Mauger and Esson
[2009] FMCAfam 173
•10 February 2009
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MAUGER & ESSON | [2009] FMCAfam 173 |
| FAMILY LAW – Parenting orders – relocation. |
| Family Law Act 1975 |
| Applicant: | MR MAUGER |
| Respondent: | MS ESSON |
| File Number: | NCC 1644 of 2008 |
| Judgment of: | Baumann FM |
| Hearing date: | 6 February 2009 |
| Delivered at: | Newcastle |
| Delivered on: | 10 February 2009 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Bates |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Wood Roberts |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Hamilton |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Stacks Forster |
ORDERS
That all previous parenting orders be discharged.
That the father and mother have joint and equal parental responsibility for the child [X] born in 2002 (“the child”).
That the child live with the father.
That the child spend time with the mother as agreed by the parties but failing agreement defined as follows:
(a)for not less than 10 days in each of the first, second and third term New South Wales School holidays inclusive of travel time;
(b)for the first half of each Christmas school holidays which commence in an even numbered year;
(c)for half of each Christmas school holidays which commence in an odd numbered year concluding 3 days prior to [X] commencing school;
(d)until the end of the 2011 school year for not less than 7 days in about the middle of the first, second, third and fourth New South Wales school terms in each year (except the fourth school term 2009);
(e)from 6 November 2009 to 14 November 2009.
That unless the parties otherwise agree, the father is to be responsible for the costs of the implementation of the spending time with period at the commencement and the mother is to be responsible for the costs of the implementation of the spending time with periods at the conclusion and implementation to be by aeroplane.
For the November 2009 spending time with period the mother notify the father for the implementation from New South Wales to Queensland and the parties share equally the costs of implementation.
That each party notify the other of any proposed change of address as soon as that party becomes aware of such proposed change of address and of any change of telephone number of that party.
That the child have liberal telephone communication with the mother during the time that the child is living with the father and liberal telephone communication with the father during the time that the child is spending time with the mother or if the parties are able to organise webcam the child communicate with the father and mother by that medium.
That each party keep the other informed of the child’s health and any health issues as well as any procedures or operations to be undertaken prior to those procedures or operations being undertaken except in cases of emergency (with the party in whose care the child are to inform the other party as soon as possible.
That in relation to the child’s schooling:
(a)the parties are to advise the child’s school that the mother be noted as the child’s parent in school records.
(b)that each party keep the other informed of the progress at school as well as all parent/teacher night appointments, co-curricular activities involving the child so as to provide the other with the opportunity to attend.
(c)the party that receives school notices, information, newsletters, school reports, school photographs is to provide copies of them to the other party within 7 days of receipt by that party.
(d)the parties are to authorise the child’s school to provide school notices, information, newsletters and school reports directly to each party.
(e)the father is to email copies of the child’s school readers to the mother each week.
(f)the party that records the child’s school activities including the end of year concert by video or other medium to provide a copy of the recording to the other party within 7 days of making the recording.
NOTATION
The father endeavour to organise the child spend time with her maternal grandmother during the time the child is living with him.
IT IS NOTED IN CONNECTION WITH THESE ORDERS that the judgment of Federal Magistrate Baumann delivered this day will for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as Mauger & Esson.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT NEWCASTLE |
NCC 1644 of 2008
| MR MAUGER |
Applicant
And
| MS ESSON |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Settled from the ex tempore reasons)
[X] now aged six and a half is the much loved only child of a long relationship between the applicant father Mr Mauger and the respondent mother, Ms Esson.
Despite separating in mid-2004, the parents, to their credit, have amicably and cooperatively managed and arranged the parenting of [X] with little conflict. The period from separation in early 2008 has weathered the establishment of a new same sex relationship of the mother with her partner Ms L; the relocation of both parents from Katherine, Northern Territory to the Central Coast of New South Wales; the father's endeavours to find a new partner and the usual tensions associated with bringing up a child and parents moving on after the breakdown of a marriage.
[X] presents as a happy and well adjusted child. The issue which brings the parents to Court and has the potential to emotionally disrupt the happy lifestyle of [X] arises from a decision of the mother and her partner to return to Katherine, Northern Territory to live permanently.
The father, who is a member of the [defence force] currently stationed in [W], New South Wales, does not wish to move back to the [T] Air Base near Katherine. The Court is asked therefore to decide whether [X] should live with the mother in Katherine or with the father in [P]. The mother indicates that she intends to move to Katherine even if [X] is not permitted to relocate with her.
Principles
In the extempore reasons I do not propose to say much about the law, other than to remind the parties that the Court's discretion in respect of a parenting case, of which this is one, is shaped by making an order which is in the best interests of the child. That is the paramount but not the only consideration.
The Court, of course, must in terms of making that decision, consider both the defined pathway as well as the additional and primary considerations under s.60CC(2) and (3) of the Act.
It is acknowledged by the Counsel who appeared before me and gave me great assistance, and it must be said, neither of whom could have said any more to advance the interests of their client in this matter, that of course the statutory presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, cannot because of the distances between [P] and Katherine, Northern Territory manifest in a practical sharing of care of this child either on an equal basis, or a substantial and significant basis as so defined by the Act.
Accordingly, very much as we discussed during the trial, which took place last Friday before me, this is really a case about whether or not the best interests of the child are to be preserved by the mother's proposal, or the father's proposal.
Those competing proposals can be summarised as follows and they offer a stark choice. The parents' proposals for the time that [X] ought spend with the parent she does not live with, whilst not exactly the same, nevertheless was agreed to include substantial school holiday time and on the suggestion of the Court, and readily adopted by both parties, some time at least in the first few years for [X] to have, in addition to end of term holidays, a further opportunity to spend time mid-term for either a long weekend or up to a week. I deal with this dispute later in these reasons.
Before dealing with the competing proposals within the matrix of the mandated pathways earlier noted, I choose to make some observations and findings on three issues which give a context to these reasons and following a brief fairly uncontroversial background.
Background
The father aged 35, the mother aged 29, commenced cohabitation in 1997, married in 2000 and welcomed [X] into their lives in July 2002. They were living in the Newcastle area as a result of the father's then posting, but decided to enhance the father's career prospects as a [occupation omitted] by a move to [T] Base near Katherine in the Northern Territory in December 2002. [X] was about 5 months old at the time.
The relationship between the parents broke down and no purpose is served in trying to establish a reason, save to observe that the mother almost immediately thereafter began cohabitating with Ms L. Upon separation, the parents agreed to share the care of [X]. Although the mother said she may have had a little more than 50 per cent of the time, nothing turns in this case on that issue or, for that matter, on who might have been "the primary carer" of the child for the first two years of her life. I do make a finding in a sense about that later in these reasons.
In mid-2007 the mother and Ms L indicated they wished to move to the [Z] area of the Central Coast of New South Wales. The desire to do so as a couple was explained by the need for Ms L to be closer to a relation with serious health difficulties, coupled with some workplace harassment difficulties experienced by the mother.
The father, who was given an opportunity to discuss the potential move and its effect on [X], before the final decision was made, did not oppose the move. He facilitated a successful application for a mid-cycle transfer for him back to [W].
The mother moved to [Z] (where Ms L operated a jointly acquired [omitted] business) in July 2007. [X] remained in Katherine with the father for approximately two months before he also was able to move. Sensibly, the parents agreed that when both had relocated the child, because of the distance between [Z] and [P] (I am told about a two hour drive), the previous regime of shared equal time could not practically be maintained. The parties agreed [X] would live with the mother with the father being able to spend alternate weekends and holidays with [X]. This has occurred.
The mother says, and I accept, that she offered the father more frequent weekend time than alternate weekends, but that the father says he did not take up the offer as to do so would reduce the recreational time the child would spend with the mother and her community in the [Z] area. No criticism could be made of either parent's position on that issue in my view.
Certainly it is clear that the move back to the Central Coast allowed [X] to enjoy greater interaction with the maternal grandmother and the maternal great-grandmother as well as older relations of Ms L including a much admired stepfather affectionately known as "Grumpy". Also, the paternal grandmother who resides currently in Sydney was able to see her granddaughter more regularly.
In February 2008, Ms L was offered an opportunity to consider taking up employment as a [occupation omitted] in Katherine, Northern Territory. On 3 March or thereabouts, unbeknown to the father, Ms L was interviewed for the position and was successful, accepting the position on or about 5 March 2008.
It is apparent to the Court that Ms L had decided to accept the position before discussing with the father the inevitable effect a move back to the Northern Territory would have on [X]. The mother says, as one would expect, that the decision to accept the position was made after a lot of consideration of the issues by Ms L and the mother - understandably describing it as a decision "for our family".
When the father first became aware of the decision, it was effectively a fate accomplice. As much is clear from the testimony of all the parties, and the father opposed [X] moving to Katherine. His position was made clear by his letter to the mother shortly thereafter. Even though Ms L commenced employment on 1 April 2008, the mother (again to her credit) undertook to remain in this area, separated from her partner until these proceedings, initiated by the father in June 2008 had been resolved.
The parenting regime cooperatively put into place then continued.
The father's household
The father lives in Defence quarters at [P]. His work hours are approximately 7.30 to 5 pm although he is able to return home earlier on a Friday. I have no doubt his household runs with military precision and routine. He presents that way in the witness box and also presents as a caring and orderly person.
He will be the primary carer of [X] when he is home and available but will need to rely on his new partner, Ms C (age 25) to assist with before and after school arrangements. This relationship is quite new. Ms C met the father in June 2008 and by late November 2008 she began residing with the father. She is studying and her current part-time work and study can be organised so that she is able, as she wishes; to support the father in the parenting of [X].
[X] has only met Ms C about five or six times, but it seems they have interacted well. This might be as much attributed to the resilience and relative maturity of [X] who has been introduced to other former girlfriends of the father, not always with the same positive outcomes.
It has to be said that this new relationship between the father and Ms C is in its infancy and has not yet been really tested, save for that obvious observation, as best as can be assessed, the father and Ms C appear committed to the relationship. Before the relationship commenced, the father said he could rely upon the support of his mother who would relocate to the area if necessary. No evidence from the paternal grandmother was offered to the Court.
The father is a loving, dedicated and capable parent who has a warm and secure relationship with [X]. He wants the best for her which he truly believes is remaining with him in New South Wales. Although he makes some remarks about the educational system in the Northern Territory and the alleged socioeconomic conditions in Katherine, Northern Territory, those issues do not found my decision. In any event on the evidence, they are not established.
The father says he has a warm relationship with the mother's extended family from which I am asked to draw the inference, which I do, that the father will continue to nurture the extended family relationships in this area if [X] resides with him. His option of [X] attending the [S] School seems appropriate and even though the child has a concern about "changing schools" it is inevitable on either proposal that she will do so.
The mother's household
The mother and Ms L are in a committed and seemingly happy same sex relationship. They have been together for over four years, have celebrated a public commitment event and the mother has changed her surname to Esson; they own a home in Katherine and have many friends there. Ms L has moved from being the [occupation omitted] to the senior role of CEO of the [omitted] of Katherine and the evidence of Ms H suggests she will be confirmed in that position shortly. It is a permanent position and Ms L, in the witness box, presented as a confident and highly motivated person. As I soon observe, without any criticism, I also gain an impression similar to the report writer that
Ms L is a dominant member of the relationship, although not always dominating or controlling.
The mother is devoted to [X] and has a warm and secure relationship with her. It is based on many years of gentle care of the child. She has been left in the invidious position with a decision to move back to the Northern Territory to really decide whether she can do so without [X]. The mother made it clear to the Court that she will be much happier living in Katherine and although she desperately wishes [X] to be with her, if the Court does permit [X] to relocate, she has decided to move. I do not ignore the difficult decision the mother has had to make in that regard.
I am satisfied the mother, if [X] was to live in Katherine, will secure employment which would generally make herself available to care for [X] out of school hours. If she had to work then like the father, I am confident that she would make appropriate arrangements.
The mother proposes the child return to the local school which she attended during 2007. It is likely some of her friends from that period may still be attending.
The child
[X] presented to the report writer as a confident, chatty child developing within normal parameters. [X] is well aware of the dispute (see para.41 of the family report), although her views and feelings have not been shaped, influenced or coached by the parents according to the family report writer.
As best as could be expected for a six and a half year old child, she understands it is a long distance between Katherine and [P]. [X] has a strong and warm relationship with Ms L (who she affectionately describes as "Mummy [first name omitted]") and in fact the report writer opines that in the mother's household it is likely that Ms L adopts the dominant care role. This is denied by both the mother and Ms L.
I form the view that in time [X] could adjust to living with either parent provided sufficient and frequent time with the other parent occurs. I have said during this case on more than one occasion that the parents provide to the Court less than an optimal environment in which to make an order for the best interests of [X]. A distance of over 3,000 kilometres living apart will provide a real difficulty for a child of this age.
The family report
Within the evenly and finely balanced proposals of the parents is introduced the observations and opinions of the experienced report writer, social worker, Dinah Taylor. I must say I was impressed by her evidence and the report. She was quite properly competently
cross-examined by Mr Hamilton for the mother at some length. She maintained her position and ultimately recommended that if the father is able to remain stationed at [W], that [X] live with the father. When challenged on the subtleties of her assessment and process, she responded thoughtfully and confidently.
By choosing to deliver these reasons ex tempore, I do not incorporate significant proportions of the family report dated 30 January 2009, as the evidence is before the Court and both parties are well aware of its contents and heard the cross-examination of Ms Taylor. The family report writer has one advantage (at least) over the Court and that is the opportunity to observe the child.
There are a number of nuances (tone of speech, body language et cetera) which can never fully be encapsulated in a written report. The expert training of a social worker or a psychologist gives them the tools to put the "picture" they see into words and to assist the Court "as the eyes to the child" to hopefully make a decision in the child's best interests.
As the Full Court has made clear on numerous occasions, a trial adjudicator is not bound to slavishly follow an opinion or recommendation of the expert. It is important evidence, but only part of the evidence the Court must weigh up in its deliberations.
In this case however, I regard the foundation for the opinions expressed by Ms Taylor was generally supported by the evidence that I heard and I give therefore, as a result, her opinion and recommendation some weight in this matter.
I will now turn to, as required by law, the primary and additional considerations.
Primary considerations
In respect of the primary consideration of maintaining a relationship with the parents, clearly the only issue that puts that relationship at risk is the distance between the parents and where the child will ultimately live.
I am hopeful that the order I propose to make, whilst not being crafted within an optimal situation because the parents will live so far apart, will at least achieve the opportunity for [X] to preserve, nurture and maintain her current relationships with both parents and Ms L.
The second primary consideration is to protect the child from harm, both physical and emotional. Thankfully for this little girl who has developed so naturally and well in the environments she has lived to date, there are no major issues which concern me under this heading. She is in fact, as a result, in my view, a lucky girl. She has two good parents who are capable and devoted and have only come to the Court because of an insurmountable difficulty. Clearly the conflict, if it was to continue after my decision, is likely to prove one of the only stresses on the child's emotional development in my view on the current evidence.
Additional considerations, wishes and feelings
A Court can never ignore the wishes of any child expressed through the report writer or otherwise for the Court's consideration. However, for a child of six and a half, such wishes or feelings could never be determinative because of her age. It has to be said however, that the feelings as recorded by Ms Taylor, which I accept were accurately recorded, do support the father's proposal.
The wishes and feelings expressed by the child must be seen within the cognitive awareness that this child has of having:
a)lived in a shared care arrangement in Katherine with both parents;
b)living solely with the father for over two months; whilst going to school in Katherine;
c)living since October 2007 in an arrangement where she lived primarily with the mother and Ms L until approximately March 2008;
d)then having from March 2008 Ms L moved back to Katherine and thereby living predominantly with the mother; and
e)whilst living with the mother in New South Wales, experiencing the father's home environment, although I acknowledge generally on a recreational basis.
Therefore the child's expressed views and understanding of missing people (she identified particularly the mother, the father and Ms L) have a basis of some experience by her. I do not accept that the child does not understand that living with the father and going to school is different to living with the father on weekends and holidays. I think this child is capable of making that distinction.
Interestingly in my view, in the matter which I explored with counsel, in circumstances where it is likely for the first two years of her life the father being in fulltime employment, the mother was the primary carer and thereafter the mother (based on time alone for the period from separation to trial) was the predominant carer, one would not have been surprised to hear a child of [X]'s age and gender expressing a strong preference to remain with her mother. That she does not do so (coupled with the observations made by the family report writer) is a foundation for an inference that I make that she feels at least, if not more, comfortable in the home of her father and in the environment that he has created and that she has enjoyed since late 2007.
Relationships
The most important relationships of course for [X] are her mother, her father and Ms L. It is noteworthy in my view to acknowledge that although Ms L has been away from the New South Wales area since approximately March 2008, it seems that the affectionate attachment that she has, that is between [X] and Ms L as assessed by the report writer, has not been affected. That gives some comfort that the distance may be able to be negotiated by the child whilst maintaining relationships of importance.
I do not ignore that as a matter of fact the opportunity for [X] to spend time with extended family in New South Wales is advantaged by her living with the father as opposed to living with her mother in Katherine.
Facilitation of time
Although Mr Bates on behalf of the father made a submission that I should be concerned about some of the mother's behaviour and about her willingness to support, nurture or otherwise facilitate the father's relationship with the child, if the child is with her, I do not make such a finding.
I do not regard there being any real issues about this case which would, when the dust has settled, indicate to me that it would be unlikely that the parents would support [X] as she continues to grow and develop.
The finding I make is a finding I make also in terms of s.60CC(4) of the Act. In this regard, I do note the father's somewhat frank and honest description of what he regards as the mother's actions as a sense of "betrayal". Whilst I can understand that he may feel that way personally, I do not see on the evidence taken as a whole, that even if he does feel that way, he would in some way seek to penalise or hurt the child [X]'s relationship with the mother because of that sense of disappointment, at least, in the mother's decision to move back to Katherine.
Effect of change
Although I have already made the observations that in my view this child will cope living with either parent and because each parent would facilitate, encourage and support a positive understanding of the relationship with the other parent for [X], it has to be noted that on the father's proposal, the issues that arise are that:
a)there will be greater opportunity for the child to spend time with him;
b)the disadvantage would be less time with the mother and Ms L;
c)a change of school will be inevitable;
d)the child will be able to maintain environmental consistency with the New South Wales area which has been developed since October 2007; and
e)that there will be an opportunity for her of maintaining relationships with extended family members in the New South Wales area. Clearly she will be able to retain some interests and activities with current peers, although a change in school may test those connections.
She will have some care undertaken by Ms C which is not anywhere near as secure or as established as that which she currently receives from the mother and Ms L and finally in terms of the father's proposal, I regard it as likely on the evidence that the father will remain in [W] for the duration of the child's primary schooling. It has to be said that the mother's recent moves to and from Katherine at least raise an issue about whether that can be maintained for the same period. I also regard that it is unlikely, on balance, that even though the father is a member of the [defence force], he will be deployed overseas unless there is a substantial war issue in which case he may be, but that seems unlikely.
In terms of the mother's proposals I note that of course her proposal has the benefit of [X] being able to spend more time with her and Ms L. I accept as the mother says that she would feel more happy and content in the Northern Territory and as a result, the child living in that environment will be in the care of a mother who is happy. It has to be said of course that if the mother is happier and more content in the Northern Territory, the time the child was to spend with the mother if she lived with the father, may be equally happy – just less.
The disadvantage of course is there will be less time with the father, and less time with the extended family in New South Wales. She again would have a change of school, although it may be less of a problem because she has been to the school the mother proposes in Katherine. As was already alluded to, although it’s likely the mother and Ms L will remain in Katherine. I acknowledge they have a house they have bought there. I cannot ignore the fact that they chose to move in
mid-2007 from Katherine to [Z] and then again, after barely nine months decided to move back. I assess, as I have already indicated, the father's stability in terms of this issue slightly more certain than the mother's.
However, with all those factors weighed against each other, it does not seem to me that the effect on the child favours significantly one proposal over the other. As I have already indicated, this is not an optimal situation for [X].
Practical difficulties
Clearly when you are trying to transverse a distance of over
3,000 kilometres between a regional remote Australian town and New South Wales, there are travel challenges. I am told that it could be as much as 10 hours travel to get from Sydney to Katherine via Darwin, it would involve both airline and probably significant car travel. It would be a logistically difficult, but in my view not insurmountable.
I am satisfied that the parties will be able to contribute as they should, in my view, equally to the costs of travel. It will be a burden on the parents, but is a burden they will need to bear to preserve the relationship that she has with both parents. If anything, the logistics of travel shave to some degree the amount of time that the child should spend with the parent with whom she does not normally reside so as to ensure that the distance and the time for travel does not adversely impact upon her time with the parent over that period.
Capacity of parents
Clearly the mother will, on the evidence, be more available than the father before and after school, whilst the father relies upon Ms C and if necessary on his mother. This is in my view the only significant difference in terms of their capacity. They have both demonstrated over a long period of time to be capable parents who are able to meet [X]’s needs both physically and emotionally. They are of course different people and live in different households; they parent slightly differently, but still, in my view, more than competently.
Attitudes to parenting
In my view, although the mother's decision to follow her partner to Katherine is perfectly understandable, it is a slight concern that unlike when the mother and Ms L decided some nine months earlier to come to New South Wales the father was consulted, a concrete decision was made in March 2008 to return to Katherine without taking into account the father's views on that issue and the potential affect upon the relationship with [X] from his perspective.
This might of course reflect the level of desperation the mother and
Ms L experienced about returning to Katherine. What it also infers to me is that, probably rightly knowing the father would object, the mother and Ms L decided to present the father with a fate accompli. When he has been such a significant person in [X]'s life, that inability to consider that perspective before a final decision was made was, in my view, a concern.
Whilst I do not, on all the evidence, share the view of the report writer, Ms Taylor, that Ms L dominates the relationship with the mother in some adverse way and therefore also their parenting dynamic in the mother's home, it does at least seem apparent that Ms L's wishes might have slightly disproportionate weight to the decision making process of the mother.
As the High Court has identified, one of the responsibilities of parenting is at times to compel the even reasonable desires of a parent to be subservient to the best interests of a child.
The father it might be said could move back to [T] and that his stubbornness is the equal of the mother's. I do not believe that to be the case. It was not his choice to move back to [W] in late 2007, it required a mid-cycle transfer. The father is now settled here, has prospects of promotion which is likely on a number of bases to prove of benefit to the child and, on the evidence of his [colleague], it would be unreasonable to expect the father to seek (even if he could) to return to [T].
The overall parenting attitudes as I have described them, in my view, at this time, favour slightly the child remaining with the father. Happily, there are no issues relating to family violence which touched the discretion I must exercise in this matter, nor do I believe that the object to make an order which is less likely to lead to further proceedings occupies much attention of the Court in this matter in circumstances where no doubt the distance between the parties and the fact that this child may express wishes differently as she gets older could cause the parties to have to reconsider, as all parents must from time to time, whether the arrangements then in place are for the best interest of the child.
Conclusion
I believe an assessment of all of the factors set out in this matter demonstrate that the best interests of [X] are served if she was to live with the father in this area. That will be the order of the Court.
I do so knowing that this is not the mother's desire. I do so knowing that [X] will miss her Mum and will miss Ms L, but I do so because I firmly believe, on all the evidence before me in this case, it is in her best interests that I adopt the father's proposal.
In respect of holiday time, it should be maximised and what I propose to do is to indicate to the parties, having made this decision, that they should discuss the parameters of an order within the brief observations that I will make now with a view to an order being able to be produced to the Court when I am next in Newcastle at 2 o'clock on 25 February 2009.
My view is that the parties would not be significantly apart on the need for the child to have regular telephone time, and if possible time to access video cam or the like. That technology I am sure is available in Katherine and it could be connected without significant expense in the father's home. I do not for one moment suggest that any of that electronic type of time is a substitute for physical time, it is not, especially for a child of this age.
In my view the father's proposal which would provide for the child to spend approximately half the longer New South Wales Christmas school holidays with the mother, in my view alternating so that in one year the child spends Christmas with one parent and in the other year with the other parent is appropriate and in respect of other end of term holidays, I am comfortable with the father's proposition that the child could spend slightly more than half, perhaps up to 10 days, depending on the length of the holiday (inclusive of travel time).
As I observed during the course of this trial it is, in my view, at least until the child completes grade 3 of her primary education, which I would estimate to be the end of 2011, that there ought be an opportunity for her to spend some time mid-term with the mother.
I would not be concerned in terms of her educational development, and, unless the parties otherwise agree, it could be for a period of up to a week. I think it would be very possible, in fact beneficial to the relationship between the mother and the child if in fact she had some slight homework to do during those periods, that would give the mother an opportunity to be involved with her education which might make it little more difficult because of the distance she will be living away.
If it can be a weekend or a period that incorporates one of the statutory long weekends in New South Wales, that might ideal, but generally speaking most long weekends in New South Wales are in the first half of the year and not as many in the second half. I will leave that to the parties to discuss.
Of course it might be that the parties themselves agree in one particular term for some reason that it should not occur, but that would, in my view, be optimal for the child.
The usual other specific issues orders relating to information and the conveyance of information of one parent to another should be incorporate.
The orders I make appear at the commencement of these reasons.
I certify that the preceding seventy-six (76) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Baumann FM
Associate:
Date:
0
0
1