Maitland and Maitland

[2008] FamCA 193

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MAITLAND & MAITLAND [2008] FamCA 193

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – SHARED PARENTING – Final hearing of Less Adversarial Trial procedure – Wife had violent relationship with her partner who failed to attend for assessment by Family Consultant – There had been 8 intervention orders previously made against him by others – Wife had prior history of alcohol abuse – Consent orders made for wife to spend time with her son each alternate Saturday in absence of her partner – Child desired to see more of her – Wife placed her relationship with her partner in priority to that with her son – Best interests of child considered.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (as amended)

APPLICANT: Mrs Maitland

RESPONDENT: Mr Maitland

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: DGF 421 of 2006

DATE DELIVERED: 5 March 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Guest J

HEARING DATE: 5 March 2008

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

THE RESPONDENT: In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Arnold

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Tolhurst Druce & Emmerson

Orders

1. That all Orders in relation to the time spent/contact between … (“the child”) born … June 1998 be discharged.

1. That the Wife spend time with the child as follows:

   a)each alternate Saturday from 10 am until 5 pm;

   b)from 3 pm until 8 pm on Christmas Day each year;

   c)for 3 hours on the child’s birthday in the event it is a school day and 5 hours in the event it is a non-school day

AND UPON the Wife advising the Husband in writing that she no longer resides with Mr B or has made permanent arrangements for overnight accommodation in the absence of Mr B the Wife spend time with the child as follows:

d)from 10 am Saturday until 5 pm Sunday each alternate weekend for a period of six months;

e)thereafter from 5 pm Friday until 5 pm Sunday for a period of six months;

f)thereafter from 5 pm Friday to the commencement of school on Monday each alternate weekend;

g)from 3 pm Christmas Day until 3 pm Boxing Day in the first year and each alternate year thereafter;

h)from 3 pm Christmas Eve until 3 pm Christmas Day in the second year and each alternate year thereafter;

i)on the child’s birthday in accordance with order 2c) herein;

j)further time as agreed in writing between the parties.

1. That the Wife be and is hereby restrained from bringing the child or allowing the child to be brought into contact with Mr B.

1. That the Wife forthwith enroll in an alcohol education program within 14 days of such program being nominated by the Section 65L supervising family consultant and complete such program to the satisfaction of the person in charge of the program.

1. That both the Husband and Wife be and are hereby restrained from using corporal punishment upon the child.

1. That both the Husband and Wife ensure the child arrives at school on time whilst he is in their respective care.

1. That the Husband and Wife forthwith cause the child to attend upon a school counselor to assist him with emotional difficulties and conflict.

1. That both the Husband and Wife forthwith enrol in and complete an approved parenting after separation education program.

1. That the Wife be and is hereby restrained from consuming alcohol whilst the child is in her care.

1. That all changeover occur at the N Police Station or other venue agreed in writing.

1. That the Wife forthwith make arrangements with the Officer-in-Charge of the N Police Station to conduct any ongoing breath test pursuant to this Order using Police equipment and failing such agreement shall forthwith purchase an AL 6000 breath test analysis machine for the purpose of such tests.

1. That upon the Husband providing notice to the Wife by SMS more than one hour prior to changeover to her mobile telephone the Wife shall undertake an alcohol breath test at the commencement of time AND

   a.the Wife shall keep the Husband advised at all times of a mobile telephone number;

   b.the Husband shall keep the Wife advised at all times of a postal address for service of notices (noting until further notice it is …);

   c.the Husband shall be limited to 4 tests in any 6 month period commencing this day;

   d.in the event a test is not undertaken or shows a result greater than 0.01/BAC the time on that occasion shall be suspended.

1. That pursuant to Section 65L(g) and (h) of the Family Law Act a family consultant of this Court supervise compliance with and given such assistance as is reasonably requested in relation to compliance with and the carrying out of this Order for a period of 2 years from this day.

1. That the Husband keep the Wife informed at all times of the school attended by the child and provide 60 days notice of any intention to change such school.

1. That the Husband forthwith purchase a mobile telephone for the child on an Optus plan and allow the Wife to telephone the child at all reasonable times of the day without the Husband being present.

1. That pursuant to Section 65DA(2) and Section 62B, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.

1. That all extant applications be otherwise dismissed and that the proceedings be removed from the Active Pending Cases List

IT IS DIRECTED

1. That the ex tempore judgment delivered this day be transcribed, and when transcribed, a copy be placed on the Court file and made available to the parties.

AND IT IS REQUESTED that the N Police undertake the test in Order 11 and 12 herein and:

a)advise the Husband of the result of such test; and

b)note the result in the Station Bail Book.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Maitland & Maitland is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: DGF 421 of 2006

Mrs Maitland

Applicant

And

Mr Maitland

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter returns to me pursuant to orders I made on 3 December 2007.  It is not necessary for me to incorporate into the reasons expressed in this judgment the background to the matter, as it has been adequately set out in my earlier judgment that day.  Any reading of this judgment should be made in conjunction with that of 3 December 2007. 

2. The orders made on 3 December 2007 specifically provided the time the wife was to spend with the child, who was born in June 1998.  Those orders prescribed a number of conditions, including the wife undertaking alcohol breath tests at the commencement and conclusion of the time to be spent with the child and facilitating orders in respect to that task.  Significantly, it was also provided that until further order, the wife be restrained from leaving the child unattended with her then partner, a Mr B.

3. I also made orders that day for the preparation of an updated report which included a provision that both the parties attend upon a Family Consultant as directed.  The wife was further directed to request Mr B to participate in the report, as was the husband requested to have Ms M, his partner, to participate also in the report.  Leave was granted to issue a number of subpoenas specified in the order.

4. It was noted in the orders that the wife was advised that any failure to involve Mr B in the family report or failure to file an affidavit sworn by him may result in a permanent order restraining her from bringing the child into contact with him.

5. My judgment at that time was a comprehensive expose of the background to the matter and the circumstances that brought the proceedings before me.  Insofar as Mr B was concerned, I recorded (paragraph 28) that the wife made it clear at the hearing before me that she did not consume alcohol during the time the child spent with her and further, when the child had contact with her, Mr B had been present.  The wife also made it clear to me that her relationship with Mr B was a "very stable one", that they were "engaged" and they proposed to marry after she had obtained a divorce.

6. Other references included that recorded in (paragraph 47) of the judgment, where I made it quite clear that Mr B, who was a significant witness, would be obliged to file an affidavit setting out his role in the child’s life, their relationship and that he address in his affidavit allegations raised by the husband that he was a "man steeped in violence and beset with unbridled anger manifested by his conduct as seen through various apprehended violence orders made against him".  I also made it clear that they were to be proven and as matters then stood, they maintained the status of allegations made from the Bar table, notwithstanding an opportunity to address them with particularity in affidavit form.

7. Later in the course of the judgment, I also recorded (paragraph 52) that the wife had made it clear that her relationship with Mr B was "far from shaky".  The impression that I drew from her submissions at that time was that they had a united relationship, in that they were engaged and proposed to marry when free to do so.

8. The next matter that came to light in the preparation of the proceedings that finds the parties before me this day was the filing of a report dated 15 February 2008 prepared by Mr N.  I carefully considered that report and congratulate the Family Consultant upon his assiduity in recording the various and important matters that I am obliged to consider in a trial setting.  Mr N outlined in detail the issues in dispute and then dealt with each of the adults in a manner that recorded both history, the current position and the objects of each of the parties. 

9. In particular, when dealing with the wife, Mr N recorded that the wife had informed him that as at May-June 2007, her drinking was “under control” and, even "more so", since the breathalyser tests were required.  She informed him that she apparently managed her drinking “far differently now”, and only had a few drinks socially with friends.  Significantly, also, she acknowledged that she previously had a problem with excessive alcohol consumption.  She made it clear to the reporter that her relationship with Mr B “had ended” and as a result of that, Mr B was not interviewed by the reporter. 

10. In dealing with the husband, Mr N set out in detail the matters discussed and together made pertinent observations.  He recorded, for example, that the husband stated he felt "for [the child’s] benefit" there needed to be some type of overnight visits with his mother and an opportunity to spend time with her.  I might add that has been a recurrent theme in all his submissions to me in the course of the Less Adversarial Trial proceedings I have undertaken and that overriding this aspect was his concern to protect the child from situations concerning his wife's predilection to alcohol and otherwise her relationship with Mr B.  The husband questioned the wife's emotional stability and made the point that the wife's life appeared to be “much better” when she was not involved in a relationship. 

11. Mr N also interviewed Ms M, the partner of the husband, who is 46 years of age and present in court this day.  He was informed by her that she had been the husband's partner for the past 18 months, but at the moment they were no longer living together.  She too expressed the view that the child needed to spend more time with his mother, stating however "it does not appear that the mother genuinely seeks the same". 

12. Mr N then set out in detail issues concerning the child, who he said presented as a child who was “very shy, reserved” and appeared to generally demonstrate a “degree of reluctance to find criticism” regarding either parent.  Significantly, he recorded (at paragraph 54) that the child said he would “like to see his mother more often” and suggested that it should occur for the entire weekend rather than just giving the time on a Saturday.  It appears to me from a fair reading of the report that the child was reluctant to criticise either parent and, it could be said, spoke positively of each of them. 

13. Mr N also contacted and conferred with a Mr P, who was the child’s school teacher in 2007.  He was advised that when the child initially commenced at the school, his attendance was “a major issue”.  The Family Consultant was informed that the child’s academic progress had been “weak”, which made it more important that he attend school in a timely manner in order to stabilise his routine and learning. 

14. Mr N then made observations of interactions between both of the parents and with the child.  It is unnecessary for me to record into this judgment the observations, save to say that in the role each played, they appeared to be of a positive nature. 

15. The evaluation of Mr N is important.  He recorded that there were a number of core issues in dispute, the first of which appeared to be the husband's concern regarding the child’s safety whilst in the wife's care if she became intoxicated.  Secondly, the husband had concerns for the child being around Mr B and, thirdly, the wife expressed concern with the husband being "exceedingly controlling" with the time she spent with the boy.  Finally, he recorded that the husband doubted that the wife had a “genuine desire” to play an active part in the child’s life and spend time with him on a regular basis.

16. In his evaluation, Mr N expressed the opinion that the most pertinent issue was the wife's history of excessive alcohol consumption.  He noted that, to the credit of the wife, she appeared to have taken responsibility and did not seem to have shied away from that issue.  That too is my assessment of her.  He was of the view that professional support and assistance would provide more benefit and assist the wife to more effectively manage her alcohol problem and address it herself. 

17. Mr N then addressed the issue of my order concerning the parties' respective partners.  He adverted to the fact that my orders stipulated that he was to assess them.  He recorded:

    “[The mother] stated that she is no longer in a relationship with her partner and hence, his attendance was no longer relevant.  As this family consultant was unable to personally assess [the mother’s] partner, it is difficult to provide any view to this honourable court as to whether he poses any risk to [the child].”

18. Mr N went on to otherwise record that the child advised him that he had never been frightened of Mr B and that he had never seen his mother and Mr B fight nor argue.  He found that it would appear the husband maintained a high degree of hostility towards Mr B which "may possibly be a contributing factor" to his alleged concerns.  However, one must gauge carefully the fact that the child appeared to be saying one thing to his father when recording the conduct of Mr B towards his mother, and the conduct of Mr B towards his mother when he spoke to Mr N.  That is a matter itself for some concern.

19. The Family Consultant was of the view that the wife presented as “a rather vulnerable, passive and unassuming person” who quite likely experienced a high degree of frustration at the husband's "controlling" attitude of when she was to spend time with the boy.  However, I might say with respect to Mr N, that it seems to me that the husband's attitude towards parenting has been on two bases and that is, firstly, he was anxious for the child to spend time overnight with his mother, but secondly, and importantly, he was concerned as to any risk factors to the child's welfare in that environment. 

20. Overall, the Family Consultant was supportive of the child’s relationship, both of his mother and his father, recording that to his observation, “a very warm, close and loving relationship” existed between the mother and her son.  He went on to record that in his opinion, the wife intrinsically demonstrated “an interest in, at minimum, maintaining a relationship with her son” and moreover, that the child had advised him that he would like to spend time with his mother on a regular basis, as I have earlier outlined in this judgment. 

21. It was on the basis of his very extensive findings in his report that Mr N made his recommendations which were set out in detail and which I may summarise as follows.  It was his view that the parties should equally share parental responsibility and that the child should continue to live with his father.  Further, that the wife spend time with the child on alternate weekends on Friday evening or after school until 5 pm on Sunday.  He then made recommendations for facilitation of the handover and otherwise recommendations concerning an appropriate alcohol education and parenting program, together with counselling for the child at school.

22. When the proceedings commenced before me this morning, Mr Arnold, who has continued at all times to appear for the Independent Children's Lawyer, advised me of the fact that the wife had resumed her relationship with Mr B.  There followed a number of submissions made by Mr Arnold which were of a revealing and powerful nature.  For example, the orders previously made by me on 3 December 2007 provided for the Independent Children's Lawyer to issue subpoenas, one of which was to Victoria Police.  Mr Arnold informed me, and it was not otherwise in any way contested, that the record of Mr B in the past has been a desultory one, to put it at its most modest manner.  Furthermore, that record supported those matters that were put to me at the last hearing in December 2007 by the husband, concerning earlier Intervention Orders.

23. It transpired that Mr B had been involved in eight Intervention Orders ranging in time from June 1999 to January 2008.  As to the latter one, I will deal with that shortly.  The Intervention Orders concerned a Ms R, issued on 18 June 1999, an Intervention Order concerning a Ms C brought in June 2004 and then one brought by Ms F in August 2004.  Following a short quiescent period, a further Intervention Order was brought involving Mr B in June 2005, quickly followed by another in October 2005 and again, following a modest quiescent period, Mr B was brought back to court with a further Intervention Order in August 2006.  History repeated itself with the regularity of a well-tuned clock, in that a further Intervention Order was brought involving Mr B in May 2007 with a certain Ms S, and then another one, involving who I assume to be her sister, nine days later on 11 May 2007.  It was not long after that that Ms R again brought a further application for Intervention Orders on 5 November 2007 and finally there was one issued by the police concerning the wife in these proceedings which came to court on 5 January 2008.

24. Mr Arnold, and properly so, informed me that the subpoenaed files revealed an altercation between the wife and Mr B in which the Intervention Order was sought and made on 5 January 2008.  Apparently it was returnable on 7 January 2008.  However, I was informed the wife did not appear on the return date and the interim order was struck out.  The police file also records that on 5 January 2008, both the wife and Mr B were “alcohol affected”.  I gave leave to the husband to file an affidavit, without objection, which he did, being an affidavit deposed to by himself together with an affidavit deposed to by his brother.  The latter affidavit brings a narrative continuity into the events of early January 2008 to supplement that to which the husband deposed. 

25. The husband deposed that on 6 January 2008 he received a telephone call from the wife, informing him that she had been “physically assaulted” by Mr B the previous night.  He said that his wife informed him the police had attended the address at her request and that Mr B had left the scene.  He deposed that the wife further informed him that the police were issuing an Intervention Order on her behalf against Mr B and that she had sustained “bruising to her back, to her arms and other injuries” as a result of that assault.

1. The husband deposed that the wife asked for his assistance to transport her furniture and belongings, as she was vacating that address.  He said that the following day, his brother assisted the wife to move her belongings and thereafter she then resided in the same block of flats as his mother in D.  As to that aspect, the affidavit of his brother sits seamlessly in accord with the narrative survey. 

2. The husband further deposed that on 15 January 2008 he received a text message from the wife stating:

   “Shit has hit the fan.  Intervention order just came through.  Thank God for that.  Talk later.”

3. It is the husband’s evidence that two weeks later, his wife telephoned him and that during their conversation, she informed him that she and Mr B were still seeing each other and had regular contact.  I now hearken back to the fact that the Family Report of Mr N is dated 15 February 2008 and records that the interview with the parties took place on 8 February 2008. 

4. The husband then referred to the Family Report prepared by Mr N and to the fact that the wife reported to him that in her view, Mr B “posed no risk” to the child.  Further, that she was no longer in a relationship with Mr B.  The husband made the observation, and I might add the point is well made, that the report did not mention the assault on 5 January 2008, nor of any of the previous assaults that had occurred, including the earlier assault by Mr B on the wife where she had informed him, the husband, that Mr B had at one stage held a Stanley knife to her throat.  The husband made the observation that the wife had also failed to inform the Family Consultant that she and Mr B were having regular contact with each other.

5. The husband referred to paragraph 20 of Mr N’s report where he dealt with the wife's reporting to him of the history of her alcohol consumption.  He noted that the wife had advised the Consultant that her “drinking was under control” and that she only drank socially.  The husband deposed that he had received many telephone calls from the wife since that period and that was obvious to him by her "slurring and manner" that she was intoxicated. 

6. The husband noted paragraph 24 of Mr N’s report, referring to the wife's acknowledgment of an incident in August 2007, whereby she was taken to hospital after ingesting an exceedingly high level of alcohol and Panadol.  He made the observation that the wife informed Mr N that this occurred following an “intense argument” with him and alleged that he had removed the child from the home.  He went on to say this:

   “[The mother] was not due to have access with [the child] until the following day, therefore he was not at her home.  I did not have any contact with [the mother] that day, other than a text message I received at 7.30 pm that evening, stating, ‘I won't be picking [the child] up in the morning.  I'm going away.  Just remember that we loved each other once, so make sure [the child] remembers me kindly.’  I attended the hospital that evening and believed that [the mother’s] allegations were in fact true.  She would have requested that I leave the hospital.  [The mother] informed me that the overdose happened following an argument with [Mr B] at a party she had attended with him.”

7. The husband then referred to paragraph 25 of the Report which dealt with the wife acknowledging that another incident took place in March 2007 whereby she took a metal object and damaged the husband's car "out of frustration because he continued to manipulate" when and if she could spend time with the child.  In relation to that, the husband deposed as follows:

   “On this day, [the mother] had court-appointed access at 10 am.  [The mother] arrived at my doorstep at 9 am and demanded that I hand [the child] over to her.  I informed [the mother] that [the child] was eating breakfast and needed to get ready.  Furthermore, I stated to her that [the child] would be at her address at 10 am as per the orders.  [The mother] became angry, started yelling abuse and picked up a large metal object from the yard and proceeded to hit all the panels of my car.  It resulted in significant damage.  [The child] also witnessed this attack.  Police were called and [the mother] was charged.  To date she has never compensated me for damage.”

8. The husband then referred to paragraph 29 of the Report, where Mr N reported that the wife acknowledged it may have appeared on occasions that she lost interest in the child for a while but that, for the sake of her own sanity, it was too stressful to organise any visits with the husband.  The husband then deposed that the wife gave an example of an alleged phone call she made and went on to say this:

   “On this occasion, [the mother] rang at 10.30 pm heavily intoxicated and demanded to speak to [the child].  This was a weekday school night.  [The child] was in bed asleep.  I informed [the mother] that [the child] was asleep and that I would not be waking him.  I invited [the mother] to call the next day.  [The mother] rarely phones [the child] but when she does, is always welcome to speak with him.  [The child] has his own mobile which [the mother] is aware of.”

9. In the course of his submissions to me earlier this morning, Mr Arnold submitted that the Independent Children's Lawyer had made a number of proposals and which he recited to me.  It would not be doing the proposals a disservice if I simply said that they were a classically constructed series of orders that would provide for increasing contact (or spend time with) between the wife and her son commencing on an overnight basis.  They were basically standard in form.  However, associated with the orders was a restraint on the wife bringing the child into the presence of Mr B, that both parties ensure the child attended school on time and both be restrained from exercising corporal punishment.  Further, that in the event the wife relocated from her current address where she lived in the same block of flats as the husband's mother, a breathalyser test regime be instituted.

10. It seemed to me that the proposal in the whole of the circumstances to which I have outlined in these remarks was a very sensible and dignified one and it became an issue, perhaps it could be said, not unlike “Sophie's Choice” for the wife to make concerning the best interests of the child and otherwise her own lifestyle and reunion with Mr B.  I offered a preliminary view that notwithstanding the difficulties that she faced and on the material available to me at this stage that I would not countenance an order in which Mr B would be brought into contact with the child for the reasons so clearly evident in what I have had to say earlier in this judgment.  It was the choice of the wife.

11. There is a touch of calamity and tribulation in the wife's life concerning her relationship with Mr B.  She explained to me that she separated from him on 6 January 2007, the circumstances of their argument and that both of them were in “excess of .05”.  She said she renewed their relationship a few days after the Family Report, that she had “lost her job” and that she is now getting along "very well" with Mr B.  She said that apart from that incident and "one further back", there had been no violence.

12. The matter was stood down after I expressed a preliminary view for Mr Arnold to inquire whether or not it was, in the light of the whole of the circumstances, possible to come to some sensible and dignified series of final orders.  Upon return to court, I was informed by Mr Arnold that the husband was not prepared to consent to any order that Mr B have contact with the child.  I can well understand that.  He informed me that the wife would not agree to this but would if he were to be absent, consent to seeing the child for a few hours during the daytime.  Mr Arnold said that such a proposal was "not good enough" in the sense that it was contrary to the wishes of the child, who wanted to spend more time with his mother, including overnight. 

13. I wish to make it perfectly plain in these remarks that the orders this day are the choice of the wife in the circumstances and hers alone, for the answer would otherwise have clearly lain in another direction.  However, it is plain to me that there is still some deep-seated animosity, it would appear to me, from the wife directed towards the husband, which can be seen, for example, from the simple fact that when talking about the child, she said:

    “He's obese, thanks to [the father’s] care.  The only sporting function they attend is KFC.”

14. I invited the wife to consider whether or not this matter proceeds to have a further and supplementary report from Mr N with Mr B being interviewed and assessed and that Mr B be placed on affidavit in relation to the matters that have caused me concern in these proceedings.  That of course, and it was made clear, would mean that he would be required to give evidence, which may open the way for him to be tested as to the circumstances involving the eight Intervention Orders which I have earlier addressed.

15. Notwithstanding that opportunity, it was the wife's decision that final orders should be made because, "The result would be no different if we went to a final trial hearing."  The husband made it clear in his submissions that if Mr B was out of the picture and the wife's living arrangements were more stable, appropriate orders for her to spend time with the child overnight should be made.  However, and he made the obvious point which had the ring of clarity to it, that the wife put her relationship with Mr B before her son. 

16. In the circumstances, and accepting that final orders ought be made and having explained to the wife that welfare orders are never final, in the sense that they are capable of variation if circumstances change within the tests provided by law, the election was from her side to make the final orders and I stood the matter down for them to be drafted by Mr Arnold.  This, he has done, and the orders which I mark Exhibit “A” have been signed by both parties.  I make it clear that they are made by consent and are to be read under the umbrella of the judgment delivered this day to give narrative understanding and continuity to my judgment of 3 December 2007.

17. I wish to stress this.  In paragraph 2 of the proposed consent orders, there is a series of introductory lines to be presented and typed in upper case as follows:

    “AND UPON THE WIFE ADVISING THE HUSBAND IN WRITING THAT SHE NO LONGER RESIDES WITH MR [B] OR HAS MADE PERMANENT ARRANGEMENTS FOR OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATION IN THE ABSENCE OF MR [B] …”

    and then goes on to say what I regard as perfectly appropriate orders, being     orders that sit seamlessly in the best interests of the child to see his mother.

1. However, the wife has made her election.  It is her responsibility.  I do not want the wife to leave this court feeling that I have been unduly critical of her, because she has been very courteous and realistic in all appearances before me in the course of these proceedings.  She struck me as a young woman enmeshed in a most difficult situation, but I have no doubt whatsoever that her election towards this course is undertaken her for own purposes and that she is subject to no undue influence from other quarters.

2. I finally make the comment that paragraphs 1 and 2 provide that all previous orders be discharged and that the wife spend time with the child each alternate Saturday from 10 am to 5 pm and then for five hours on Christmas Day of each year and for three hours on his birthday.  I do not see those sort of arrangements being satisfactory for the child, but that is the wife's election, because Mr B dominates her life and sensibilities.

I certify that the preceding forty four (44) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Guest.

Associate: 

Date:  26 March 2008