McCabe and McCabe

[2007] FamCA 521

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MCCABE & MCCABE [2007] FamCA 521

FAMILY LAW - CHILDREN - Best interests - Application by mother to take four year old child overseas for four week holiday, opposed by father - Travel permitted - Additional time to be spent with father prior to and after travel undertaken - Mother to deposit funds with solicitor as security

Family Law Act 1975
Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006

Goode & Goode (2007) 36 Fam LR 422
TWN & PAQ (2005) 34 Fam LR 190
Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725

APPLICANT: Mrs McCabe

RESPONDENT: Mr McCabe

FILE NUMBER: MLC 3943 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 17 May 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Bennett J

HEARING DATE: 17 May 2007

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms R Stoikovska

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Clancy & Triado

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr G Harvey

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Harvey Lawyers

Orders

1. That the husband and the wife forthwith do all things and sign all documents as may be required to make an application for an Australian Passport for the child a daughter born … May 2003 and that such passport issue and be held as provided for in paragraph 2.4 of these Orders.

2. That the wife be permitted to remove the child, the daughter, born … May 2003 from the Commonwealth of Australia for the purpose of a holiday in France for a period of 21 nights after the 28^th of June 2007 on the following conditions:-

   (a)the wife provide to the husband 21 days prior notice in writing of her proposed itinerary including telephone details and addresses for the child;

   (b)the wife have access to or take with her a mobile telephone equipped for receiving international calls and she keep such mobile telephone switched on reasonably during each day;

   (c)the wife deposit with her solicitors Clancy & Triado the sum of $15,000.00 to be held by them in an interest bearing term deposit pending the return of the said child to Australia and in the event the said child has not been returned to Australia within 48 hours of the return date specified in the itinerary, the husband have leave to make application to the Court to have the funds, or some portion of them, released to him for the purpose of enforcing orders for the return of the child as may be necessary;

   (d)that any passport issued in the name of the said child shall be held by the solicitor for the husband, Harvey Lawyers until further order, save that the passport shall be released to the wife forthwith upon the wife providing to the husband’s solicitors a copy of the notification and itinerary provided by her to the husband and indicating she is ready to leave the Commonwealth of Australia with the child as provided for in these orders. Upon return to Australia the wife deposit the child’s passport with Harvey Lawyers within 2 business days.

3. That prior to the proposed overseas travel the husband shall spend additional time with the said child as follows:-

   (a)on the alternate weekend which falls 7 days prior to the wife’s proposed time for travel the time which the husband would ordinarily spend with the child pursuant to paragraph 2(a) of the Orders made on 13 June 2006, be extended from 5pm Sunday to 5pm Wednesday and the time provided for in paragraph 2(b) of the Order made on 13 June 2006 shall be suspended for the week prior to her departure;

   (b)upon the wife’s return, with the child live with the husband for two weeks commencing at 5pm, 3 days after the child’s return to Australia.

4. That the wife forthwith advise the husband’s solicitor in writing of any departure from the itinerary, if any.

5. That while overseas with the child the wife shall be in substantial attendance with the child.

6. That the wife’s application in a case filed 13 April 2007 and the husband’s response thereto filed 17 May 2007 be otherwise dismissed.

7. That the wife’s Form 1 application filed 13 April 2007 and the husband’s response thereto filed 17 May 2007 be adjourned to a date to be fixed in the Trial Notice Pool.

8. That pursuant to section 65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the annexure hereto relating to parenting orders – obligations, consequences and who can help, the particulars of which are included in this Order.

IT IS NOTED INCONNECTION WITH THESE ORDERS that the judgment of the Honourable Justice Bennett delivered this day will for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as McCabe & McCabe.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 3943 of 2007

MRS MCCABE

Applicant

And

MR MCCABE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(ex tempore)

1. This matter concerns a daughter born … May 2003 and comes before me for interim determination in the judicial duty list. 

2. The mother wants a passport to be issued for the child and then to have the chld accompany her on a trip to France for a month.  The father says that a passport can issue but, upon issuance, it must be held by his solicitors.  The father opposes the child being taken to France.  These reasons set out why I have decided to accede to the mother’s application and allow the child to accompany the mother, to France, for the lesser period of 3 weeks. 

3. Briefly, the wife is 43 years of age, she lives in rented accommodation at

   
   

   B.  She is not employed outside the home.  She has not been in regular employment since 2003 which is the year in which the child was born.  Prior to 2003 the mother was employed to assist in the production of a sporting magazine.  That employment was of about two years duration.  Prior to that she was a personal assistant.  She matriculated from secondary school.  These were matters about which I was informed from the bar table and in response to questions which I asked.  The affidavit material upon which the mother relied in support of her interim application did not give me much insight into the parties’ history, individually or together. 

4. The father is 48 years of age, he also lives in B.  He is a communications officer by occupation. 

5. The child born on … May 2003.  She is the only child of the parties and the only child that either of the parties have. 

6. The parties married on … November 2002 after having lived together for only a brief period.  They separated in December 2004 and a decree nisi of dissolution of their marriage was granted on … April 2006.  I note that the parties lived together for a relatively short time so there was only a limited time, prior to the cessation of their relationship, in which they could develop a mutual trust and respect for each other as parents.  That may well be the basis of the apparent mistrust between the parties now. 

7. On separation the mother left the family home with the child.  The mother refers in her material to the child spending periods of "contact" with the father, in fact notwithstanding what prevailed immediately post-separation, there are now orders which were made by consent on 13 June 2006, pursuant to which the child lives with the father for 6 out of 14 days.  Material very recently filed on behalf of the father to which the mother has not had an opportunity to respond, asserts that the child has occasionally spent more like equal time with the father. 

8. As currently framed, the child lives with the father from 5pm on Friday to 5pm on Sunday each alternate weekend and then every Tuesday from 5pm until 8am on Thursday.  From Monday to Thursday the child attends crèche between the hours of 9am and 5pm and that is whether she is with the mother or the father.  On Fridays the child attends a French school from 8:45am to 2:45pm.

9. As I have said, the mother does not work outside the home.  I am told by the mother that the father works at home.  

10. The mother's wants to take the child to France for four weeks, pretty much as soon as possible, but toward the end of June 2007.  The mother has repartnered with a gentleman called Mr S.  He is a 50 year old French national.  He is a health worker specialising in cancer therapy.  Mr S and the mother have been in a relationship for some time having met approximately two years ago. 

11. Mr S's employment enables him to have extended periods of leave after working extensive shifts.  It is not contested that he has used his leave entitlements to spend considerable periods in Australia, living with the mother and the child.  Now, the mother wants to take the child to France and enjoy some time with Mr S and his family. 

12. The mother's affection for France and her involvement with things French did not commence with Mr S.  It is apparent no part of her family has their origins in France but it is conceded that all of her family have a deep affection for France.  In paragraph 11 of the mother's affidavit sworn on 5 April 2007 she deposes as follows:

    [11]. My family has a deep love for France and French culture. My whole family speaks French, including myself. My mother completed an honours degree in French at the age of 72. Our family has travelled overseas and visited France on many occasions. I lived in Paris some time ago and studied the language. I have holidayed there on many occasions and most recently. Spent a period of 2 weeks in France in 2006. During this trip, I missed [the child] and wished that I had of brought her with me so that she could enjoy and learn about France, particularly so because she currently enjoys attending [L School].

13. In response the father deposes in his affidavit sworn on 16 May 2007 as follows:

    [11]. I refer to paragraph 11 of the Wife’s Affidavit. Whilst I admit the Wife’s love of France, French culture and her experiences, this does not necessarily justify the Wife seeking to take [the child] out of Australia at such a young age for such a long period, or at all.

14. In the balance of the father’s affidavit, he argues that the trip to France for the child more meets the needs of the mother than it does the needs of the child.  For example the father deposes as follows:

    [12]. I refer to paragraph 12 of the Wife’s Affidavit. I have no objection to the Wife travelling to France by herself and leaving [the child] in my care. This would allow the Wife to spend time with [her partner] and meet with her sister. A closer view of matters deposed to by the Wife show that the Wife’s primary reason for wanting to travel to France is to spend time with [her partner], her sister and friends which are clearly adult activities and which would involve outings and late nights unsuitable for a child who has just turned four years of age.

    [13]. I refer to paragraph 13 of the Wife’s Affidavit. I dispute that [the child] needs to travel to France to meet and get to know [the wife’s partner]. The Wife previously deposes that [the child] already enjoys a warm and respectful relationship with [the mother’s partner]. The Wife, in seeking to take [the child] for such a long period of time from Australia, has not taken into account [the child’s] needs and relationship with me.

    [14]. I refer to paragraph 14 of the Wife’s Affidavit and admit same.

    
    

    I have opposed the Wife’s proposed trip consistently on the basis that I do not believe that such a trip would be in [the child’s] best interests.  In addition, the Wife has proposed changing the Final Orders in relation to [the child’s] care (which were made by consent) which I have opposed.  The holiday with [the child] is really related to the Wife’s relationship with [her partner] and a desire to ultimately live permanently in that country with [the child].

15. It appears that the father’s other concern is that the mother will not return the child to Australia at the conclusion of the time she wishes to spend away. 

16. The mother's proposal, fleshed out in submissions by Ms Stoikovska of counsel, was that she and the child will be absent from Australia for four weeks but that the father can have some extended periods of time with the child including one week shortly prior to the child's departure and two weeks upon return.  The mother’s case commenced with offering $5000 by way of security or bond.  Ultimately, the mother had no objection to that amount being $15,000.  According to the submissions made by her counsel, $15,000 is about 50% of the mother’s net capital wealth.  For the time being, the mother is content for the father's solicitors to hold whatever passport issued for the child providing that it is made available for the child’s use in accordance with this Order. 

17. The father's proposal is that the child simply should not travel.  As stated, he fears she will not be returned from France.  The father also fears the effect of an extended absence from him will have on the strength of the child’s relationship with him.  The father believes that the wife will be distracted whilst she is in France to the detriment of her ability or inclination to devote her full-time attention to the child.  In the event that I was against him and I permit the child to travel to France as I will, he says that the trip should be for two weeks duration.  When pressed, the father’s preference for 2 weeks pretty much boiled down to it being half of the 4 weeks sought by the mother.  The duration of 2 weeks also represents a progression from the nine nights that the mother took the child to Noosa for in 2005, for the seven nights that the child spent solely with her mother in Christmas of last year.  These are the longest periods for which the child has been away from the father and out of her father's care. 

18. In June 2006 the mother went to France for 17 days and the child remained in the care of the father during that time. 

19. Otherwise, the father says that he would prefer the child not to be away on

    
    

    … July because that is his birthday.  It was submitted on his behalf that, if the child was aware that it was his birthday, then she would think that she should be with him and miss him even more.  I have no doubt that that is right, but the orders as I will structure them should not require the child to be told that

    
    

    … July in this year is her father's birthday.  I am not satisfied that the child, at four years of age, will discern that the father’s birthday falls on … July or recall the event herself.

20. As part of the fall back position, the father seeks a week's time with the child immediately before her departure and then two weeks afterwards.  The mother does not object. 

21. The issuance of a passport and the entitlement of one parent to take a child out of the country is a parenting order.  I have to consider the principle set out in Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 as amended, as it was,  in July last year by the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006.  I must follow the legislative pathways as set out by the Full Court in Goode & Goode (2007) 36 Fam LR 422, the decision having been delivered on 15 December last year.

22. Before setting out the steps in any interim hearing the Full Court in Goode's case acknowledged some comments of a previous Full Court in Cowling's case as being apposite.  The Full Court acknowledged that the procedure for making interim orders will be an abridged process where the scope of inquiry is "significantly curtailed" compared to the processes at a final hearing.  It said at paragraph 68, and I quote:

    Where the court cannot make findings of fact it should not be drawn into issues of fact or matters relating to the merits of the substantive case where the findings are not possible.  The court also looks to less contentious matters such as agreed facts and issues not in dispute and would have regard to the care arrangements prior to separation, the current circumstances of the parties and their children and the respective proposals for the future.

23. The issues in dispute at this hearing are:-

    a)the extent to which the child's relationship with the father will suffer by an absence from him of one month;

    b)the father's concern that the mother will not return the child to the jurisdiction at the conclusion of the holiday;

    c)the amount of security which the mother should provide before she leaves Australia. 

24. There are certain facts which are agreed. 

25. It is agreed that the care of the child is shared between the parents.  It is agreed that the child has a secure, close and loving relationship with the father.  Whilst the mother does not specifically depose to that, counsel who appeared on her behalf today, Mr Stoikovska, took me through a psychologist's report which is annexed to the father's affidavit.  It is a report written by Ms J dated 15 May 2007, it is called a psychological report, and almost paragraph by paragraph Ms Stoikovska told me the parts of the report with who her client did not agree.  No part of the report with which the mother takes issue relates to the relationship between the child and the father.  That is significant because it is reported by Ms J that:

    [The child] has an easy trusting relationship with her father and enjoys playing games, especially make believe, roleplays involving fantasy and pretend play.  She interacts in a socially appropriate manner listening evaluating and formulating intelligent and age appropriate responses.  [The child] participates in independent activities and is engrossed and focused on her drawings and stories.  [The child] and her father appear at ease in each other's company enjoying jokes and telling anecdotes.  They obviously benefit on many levels from their close father-daughter relationship.

26. I asked counsel for the father questions about the relationship between the father and the child.  He conceded that his client did not, or does not, assert that there is any fragility in that relationship.  The father agrees that he and the child share a strong and loving relationship. 

27. It is also agreed that the mother has had a long-term affinity and affection for France. 

28. It is agreed that the father should have make up time prior to the child’s departure and following the child’s return.

29. Pursuant to s 60CA of the Act, I have to make my decision in relation to the matters upon which the parents cannot agree, having regard to the child’s best interests as the paramount, but not sole, consideration.

30. Subject to the best interests of the child being the paramount consideration, s 60B sets out the aims and principles of the legislation.  The section provides the context within which the relevant best interests factors listed in s 60CC are to be examined and ultimately weighed.  Section 60B defines the objects of Part VII of the Act as to ‘ensure that the best interests of the children are met’ by:-

    (a)  ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child; and

    (b)  protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and

    (c)  ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and

    (d)  ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.

31. The objects may be regarded as the core values of the legislation. 

32. The principles which underlie the objects are more specific but not exhaustive.  They are that, except when it is or would be contrary to the child’s best interests:-

    (a)  children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together; and

    (b)  children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development (such as grandparents and other relatives); and

    (c)  parents jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and

    (d)  parents should agree about the future parenting of their children; and

    (e)  children have a right to enjoy their culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture).

1. I have to consider are set out in s 60CC as to the child's best interests, and if possible make findings about them, although at an interim hearing such as this

   
   

   I repeat that it is not possible to make findings about certain contested issues or contested evidence. 

2. Section 60CC(2) sets out the primary considerations and subsection 3 sets out the additional ones.  The first of the primary considerations is the most relevant to this case.  It is the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents.  That is what the father's position seems to point to focus upon.  I have no doubt of the father's strength of feeling for his daughter and that is reciprocated.  I have read the report of Ms J.

3. Largely the mother does not cavil with the observations of Ms J.  The mother takes exception to some opinions expressed by Ms J, or the accuracy of the facts upon which Ms J purported to base her opinions.  Significantly, the mother denies having been observed by Ms J in the company of the child. 

4. Ms SJ expresses an opinion as the last paragraph of her three page report under the heading "conclusions".  She writes:

   I form the opinion that if the father and daughter are separated for a length of time their relationship will suffer as the frequent contact is vital to the continuation of the close bonds they have formed, crucial developmental milestones may be missed and there is a chance that [the child] may interpret the separation as abandonment and rejection by a father she loves.

5. Expert opinion in this court has been the subject of a number of decisions.  It is well established that opinion evidence must be based on reasonable conclusions and a sound factual basis[1].  Looking at the balance of Ms J's report I cannot identify the facts or matters upon which her opinion is based. Ms J’s report was not expended upon before me.  There was no application to adduce oral evidence from Ms J or to cross examine her.  Indeed it is unusual that vive voce evidence is permitted or able to be accommodated within the judicial duty list.  

   [1] See discussion in TWN & PAQ (2005) 34 Fam LR 190

6. There is no indication of the crucial developmental milestones that the child is about to encounter and which may be missed in an absence of four (or three) weeks.  There is in fact no indication that Ms J actually knows that the mother only wants to take the child out of Australia for a month. 

7. It may be that Ms J was in a position to form opinions which would be of assistance to the court.  But as the matter is presently presented on behalf of the father (on whose behalf Ms J’s evidence is adduced), I am unable to find  that Ms J’s opinion assists me.  I can't evaluate the facts on which her opinion is based. 

8. There does not appear to have been any scarcity of psychologists or like professionals involved in the relatively short life of this family.  The parents only lived together between 2002 and 2004.  The father deposes to the following experts having been involved in the family life or in his life:

   [24] The experts involved have been:

   (a) [Ms O] (Child Psychologist) who saw us both separately and together as well as [the child];

   (b) [Ms S] (Child Psychologist) who saw me by myself;

   (c) [Mr P] (Child Psychologist) who saw us together;

   (d) [Ms J] (Child Psychologist) who saw us both separately and together as well as [the child];

   (e) [Dr Z] (Psychiatrist) who saw us both separately and together.

   We saw Dr Z after the Wife refused to see Ms J or Mr P again as a result of not being prepared to accept their views in relation to matters. 

9. In this case, I proceed on the basis that there is no question that it is in the child’s best interests to have a meaningful relationship with the father and the mother.  However, I am not satisfied that the mother's proposal impacts negatively on the meaningfulness of the relationship which the father has with the child. 

10. This is not a case where I am asked to consider matters of physical or psychological harm to the child. 

11. Given that the child is only four years old, this is not a matter where it would be appropriate for me to take into account her views.  There is little evidence in that respect.  There are a number of quotes annexed by the father to his affidavit evidencing what the child has said to the father.  Those quotes largely indicate the strength of bond and dependence of the child on the father, sometimes in preference to the mother.  I do not take those into account as views relevant to my determination in this case.  It is more likely than not that the child knows that the father will be pleased to hear how happy she is to be with him and I accept that she is happy to be with him. 

12. I take into account the considerations under sub-s 60CC(3)(b).  That is, the nature of the relationship which the child has with each parent and other persons.  

13. I have already set out in this judgment my satisfaction that the child has a strong and loving relationship with the father.  Likewise, the mother.  The child’s relationship with the father is such that I do not think an absence of three weeks will harm that relationship in any way.  Particularly so if the father takes care not burden the child with his disappointment and fears about her visit to France.  

14. I recognise that the child has some relationship with the mother’s partner.  I am not permitting the mother to take the child out of Australia for the purpose of promoting a relationship between the child and the mother’s partner.  However, I do take into account that the mother’s partner is not a stranger to the child and that some of the people who the child will meet, will be his friends and family.  I also take into account that the child may see her maternal aunt whilst she is away.  The mother has framed her application as wanting to spend time with her companion, Mr S, and also planning to see her sister and brother in law in Corsica.  Because of the listing of this application, the mother may not be able to make it to Corsica, and she and the child may or may not be able to see her sister.  I do not think much turns on it.  It will be a bonus if the child gets to see her maternal aunt as it is likely to promote in the child a feeling of belonging to a wider family.  

15. The father has sought to raise issues about the mother’s parental capacity.  He alleges, and it is conceded, that the mother has been on anti-depressants for the last 10 years.  It follows that she was medicated for depression at the time that the parents met, moved in together, got married, had a child, decided to separate and significantly, the father consented to orders which provided for the child to spend 9 out of 14 nights with the mother.  This fact does not weigh heavily in my determination of whether it is contrary to the child’s best interests to leave Australia for 3 weeks.  The father does not adduce evidence of any recent instability.  

16. The father is also critical of the fact that the mother is not employed outside the home and yet the child the child goes to crèche from 9am till 5pm on Mondays to Thursdays.  Likewise, the mother alleges that the father works from home but still takes the child to child care.  These are not matters which I consider impact on the current applications, they may be relevant later.  I sincerely hope that these contentions, now uttered, do not damage what co-operative relationship the parents have managed to achieve to date.  

17. I take into account the likely effect of changes on the child’s circumstances.  It is a stay away of only three weeks.  For 3 weeks, the child will be away from crèche, out of kinder and she will not see the father.  In the scheme of things this is not so significant that it constitutes a reason why she should not go.  It will be complemented by three weeks, although not consecutive weeks, when the child will be away from the mother and in the exclusive care of the father.  I am satisfied will be a growing process for the child. 

18. The balance of the considerations such as the willingness and ability of each of the child's parents to facilitate a continuing and close relationship with the other party, the attitude to the child and to the responsibilities of parenthood, are that would be most relevant at the final hearing of this matter.  At this stage, there is nothing in the affidavit material or in the history of the family as it is presented to me that semaphores these considerations are relevant now.  I have no evidence upon which I could be satisfied that allowing the child to go overseas for 3 weeks is contraindicated because the mother has, to date, failed to facilitate a continuing and close relationship between the father and the child or that either parent has, to date, been remiss in the discharge of his/her parental responsibility.  

19. In all, I am satisfied that it is a trip that the mother wishes to undertake for an objectively reasonable purpose and which can be accommodated within, and is not inconsistent with, the child’s best interests – which includes maintaining a strong and loving relationship with the father.

20. I am comfortably satisfied that the mother will return to Australia. 

21. If the mother does not return to Australia, voluntarily and as promised, there is the Hague Convention on international child abduction in force between Australia and France.  The child is most definitely habitually resident in Australia.  Absent an unambiguous and voluntary agreement by the father to the contrary, any delay in the mother returning the child to Australia past the date due for return is likely to constitute a wrongful retention within the meaning of the Convention.  This would be a classic instance in which the Convention should operate to secure the prompt return of the child to Australia.  There will also be $15,000 in the bank of the mother's solicitors that, upon application to the court for release of some or all of it, will be give the father a fund on which to draw to effect the return of the child.  However, as I said, I think that the mother will return the child in accordance with the orders. 

22. The mother sought 4 weeks.  I am only going to order that the mother be entitled to remove the child from Australia for 3 weeks.  Four weeks is a reasonable time for a holiday.  I have found that 4 weeks away would not impact adversely on the husband’s relationship with the child.  However, it is my view that 4 weeks is just a bit too long for the child’s first overseas trip, at the age of four.  To this extent, I am satisfied that what the mother seeks must be curtailed in order to accord to the child’s best interests the paramountcy which the legislation requires.  I therefore require the mother to return within 3 weeks of her departure.

23. I should mention that each parent seeks final orders which would have the effect of discharging arrangements which were put in place, and made the subject of orders, as recently as 13 June 2006.  Each parent now seeks primary care of the child.  Seeking final relief in this way may be the tail wagging the dog - by which I mean that each sought the final orders with an eye to the interim issues of a passport for the child and overseas travel – rather than what is in the child’s long term interests.  Alternatively, it may be the case that each parent concedes that the current arrangement is unworkable and must be changed.  In the event that one party withdraws, this may well be an instance where the principles in Rice & Asplund [1979] FLC 90-725 must be considered. But that is for another day.

24. I will place the applications for final relief into the pool of cases awaiting allocation of a Trial Notice Listing.  In the event that this matter is not resolved in its entirety by the time it comes out of the pool and a trial is contemplated, I predict that it will require that an independent children’s lawyer be appointed for the child in addition to such form of family report or reportable social science assessment as is then available or upon which the parties can agree.

I certify that the preceding fifty six (56) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Bennett

Associate: 

Date:  5 June 2007