M and A
[2007] FMCAfam 52
•5 March 2007
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| M & A | [2007] FMCAfam 52 |
| FAMILY LAW – Parenting – mother in violent relationship – AVO in existence – high level of conflict between parties – children exposed to violent quarrels between mother and father – the benefit to the children of having a meaningful relationship with both parents – willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and meaningful relationship – whether children safe to be with the father alone – presumption of equal shared parental responsibility rebutted as not in the best interests of the children. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61B |
| H v W (1995) FLC 92-598 JG and BG (1994) FLC 92-515 Patsalou and Patsalou (1995) FLC 92-580 R and R: Children’s Wishes (2000) FLC 93-000 |
| Applicant: | M |
| First Respondent: | A |
| Second Respondent: | INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER |
| File number: | SYM6707 of 2006 |
| Judgment of: | Pascoe CFM |
| Hearing dates: | 18, 19 & 20 December 2006 |
| Date of last submission: | 20 December 2006 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 5 March 2007 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Gersbach |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Cameron Gillingham Boyd |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Ms Carr |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | David H Cohen & Co |
| Counsel for Second Respondent: | Ms O’Connor |
| Solicitors for Second Respondent: | Brian Samuel and Associates |
ORDERS
All previous parenting Orders be discharged.
The children, R and L, shall live with the mother.
The mother shall have sole parental responsibility for decisions concerning R and L.
R and L shall spend time with the father at any time by agreement between the parties’ solicitors but otherwise as follows:
(a)Each alternate weekend commencing from the end of school on Friday 9 March 2007, until before school Monday 12 March, at which times the father shall collect and drop the children off at school.
(b)On Father’s Day from 10am until 4pm, if it does not fall on a weekend where the children are resident with the father.
(c)Christmas Day, 25 December 2007 from 11am to 3pm, and each alternative year thereafter from 4pm until 8pm.
(d)At Easter from 6pm Friday to 6pm Saturday, if it does not fall on a weekend where the children are resident with the father.
Unless otherwise specified in these Orders, or agreed in writing between the parties’ solicitors, changeovers shall take place at the local Police Station.
These Orders are conditional upon the Father providing appropriate accommodation for the children, whilst they are living with him.
The mother shall facilitate telephone contact between the children and the father between 5pm and 6pm each Wednesday and on each of the children’s birthdays for no longer than 15 minutes for each child.
Each party be restrained from changing R’s present school until R completes primary school.
Each party be restrained from changing L’s present school until L completes primary school.
This Order be sufficient authority to provide to the father the children’s school reports.
Neither party shall make derogatory comments about the other to the children or to any other person in the presence of the children, and each party shall ensure that only comments about the other party in the presence or hearing of the children are positive.
Neither party shall include either child in any discussion or decision in relation to parental responsibility.
Each party be restrained from entering the residential property of the other party without that party’s prior consent.
The father be restrained from approaching the mother.
Pursuant to section 65DA (2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders are set out in Annexure A, and these particulars are included in these orders.
All exhibits tendered in these proceedings be returned at the expiration of one calendar month unless an appeal is lodged.
All outstanding applications otherwise be dismissed and the matter removed from the list of cases awaiting finalisation.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYM6707 of 2006
| M |
Applicant
And
| A |
First Respondent
| INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This case relates to the parenting arrangements for R aged 9 and L aged 8. The mother and the father were both represented by Counsel, as was the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
The mother and the father were in a de facto relationship from August 1988 to May 2006. It appears that the quality of their relationship started to decline from just before R was born.
The father is now unemployed and the family rely on welfare. They have lost their home and their savings.
There have been several incidents of violence between the parents that eventually resulted in criminal charges against the father, which at the time of trial were yet to be tried. L has been an unwilling observer and/or victim of at least one violent episode. On the evidence at the hearing, it appears he will be a witness in criminal proceedings against the father.
Orders made by me on 28 September 2006 provided that R and L live with the mother and for the father to see them as follows:
·Each Saturday from the commencement of Little Athletics to the conclusion of Little Athletics.
·For an additional continuous period of 3 hours each Saturday or alternatively each Sunday, such contact to be in the presence of a supervisor.
·By telephone each Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 5pm and 6pm for no longer than 15 minutes for each child.
The local church very kindly supported the family by rostering members of the congregation to assist with supervision. Unfortunately it appears that the arrangements have not worked well, with the father becoming hostile towards at least some of those involved, causing them to become afraid for their personal safety.
In his written response, the father sought a change to the previous Orders so as to enable the children to spend each weekend from 6pm Friday to 8.30pm Saturday, and half of each school holidays by agreement between the parties. At trial the issue of the children staying overnight from after school Thursday to the commencement of school Friday, each alternative week, was also submitted. The mother, whilst not opposing any change, was opposed to overnight stays during the week because of the potential disruption to the family.
At the time this matter first came before me, R was living with the father who had refused to return her to the mother’s care. He had changed her school to one closer to his residence, without any consultation with the mother. Both parties gave evidence that R had had a dispute with the mother in relation to taking her Omega 3 tablets, prior to R leaving the mother’s residence with the father.
The mother at that stage was living in the family home and was still there at the time of the trial, although it was clear on the evidence that the home would have to be sold within the near future. The father was sleeping on the floor in his elderly mother’s unit.
At the time of the trial, the father was planning to move into shared accommodation with Ms G, a long term friend with whom he had had an earlier relationship. Ms G gave evidence at the trial. I found her a sensible and credible witness. Her evidence related to the living arrangements and accommodation at the shared unit including the accommodation for the children if they were with the father overnight.
It is clear from Dr Rickard-Bell’s Medico-Legal report that both children love each of their parents and that time spent with both of their parents would be in their best interests. It says much for the resilience of the children that they have been able to maintain their relationship with each of the parents.
The relationship between the mother and the father has, however, broken down completely. It is clearly apparent that the mother has been completely worn out by the struggle to maintain some sort of harmony within the family. She is frightened of the father and has suffered from physical violence at his hands. She has sought to defend herself on occasion and has used L to try and protect herself from the father thus bringing him, most inappropriately, into the conflict. The mother suffers from serious depression and clearly needs time to recover from a violent domestic relationship and abuse as a child.
In his final response to the applicant’s application, dated the 15th December 2006, the father sought for the children to spend time with him on the following basis:
·Each weekend from 6pm Friday to 8.30pm Saturday.
·For one half of all school holidays;
·For the children to share their time with each parent during occasions of special significance; namely, Christmas, Easter, Father’s Day, and the children’s birthdays;
The father sought liberal telephone communication with the children, including, but not limited to, Monday, Wednesday and Friday each week between 5pm and 6pm.
He also sought to have equal shared parental responsibility in relation to the day-to-day and long term care, welfare and development of the children.
As I previously noted, at trial the submission that the children stay overnight with the father from after school Thursday to the commencement of school Friday, each alternative week, was also raised by the father.
The mother wishes the children to have a continuing relationship with their father. She did not feel able to put forward any suggestions as to how this should occur. I find her position completely understandable. It is also quite clear that she loves the children and has done her best for them. There was nothing in the evidence that would lead me to any conclusion other than that she is a good mother.
The father was, understandably, quite stressed at the trial. At the time of trial, he had been unemployed for at least 15 months; and had lost a significant amount of income. He was receiving a Disability Support Pension. The stress of this was adding to his mental condition. To his credit, the father was receiving regular medical treatment from Dr Kneebone.
Dr Kneebone is a qualified Consultant Psychiatrist. On the evidence of Dr Kneebone, it appears the father’s condition will improve, although it appears that he will not be able to deal with the mother in other than an aggressive and emotional way. On Dr Kneebone’s evidence, the father clearly loves his children and it does not appear that he would intentionally harm them. The only risk of danger to the children is if they get into a dispute between him and the mother. I accept Dr Kneebone’s evidence. His written and oral evidence was clear and unequivocal.
Conduct during the hearing
Whilst the father was being cross-examined his attitude was one of extreme hostility. He exhibited a clear tendency to regard Counsel as an adversary as they sought quite properly, to test his evidence and at times he appeared to find it difficult to control his anger. He took every opportunity to denigrate the mother rather than simply answer the questions put to him. When asked by Mr Gersbach as to whether he considered his behaviour in the witness box to be aggressive or assertive, the father described it as on the “cusp between aggressive.”
Whilst I did not think it necessary to intervene, the father’s behaviour detracted from his evidence and made the task of Counsel for the mother especially much more difficult. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the father is under stress, and in spite of his agitation, I found him to be a credible witness who was generally frank and open about the incidents that had occurred between the parties.
The mother was very distressed at times giving her evidence, especially as it related to domestic violence. However, I found her a credible and cogent witness, who tried to answer every question fully and honestly, even when it was difficult for her.
The legal principles
The legal principles which govern this case are set out in Part VII of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) (“The Act”). Most importantly, section 60CA provides that the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration.
In determining the best interests of the child, the Court must consider the primary considerations, which are set out in section 60CC(2) together with those matters set out in section 60CC(3).
Clearly the primary considerations are of greater importance than the additional considerations, in determining the best interests of the child. But I must consider all the factors before coming to a conclusion as to the best interests of the child. Most relevantly, in this case, I must also ensure that any Orders made are consistent with any family violence order and do not expose any person to an unacceptable risk of family violence, to the extent that it is possible to do so consistent with ensuring that the child’s best interests remains the overriding consideration.
The primary considerations are firstly the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents; and secondly, the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm; from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence. These are very important considerations in this case and I give them much weight because they are primary considerations and reflect the objects of the Act as set out in section 60B.
The objects are to ensure that the best interests of the children are met by:
·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
·protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and
·ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and
·ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.
The primary considerations
The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm and from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence
The main issue in this case is whether the children are safe to be with the father alone. At trial, the Father admitted to having poor impulse control. Despite this, there was no evidence that R had been subjected to abuse or physical violence at the hands of the father when she lived with him, although she has been exposed to violent quarrels between the father and the mother. Dr Kneebone’s evidence showed R to have a good relationship with the father.
The situation with L is more problematic. The evidence showed that he had been a witness to serious physical violence between the mother and the father, and that he may have suffered physical violence at the hands of the father.
There is a very clear history of violence between the father and the mother, some of it witnessed by the children. The father can, at times, appear very threatening as demonstrated by the evidence of Ms X as to the effect of the Father’s behaviour on various members of her congregation.
I accept the evidence of the parties as to the violent episodes between the father and the mother, including that which occurred on 20 August 2006 and involved L, as outlined by the father at trial (in the transcript of the 19th of December at page 89), and in the mother’s affidavit. Some of the behaviour that occurred on the 20 August 2006 was not disputed.
The father lacks insight as to the effect of this violence on the long term physical and psychological health of the mother and the potential long term damage to the children if forced to witness such behaviour.
However, provided the father is continuing appropriate medical advice, there is no evidence of the father being likely to harm or threaten to harm either child outside of a situation of conflict between himself and the mother. Ms G gave evidence that presented the father in a favourable light in terms of the parenting of his children. I accept the evidence of Ms G, it was clear and unequivocal. Dr Rickard-Bell was also quite clear in his evidence that the father did not pose any direct threat to the children.
In considering the need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm, I have noted that one of the orders sought by the father is that the children be restrained from being driven in a motor vehicle by their uncle, Mr M. Driving is highly regulated in Australia; there are comprehensive rules in place to protect drivers, passengers and other road users. Whether or not Mr M is a fit driver is a matter for the police and the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) to deal with. It is not, in my opinion, a matter in which I should intervene.
The benefits to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both the child’s parents
Ms M properly acknowledges the benefit to both children of having a meaningful relationship with both parents. She was simply unable to suggest how their relationship is best promoted. To her credit, Ms M saw it as important to promote the children’s relationship with their father despite her well-justified personal fear of him.
I am concerned that the mother may have sought to protect herself by exposing L to violence. I am at least equally concerned that the father at best, made no attempt to temper his behaviour in the interests of his son. Rather it seems that each parent was prepared to put their own interests before L.
Despite this, the children clearly love their father, and wish to spend more time with him. It would be in their interest to develop a meaningful relationship with him. Dr. Rickard-Bell has acknowledged that in this case a fine balance has to be met. Ms O’Connor put it nicely when she said at page 233 of the transcript of the 20 December 2006:
You have got to balance here the detriment to the children of not seeing the father at all, in circumstances where they love him dearly, they want to see him, they want to spend more time with him. Compare that with the benefit to the children of not being exposed to his behaviour, and it comes down–the balance favours the children spending time with their father.
I also note that the mother has tried hard to be a good parent to the children and that the father was a good parent to R when she lived with him. Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer, Ms O’Connor, submitted that the children should see their father on alternative weekends, on a non-supervised basis, namely, after school Friday to before school Monday. She sought that this contact be conditional upon the father providing the children with appropriate accommodation. Ms O’Connor based this submission on Dr Rickard-Bell’s evidence that the children love their father and wish to spend more time with him. Such an arrangement would meet that need, whilst also lessening any conflict that the parents would have with each other, and, in turn, any detriment that this could cause to the children. Ms O’Connor submitted that it would not be in the best interests of the children for them to have midweek or holiday contact with their father because of the potential for such arrangements to create conflict between the mother and the father. I accept Ms O’Connor’s submissions.
I am satisfied that the children will only benefit from the relationship with both parents if there is no possibility of contact between the parents when the children are present.
The additional considerations
The child expressed views and the weight those views should be given
In accordance with the decisions of the Full Court of the Family Court in H v W (1995) FLC 92-598 and R and R: Children’s Wishes (2000) 93-000. I have given weight to the views of both R and L.
There was no clearly expressed wish on the part of either child to live with either parent, although there may have been a slight preference on the part of R to live with the father. I have acknowledged previously the views of both children in wishing to spend time with both of their parents.
The nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child’s parents; and other persons
There is no doubt that R and L love each of their parents and have, despite the very difficult relationship between the mother and the father, managed to maintain a loving relationship with each of them.
I have noted my concerns about the violence L has witnessed between the father and the mother. There was no evidence put before the Court to the effect that this had had on his attitude to his father.
I have considered the children’s relationship with Ms G. The children are likely to spend some time with Ms G when they live with their father. Ms G is, however, likely to perform a merely peripheral role in their lives. In this role, she is likely to be a positive role model for the children. While her actions in contacting the mother after L damaged her table were misguided, it seems that independently of this event she is a mature adult who will be a positive influence in their lives. It is commendable that she has encouraged R to eat healthily and to provide the children with some emotional support. There is nothing on the evidence that suggests that the children have other than a positive relationship with her.
The willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate, and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent
The mother has clearly demonstrated her willingness to facilitate a relationship between each of the children and their father. Her evidence on this point was clear and unequivocal. I accept her evidence.
The father did not demonstrate any capacity to facilitate a relationship between the children and their mother. In the witness box he made no attempt to temper his hostility towards her. He refers to her behaviour as “goading” and seemed unable to accept that the mother was deeply traumatised and unable to cope in her dealing with the father.
I also note the evidence of Dr Rickard-Bell as to those aspects of the father’s personality, which may make it more difficult for him to facilitate a relationship between the children and the mother. This is, of course, quite understandably exacerbated by the very difficult personal and financial situation of the father.
The capacity of each of the child’s parents; and any other person to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs
The father gave evidence that the mother would be forced by the financial circumstances of the family to leave the family home. No evidence was given as to where the mother proposed to reside once this had taken place. There is, however, no evidence to suggest she will not be able to provide adequate accommodation for the children and herself in the future.
The father also gave evidence that he was, at the time of trial, moving into shared accommodation with Ms G. Ms G gave evidence that she was happy for the children to spend weekends with their father there. There was adequate accommodation for them. As previously acknowledged, to the extent that she plays any role in their lives I am satisfied that Ms G will be a positive influence.
I was troubled by the father’s refusal to accept a Father’s Day present from L, which must have been upsetting for L who may have seen it as a rejection of him by the father. It is evidence of the father’s lack of emotional capacity to deal with his children appropriately during stressful occasions.
From the evidence, it is clear that both the mother and the father have significant emotional and health issues to deal with. To their credit, they are doing their best to deal with them. Whilst stress is detrimental to both of them, especially the father, I am satisfied they are each capable of meeting the emotional and intellectual needs of the children whilst in their separate care. In this regard, I note that both children appear to be making satisfactory progress at school and that independent of R’s panic attack, and R and L’s ADHD (which appears to be being appropriately managed) there is no evidence of emotional difficulties.
The extent to which each parent has fulfilled or failed to fulfil his or her responsibilities as a parent, including spending time with the child, participating in decision making about his or her welfare, and facilitating the other parent to do the same, and the extent to which each parent and party has fulfilled his or her obligation to maintain the child
I have already dealt with many aspects of parenting by both parties. Each parent has met his or her obligation to maintain the children given the very difficult circumstances which exist. My concern is that there are communication difficulties between the parties because of the poor relationship between them. As a result of this, there has been evidence of difficulty in their ability to facilitate parenting responsibilities between them. The withdrawal of R from one School to another and the Father’s Day incident, where the mother took R to the father’s residence knowing about the AVO are prime examples.
The likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either of his or her parents; or any other child, or other person with whom he or she has been living
On the basis of the evidence given by both the mother and the father, and the evidence of Dr Rickard-Bell, I find that the children would suffer if separated from each other or denied time with each of their parents.
The practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent
There is no reason why the children cannot have regular communication and access to each of their parents, provided that this does not require the parents to have any contact with each other.
The maturity, sex, lifestyle and background of the child and if the child is an Aboriginal child, the child’s right to enjoy her Aboriginal culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture); and the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right
To the extent that this consideration is relevant, I have previously dealt with it.
The attitude each parent and each party has shown to the responsibilities of being a parent
I have previously commented on my concerns in relation to each of the parties’ failure to adequately consider the welfare of L, especially in relation to the events of 20 August 2006. However, separate from each other, the evidence demonstrates that each parent has an appropriate attitude to his or her responsibilities as a parent.
I would be concerned if there were to be any repeat of the father’s attitude to L when he attempted to give him a Father’s Day present, as outlined by Ms M’s oral evidence at trial on the
18 December 2006. I accept that there may have been extenuating circumstances on that occasion. Similarly, abruptly changing R’s school without consultation shows a lack of understanding of the importance of the relationship between R and L, and the need for stability in children’s lives
Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family; any family violence order that applies to the child or a member of the child’s family if the order is a final order or the making of the order was contested
The relevance of family violence to proceedings involving children has been dealt with in Patsalou and Patsalou (1995) FLC 92-580 and JB and BG (1994) FLC 92-515. These cases state that evidence of family violence is relevant insofar as it assists the Court in determining what Orders will be in the best interests of the child. Violence, whatever its form, may potentially cause children distress and harm. In JB and BG Chisholm J, found that family violence, particularly family violence associated with a pattern of dominance, can be relevant even where it is not directed at, or witnessed by, a child.
These authorities state that the Court should attempt to understand the nature of any violence that has occurred within the family and its potential effect on children.
Family violence is a significant factor in these proceedings. There have been a number of violent episodes between the mother and father. The mother currently has an Apprehended Violence Order against the father. Criminal proceedings have been commenced against the father relating to an alleged violent incident on 20 August 2006, which involved both L and the mother. It would seem that these episodes stem from the father’s poor impulse control, which the father admitted seems to worsen in highly charged and provocative environments. Fortunately, the impact on the children seems not to have caused serious long term problems, at least at this stage. It is, however, important that they are not exposed to such violence in the future. It is for this reason that any potential for contact between the mother and the father, when the children are present, should be minimised.
Whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings
It is preferable in this case to make the Order that is least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings. It is in the best interests of the children that their parents stabilise their lives. Nothing in these Orders suggests that further proceedings will be necessary.
Equal shared parental responsibility
Parental responsibility, as defined by section 61B, relates to all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law parents have in relation to children. It is presumed, pursuant to section 61 DA(1), to be in the best interests of children for their parents to have equal shared parental responsibility. This presumption is subject to sub-section(2), which states that the presumption may be rebutted where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent of the child has engaged in abuse of his or her child or another child who, at the time, was a member of the parent’s family (or that other person’s family); where there is family violence or where the Court concludes that it would not be in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility.
I have already considered the issue of family violence in this case.
I have adverted to the father’s poor impulse control, which he conceded at trial and which is evidenced by the events of Father’s Day, amongst other occasions. I have also referred to the volatile nature of the relationship between the mother and the father, and the potential for violence, which may involve the children if there is contact between the mother and father whilst they are present. In my view, there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is family violence, and that it would not be in the best interests of the children for an order to be made for the mother and father to have shared parental responsibility.
In all of the circumstances, I accept Mr Gersbach’s submission that the mother should have sole responsibility for decision making about R and L.
Conclusion
I find that the father lacked insight into the effect that his “assertive” personality might have on others, especially the mother. He needs long term counselling especially during periods of stress. As he is receiving medical attention, I have made no Orders in this regard.
The mother is clearly exhausted and depressed and needs time to recover without any further encounters with the father. I am satisfied that the mother is genuine in her wish that the children have a relationship with their father and that she will do her best to promote that relationship.
I am satisfied that the Orders set out at the commencement of these reasons are in the best interests of R and L. I have given particular weight to the primary considerations, as set out in the Act.
I have balanced the benefit of the children developing a meaningful relationship with their parents, with the potential detriment that they might suffer if forced to witness some of their father’s negative behaviour towards the mother, and I have found that it is in their best interests to spend some time living with their father, who obviously cares for the children as demonstrated by his care for R when she lived with him. I have also borne in mind the Medico-Legal Report of Dr Rickard-Bell who found that the children had ‘a close and loving relationship with [their father].’ Dr. Rickard-Bell noted that despite the father’s difficulties, ‘he does care for the children and appears to be able to manage them well.’
In addition to the primary considerations, I have had regard to the additional considerations under section 60CC, and especially those issues that go to the parenting capacity of both parties; namely, the extent to which each parent has fulfilled or failed to fulfil his parental responsibilities, the capacity of each parent to provide for the needs of the children, and the attitude each parent has shown to the responsibilities of being a parent. Whilst both parties have exhibited behaviour, which appears to have no regard to the effect it could have on their children, I have found that the evidence clearly shows that they have each done their best to provide for the intellectual and emotional needs of their children. Provided the parties stay separated from each other, it would seem that each parent will meet his or her parental responsibilities.
My conclusion in this regard bolsters my consideration that the best interests of both children will not be compromised if they spend some time the father.
Children, especially young children, need stability and routine in their lives. The specific allocation of time that the children spend with their father, and the changeover arrangements, will cause the least disruption, and have been made in the best interests of the children.
I have found that it is not in the children’s best interest for an Order to be made that their parents have equal shared parental responsibility. This order has been made to prevent the likelihood of both parents coming into conflict with each other in the presence of their children.
I certify that the preceding sixty-seven (67) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Pascoe CFM.
Associate: M. Azzopardi
Date: 5 March 2007
0
0
1