Maddison and Maddison

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MADDISON & MADDISON

[2007] FamCA 213

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN - Parenting orders pending an adjournment of 10 days

Family Law Act 1975: Pt VII; ss: 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60CC(4), 60CC(4A), 65E
Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006

Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346

APPLICANT:

Mrs Maddison

RESPONDENT:

Mr Maddison

FILE NUMBER:

MLF

274

2007

DATE DELIVERED:

12 January 2007

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Bennett J

HEARING DATE:

12 January 2007

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Williams

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Slater & Gordon

THE RESPONDENT:

In person

Orders

That the further hearing of the wife’s application for final orders and application in a case be adjourned to Monday 22 January 2007 at 9:45am before Senior Registrar FitzGibbon.
That in anticipation of the adjourned date any responses and affidavit material upon which the husband relies be filed and served by him by not later than 12 noon on Thursday 18 January 2007.
That the wife file and serve any brief affidavit material in reply to that of the husband by not later than 4pm on Friday 19 January 2007.
That pursuant to section 68L(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 the interests of the children the elder son born in March 2001 and the younger son born in May 2003 be independently represented by a lawyer AND IT IS REQUESTED that Victoria Legal Aid arrange such representation AND IT IS REQUESTED that such appointment be made in sufficient to enable the independent children’s lawyer to:-
(a)Cause a subpoenae to issue returnable on 22 January 2007 to the Proper Officer of Victoria Police to obtain the criminal history sheet of Mr Y and any notes or records of attendances in relation to the wife in possession of the wife’s counsellor of E in the state of Victoria and, to enable this to happen, I abridge times for service of the subpoenae on the said recipients to 2 days;
(b)To be able to advise the Senior Registrar of the parenting orders which in his or her preliminary view ought be made in relation to the children between then and a final hearing of the matter including orders in relation to what school is to be attended by the child C to commence on 31 January 2007.
That forthwith upon appointment by the said Victoria Legal Aid or otherwise the independent children’s lawyer file a Notice of Address for Service.
That within 48 hours of notification of such appointment the solicitor’s for the respective parties provide to the independent children’s lawyer copies of all relevant documents relied upon.
That pending the adjourned date the children the elder son born in March 2001 and the younger son born in May 2003 live with the wife and spend time with the father from 5pm on Friday 19 January 2007 until 12 noon on Sunday 21 January 2007 and as may otherwise be agreed between the parties and confirmed in writing via their respective solicitors.
That until further order the husband not approach or telephone the wife save for making arrangements in relation to spending time with the children pursuant to these orders.
That the wife be at liberty to make application for the enrolment of the elder child at W Primary School.
That until further order neither party revoke or alter the enrolment of the elder child at S Primary School.
That for the purpose of the husband spending time with the children the changeover point be the home of the maternal grandparents at L.
That for the purpose of the wife collecting the children this day, she be the parent who is authorised to remove the children from the child care centre of this Registry of this Court.
That whilst the children reside with the wife pursuant to these orders, she continue to reside at the home of the maternal grandparents.
That my reasons for decision this day be transcribed and when transcribed they be placed on the court file and a copy sent to each of the parties.
That pursuant to section 65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 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 annexure hereto relating to parenting orders – obligations, consequences and who can help, the particulars of which are included in this Order.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLF 274 of 2007

Mrs Maddison

Applicant

And

Mr Maddison

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(ex tempore)

This is an urgent application brought by the applicant wife against the respondent husband for parenting orders concerning children the elder son, born in March 2001, and the younger son, born in May 2003, as well as a recovery order to obtain possession of the children in circumstances where it is acknowledged that the children have been in the care of the father since 29 December 2006 and he has refused to return the children to her at least since 3 January 2007.
The applications were filed on 9 January 2007 and made returnable today. The husband was served with the proceedings some two days ago. He has no responding material today, which is understandable given short service. However, he opposes the orders sought by the wife. He has an appointment to see a legal practitioner at B Lawyers next Tuesday, 16 January 2007.
This morning, and pursuant to an order that I made, the parties attended some dispute resolution counselling with family consultant Mr U. No agreement was reached and the matter requires a judicial determination.
The scope of that judicial determination, for reasons that I will come to in a moment, is where the children ought to live between now and Monday 22 January 2007. It is a very narrow dispute.
The eldest child is enrolled to commence school at S Primary School on 31 January 2007. He is now five years of age, but will turn six in March of this year. The enrolment of the elder son at S Primary School was made when the family was intact and the parties were living in the former matrimonial home at V.
The parties separated in December 2006. There is no evidence before me that the enrolment arrangements were altered after this date when, at the invitation of the wife, the husband left the former matrimonial home at V and went to stay with the maternal grandparents at L. The wife refers to this as the date of separation. The husband refers to this as the date that he left the former matrimonial home to allow the wife some time to consider the marriage. It seems to me that for the purpose of these proceedings, that indeed was the date of separation and the parties have not cohabited since that time.
In circumstances I will come to shortly, the wife is now residing with her parents in L and the husband has moved back into the former matrimonial home at V.
It seems to me that the choice of school for the elder son in this year will largely depend on parenting arrangements which are put in place after each party has had an opportunity to put their case properly before the court. Because of the urgency with which this matter was brought on for hearing, the husband is unable to do that at the moment. I have permitted him to make extensive statements from the bar table, but I am conscious that he has made those statements without the benefit of advice from his own solicitor, whom he proposes to confer with next week. The statements are also not on oath.
Nonetheless, I consider it imperative that the elder son be able to be placed in the school which he will attend for 2007 at the commencement of the school year.
There can be a hearing before Senior Registrar FitzGibbon before the end of January 2007. Balancing the interest of all concerned, including allowing the husband a reasonable opportunity to have documents prepared on his behalf, it seems to me that the most appropriate date for the matter to return to court is Monday, 22 January 2007. In order to prepare for that, the husband will be required to file all of his responding material by not later than 12 noon on Thursday 18 January 2007. I have explained to the husband that if lawyers cannot prepare material on his behalf then he will have to prepare the material himself.
In the meantime, the wife should tentatively enrol the elder son at W Primary School so that the child's placement there remains an option if the interim parenting decision ‑ which will be made by Senior Registrar FitzGibbon on 22 January 2007 ‑ is consistent with the elder son being primarily resident in W. Of course, nothing should be done to alter the child's placement at S Primary School. The idea is to create and retain options.
What I will do now is decide what should happen between now and the hearing before Senior Registrar FitzGibbon. I am obviously not able to make findings in relation to contested facts or matters, and I do not do so. I wish to avoid being drawn into the factual disputes between the parties. There seems to me to be a few things which obviously must be done between now and the interim hearing on 22 January 2007. They include the appointment of an independent children's lawyer, which is not resisted by the wife and not a concept which the husband says he readily understands. I am satisfied, however, that an independent children's lawyer is warranted in this case.
The husband has a lot on his plate to attend to between now and 18 January, and there is information that should be obtainable and put before the court by that time. That includes the criminal history of a person with whom the husband says the wife is associating. That is, a Mr Y. The husband says that the wife's association with this person is the basis of his fear for the children's safety. He says that Mr Y is facing rape charges with his own children. That is denied by the wife, who says she is not in a romantic or physical relationship with Mr Y. As far as she knows, he has extensive, regular and unsupervised time with his own children, and he is a client of her small business.
Another aspect which should be attended to prior to the next return date is to have produced at court on subpoena any records by a counsellor or psychologist which the wife has attended in the recent past. That is, one the wife’s counsellor. The husband says the wife has been seeing this counsellor, and in matters to which I will shortly come to he says that is attributable to an emotional instability in the wife, including recent threats to commit suicide.
On the wife's part, Mr Williams does not concede that the wife’s counsellor was in fact not a marriage guidance counsellor or someone whose evidence may well be inadmissible under the Family Law Act 1975. That is, he doesn't say that she is a marriage counsellor. He is just not instructed of all of the relevant facts and able to give advice. But it seems to be appropriate that whatever records this counsellor has be at court on the next return date, notwithstanding that they may not be released for inspection.

Applicable Law

I am required to apply Part VII of the Family Law Act, as amended in July 2006 by the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act. I note the recently published decision the Full Court in Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346. There, the Full Court comprising Bryant CJ, Finn and Boland JJ acknowledged that the procedure for making interim parenting orders will be an abridged process where the scope of the enquiry is “significantly curtailed” compared to the ultimate hearing. It said (at paragraph 68):
“…Where the court cannot make findings of fact it should not be drawn into issues of fact or matters relating to the merits of the substantive case where findings are not possible. The Court also looks to the less contentious matters, such as the agreed facts and issues not in dispute and would have regard to the care arrangements prior to separation, the current circumstances of the parties and their children, and the parties’ respective proposals for the future.”
This is not a case where there is a status quo to which I can meaningfully have regard even in the sense described by the Full Court at paragraph 73, as follows:
“That is not to say that stability derived from a well-settled arrangement may not ultimately be what the court finds to be in the child’s best interests, particularly where there is no ability to test controversial evidence, but that decision would be arrived at after a consideration of the matters contained in s 60CC, particularly s 60CC(3)(d) and s 60CC(3)(m) and, if appropriate, s 60CC(4) and s 60CC(4A).”
The objects and principles from which the provisions of Part VII are to be applied are set out in s.60B, which provides:
(1)The objects of this Part are to ensure that the best interests of children are met by:
(a)     ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child; and
(b)     protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and
(c)     ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and
(d)     ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.
(2)The principles underlying these objects are that (except when it is or would be contrary to a child’s best interests):
(a)     children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together; and
(b)     children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development (such as grandparents and other relatives); and
(c)     parents jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and
(d)     parents should agree about the future parenting of their children; and
(e)     children have a right to enjoy their culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture).
Section 60CA deals with the best interests of the child and provides that in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. This provision of the legislation was formerly s.65E and the wording of the section has not changed.
In determining what is in a child’s best interests, s.60CC provides that, other than in considering whether to make an order by consent, the Court must consider the following matters in determining what is in the child’s best interests:
Primary considerations
(2) The primary considerations are:
(a)the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents; and
(b)the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
Additional considerations
(3) Additional considerations are:
(a)any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child’s maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views;
(b) the nature of the relationship of the child with:
(i) each of the child’s parents; and
(ii) other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
(c)the willingness and ability of each of the child’s parents to facilitate, and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent;
(d)the likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:
(i) either of his or her parents; or
(ii) any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living;
(e)the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis;
(f) the capacity of:
(i) each of the child’s parents; and
(ii) any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs;
(g)the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child’s parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant;
(h)if the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child:
(i) the child’s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture); and
(ii) the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right;
(i)the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents;
(j)any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family;
(k)any family violence order that applies to the child or a member of the child’s family, if:
(i) the order is a final order; or
(ii) the making of the order was contested by a person;
(l)whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child;
(m)any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant.

Section 60CC(4) provides:
Without limiting paragraphs (3)(c) and (i), the court must consider the extent to which each of the child’s parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, his or her responsibilities as a parent and, in particular, the extent to which each of the child’s parents:
(a) has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity:
(i) to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and
(ii) to spend time with the child; and
(iii) to communicate with the child; and
(b) has facilitated, or failed to facilitate, the other parent:
(i) participating in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and
(ii) spending time with the child; and
(iii) communicating with the child; and
(c)has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent’s obligation to maintain the child.
Section 60CC(4A) provides:
If the child’s parents have separated, the court must, in applying subsection (4), have regard, in particular, to events that have happened, and circumstances that have existed, since the separation occurred.

History

Turning to the relevant history of these parties, the wife relies upon an affidavit sworn by her on 9 January 2007; an affidavit of Ms N sworn

9 January 2007; an affidavit by her father sworn 9 January 2007; and an affidavit by her mother, sworn 9 January 2007. I have read those documents. As already indicated, the husband has no documents in response but has made some extensive submissions from the bar table and responded to questions by me as to fact. He has also made some fairly extensive statements of fact from the bar table in relation to matters deposed to by the wife.
It is agreed that the parties have not cohabited since 19 December 2006. It is agreed that in December 2006 the husband went to stay at the home of the maternal grandparents in L, and the wife retained the care of the children at the former matrimonial home. During that time, the husband had spent time with the children on Christmas Eve, Christmas morning, and then Christmas night the younger son spent the evening with him, and then there was a further one overnight period.

On 28 December 2006 the parties changed residences and the wife and children went to the maternal grandparents' home at L and the husband moved back into the former matrimonial home. It is agreed that on 29 December 2006 the wife agreed for the husband to come and collect the children, which he did with the intention of having them for an unspecified but overnight period.
The wife in her material refers to this period of time as not having been specified between them and the husband driving off without telling her precisely when they would be returned. However, she deposes to some optimism and confidence that he would return them within I infer a few days. It was an optimism or confidence not borne out.
The wife deposes but the husband from the bar table denies that by 31 December 2006 the wife rang him and said that she wanted the children returned and he refused to do so. Similarly, the husband denies the wife's allegation that she rang on 1 January 2007 and said she wanted the children back. The husband agrees that on 2 January 2007 the wife attended the former matrimonial home; however, he denies her assertion that she did so to collect the children or said she wanted them to come back, and maintained that she was only going to visit the children at the home.
The husband says that she stayed at the home for approximately an hour, and that when she left she jumped into the car, said words, “you keep the boys in the house, I'm going to end it,” which he interpreted as a threat by the wife to kill herself. The husband says he then called the maternal grandmother and said he couldn't look after the children as well as the wife, and asked for her assistance, and said that the maternal grandmother shortly rang him back and said that the mother was safe and all right.
The husband admits that on 3 January 2007 the mother returned to the former matrimonial home with the intention and belief that she would collect the children. He says that he refused to allow the children to go with the mother, or for the mother to collect them. The husband says that the wife left very upset, saying the words:
“It is all my fault, I'm going to end it, it will all be over in 30 minutes.”
Following that episode, the husband says that the wife contacted him and said:-
“you don't know how close I was to going to the chemist to end it all.”
These are the suicide threats upon which the husband said he relied.
The wife does not deny having said the words attributed to her. Through her counsel she says she was very emotional. It is submitted that the words were said in a mixture of fear and dire concern for the children and her ability to be able to get them back from the husband. She says that she was overcome by the thought of the children seriously fretting for her. It is denied that she had any intention to self harm.
The husband says that following the wife leaving in early January 2007, he received a text message from Mr Y. Mr Y is a gentleman which the husband says he has cautioned the wife to stay away from and alerted the wife's parents about on the basis that he is an improper person and someone with whom the wife and children should not associate. The husband informed me from the bar table that at 11:45am on 3 January 2007 he received a text message from someone whom he believes to be Mr Y, from a mobile service number … .The text message read:
"You are a fuckwit. Wherever you are getting your info from, they are cockheads. 224 it's all wrong. I am not having an affair with [the wife]. You keep going and you will see how dangerous I can be. R U that much of a hero. Come around. If not shut your mouth about me.
The husband informed me that at the time he received the text message he decided that he would not let the wife take possession of the children. That does not quite gel with the earlier information given, that she had already left the former matrimonial home in a state of high distress at the prospect of not being able to take the children with her. He then clarified that the text message was part of the reason why he had decided that he would not allow her to take possession of the children again. The husband agrees that since early January 2007 he has withheld the children from the wife and vice versa.
The mother's employment details are set out in her affidavit material. She has flexible working hours in the employ of her mother.
The husband says that he is a stay-at-home dad and has been for the last six months. He said prior to that he was a general maintenance man and landscaper. He was not able to remember how much he earned. He said when pressed that it was somewhere between $200 to $2,500 per week, and it varied. He last put in a tax return for the financial year ended 30 June 2006. He doesn't know where the tax return is and says that the wife or her mother may have it. I note that the wife's mother is a tax agent.
The wife last saw the children on 5 January 2007. The husband tells me - and it is not contested - that she last spoke with the children on Monday 8 January 2007. The husband has informed me on a number of occasions of the number of times that he has texted the mother asking her to communicate with the children, but it is common ground that he would not let her have the children outside his care.
The mother's proposal is that the children be immediately returned to her care and remain with her until 22 January 2007. During that time she is agreeable and proposes that the husband spend time with the children between Friday 19 January and Sunday 21 January. If she is not successful, the wife says that she should spend as much time with the children as possible. The wife also seeks an order by oral application - which I give her leave to make - that the husband be and is hereby restrained from approaching, telephoning, harassing or contacting the wife save for making arrangements in respect to the children's time with him pursuant to these orders, or allowing any other person to engage in such conduct on his behalf.
I am informed from the bar table that there was an incident during the luncheon adjournment in which the paternal grandfather spoke menacingly in the presence of the wife, indicating that he would harm the wife and the person accompanying her. I take it this allegation is denied.
The husband's proposal is that the children remain in his care between now and 22 January, and that the wife spend time with the children on each weekend, so that would commence this afternoon until Sunday 14 January and then again from 19 to 21 January. He didn't seek any limitation about where the children and the mother would reside, although it is obvious that the mother's proposal is to reside with the maternal grandparents.
The husband concedes that the home of the maternal grandparents presents a secure and safe environment for the children. However, the husband's preparedness for the children to spend time with the mother on both weekends does indicate to me that he is not as concerned about what he has interpreted as the mother's threats to self-harm, as he would have the court accept.
The husband opposes the restraining order about not contacting the wife solely on the basis that he wishes to be able to speak to the children every night between now and 22 January, but not on any other basis.
In parenting orders, I am mandated to apply a presumption of joint parental responsibility by the parents for the children. There are certain exceptions to the presumption applying and one such exception is in interim hearings. This is an interim hearing to determine orders which will operate only for a short period of time. There are legal implications once the statutory conferral of parental responsibility is displaced. It is not appropriate in my view for me to make any orders displacing the statutory conferral of parental responsibility at this stage. It is not appropriate because I have not heard evidence from each party in admissible form. Furthermore, the husband has not been called upon to fully articulate his case in any comprehensive case. That is what he wants to see a solicitor about next week.
It is premature of me to make any orders for joint parental responsibility so

I won't do so.
Even though the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility isn't applicable in this case, I am able to consider what arrangements will best promote the child's best interests. That includes considering whether the children should spend equal or substantial and significant time with each of the parents.
I have considered whether it would be in the children's best interests to spend equal time with both parents. In this regard, I take into account that the husband has had the uninterrupted care of the children for the last two weeks and what the wife seeks is the care of the children for the next six days or so and then a period of time with the father before the matter comes back to court. That seems to me to fit with both substantial and significant time. I think it is artificial for me to look forward only at the next 10 days or so and so disregard the events of the last two weeks.
I take into account the primary considerations, both of which on the husband's case are relevant to these proceedings.
It does not appear that either parent maintains a position where the other should not have a meaningful relationship with each of the children.
Turning to the need to protect the children from abuse, it is the husband's case that the children are at risk of harm if left with the mother. However, he has failed to impress me on what he said from the bar table that that is in fact the case. That may well be different when he has other material upon which to rely or his material is submitted in affidavit form in 10 days' time.
I take into account such of the additional considerations which are relevant to this case. However, I bear in mind that none of the evidence is tested. In fact,

I don't even have the evidence of the husband.
These children are young. It is unlikely in the scheme of things that their views are going to carry much weight in the case. They certainly do not carry any weight for me now.
Both parents care deeply for the children, obviously. However, given the state of the evidence and the lack of the evidence, it is simply unsafe for me to make any finding about the parent with whom the parent are primarily bonded, if indeed there is any distinction between the extent that the children are bonded at all. I am not in a position to assess the willingness of each parent to foster a close and continuing relationship with the other parent.
The husband has informed me that from 19 to 28 December he enjoyed periods of time with the children, including Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Christmas night, overnight periods, and indeed the very time which commenced on 28 December 2006 after which he has failed to return the children to the wife in spite of her requests that he do so. The husband concedes that any period of time which the children were to spend with the wife since they came into his care on 28 December was only ever to be in his presence or with him or certainly not by the wife and the children alone. He has acted very restrictively in that regard, but it appears from what he says that he had done so because of his significant concerns about the degree of harm that the children will suffer in the care of the wife.
I note that it was the wife who brought proceedings in this court to regularise the position. Notwithstanding what the husband says were his significant concerns about the involvement of Mr Y in the life of the wife and the children, nothing has been advised to me of steps taken by him to protect the children from Mr Y’s involvement.
The wife through her counsel says that she would agree not to bring Mr Y into contact with the children between now and 22 January. She says there isn't a relationship that is in any way significant. I don't propose to make an order to that effect. I am satisfied that the scrutiny which proceedings in this court bring to bear on family life will ensure that the children are kept safe from harm in either household over the next 10 days.
In relation to the oral application made on behalf of the wife for a restraining order, I am not satisfied that it should be made as broadly as is sought. The husband says that he wants to be able to speak with the children each night between now and 22 January - that is, the nights that they are not in his care.
In the circumstances of this case, I consider that the children should be permitted and allowed to return to the wife's household, which is now with the maternal grandparents. The children have had an extensive period of time with the husband.
The husband and the wife have differences in interpretation. The husband uses the telephone quite a lot. He admits to sending numerous text messages to the wife and the like. The children can be told that they will see their father on the weekend after next, but between now and then I do not consider it to be in the children's best interests for there to be telephone contact between them and the husband.
The husband doesn't seek any order against the wife that she be restrained from telephoning or approaching him save for making arrangements pursuant to these orders, so I won't make an order to that effect. I have observed for myself, however, a certain lack of restraint by the husband in terms of what he says about the wife and how he has contacted her in the past, and I will make a restraining order which limits telephonic communication and approaching the wife to be other than for the purpose of exercising time with the children pursuant to these orders.
The husband said nothing to resist the changeover point for spending time with the children being the home of the maternal grandparents. It is clearly a venue with which he is familiar, because he has lived there for a significant time since separation. The wife said that she will absent herself from the home when he comes to get the children. It doesn't seem to me that this is necessary. These children are young, these proceedings are embryonic, and there is going to be a lot of time that the husband and the wife have to deal with each other over arrangements with the children. They might as well start now.
As I have already said in discussion with counsel, the scrutiny of proceedings often leads to a moderation in conduct which is otherwise unacceptable. For the foregoing reasons, I make orders in the matter of Maddison as follows.

I certify that the preceding sixty one (61) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Bennett

Associate:

Date: 16 March 2007

IT IS NOTED that this judgment for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as MADDISON & MADDISON

[2007] FamCA 213

12 January 2007

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Legal Concepts

Jurisdiction

Procedural Fairness

Injunction

Standing