Macek & Macek
[2022] FedCFamC1F 623
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 1)
Macek & Macek [2022] FedCFamC1F 623
File number(s): MLC 2861 of 2019 Judgment of: JOHNS J Date of judgment: 11 August 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – application to relocate to the United States – parental responsibility – with whom the children should live – with whom the children should spend time – where the father has a long history of substance abuse issues – where the parties agree that the mother be permitted to relocate with the children – where there is a need to protect the children from harm when spending time with the father – where the father’s time should be contingent upon his production of clean hair follicle tests Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 47 Date of hearing: 11 August 2022 Place: Melbourne Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Teicher Solicitor for the Applicant: Pentana Stanton Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Mariole Solicitor for the Respondent: Coote Family Lawyers Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr Testart Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Medson Legal Pty Ltd ORDERS
MLC 2861 of 2019 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MR MACEK
Applicant
AND: MS MACEK
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
order made by:
JOHNS J
DATE OF ORDER:
11 AUGUST 2022
Amended pursuant to rule 10.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) on 10 October 2022
BY CONSENT THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.All current parenting orders and the Watchlist Order made 13 August 2019 be discharged.
2.The Mother have sole parental responsibility for the children:
(a)X born in 2010; and
(b)Y born in 2013.
3.The Mother keep the Father informed of any changes to where the children live; their schooling; religion or health.
4.The children live with the Mother.
5.The Mother be permitted to relocate with the children to B State in the United States of America in early 2023 with the mother to advise the father of the departure date on or before 30 November 2022.
BY THE COURT IT IS ORDERED THAT
6.Pending the relocation to the United States of America pursuant to paragraph 5 hereof, the children spend time and communicate with the Father as follows:-
(a)Each alternate Saturday from 10:00a, until 4:00pm, with changeover to occur at the Handover Location C or Handover Location D, and one or more of the following persons to be in substantial attendance:
(i)The paternal uncle, Mr E (“the paternal uncle”);
(ii)The paternal aunt, Ms F (“the paternal aunt”); or
(iii)Such other person as may be agreed between the parties in writing.
(b)On Father’s Day by Skype at 2.00pm with the Father to initiate the Skype call to the children’s telephone in the event the children have not contacted him by Skype prior to 2.00pm on that day and for the purposes of the Skype call the Mother shall ensure that the children have a fully charged telephone and are afforded privacy and a quiet space for the call to occur; and
(c)On Christmas Day in 2022, from 10:00am until 3:00pm;
(d)By telephone and electronic communication including Facetime, Zoom, Skype and similar means:
(i)Each Thursday between 7.00pm and 7.30pm, with the Father to initiate such communication and if the call from the Father is missed the Mother shall ensure that a return call is made to the Father that evening or if there are any reception or communication difficulties between 7.00pm and 7.30pm the following day;
(ii)At any time initiated by the children;
(e)Upon an undertaking being provided to the Court by the father’s sister Ms F that:-
(i)She will remain in substantial attendance during the father’s time with the children; and
(ii)That the children not be left unattended with the father for a period greater than one period of 15 minutes during their time with the father; and
(iii)She will terminate the father’s time and ensure he vacate her home in the event that:-
A.The father appears to be affected by drugs or alcohol;
B.The father becomes angry, raises his voice or is distressed;
C.The father discusses these proceedings or the children’s relocation to the USA in the presence or hearing of the children or either of them;
D.The father denigrates or disparages or is critical of the mother in the presence or hearing of the children or either of them;
(iv)She will ensure that the father absents himself from her home by 9.00pm each day and not return until 9.00am the following day
(v)She will notify the mother to collect the children in the event of her terminating the father’s time pursuant to sub-paragraph (iii) hereof
the father spend time with the children at the home of Ms F on the the weekends of 8 October 2022, 5 November 2022 and 3 December 2022 as follows:
A.On Saturday from 10.00am to 9.00pm; and
B.On Sunday from 9.00am to 2.00pm
with the mother to deliver the children to the home of Ms Macek at 10.00am each Saturday and collect them from her residence at 2.00pm on Sunday.
(f)As otherwise agreed between the Mother and the Father in writing.
6A.That the father shall advise the mother by text message no later than midday on the day prior to any spend time period if he will be unable to attend pursuant to these orders.
7.Upon the children relocating to B State in the United States of America pursuant to paragraph 5 hereof, the children spend time and communicate with the Father as follows:
(a)In Australia, commencing in 2023, and occurring each alternate year thereafter:
(i)For a period of 3 consecutive weeks between 1 June and 1 July or 10 July and 10 August with the travel dates to be nominated by the Mother and communicated to the Father by 1 March in the year in which the travel is to occur;
(ii)The costs of the travel and accommodation for the children shall be at the Mother’s sole expense;
(iii)Either the paternal uncle, paternal aunt, or such other person as may be agreed between the parties in writing, shall be in substantial attendance during the children’s time with the Father;
A.The children shall stay overnight with the Mother who shall travel with the children to Australia; and
B.The time shall occur from 10:00am to 3:00pm on the second and third days, from 10:00am to 5:00pm on the fifth, sixth, eighth, tenth and thirteenth days; from 12:00noon to 8:00pm on the seventh, eleventh and fourteenth days; and from 10.00am to 8.00pm on the sixteenth, seventeenth, nineteenth and twentieth days.
(b)In B State in the United States of America at such times and on such conditions as agreed in writing between the Mother and the Father;
BY CONSENT IT IS ORDERED THAT
(c)By telephone and electronic communication including Facetime, Zoom, Skype and similar means:
(i)Each Thursday between 8.00pm and 8.30pm local US time, with the Father to initiate such communication; and
(ii)At any time initiated by the children;
(d)As otherwise agreed between the Mother and the Father in writing.
BY THE COURT IT IS ORDERED THAT
8.The children’s time with the Father pursuant to paragraph 7(a) shall be conditional upon the following:
(a)Commencing 2023, and occurring each alternate year thereafter, the Father undertake a hair follicle test between 1 and 14 February;
(b)The hair follicle test be conducted by a laboratory accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia in accordance with the current Australian Standard for the collection and detection of drugs of abuse;
(c)The Father shall provide the pathologist with photogenic identification, to be recorded with the hair follicle test;
(d)The hair follicle test shall be for the detection of amphetamine-type substances, cannabis, opiates (including heroin and morphine), sedative-type drugs, cocaine, chronic alcohol use and any other drugs of abuse;
(e)Within 7 days of receipt of the results, the Father forward the results of the hair follicle test to the Mother by email with the test to be forwarded by him to the Mother by no later than 1 March in such years;
(f)For the avoidance of doubt, in the event the hair follicle test produces a positive result for any of the substances listed at paragraph 8(d), the Mother will not be required to travel to Australia with the children in that year.
BY CONSENT IT IS ORDERED THAT
9.The children’s passports shall be held by the Mother.
10.The Father shall be authorised to:
(a)Communicate with any medical practitioner or allied medical professional upon whom the children may attend from time to time in respect to their health and wellbeing;
(b)Receive, at his expense, copies of all school reports, school notices and school photographs in relation to the children;
(c)Communicate with the children’s school with respect to their progress; and
(d)Attend all school functions to which parents would normally attend, subject to any school policy in relation thereto.
and this order be evidence of such authorisation.
10A. The Mother shall provide the Father with a list of medical or allied health professionals whom the children have attended or it is proposed the children will attend within 7 days of their first attendance upon such health practitioner and will inform him of the addresses and phone numbers of such practitioners.
11.The parties shall:
(a)Keep the other informed of any changes to their residential address, mobile telephone number or email address;
(b)Advise the other as soon as practicable of any illness or injury suffered by the children or either of them, and provide the details of:
(i)Any medical practitioner or hospital attended upon;
(ii)The diagnosis, recommended treatment and any prescribed medications.
12.The Father hereby be restrained by injunction from consuming illicit substances for the 72 hours prior to, or while the children are in his care.
13.The Mother and the Father hereby be restrained by injunction from denigrating the other party, or their family members, in the presence or hearing of the children or either of them.
14.The children shall forthwith be removed from the Airport Watchlist.
15.The Mother be authorised and permitted to apply for and receive a US passport for the children without first obtaining the written consent of the Father noting that for the purpose of the requirements of the U.S Department of State, the Mother is taken to have sole legal custody of the children
16.For the purpose of section 11 of the Australian Passports Act (2005), this order permits the issue of a passport for the children upon application by the Mother, and without requiring the consent of the Father to the child travelling internationally or his signing of the passport application.
17.The Mother be permitted to provide a copy of these Orders to any government departments, schools or authorities in Australia or the United States as required.
18.The Order appointing the Independent Children’s Lawyer be discharged.
BY THE COURT IT IS ORDERED THAT
19.All extant applications be otherwise dismissed.
20.Pursuant to s 65DA(2) and s 62B, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.
AND THE COURT NOTES that it is the mother’s intention to enrol the children to attend at G School, K Town, B State, United States of America.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Macek & Macek has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
These proceedings relate to the parties’ competing parenting applications with respect to their children, X, who is aged 12, and Y, who is aged 9.
The mother seeks orders permitting her to relocate with the children to B State, United States of America. The father opposes that application and seeks orders for time with the children on an increasing basis and subject to certain safeguards being implemented.
The Applicant Father is Mr Macek. He is aged 51 years and is currently unemployed. The Respondent Mother is Ms Macek. She is aged 43 years, undertaking postgraduate education, but is otherwise a homemaker and parent.
The parties commenced a relationship in 2000 while both studying at H University. The mother is originally from the United States of America, whilst the father who is from Melbourne, was studying at H University as an exchange student. Following that year, the mother relocated to Australia to be with the father.
The parties commenced cohabitation in Australia in about January 2001. They married in late 2008 and final separation occurred in March 2019.
The proceedings were commenced by the father's Initiating Application, filed 19 March 2019, some 10 days after the parties had separated on a final basis. That application and the mother's Response to Application for Final Orders, filed 29 July 2019, both sought orders with respect to parenting and property matters.
The father filed a Notice of Risk on 19 March 2019, alleging that the mother posed an emotional and psychological risk to the children, and that she had abused them. He also made allegations that the mother had abused alcohol and drugs on occasions throughout the marriage.
The mother filed a Notice of Risk on 29 July 2019. She made serious allegations against the father including that he had exposed the children to pornography, had neglected their care, that he had a gambling addiction and that he was addicted to the drug "ice".
The matter came before Judge Riethmuller in the Federal Circuit Court (as it then was) on 13 August 2019. That day, His Honour made orders prohibiting the parties from removing the children from the Commonwealth of Australia and imposing a Watchlist order. Further orders were made by consent, including that the children live with the mother, that both parties undertake hair follicle testing for the detection of illicit substances. Orders were also made for the children to communicate with the father by telephone. Otherwise, the matter was to return to Court for further procedural directions at a later date.
The matter next came before the Court on 16 January 2020. Orders were made that day by a Senior Registrar requiring the father to comply with orders previously made for hair follicle testing and suspending the father's supervised time with the children pending his attendance upon that order.
The matter again returned to Court before a Senior Registrar on 12 March 2020. Orders were made that day by consent which again required the father to comply with previous orders to provide a hair follicle test.
The matter was allocated to my docket in the second half of 2020 and first came before me on 6 November 2020. That day I made orders appointing an Independent Children’s Lawyer (“the ICL”). I also made an order pursuant to section 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”), given that there had been family violence intervention order proceedings, including an order made against the father for the protection of the mother.
I made trial directions on 10 December 2020 listing the matter for final hearing. Further orders were made by consent for the father to spend specified periods of time or communicate with the children on Christmas Day, New Year's Day and their birthdays. I made further orders with respect to the father’s drug screening, requiring him to attend for hair follicle testing not less than 14 days, and not more than 35 days prior to the final hearing and to undertake supervised urine drug screens within 24 hours of request from the ICL.
The matter was listed for mention before me on 16 June 2021. That day it was proposed that the listed trial dates be vacated to enable the preparation and consideration of a psychiatric assessment of the father and afford the father an opportunity to implement some interim spend time orders with the children. As a result of orders made that day, the matter was relisted for final hearing to commence before me on 14 February 2022.
The father attended for psychiatric assessment with Dr J. The report in relation to that assessment is annexed to Dr J's affidavit filed 14 February 2022.
At the time of preparation of that report, Dr J, at page 11 of that report, records the father's self-report as to his use of drugs and alcohol as follows:-
… Following the marital breakdown in 2019 he began using amphetamines regularly, initially every other day apart from the two months that he was working as a [professional] and once he was breached his drug used increased and continued until he entered [a rehabilitation program] in [early] 2021. He has been drug free since and is continuing bi-weekly urinary drug screens and will complete a hair follicle test…
On the final page of the report, Dr J made the following diagnoses of the father :-
·Social Anxiety Disorder;
·Polysubstance Use Disorder in recent remission;
·Borderline Personality Disorder, Obsessive-Compulsive and Histrionic Personality traits.
In the final paragraph of that report, Dr K notes as follows:-
In my opinion, [Mr Macek] has a psychiatric profile that would benefit from appropriate assessment and treatment however, in spite of his longstanding difficulties he has managed professionally to establish a successful career. If he is able to maintain his sobriety, in my opinion, it would be appropriate for him to be allowed to re-engage with his children, initially supervised and hopefully progressing to unsupervised overnight contact.
That assessment was undertaken by Dr J in his rooms on 22 June 2021.
The matter was unable to proceed before me on its listed trial date in February 2022 due to an apparent conflict with respect to the first Court Child Expert appointed to prepare a Family Report in the matter. Ultimately, as a result of that issue, the matter was adjourned to commence before me on 18 July 2022.
The trial commenced that day, and the husband gave evidence for most of the day. Unfortunately, the trial was further delayed on the second day of hearing, being 19 July 2022, due to Counsel for the ICL testing positive for COVID. As a result, the matter was adjourned part-heard before me, to resume on 8 August 2022.
The evidence of the husband continued upon the resumption of the hearing, and I heard evidence from both he and from his sister, Ms F, over the course of the following two days. I was informed yesterday, being 10 August 2022, that agreement had been reached between the parties in relation to the application made by the mother that she be permitted to relocate with the children to the United States of America. That had been an application opposed by the father from the outset.
The issues that remained, and about which I have heard submissions this day, centre on two matters: firstly, what time the father ought be permitted to spend with the children in the period leading up to their relocation to the United States of America, and secondly, what time the father ought be permitted to spend with the children following their relocation to America.
The central issues which have dominated the case and indeed about which both the father and his sister were also cross-examined, are:-
·the father's use of illicit substances;
·whether he has appropriately attended rehabilitation;
·whether he is rehabilitated from using those substances; and
·whether he has addressed the concerns identified by Dr J regarding his mental health.
As I have noted, there was much cross-examination of the father in relation to those issues. The father's evidence in relation to those matters was unimpressive; he was an evasive witness and minimised the nature and extent of his use of illicit substances. At times, he was aggressive in his tone and manner of responding to questions asked of him in relation to his use of illicit substances, as well as other matters. He routinely interrupted counsel cross-examining him, and routinely interrupted me when I was asking questions of him. At other times I found him to be a non-responsive witness.
An issue that emerged in the running of the case was the father’s whereabouts on the afternoon of 19 July 2022, which was the second day of hearing. At the commencement of that day, the Court was informed as to the difficulties that Counsel for the ICL was experiencing, having tested positive to COVID. That day, before Counsel was excused, he informed the Court that the position of the ICL had changed in light of the evidence given by the father the preceding day. He informed the Court that a minute of proposed order of the ICL would be provided to the parties; he also expressed the ICL’s concerns about the father’s proposals. The matter was stood down to enable the parties to reflect and consider the updated minute of proposed order produced by the ICL.
The father left the Court precincts later that morning or early afternoon. The Court was informed by the father's then Counsel that she was unable to obtain instructions from him and it was on that basis that both his Counsel and Solicitor sought leave to withdraw.
The matter was stood down until 2:15pm to enable the father to appear so that the position could be explained to him and he would have an opportunity to be heard in relation to those matters. The father attended Court via telephone briefly at 2:15pm. He informed the Court that he wanted an adjournment, as he sought to obtain alternate representation. It was evident during that brief telephone call that the father was either on a train or at a train station; an announcement made over the railway communication system that the train was approaching a station was clearly heard during the call. The phone call was abruptly terminated following that announcement; when efforts were immediately made to reconnect with the father, the phone was not answered. That remained the position and ultimately, as I have noted, I adjourned the matter part-heard.
The father was asked a series of questions during his cross-examination yesterday as to where he was and what he did following his departure from Court on the afternoon of 19 July 2022. The father did not respond in any meaningful way to those questions. It is still unclear to me where he went that afternoon. The evidence given by his sister would indicate that the father returned to her residence at approximately 7:00pm that evening. She too was not forthcoming as to where the father was in the period between when he left Court and returned to her home, some six or seven hours later. What she did inform the Court of was that she had attended a restaurant with the father in Melbourne, around lunch time of that day, that the father took ill and that she escorted him to a taxi and gave him $50. What happened after that remains a mystery.
The evidence before the Court would indicate that the father has a long-term issue with substance abuse. The Court has had the benefit of a number of documents tendered during the course of his oral evidence. In particular, there are two assessments from the drug agency which the father attended for support and rehabilitation (Exhibits R-7 and R-8). There is also the self-assessment form dated 17 March 2021 that was completed by the father (Exhibit R-11). What is clear from those documents is that the father has had a significant long-term issue with a range of substances including heroin, amphetamines, methamphetamines and also cannabis, which has continued since the parties’ separation.
What is striking about the father's case is that he presents to the Court no admissible evidence as to treatment or counselling or his prognosis in relation to his rehabilitation from his substance abuse issues.
On any view, the father’s behaviour during the course of these proceedings has been erratic. In addition to the father’s unusual behaviour on 19 July 2022, since then he has failed to attend two occasions of supervised time with the children.
I have already noted the issues that have been identified by Dr J in his report; it is deeply troubling to the Court that the father has not taken any steps to address the issues identified by Dr J in that report. There is no evidence adduced by the father as to him undertaking a psychiatric assessment or treatment in relation to the issues as identified by Dr J and recommended by him. This is a matter of significant concern to the Court and that failing, coupled with the issues that I have identified in relation to the father's drug use, is significant in the determination of the two issues identified earlier.
It is also of significant concern to the Court that the father has failed to comply with a number of orders relating to him undertaking hair follicle testing. The excuse proffered for that failing is that the father has not been able to afford to arrange or to submit to such testing. I was told that the cost of such test is approximately $350. The reality is that the evidence of the father's sister is that she was able to provide him with $50 to catch a taxi on the day that the trial was adjourned. In light of that evidence I do not accept the position of the father that he has not been able to obtain assistance in order to fund the hair follicle testing that has been ordered previously.
In determining parenting proceedings, the Court must have regard to both the objects and principles as set out in section 60B of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). In determining parenting orders, the best interests of the children are the paramount consideration. That this is so is set out at section 60CA of the Act.
Sections 60CC(2) and (3) set out the primary and additional considerations the Court must have regard to in determining what is in the children's best interests. The Court must give greater weight to the need to protect children from physical or psychological harm from being exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence. Otherwise, there is no requirement for the primary and additional considerations to be considered in a particular order, or for any of those considerations to be afforded greater weight than others. Ultimately, the weight to be given to each of the considerations will depend upon the unique circumstances of each case.
There is a general presumption that it is in a child's best interests for both parents to have equal shared parental responsibility (section 61DA of the Act). It is common ground between the parties, and it is supported by the ICL that, in this instance, the appropriate order to be made is an order that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children. In my view, such an order is appropriate given the orders that I am asked to make regarding their relocation to the United States of America. The reality is that the mother is the parent who will be on the ground in the USA and best placed to make the decisions to which parental responsibility relates. However, I must observe that even were the mother to remain in Australia, it is likely that I would have made orders for her to have sole parental responsibility. The reality is that given the issues identified in terms of the father's capacity, which is gravely impacted by his substance abuse and mental health issues and which do not appear to have been appropriately addressed at this point in time, such an order is appropriate. The presumption, in my view, is rebutted. It is in the children's best interest that the mother be seized of sole parental responsibility.
As to the s 60CC considerations, the principal consideration I must have regard to in the determination of this matter is the need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.
As I have noted, there have been significant issues both prior to and since the parties’ separation with respect to the impact of the father's use of illicit substances upon his parenting capacity. His own evidence is that he has had issues with substance abuse since at least 2015.
During cross-examination, the father conceded that drug paraphernalia, which had been photographed by the mother and annexed to her affidavit material, were items that belonged to him and further, they were items that were stored in the shed adjacent to the matrimonial home. The father conceded that his drug use escalated and that, particularly at times during harvesting, was something that was a feature of his life. He was using intravenous drugs during those periods. He was returning to the home to sleep, eat his meals and to wash during those periods. The children were in the home and I am satisfied would likely have been exposed to the father during periods when he was affected by drugs.
Notwithstanding these proceedings and numerous orders made for drug testing, it is evident from the material produced that the father's drug use has not abated. That this is so is evident from the assessments undertaken, to which I have already referred, being the assessments of the drug counsellors upon whom he attended.
The mother has demonstrated a positive and appropriate attitude towards her responsibilities as a parent. Since separation she has been parenting the children with little support from the father; he has been paying nominal amounts of child support since the parties' separation and has been sporadic in spending time with the children. Indeed, there have been times when the father has simply not attended time as provided pursuant to Court orders.
The position of the father is that he seeks that there be a progression in his time upon his provision of clean hair follicle testing. He seeks the opportunity for overnight time with the children in the period leading up to their departure for the United States of America in January 2023. The mother opposes that time and the ICL joins in that opposition. They rely upon the concerns identified in relation to the father's ongoing drug use; they also rely upon his untreated mental health issues in support of that position. For the foregoing reasons, I accept the submissions made by Counsel for the mother and Counsel for the ICL in respect of those matters.
I raised with the parties the prospect of the father having periods of consecutive daytime time with the children on the basis that the children stay at the home of the paternal aunt during those periods. The mother has conceded that such arrangement would be appropriate for three weekends. The father sought that there be six weekends of such time. In my view, having regard to the issues identified and the responsibility that would be visited upon the father's sister in undertaking such supervision in circumstances where she has children of her own and is the carer for her elderly mother, I am satisfied that it is appropriate there be three such weekends as proposed by the mother, and I will make orders to that effect.
The father also sought that there be orders permitting him to have an additional three weeks of time with the children in Australia every year (rather than in alternate years as proposed by the mother) on the basis that he meet the costs of such time every alternate year. The father's proposals do not address the costs of accommodating the mother or the children during those periods. The father’s proposals are at odds with his support of the children in the lead up to the hearing; the reality is that the father has not had the financial wherewithal to be able to meet the costs of a hair follicle test. The concept of him having the financial capacity to meet the costs associated with overseas travel for the children and the mother every second year, in circumstances where he has been unemployed and unable to work for an extended period of time is in my view, unlikely to be capable of implementation and therefore unrealistic.
A more realistic proposal and one more likely to succeed is for him to travel to the United States in the future, ideally every second year, if not more frequently, and for him to take the opportunity to see where the children live, to meet their friends, to visit their school, watch them in their extracurricular pursuits – and I would encourage the father to avail himself of that opportunity.
The mother sought orders that the children’s time in Australia each alternate year be limited to two weeks. I have made an order for three weeks. My determination in relation to that issue is based on the fact that in circumstances where the children’s time with the father may occur only each alternate year in the event that the father does not travel to the United States of America, I am of the view that the children will likely benefit from having the opportunity of spending some additional time with the paternal family in the alternate year when they do travel to Australia.
I certify that the preceding forty-seven (47) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Johns. Associate:
Dated: 11 August 2022
0
0
0