by saying that she loved the teddy bear. About this teddy which (the father) had given her the child said “this is my best one, my favourite”, “I am going to sleep with it all the time”, ”I am going to tell my Daddy not to throw it out and I am going to be his [the bear’s] Mummy”. When the child left (the father), she was hugging the bear to her chest.
Ms E further commented:
On either account, (the mother) and (the father) describe an extremely disturbing and dysfunctional relationship and there would seem to be limited prospects of improvement for the child’s benefit. For the child, being in the midst of such destructiveness is potentially detrimental to her emotional well being, in both the short and the long term.
The potentially detrimental impact of this dispute on the child has been discussed with (the mother) and (the father) and questions arise about the capacity of them both to protect the child from their ongoing conflict.
The child was seen by Mr F, a Family Consultant, on 10 October 2012 for the purpose of the preparation of the Family Report. When the child was asked whether there were any problems for her family, she responded “well there is a person who, someone out of our family. He took my Mum’s money and he took my money and he also hurt Mum and me. He wants to hurt my family.” The child was asked how she knew about this and she responded “because my Mum told me that and I am very scared of him”.

The child was asked if she had met this person and she indicated that she had and she said “he does look at things that are beautiful and he took my money. He took my Mum’s money”. The child was asked more about the person and she said it was “someone my Mum knew.” When asked if she knew that person’s name the child said “The bad man. I don’t know his name. He said he’s my Dad but he’s not”.
Later in the interview the child spontaneously said “also that bad man wears earrings like a girl” and “he lies to me”. The child was asked further about the lying and said “he tells me he’s my Daddy but he’s not. He only cares about himself and not me or [L] or my family. He doesn’t care about kids either”. The child was asked how she knew these things and she responded “because Mummy told me”. She then said “Mum knows all about the bad man because she was near him a long time ago lots of times “.
The child was asked how she would feel about seeing this person. She said “scared” and added “I’m so scared of him”. Mr F reported that the child’s affect was consistent with her statement. The child then said to Mr F “he gave me poison stuff” including “a teddy” and “he gave me a drink that had poison”. The child said that the drink had “poison blueberries and poison strawberries”. She identified that she would usually eat blueberries and strawberries but said “but the bad man, if he gives me some I won’t take it”. The child said of the teddy bear, which her father had given her, “he put some fluffy poison in it”. The child said that she knew this because “Mummy had told her”. The child said “Mum told me lots of things about the bad man” and “he tells lots of lies to me. He just wants to hurt me”.
The child was asked how she would feel if the Judge decided that she should see this person and the child responded “I would say to them no, because the bad man takes all my money and gives me things that are poison”. The child said “He gives me lots and lots of poison things. Daddy told me never to get anything from the bad man”.
Mr F asked the child to come with him to see somebody. The child asked Mr F “is it the bad man?” Mr F replied that it was “Mr Letsos]” and that he, Mr F, was not certain who the bad man was. The child was taken into the viewing room attached to the observation rooms and through a one-way mirror saw the father. She said “It’s him. It’s him. It’s the bad man” and she ducked down to below the level of the desk under the one-way mirror. Mr F assured the child that the father could neither see her nor hear her but she became distressed, started to cry and curled up in a ball on the floor. The child said “I don’t want him” and said she wanted her mother. The child was returned to her mother and there was no observation of any direct interaction between the child and her father because Mr F assessed that this was likely to cause further significant distress for the child.
When the child was returned to her mother and her mother’s partner she said to her mother’s partner “I saw the bad man” and he bent down to hug the child and said “don’t worry you’ll never have to see him again”. Mr F noted that the mother also stood nearby and also reassured the child.
When the mother was interviewed by Mr F and asked how she had explained to the child that she was coming to see the Family Consultant the mother said that she had told the child “you, me, Daddy and [L] have to go and speak to this man because (the father) is the bad man”.
The mother’s partner told Mr F, of the father, “I clearly told her he’s the bad man”.
There had been no contact at all between the child and the father between the supervised visit with Ms E on 24 November 2011 and the interviews with Mr F in October 2012.
In her oral evidence the mother said that she had told the child that (the father) had stolen her money. She said that it was appropriate to have the conversation with the child (who is not yet six years old). The mother admitted that she had told the child that the father was a bad man.
In cross-examination by counsel for the ICL, the mother said that she was concerned that Mr F might see the child behaving with the father in the same way that she behaved when Ms E was present. She conceded that she had a conversation with the child about the father after the interviews with Ms E and just before the interviews with Mr F. She said that she had had those conversations a lot of times and that she has said to the child on a number of occasions “He’s a bad man forget about him”. When asked why the child needed to know these things about her father she said that it was because the child needs to know “What he has done to me – lying and making me lose my money”. She said it was necessary to tell the child because she did not want the father and the child to have any relationship at all.
Asked by the ICL if she had considered the harm to the child which might be caused by her seeing the father in the presence of the Family Consultant, and that the child might be anxious and afraid, the mother did not appear to have considered that matter. She did concede that the child would be afraid knowing that she was in a room with a bad man. When asked whether she wanted to make sure the report of Mr F was not positive in relation to the child’s relationship with her father the mother firstly said that she wanted to protect the child and secondly agreed that she was anxious to bring about an outcome by any means which would result in the child not seeing her father. When it was put to her that the child’s fear of her father was something that she, the mother, had created, the mother said “No. I’m terrified of him so she would be too”.
When it was put to the mother that the only thing that had occurred, in relation to the child’s fear of her father, between November 2011 and October 2012, was that the mother and her partner had said things to the child about her father, she agreed. She agreed that the only basis of the child’s fear are the things that had been told to the child by the mother and the mother’s partner and she said that those conversations were entirely appropriate because the child needs to know the truth.
Asked whether she would prepare the child to see her father if the Court ordered supervised time the mother said that she could not do that. The mother said that she did not want any relationship at all, supervised or not, between the child and her father.
The mother’s partner in his oral evidence said that he spoke to the child about the father being a bad man long before she saw Mr F. He said to the child “He’s a bad man he lies, he’ll play tricks. He’s hurt mummy. Stay away from him.” He commenced telling the child that the father was a bad man after the supervised contact with Ms E. He also agreed that he told the child not to accept anything from the father.
The father urged upon the Court that, by making non-denigration orders and orders for supervised time with the child, the Court could protect the child from the conflict between the parents.
Mr F, in oral evidence, said that for those sorts of protections to be effective, the parents would need to have a high level of reflective function to be able to dissociate themselves from strongly held negative views. He expressed no confidence that either parent could be seen as having the required capacity to enable him or her to shield the child from negative views of the other parent.
Mr F said that the child is not removed from the conflict by orders that preclude denigration or provide the father with time. He said “[The child] is stuck in this situation”.
Sadly, there are no orders that can protect the child from the deliberate and unashamed manipulation of her by her mother and her mother’s partner.
I am left in no doubt that, if an order is made for the child to have any contact at all, even if not face to face, the mother and her partner will so terrify the child about her father as to cause her psychological harm.
Short of removing the child from their care, which is not an available option, there is nothing more the Court can do to protect the child.

parental responsibility

Section 61DA(1) provides that when making a parenting order in relation to the child, the Court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child. That presumption can be rebutted by evidence that satisfies the Court that it would not be in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility (s 61DA(4)).
Once an order is made for parents to have equal shared parental responsibility they are required to cooperate in decision making about the major long term issues in relation to that child and to make those decisions jointly. The order is taken to require that each of the parents consult the other in relation to the decision which needs to be made and make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision about that issue.
The sorts of issues which would be required to be made jointly are, for example, what school a child attends, in what religion the child will be instructed and raised, medical decisions, and decisions about the extent to which a child might be raised in a particular cultural heritage. It is already clear from the Family Report that there are matters which fall into the category of major long term issues in relation to the child about which her parents do not agree. Specifically there is a disagreement about the school which she will attend and the extent to which she should be involved in learning and experiencing her Greek culture and language. On this issue, Mr F in the Family Report stated:
(The father) and (the mother) appeared to have a highly conflicted relationship. Conflict in parenting relationships is associated with poorer outcomes for children in relation to their mental health, behaviour, family and peer relationships and academic achievements. Beyond their obvious dispute about (the father) and paternity of [the child], there appeared to be potential conflict between (the mother) and (the father) in relation to [the child’s] schooling, cultural upbringing, medical conditions and involvement in activities outside of formal education. Regular exposure to, and involvement in, such conflict is likely to be extremely stressful and ultimately more detrimental to [the child’s] wellbeing than any benefit she may accrue from establishing a relationship with and spending time with (the father). It is hence not recommended that orders be made that provide for [the child] to spend time with (the father). In the circumstances of such conflict it is not recommended that orders be made that provide for (the father) to be party to shared parental responsibility for [the child].
There is no likelihood that the mother and the father could make cooperative decisions about the child. Their conflict, as stated earlier in these reasons, is extreme and intractable. The result of making an order for equal shared parental responsibility would be more conflict between the parents rather than less and would predictably lead to the institution of further proceedings when the parents are unable to agree, or the institution of contravention proceedings when the mother makes decisions about the child about which the father is not consulted.
It is necessary for one of the parents to have responsibility for long term decision making for this child and in the circumstances that parent must be the mother.

THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE

The mother has, in her possession, a birth certificate issued before the declaration that the father is the child’s father. That document shows the mother’s partner as the father. The mother has continued to use that document despite the fact that the records have been amended to give effect to the Court’s declaration and a new certificate has been issued recording that the father is the child’s father.
Section 59(3) of the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW) provides that:
The Registrar may impound or require the return of:
(a) a document which the Registrar has reason to believe bears a forged impression of the Registrar’s signature or seal, or
(b) a certificate or other document purporting to be a certificate or other document under this Act which the Registrar has reason to believe has been forged or falsified, or
(c) a certificate under this Act about a registrable event if the entry in the Register about the event has been cancelled or corrected since the issue of the certificate, or
(d) a certificate or document issued by the Registrar in error or as a result of fraud.

The certificate in the mother’s possession, showing the child’s surname to be Tekosis and naming the mother’s partner to be the father falls clearly within the provisions of sub-section (c). The document must be returned to the Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages and the mother will not be permitted to continue to use that document for any purpose. To do so promulgates a falsehood about the child’s parentage.

CONCLUSION

Section 60B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) relevantly sets out the objects and principles underlying the provisions of the Act which relate to parenting decisions as follows:
(1) The objects of this Part are to ensure that the best interests of children are met by:
(a) ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child; and
(b) protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and
(c) ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and
(d) ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.
(2) The principles underlying these objects are that (except when it is or would be contrary to a child's best interests):
(a) children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together; and
(b) children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development (such as grandparents and other relatives); and
(c) parents jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and
(d) parents should agree about the future parenting of their children; and
(e) children have a right to enjoy their culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture).
(f) to have the support, opportunity and encouragement necessary:
(i) to explore the full extent of that culture, consistent with the child's age and developmental level and the child's views; and
(ii) to develop a positive appreciation of that culture.
There is no doubt that there are benefits to the child of having a relationship with her father. She has two half brothers whom she has never had the opportunity to form a relationship with and grandparents whom she has never met. The only objective evidence in relation to the likelihood of the child and her father being able to form a loving relationship is that of Ms E after her observation of the father and the child on 24 November 2011 which suggests that, absent interference from the mother and her partner, the potential existed for the relationship to develop.
As Mr F pointed out in his report, “The detriment to the child not knowing her biological origins cannot be meaningfully estimated, but may be very significant.” Mr F said
The psychological and emotional harm to [the child] in discovering that her mother and psychological father have knowing provided her with false information about her origins may be significant and have a detrimental impact on [the child’s] wellbeing and capacity to sustain long term relationships.
If the child were able to have a relationship with her father now that potential detriment would be avoided.
Balanced against the benefits to the child of having a relationship with her father is the need to protect her from psychological harm from being subjected to the mother’s active, persistent and deliberate denigration of the father which Mr F, in his oral evidence, described as emotionally abusive to the child.
As I have already noted, the child’s views are clearly expressed in the report of Mr F. The child is afraid of her father. She refers to him as “The bad man”. When Mr F asked the child to go with him into the childcare room to see “someone” the child asked Mr F “Is it the bad man?” Mr F told the child that it was “Mr Letsos”. The child was taken into the viewing room attached to the observation room and as she approached the one way mirror and observed the father she said “It’s him. It’s him. It’s the bad man” and she ducked down below the level of the desk under the one way mirror. Mr F reports that the child became distressed and started to cry and curled up into a ball on the floor despite his assurances that the father could neither see nor hear the child. Such was the level of the child’s distress that there was no observation of any direct interaction between the child and her father because Mr F assessed that is was likely to cause further distress to the child. Although I accept that the child’s level of distress was entirely a product of her mother and her mother’s partner deliberately making the child afraid of her father, that is her view at the present time and there is no evidence to suggest that the child’s view will change while she is in the care of her mother.
The child at the present time has no emotional relationship with her father. Mr F reported that the child appears to have established a positive relationship with her mother and her mother’s partner and is able to use that relationship for comfort when she is distressed. Mr F reported that the child is developing a relationship with her baby brother.
Mr F reported that:
With the exception of (the mother’s) inability to accept and support [the child] having a relationship with (the father) there were no significant concerns identified in this assessment regarding (the mother or her partner’s) capacity to adequately meet [the child’s] parenting needs.
The father has made every endeavour to participate in the child’s life. Proceedings have been on foot in the Family Law Courts since the child was a baby and the father has pursued those proceedings diligently. The mother has at every turn determined that the father would not participate in the child’s life and has done everything within her power to ensure that that would not happen, bringing about, by her deliberate actions, the present situation where the child is afraid of the father. To change the child’s present circumstances by ordering that she have any contact with the father (however limited) would, in the opinion of Mr F, have serious detrimental effects for the child. Mr F in his report said, referring to the child’s being made aware of her relationship with her father:
Pursuit of this outcome in the absence of support from (the mother) is likely to be very emotionally and psychologically harmful to [the child]. The detriment to [the child] not knowing her biological origins cannot be meaningfully estimated but may not be very significant yet, in the context of her having been provided with a plausible alternative account, however, it may become so in the future.
I have already made reference to Mr F’s recommendation that orders not be made for the child to spend time with the father. The basis for this recommendation is set out in full above in these reasons.
In response to the proposition put by the father in cross-examination that the child seeing her father now would alleviate the prospect of future emotional damage to the child when she finds out who her father is, Mr F said:
But if she’s traumatised in getting there, that if she has to go through the process that she went through in terms of the observation that I conducted each and every time that she spends time with you, she may not be in a position to be playing basketball. She may not be in a position to be doing very much at all. She might be in a position of needing to be engaged with psychiatric services.

The difficulties for the child, in the child spending time with her father are not practical but rather relate to the psychological harm which would be caused to the child if such an arrangement were put into place.
The father has not been permitted to spend time with the child so as to demonstrate his capacity to provide for her needs. Based upon Ms E’s observation of the father with the child it is likely that, given the opportunity, he could demonstrate that he was capable of providing for her emotional needs and there is no suggestion that he would not be capable of providing for her physically and intellectually. There is no evidence to suggest that the mother and her partner are not capable of providing for the child’s physical and intellectual needs but serious questions are raised in relation to their capacity to provide for her emotional needs having regard to the mother’s behaviour towards the child which Mr F describes as emotionally abusive.
The father raised the issue of the child’s inclusion in her Greek culture and heritage and suggested that he would be more likely to see that the child was properly immersed in her Greek heritage. It may be that the father has more interest in Greek dancing and Greek culture than does the mother but the mother herself is Greek, her partner is Greek and they have an extended Greek family and it is likely that the child will have some involvement in her Greek heritage even if this is not the full involvement that the father would prefer.
Mr F was of the view that each of the alternatives with which the Court was faced was detrimental to the child. He outlined the dilemma in his oral evidence, in response to a proposition put by the father, in the following way:
The court is faced with, in effect, a choice between two processes that are likely to be very psychologically damaging to the child. I believe her Honour will make the best decision that can be made on the evidence she has. I can’t predict which will be less damaging. I can say with certainty that if orders are made for the child to spend time with you, then that will expose her to ongoing conflict. It doesn’t need her to see both of you talking, it doesn’t need her to be going between you on a house’s doorstep. [The child] will be exposed to conflict between yourself and (the mother) if orders are made. I can say that with certainty. I can’t predict whether [the child] will ever be faced with the knowledge that (the mother’s partner) is perhaps not her father, but if … it does occur, then it’s likely to be damaging for her. It’s also likely that her mother will come up with some story to make sense of that for her.
It was put to Mr F by the father that he was advocating deceiving the child for her current wellbeing, rather than telling her the truth to safeguard her future wellbeing. Mr F said that in this particular case, which he believed to be unique, that may be the least detrimental course of action.
In response to a proposition from the father that allowing the mother to deceive the child would expose the child to emotional harm, Mr F said:
I didn't say that it wouldn't. I said the court is faced with two detrimental options. The one that I recommended is the one that my training suggests is likely to be less detrimental. They're both bad options. No-one would recommend that the child is ever put in the situation that she finds herself in.
The father put to Mr F that to eliminate him from the child’s life after fighting for her for five years was unfair. Mr F said:
As I have said before, I don’t think any of the options facing [the child] are fair. I think they are all harmful. The court is faced with a decision about which one of them is likely to be the least harmful. I've given her Honour a recommendation. That's all I can do.
Mr F stressed that the report was not written about the father’s rights but about the child’s wellbeing and her best interests.
In answer to the proposition that he was suggesting that it was in the child’s best interests not to know her biological father, Mr F said:
What I'm suggesting is that in this extremely difficult situation, it may be better for her not to pursue or for the court not to pursue orders that provide for that sort of relationship because that will put her in a place of constant exposure to conflict, the results of which I believe I observed in her reaction to seeing you through that window.
I accept the evidence of Mr F that in this case, the least detrimental alternative for the child is that she has no relationship with her father.
As I have noted above, the mother has made allegations that the father is a violent and abusive man. The father has also been convicted of assault against his first wife. As I have determined not to make an order that the father spend time with the child, it is unnecessary to determine what effect should be given to those matters in determining what orders are in the child’s best interests.
It is not possible to structure orders which would allow the child to have a relationship with her father and protect her from the harm that her mother will inevitably cause. Her father will no doubt feel a great sense of injustice as a result of the orders that will be made but he will also understand that the responsibility of the Court in making decisions in relation to the child is to make her welfare the paramount consideration.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and forty (140) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Rees delivered on 21 March 2013.

Associate:

Date: 21 March 2013

[2013] FamCA 217

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Civil Procedure

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Jurisdiction

Costs

Remedies

Standing

Abuse of Process