M and S
[2000] FMCAfam 26
•5 September 2000
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| M & S | [2000] FMCA fam 26 |
| PARENTING ORDERS – Best interest of the children s68F(2) – Best interest |
| Applicant: | L R M |
| Respondent: | R A S |
| File No: | ZH 2065 of 2000 HB 961 of 1999 |
| Delivered on: | 5 September 2000 |
| Delivered at: | Hobart |
| Hearing Date: | 25 & 28 August 2000 |
| Judgment of: | Bryant FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Foster |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Trezise |
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT HOBART |
ZH 2065 of 2000
HB 961 of 1999
| L R M |
Applicant
And
| R A S |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
These proceedings comprise applications for parenting orders, and in particular the periods of time that the children L A M born on
17 November 1991 and R K M born on 26 June 1994 should spend with the Husband.
Background
L R M (“the Husband”) was born on 13 October 1954 and is 45 years of age. R A S (formerly M) (“the Wife”) was born on 24 August 1963 and is 37 years of age.
The parties commenced co-habiting in early 1987 and were married on 17 September 1988. They separated on 26 October 1998.
There are two children of the marriage L A M born on 17 November 1991(“L”) and R K M born on 26 June 1994 (“R”). L is 8 and R is 6.
The Wife is a Registered Nurse, and her work includes shift. The Husband is a senior technical officer in electronics employed in the CSIRO division of M Research. His work involves him going to sea from time to time. After the separation of the parties, the Wife and children moved from the matrimonial home and the Husband continued to live there. Initially the girls spent three nights a week with the Husband. But after about four months the Wife reduced this period to five nights per fortnight and that was the position at the time of hearing. The proceedings initially commenced by the parties in the Family Court of Australia included proceedings for property settlement. The parties were able to resolve their differences in relation to settlement of property, and Orders were made by consent on 18 July 2000, dealing with property issues and leaving for determination the issues which the parties could not resolve being the periods of time that the children should spend with the Husband. In later 1999, the Wife applied to the Magistrates’ Court and obtained a Restraining Order against the Husband. The Restraining Order orders expires in December 2000. The parties disagree about the facts leading to the making of the Restraining Order. The Wife asserted that the Husband used contact changeover as an opportunity to remonstrate with her about the separation and other issues, and recounted a time when L actually tried to hit him to make him stop. She also recounted an incident shortly after separation when the Husband apparently had her under surveillance and asserted that he still, since the Order was made, calls her by telephone to talk about money or property.
The Children both attend the F School, a private school in Hobart.
At the time of hearing the arrangement between the parties was that the children, who had at all times since separation primarily lived with the Wife, would in a portion of each weekend with the Husband, one week staying overnight on a Saturday with him and the other week staying overnight on Sunday. The parties also have reached an arrangement whereby due to the Wife’s shifts the Husband would care for the children each week from Wednesday after school until the commencement of school on Thursday.
In addition the parties had an arrangement whereby Easter was shared between them, and the Husband had one week during each of the major / holiday period, and sometimes during the Christmas holidays.
Applications
Both parties had filed a minute of the orders they sought. Some of the proposed orders were the subject of agreement and some were not.
Issues before the court
What was not in dispute between the parties was that the children should primarily live with the Wife. The Husband sought that any order made by the Court provide for the children to live with him at particular times, rather than using the terminology “contact”. The Wife sought that the Order be framed so that the children would live with her and the Husband would have contact with them at specified times.
The issues not in dispute between the parties are as follows:
a)That the Husband will have the children with him each week during school term periods from Wednesday at the completion of school until Thursday at 8.45am (or the commencement of school);
b)For one week during each May / June holiday period, alternating between the first and second week in each year;
c)In 2000 and each alternate year thereafter, from 2.30pm on
24 December until 2.30pm on 25 December;d)In 2001 and each alternate year thereafter, from 2.30pm on
25 December until 8.45am on 27 December 2000;e)On Husband’s Day in each year if not otherwise falling on a weekend when the Husband has the children, from 9.00am until 5.00pm;
f)On the Birthday’s of each of the children:
i)If falling on a school day, for a period of 3 hours; and
ii)If falling on a non-school day for a period of 5 hours;
iii)At times to be agreed.
g)Such further other times as may be agreed from time to time between the parties;
h)If Mother’s Day or a birthday of either of the children falls on a period when the children are with the Husband, then the following arrangements apply:
i)On Mother’s Day the Husband return the children to the Wife from 9.00am until 5.00pm;
ii)On a birthday falling on a Sunday the Husband return the children to the Wife at noon and collect them at 5.00pm (in the event that they were not to be returned on Sunday night);
iii)On a birthday falling on a Saturday the Husband return the children to the Wife at noon and collect them at 5.00pm.
Matters in issue between the parties
The Husband sought an Order that he have the children in each alternate week, being the week that does not precede a weekend with the Husband, each Thursday after school until school the following morning (“the extra Thursday”).
The Husband sought that weekend periods conclude at the commencement of school on Monday, or on Tuesday if Monday were to be a long weekend (“Sunday nights”).
The Wife sought that the children’s time with the Husband conclude on the Sunday night.
The Husband sought that he have a week during the September school holidays. The Wife proposed that the children spend all of the September school holidays with her.
During Christmas school holidays, the Wife proposed that the Husband have two weeks, but not the week commencing 27 December 2000, or the last week of the school holiday period. The Husband proposed that he have two consecutive weeks during the school holiday period, but not the last week of the holidays. He did not agree to quarantine the week commencing 27 December 2000 (“the Christmas School Holidays”). Although the Wife’s application sought that the Husband did not have two consecutive weeks, in her evidence the Wife conceded that she would have no problem about two consecutive weeks in the Christmas School holidays, provided that she have six weeks notice.
The Wife wanted to have the children for the whole of the September school holidays 2000. She had made arrangements for L to go to the Olympic Games for one week and she herself had taken unpaid leave for the entire holiday period from 15 September 2000. (“September Holidays 2000”)
Whether the Husband’s periods with the children should be termed ‘residence’ or should be termed ‘contact’. (“Residence or Contact”)
Both parties agreed that there should be no change to the legislative provisions providing for both parties to have parental responsibility for the long-term care, welfare and development of the children. Both parties agreed that whether or not the time the children spent with the Husband was called “residence” or “contact”, no additional powers or decision making responsibilities flowed from that terminology and that the orders would reflect that each party would have parental responsibility for day to day care welfare and development of the children when they are with each respective parent.
The applicant wife’s case
The extra Thursday
The Wife’s case was that the Husband’s existing time with the children should be reduced and should not be increased to include Thursday nights. The reasons for her opposition were essentially the same as those in relation to Sunday nights.
The Husband did not really advance any particular arguments as to why a Thursday night would be appropriate other than in general terms. His case was that the time that he presently has with the girls should not be decreased, and if anything it was important that his position as a parent was confirmed in that he have more time with them.
Sunday nights
The Wife’s case was that she had been trying to reduce school night contact as she did not believe it was in the interests of the children. The Wife said that Sunday nights were disruptive to the children generally, and they did not want to go. She wanted to ensure that the children go to bed at reasonable times, and asserted practical difficulty with the children’s arrangements, in particular that the children had to pack their bags on Friday evening, taking three bags for soccer on Sunday, school on Monday and extra clothing for the weekend. She asserted that the children seem to have some difficulty carrying their bags on occasions. She was also concerned that homework was not always done, and that the children’s appearance was often untidy to the extent that teachers had commented, and they were often at school late, which distressed them.
The Husband’s case was that the fact that the children did not have any reluctance to stay with their Father on Wednesday nights, was a reflection of the attitude of the Wife. That is, that she found it necessary for the children to go to the Husband on Wednesday nights to fit in with her shift-work commitments, and was encouraging them to do so. She was not encouraging of them to do the same thing on Sunday nights and hence any reluctance on the children’s part was probably a reflection of the Wife’s influence, at least indirectly if not directly.
He asserted that the children enjoyed staying with him, and that he had not been aware of any practical problems with children’s clothing and bags, but that if it was a problem, then if the parties were not living far apart and some arrangement could be made so that things could be picked up from home to avoid the children having to take their bags to school with them. As far as communicating about things that are going to happen the next week at school, the Husband was prepared to keep a diary which would travel with the children, and which would allow each party to know what the children’s arrangements were for the period of time which might impact upon them. He gave evidence to the effect that he did reading for the children, and involved himself in school activities. He said that their homework was done on a Sunday night if necessary and that any periods that the children were late for school were for very limited periods, and arose last year because the youngest child was not going to school and had to be taken home to the Wife’s residence first and caused some lateness. Now that both children are at school this is not a problem. He acknowledged that the Wife had very high standards for the care of the children, and that his skills at doing the hair of little girls had not been as good as the Wife’s, but that he was improving and learning to do a lot more for the children than he had done during the course of the marriage.
In her evidence the Wife made a number of concessions. As far as the homework was concerned, whilst the Reading Book needed to be filled in, she confirmed that neither of the children had homework over the weekend. She agreed that she had very high standards for the girls, and agreed that the Husband did not have the same standards, but conceded that the parties offered the children different things. She was however, unable to articulate what those things might be. She further conceded that after separation the Husband has been much more involved with the children, and learned to value his time with them. She insisted however, that she was the parent who knew the children better, and that she knew the children “intimately”. She said in particular that the children were not happy with the Sunday night contact periods, and that the children told her on Friday that they didn’t want to take their school things for the following Monday to school, but they wanted to come home on Sunday. She said they reported to her going to bed as late as 11.00pm. The husband said he had a regular routine for the children, and he denied that the children were regularly up late before school days.
The Wife further conceded that as far as the Wednesday overnight contact was concerned, there were no difficulties for the children getting to school on time, apparently neatly dressed with hair done. Other than the issue about taking extra bags with them she was unable to give any explanation as to why the children might not be unhappy about staying overnight on Wednesday nights with the Husband but weren’t happy about staying on Sunday nights. The Wife also conceded that the Husband was getting better at caring for the children and in particular in doing their hair.
The Christmas school holidays
The Wife having conceded in her evidence that the Husband should have two consecutive weeks during the Christmas School Holiday periods, the issue that remained to be determined was whether the week commencing 27 December 2000 should always be the Wife’s week rather than shared with the Husband.
The Wife’s case was that in the week commencing 27 December in each year, she wanted to take the children camping with a number of families that regularly visit each year. This was an event involving about 30 children and had grown into an event which the children would always enjoy. The Wife also wanted to keep the last week of the school holiday’s free in preparation for their return to school. The latter was not opposed by the Husband. The Husband’s case was simply that it was unreasonable for the Wife to quarantine the particular week starting on 27 December every year because there may be occasions on which he would want to take the children away for the same period.
Holiday notice
The Wife said that she needed to know at least six weeks in advance what periods the Husband wanted. In the end there did not seem to be any issue between the parties that the Husband should give six weeks notice and the Orders should ensure that the Wife knows precisely what contact the Husband will be having.
September holidays
This issue arose in the context of the Wife wanting all of the September holidays in each year. The Wife’s case was that she would like to take the children away for holiday, probably interstate, and unless she had the whole of the September holidays’ available to her, this would not be possible. To use her wording, she would like to “reserve the September period”. The evidence was she needed to book for holidays, for example skiing holidays, a year ahead to enable her to use frequent flyer points. In addition the children had grandparents living in New South Wales, and she wanted to be able to visit them as well.
In her evidence, and particularly cross examination, she conceded that it was very important for the children to have contact with each of their parents, that this was an important opportunity in the children’s lives to create strong bonds with each parent, and that the Husband had demonstrated a capacity to become much more involved with the children since their separation. She did however, indicate that she thought it was important to minimise the conflict and stress involving the children, and particularly over the contact issues.
The Husband’s case was that the May and September holiday should be shared because the break between June and Christmas without reasonable contact periods was too great, and not in the children’s interest.
September 2000
The Wife’s case was initially put on the basis that both children would be going to the Olympic Games. Ultimately her evidence was that only L was going, but that the Wife had arranged for unpaid leave for the entire holiday period from 15 September that R would not want to go to her Father unless L was going as well.
Other evidence and other issues
In addition to his Affidavit material and oral evidence the Husband relied upon the following witnesses:
a)C J M who was cross-examined;
b)R M who was not cross-examined,
c)L D who was not cross-examined,
d)C M who was not cross-examined.
Suffice to say that most of this evidence was directed to indicating the Husband’s capacity to care for the children and his relationship with them. To the extent that there were criticisms of the Wife, witnesses seem to be meeting criticisms of Mr M by the Wife in her material. For example C M said in her evidence that she had raised an incident in which she witnessed the Wife slapping the children to “show that R did it too. L’s parenting was being put down. It seemed to be all one-sided.”
Relevant law
Contact orders and Residence orders are Parenting orders. They arise in proceedings that result from Part VII of the Family Law Act (1975). Section 60B sets out the objects of Part VII and the principles which underlie those objects. They are subject to Section 65E, that in determining the outcome the best interest of the child is the paramount consideration. That is the overriding principle.
Section 60B (2)(b) has particular relevance in these proceedings. It provides, in effect, that children have the right to contact, on a regular basis, with both their parents and with other people significant to their care, welfare and development.
Subparagraph (b) refers to the right of contact on a regular basis. Fundamentally, it emphasises the desirability of the contact. It carries with it a clear understanding that contact should be as frequent as it appropriate and by the various means which could be considered to be in the child’s best interest.
In deciding the residence and contact arrangements that will promote the best interests of the particular child, the Court must consider the various issues set out in Section 68F(2). Each subsection comprises a list of matters that must be considered in the context that each is relevant to the particular case.
Paragraph (l) permits the Court to take into account “any other fact or circumstance that the Court thinks is relevant”. This ensures that the infinite variety of children’s circumstances can be addressed. B and B; Family Law Reform Act (1997) FLC 92-755.
As to the issue of whether the Husband’s periods with the children should be termed ‘residence’ or should be termed ‘contact, I can find no reported decisions specifically on this issue, nor could either of the parties direct me to any.
Section 68F (2) — determining the best interest of the child
a) The child’s wishes
In this case the children’s wishes were relevant to the extent that the Wife asserted that they did not wish them to spend Sunday nights with the Husband. The question of children’s wishes has been dealt with by the Full Court in Harrison and Woollard (1995) (FLC 92-598). “As a matter of practical day-to-day experience, the problem in this area usually relates to ascertaining the wishes of the child and their interpretation and assessment in the face of conflicting evidence. Against that background the Court will attach varying degrees of weight to a child’s stated wishes, depending upon, amongst other factors, the strength and duration of their wishes, their basis, and the maturity of the child, including the degree of appreciation by the child of the factors involved in the issue before the Court and their longer term implications. Ultimately the overall welfare of the child is the determinate. That is so because the legislation says so, and also because long before specific legislation, the practice of the Court in it’s parens patriae jurisdiction established that view”.
In Re G: children’s schooling (2000) (FLC 93-025) the Full Court said at page 87,414 “What is required is that they be given appropriate and careful consideration and not simply be treated as a factor in the determination of the child’s best interest without giving them further significance. When validly held reasons are departed from by the trial judge, it is apparent that good reasons should be shown for doing do.”
In R and R. Children’s Wishes (2000)(FLC 93-000) the Full Court in considering an argument that the trial judge should have determined whether the wishes of the children were unsound, founded on improper considerations or influenced by others, said at page 87,414 “However, while those considerations will be relevant in many cases, they are by no means the only issues that a trial judge must consider when considering a child’s wishes. There are many factors that should go to the weight that should be given to the wishes of children and these will vary from case to case and it is undesirable and indeed impossible to catalogue or confine them in the manner suggested. Ultimately it is a process of intuitive synthesis on the part of any trial judge weighing up all of the evidence relevant the wishes of the children and applying it in a commonsense way as one of the factors of the overall assessment of the children’s best interests.”
In this case the children are aged eight and six respectively. Their wishes have not been put before the Court other than through the evidence of the Wife, whose evidence was that the children were distressed and unhappy about spending Sunday nights with their Father. The Wife is the unchallenged primary care-giver of the children and clearly the children are influenced, either directly or indirectly, by her attitudes and wishes. The Sunday night issue is a good example of this. It appeared from the evidence that while the Wife is comfortable with Wednesday night because she works on that night, the children are quite happy to spend overnight with their Father and they do not have any distress. Sunday night is a different proposition, and coincides with the Wife’s desire that the children not spend Sunday night with the Husband. In my view the children are either directly or indirectly influenced by the attitude of their Mother, although there may be minor practical issues such as school clothing which are an irritation. These can be dealt with via appropriate practical arrangements being made. In view of the children’s ages and the Wife’s desire for a particular outcome on Sunday nights, the children’s wishes, if accurately expressed, should not be accorded any weight in this matter when considered against the other elements of Section 68F(2) which are relevant.
b) The nature of the child’s relationship
It was unchallenged that the children have a good relationship with both parties. Clearly the Wife is the primary care-giver and her role in that regard is not challenged by the Husband. Similarly the Wife acknowledged the Husband’s important role in the lives of the children and acknowledged both their affection for him and his affection for them.
c) The likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances
Overall, the context of the changes that will occur as a result of these orders is a relatively minor one. Nevertheless, it is the focus of almost all of the dispute of the parties in this case. Some of the changes which will come about as a result of these orders are changes that are agreed to by the parties, and others are the subject of dispute. For example, the parties agree that the present regime, whereby the Husband sees the children for part of every weekend should be replaced with an alternate week regime, and both believe that that change is in the interest of the children. The main change in the children’s circumstances apart from the change to alternate weekends, would be the introduction of Thursday night in each alternate week. In my view, given the lack of communication between the parties and the practical difficulties this does to some degree provide, coupled with the disruption it would cause to the Wife’s household does not seem to me to be in the interest of the children, and such a change would not be beneficial.
d) The practical difficulties associated with contact
As both parties live fairly close to each other this is not an issue in this case.
e) Capacity of the parents to meet the child’s needs
Whilst the Wife says, at least in her affidavit, that the Husband’s care of the children fell short of her standards, I find on the evidence that the parties do have considerably different standards in relation to the care of the children. Neither party is to be criticised for the standards they have. The Wife admitted that she set very high standard for the care of the children, and that the Husband’s were different. In my view it is important that the children understand and accept the different parenting styles of each of their parents, and indeed it can be a positive and enriching experience for children to learn at an early age difference expectations in each household. I am satisfied that the Husband’s care of the children is perfectly adequate, some of these incidences occurred at or about the time of separation and no longer occur, and the Husband’s experience as being a sole parent during his time with the children has taught him to care for them better than perhaps he could do at separation. The Wife conceded this to be the case.
The fact that the Wednesday night / Thursday morning arrangement was in their interest as far as she was concerned leaves me to conclude that her criticisms in relation to the Sunday night are overstated, and that the Husband is just as capable of getting the children to school on Monday morning as he is of doing so on Thursday morning. To the extent that there are practical difficulties of schoolbags going to and from school with the children, these parties live close together and are intelligent, and caring parents. It is not beyond their capacity to make practical arrangements which will minimise any difficulties for the children in this regard. Despite their lack of communication which is unfortunate, the parties should keep a diary in which both parties record all of the relevant events both school and social of the children, and keep it updated, so that the other parent will know what activities the children have, and particularly what activities and relevant matters occur during the periods that the children are with each of them respectively.
f) Child’s maturity, sex, background and other characteristics
There were no facts relevant to this subsection submitted by either party.
g) The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm caused by abuse or ill-treatment, violence or other behaviour
The Wife asserted that the Husband had exposed the children to unacceptable violent behaviour, at least towards her in their presence in the past. The issues between the parties which arose after separation culminated in restraining orders being made and all of the evidence which led to the making of those restraining orders is quite properly, not in issue before the Court in the present proceedings. There was a dispute between the parties in any event to the nature and extent of the incidents complained of. Suffice it to say that the restraining orders will come to an end in December 2000, and it is in the interest of the children for the parties to try to communicate with each other, certainly after that time, for the benefit of the children. Despite the matters complained of by the Wife, a number of issues in this case were not in dispute and a parenting regime not altogether different to that which will be put into place by orders I will make, has not been affected by the behaviour complained of. It is difficult, in any event to see precisely how the complaints by the Wife as to the Husband’s behaviour relate specifically to the issues which I am called upon to determine.
h) The attitude to the child and to the responsibilities of parenthood
Subject to the complaints by the wife about the husband outlined above there is no real issue in this case that both parents are responsible parents and both are capable of caring for the children in an appropriate manner.
The wife had been critical of the husband, but her criticisms had been tempered to some extent by the time of the hearing and she acknowledged that he was someone who had “demonstrated a capacity to become much more involved with them” after separation and that his ability to do their hair adequately improved.
i&j) Family violence involving a child or a member of the child’s family, and family violence orders
Although there is a restraining order in place in this case it will expire in December and the parties have been operating within the constraints of that order now for some time without any apparent effect on the contact between the children and their father. Any past issues between the parties are therefore not likely to impact on continuing orders for contact and residence.
k) Whether it would be preferable to make an order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child
In considering the issues involved in this case neither party suggested that this section heading had particular relevance in this case. The only area in which it might have an impact is if the children want to spend another night during the week with their father, which could potentially lead to disputes, however, I have already indicated that that arrangement is not, in my view, in the children’s interests.
l) Any other fact or circumstance the Court thinks relevant
In my view in this matter, the provisions of section 60B(2) are extremely important. The Husband’s role as an important person in the childrens’ lives should be entrenched. Perhaps understandably, the wife as the primary care-giver, appears to have given more importance to the role which she has in the children’s lives than is reasonable having regard to the husband’s role and she consequently appears to have downgraded his role. The children are no doubt closer to the wife at this stage because she has been their primary care-giver but their father’s role in their lives should be given credibility and he should continue to have no less than the existing time he spends with the children.
It is also follows in my view that insofar as the husband has the capacity to spend his annual holidays of four weeks with the children then this period should be spread out during the year so that he spends at least some time with the children during the September school holidays whilst enabling the wife to take the children away for longer periods if she wishes to do so. It is also important that whatever arrangements are put in place, due to the unfortunate lack of communication between the parties, that the times the children spend with each party should be clearly defined and not left to a decision to be made by one or other of the parties.
Conclusions
The extra Thursday
For the reasons I have already expressed in these reasons an extra Thursday over night with the husband on alternate weeks would not be in the interests of the children and I do not propose to make such an order.
Sunday nights
The arrangement which changes the week-end access to alternate week-ends and provides for the children to spend overnight Sunday with the husband each fortnight which is what occurs at the present time. As this arrangement causes no distress to the children on Wednesday nights, in my view it is appropriate for that arrangement to continue as it presently does and with some practical changes to the arrangements whereby clothing travels back and forth and a positive outlook on the arrangement by the wife, no doubt the children will find it a happy experience. It will only happen once a fortnight and the other week the children will of course be at home with their mother.
September holidays
It should be the case that the husband has some time during the September holidays with the children and there ought not to be a complete embargo on him having holiday periods with them between the June school holidays and Christmas. However the orders which I intend to make will enable the wife to take the children interstate on holidays for a substantial part of those holidays.
Christmas school holidays
The wife should have the opportunity of taking the children away in the week commencing 27 December in every second year and the husband should have the opportunity of that period every other year if he wishes. I will make orders which will ensure that the husband gives the wife adequate notice and it may be that the husband’s period with the children enables the wife to go away each year. If however the husband wants to take the children away at least every second year in the week commencing 27 December and over the New Year period he should be entitled to do so in view of his relationship with the children and the desirability of the parties sharing as much as possible the festive and holiday periods with the children.
September holidays 2000
The wife has apparently already made arrangements during the current school holidays to take time off work. However L will not be going away for the second week of the holidays. The orders I propose to make will enable the husband to have some of that period with the children, once again most of the holiday period will be with the wife.
Residence/contact
This is a case in which, in my view, it is important that the husband’s role in the lives of the children is given due acknowledgment. This is not a case in which the Court is being asked to make shared parenting orders. There was no issue that the wife was the primary care-giver and there is no issue that apart from the periods the children spend with the husband they will otherwise be with the wife and by the very nature of these orders, they will spend the majority of their time living with the wife. These orders will not provide additional powers of decision making responsibility to the husband. However, in my view, it is important that the husband’s role is applauded and endorsed and I have some concerns that the wife has not always been prepared to acknowledge his importance in the lives of the children. His importance in their lives is complementary to her parenting role and not, in any sense, a diminution of it. The best interests of the children will be met if both parents are able to contribute their best to the lives of the two children. The lack of communication between the two parties is unfortunate but will not impact on the parenting orders made. Despite this lack of communication the parties have managed to have orders in place regarding parenting for some considerable time which have worked well. There is no reason why this should not continue into the future.
I certify that the preceding sixty-four (64) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Bryant FM
Associate:
Date:
0
0
0