Markson and Markson (No.2)

[2016] FCCA 965

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MARKSON & MARKSON (No.2) [2016] FCCA 965

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Children – Parenting Orders – interim orders – best interests of the children – parental responsibility – four children aged 17 years, 15 years, and twins aged 13 years – views expressed by children considered.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA

Applicant: MS MARKSON

Respondent: MR MARKSON

File Number: SYC 3742 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Scarlett

Hearing date: 18 April 2016

Date of Last Submission: 18 April 2016

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 26 April 2016

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: In person

Respondent: In person

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr Hill

Independent Children's Lawyer

Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Gonzalez & Co

ORDERS

UNTIL FURTHER ORDER

1. The child of the marriage X born 1999 is to live with the Father and spend time with the Mother at such times as he and the Mother agree.

2. The child X is to have telephone communication with the Mother for a period of not less than ten (10) minutes between the hours of 6:00 pm and 8:00 pm each Monday and Wednesday with the Mother initiating the call to the child’s mobile telephone.

3. The children Y born 2000, Z and W both born 2003 are to live with the Father:

   (a)From immediately after school on the first Wednesday of each fortnight until the commencement of school on the following Tuesday morning PROVIDED THAT the children are to live with the Mother from immediately after school on the Friday immediately before the weekend that includes Mother’s Day until the commencement of school on the Monday morning immediately after Mother’s Day;

   (b)For the first half of the school holidays at the end of the first, second and third school terms in each year commencing immediately after school on the last day of the first, second and third school term and concluding at 5:00pm on the middle Saturday of the school holidays;

   (c)From 9:00am on Monday 2 January to 5:00pm on Friday 20 January 2017;

   (d)On the weekend that includes Father’s Day in each year from immediately after school on the Friday afternoon until the commencement of school on the Monday morning;

   (e)From immediately after school on the Father’s birthday being 14 December until the commencement of school the following morning;

   (f)From 5:00 pm on Christmas Day 25 December until 7:00 pm on Boxing Day 26 December;

   (g)From immediately after school on the birthday of the children Z and W until the commencement of school the following morning; and

   (h)The children are to live with the Mother at all other times.

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the immediately preceding Order the children Y, Z and W are to spend time with the Mother from immediately after school on the Mother’s birthday until the commencement of school the following morning.

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of Order (3)(a) above the Father is permitted to spend time with the child Y:

   (a)each Wednesday evening for the purpose of coaching the child at soccer; and

   (b)for the purpose of attending the child Y’s soccer games on a Saturday or a Sunday.

6. For the purpose of changeover where the children go from the care of one parent to the care of the other parent changeover is to take place at the children’s school on all occasions where a parent’s time commences immediately after school and concludes immediately before school and on all other occasions the Father is to deliver the children to the Mother’s residence at the conclusion of his time with the children.

7. On all occasions when the children Z and W are playing sport the parent with whom the children are not living on that occasion is restrained from attending the children’s sporting fixtures.

8. The parties are restrained from attending the children’s schools:

   (a)Except on occasions where parents of children attending that school are invited to attend functions at the school including but not restricted to award nights, school prize-giving ceremonies or parent-teacher interviews; or

   (b)Except in case of an emergency affecting one of the children.

9. The parties are each restrained by injunction from:

   (a)Discussing these proceedings with the children or any of them;

   (b)Showing the children or any of them any document connected with these proceedings; or

   (c)Leaving any documents connected with these proceedings in a place where they can be read by any of the children.

10. In the event that the Father is required to travel out of the State of New South Wales he is to inform the Mother a reasonable time beforehand and make arrangements for the children to spend time in the care of the Mother during the period when he is out of the State.

11. The parties are restrained from abusing, criticising or denigrating each other in the presence or hearing of any of the children or from permitting any third person to do so.

12. The parties are to attend upon a Family Consultant at a time, date and place nominated by the Director of Child Dispute Services at the Sydney Registry of the Court for the purpose of interviews for the preparation of a Family Report under the provisions of section 62G of the Family Law Act 1975 and for this purpose the parties are to ensure that each person with whom they are in a relationship or spends time with the children regularly attends for an interview with the Family Consultant.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Markson & Markson (No.2) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYC 3742 of 2014

MS MARKSON

Applicant

And

MR MARKSON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application in a Case

1. In the matter of Markson & Markson and the Independent Children’s Lawyer.  These are parenting proceedings where the parties are each seeking interim orders relating to their four children.  The Husband filed an application in the case, supported by an affidavit.  That application sought both interim property orders and interim parenting orders.  The Wife filed a response to an application in the case.  She too sought property orders and parenting orders.

2. The decision in respect of the parties’ application for interim property orders was handed down yesterday on 18^th April.  The parties each made submissions about the parenting orders that should be made, pending a final hearing of the matter.  Parties had been directed to attend a child inclusive Child Dispute Conference with a family consultant.  That took place on Monday 4^th April.  Both the Father and the Mother attended.  The parties’ four children attended.  They expressed their views quite forthrightly.

3. The parties have three sons and one daughter.  The eldest child, X, was born 1999.  He has now attained the age of 17 years.  The parties’ second child is their daughter Y.  She was born 2000.  The parties also have two younger sons, twin boys called Z and W.  They were both born 2003.  The immediate background to this matter is that the parties themselves have a relationship where their communication could only be described as poor at best.  There is a considerable degree of hostility between them.

4. The Mother’s anger towards the Father was palpable in the submissions that she made to the Court in respect of the proposed parenting orders.  Each party seeks that they should have primary care of the children and that the children should spend time with the other party.  There are, however, some complicating factors.  One of those is the attitude of the eldest child, X, towards his mother.  He has elected to live with his father and has very little communication with his mother.  Another complicating factor is that up to the time of hearing, the Father has been living a considerable distance away from the children’s schools and away from the Mother’s residence.

5. X attends (college omitted) at (town omitted), but the other three children all attend (high school omitted), and the Mother lives in the nearby suburb of (omitted).  She has now formed a new relationship.

6. The family consultant has prepared a most comprehensive Child Inclusive Conference memorandum for Court.  In that memorandum, she sets out in some detail the expressed views of the children.  She sets out the fact that there were no agreements reached between the parties.  The issues in dispute were parental responsibility, because each party proposed that they should have sole parental responsibility for the children and how much time the children should live or spend with each parent.

7. As I said, each parent proposes that he or she should be the primary care giver and the children should spend time with the other party for a lesser period of time.  The family consultant noted that family violence was seen as a risk factor in that the Mother alleged that the Father had been abusive to her during their relationship and continued to behave in a controlling manner since separation.  The Mother alleged that the Father had perpetrated domestic violence during their relationship and that he continues to behave in a controlling manner towards her and the children, particularly via financial means.

8. The Father denies all of these allegations of violence and abuse and control.  He in fact claims that late last year, the Mother came out of her house holding a baseball bat when he was there trying to collect the children.  The Father said the children did not witness that incident, but the daughter Y reported it during her interview.  The Mother denied that.  The family consultant noted that there were risks to the children’s mental health due to their ongoing exposure to their parents’ conflicts and disputes about parenting arrangements and property matters.

9. Further, she noted that X appeared to be aligning with his father and was becoming estranged from his mother.  The family consultant expressed the view that X was at risk of losing his relationship with his mother, which could have serious psychological impact on him.  The family consultant also formed the view that Y appeared to be disengaging from both of her parents, and she is at an age at which she may be at risk of harm associated with adolescent peer-based risk taking behaviour.

10. Parents do not communicate with each other, said the family consultant.  They each appear to blame the other for their ongoing disputes about parenting and property.  There are no interim orders or parenting plans in place.  The children try to make arrangements with their parents in order to spend time with both of them, but both the parents have not agreed to plans and changed plans against the wishes of the other parent.  Each parent alleged that the other parent underhandedly implemented their desired parenting arrangements without agreement from them, and by giving direct instructions to the children.

11. Ms Markson alleged that the Father prevented the children from communicating with her and harassed Y and demanded that the children went with him.  The Father alleged the Mother collects the children early from school and locks them in the house to prevent them from going with him.  Each parent claims to be the better at an ability to meet the children’s needs.  The Mother said she had always been the children’s primary carer, and that the children need her and that the Father is not available due to work.  Nor is he motivated by the children’s best interests, but by his desire for power and control.

12. The Father, however, said that he was able to provide the children with stability in their housing, schooling and extracurricular activities.  He said that the Mother was prioritising her new relationship and her desire for financial gain over the children’s best interests, and he was more available for the children to meet their needs.  The children spoke to the family consultant at some length.  The oldest boy, X, aged 17 years, has lived with his father and not spent regular time with his mother for approximately six months.

13. He had been boarding at his old school, (college omitted) at (town omitted), but the Father informed the Court that that was a temporary arrangement and the child had gone back to being a day boy.  Whilst the parents said there was some concerns raised by the child’s school regarding possible suicidal ideation, this did not appear to be a current risk factor, but X said that he had never had thoughts of harming himself.  However, the child seemed to be frustrated by the parenting and property disputes between his parents remaining unresolved.

14. He seems to have been drawn into the conflict between his parents and it appears that his father has allowed him to read some of the affidavit material.  X seems to have sided with his father against his mother in respect of these matters.  X told the family consultant that he has chosen to live with his father and wants to continue living with his father, with a possibility of boarding at the school.  He said that he was angry at his mother for her having said that he was being controlled by his father.  He does not consider that his father is controlling or manipulating him.

15. He says his father tells him to spend time with his mother, but he chooses not to.  He seemed, to the family consultant, to feel offended by his mother’s attitude.  The family consultant commented that X seemed to have experienced his mother being angry and upset since his parents separation and did not consider that his mother’s home was an emotionally healthy environment for him.  He perceived that when he was living with his mother, she prevented him from spending time with his father.  Currently he perceives that his mother prevents his younger siblings from spending time with him and their father.

16. Y is aged 15 years.  She is now in year 10 at (omitted) High School.  She had been going to (high school omitted), but her enrolment there finished at the end of 2015.  Y described her living arrangements as chaotic.  She said that lately she was living primarily with her mother because her father recommenced living with his grandmother, and it was hard to get from school – get to school from where they lived.  She said prior to that, she would communicate with one parent and make a plan to spend time with them, and then the other parent would get upset and come and pick her and her younger brothers up.

17. She seemed to perceive that her mother prevented her from spending time with the father.  The family consultant noted that Y seemed to feel unhappy at times when living with her mother, and she perceives her mother to be angry and emotional, particularly when the Mother’s partner is not present.  She seemed to perceive that her mother was not really understanding her experiences and feelings at this time and that her mother expected her to look out for her emotional well being.  Y indicated that she takes on some responsibility for looking after her younger brothers when they are living with their mother.  Overall, the family consultant noted that Y presented as being fed up with the lack of routine and her living arrangements and with her parents’ conflict. 

18. She perceived that each of her parents spoke negatively about the other in an effort to justify why she and her siblings should live primarily with them.  Y seemed to be aware of some things that her mother had written in the affidavit material, apparently, from her father and from X. And both parents seemed to have talked to her about their property dispute.  She said that she found it annoying that her parents would not listen to her and her siblings and she was questioning whether either of her parents actually want her and her brothers to spend time with them or whether they just want to look like the better parent or get the money in court.  Y expressed a concern that each parent may question her about what she said during her interview for the assessment. 

19. She wants the court matter to be resolved.  She said that she did not really care where she lived but thought that her brothers wanted to live with her father and she said she would want to live with her brothers.  She certainly wants to spend more time with her elder brother, X.  She wanted a set schedule and she wanted her parents to stop making last minute changes to arrangements that she had made with the other parent.  She did not think that a week‑about arrangement would work and would like to spend alternate weekends of two to four days with the parent with whom she did not primarily live.  She also reported a desire to spend more time with her friends.

20. The two younger boys are twins, aged 13 years.  They are in year seven at the same school.  Z said he had a good relationship with each of his parents and he needed them both in different ways.  He said that his parents say negative things about each other and blame each other for things not happening.  He said that the children tried to tell the parents to stop doing it but the parents do not realise they are still doing it. 

21. He complains that his living arrangements kept changing and that it was annoying.  He said that because he and his siblings move between their parents’ homes unexpectedly, they did not always have the things that they needed and they lost their belongings.  He expressed the view that they needed a schedule. He also hoped that his parents would communicate.  He and W, he said, agreed that they wanted an equal time arrangement, either week‑about or a half a week with each parent.  This would be dependent on his father moving back closer to their school.  He did not indicate a preference for which parent he would want to live with primarily if an equal time arrangement were not possible.

22. W, his twin brother, said that both his parents try to justify why he and his siblings should live primarily with them and that they speak negatively about the other parent.  He said he feels bad for each parent when he is with the other parent.  He said that his living arrangements are not really organised.  He said he would expect his parents to be happy with him and his siblings living equally between them but said that no matter what they each want more time and each parent gets angry if he and his siblings spend more time with the other parent. 

23. He said that when they tried to live equally between their parents, each parent either kept them longer than they were meant to or picked them up earlier than they were meant to.  W said that he got annoyed because plans kept getting changed and he would not have things that he needed and that he would lose things.  He said that he wanted to live equally between his parents but this would be dependent on his father moving back to live closer to his school.  He did not indicate a preference for which parent he would want to live with primarily if an equal time arrangement were not possible. 

24. The family consultant looked at the future directions for this matter.  It is hardly surprising that she expressed the view that interim or final orders were required whether by consent or by a judicial decision and the parents needed to implement and abide by such orders irrespective of whether they believe that the orders are appropriate orders for the benefit of their children’s mental health.  The family consultant noted that given his age and expressed views, orders regarding X may need to provide for him to live with his father and spend time with his mother in accordance with his wishes.  The family consultant suggested that orders regarding the three younger children, Y, Z and W, could provide that they lived with both parents week-about or lived with one parent and spend five nights a fortnight with the other.

25. The family consultant acknowledged that the parents do not have an effective co-parenting relationship and the children may continue to experience problems as a result of their parents’ poor communication.  The Mother’s account of family violence did raise concerns with the family consultant about the Father’s capacity to engage in a respectful co-parenting relationship and his capacity to meet the children’s needs.  The family consultant was of the view that the children’s accounts raised concerns about both parents’ capacity to engage in a respectful co‑parenting relationship with each other and their capacity to meet the children’s emotional needs, including facilitating their relationship with the other parent. 

1. The children need their parents to stop trying to convince them that they should live primarily with them.  The children need their parents to listen to what they say they need, including a predictable routine, substantial time with each parent and for the relationship with their other parent to be respected.  The children need to be protected from their parents’ dispute, which means not letting them read affidavit material and each parent not trying to justify their position in the dispute.  The children can be told that their parents have different perspectives and opinions about things but they are adult issues and the adults will sort them out and the children do not need to be worried about them.  If the matter requires a final hearing, a family report will be required.  That was the suggestion of the family consultant.

2. I gave the parties the opportunity to discuss with themselves and the Independent Children’s Lawyer, Mr Hill, possible interim parenting orders.  The parties were unable to agree.  I then indicated that I would take submissions from the parties as to what were appropriate interim arrangements for the children.  I told the parties that I would hear from counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer first, followed by the Father and followed by the Mother. 

3. Mr Hill, for the Independent Children’s Lawyer, said that he did not seek to be heard on parental responsibility and did not consider that an order should be made one way or another.  He noted that X was 17 years and it would be rare for a court to make an order setting out parenting arrangements for a child of that age.  However, he suggested that the court should still make an order for X to have telephone communication with his mother.  It was clear that X wanted to live with his father, at least for the time being. 

4. Mr Hill noted that one factor that needed to be considered were that on Tuesday and Thursday evenings, the children had training sessions for their weekend sport.  He suggested there should be a restriction on the parents attending sporting events on the weekends, when the children were in the care of the other parent.  He also noted that the Father had  to travel interstate in his employment from time to time and submitted that on those occasions the children should spend time with the Mother. 

5. Mr Hill submitted that the children’s wishes should be respected and that equal time between parents must be considered but there would be a need to reduce travel and need to reduce changeovers.  He suggested a 9.00am to 5.00pm day split each fortnight with the younger children spending the Wednesday of the off week with the other parent.  He did submit that a week-about arrangement would minimise the changeovers but, ultimately, his submission was that the children should spend nine days a fortnight with their mother, commencing after school Thursday, and the other five with their father.  He did note that the children, Z and W, wanted an equal time arrangement.  He supported ordering a Family Report.  In answer to a question from the bench, Mr Hill indicated that he supported the fact that there would be a need for specific orders relating to special occasions, such as birthdays, Father’s Day and Mother’s Day. 

6. The Father submitted that as a result of receiving some money by way of an interim property order in respect of the property decision that had been handed down, he would be able to make arrangements immediately to obtain rental accommodation near the children’s schools.  He suggested that he could do so the following day, which did sound a little bit optimistic.  He submitted that X does reside with him.  It was his view that X wished to continue to do so, although he said that he encouraged the child to spend time with his mother.  He criticised the Mother for making very little attempts to engage with X and he said that the Mother is angry and that X is angry with his mother because of her attitude.  He said that both X and his sister Y say that their mother is continually angry at them. 

7. On the question of sporting activities, Mr Markson raised one issue that should be considered that was not covered by counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer.  The daughter, Y, plays soccer.  He, in fact, coaches her soccer team.  They have training on Wednesday nights and she usually plays on Sundays but could play on Saturdays.  He said that he really did need to attend all of Y’s soccer activities because he was the team’s coach.  He did say, however, he would certainly agree to an order not to attend the boys’ sporting events when the boys were in the care of the other parent.  He expressed the view that he genuinely believed that it was not in the children’s interests to reside predominantly with their mother and her partner. 

8. The Mother submitted that she just wanted to be the children’s primary carer.  She wanted the children to be with her.  She wanted to take them to their sporting matches.  All of the children played soccer.  She said that she had been married in 1996 and over the past 20 years she had predominantly looked after the children.  She complained that she had been involved in a domestic violence relationship with the Father and suggested to the Court that the Father’s submissions should be met with some reservation as the Father is a very good salesman.  She said that she wanted a stable environment for the children but the Father was violent. 

9. She says that she has shown that she can look after the children.  She has casual work.  She works in the (omitted).  She has permanent (employment omitted) on Saturday mornings and she works casually as a (omitted).  She has (employment omitted) and 15 independent clients. 

10. As to her relationship with X, which is strained, she said that she does ring him but the child had been brainwashed by his father.  She said of the Father’s necessity to travel out of the state on business, from time to time, that she wanted to be the first point of call if the Father was not in a position to look after the children. 

11. The parties’ submissions were diametrically opposed. There was very little in the way of common ground between them. When dealing with applications for parenting orders the Court must consider various matters set out in division I of Part VII Family Law Act. In particular, the Court must consider section 60CA which provides that in deciding whether to make a parenting order in relation to a child, a Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.

12. Section 60CC sets out how a court determines what is in a child’s best interest, and I note that the primary considerations are in subsection (2) of section 60CC and there are other additional considerations in subsection (3). Of the primary considerations which often need to be balanced against each other, paragraph (a) refers to the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the parents. Paragraph (b), on the other hand, refers to the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.

13. There are a number of matters in the additional considerations in subsection 60CC(3).  One of them which is particularly relevant here is contained in paragraph (a):

    Any views expressed by the child and any factor (such as the child’s maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views.

14. This is a case where the children’s views must be given a considerable degree of weight.  I’m mindful of the Mother’s allegations of domestic violence.  The violence about which she speaks seems to have occurred during the time that the parties lived together.  The Father denies the violence.  The parties do not live together.  They live separately and apart, and as far as possible, seem to have worked communicating with each other.  The Mother still complains of the Father being controlling in respect of financial issues.

15. I might comment that this is a matter where the financial issues between the parties have not been able to be resolved, notwithstanding the fact that the parties have been directed to attend a conciliation conference with a registrar on two occasions. On the first such occasion the Mother did not attend the conference at all.  On the second occasion, some months later, both parties attended but matter did not come close to resolution and the registrar noted that neither party had complied with the directions of the Court for providing the necessary information that a registrar would need to conduct a successful conciliation conference. 

16. The parties are not legally represented; they have been represented in the past, but that is no longer the case.  The affidavit material that they have prepared is, at time, disjointed, full of irrelevancies and, not surprisingly, contains matters in the nature of submissions.  It is not, however, the case that the parties can be said to have worked assiduously towards resolving the financial issues between them.  That is an outstanding matter which seems to cause hostility between them.

17. The children are all of an age where it is clear that they are of sufficient maturity and level of understanding that a considerable amount of weight should be given to their views.  It is noteworthy that a number of themes emerge from the child inclusive conference memorandum to the court.  One of them is the children’s discomfort at the level of anger and hostility displayed by their parents towards each other and what they appear to perceive as lobbying by each parent to persuade the children to come round to their point of view.

18. The children complain about the lack of routine, the uncertainty they have as to where they will be and when, and the inability, or the unwillingness, of their parents to make any arrangements on a regular basis so the children should have some stability in their lives.  It is quite clear that the children are sick of the acrimonious litigation between their parents.  The best interests of the children must be the paramount consideration.  It is clear – and I made it clear to the parties when I released the child inclusive conference memorandum to them – that the message that came out of that document was the need for there to be orders setting out a routine for the children so the children knew where they were going to be, when and with whom. I have endeavoured to do so and I have come up with an arrangement which bears some relationship to that proposed by the independent children’s lawyer but is not a complete replica of it.

19. I raised with the Mother at the hearing the reality that she and her son X were estranged and that it was not realistic to expect that an order should be made that he, at the age of 17 years, should be ordered to live with her.  For better or for worse, this child has made a decision over the last number of months that he wishes to remain residing with his father and, at his age, there is little that can be done to alter that situation.  There is no evidence before me to indicate that X is at risk of physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to family violence or abuse or neglect whilst he is in the care of his father.

20. I am going to make an order that until further order he should reside with his father and spend some time with his mother but that time should be arranged.  This is, as Mr Hill submitted, an unusual situation but this is an unusual case.  I expect that this is an order made on an interim basis that probably will not turn into a final order, noting that the order will only have about 10 months to run.  It is unlikely that a final hearing can be allocated within 10 months and it is even less likely that the parents, with their degree of hostility, will enter into consent orders.

21. I am satisfied that there is a need to reduce the changeovers from one parent to another and, on that basis, I am not prepared to make an order the children spend a block of time with one party in one week of the fortnight and then a one off day in the second week of the fortnight.  Whilst that does happen from time to time, it will lead to more changeovers than I consider to be helpful.  It would be better for the children to spend blocks of time with each parent.  I am not satisfied that there should be an equal time arrangement on a week about basis.

22. The Father says that he is going to obtain accommodation near to the children’s schools and obviously much nearer to the Mother’s residence but this is not the case at the time of making this decision.  I have taken into account the fact that the boys appear to have their sports training on Tuesday and Thursday evenings but that Y has soccer training on a Wednesday evening and, particularly, that the Father is the coach of Y’s soccer team.  It would appear to be desirable and in the child’s best interests and in accord with common sense that the Father be given the opportunity to coach the children at soccer on a Wednesday evening whether the children are in his care under these orders or not.

23. I am also of the view that as the children’s soccer coach he should be in a position to attend the girls’ games.  The situation with the boys is different.  It is concerning that the children seem to have been shown or told about affidavit material in these proceedings and that issues between the parents seem to have been discussed with or made known to the children.  This is not helpful to the children and, if it is happening, it needs to stop right now. 

24. I am also of a view that I should make an order restraining each parent from  criticising or denigrating or speaking in an offensive manner about the other parent in the presence or hearing of all or any of the children, or permitting any third party to do so.  And I think that is an order that should well be added to the suite of orders that I have prepared. 

25. Essentially the proposal that I propose to make, by means of orders, is that X, until further order, will live with his father and spend time with the mother, at times as he and the Mother agree, and that he is to have telephone communication with her on Monday and Wednesday evenings.

26. The other three children will live with the Father in a block in the first week of each fortnight, for half of the school holidays, for a longer block in the Christmas/January school holidays from immediately after New Years Day.  They will spend the weekend of Father’s day with their father and they will spend their father’s birthday with him.  Obviously, the weekend of Mother's Day, even if it’s otherwise time the children would spend with their father, would be spent with the Mother.

27. The children can go to their father in the afternoon of Christmas Day and stay with their father until 7 pm on Boxing Day (omitted). The children will live with their mother at all other times. I will make provision to allow for the father coaching Y’s soccer team and I will make provision for the mother to be given the opportunity of having the care of the children when the father is required to travel out of the State of New South Wales. I will order a family report under the provisions of section 62G of the Family Law Act.

28. As I no longer have hearing dates left in my docket, the proceedings will be transferred to the docket of another judge who will take the matter through to a final hearing.

I certify that the preceding fifty three (53) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Scarlett

Date: 26 April 2016