M and A - [2001] FMCAfam 173

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

M & A

[2001] FMCAfam 173

FAMILY LAW – Residence – contact – relationship of parents – abuse – best interests of the children – Family Law Act 1975, ss 60B, 65E, 68F(2).

B & B (1997) FLC 92-755.

Applicant:

J M

Respondent:

O S A

File No:

ZP 269 of 2001

Delivered on:

24 August 2001

Delivered at:

Parramatta

Hearing Dates:

23 & 24 August 2001

Judgment of:

Scarlett FM

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Ms Black, Judith Wickham and Associates DX 28399 Parramatta

Counsel for the Children:

Ms Ashes

Solicitor for the Children

Ms Haga, Karen L Haga and Associates DX 18508 Castle Hill

Solicitors for the Respondent:

In Person

ORDERS

The children, W J A born 9 August 1995 and E S A born 29 November 1996, are to reside with the applicant mother who is to have the responsibility for the long term and day to day care, welfare and development of the said children.
The respondent father is to have contact with the said children A. from 9 am to 5 pm on Sunday, 26 August 2001 and each alternate Sunday thereafter; B. from 9 am to 5 pm on Father's Day and C. by telephone each Wednesday between the hours of 6 pm and 7 pm.
The father is not to exercise contact of the said children on Mother's Day.
For the purpose of exercising contact the father is to collect the children from the mother or her representative at the McDonalds Family Restaurant, G W H, W at the commencement of contact and return the children to the mother or her representative at the same place at the conclusion of contact.
All contact is to take place at the father's parents' residence.
The father is not to enter or go within 100 metres of the mother's residence.
The father is not to criticise or abuse the mother in the presence of the children.
Neither party is to remove or attempt to remove the same children or either of them from the Commonwealth of Australia without leave of the Federal Magistrate's Court or the Family Court of Australia.
The father is not to administer to himself any prohibited drug during or for 24 hours prior to any period of contact with the said children.
The mother's not to administer to herself any prohibited drug at any time when the said children are in her care.
The mother is not to be intoxicated at any time whilst the children are in her care.
All other applications are dismissed and the matter is removed from the pending cases list.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
PARRAMATTA

ZP 269 of 2001

J M

Applicant

And

O S A

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Ex Tempore)

Application

The application before the court relates to the issues of place of residence of two little girls, W J A born on 9 August 1995 and E S A born on 29 November 1996. The children are currently residing with the mother and have been so for some period of time but not for their entire lives. The issues in the case are, first, the mother's application that the children should reside with her and that the father should have no contact with them; second, the father's application that the children should reside with him and that the mother should have generous contact with them. In the alternative he seeks as much contact as would be allowed and, third, the position advanced by the children's representative; namely, that the children should continue to reside with the mother but that there should be contact with the father but that such contact should be supervised and the suggestion is it should be supervised by means of the Central West Contact Service.
Proceedings were commenced in the Local Court in November 1999 by the mother seeking residence orders and recovery order as the result of an allegation that the father had refused to return the children after an agreed period of contact. The proceedings were transferred to the Family Court and in due course they were transferred to the Federal Magistrates Court. In January of this year, the 23rd of January to be precise, interim orders were made by consent providing that the children should reside with their mother pending the hearing, that the father should have contact with them from 5 pm on a Friday to 5 pm on a Sunday each alternate weekend and that all contact should take place either at the home of the father's parents or at the home of the father's sister.
Since then there have been interim applications, including a further application for a recovery order relating to an incident on 1 April when the children were not returned to the mother at the conclusion of the contact period and were later returned. The details of the incidents of 1 April and subsequent days are matters that I will specifically refer to a little bit later in this judgment. The situation reached the stage where contact between the father and the two children was suspended on 25 June and that order has remained in force since then. Needless to say it's the father's application that that order be vacated. The parties had resided together and it was during that period of time that the children were born. They separated after the birth of the younger daughter, E.
Since that time each party has formed different relationships but not of a permanent nature. The father had for some period of time resided at the home of his own parents and part of that time the children had resided with him. The father had formed a relationship with one M G , who has children of her own, and at the time these proceedings came to the Federal Magistrates Court the situation was that he was residing in the same household as Ms G . That relationship has come to an end. The father has returned to reside with his mother and father and brother. The mother has been living in a home rented from the Housing Department. She has living with her the two children who are the subject of these proceedings and also her two teenage daughters by an earlier relationship; K and M. They are aged 16 and 15.
She has formed relationships with two different men since then, one called D and more recently a man called M. M does not reside on a permanent basis with the mother. He visits from time to time. That then is the residential situation. W is attending primary school. E is too young to attend school at this stage, although presumably will be attending school next year. She was attending preschool but the mother gave evidence yesterday that she had withdrawn the child from preschool due to her fear that the father would abduct or seek to abduct the child from preschool. It's regrettable that the child's attendance at preschool has not continued for whatever reason. The case of course has been heard under the provisions of the Family Law Act, although in many ways the facts are reminiscent of those which are heard in the care jurisdiction of the Children's Court.
The Federal Magistrate's Court has only the powers available to it under the Family Law Act and not the wider powers given to a court by the Children and Young Persons Care and Protection Act, New South Wales Legislation. The competing residence applications have involved a proposal by the father the children reside with him. It's the mother's desire that the children should remain living with her. The father's residence application has been based more on the inadequacy of the mother's parenting skills rather than providing any positive evidence of his own, by far the easier course. The mother has provided evidence on affidavit and was subjected to cross-examination by Mrs Ashes of counsel, the children's representative, and by the father himself.
The mother's evidence was that the children reside with her or four of her children reside with her, that she has a positive relationship with them all. Much of the evidence in her earlier affidavit of 19 January dealt with disagreements with the father's then de facto, M G, evidence which is no longer relevant as that relationship has clearly come to an end. There was a family report prepared by Mr N G at which both parties attended with the children, in fact with all four children. The mother stated to the counsellor that she had close relationships with the four daughters and told the counsellor she felt more like a sister to her two elder girls as they shared clothes and make-up.
She told the counsellor that she imposed strict bedtimes on the younger children of 7.30 pm and rarely had to discipline them. Issues which were important to the mother referred to her criticisms of the father, notably relating to an apprehended violence order against him and her belief that on an earlier occasion the father had had sexually abused the child, M, one of the daughters of her earlier relationship. Her view was that, in effect, that she wanted as little contact as possible with the father and she accused him of entering into the house, her house, without her consent in contravention of the apprehended violence order. There was no issue about the fact that the father was not paying any contribution by way of child support. The father's saying that he would not pay money directly to her because of her inability to manage money, the mother admitting that she'd said to him she didn't want his money as long as he provided clothes and other things from time to time.
There's no doubt the mother's made no effort or no realistic effort to obtain child support from the father. Certainly no application has been made and there appear no assessments having been made. The mother came under scrutiny for certain aspects of her behaviour. In particular she had had dealings with prohibited drugs which she says had been introduced to her by the father, although it certainly transpired that before she came to Australia from New Zealand that she'd had some involvement with marijuana. She said that the father is a regular drug user, she'd seen him use drugs with her own two eyes; using tablets, white powder, pills, trips, marijuana. Her view was that she'd taken some of them to in fact more or less to experiment. In many cases it had very little effect on her. It's noteworthy, however, that when she described the father taking a white powder, which she described as speed or amphetamines, that she admitted that she'd taken that and she'd taken that, she said, about a dozen times, which one would have thought would have taken it well outside the area of experimentation.
She certainly referred to the father's use of marijuana. While she said he introduced her to it she then went on to say, as I said, that joints was all she knew from New Zealand, he taught her apparently how one could smoke it by using a bong. She indicated that she had used marijuana on a daily basis, told the court that she had last used marijuana about a month before. The evidence which caused a degree of concern also was the evidence about her binge drinking. She says that this does not take place in the presence of the children but she admitted drinking alcohol to excess or going on a binge for up to a day at a time when the children are either at her sister's or at her mother's. The last occasion was three weeks before the hearing.
When asked if the children had been there when she was on a binge she said no but they had come home and seen the state that she'd got herself in; she'd drunk and become intoxicated. She and the daughter, M, are currently attending counselling. One of the issues being discussed is the question of binge drinking. The mother's ability as money manager was called into question and it's clear that she owes a considerable amount of debt. There's an amount of $3000, which has been raised as an overpayment by Centrelink, other debts including a couple of thousand dollars to her mother, bringing the total to something like $12,000. Clearly there is a considerable difficulty in the ongoing management of money.
Her view is that unless there is an order for no contact at all the father will continue to make life difficult for her, will continue to attend the premises and that she will constantly be living in fear. It's her fear of him, she says, that persuaded her to remove the younger child, E, from preschool and that persuaded her to alter the children's sleeping arrangements so that the children largely sleep in her room and that they in fact share a large bed. The children do not have a separate bedroom and certainly do not appear to have separate beds. An issue of punctuality arose and of course it's noteworthy that the mother and the father were not able to attend court on time yesterday, although both seemed to manage to arrive at court on time today.
The mother admitted that on a couple of occasions over the previous fortnight the child, W, had been late for school. On one occasion she had overslept, on another occasion she'd asked one of her teenage daughters to ensure that they got up on time to get W to school but that daughter had overslept as well. Consequently, on those two occasions the child, W, had arrived late at school. The father in the presentation of his case pointed out these areas, which in any event would appear to be self evident. Against this the counsellor in his report referred to the four children as being well dressed, happy and spontaneous with one another and with their mother. He described her as seeming very interested and concerned about her four daughters.
The father in the presentation of his case chose, as I said, to concentrate on the evident deficiencies of the mother as a parent. It was his case that - this was given in oral evidence by leave of the court - that the children could reside with him at is parents' residence where there was also another brother. He has a sister who lives nearby. She has a number of children of her own. The mother, ie. the paternal grandmother and the sister were not on affidavit and were not at court to give evidence. It's fair to say that the father's residence case showed very little sign of preparation and, indeed, the father was at some indecision at the conclusion of the proceedings yesterday as to whether the claim for residence was in fact proceeding and, indeed, when he had spoken to the court counsellor on 31 July the counsellor reported:
“ Mr M held a desire for residence of his daughter but recent events had placed this out of reach.”
The father's view was that the home which he shares with his parents and brother would be able to provide suitable accommodation, there was a spare room which the girls should share. They would be able to attend a nearby primary school, that his mother is approximately 54 years of age and is at home all the time. She cares for his father who is apparently now retired. He is an older gentleman of some 66, who has had a considerable amount of health problems. The father is now at work, although the working hours given were somewhat vague but was of a view that his sister would be able to assist with the care of the children when he was at work.
As I said, there was no affidavit evidence by the sister as to her willingness or her ability to take on the care of two extra children. The father gave evidence under cross-examination of his drug abuse. He was of the view that the mother had been a willing participant in drug abuse. He himself admitted with commendable frankness that he was still using marijuana, in fact as recently as the day prior to the hearing. He does not drink much in the way of alcohol but there's clearly ongoing use of at least marijuana. The father was asked about his mother's willingness to assist in the bringing up of the children. She had on at least one occasion asked him to leave the family home. The father denied that one of those occasions had involved his breaking into the house, denied that he was taking things and selling them.
He was critical of his mother for not supporting him in earlier residence proceedings, explaining that she had taken a view that the mother of the children was in fact receiving supporting parent's benefit for supporting the children and it was not up to her to be supporting the children. The description given of the mother's behaviour was that she was financially mean and I quote "a tight arse" indicating that the decision was made to ask the father and the children to leave for financial reasons. The father said that his mother had let him down just as M G had done. The situation is, however, that the father is back living with his mother and father and has done so since the relationship with Ms G came to an end and of course the mother's residence was a residence that was approved by the mother as a place where the children could be taken for contact.
There was certainly some evidence that when the children were with their father for contact that they weren't spending the time entirely at the father's parents' residence or the sister's residence but that on the mother's evidence, not refuted by the father, that they had been at the residence the father was then sharing with Ms G. There was no other evidence as to the facilities available at the father's sister's residence or the father's parents' residence with one exception with which I'll approach shortly. The father was cross-examined about the statements in the family report in which the children were described as becoming tense and withdrawn when they were in the presence of the father.
The counsellor commented that on two occasions he had to stop the father asking questions of the children about the mother and her boyfriend and that the father did not show any physical contact toward the children but did say that when the children were older they could come and live with him but in the meantime it was their mother in the court that was stopping him from seeing the children. The father in answer to this pointed out that he was in a highly emotional state at the time and found the entire process of attending the counselling section as an artificial one, regarding himself as being in a goldfish bowl, the question why it was that he had to go through a charade to prove that he was a suitable father.
The father, when asked about the question of supervised contact, certainly through the Central West Contact Service, was extremely opposed to such a procedure, said he wouldn't go; no way. As far as the observation at counselling was concerned he said I was emotional, I walked out. He explained his daughters' behaviour as having been brain-washed, that they were in fact scared of their mother. The incident of 1 April is a matter that requires some examination because it involves both the mother's allegations and the father's attitude and in fact continuing propensity for retaining the children after contact for what he considers to be appropriate reasons and the constant disruption it causes to the children's lives. This she submitted was a reason why there should be no contact at all because the father's approach to court orders was more in the line that they were of a general advisory nature and not ones imposing any obligation.
The father of course deferred to breaches of apprehended violence orders for various reasons including attending the home at the request of the mother to save her from violence by a current boyfriend, to inspecting the home to ascertain the suitability of the living arrangements or for such other purposes as mowing the lawns. The mother's view was that this incident where the father had returned the children in the evening after contact or had gone to but then had retained the children was an indication of his propensity to take matters into his own hands whenever it suited him.
The father took the view that he had in fact sought to return the children and found the situation was such that he could not leave the children. Now, the arrangement, according to the mother's affidavit of 21 June, was that the father had had contact on the weekend and was to return them on Sunday, 1 April. The arrangement was he was to return the children at 9 pm on the Sunday instead of 5 pm because he hadn't collected the girls at the commencement of contact until the Saturday morning instead of 5 o'clock on the Friday as provided by the consent orders. So the arrangement was the children didn't have to come home until 9 pm on the Sunday night.

The mother's affidavit does not sit well with the statement made by the mother to the counsellor that the children had a strict bedtime of 7.30 pm. The mother says in her affidavit that 9 o'clock, the time that she agreed the children should be returned on the Sunday night she wasn't there. She said she'd arranged that her eldest daughter, K, who is 16 years of age that she'd be there. She wasn't. K was not present at the time. She said I wouldn't expect the father to leave W and E at my home on their own. The father did not take any steps to contact me, he contacted the police and then refused to return the girls to me. The father did in fact contact the police. The evidence set out in exhibit 4 is that the father attended the W police station about 9.30 pm.
He's reported to have told the police that he'd contacted the mother by telephone. She was at a friend's place and was extremely drunk. He also informed the police that the house was disgusting, to use his words; not suitable for the children to reside in. The police attended at the mother's residence with the father and with the children. The mother was not present. The police inspected the property and recorded that there was no food in the refrigerator or in the cupboards. There were many cockroaches seen running around the premises, there was no suitable bedding seen for the children. The police made a decision that the children should be removed and the Department of Community Services should be notified. The police later contacted the mother.
The evidence in exhibit 5 relates to an assessment report from the Department of Community Services. The report sets out how a district officer and a senior district officer from the Department of Community Services conducted an interview with the child, W, at her school in the presence of a teacher and in the presence of the mother. There had been a previous visit by officers of the Department to the home to speak to the mother the day after the father had returned the children. The Department of Community Services reported they had spoken to the child's class teacher who reported the child well behaved, interacts well in class, on task with the work. Generally she presents well at school, however some days she was grubby around the face, wearing dirty clothes. The child is regularly 10 to 15 minutes late for school and sometimes picked up late for school.
The child was asked about her home conditions, spoke about her mother and her three sister. When asked what was good about living at her house she said you have to eat the food so the cockroaches don't eat it, there are millions of daddy-long-legs. She referred to her mother's distress when the father took her for contact. She said that sometimes the father said he was going to come and take them up but sometimes he doesn't. She spoke very positively of her experience of staying at the home of her paternal grandmother, described as D. She enjoyed staying at D's home because there's a swing and Lebanese food. She named the food as tabouli, grapes, applies, pears and Lebanese bread. She also says that she eats fruit at home with her mother but is sometimes hungry when there is no food.
She drew pictures of both her mother's home and her paternal grandparents' home. When asked which one was her favourite she pointed to D's house, said that was because there's lots of food there and a swing. The home visit was then made by district officers. It's reported that district officers from the Auburn Community Service Centre had attempted to interview the mother two days previously. The mother had refused to co-operate and discuss the reported concerns. On this occasion the mother was described as co-operative and admitted that she'd been at fault in not being present to pick the girls up, she was at fault because she expected her daughter to be there. The girls had missed school on the Monday, they'd been taken to school on the Tuesday.
District officers inspected the refrigerator at home, which was virtually empty except for about a kilo of mince which had to feed four adults and two children for that night's dinner together with some rice. It was observed by district officers that there was probably not enough for the whole family. The mother stated she planned to shop the next day. The house was then observed to be clean and tidy but sparsely furnished. The immediate risk factors were identified was a possible concern that the subject children may not receive enough food based on W's statements and the observations made by district officers. The summary indicated when district officers had first visited the home the house appeared quite dirty but on the second visit the house had been cleaned up and again there was concern about the amount of food available.
Where then does that leave the situation. The father seeks that the children reside with him at home with his parents. Concern has been raised that this may not be a permanent arrangement. There had previously been issues of the mother asking him and apparently the children to leave for whatever reason. The concern is, well, how permanent would this be. The arrangements that the sister would look after the children when the father was at school was asserted by the father who when questioned as to the absence of the sister either on affidavit or in person relied on indignation that his word was not accepted but indicated that the sister could be made available if it were necessary.
The alternative of the children continuing to reside with their mother poses difficulties relating to the standard of care which the children would receive. Against this the counsellor reports a positive relationship between the mother, all four of the children and between the children themselves. What are the matters that the court must consider. The court must be mindful of the object and principles set out in section 60B of the Family Law Act 1975. Subsection 1 says:
“ The object of this Part is to ensure that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential and to ensure that parents fulfil their duties and meet their responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.”
Subsection 2 says that:
“The principles underlying these objects are that except when it is or would be contrary to a child's best interests. 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 of contact on a regular basis with both their parents and with other people significant to their care, welfare and development.”
and (c):
“Parents share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.”
I would comment that that particular paragraph seems to be ignored by parents who speak very highly of their rights. (d):
“Parents should agree about the future parenting of their children.”
Section 65E of the Family Law Act states that:
“In deciding whether to make a parenting order in relation to a child the court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.”
Section 68F(2) sets out the matters the court must consider when determining what's in a child's best interests. They include:
a)Any interests by the child and any factors such as the child's maturity of level of understanding that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child's wishes.
b)The nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child's parents.
c)The likely effect of any changes in the child's circumstances.
d)The practical difficulty and expense of the child having contact with the parent.
e)The capacity of each parent to provide for the needs of the child.
f)The child's maturity, sex and background.
g)The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm.
h)The attitude to the child and the responsibilities of parenthood demonstrated by each of the child's parents.
i)Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family.
j)Any family violence order that applies to the child or a member of the child's family.
k)Whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child.
l)Any other fact or circumstances the court thinks are relevant.
These three sections and their interaction were considered by the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in B and B, Family Law Act 1994 reported in 1997 FLC 92-755 where Nicholson CJ and Fogharty and Lindenmeyer JJ held that:
“In proceedings under Part VII relating to parenting orders the best interests of the particular child in that case remains the paramount consideration. In that process the court must consider the matters set out in 68F to the extent that they are relevant in the particular case, the weight to be attached to any one consideration depending upon the circumstances of the individual case and it's a discretionary exercise by the trial judge. Ultimately it's a question of applying in a common sense way the individual section so as to achieve the best interests of children in a particular case.”
I am mindful of those principles. The proposal for the children to leave their mother's residence and reside at the residence of the father's parents would bring about a separation between the children and their two half sisters, which appears to be a positive relationship. The concern arises as to the permanency of that arrangement, bearing in mind the paternal grandmother's obligations to care for her own husband who is quite clearly a gentleman who has serious health problems. The father's sister is certainly seen as a person where the children could spend contact visits and she clearly assists her mother from time to time, particularly in matters relating to the welfare of the father which could only be seen as positive.
Other than that the evidence is fairly scant. The children certainly seem to have a positive relationship with their mother but from the counsellor's reports the children wary and subdued when seen in the presence of their father. The parties are in a situation where they live in suburbs of Sydney where it is possible for contact to take place wherever they live. The capacity of each parent to provide for the needs of the child is a matter of great concern. The mother's parenting ability from a practical level indicates difficulties of meeting the children's physical needs, including attending school on time. The father appears to be unable to separate his own needs from those of the children, painting himself as a victim who's been variously let down by his mother, his former girlfriend and perhaps by the mother herself.
The children have for some period of time been living, although somewhat chaotically, with their mother. Matters of family violence are questions of concern. There is a family violence order, an apprehended violence order which relates to the father for the protection of the mother. There's also an issue of the hostility exhibited by the children's half sister, M, towards the father and his lack of sympathy, to put it mildly, for her. There is the issue also of the mother's expressed fear of the father attending at the premises. I'm not satisfied that the children's residence should be changed. I am of a view that the children should continue to reside with their mother and with their two half sisters.
That brings me to the issue of contact and the same principles are relevant. The mother says there should be no contact because of the dangers of the father's behaviour. The father says that he loves the children and wishes to spend as much time as possible with them. The father has been distressed by the lack of contact, certainly since 25 June. The children's representative suggests that there should be contact but that in the children's interests it should be supervised and he suggests Central West Contact Service. The counsellor has raised some concerns about that option, expressing the view that supervised contact, certainly through the contact centre would be a situation the father may be unable or unwilling to accept. Certainly, council was of the view that a period of adjustment would seem necessarily on account of the length of time in which the children have not seen their father, as well as their wary reactions to him during the assessment.
I am not satisfied that it is in the best interests of the children for there to be no contact with their father. I'm not satisfied that the reasons advanced by the mother relating to her concerns for security at the home, her expressed concerns that the father may attempt to take a child from pre-school or from school or from the hostility between the father and herself and at least one of her other daughters are sufficient to say that the father should not see his children at all. This is a very serious step and whilst there may be circumstances in which there ought to be no contact I'm not satisfied that this is such a case. The result of there being an order for no contact would mean, amongst other things, that the children would not see their paternal grandparents. There's certainly evidence from exhibit 5, the Department of Community Services material which shows that W at least regards visiting her grandparents residence as a very positive place.
She spoke in very positive terms to the officers from the Department of Community Services about the arrangements at grandmother's place, she spoke positively of her grandmother and it certainly seems that the grandmother makes sure that the children get plenty of nourishing food to eat. Grandparents can play a most positive role in the upbringing of children and the only evidence before me about the children being at their grandparents' place is that it is of some benefit. I'm mindful too of the provisions of section 60B(2)(b) which says:
“The children have a right of contact on a regular basis with both their parents and …
and I stress this:
“… and with other people significant to their care, welfare and development.”
The evidence clearly points out that the paternal grandmother is significant to the children's care, welfare and development. It would be to the children's benefit to go on seeing her and spending time with D. Clearly, however, the father has got to stay away from the mother's residence. The animosity between the mother and him, between M and him and the existence of an apprehended violence order indicates that there's got to be some other change over point than going to the mother's house. It's quite inappropriate for the father to enter the mother's house, even though he did so at a time when he was returning the children expecting the mother to be there and finding apparently no one in the home.
There is also concern about drug abuse. The court's long had a regular concern about the parenting capacity of people with established drug habits and there must be some restriction placed on both parents as far as their care of the children is concerned as far as the consumption of prohibited drugs. The mother's binge drinking is also a matter of concern. The mother has a view that it's possible that the father would attempt to take the children out of the country. It seems to be no higher than a possibility and there is no need for no contact orders to guard against such an eventuality. What then should be done. The father's attitude to the Central West Contact Service is such that contact through that service would be inappropriate. It would be unworkable. I'm more of a view that contact should take place at the residence of the father's parents, which is somewhere where the children know, where there's a positive influence by the paternal grandmother and presumably by the other members of the family and there's certainly swings for the children to play on and apparently an ample supply of wholesome and nourishing food.

I certify that the preceding forty six (46) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM

Associate: A.C

Date: 13 September 2001