MANSKY & MARCO

[2013] FCCA 60

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MANSKY & MARCO [2013] FCCA 60

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting dispute – admitted deficiencies in mother’s care of child – whether father’s co-tenant playing too great a role in child’s life – whether child should be removed from primary care of mother to whom he has a primary attachment – orders made as sought by Independent Children’s Lawyer. 

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975, s.60CC

Cases cited:
Goode v Goode [2006] FamCA 1346

Applicant: MS MANSKY

Respondent: MR MARCO

File Number: MLC 6344 of 2012

Judgment of: Judge Burchardt

Hearing dates: 13 & 14 February 2013

Date of Last Submission: 14 February 2013

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 24 April 2013

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: In person

The Respondent: In person

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Ms Buchanan

Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Forster & Associates

DRAFT ORDERS

1. That the parents retain shared parental responsibility for the child of the relationship [X] (“[X]”) born [in] 2003. 

2. That [X] lives with his mother and spends time with his father as follows:

   (a)Each alternate weekend from after School on Friday until the commencement of School on Monday mornings and on Tuesday morning, if Monday is a Public Holiday;

   (b)One night in the alternate week to (2)(a);

   (c)For half of each School holiday period;

   (d)On all the usual special occasions. 

3. That [X] continue his education at a local Primary School to be nominated by the mother. 

4. That [X] not be taken outside the State of Victoria by either parent without the express written consent of the other. 

5. That the parties be required to keep the other informed of their residential, email addresses and their telephone contact numbers. 

6. That both parties be restrained from the use of illicit substances 24 hours prior to any time [X] is to spend/live with them. 

7. That both parties be restrained from excessive consumption of alcohol during the time [X] is in their care. 

8. That the mother attend the Parenting Orders Program in [omitted].

9. That the mother provide appropriate nutritious food to [X].

10. That Ms G not attend parent teacher nights.

11. That Ms G not discuss [X] with the class teacher.

12. That Ms G not attend changeover.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLC 6344 of 2012

MS MANSKY

Applicant

And

MR MARCO

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a parenting dispute about which parent should have primary care of [X] born [in] 2003. 

2. The applicant mother, who started this proceeding as a recovery application, desires in the ultimate that [X] live predominantly with her and spend time with his father, and that [X] be re-enrolled at [P] School.  The father seeks that [X] be re-enrolled at [M] School and live predominantly with him.

3. Albeit that the Independent Children’s Lawyer regards this as a finely balanced matter, as do I, the Independent Children’s Lawyer believes that [X] should live predominantly with his mother and spend time with his father and be enrolled at such a school as the mother chooses, provided that it is close to where she lives. 

4. For the reasons that follow, I propose to make Orders as sought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer. 

Some agreed facts

1. It is clear that the parties entered into a relationship in 2002 and separated in January 2005.  At this time, [X] was nearly two years old.

2. The mother was born [in] 1977 in Cambodia, but came to Australia as a child.  She has lived here almost all her life.  The father was born [in] 1962, and is therefore obviously about 15 years older than the mother.  The mother is employed in home duties and has two other children:  [Y], born [in] 1999, and [Z], born [in] 2001.  The mother’s relations with the father of the other two children seems to be unexceptionable. 

3. The father worked until shortly after being retrenched in March 2011 and has not worked since.  He has Type 2diabetes and other difficulties.  The father has said, and I accept, that he is focusing on improving his health. 

4. The mother has had depression from time-to-time, but has responded well to treatment.  During a period of depression, she has undoubtedly expressed suicidal ideation and concerning matters about the children. 

5. When the parties separated their relationship was initially good, and they elected to enrol [X] at [C] School because that was halfway between them. Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer described this as not being child focussed and I agree, but nonetheless I would not make major criticism of the parties for this decision. It has emerged that [C] School is an academically excellent school and children come from far and wide to study there in any event. 

6. The respondent, who has had considerable difficulties in adjusting to his unemployment and health difficulties, moved to [B] and the home of a friend, Ms G, in March 2012.  This meant that the time to drive [X] to school was very extensive. 

7. [X] has had a number of health difficulties in his life which it is not necessary to detail in full.  It is clear that at times he has suffered from scabies and staph. It is also clear that [X] was not overheld by his father as a result of the scabies, which appears to have been a protracted and unpleasant episode for [X] in 2011.

8. [X] was heldover by the father in May 2012 because of the father’s expressed concerns about the way his mother cared for him. Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer characterised the overholding as opportunistic and I agree.

Matters the subject of disagreement

1. The primary matters the subject of disagreement in the case relate to the mother’s alleged poor care of [X] when he is in her care.  I do not propose to traverse at great length the very considerable number of criticisms made of the mother in the father’s extensive affidavit material.  Putting the matter admittedly somewhat generally, it is asserted that [X] is not fed properly.  This means that he is neither fed enough food or sufficiently nutritious food.  It is also said that [X] has not been taken to school on time and has also missed far too much school when in his mother’s care.  It is also asserted by the father that [X]’s facial condition (it appears to arise from some sort of palsy to the left side of his face and gives rise to irritation) is not properly addressed by the mother.  Another criticism is that [X] has on occasion been left at school at an hour so early as to put him at risk, in circumstances where before school care is available.

2. The mother denies all of these assertions, albeit she did admit that on one occasion, she left [X] at school far too early. This is a matter to which I shall return.

3. Another matter in issue is the nature and extent of the influence of

   
   

   Ms G in [X]’s life. Ms G is merely a friend, not a partner in an intimate sense, to the father. Ms G’s evidence in this regard was given convincingly and I accept it. 

4. Following her own divorce in 2008 following a lengthy marriage, it is little surprise as I find that she has taken to young [X] with alacrity.  He looks a very engaging and pleasant young lad from the photographs I have seen of him, and it is scarcely surprising that this woman whose life has been otherwise blighted has formed a very close relationship with him. She and the father describe it as a grandmother/grandchild relationship.

5. Nonetheless, it is clear from the materials that Ms G has acted in such a fashion that the headmaster of [X]’s school has written to them jointly in relation to [X], that she has attended parent teacher nights, that she is always at changeover, that she takes [X] to school and drops him off on her own and talks to the teachers. Ms G has even, it would appear, attended a post separation parenting course with the father.

6. The mother’s evidence and case is that Ms G is supplanting her as the child’s mother and that the problems in her interrelationship with the father really only came into play when Ms G entered on the scene.

The oral evidence

1. The mother was called and her evidence-in-chief suggested that she desired [X] to remain at [C] School. She sought that [X] spend from Monday to Friday with her and weekends alternately with the father. She was not cross-examined by the father, but was extensively cross-examined by counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

2. I have already paraphrased a certain amount of the evidence given before the Court in the agreed facts set out above.  I will, however, give some details of the oral evidence given by the parties which requires attention.

3. The mother, under cross-examination by counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer, was forced to concede that she had falsely accused the father of taking [X] to Dubai and had also falsely accused the father by an assertion that the police had raided his home and found extensive child pornography.  The mother said that she was angry with the father at that time and “lashed out and made it all up”.  She conceded there was no evidence of child pornography.

4. These false assertions made to Centrelink were repeated in August 2012 to the Department of Human Services (“DHS”).  It is apparent that the mother is capable of inventing the most outrageous falsehoods to damage the father’s interests.  She did, to her credit, concede that this outrageous fabrication was something she should not have done. 

5. Under further cross-examination, the mother conceded that it was appropriate that she undertake a post separation parenting course and that she ought to push [X] harder about wearing appropriate clothing.  It emerged from the subpoenaed material that [X] had missed 42 days of school during 2009 when he was in a shared care arrangement.  This reduced to 27 days in 2010 and to 11 in 2012.  It appears that [X] has had extensive speech therapy to help him with his apraxia.

6. It is clear from the subpoenaed material that the mother did tell the DHS that she would drown herself and kill the children.  The mother admitted this and said that when the police came, she told them she was suicidal and struggling to get out of bed.  At that time, she received help from [Y]’s father and a friend of hers called [omitted], which enabled her to get through.  She gave convincing evidence that she obtained treatment and went on antidepressants and anti-anxiety medication. 

7. Although the mother indicated that she had overheld [X] following the bite mark she had seen on his arm, she nonetheless conceded that the father was not a bad dad.  The mother conceded that she had been untruthful during her interview with Dr P, the Family Report writer, and that the school had, in fact, raised concerns about [X] being left early and unsupervised.

8. The mother was clear that the difficulties in her relationship with the father arose from the involvement of Ms G. She said that Ms G attends doctors’ appointments, comes to school pick up and drop offs and asserted that Ms G was doing the parenting, not the father. She confirmed that she avoided the School Principal because she was good friends with Ms G. 

9. The father, under cross-examination by the mother, confirmed that he was not asserting that the scabies and staph that [X] had suffered from were her fault.  He did, however, say that he was concerned how bad it was.  He said that he had asked the mother about this over a number of weeks and effectively it continued to get worse.

10. Under cross-examination by counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer, the father confirmed that he takes medication for his diabetes and does not inject. He also has atrial heart fibrillation because his heart runs a bit faster than it should. He said he was exercising and has lost 15 kilos.

11. The father confirmed that Ms G attends parent teacher meetings, but he did not see this as an issue. He undertook that Ms G’s participation in this regard would cease. He confirmed that Ms G had attended the post separation parenting course with him, but denied that the co-parenting with the mother had been good until Ms G came on the scene.

12. The father confirmed that the mother’s treatment of [X], as he sees it, has improved significantly since Court proceedings started. He nonetheless said that every time he collects [X], he smells as though he is unwashed. He confirmed that he has given up trying to discuss the matter with the mother because she simply will not address the issues.

13. The father confirmed that he trusts Ms G a lot and said that her interest in [X] was fantastic, given her skills as a mother. He did confirm that if he was not living with and receiving the support of Ms G, he would not be able to cope terribly well. He said things were tough at the moment because of his health.

14. Ms G was called. She confirmed that she never intended to undermine the mother’s role. She confirmed that the scabies had taken place in 2011 and the staph infection on [X]’s ear in 2012. Ms G said she did not regularly go with the father to the school and indeed cannot drive much on her own. She said she attended parent teacher meetings as an encouragement for [X], given that the mother chose not to go. She said she had not thought about the effect that this might have on the mother.

15. Ms G confirmed that she went to the parenting course because [X] was struggling and thought it might assist her. She confirmed the assertions made by the father that [X] is always hungry when he is collected and on occasion says things like only having eaten McDonald’s that day.  She confirms that she does the cooking in the household and makes [X]’s lunch.

16. It emerged during cross-examination of the father and of Ms G that an endeavour had been made to have the [C] Primary School Principal, Mr W, give evidence on behalf of the father. His evidence was heard by telephone. 

17. It is sufficient to paraphrase Mr W’s evidence, which was given candidly.  It is clear that over time, [X]’s teachers developed concerns about the lack of nutritious food being provided to [X] for lunches.  Ultimately, this was taken to Mr W and he contacted the mother by telephone about it in prep or second year. [X] was often angry and did not make friends. Nonetheless, [X] was now an accepted member of the school. He confirmed that most of his contact had been with the mother and although from time-to-time the provision of food improved, it always lapsed.

18. By at least mid-2011, the father would visit and Ms G would usually be present as well. Ms G was presented to him as a family friend, and it was for that reason that ultimately he wrote a letter addressed to “Dear [Mr Manksy] and [Ms G]”.

19. Although it was put to Mr W that there were only 11 absences in 2011, he confirmed that there would be at least the same amount again when [X] was late. Nonetheless, it emerged in cross-examination that only two of these absences were unexplained to Mr W. He eventually conceded that the mother was doing better. 

20. It became quite clear that the School Principal has found the mother to have lied to him on occasions (which is in fact the case) and it is sufficient in the ultimate to note that the relationship between Mr W and the mother has broken down.

21. Nonetheless, I note that the hygiene problems referred to had settled down by year 1, according to Mr W.  The areas of neglect were really in relation to food and clothing.  Clothing has since ceased to be an issue.  I note that Mr W confirmed that [X] has, of more recent times, become very closed off and is not happy.  He had not appeared happy for the second half of last year.  [X] has been more guarded since Court has started and has not wanted to engage.

22. Mr W did also confirm that children are resilient and that if [X] moved school, he would quickly settle and not miss his friends. He recommended an immediate change, if change is indeed to occur. 

23. Dr P was called and adopted her report.  She confirmed under cross-examination by counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer that [X] does not make friends easily and is not happy at school.  [X] knows that his living with his mother is under threat and is aware of the dispute.  Dr P confirmed that she has read Ms G’s affidavit and said that it was unusual that Ms G was so involved in the child’s life.  She expressed a concern that the mother would be replaced by Ms G. 

24. Dr P conceded that her recommendations involved drastic change and it emerged that she was not in a position to say anything about any concerns in respect to [Y] and [Z].

25. Dr P confirmed that it was her conversations with the School Principal, Mr W, that had tipped the balance to cause her to recommend the child living with the father. 

The submissions of the parties – the Independent Children’s Lawyer

1. Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer correctly submitted that this was a difficult case. The mother has not done the parenting program she has been ordered to do. The Independent Children’s Lawyer recommended the reverse of Dr P’s report, namely that the child should live with the mother, go to a school near to the mother and spend every second weekend and one overnight with the father in the off week.  The drive from [B] to [G] is only about 35 minutes and accordingly, if the child was to be schooled near the mother’s home, this would not be problematic. 

2. Counsel submitted, and indeed I accept, that Mr W’s relationship with the mother has broken down and the school is hostile to her. Counsel submitted that the concerns articulated really relate to nutrition and the child’s emotional wellbeing.  The issue about the grossly early deposit of [X] at school has simply not occurred since term 1 in 2012.

3. It was submitted that the mother had a poor engagement with the school, but she was after all depressed as a single mother with three children to look after at the time. 

4. Counsel pointed to paragraph 44 of Dr P’s report:

   “Mr W reported a change in [X]’s demeanour in the time since court proceedings commenced.  He noted that [X], who had previously presented with an open and honest manner, had become more guarded and shut down.”

5. It was submitted that [X] knows what is going on and is likely to be troubled by it.

6. Counsel submitted that the role of Ms G simply cannot be ignored.

   
   

   Ms G is always there at changeover. Counsel pointed to the fact that it was the consistency between the father and the school principal’s accounts that led to the conclusion that there was significant neglect in the mother’s care (see paragraph 46 of the Family Report). In fact, it was submitted that the DHS file shows there really are not significant concerns.  DHS had not even investigated all but two of the reports made to the Department, and there has never been a suggestion that DHS would remove any of the children from the mother.

7. The educational issues really relate to absences and lateness, and this was greater in earlier times but is now reasonable.

8. Counsel submitted that while the scabies issue was concerning, it did not lead the father to overhold the child.  It was the ear problem that led to overholding, and it was submitted that this was opportunistic.

9. Counsel conceded that the mother has made absolutely scandalous allegations against the father, but submitted that her back was to the wall at the time.  It was submitted that orders that should be made include:

   a)the mother attend the Parenting Orders Program in [omitted];

   b)the mother be ordered to provide appropriate nutritious food to [X];

   c)that Ms G not attend parent teacher nights;

   d)that Ms G not discuss [X] with the class teacher;

   e)that Ms G not attend changeover.

10. The submissions of the two parents can be dealt with briefly. Each contended for the position that they had previously adopted.  The father confirmed that he would change [X]’s school straightaway and said, “I know I can do it”, thus expressing confidence in his capacity to take up the role he was seeking.

1. The mother acknowledged that she had had her issues.  She pointed out that if [X] was not with her, it would have a big impact on him and his brothers.  She confirmed that she would send [X] to [P] School, close to where she lived, and that she was quite happy to undertake the Parenting Orders Program.

2. She sought that [X] live with her and spend every second weekend with his father from conclusion of school.  She expressed a desire to try and rebuild communication with the father and to use a communication book to do so.  She wanted [X] returned on Sunday evenings at 5 pm and that a Wednesday to Thursday in the opposite week would be acceptable.

The statutory pathway

1. The Full Court of the Family Court summarised the amendments to the Act relevantly in Goode v Goode [2006] FamCA 1346 at [65]. I follow the path therein indicated.

2. The making of a parenting order triggers the application of the presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for each of the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility. That presumption must be applied unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent or a person who lives with a parent has engaged in abuse of the child or family violence.

3. In this case, notwithstanding the protective concerns raised by both parties, it is clear that the presumption is not rebutted.  Nobody has seriously suggested otherwise. Indeed, notwithstanding her recommendations for a change, Dr P recommended equal shared parental responsibility in any event.

4. The next task that the Court should undertake is to consider whether the child should spend equal time with each of the parents.  In the circumstances of this case, it is not in the best interests of the child to spend equal time with his parents.  The shared care arrangement that was formerly in place has not been productive of a calm and suitable environment for [X].  [X] has become anxious as I find, because he is scared he will be removed from his mother’s primary or substantial care.

5. I am also required to consider whether it is practicable for [X] to spend equal time with his parents. Given that the mother now lives in [G] and is only half an hour or so from where the father lives in [B], there does not appear to be any tyranny of distance difficulty. Given that the mother is impecunious and the father likewise, there may well be financial difficulties in an equal shared care arrangement, but this aspect of the matter was not explored in any detail before me.

6. I should make it clear, however, that even if it was reasonably practicable for the parties to have equal time, it is not in [X]’s best interest that this be done.  Once again, nobody has actually suggested this and, in my view, it is clearly inappropriate.

7. The next matter that the Court must consider is making an order for the child to spend substantial and significant time with each of the parents.  The proposals made by both parties would accommodate substantial and significant time with the non-primary carer within the meaning of the phrase as defined in the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”).

8. It then becomes a matter of looking at [X]’s best interests in the light of matters set out in section 60CC of the Act.

The primary considerations – section 60CC(2)

1. It is clearly to [X]’s benefit to have a meaningful relationship with both of his parents.  This is so obvious that nothing more needs to be said.  He loves them both.

2. There is a need to protect [X] from physical or psychological harm, from being subjected to or exposed to neglect.  That will, in my view, be met by making the orders that the Independent Children’s Lawyer seeks for appropriate nutrition and physical care.

3. Leaving aside these matters, however, there is no suggestion that [X] has been in any significant or meaningful way exposed to abuse or family violence.

The additional considerations – section 60CC(3)(a)

1. It is noteworthy that [X] was careful not to express any views.  As Dr P reported (at paragraph 33):

   “[X] appeared unwilling to report negatively about either parent and often gave neutral responses.”

Section 60CC(3)(b)

1. [X] plainly has a good and loving relationship with both his father and his mother. So much was clear to Dr P. Nonetheless, as Dr P pointed out at paragraph 50:

   “[X] appears to feel closer to his mother than his father.”

2. I note that [X] did suggest that he wanted to return to a shared care arrangement most familiar to him, but that was based on an immature pleasure at the volume of games available at his mother’s house and the distance from his school.  I accept in this regard he is not of an age where he is able properly to evaluate the matter.

3. [X] obviously has also a good relationship with Ms G. Having seen the witnesses give their evidence, I have no doubt that all three were honest in what they said. Nonetheless, it is clear that Ms G has an overly involved role in [X]’s life. No doubt entirely unintentionally, and for reasons I have expressed earlier very understandably, Ms G has taken a possessive role in [X]’s life, which is in serious danger of eroding his relationship with his mother.

Section 60CC(3)(c)

1. The mother has failed to participate in making decisions about long term issues in relation to [X] insofar as she has failed to engage with [X]’s school. Nonetheless, I accept the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s submissions that this is, in the circumstances, explicable and not a matter for significant criticism. Both parents have sought to spend time with the child and to communicate with him. 

Section 60CC(3)(ca)

1. Both parents have, in my view, generally properly sought to fulfil their obligations to maintain the child. An area that might fall for consideration here is the mother’s failures in nutrition and clothing. I should make it clear that I accept the characterisation of these matters advanced by counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer, which is consistent with the objective facts and my views about the witnesses.  While the mother is open to criticism, it is not as great as the father and Dr P suggested. Dr P was greatly influenced by Mr W, who was clearly a person with a partisan view of the matter. It is clear from Mr W’s cross-examination that he has formed a very definite antithetical view of the mother and this, I regret to say, has somewhat exaggerated some aspects of his views about her.

Section 60CC(3)(d)

1. I am quite satisfied on the material as a whole that [X] would be deeply distressed were he to be removed from his mother and put into the primary care of his father as Dr P and the father would recommend.  Telling evidence in this regard is Mr W’s evidence that [X] has become closed and more guarded since the Court proceeding started.

2. Likewise, while [X] expressed himself in somewhat neutral terms about his half-siblings, it is clear that missing them would be a loss to him.

Section 60CC(3)(e)

1. In the context of the orders that each side seeks I make, this subsection is of no significance.

Section 60CC(3)(f)

1. The father and Ms G between them plainly are well capable of providing for [X]’s needs.  In Ms G’s case, however, it must be noted that her capacity to provide for [X]’s needs must be approached with caution in view of the over-involvement to which I have referred.  The mother can provide for his needs, but putting it bluntly, needs to raise her game in relation to [X]’s food, clothing and cleanliness.

Section 60CC(3)(g)

1. While [X] is, of course, partly of Cambodian origin, this appears to me to play no part in this case.  There are things to be said about the maturity and lifestyle and background of each parent, in the sense that they both have their fallibilities.  These are not of such significance to be worthy of any great note.

Section 60CC(3)(h)

1. Irrelevant.

Section 60CC(3)(i)

1. Both these parents love their child and despite a certain lack of insight, there is nothing of any great moment to record.

Section 60CC(3)(j) and (k)

1. Irrelevant.

Section 60CC(3)(l)

1. The orders I propose to make are, in my view, the most likely to prevent further litigation.

Conclusions

1. In my view, the submissions of the Independent Children’s Lawyer are entirely to be accepted. I think that, unintentionally, Ms G has come to play a role in [X]’s life which is not in his best interests, at least when the role is as extensive as it has been of more recent times.  This is having a damaging effect on [X], who is becoming withdrawn and closed. It is quite clear that [X] ought live with his mother and spend time with his father, as suggested by the Independent Children’s Lawyer. He will go to a new school straightaway close to where he lives. It seems from his mother’s evidence that there is a child with whom he plays at home who attends this school in any event. As

   
   

   Mr W’s evidence points out, he is likely to be resilient and to rapidly adapt.

2. The mother must be on notice that she must address, and in a more direct and unprevaricating way than she has done in the past, the proper criticisms made of her failure to provide [X] with appropriate food both at school and at home. She must also ensure that she pushes him harder in relation to his hygiene and clothing, as she indeed herself admits.

3. Nonetheless, I accept the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s submissions that Dr P’s recommendations were unduly skewed by the evidence of Mr W. A man who calls the mother an unmitigated liar (a phrase he conceded but regretted) is not a wholly satisfactory information source. This is so, even though the mother did undoubtedly lie to Mr W on at least one occasion.

4. Having seen all of the witnesses give their evidence (apart from Mr W, who was clearly honest, even though partisan), I have no doubt that these are all thoroughly decent people. They all have [X]’s best interests at heart.  The fact is, however, that [X]’s primary attachment is to his mother.  He is anxious that it may be disturbed.  In the ultimate, it is clear that this is not in his best interests and it is clear that he should live in the primary care of his mother accordingly. The ancillary benefits of closer relationships with his half-siblings are another matter that tends to tip the matter in this way, as is the fact that if he lives most of the time with Ms G, it will be all but impossible for the father and Ms G not to supplant the mother in [X]’s life. I do not put this as a matter of any criticism, but that is the way things would pan out.

5. Accordingly, I will be making the orders sought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, together with ancillary orders designed to address the mother’s care of [X]. I have prepared draft orders (some will clearly require refinement) and will hear further from the parties before making them final. 

I certify that the preceding eighty-six (86) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Burchardt.

Associate: 

Date:  24 April 2013