Maddocks & Sachdev
[2024] FedCFamC2F 567
•7 May 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Maddocks & Sachdev [2024] FedCFamC2F 567
File number(s): PAC 305 of 2023 Judgment of: JUDGE NEWBRUN Date of judgment: 7 May 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Best interests of child. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA Cases cited: Saif & Saif [2020] FamCA 119 Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 94 Date of hearing: 15 – 18 April 2024 Place: Parramatta Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Cairns Solicitor for the Applicant: Derham Houston Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Wallace Solicitor for the Respondent: Nolan Lawyers Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr Hill Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Gonzalez & Co ORDERS
PAC 305 of 2023 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR MADDOCKS
Applicant
AND: MS SACHDEV
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE NEWBRUN
DATE OF ORDER:
7 MAY 2024
ON A FINAL BASIS THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.That all previous parenting orders are discharged.
2.That the mother has sole parental responsibility for the child, X born in 2021 (herein referred to as “the child”) and in exercising sole parental responsibility the mother shall;
2.1.Until the child commences primary school;
2.1.1.Notify the father by text message no less than 48 hours or at the earliest possible time prior to making any non-urgent major long-term decisions concerning the child;
2.1.2.The mother shall take into account any views expressed by the father in relation to her proposed decision, provided such views are expressed in a timely manner; and
2.1.3.Provide the father with her final decision by text message
2.2. Upon the child commencing primary school;
2.2.1.Notify the father by text message no less than fourteen (14) days or at the earliest possible time prior to making any non-urgent major long-term decisions concerning the child;
2.2.2.The mother shall take into account any views expressed by the father in relation to her proposed decision, provided such views are expressed in a timely manner; and
2.2.3.Provide the father with her final decision by text message
3.That the child live with the mother.
4.That the father spend time with the child as follows;
4.1. For a period of 3 months;
4.1.1.Each Saturday from 2.00 pm until 6.00 pm; and
4.1.2.Each Sunday from 9.00 am until 2.00 pm;
4.2.Upon the completion of Order 4.1, then for a period of 3 months;
4.2.1.Each Saturday from 9.00 am until 6.00 pm; and
4.2.2.Each Sunday from 9.00 am until 2.00 pm;
4.3.Upon the completion of Order 4.2, then for a period of 3 months;
4.3.1.Each alternate weekend from 9.00 am Saturday until 2.00 pm Sunday
4.4.Upon the completion of Order 4.3, then for a period of 3 months;
4.4.1.Each alternate weekend from 5.00 pm Friday until 2.00 pm Sunday
4.5.Upon the completion of Order 4.4, then for a period of 3 months;
4.5.1.Each alternate weekend from 5.00 pm Friday until 6.00 pm Sunday
4.6.Upon completion of Order 4.5;
4.6.1.Each alternate weekend from 3.00 pm or the conclusion of school Friday until 9.00 am or the commencement of school Monday
5.That upon the father’s time commencing as per Order 4.3, the father shall also spend time with the child for the following special occasions;
5.1.For the purposes of Christmas, on Christmas Eve from 12 noon until 12 noon on Christmas Day in even numbered years and from 12 noon on Christmas Day until 12 noon on Boxing Day in odd numbered years.
5.2.For a period of 3 hours on the child’s birthday as agreed between the parties but failing agreement from 3.00 pm until 6.00 pm;
5.3.On Father’s Day from 9.00 am until 5.00 pm;
5.4.For the purposes of Easter, from 9am on Good Friday until 5pm Easter Saturday in odd numbered years and from 5pm Easter Saturday until 5pm Easter Sunday in even numbered years.
5.5.At any other times as agreed between the mother and father in writing
6.That the father’s time with the child be suspended as follows;
6.1.For the purposes of Christmas, on Christmas Eve from 12 noon until 12 noon on Christmas Day in odd numbered years and from 12 noon on Christmas Day until 12 noon on Boxing Day in even numbered years;
6.2.For the purposes of Easter, from 9.00 am on Good Friday until 5.00 pm Easter Saturday in even numbered years and from 5.00 pm Easter Saturday until 5.00 pm Easter Sunday in odd numbered years;
6.3.For the purposes of Mother’s Day from 9.00 am until 5.00 pm;
6.4.For a period of 3 hours on the children’s birthday as agreed between the parties but failing agreement from 3.00 pm until 6.00 pm
6.5.At any other times as agreed between the mother and father in writing
7.That upon the child commencing Year 1 at Primary School, the father shall also spend time with the child as follows;
7.1.For the NSW school holiday period following terms 1, 2 and 3 for one half as agreed between the parties but failing agreement for the first half in odd numbered years and for the second half in even numbered years;
7.2.For the NSW school holiday period following term 4 as agreed between the parties but failing agreement for week 1,3 and 5 in odd numbered years and week 2, 4 and 6 in even numbered years
8.That changeovers that do not take place at school take place at B Park, Suburb C.
9.That upon the child commencing Year 1 in Primary School, the father’s time is suspended as follows;
9.1.For the NSW school holiday period following terms 1, 2 and 3 for one half as agreed between the parties but failing agreement for the first half in odd numbered years and for the second half in even numbered years
9.2.For the NSW school holiday period following term 4 as agreed between the parties but failing agreement for week 1, 3 and 5 in odd numbered years and week 2, 4 and 6 in even numbered years
10.The parties shall ensure that the other is kept informed of the following information in relation to the children:
10.1.Any serious medical problems or severe illnesses suffered by the children whilst they are in their care including any hospitalisation;
10.2.Any medication that has been prescribed to the children, and the reason for such medication;
10.3.Any treatment that is required to be undertaken for the children;
10.4.Any social, school or religious function that the children is to attend from time to time;
10.5.The residential address and telephone contact details of the parties and any changes to such details within 24 hours, and the particulars of any other person who may reside in the same home as the children from time to time; and
10.6.Any other matter relevant to the children’s welfare.
11.That the mother shall forthwith provide the father with the details of all of the child’s current treating medical professionals, and any current reports from such professionals.
12.That these orders act as authority for each parent to communicate with the child’s medical professionals, and each parent to be provided with any communications and reports relating to the child from such professionals.
13.For the purposes of communicating information between the parties, parties shall;
13.1.Communicate by telephone in regards to matters of an urgent nature; and
13.2.Otherwise, communicate by text message about the day-to-day matters including arrangements for each party to spend time with the children
14.That each party refrain from making critical or derogatory remarks in relation to the other parties in the presence or hearing of the child and that each party shall do all things necessary to ensure that no third party makes any such critical or derogatory remarks about the other parties in the presence or hearing of the child.
15.Pursuant to Section 65Y(1)(c)(ii) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the mother and the father be permitted to travel overseas with the child, upon the child commencing Year 1 of Primary School, during any period of time the child is to spend with each party pursuant to these Orders, provided that:
15.1.The travelling parent provide the non-travelling parent with six (6) weeks' notice in writing of their intention to travel internationally with the child; and
15.2.The travelling parent provide the non-travelling parent with a full itinerary of the proposed travel, including details of return flights, transfer, accommodation and contact details for the child not less than two (2) weeks prior to departure; and
15.3.Such travel will not interfere with the non-travelling parent's time with the child in accordance with these Orders unless agreed in writing between the parties; and
15.4.The travelling parent provide the non-travelling parent details of the telephone number/s on which the child can be contacted.
16.The child's Australian passport to be held by the mother at all times that they are not being used by the parties or as otherwise provided for by these orders.
17.To facilitate travel by the parties with the child pursuant to Order 15 the parties will ensure that the passport they hold will be delivered to the travelling parent no later than forty-eight (48) hours prior to travel and returned within forty-eight (48) hours of their return from overseas.
18.The mother is permitted to do all acts and things as may be necessary to change the child’s name from X Maddocks to X Sachdev-Maddocks.
19.The father’s requirement to sign any documentation normally required to give effect to the alteration of the child’s name be dispensed with.
20.The mother shall be responsible for all costs associated with a change of name.
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).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of 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 a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE NEWBRUN:
INTRODUCTION
This final hearing relates to the child X born in 2021 (“the child”). The child is aged 2 years. He lives with the mother. He now spends about 2.5 hours each Sunday morning with the father.
The father is aged 50 years. The father was born in the UK and moved to Australia with his former wife in 2007. The father’s marriage to his former wife ended in 2017 and he has two daughters from that marriage being D, now aged 14 years, and E, now aged 11 years. These children live with their mother and spend time with the father about three or four nights each week, being generally on Tuesdays and weekends. The father became an Australian citizen in 2012. The father’s paternal extended family live in the UK and he has a sister who lives in Country F.
The mother is aged almost 35 years. She was born in Country G and moved to New Zealand when she was a child. She moved to Australia in about 2008.
The parties began living together in mid-2020. They separated in August 2022 when the child was a year old. The father commenced these proceedings on 23 January 2023.
The father works as a professional. The mother works as a professional. The parties met when they were both working at the same employer.
PROPOSALS
The father seeks orders as set out in his proposed Minute of Orders. Inter alia, he seeks orders for equal shared parental responsibility, that the child live with the mother, that the child spend time with the father on a graduating basis culminating in four nights each fortnight, together with (ultimately) time in school holidays and on special occasions. He proposes that the child’s overnight time with him commences after six months from the date of commencement of the orders.
The mother seeks orders as set out in her proposed Minute of Orders. Inter alia, she seeks orders for sole parental responsibility, that the child live with the mother, and that the child spend time with the father on a graduating basis culminating in two nights each fortnight. She proposes that the child’s overnight time with the father commences in about June 2025.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer (the “ICL”) seeks orders as set out in his proposed Minute of Orders. Inter alia, the ICL seeks orders that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the child, the child live with the mother, the child spend time with the father on a graduating basis culminating in two nights each fortnight. The ICL proposes that the child’s overnight time with the father commences after six months from the date of commencement of the orders.
MATERIAL RELIED UPON
The mother relied upon:
(a)Amended Response filed 15 March 2023;
(b)Notice of child abuse, family violence or risk filed 9 October 2023;
(c)Her affidavit filed 9 April 2024;
(d)Child Impact Report of Ms H dated 26 June 2023;
(e)Family Report of Ms H dated 9 January 2024;
(f)Case Outline filed 9 April 2024.
The father relied upon:
(a)Amended Initiating Application filed 22 February 2024;
(b)His Notice of child abuse, family violence or risk filed 23 January 2023;
(c)His affidavit filed 8 April 2024;
(d)Child Impact Report of Ms H dated 26 June 2023;
(e)Family Report of Ms H dated 9 January 2024;
(f)Case Outline filed 10 April 2024.
The ICL relied upon:
(a)Child Impact Report of Ms H dated 26 June 2023;
(b)Family Report of Ms H dated 9 January 2024;
(c)Case Outline filed 12 April 2024.
The following documents became exhibits:
(a)Exhibit A: Pages 36, 38, 39, 40, 43, 45 of mother’s tender bundle;
(b)Exhibit B: Pages 3 – 5 of ICL tender bundle;
(c)Exhibit C: Pages 19 – 24 of ICL tender bundle;
(d)Exhibit D: Family Report of Ms H dated 9 January 2024;
(e)Exhibit E: Child Impact Report of Ms H dated 26 June 2023.
EVIDENCE
In determining this case, the Court has had regard to all the written evidence referred to above together with the oral evidence given. Throughout these Reasons the Court will refer to a number of facts taken from that evidence. Any such reference should be regarded as a finding of fact unless a contrary intention is clear from the context. In determining disputed questions of fact, the Court is required to assess the evidence on the balance of probabilities. In order to limit the size of this judgment not all factual issues will be addressed, and the Court will not set out the entirety of the evidence. Evidence of the parties relevant to the Court’s determination will be considered whilst addressing the section 60CC considerations (ie section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”)) (see below).
When giving oral evidence, the father presented as a somewhat restrained and reserved person. He was articulate. He sought to give responsive answers to questions asked of him. His evidence was given in a calm manner.
When giving oral evidence, the mother presented in a somewhat formal fashion, occasionally using family social science language. The mother on occasion sought to give evidence supporting her case beyond what was asked in the question posed to her. However, she usually sought to give responsive answers to questions asked of her and her evidence was given in a calm manner.
Family Report
The Family Report writer was Court Child Expert Ms H. Her qualifications includes a Bachelor of Social Work. Her report was dated 9 January 2024. She interviewed the parties and conducted relevant observations of the parties with the child in early November 2023.
At paragraph 11 of the Family Report, the Court Child Expert stated:
11.[X] appeared to be uncertain to go to [Mr Maddocks] during handover, however, [X] slowly went with [Mr Maddocks] after being reassured by the parents. As soon as [Ms Sachdev] was not in [X]’s sight, [X] appeared to have a similar demeanour of being at ease and comfortable in [Mr Maddocks]’ care as he did in [Ms Sachdev]’s formal observation. [X] engaged with both his parents well during the formal observation with them.
At paragraph 25 of the Family Report, the Court Child Expert stated:
25.… [Ms Sachdev] said [Mr Maddocks] continues to display animosity towards her during handover and the way that he communicates with her, as he is either unresponsive, does not respond immediately or his responses tend to be short. [Ms Sachdev] said that she would like the communication between her and [Mr Maddocks] to improve as she is aware that this will assist in their coparenting relationship as [X] grows. [Ms Sachdev] is of the belief that it is [Mr Maddocks] who has been resistant in any positive communications.
At paragraph 30 of the Family Report, the Court Child Expert stated:
30.[Ms Sachdev] reported that while there had been no breaches of the ADVO in place, she continues to feel intimidated by [Mr Maddocks] during changeover based on his body language towards her and she views his interactions with her as “combative”. …
Relating to the Court Child Expert’s observations of interactions between the child and the parents, she stated:
59.… [X] appeared at ease and settled with [Mr Maddocks]. [X] seemed to interact with [Mr Maddocks] happily which was demonstrated through smiling, engaging in conversation, being near [Mr Maddocks] and engaging in imaginative play as they stacked the soft blocks together and copied each other’s words and sounds.
…
61.[X] appeared to be happy in each observation with his parents, he was observed to engage in the games, and even with his limited speech he tried to converse with them, and [X] reciprocated each parent’s affection. Overall, both parents equally presented as warm, nurturing, and affectionate parents. [X]’s general affect between the parents’ observation remained the same.
Under the heading “Evaluation”, the Court Child Expert stated:
66.[X]’s formal observation sessions with [Mr Maddocks] and [Ms Sachdev] suggest that he has a positive relationship with each of his parents. [X]’s interactions with [Mr Maddocks] appeared to be natural and fun and [Mr Maddocks] presented as a relaxed, and playful parent. [Ms Sachdev]’s interaction with [X] suggests that she is an attentive and playful parent. [X]’s behaviour remained the same throughout his observation.
…
68.… The description that [Mr Maddocks] provided from the Child Impact Report interview suggests that [Mr Maddocks] and [Ms Sachdev] had an unhealthy dynamic between them that resulted in conflict and the parents had poor emotional regulation, and they engaged in dysfunctional behaviour. …
…
73.[Mr Maddocks]’ proposal seems to be child focused and the gradual increase of time considers [X]’s stage of development, which will allow [X] to develop a stronger relationship with [Mr Maddocks]. The increase in time also allows [X] to maintain and further develop his relationship with his paternal siblings, which will be important for [X] as this will provide him a sense of identity that will provide him a sense of belonging that may assist his wellbeing and confidence as he grows. …
74.[Mr Maddocks] is proposing an introduction of overnights that would eventually lead to equal time as [X] grows. [Mr Maddocks]’ proposed introduction of overnight time appears to be appropriate for [X]’s age and stage of development. … Consistency and predictability are highly important for young children to thrive and an important aspect for overnight time and or an equal time arrangement for young children. It would have a less detrimental impact on children when the parents have similar approach to parenting, have positive communication and coparenting relationship. It does not appear that the parents have demonstrated any significant changes to the way they communicate or made any adjustments to improve their coparenting relationship as the Court proceedings have continued and they have remained opposed to each other’s views. It is unlikely that the parents can make the positive changes required for effective coparenting relationship in the near future and therefore, it is not possible to comment too much at this stage on the possibility of [X] living in an equal time arrangement in the future.
…
76.… [Ms Sachdev]’s proposal is limited as it does not allow [X] to develop a meaningful relationship with his paternal siblings and it does not seem to progress as [X] grows where he enters the next stages of his development. It also does not take into consideration [Mr Maddocks]’ work commitments. It appears that [X] is familiar with [Mr Maddocks] and took comfort in his presence, and if the Court determines that there is no significant risk to [X], it is considered that [X] could benefit from spending more time with his father and his paternal siblings.
At paragraph 83 of the Family Report, the Court Child Expert recommended:
83.… if it is deemed that [X] is not at significant risk, then [X] spend increased amount of time with [Mr Maddocks] after [Mr Maddocks] has completed the parenting program. This time could gradually increase to a full day each Saturday. Time during the week could also continue if [Mr Maddocks] is available. Overnight time could be introduced when [X] is in the preschool stage of development (ages 3-5) if the parents’ coparenting relationship has significantly improved and as long as there is no regression in [X]’s overall behaviours. Time could change to two overnights on alternate weekends, and ultimately to three overnights on alternate weekends, but this would be dependent on [X]’s adjustment and the coparenting relationship being effective and safe for both parents.
The Court Child Expert gave oral evidence. The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of that oral evidence.
The Expert stated that from her observations of the child with the father they did have a connection and a good bond.
The Court asked this question of the Expert:
[HIS HONOUR] And can I take it from that part of paragraph 83 of your report, where you say:
Overnight time could be introduced when the child is in the preschool stage of development (ages 3-5) if the parents’ co-parenting relationship has significantly improved, and as long as there is no regression in the child’s overall behaviours.
If you assume that the parties’ co-parenting relationship is presently not optimal, but there is some co-parenting relationship, and if you assume the child is presently not regressing in his behaviour. Consistent would (sic with) that part of your report, would you be comfortable with the child beginning overnight time in about six months time when the child is three, which would pick up your age range of three to five? Yes, your Honour.
The Expert stated that on the material that she had presently seen she would advocate that the mother have sole parental responsibility for major decisions for the child.
The Expert was questioned in relation to sleep issues of the child and this evidence was given:
[COUNSEL]My question is: do you consider that it would be important for there to be sort of a balancing act? We make sure that [X] can develop a secure attachment with his father, whilst also making sure that he – or that mum can manage his sleeping problems?
[WITNESS]That depends.
[COUNSEL] Okay?
[WITNESS] Yes.
[COUNSEL] On what?
[WITNESS]So routine you’re talking about is putting [X] to sleep and what that routine could be, because any caregiver can also be provided that routine to [X]. And it was clear for me that there was a bond between [X] and his father, so there’s already a trusting relationship to that caregiver.
The Expert gave this evidence in relation to coparenting communication between the parties:
[HIS HONOUR] So is it your general view that the greater amount of time that this child might spend with the father each fortnight would necessarily result in there having to be a greater need for the parties to communicate? So let’s look at one end, hypothetically, of the spectrum, there’s an equal time arrangement. I take it you would accept that in an equal time arrangement, the party’s level of communication, and their co-parenting relationship would have to be of a fairly high standard?
[WITNESS] Yes, your Honour.
[HIS HONOUR] To cope with equal time. And would you agree that the less time that this child is spending with the father, there would correspondingly be a reduced need for the parties, the mother and father, to have to communicate about day-to-day matters affecting the child?
[WITNESS] Yes, your Honour.
The Court accepts the evidence of the Court Child Expert, subject to any contrary view of the court below, whether express or implied, in its discussions under s60CC of the Act.
RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Section 60B of the Act sets out the objects of Part VII of the Act relating to children that inform the making of parenting orders.
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: section 60CA of the Act.
Section 60CC of the Act provides that in determining what is in the child’s best interests, the court must consider the matters set out in subsections (2) and (3).
Under section 60CC(2A) of the Act, the court, in applying the meaningful relationship primary consideration and the need to protect primary consideration under section 60CC(2) of the Act, is to give greater weight to the need to protect primary consideration.
When making a parenting order in relation to a child, the court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child: section 61DA of the Act. When the court is making an interim order, the presumption applies unless the court considers that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for the presumption to be applied when making that order: section 61DA(3).
If the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in relation to the child applies, and is not rebutted, the court must firstly consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child and reasonably practicable.
If equal time is found not to be in the child’s best interests, or impracticable, as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in section 60CC, the court must consider making an order that the child spends substantial and significant time (as defined in section 65DAA (3)) with the parents, unless contrary to the child’s best interests as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in section 60CC, or impracticable.
If neither equal time nor substantial and significant time is considered to be in the best interests of the child, or impracticable, then the court may make such orders in the discretion of the court that it thinks proper, being orders that are in the best interests of the child, as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in section 60CC: sections 60CA, 60CC, 65D.
The best interests of the children
Section 60CC(2) primary considerations
(2)(a) The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents
In Saif & Saif [2020] FamCA 119, Foster J stated:
95.The reality is, in the context of this interim hearing, that the Court is obliged to have regard to the maintenance and promotion of the children’s relationships with both parents. A relationship may be less than optimal but nonetheless meaningful: (Godfrey & Sanders [2007] FamCA 102 at [33]-[36]; Sigley & Evor (2011) 44 Fam LR 439 at [182]).
96.In Mazorski v Albright [2007] FamCA 520, Brown J considered ordinary definitions of the term “meaningful” and observed:
[26]What these definitions convey is that “meaningful”, when used in the context of “meaningful relationship”, is synonymous with “significant” which, in turn, is generally used as a synonym for “important” or “of consequence”. I proceed on the basis that when considering the primary considerations and the application of the object and principles, a meaningful relationship or a meaningful involvement is one which is important, significant and valuable to the child. It is a qualitative adjective, not a strictly quantitive one. Quantitive concepts may be addressed as part of the process of considering the consequences of the application of the presumption of equally shared parental responsibility and the requirement for time with children to be, where possible and in their best interests, substantial and significant.
97.In McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92 at [121] the Full Court accepted as appropriate this interpretation by Brown J of “meaningful relationship”.
The child has a meaningful relationship with the mother and the child will benefit from the continuation of that relationship. The mother has been his primary carer from birth to date.
The Court will now consider the child’s relationship with the father.
The parties separated in about August 2022. At that time the child was aged less than 12 months. The Court finds that it is likely that at separation the child had a meaningful relationship with the father. However, it is likely that that relationship dissipated to a significant extent by reason of the child only spending very little time with the father from separation up to about 1 March 2023 when interim parenting orders were made. Those interim orders provided for the child to spend time with the father for at least one hour twice a week, in the presence of the mother, up until an interim hearing set down for 3 May 2023, and which time occurred.
Following the interim hearing, the child began to spend time with the father unsupervised usually for two and half hours every Sunday and every Wednesday. In late 2023 the father obtained a new job which did not enable him to have time off on Wednesday. His time with the child then was only on Sunday mornings (2.5 hours) and which arrangement has continued to the present time.
Nevertheless, the child presently has a meaningful relationship with the father with the Court Child Expert observing, in the observation session involving the child and the father held on 9 November 2023, that the child was at ease, inquisitive and conversed and interacted with the father. She opined that the child has a positive relationship with the father. She stated that the child’s interactions with the father appeared to be natural and fun and the father presented as a relaxed, and playful parent. In oral evidence she stated that from her observations of the child with the father they did have a connection and a good bond.
Should the Court make the ICL’s final parenting orders providing, inter alia, for the child’s time with the father to progress each three months, and with overnight time commencing in about 6 months’ time (when the child is 3 years old), but adding the following Orders 4.6 and 4.6.1:
4.6 Upon completion of Order 4.5:
4.6.1Each alternate weekend from 3.00 pm or the conclusion of school Friday until 9.00 am or the commencement of school Monday
This would result in the child ultimately spending time with the father, inter alia, for three nights each alternate weekend, there is a significant prospect that the child’s meaningful relationship with the father can be not only maintained but, importantly, enhanced.
The additional night on the fortnightly Sunday night, being the night before daycare or school on the Monday, will allow the child to spend that fortnightly Sunday night with the father, and will allow him to get ready for daycare/school with the father the next day (Monday) and being taken to daycare/school by the father on the Monday morning. Further, such orders will enable overnight time to become established prior to the child commencing school which will minimise significant changes being made to the child’s routines after he commences school.
As to the father’s proposed final parenting orders, in which the father ultimately seeks four nights each fortnight, the Court is concerned that the parties’ coparenting relationship (discussed further below under Parental Responsibility) involving limited communication will not be sufficiently adequate to facilitate the parties implementing such an arrangement without conflict. Such conflict could well lead to the child’s meaningful relationship with the father being jeopardised and/or the mother’s parenting capacity being compromised. The Court observes in this context that the relationship of the parties only lasted some two years and it was a volatile relationship involving significant disputation. The Court has a significant doubt that even following the conclusion of these proceedings the parties’ coparenting relationship will significantly improve.
Should the Court make the mother’s proposed final parenting orders, which provide, inter alia, for the child’s time with the father during school term times to ultimately reach two nights each fortnight, with overnight time only commencing in June 2025, the Court is concerned that the child’s meaningful relationship with the father will not be enhanced in a timely fashion (that is, the mother’s proposed graduation in time spent between the child and the father will occur too slowly), and will not have the positive features for the child as discussed above in relation to the ICL’s proposed orders (together with the Court’s additional Orders 4.6 and 4.6.1).
The Court gives significant weight to this meaningful relationship primary consideration.
(2)(b) The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence
On the balance of probabilities, the Court does not accept the mother’s allegations of physical family violence having been perpetrated against her by the father. The father had denied such alleged violence.
At the outset, the Court acknowledges that it is often the case that there is often no independent evidence relating to alleged assaults between couples and that alleged victims often have understandable reasons not to report these matters to the police. Nevertheless, the Court is required to evaluate the available evidence in relation to these alleged incidents and make findings of fact, and each case is unique.
In relation to the alleged assaults upon the mother by the father in late 2020 there was no independent evidence relating to that alleged incident supporting the mother’s allegations. The Court observes the parties had commenced living together in mid-2020. The mother had not reported this alleged incident to the police.
In relation to the alleged serious assaults upon the mother by the father in early 2021, the mother had called NSW Police who attended briefly but the mother did not make a report to them. The next day the mother had been driven back to Sydney by the father and had agreed during the trip to marry the father.
On the balance of probabilities, the Court finds that in mid-2023, at a changeover for the child between the parties at Suburb J Park, the father approached the mother who, in a squatting position, was holding the child. He sought to take the child from the mother and their arms came into contact. The mother almost lost her balance. The Court finds that the father did not intentionally try to push the mother over.
On the balance of probabilities, the Court is not persuaded that the father perpetrated coercive and controlling family violence towards the mother as alleged by her. The father’s trial affidavit had been filed 8 April 2024. In that affidavit he denied any emotional or physical abuse by himself towards the mother. The mother’s trial affidavit had been filed 9 April 2024. There was no significant cross examination of the father in relation to the mother’s allegations in paragraphs 49 to 56 of her trial affidavit and, on the balance probabilities, those allegations are not accepted by the Court. If the Court is incorrect in these findings, then, in any event, the Court would not assess those factual matters, whether considered individually or holistically, as constituting significant coercive and/or controlling family violence. Inter alia, those factual matters would not persuade the Court that there was a clear pattern of coercion and control exercised by the father towards the mother during the parties’ relationship.
The Court is of the view that essentially the parties had a short, volatile relationship, marred by regular verbal disputation which included swearing, and their verbal disputation probably caused both parties to feel, on occasion, hurt, stress and anxiety.
The father conceded that the parties had frequently experienced arguments during their relationship and that he had become upset. He agreed that it had been a volatile relationship. He agreed that during these arguments the parties had sworn at each other. For the mother’s part, in oral evidence, she agreed that at times both parties had raised their voices during arguments, that she had used “curse words” and had sworn, and she stated that (certain of) the parties’ arguments had “tipped over” when she persistently questioned the father following which the father would respond verbally adversely.
Whilst the Court acknowledges that it is likely that the father had, on occasion, exhibited anger during verbal disputation with the mother, as well as with his former wife (in particular in early 2021 and in about mid-2022), the Court is not persuaded, on the balance of probabilities, that he presently has a significant ongoing anger management problem.
As to the father’s mental health, the father readily conceded that following his separation from his former wife in about early 2017, he experienced depression, suicidal ideation and engaged in regular acts of self-harm which occurred in 2017. He engaged a psychiatrist for counselling treatment for about 11 or 12 months. He told his treating psychiatrist in late 2017 that he was self harming about once a month. In early 2018 he told his psychiatrist that he had brief suicidal thoughts and thoughts of self-harming. He ceased engagement with the psychiatrist in early 2018 as he was feeling better. The father felt quite low and unmotivated in early 2024 and saw his GP. He was prescribed antidepressants which he took for about two weeks. He has not been back to his GP nor has he taken any antidepressants since that time. On the material before the Court, there is no unacceptable risk of harm posed to the child by reason of the father’s mental health. The Court is satisfied that the father has adequately engaged health professional treatment in relation to his mental health and presently he does not suffer from adverse mental health.
The mother contended that should the child spend time with the father on a graduating basis which occurs too fast there was a significant prospect that the child would experience an exacerbation of his sleep problems and a regression in his behaviour with resultant adverse effects upon the child’s physical and emotional development. It was implicit in the mother’s contention that the father lacked sufficient parenting capacity to manage, inter alia, the child’s sleep problems, in particular if the child was spending overnight time with the father.
The mother contends that the child has sleep problems and if overnight time with the father is introduced too fast, then the child may well regress in these problems. She referred to the fact that the father had not taken up her offers for him to attend upon the child’s sleep doctors and obtain information.
As to the nature of the child’s sleep problems, a paediatrician’s report of 29 June 2023 (Dr K) for the child refers to his sleep maintenance issues and recommends that he has a consistent routine to help him with establishment of a sleep pattern, and any triggers that potentially make his sleep pattern worse should be avoided.
Another paediatrician (Dr L, paediatric sleep and respiratory physician) examined the child in January 2024 and gave her impression that the child is experiencing restless sleep, frequent awakenings, and early morning wakes. She referred to there being potential signs of iron deficiency and recommended some blood tests. She stated:
To assist with sleep maintenance overnight, I’ve prescribed a trial of long-acting melatonin. Additionally, we discussed how elements of distress related to parental separation may be contributing to the issue. I plan to follow-up after a two week period to review the blood results and assess [X]’s response to the melatonin trial.
The Court observes that the mother herself acknowledged in oral evidence that the child had some sleep issues since he was about six months of age (that is, from about mid-2022). The parties were not separated until August 2022.
The father contends that when overnight time is introduced between himself and the child he will be able to adequately manage the child’s sleep problems. He refers to his raising two children from his former marriage. In oral evidence he stated that if the child’s sleep issues were truly unique he would be happy to speak to the child’s sleep doctors and paediatricians (which he is yet to do). He stated, in this context, that it may just be the child’s nature to wake through the night (rather than some specific sleep health issue).
In oral evidence, the father referred to his having been a hands-on father with his children from his former marriage. He referred, for example, previously leaving work at 5.00 pm to bathe his eldest child (who had been born in 2009) and settle her for bed. He stated that his children from his former marriage had non-major health issues such as fevers and short-term sicknesses.
The Court is of the view that should the Court make the ICL’s proposed final parenting orders (as discussed above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration, with the amendment to those proposed Orders as discussed under that primary consideration) the father should be able to adequately manage any sleep problems that the child may experience without the child experiencing undue stress or regressing in his behaviour. Whilst the Court acknowledges that the child has not spent overnight time with the father for a considerable period of time:
(a)the father is now aware of the content of the above paediatricians’ reports relating to the child’s sleep issues;
(b)the Court is satisfied that the father has sufficient parenting capacity to adequately manage any sleep problems the child may experience;
(c)the child has been assessed by paediatricians in relation to his sleep issues and a trial of long-acting melatonin was prescribed in early 2024;
(d)the child will not commence spending overnight time with the father for about six months during which time the child’s sleep issues can be further managed by the mother through the paediatricians;
(e)over the next six months the child’s relationship with the father can be enhanced through spending additional time with him leading to the real prospect that the child will feel comfortable in the father managing any sleep issues once overnight time commences, and;
(f)the Court can make the ICL’s proposed Orders 8, 9, and 10, relating to, inter alia, the mother providing the father with details of all of the child’s current treating medical professionals, and any current reports from such professionals.
Section 60CC(3) additional considerations
(3)(a) Any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child maturity or level of understanding) that the Court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views
Not applicable. The child is of tender years.
(3)(b) The nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child’s parents; and other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child)
The Court refers to its discussions above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration. The child would appear to have a positive relationship with the maternal grandmother.
(3)(c) The extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken or failed to take the opportunity; to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and to spend time with the child; and to communicate with the child
The parties have taken such opportunities.
(3)(ca) The extent to which each of the child’s parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent’s obligations to maintain the child
The parties have fulfilled their obligations in this regard, subject to the father, who pays formal child support, declining on occasion to contribute towards certain expenses for the child, such as medical fees, when requested by the mother.
(3)(d) The likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either of his or her parents; or any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living
The Court refers to its discussions above under the meaningful relationship and need to protect primary considerations.
Should the Court make the ICL’s proposed final parenting orders (as discussed above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration, with the amendment to those proposed orders as discussed under that primary consideration) the child should not experience significant stress or anxiety because, inter alia, the child’s time with the father, including overnight time, will increase and/or commence gradually, thus allowing the child sufficient time to adjust to changes to his routines. Again, the Court is satisfied that the father will be able to adequately manage any sleep issues that the child may experience when spending overnight time with him. And in relation to the child separating from the mother at changeovers, the Court observes that the child has a meaningful relationship with the father and thereby is likely to transition into the father’s care without significant stress or anxiety.
The Court is also satisfied that the mother should not experience any significant stress or anxiety in such circumstances, particularly when such time between the child and the father will occur gradually. The mother had obtained a mental healthcare plan in about mid-2023 from her GP in relation to anxiety being then experienced, and the GP had referred the mother for six sessions of treatment with Ms M, psychologist. The mother, in oral evidence, stated that she had only attended upon Ms M for one consultation.The mother stated in oral evidence that she had completed the online Tuning Into Kids and Parenting After Separation courses which had helped her to remain child focused, manage her stress, and be considerate in relation to the father’s concerns. The Court observes that the maternal grandmother has been assisting the mother in the care of the child since early 2023, with the maternal grandmother having been living in the same residence as the mother since that time; the mother stated that her parents plan to live locally to the mother. There is also a real chance that the mother, by completing the Circle of Security course (she is now on a wait list), will be further assisted in supporting the child’s increased time with the father. The Court observes that the mother is employed as a professional, earning $220,000 pa, having returned to full time work in early 2023.
The Court is not satisfied that there is a significant prospect of the child experiencing separation anxiety from the mother after beginning to spend increased time with the father because, in particular, the child presently has a meaningful relationship with the father.
(3)(e) The practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with the 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
Not applicable.
(3)(f) The capacity of each of the child’s parents; and 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
The parties have such capacities.
(3)(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
Not applicable.
(3)(h) If the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child: 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 the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right
Not applicable.
(3)(i) The attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents
The parties have usually demonstrated appropriate attitudes to the child and to the responsibilities of parenthood.
Post-separation there was a significant period when the mother did not facilitate the child’s time with the father; in particular, she had travelled to New Zealand with the child in late 2022, having returned in early 2023, and having failed to inform the father of her travel plans and seek his consent to do so. There were several other discrete occasions when the mother did not facilitate the child spending time with the father, so as to allow the child to attend certain activities.
Post separation there were occasions when the mother did not provide to the father, in a timely fashion, information and treatment reports in relation to the child’s health issues.
Post separation there were numerous occasions when the father did not respond to the mother’s electronic communications in relation to the child in a timely fashion because, to a significant extent, he feared that the mother would use his responses against him in these proceedings. His insistence on spending time with the child on an occasion when the child was suffering a significant fever was not child focused.
(3)(j) Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family.
The Court refers to its discussions above under the need to protect primary consideration.
(3)(k) If a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child’s family – any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following: the nature of the order; the circumstances in which the order was made; any findings made by the Court in, or in proceedings for, the order; any other relevant matter
After changeover in mid-2023 the mother had contacted NSW Police in relation to what she contended was an incident at the changeover. This alleged incident has been discussed above under the need to protect primary consideration. The police issued a provisional ADVO for the protection of the mother against the father. It was listed for hearing in early 2024 however, due to an administrative error by the police, the mother’s electronic evidence in chief was considered inadmissible and the matter was withdrawn.
(3)(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
The Court refers to its discussions above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration; the court is of the view that the ICL’s proposed final parenting orders (with the proposed amendments to those orders as discussed by the Court under that primary consideration) would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child.
(3)(m) Any other fact or circumstance that the Court thinks is relevant
The ICL’s proposed international travel orders will be orders in the best interests of the child. The Court is not persuaded that the mother’s proposed order that the child be permitted to travel overseas with either the maternal grandparents and/or the paternal grandparents will be orders in the best interests the child because there is insufficient evidence to enable the Court to meaningfully consider such proposed order by the mother.
The father in oral evidence indicated that he was content for the child’s surname to be changed as proposed by the mother.
Parental responsibility
The father seeks an order for equal shared parental responsibility; such an order would require the parties to reach agreement in relation to major decisions for the child. The mother seeks an order for sole parental responsibility which is supported by the ICL.
Post-separation to date, the parties’ face-to-face verbal communication and telephone communication has been very limited. In oral evidence, the father stated that it was about six months ago that he last had a face-to-face conversation with the mother. When the parties do communicate in relation to the child it is through text messages or emails. Such text messages and emails are often quite formal and cumbersome.
There is mutual mistrust between the parties. For example, on numerous occasions when the mother has sought to communicate with the father in relation to the child through these means the father has often chosen not to respond, in large part because he has feared that the mother will use his responses in evidence in these proceedings, possibly to his detriment. The father’s insistence on seeing the child on 7 May 2023 to “see [X]’s condition for myself” after the mother had informed him that the child remained unwell with a fever revealed mistrust. In oral evidence the father stated that he could not trust the mother’s word. The mother also revealed some distrust towards the father when, for example, after the father had texted the mother seeking to change his Wednesday time with the child to a weekend time by reason of his new job requirements, the mother had responded by, inter alia, requiring the father to “corroborate the changes in your work commitments with the relevant contract.”
The father’s affidavit evidence revealed his view that the mother, throughout the parties’ relationship in particular, exaggerated the significance of certain parenting related matters, was overly protective of the child and over-dramatised certain matters. In oral evidence it was apparent that the father harboured some resentment towards the mother relating to not having seen the child from about late 2022 to early 2023. For the mother’s part, on occasions post separation, she has chosen not to communicate with the father in a fulsome manner by reason of her apprehension that the father’s response will be hostile. Again, the parties’ former relationship was significantly conflictual and volatile.
The Court is not satisfied, on the material before it, that the parties could reach agreement on major decisions to be made for the child in a timely fashion without conflict. In circumstances where the mother is the primary carer of the child, she should have sole parental responsibility for him; however, she should be required to first seek out the father’s views in relation to any proposed major decision to be made by her and consider such views before making her final decision.
SUMMARY
Evaluating the above discussed considerations under section 60CC of the Act, and other matters discussed above, the Court is of the view that it will be in the best interests of the children to make the following final parenting Orders:
1.That all previous parenting orders are discharged.
2.That the mother has sole parental responsibility for the child, X born in 2021 (herein referred to as “the child”) and in exercising sole parental responsibility the mother shall;
2.1.Until the child commences primary school;
2.1.1.Notify the father by text message no less than 48 hours or at the earliest possible time prior to making any non-urgent major long-term decisions concerning the child;
2.1.2.The mother shall take into account any views expressed by the father in relation to her proposed decision, provided such views are expressed in a timely manner; and
2.1.3.Provide the father with her final decision by text message
2.2. Upon the child commencing primary school;
2.2.1.Notify the father by text message no less than fourteen (14) days or at the earliest possible time prior to making any non-urgent major long-term decisions concerning the child;
2.2.2.The mother shall take into account any views expressed by the father in relation to her proposed decision, provided such views are expressed in a timely manner; and
2.2.3.Provide the father with her final decision by text message
3.That the child live with the mother.
4.That the father spend time with the child as follows;
4.1. For a period of 3 months;
4.1.1.Each Saturday from 2.00 pm until 6.00 pm; and
4.1.2.Each Sunday from 9.00 am until 2.00 pm;
4.2.Upon the completion of Order 4.1, then for a period of 3 months;
4.2.1.Each Saturday from 9.00 am until 6.00 pm; and
4.2.2.Each Sunday from 9.00 am until 2.00 pm;
4.3.Upon the completion of Order 4.2, then for a period of 3 months;
4.3.1.Each alternate weekend from 9.00 am Saturday until 2.00 pm Sunday
4.4.Upon the completion of Order 4.3, then for a period of 3 months;
4.4.1.Each alternate weekend from 5.00 pm Friday until 2.00 pm Sunday
4.5.Upon the completion of Order 4.4, then for a period of 3 months;
4.5.1.Each alternate weekend from 5.00 pm Friday until 6.00 pm Sunday
4.6.Upon completion of Order 4.5;
4.6.1.Each alternate weekend from 3.00 pm or the conclusion of school Friday until 9.00 am or the commencement of school Monday
5.That upon the father’s time commencing as per Order 4.3, the father shall also spend time with the child for the following special occasions;
5.1.For the purposes of Christmas, on Christmas Eve from 12 noon until 12 noon on Christmas Day in even numbered years and from 12 noon on Christmas Day until 12 noon on Boxing Day in odd numbered years.
5.2.For a period of 3 hours on the child’s birthday as agreed between the parties but failing agreement from 3.00 pm until 6.00 pm;
5.3.On Father’s Day from 9.00 am until 5.00 pm;
5.4.For the purposes of Easter, from 9am on Good Friday until 5pm Easter Saturday in odd numbered years and from 5pm Easter Saturday until 5pm Easter Sunday in even numbered years.
5.5.At any other times as agreed between the mother and father in writing
6.That the father’s time with the child be suspended as follows;
6.1.For the purposes of Christmas, on Christmas Eve from 12 noon until 12 noon on Christmas Day in odd numbered years and from 12 noon on Christmas Day until 12 noon on Boxing Day in even numbered years;
6.2.For the purposes of Easter, from 9.00 am on Good Friday until 5.00 pm Easter Saturday in even numbered years and from 5.00 pm Easter Saturday until 5.00 pm Easter Sunday in odd numbered years;
6.3.For the purposes of Mother’s Day from 9.00 am until 5.00 pm;
6.4.For a period of 3 hours on the children’s birthday as agreed between the parties but failing agreement from 3.00 pm until 6.00 pm
6.5.At any other times as agreed between the mother and father in writing
7.That upon the child commencing Year 1 at Primary School, the father shall also spend time with the child as follows;
7.1.For the NSW school holiday period following terms 1, 2 and 3 for one half as agreed between the parties but failing agreement for the first half in odd numbered years and for the second half in even numbered years;
7.2.For the NSW school holiday period following term 4 as agreed between the parties but failing agreement for week 1,3 and 5 in odd numbered years and week 2, 4 and 6 in even numbered years
8.That changeovers that do not take place at school take place at B Park, Suburb C.
9.That upon the child commencing Year 1 in Primary School, the father’s time is suspended as follows;
9.1.For the NSW school holiday period following terms 1, 2 and 3 for one half as agreed between the parties but failing agreement for the first half in odd numbered years and for the second half in even numbered years
9.2.For the NSW school holiday period following term 4 as agreed between the parties but failing agreement for week 1, 3 and 5 in odd numbered years and week 2, 4 and 6 in even numbered years
10.The parties shall ensure that the other is kept informed of the following information in relation to the children:
10.1.Any serious medical problems or severe illnesses suffered by the children whilst they are in their care including any hospitalisation;
10.2.Any medication that has been prescribed to the children, and the reason for such medication;
10.3.Any treatment that is required to be undertaken for the children;
10.4.Any social, school or religious function that the children is to attend from time to time;
10.5.The residential address and telephone contact details of the parties and any changes to such details within 24 hours, and the particulars of any other person who may reside in the same home as the children from time to time; and
10.6.Any other matter relevant to the children’s welfare.
11.That the mother shall forthwith provide the father with the details of all of the child’s current treating medical professionals, and any current reports from such professionals.
12.That these orders act as authority for each parent to communicate with the child’s medical professionals, and each parent to be provided with any communications and reports relating to the child from such professionals.
13.For the purposes of communicating information between the parties, parties shall;
13.1.Communicate by telephone in regards to matters of an urgent nature; and
13.2.Otherwise, communicate by text message about the day-to-day matters including arrangements for each party to spend time with the children
14.That each party refrain from making critical or derogatory remarks in relation to the other parties in the presence or hearing of the child and that each party shall do all things necessary to ensure that no third party makes any such critical or derogatory remarks about the other parties in the presence or hearing of the child.
15.Pursuant to Section 65Y(1)(c)(ii) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the mother and the father be permitted to travel overseas with the child, upon the child commencing Year 1 of Primary School, during any period of time the child is to spend with each party pursuant to these Orders, provided that:
15.1.The travelling parent provide the non-travelling parent with six (6) weeks' notice in writing of their intention to travel internationally with the child; and
15.2.The travelling parent provide the non-travelling parent with a full itinerary of the proposed travel, including details of return flights, transfer, accommodation and contact details for the child not less than two (2) weeks prior to departure; and
15.3.Such travel will not interfere with the non-travelling parent's time with the child in accordance with these Orders unless agreed in writing between the parties; and
15.4.The travelling parent provide the non-travelling parent details of the telephone number/s on which the child can be contacted.
16.The child's Australian passport to be held by the mother at all times that they are not being used by the parties or as otherwise provided for by these orders.
17.To facilitate travel by the parties with the child pursuant to Order 15 the parties will ensure that the passport they hold will be delivered to the travelling parent no later than forty-eight (48) hours prior to travel and returned within forty-eight (48) hours of their return from overseas.
18.The mother is permitted to do all acts and things as may be necessary to change the child’s name from X Maddocks to X Sachdev-Maddocks.
19.The father’s requirement to sign any documentation normally required to give effect to the alteration of the child’s name be dispensed with.
20.The mother shall be responsible for all costs associated with a change of name.
I certify that the preceding ninety-four (94) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Newbrun. Associate:
Dated: 7 May 2024
0
3
1