Maloney & Sastri
[2022] FedCFamC2F 1460
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Maloney & Sastri [2022] FedCFamC2F 1460
File number(s): ADC 5547 of 2020 Judgment of: JUDGE BROWN Date of judgment: 19 October 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Interim parenting arrangements for two children aged 4 and 5 – parents have poor relationship – mother seeks unsupervised time spending with children – father and ICL seek continuation of supervised contact at children’s contact centre – absence of suggested lay supervisor – assessment of risk – nature of interim hearing – matters to be considered – best interests Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC, 62G, 68LA, 91B, 121 Cases cited: Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101 Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 77 Date of hearing: 19 October 2022 Place: Adelaide Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Tredrea Solicitor for the Applicant: Pittaway Lawyers And Conveyances Counsel for the Respondent: Mrs Read Solicitor for the Respondent: Adelta Legal Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms O’Brien, Legal Services Commission of South Australia ORDERS
ADC 5547 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR MALONEY
Applicant
AND: MS SASTRI
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
order made by:
JUDGE BROWN
DATE OF ORDER:
19 OCTOBER 2022
UPON NOTING
A.The next step involves a further assessment of risk which is likely to include an assessment of the Respondent mother’s psychiatric/psychological health including information from her current treating psychologist Mr B and any associated trauma support counsellor.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The report from the Department for Child Protection dated 17 October 2022 is released to the parties’ solicitors pursuant to the provision of section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
2. Until further or other order the Respondent mother continue to spend time with the children at times designated by the C Children’s Contact Service and subject to their professional supervision.
3. Commencing from 26 October 2022 there be FaceTime or other such electronic communication between the mother and the children each Wednesday at 6.00pm with the mother to initiate the call and there be no direct communication between the parties about any proceedings in this Court other than to facilitate the call with such call to be limited to no more than 15 minutes.
4. Pursuant to s 62G(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the parties and X, born in 2017 and Y, born in 2018 (the children) attend upon a Court Child Expert (practicing under their appointment as a family consultant), or a Family Consultant appointed under Regulation 7, nominated by the Court Children’s Service (referred to as the Family Consultant) for the purposes of the preparation of a family report, such report to be released by late-February 2023 and that the family report address:
(a)any views expressed by the children and any matters (such as the children maturity or level of understanding) that would affect the weight that the court should place on those views;
(b)the matters set out in ss 60CC, 61DA and 65DAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth);
(c)the impact upon the children and upon their relationship with the mother if the Court made orders as sought by the father;
(d)the impact upon the children and upon their relationship with the father if the Court made orders as sought by the mother;
(e)any other matters that the Court Child Expert/Family Consultant considers important to the welfare or best interests of the children.
5. Not later than 4.00 pm on 26 October 2022 the parties must provide their contact telephone numbers and email addresses to [email protected].
6. Each party will do all things necessary to ensure the children attend upon to the Family Consultant pursuant to Section 62G(3A), unless otherwise determined by the Court Child Expert that Section 62G(3B) applies.
7. The parties and the children shall attend for interviews at such times, dates and places, and by such means as the Family Consultant may advise.
8. The Family Consultant shall be at liberty to inspect any material filed by the parties, and otherwise the following:
(a)Status material produced by the South Australia Police and the Department for Child Protection.
9. Upon the family report being provided to the Court, the Court will release the report and provide a copy to each party (or if represented, the party’s lawyer) and to any Independent Children’s Lawyer in the proceedings.
10. Unless a party objects in writing within 14 days of the date of releasing the family report, a copy of the family report may further be provided to the following, if the Court is requested to do so for a purpose related to the care, welfare or development of the children:
(a)a Children’s Court;
(b)a child protection authority;
(c)a State or Territory legal aid authority; and
(d)a convener of any legal dispute resolution conference.
11. Unless otherwise ordered, no person shall release the family report, or provide access to the family report to any other person.
12. Further consideration of the matter is adjourned to 14 March 2023 at 9.30am for directions to take place at Court.
13. Liberty to apply on short notice.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Maloney & Sastri has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE BROWN
This afternoon I am dealing with the proceedings in which Mr Maloney (“Mr Maloney”) is the applicant and Ms Sastri (“Ms Sastri”) is the respondent. The reasons for judgment are being delivered orally immediately following the interim hearing concerned. These reasons have been corrected for errors of expression and syntax in an attempt to make the orally delivered reasons amenable to being read.
Background
This is a case of significant complexity. The parties are the parents of two children. They are X (“X”), who was born in 2017, and Y (“Y”), who was born in 2018. The proceedings arise at an interim stage. At this juncture Mr Maloney, to whom I will refer as the father, seeks that any engagement between the mother and the children should be subject to rigorous professional supervision.
On the other hand, it is the position of Ms Sastri, to whom I will refer as the mother, that the time is now appropriate that, in order to ensure that the children concerned should maintain a meaningful level of relationship with her, the children begin to spend significant periods of time with her. At this stage she proposes weekend time from Saturday morning until Sunday afternoon.
It is clear, and neither party disputes it, that there has been a long history of dysfunction between the parties and, in this context, the mother proposes that any exchanges of the children occur in a rigorously supervised context, which she proposes should be the C Children’s Contact Centre.
The father does not disagree. However, he proposes that the contact centre should continue to be used as the venue for the mother to spend time with X and Y, notwithstanding the fact that there has already been a process of supervised time there.
At this juncture, the parties agree that there is a need for a greater investigation into the dynamic of the family concerned. In this context, it is proposed that a Family Report be prepared pursuant to the provisions of section 62G of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).[1] That report will not be to hand until, at the earliest, February of next year.
[1] Hereinafter referred to as “the Act”.
In those circumstances, the mother also seeks that she should have regular holiday time with the children concerned in the forthcoming Christmas school holiday period, and, in this regard she proposes, essentially, that she should spend time with the children on a week-about basis.
At the heart of this case are protective concerns, with each party asserting that the other’s past conduct represents a risk to the children. It is a case in which as I will, in due course, expand upon, there has been significant involvement by both the South Australian Police and the Department for Child Protection.
In those circumstances, on 19 August 2022, an order was made that X and Y be independently represented in these proceedings. As a consequence of that order Ms O’Brien has been appointed as the Independent Children’s Lawyer. She is an experienced family lawyer employed the Legal Services Commission.
Pursuant to the provisions of section 68LA of the Act, Ms O’Brien is to be regarded as a party of equal importance to the parents. She has a right to present evidence, and, indeed, she is under a statutory obligation to evaluate all evidence and propose the outcome which she submits will serve the best interests of the two children concerned.
At this juncture, it is Ms O’Brien’s position that it would be imprudent of the Court to do anything other than adopt a cautious approach to the children interacting with their mother, and she, in the absence of any lay supervisorial option, which she believes is viable, supports the father’s proposal that the mother’s time with the children should continue to be supervised by the C Children’s Contact Centre.
As I indicated, the Department for Child Protection has been involved with this family for a reasonably significant period of time, and in this context, on 19 August 2022, pursuant to section 91B of the Act, they were invited to intervene in these proceedings.
Today, a representative of the Department appeared on its behalf, Mr D, who has indicated that the Department has declined that invitation. However, I have been provided with a report which has been prepared by Ms E and Ms F of the Department.
They are, respectively, the supervisor and delegated authority for the Department for Child Protection and a report writer and investigator, and as a consequence of the invitation made by the Court they interviewed the parties and observed the children in two meetings which were held on 11 and 13 October of 2022.
In addition, at an earlier stage of the proceedings on 20 April 2022 I directed that there be prepared what is called a Child Impact Report. That was prepared by Child Court Expert, Ms G, and it involved her interviewing the parties in August of this year. Ms G’s report is prefaced with this statement:
The Child Impact Report provides preliminary expert advice about the needs and experience of children, to support decision making through Dispute Resolution processes and/or Interim Hearings. Any views expressed, or professional recommendations made by the Court Child Expert in a Child Impact Report need to be considered within the limited nature and focus of this type of assessment.[2]
[2] Child Impact Report of Ms G dated 15 August 2022.
Accordingly, Ms G’s opinion is hedged with provisos. It is, in effect, a brief preliminary intervention, which is not as extensive as the family report which I will order. The Child Impact Report did not involve any interviews with the children concerned nor any observations of them.
What it is intended to do is to provide advice to the Court to assist it to make appropriate orders, at an early interim stage. As well as to provide, if appropriate, expert evidence about child developmental issues and, in appropriate circumstances, assist parents to make their own decisions in respect of their children.
As I will indicate in further detail as these reasons unfold, it is not likely to be the case, at this stage, that the parties will be able to usefully go through any dispute resolution processes because the issues between them are so difficult, entrenched, multi-faceted and, at this stage, are not greatly delineated by any expert evidence.
It is also significant that the parties are in engaged in other proceedings in another court regarding criminal liability in respect of charges of assault – of the mother by the father. Necessarily, such a controversy, of itself, is likely to be a significant difficulty in the parties working through their difficult issues consensually.
Overlaying all that is the obvious fact that the parties have very different cultural backgrounds. Ms Sastri was born in City H in India in 1977. She immigrated to this country in 2009. She, I understand it, is a professional person, who has qualifications as a health care professional. Mr Maloney was born in this country and has always lived here. He was born in 1974. The parties met in 2016 and began to live together a short time thereafter.
It is reasonably common ground that their relationship was not a happy one. In this context, it is Mr Maloney’s position that Ms Sastri has significant issues to do with her psychological health, though I believe, at this stage, the parties disagree as to whether there is any definitive diagnosis and, more significantly, whether Ms Sastri’s mental health is supported appropriately by qualified medical practitioners and associated professionals.
As I indicated, the Department for Child Protection has been significantly involved in these proceedings, and that must be of significance given the ages of X and Y. Necessarily, given their ages, they are vulnerable children. They are small, and obviously, they are not in a position to advocate, to those in authority, any concerns that they have about their personal safety. Essentially, they must rely on those around them to make sure that they are safe. They cannot ensure their own safety.
Ms G reported that the Department for Child Protection had been extensively involved with the family between 2017 and 2022. She reports there having been 32 notifications regarding the children’s safety and wellbeing being compromised. Ms G indicated that the children were removed from the care of each of their parents in 2020 and, for their safety, were placed in the care of their paternal grandmother.
In respect of that, the report, which is dated 17 October 2022, from Ms E and Ms F, confirms that the Department has had significant involvement. The Department workers described the relationship between the parties as being one exhibiting a significant level of dysfunction, which was demonstrated by what was described as mutually vindictive, manipulative, threatening and coercive control behaviours.[3]
[3] See report of the Department for Child Protection dated 17 October 2022 at page 5.
The Department said both Mr Maloney and Ms Sastri made consistent counter allegations towards the other. Significantly, both parties were described as being unable to see anything favourable about the other and of having limited insight into what that was likely to mean for their children. The Department thought that both the mother and the father had lost sight of the emotional impact of their dysfunctional relationship on the children.
In any event, notwithstanding those baleful concerns, the children were returned to their father’s care in May of 2020, through a process of reunification support provided by the Department. In these circumstances, in December of 2020 the Department closed its case, with the children returned to their father’s care.
At that stage, it was the view of the Department, whether this is right or whether it is wrong I am not currently in a position to say, that Mr Maloney had engaged with some counselling services recommended to him in respect of family violence by it, and therefore, from the Department’s point of view, he was regarded as the preferred primary caregiver for the children.
It seems to be the case that during the parties’ relationship they predominantly lived in the City J area. Ms Sastri owns a house in City J. The parties agree the end of their relationship, in a formal sense, was in March of 2020. After that, Ms Sastri went to live in Town K for a period of time; but later, she returned to the City J area.
It seems to be the case that Mr Maloney and the children were living in the home that was the former family home and which is owned by Ms Sastri. She returned to live in the City J area. She was initially in private rental accommodation, which fell through. In what must have been difficult and challenging circumstances, and perhaps unwisely, the parties resumed living together in the City J property in August of 2021.
It is the father’s evidence that the mother formally served him an eviction notice, from the home which she owned, but which had previously been the family home, in early April of 2022. The mother says that is what the notice said, but she was open to there being further time for the father to leave the property.
It is the father’s position that the police were monitoring the situation because of their concerns about the family. From their point of view, it was untenable that the two parents live in the same home. In this context, Mr Maloney raises allegations that he was subject to coercive and controlling family violence in the form of threatening emails and abusive texts from Ms Sastri.
On 3 May 2022, there was an incident at the City J home. The police were involved, and it is Mr Maloney who has been charged with assaulting the mother. As he is entitled to do, he has pleaded not guilty to that charge, and the matter is proceeding through the City J Magistrates Court.
The current round of proceedings, in this Court, commenced in November of 2020. It is, as I say, the father’s position that the mother has issues to do with her psychiatric health. It is his evidence that it is incontrovertible that the Department have been concerned about the mother’s interaction with the children, including being notified that Ms Sastri had been aggressive to the children and placed X’s head under water, causing him distress and also allegations that Ms Sastri had been aggressive towards Mr Maloney and exposed the children to family violence.
At this stage, the parties also have a polarised view as to what happened recently in May of 2020, when the police were involved. Ms Sastri says that it was Mr Maloney who precipitated the incident; Mr Maloney says that Ms Sastri did.
But, in any event, it is Mr Maloney who has been charged, as I say, and it is Ms Sastri who is protected by an Intervention Order. The matter is more complicated again in that the day after this incident Ms Sastri left the country for three weeks. She went to Country L to pursue business interests she has there. She was away for three weeks.
In the meantime, by necessary implication, she was content that X and Y were safe in their father’s care. In that period, Mr Maloney moved to the Region M area where he has family connections. X had to change schools, which occurred without any consultation between the parents. The issue of relocation has increased tensions between the parties.
In this context, it is the mother’s perspective that that unilateral action of relocation was precipitate and ill-considered and indicates that Mr Maloney has limited understanding of the responsibilities of being a parent, particularly the need for the children have to maintain a proper level of relationship with her.
On the other hand, the father asserts that the circumstances of emergency, which surrounded the family dictated that he had to move, an outcome supported by the police in City J. It is his case that he could not continue to live in the City J home and had no alternative but to move and it made sense to be close to his family.
Notwithstanding Mr Maloney’s application, which he began in November 2020, in which he wanted sole parental responsibility for the children, the parties thereafter agreed to Ms Sastri spending unsupervised time with the children. That followed the preparation, of a report from a psychologist, Dr N. Dr N is not a treating psychologist of the mother. He provided an expert psychological report, and he administered a number of diagnostic or psychometric tests to the mother and took a history from her.
Dr N reached the conclusion that the psychometric testing did not suggest that Ms Sastri had problems with depression or mania, and there was no support for a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. In these circumstances, he opined that Ms Sastri did not present an unacceptable level of emotional or physical harm to the children.
It is the father’s position that, from his perspective, although he is not medically qualified or psychologically qualified, the mother’s mental or psychiatric health has deteriorated, and, as a consequence, he has grave concerns for the wellbeing of the children, if they have any unsupervised interaction with their mother.
It is clear that he has been their undisputed custodian since May of 2020. In these challenging circumstances, in August of this year, some orders were made for the mother to begin spending supervised time with the children at the C Children’s Contact Service.
As the children’s contact service is in a rural area there are not any waiting times, so the parties were able to avail themselves of that centre relatively quickly, and there have been six visits at the centre which have proceeded relatively well. The report which has issued demonstrates that the children clearly know their mother and love her. It is in those circumstances that the current impasse between the parties arises.
As I indicated at the outset, it is the mother’s position that now is the time for the children to begin spending more time with her and for supervision to be dropped. The father’s position is that there should be still supervised time. The mother concedes that she has had issues with her psychological functioning in the past.
It is her position that she sees a psychologist regularly, a doctor or Mr B, and she has been seeing the psychologist for two and a half years and is well supported. She is not in a position to return to the City J home. She asserts that the father left it in a poor state of repair. Whether that is so or not I do not know. In any event, she is currently living in supported domestic violence accommodation in Adelaide.
From her perspective, it is extraordinarily difficult and expensive for her to get to C Contact Centre. It costs $200.00 to fill her tank, so in those circumstances, although she, as I say, supports the engagement of the C Children’s Contact Service to oversee exchanges, from her perspective that is a far from ideal situation.
Ms G has opined that mental health is a significant risk factor in these proceedings. In this context she reported that Ms Sastri spoke rapidly to her. She found it difficult to get Ms Sastri to answer questions, whilst Ms Sastri herself was focused on her assertions that Mr Maloney had behaved inappropriately. Ms G thought that Ms Sastri did not have any great capacity to consider the implications of her own choices and behaviour for the safety of these children.
However, from Ms G’s point of view and in her professional opinion, this was not a one‑way street because Ms G also thought Mr Maloney had the same sort of tendency to minimise his own past failings and to show a lack of insight.
One of the purposes of a child impact report is to assist a decision-maker to make the appropriate decision in respect of interim parenting issues. In this context, Ms G indicated that what X and Y needed was consistency and predictability in their care and at least one attachment to a caring adult in order to thrive.
She categorised the children as having experienced trauma, which had led up to them being cared for by their paternal grandmother and then being reunited with their father. In this context, she considered it undoubtedly to be the case that the children had been exposed to family violence, as it is defined in the Family Law Act 1975, that is, coercive and controlling behaviour, which may be exhibited by assault, derogatory language and frightening behaviour, and that seems to be, indisputably, the case.
Ms G said that given the serious natures of the allegations regarding Ms Sastri’s vulnerable mental health, family violence, sexual coercion and neglect it was appropriate for DCP to be asked to intervene. As I have said, I did that, and they have declined the invitation. However, their workers did speak to X and Y reasonable extensively.
The relevant report indicates that the children were described as being reluctant to speak about either parent. Significantly, they had no excitement or expression when speaking about their parents. They were described as being matter-of-fact.
I have not got any unpacking of that from a professional point of view, but it was concerning because the lack of animation is likely to indicate that the children have been impacted by their parents’ behaviour. They are vulnerable and damaged children, regrettably.
Ms G thought that it would be good to get some information from the children’s schooling, however, at this juncture that has not been obtained. So at this point the Department visited Mr Maloney’s home. They said it was well equipped for the children, and the children are not neglected. They are going to school and kindy, as appropriate. X has a counsellor.
Mr Maloney is not working, and he was described as being focused on the children and receiving support from his parents and other family members.
The Department also thought that the supervised contact did not indicate any detriment to the children, but from their perspective, there still were unaddressed issues regarding the mother’s mental health.
The mother, as she stated today, said she is linked to a psychologist, but I have not got any report from that psychologist. The Department characterised the parties as having a long history of dysfunctional behaviour, so in general terms, the Department indicates, as with Ms G, a cautious approach to care arrangements, whilst the risks of potential risk to the children are further assessed.
Legal Principles
It is now appropriate for me briefly to deal with the legal considerations I have to apply. This case arises at an interim stage. What that means is that I have not heard any evidence from either of the parties themselves. As such, I do not know what sort of people they are like from my own observations of them. I have not seen them in the witness box answering questions which may be difficult for them to answer honestly.
This may be the beginning of quite a long process which may, as Mrs Read, counsel for the mother, has said, ultimately may culminate in a full hearing which will take place over two or three days, during which each of the parties will be subject to rigorous scrutiny. More significantly, at this stage the professional and expert evidence available to me is extraordinarily limited.
I have not received a report that involves the children being assessed interacting with each of their parents. I am going to order such a Family Report today, but I do not have it. Such reports take some time to be prepared.
Given the lack of evidence, I cannot make findings of fact about the issues in dispute, which are many. I have some evidence, but it is limited, and in that context my basic role is to assess the risk, which can be summarised as follows:
·assess what is the risk to the children of spending time with their mother,
·the risk to the children of not spending time with their mother,
·assess what is the degree of any such risk and what is a proportionate response to the risk.
In terms of the legal considerations which apply, I bear in mind, of course, that the best interests of the two children concerned are the paramount or most important consideration. It is not the rights of the parents or the interests of the parents, it is the interests of the children which must prevail.
In assessing the children’s best interests I have to look to a long list of matters in the Family Law Act 1975. If the parties are interested they can look at them in the Act. They are contained in section 60CC. There are, in that section, a number of considerations. They are broken down into categories. There are two categories, they consist of the primary considerations, of which there are two, and a longer list of 14 additional considerations.
As one might expect, in most cases more consideration is given to the primary considerations. Firstly, I have to consider protective concerns, how the children are to be protected from coming to psychological or physical harm as a consequence of being exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.
Secondly, I have to consider the benefits which the children are likely to derive from having a meaningful level of relationship with each of their parents. The law says that I have to give greater weight to protective concerns.
From the father’s perspective, he asserts that the risk of the children spending unsupervised time with their mother, particularly overnight time, is one which is too great for the Court to countenance at this stage. In the legal rubric, it is a risk which is unacceptable for a judicial decision-maker such as myself to take.
It is the mother’s case that she enjoys a meaningful level of relationship with the children, as evident from the contact centre report and therefore Y and X are likely to benefit in all sorts of ways from having a relationship with her, and to have a relationship based on two hours in the artificial regime of a children’s contact service is simply inadequate and will lead to the depletion of the children’s relationship with their mother rather than its advancement.
She asserts, at this stage, that what she proposes is a measured response to the issues, particularly given that she is engaging in psychological support from her psychologist, Mr B, and has the support of the Domestic Violence Service.
I alluded to a case earlier in discussion with the parties’ lawyer, the case of Marvel & Marvel[4] and in that case the Full Court of the Family Court indicated that people in my position are often left with invidious choices. Essentially, they have to make very painful decisions for the parties concerned on the basis of very limited evidence.
[4] Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101.
In those circumstances, it is more often than not appropriate that the Court errs on the side of caution rather than tries to do something experimental or expansive, particularly at the interim stage, because if more evidence comes to light later such decisions can be reversed, but if there is an adverse outcome for an expansive order that may not be capable of being reversed.
Conclusion
This is a case which is replete with risk. I mean no disrespect, but, regrettably, it is more likely than not that both parties represent some degree of risk to their children, though I do not doubt for a moment that both Mr Maloney and Ms Sastri love X and Y very much indeed. Although the nature of their relationship in the past has been such that it has exposed the children to quite significant degrees of harm such that the children had to be removed.
I think it would be not in the children’s best interests for me to embark upon the orders which the mother seeks, particularly in the absence of any evidence from a treating psychologist or psychiatrist. I note what Dr N has said, but, as Ms O’Brien points out to me, the report is now 18 months or so out of currency, and it would seem to be the case that there was a very significant incident in May of 2022. There has been much water under the bridge, since Dr N’s involvement.
I acknowledge that the police have certainly taken a view, whether it is right or not I do not know, that it was Mr Maloney who was the instigator, to a criminal extent, of the matter of 3 May 2022. That is a significant matter, however, following that incident, the next day Ms Sastri left the country.
Implicitly, she knew where the children would be – they would be in the care of their father. This is a relocation case, an interim unilateral relocation case. Moving to City C has polarised the positions of the parties further. Mr Maloney said he had a very good reason to move to City C. Indeed, he says the police told him, “You need to get out of town.” From my perspective, as I said earlier, perhaps tritely, there is much evidence that needs to be gathered. Fortunately, the C Children’s Contact Centre is able to provide ongoing supervised time.
I acknowledge that that is far from ideal. At some stage that will need to be ceased, it cannot last forever. A parent cannot engage in a professional setting forever, and the authorities will not provide it forever, so the parties have to think what the next step is.
Whether that is going to occur in the context of a Family Report I do not know. Anyway, neither party is able to provide a lay supervisor or a lay site that will satisfy each of their needs, and I cannot, regrettably, conjure one up for them.
For these reasons, I make the orders as set out at the commencement of these reasons for judgment.
I certify that the preceding seventy-seven (77) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge Brown. Associate:
Dated: 7 November 2022
0