McKay and McKay

[2013] FCCA 874

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MCKAY & MCKAY [2013] FCCA 874

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – parental responsibility and with whom the child should live – agreement to equal shared parental responsibility – consideration of equal time or substantial and significant time – finding equal time impracticable and not in the child’s best interests – determination of significant and substantial time as appropriate – consideration of issues as to the mother’s mental health and capacity or willingness to foster a relationship between the father and the child subsequent to conclusion of court proceedings.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60B(1) & (2), 60CA, 60CC(1)-(3), 65DAA

Cases cited:

Lansa & Clovelly [2010] FamCA 80

Applicant: MR MCKAY

Respondent: MS MCKAY

File Number: BRC 10247 of 2011

Judgment of: Judge Coker

Hearing dates: 15 & 16 May 2013

Date of Last Submission: 16 May 2013

Delivered at: Townsville

Delivered on: 2 August 2013

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Cullen

Solicitors for the Applicant: Hall Payne

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Umasher

Solicitors for the Respondent: Davey Law

ORDERS

1. That the Mother and the Father have equal shared parental responsibility for the major long term issues of the child, X born (omitted) 2008, including but not limited to:

   (a)the child’s education (both current and future);

   (b)the child’s religious and cultural upbringing;

   (c)the child’s health;

   (d)the child’s name; and

   (e)changes to the child’s living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with each parent.

2. That the parties consult with each other about decisions to be made in the exercise of their equal shared parental responsibility as follows:

   (a)They shall inform the other parent about the decision to be made;

   (b)They shall consult with each other on terms that they agree; and

   (c)They shall make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision.

3. That notwithstanding Order 1 herein:

   (a)The Mother shall be responsible for the day-to-day care, welfare and development of the child whilst he is living with or spending time with her; and

   (b)The Father shall be responsible for the day-to-day care, welfare and development of the child whilst he is living with or spending time with him.

4. That the child live with the Mother.

5. That the child spend time with Father at all reasonable times as may be agreed and in particular:

   (a)During the gazetted school term, from after school Wednesday to before school Monday, or Tuesday should the Monday be a public holiday or pupil-free day, with such time to commence in each school term as and from the first Wednesday of that new school term.

   (b)Time provided pursuant to order 5(a) herein be suspended during the gazetted school holidays.

   (c)During the gazetted school holiday period, for the first half in odd numbered years and the second half in even numbered years, as per the definition contained in these Orders.

6. That for the purposes of defining the first and second half of gazetted school holiday periods, the following apply:

   IN THE EVENT THAT THE TERM 1 GAZETTED SCHOOL HOLIDAYS COMMENCE FROM THE EASTER LONG WEEKEND THEN:

   (a)The first half of the gazetted end of Term 1 school holiday period shall be from 5.00pm on the Thursday preceding Good Friday until 6.00pm on the following Saturday;

   (b)The second half of the gazetted end of Term 1 school holiday period shall be from 6.00pm on the Saturday following the Easter public holidays to 6.00pm on the Sunday preceding the recommencement of school;

   IN THE EVENT THAT THE TERM 1 GAZETTED SCHOOL HOLIDAYS DO NOT INCLUDE THE EASTER LONG WEEKEND THEN:

   (c)The first half of the gazetted end of Terms 1, 2 and 3 school holiday period commences from 5.00pm on the Friday which follows or is the last day of school until 6.00pm on the Saturday of the middle weekend of such holiday period;

   (d)The second half of the gazetted end of Terms 1, 2 and 3 school holiday period commences from 6.00pm on the Saturday of the middle weekend of the school holiday period until 6.00pm on the Sunday preceding the recommencement of school;

   (e)The first half of the gazetted Christmas school holiday period commences from 5.00pm on the Friday following or the Friday on which school concludes until 6.00pm on the Saturday falling 22 days later;

   (f)The second half of the gazetted Christmas school holiday period commences from 6.00pm on the Saturday in the middle weekend of the Christmas school holiday period until 6.00pm on the Sunday immediately preceding the recommencement of school.

7. That the child spend time with each parent on special days or occasions as follows:

   (a)That should the child not be in the care of the Father on Father’s Day, then the Father is to spend time with the child from 9.00am until 5.00pm;

   (b)That should the child not be in the care of the Mother on Mother’s Day, then the Mother is to spend time with the child from 9.00am until 5.00pm;

   (c)That should the child not be in the care of the Father on the Father’s birthday, then the Father will spend time with the child for at least two hours if a school day, or from 9.00am until 5.00pm if a non-school day;

   (d)That should the child not be in the care of the Mother on the Mother’s birthday, then the Mother will spend time with the child for at least two hours if a school day, or from 9.00am until 5.00pm if a non-school day;

   (e)On the child’s birthday, the parent with whom the child is not living spend time with the child for not less than two hours if a school day from 5.00pm until 7.00pm and if a non-school day for four hours from 1.00pm until 5.00pm.

8. That unless otherwise agreed between the parents then the child shall remain in attendance at the (omitted) State School for the duration of her primary school education and that the parents shall properly consult with each other with regard to the child’s enrolment at a secondary school.

9. That the Mother and the Father shall:

   (a)Inform the other parent as soon as reasonably practicable of any medical condition, significant health issue or illness suffered by the child.  This Order authorises any treating medical practitioner to release the child’s medical information to the other parent.

   (b)Authorise, by this Order, the school attended by the child to give each parent information about the child’s educational progress and other school-related activities and supply them with copies of school reports, photographs, certificates and awards obtained by the child.

10. That the parents keep the other informed of the names and addresses of any treating medical or health professionals and shall authorise those medical or health professionals to provide the other parent with information they may seek in relation to the health of the child.

11. Each parent facilitate the child’s attendance at school, sporting and cultural activities and at extra-curricular sporting and cultural activities, including at training practice, games, examinations and concerts.

12. That the Mother and the Father shall keep the other parent advised at all times of their residential address and contact telephone number and will advise within 48 hours of any change in respect of residential address or telephone number.

13. That the parent not having the child in their care shall communicate with the child by telephone at all reasonable times as may be agreed between the parents, with the parent not having the child in their care to be responsible for making the call and the parent having the child in their care to ensure the child is available to take the call in a quiet and private environment.

14. Each parent be at liberty to attend any of the child’s school or extra-curricular activities and, in particular, any educational attendances including parent-teacher interviews, presentations and the like.

15. That each parent be restrained from denigrating the other in the presence of the child or from allowing the child to remain in the presence of any other person acting in such a way.

16. That the parents sign all documents necessary to obtain a passport for the child and unless otherwise agreed, that passport be held by the Registry Manager of the Family Law Courts at Brisbane, to be released upon request of both parties, such request not to be unreasonably withheld.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT TOWNSVILLE

BRC 10247 of 2011

MR MCKAY

Applicant

And

MS MCKAY

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. On 16 November 2011 Mr McKay, whom I shall refer to as the father, filed an application in this Court seeking orders in relation to both interim and final arrangements in relation to the parenting of the child, X.  X was born on (omitted) 2008.  X is the child of the father and Ms McKay, whom I shall refer to as the mother.

2. Following the filing of the application in November of 2011 a response was filed in January of 2012 and following that the matter came before the Court in February of 2012 when Coates FM, as he then was, made orders in relation to the interim application.  The proceedings then continued, including the addition of issues with regard to property, though they were subsequently resolved.

3. Though able to resolve issues in relation to property, the parents were unable to resolve the matters that remain disputed, in respect of the parenting of X.  It was pleasing, however, at the very conclusion of the hearing during submissions made on the part of the father, to note that there were many issues that were agreed between the parties or, perhaps more correctly, adopted or accepted by the father, in relation to arrangements with regard to parenting. The fundamental issue, of with whom the child was primarily to live or, alternatively, if to live with the mother then for there to be significant and substantial time forthwith to be spent with the father remained outstanding. 

THE PARTIES’ PROPOSALS

1. Both parties filed case outlines in relation to the proceedings and each indicated what their proposed orders were in relation to the matter.  For the purposes of these proceedings the final orders that were sought by the father were as follows:

   Final Orders Sought

   (a)That the parties share equal parental responsibility for the long term care, welfare and development of the child, X born (omitted) 2008.

   School terms

   (b)That X live with the mother as follows during the school term:

   (i)In Week one, from after school Wednesday until 12 pm Saturday;

   (ii)In Week tow, from after school Friday until before school Monday.

   (c)That X live with the Father at all other times during the school terms.

   IN THE ALTERNATIVE IF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DOES NOT ORDER AS ABOVE

   (d)That X live with the Father as follows during the school term:

   (i)In Week one, from after school Wednesday until 12 pm Saturday;

   (ii)In Week two, from after school Friday until before school Monday.

   (e)That otherwise X lives with her mother during school terms.

   School holidays

   (f)That X live with the mother for the second half of the holidays in 2013 and each alternate year thereafter, and the first half in 2014 and each alternate year thereafter (changeover at 2pm on the Saturday in the middle of the holiday period);

   (g)That X live with the Father for the first half of the holidays in 2013 and each alternate year thereafter, and the second half in 2014 and each alternate year thereafter (changeover at 2 pm on the Saturday in the middle of the holiday period);

   Special Occasions

   (h)For X’s birthday, if she is with her mother in the morning, with the Father from after school until 6 pm, and if she is with the Father in the morning, with her mother from after school until 6 pm;

   (i)In 2014 and each alternate year thereafter form 10am Good Friday until 6pm Easter Saturday with the mother and from 6pm Easter Saturday until 5pm Easter Monday with the Father.  In 2015 and each alternate year thereafter 10am Good Friday until 6pm Easter Saturday with the Father, and from 6pm Easter Saturday until 5pm Easter Monday with the mother.

   (j)During the Christmas period, from 12 pm Christmas Eve until 2 pm Christmas Day with the Mother in 2013 and each alternate year thereafter, and from 2 pm Christmas Day until 2 pm Boxing Day with the Father;

   (k)In 2014 and each alternate year thereafter, with the Mother from 2 pm Christmas Day until 2 pm Boxing Day, and with the Father from 12 pm Christmas Eve until 2 pm Christmas Day;

   (l)On Mother’s Day with the Mother, from 6.30 pm the evening before to 5 pm Mother’s Day;

   (m)On Father’s Day with the Father, from 6.30 pm the evening before to 5 pm Father’s Day;

   (n)On the Mother’s birthday if the child is not with the Mother, from after school or 12 pm if not a school day, until the commencement of school the next day (or 12 pm if not a school day);

   (o)On the Father’s birthday if the child is not with the Father, from after school or 12 pm if not a school day, until the commencement of school the next day (or 12 pm if not a school day).

   School

   (a)In the event that the child lives with the Father as proposed in (b) above, X attend (omitted) School, or in the alternate (omitted) School, fees of which to be paid by the Father.

   (b)If X lives with the mother, she remain at (omitted) State School or other agreed school, for her primary years, and at an agreed secondary school.

2. The orders proposed by the mother were as follows:

   Parental responsibility:

   1.That the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the child X, born (omitted) 2008 and aged 6 years (“the child”).

   Living arrangements and time spent with Father:

   2.That the child live with the Respondent Mother.

   3.That in 2013 the child spend time with the Applicant Father in an alternate week arrangement as follows:

   a.Week 1: from after school Wednesday, to before school Friday;

   b.Week 2: from after school Friday, to 5:00pm Sunday.

   4.That from commencement of the school term in 2014, the child spend time with the Father in an alternate week arrangement as follows:

   a.Week 1: from after school Wednesday, to before school Friday;

   b.Week 2: from after school Friday, to before school Monday.

   5.That in 2015 the parties arrange and attend at mediation with Relationships Australia or some such other similar organisation, to review the progress of these Orders, as well as in an effort to reach agreement on any changes to be made to Order 4 herein.

   6.That changeover take place at the child’s school, except for when changeover falls on a Sunday, when the Mother will pick the child up from the Father’s residence; and during school holidays the Father to pick the child up from the Mother’s residence at commencement of time spent with the child, and the Mother to pick the child up from the Father’s residence at the close of time spent with the child, or as otherwise agreed between the parents.

   7.That each parent provide a separate bed and room for the child to sleep in when the child is at each parent’s house.

   School holidays and special occasions:

   8.That the child spend time with the parents during school holidays (excluding the Christmas/Summer holiday period) in an alternate arrangement as follows:

   a.in all even numbered years commencing 2014, with the Father for the first half of the school holiday, commencing after school on the Friday, and the child spend the remainder of the school holiday (being the second half) with the Mother;

   b.in all odd numbered years commencing 2015, with the Mother for the first half of the school holiday, commencing after school on the Friday, and the child spend the remainder of the school holiday (being the second half) with the Father; and

   that changeover for the purposes of this Order herein be at 2:00pm on the Saturday in the middle of the holiday period.

   9.In addition to Order 5 herein, that during the Easter holiday period in an alternate arrangement:

   a.in all even-numbered years, commencing 2014, the child to spend time with the Mother from after school the Thursday before Holy Friday (being the end of school term) until 10:00am Tuesday after Easter Monday; and the child to spend time with the Father from 10:00am Tuesday until 5:00pm the following Tuesday; and

   b.in all odd-numbered years commencing 2015, the child to spend time with the Father from after school the Thursday before Holy Friday (being the end of school term) until 10:00am Tuesday after Easter Monday; and the child to spend time with the Mother form 10:00am Tuesday until 5:00pm the Following Tuesday.

   10.In addition to Order 12 herein, that during the Christmas school holidays the child spend time with the parents in an alternate arrangement as follows:

   a.with the Mother for the first two-week period of the school holiday, commencing at the end of the school term after school on the Friday;

   b.with the Father for the following two-week period of the school holiday;

   c.with each parent for a one week period in alternating weeks until the close of the holiday period; and

   that for the purposes of this Order, changeover take place at 2:00pm on the Saturday.

   11.That if the child’s birthday falls on time spent with the Mother, that the child spend time with the Father from after school (or 3:00pm) if during a weekend) until 6:00pm that evening; and if the child’s birthday falls on time spent with the Father, that the child spend time with the Mother from after school (or 3:00pm if during a weekend) until 6:00pm that evening.

   12.That the child spend time with the parents during Christmas in an alternate arrangement as follows:

   a.In all odd-numbered years, commencing 2013, the child to spend from 2:00pm Christmas Eve until 2:00pm Christmas Day with the Mother, and from 2:00pm Christmas Day until 2:00pm Boxing Day with the Father; and

   b.In all even-numbered years commencing 2014, the child to spend from 2:00pm Christmas Eve until 2:00pm Christmas Day with the Father, and from 2:00pm Christmas Day until 2:00pm Boxing Day with the Mother.

   13.On Mother’s Day with the Mother form 6:30pm the evening prior; until 5:090pm Mother’s Day.

   14.On Father’s Day with the Father form 6:30pm the evening prior; until 5:00pm Father’s Day.

   15.That if the Mother’s birthday falls on the child’s time spent with the Father, the child to spend time with the Mother from after school (or 12noon the following day if during a weekend) until commencement of school the following day (or 12noon the following day if during a weekend).

   16.That if the Father’s birthday falls on the child’s time spent with the Mother, the child to spend with the Father form after school (or 12noon if during a weekend) until commencement of school the following day (or 12noon if during a weekend).

   Medical:

   17.That each parent immediately notify the other parent if the child is seriously ill and/or injured, and/or is to be admitted into hospital whilst in their care, and in the event of being unable to contact the other parent after reasonable attempts, that any critical medical procedure be performed on the child.

   18.That both parents be at liberty to communicate and consult with the child’s treating doctors and/or other health-care practitioners, clinics, school nurses, and counsellors with respect to the children’s health and welfare, and this Order so authroises the parents.

   19.That each parent communicate to the other aprent any prescription medication the child needs (including any requirements for the administration of such medication), in the event the child is prescribed medication whilst in that parent’s care.

   Other:

   20.That the Mother have the day-to-day care of the child, with the Father to have day-to-day care of the child when the child is spending time with the Father, such say to day care including casual health-care arrangements such as treating practitioner visits, and school and/or extra-co-curricular activities.

   21.That the Father facilitate the child’s attendance at dancing classes, including any dance exams and/or concerts.

   22.Major decisions for the child, being medical treatment (including, dental and psychiatric), tattoos, body-piercing, change of name and the like, shall be made jointly by the parents in writing.

   23.That each parent be at liberty to contact the child when she is in the care of the other parent, via mobile phone each evening, or as otherwise agreed between the parents, and that in the event either parent intends to be located where there is the possibility of no mobile telephone reception whilst the child is in their care, that such parent notify the other parent in advance where possible.

   24.That the parents be listed as co-parents with the child’s school, and each parent to be at liberty to receive all school communication as is expected for any parent.

   25.That the parents each be at liberty to attend any of the child’s extra-/co-curricular activities, including but not limited to, sporting events, school plays, parent-teacher interview evenings, musical events etc.

   26.Neither parent is to denigrate the other parent in the presence or the hearing of the child, or allow others to denigrate the other parent in the presence or the hearing of the child.

   27.In the event that either parent is not able to care for the child for more than 24 hours, they shall contact the other parent as soon as is practicable and offer them first option to care for the child.

   28.That at all times the child is in the care of the Father or Mother, she shall be transported by a registered adult driver, in a safe, registered vehicle, and that legal child restraints and seating be used in any vehicle in which the child travels.

   29.Neither parent will take the child interstate or overseas without giving the other parent prior notice of his/her intention to travel interstate or overseas.

   30.That neither parent will consume illicit substances and/or alcohol to excess whilst the child is in his or her care.

   31.That the parents sign all documents necessary to obtain a passport for the child, with the Mother to hold the passport.

   32.That the child be permitted to attend at the following events;

   a.the Mother’s sons”, namely Mr M’s (“Mr M”), formal induction into the (omitted) and celebratory dinner on 8 August 2013, and should this fall on the child’s time spent with the Father,

   b.Mr M’s wedding in (omitted), expected to be in May 2015.

   33That the child attend at (omitted) State School.

   34.That the child be enrolled in and attend at a (omitted) Program at (omitted) in 2015 or 2016, and the parents sign all documents and do all things necessary to effect such enrolment.

   35.That in the event the parents do not agree on parenting issues, the parents arrange and engage in a mediation through Relationships Australia (or such other similar organisation) to resolve such issues.

   36That the Father pay the Mother’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings.

THE EVIDENCE

1. The parties were in agreement or at least not contesting many issues in relation to parenting, and in particular, it was noteworthy that whilst communication loomed large as factor of concern between the parties they recognised, to their credit, that the best interests of this child would be reflected in arrangements which provided for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility in respect of decisions to be made, with regard to this little girl.

2. That is not to say that, as has been the case to date, there would not be some difficulties and, the report writer Ms W indicated, that she considered whether it might be appropriate for there to be some orders put in place, which provided for one party or the other to have the ultimate capacity to make decisions, in relation to the educational arrangements for the child. Ms W in particular noted, that whilst it would be appropriate for both parties to have input into arrangements with regard to the parenting of the child, she thought that:

   Maybe one parent or the other needs to have the capacity to make the final decision.

3. It is a significant factor in relation to this matter because it recognises the benefits to the child of there being joint involvement by the parties, in the decision-making process but also recognises that, in the event of there being an unresolvable dispute between the parties, one parent or the other, particularly with regard to educational arrangements, needs to be able to put in place a decision which can be acted upon, in relation to the future of this child. 

4. I shall come to that particularly aspect of the matter a little later in these reasons, but it is appropriate that, firstly, I address issues with regard to the evidence of the parties. It is noteworthy that in this matter only two lay witnesses were called, the father and the mother.  Experts were called however, in relation to issues, particularly with regard to recommendations in respect of what might be in the best interests of the child and also evidence was taken from two psychiatrists. 

5. Dr H had provided a report in relation to the proceedings and there was also a report under the hand of Dr M, a psychiatrist well known to the courts, in relation to assessment of parties to matrimonial proceedings. 

PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE

1. Before turning to the parties and their evidence in relation to this matter, I intend to make brief comment in relation to the evidence of Dr M and Dr H.  Dr M prepared a report following instructions jointly received from the legal representatives for the mother and the father.  Dr M’s reports of 19 March 2012, were annexed to her affidavit filed 31 May 2012.  Dr M addressed a number of issues in relation to the parents but, finally, under the heading “Opinion” at paragraph 69, said the following:

   As noted it is difficult to make a firm diagnosis of personality disorder on the strength of one interview.  However, both the mother and the father’s histories indicate that the mother has a propensity to suspicion and wariness and has expressed some odd beliefs about others in the past.  Her account and the father’s do not in my opinion raise significant concern that the child has been sexually abused in the care of the father.  It appears likely that the mother’s views of the father are affecting the child to the detriment of her relationship with her father.  It is my view that there are no grounds for supervision based my assessment.  However, I think it is probable that if supervision does not take place there will be further allegations against the father.

2. Dr M in her assessment, therefore, identified concerns in relation to the mother’s attitudes and beliefs and, if you like, by extension raised issues with regard to the future beneficial opportunities of the father spending time with this little girl, whilst the mother held such views.  This was if, as she suspected, there may be opportunities taken for further allegations to be made, unless the father’s time with the child was supervised.  It should be noted though, that following the release of that report, within a matter of a few weeks, the mother adopted the recommendations, particularly with regard to there being no concerns as to a risk in respect of sexual abuse of the child and as a result of that, the father commenced to spend unsupervised time with the child.

3. Dr M was required briefly for cross-examination.  Counsel for the mother has only a limited number of questions for her, though they obviously related to the concerns with regard to the mother’s behaviour.  In particular, Dr M was referred to paragraphs 40 and 69 of her report where she made reference to those concerns in respect of whether there may or may not have been a personality disorder.  At paragraph 40, Dr M noted as follows:

   She tends to minimise and deny any symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder largely I believe because of a recognition that this may result in over protectiveness of the child.  She may exhibit a paranoid personality disorder but it is difficult to establish this on the basis of one limited examination. 

4. When asked specifically about that and the reiteration of the concern in paragraph 69, to which I have already made reference, Dr M noted that, whilst she had some concerns in relation to the matter, she did acknowledge that with the limited opportunity for inquiry and interview, that she was not in a position where she could be sure of such a diagnosis being open. 

5. It is not clear to me, whether Dr M was aware of the subsequent involvement of Dr H, in relation to assessment of the mother prior to the hearing, because she indicated that she accepted Dr H’s assessment, that the mother did not meet the diagnostic criteria for assessment or determination that she suffered from a psychiatric disorder. Whether Dr M, simply as a medical courtesy between professionals, accepted the opinion of Dr H or whether she had had the opportunity of reading the report is unknown, but in any event, it would appear clear that Dr H’s assessment was that there was not a diagnosable psychiatric disorder and there was no basis upon which Dr M could disagree with that. 

6. In particular, it was noteworthy that Dr M seemed comforted by the fact that the mother had, as was put to her:

   Adopted her recommendations and the recommendations of Ms W and had complied with all orders that had subsequently been made. 

7. Additionally, when asked whether it could be expected, in that light, that the mother would comply with future orders in relation to the arrangements with regard to the parenting of the child, Dr M noted simply that that would be her assessment, in relation to the matter.  I was assisted by the evidence provided by Dr M in relation to these proceedings.

8. Dr H, child and adolescent forensic psychiatrist also provided a report dated 21 November 2012, which report was annexed to his affidavit filed 4 December 2012.  There, under the heading Opinion, Dr H said:

   Ms McKay did not in my opinion at time of interview meet diagnostic criteria for a psychiatric disorder.

9. He went on, however, to say:

   She has a tendency to some anxiety but in my opinion this does not reach anywhere near diagnostic thresholds for an anxiety disorder.

   She also did not in my opinion meet criteria for a personality disorder.  While she may have some personality traits these do not reach the level of disorder and she has been able to perform at a high level academically, occupationally and maintain long-term relationships. 

   Her tendency to anxiety about the welfare of the child might offer some explanation for her previous concerns and allegations regarding the father. 

   In my opinion she has the capacity to support the child in having a relationship with the father, only experience and observation will show whether she does this successfully.

10. Dr H then notes that he does not make any treatment recommendations in relation to the mother and indicates that there is no psychiatric reason to make recommendations, regarding the mother’s care of the child.  Quite simply, Dr H in an extensive report prepared in relation to the mother, albeit acknowledging that it flowed from information provided to him by the mother, found that he was satisfied in his professional opinion that there was not a basis upon which there could be a finding or assessment that the mother suffered from a psychiatric illness.

11. Dr H was cross-examined by counsel for the mother.  He noted, that as indicated in the report, he did not have any concern as to the mother’s mental health, at least at the time of the report and, when advised of the reporter’s recommendations, contained within Ms W’s second report of December 2012, and their general adoption and compliance by the mother, indicated that he was generally satisfied that if she was complying with the orders, that that was a strong indicator of her supporting the relationship with the father. 

12. Insofar as the mother’s capacity to care, as indicated in the report, he confirmed that there was nothing, on a psychiatric level, that would give rise to a concern as to the mother’s capacity with regard to the parenting of the child. 

13. Counsel for the father questioned Dr H briefly about certain interpretations of some of the evidence that had been given in respect of the matter and in particular, inquired whether the mother’s reference to a near death experience arising from a motor vehicle accident, could be an indicator of anything. He responded succinctly and I think appropriately in indicating that that was not an indicator of anything sinister and certainly not a pointer toward a psychiatric disorder.

14. More particularly, and I think helpfully, Dr H with, his vast experience in relation to issues with regard to psychiatric difficulties and their cross-over, on occasion, to matters relating to parenting of children, was asked whether any suggestion by the mother that the father might be alienating the child from her when, from the father’s perspective at least, there was no evidence of that, was an indicator of paranoia.  He simply stated, I think quite sensibly, “that in family law matters, particularly in the heat of separation and the times leading up to trial, that it was not uncommon for such allegations to be made”.

15. I would accept without hesitation the evidence of Dr H in relation to this matter and in light of the comments made, would think that there is little doubt as to the mother’s mental health and capacity to provide for the child.  In fact, I would go so far as to note that Dr H’s astute observations in relation to the mother’s behaviours since the release of his report, and the further or updated family report of Ms W, would indicate a degree of compliance by the mother with the arrangements in respect of the parenting of this little girl and more particularly, a basis upon which the court could generally be satisfied that such compliance would continue.

THE FAMILY REPORT

1. Before turning to the evidence of the parties I would briefly also note the evidence that was taken from Ms W, a social worker who prepared two reports in relation to these proceedings. The first is a report dated 12 August 2012 annexed to an affidavit filed 12 September 2012 and the second a report of 30 November 2012 annexed to an affidavit filed 5 December 2012. 

2. Ms W’s inquiry in relation to this matter was comprehensive.  Her first report is over 160 paragraphs in length and sets out proposals with regard to care arrangement for X, to be implemented over the coming months, as she put it, leading up to January 2013. In late November 2012 the report was updated and at that time Ms W recommended generally a continuation of such arrangements, with greater opportunities for time to be spent by the father with the child and a development of such arrangements. 

3. Ms W was questioned at length in relation to the recommendations and observations that were made by her in relation to this child.  I do not intend, at length, to address the answers that were given in relation to the matter, because Ms W’s assessment in relation to the matter was, to a very significant degree, reflective of my own assessment and views, in relation to these parties.

4. I would simply note the following. At paragraph 102 of the second report Ms W says:

   As stated in the first family report, in my assessment, X is attached to both parents, however, her attachment to her mother is stronger, as one would expect.  While X has managed well with the increase in time with her father to two nights per week, I do not recommend increasing that further at this stage.

5. Ms W does, however, go on in the report to suggest that the current arrangements remain in place for a period of, say, 12 months and that then there be a further assessment in relation to the matter.  She notes particularly, that she does not recommend equal sharing of the care of X, being mindful of the distance between the parties, some suggestion of it being 38 kilometres though dependent upon traffic considerations, 25 minutes in travelling time but more particularly, does not recommend equal time because of the limited opportunities and developments, with regard to communication and cooperation, between the parties.

6. She notes at paragraph 104 of the second report as follows:

   Even if the parents were living in the same area, they would need to develop a more co-operative relationship for a shared arrangement to be successful. 

7. Ms W does not indicate favouring a suggestion of a shift in relation to X, from living primarily with the mother to primarily with the father, noting that this would, as she says:

   Cause her considerable emotional distress and confusion.

8. Ms W does, however, go on in paragraph 105 of the second report to say:

   I indicated in the first report that this may be necessary if the mother was unable to support the father/daughter relationship appropriately.  From the information that I have at this stage, Ms McKay seems to be appropriately supporting the child’s relationship with her father.

9. My assessment in relation to the matter is that such observations are correct. In her oral evidence, given in relation to the matter, Ms W noted on a number of occasions, issues that in my assessment, are clear on the evidence that is available and in particular, arise directly from observations of the parties in the witness box but also arises from their evidence-in-chief, contained within their trial affidavits.

10. Ms W noted, when asked whether the mother had a lack of insight into her own anger, that she did, indeed, have a lack of insight but that in fact both parents lacked insight into their anger but also their behaviours toward each other, and the effects upon the child.  I could not agree more with that assessment in relation to the matter.

11. Ms W also noted that, whilst it was indicated that Dr H had some confidence that if the mother had adopted various recommendations contained both within reports and assessments, that there could be an expectation that there would be ongoing compliance with arrangements, in relation to parenting and in particular, a recognition of the importance of fostering the relationship with the father, that there was more that was needed than simply compliance with the orders.

12. Ms W noted it as a “genuine spirit”, to be shown on the part of the mother, but then again went on, I think tellingly, to note that both parents struggle with this recognition of the importance of the other parent, in the child’s life.  I should note, however, that the father seems in my assessment to be more attuned to arrangements being made with regard to the parenting of the child and recognising the importance of the mother and the qualities that she brings to parenting. But my overall assessment would again be similar to that of Ms W, relating to both parents having a lack of real appreciation of the importance to X, of a relationship of a positive nature with the other parent and the need for each parent to foster that relationship.

13. I was impressed and assisted by the evidence that was provided by Ms W in relation to this matter.  Whilst I thought on occasion, that she struggled to fully appreciate the complexity of some of the questions that were directed to her, I do not make a criticism of her in that regard. Rather I note the somewhat convoluted nature of the questions.

14. The impression that I gained overwhelmingly was that Ms W saw significant benefits to this little girl in spending more time with her father, saw significant benefits to this child in having a meaningful relationship with both parents and most significantly, saw significant benefits developing in relation to the child and her relationship with both parents, if the parents could put to one side the determination that they have to score points against the other, and to work more toward their communication with each other.

15. I was assisted therefore by the assessment provided by Ms W, particularly with regard to her astute indications of the need to balance the child’s right to a relationship with both parents and the possibility of the father being more able to foster that relationship with both parents, than might be the case with the mother, particularly outside the glare of court proceedings. She also noted however, the need for that to be looked at along side the significant consequences for this child of there being less opportunity for interaction with the mother, who has been, however it may have come about, the primary carer for the child and to whom the primary attachment lies.

THE PARTIES

1. I turn then briefly to the evidence of the parties. I say briefly because there is not a great deal that needs to be said in relation to the parents, other than that they love the child and she clearly loves them. But they have enormous difficulties in trusting each other, in communicating properly and civilly with each other and in recognising the importance of putting their dispute to one side, if not behind them, so as to ensure that the best interests of the child are to the fore.

2. This couple in particular reminded me of the old adage that the parties need to recognise that they love the child more than they hate each other.  As soon as the parties can do that, and I do not suggest that these parties hate each other, but they certainly to different degrees, lack respect and appreciation for the importance of the other in the child’s life, then the situation will improve. They need to recognise that their love and wish for the child to achieve all that she can, can only be fully achieved if they put to one side, the animosity that they feel.

3. Neither parent has covered themselves with glory.  The mother has been hyper-vigilant.  Her failure to appreciate the effects of her own past sexual abuse upon her interaction with the father and her willingness to see the worst in anything and everything that the father might do with the child, at least until such time as there was some expert assessment, does not do her any credit.

4. Whilst she sought to explain her behaviours as a result of being upset, being emotional or being disappointed with behaviours of certain of the experts or of the behaviours of the father or his legal representatives in bringing certain information to the knowledge of the experts, the fact is that, responsibilities in respect of parenting of the child are those which fall upon her and not upon others and it is clear she was, as was emphasised by the father, quick to lay blame for any ills or difficulties upon others, rather than recognising her own need to be responsible for such issues.

5. By the same token it is to the mother’s credit that she has taken on board the recommendations in relation to this matter, arising from the expert assessments and in particular, notwithstanding her disappointment however it may have come about with the assessment of Dr M, quickly accepted that unsupervised time with the father was appropriate and upon receipt of the first report from Ms W, adopted the recommendations with regard to overnight time.

1. To suggest as the father does that that is more a reflection of an intention to put before the court a good showing is not, I think, an appropriate recognition of the difficulties that must have arisen for the mother, as a result of her own past history and the inconsequences for her.  No matter what her intent in relation to the matter, the mother has acted appropriately in respect of the child’s right to a relationship with the father. Whilst there have been criticisms suggesting, for example, that the mother firstly, “hung her hat,” on a risk of sexual abuse and when that did not achieve success, “hung her hat” upon a risk of abduction, and finally when that was unsuccessful, “hung her hat” upon criticisms of the father’s capacity to parent, fails to recognise that the mother must obviously have been struggling with her own demons and therefore the consequences, which were reflective of her hyper-vigilance in relation to the interaction between the child and the father.

2. I am of the view that the mother has, to some extent, dealt with those issues, and now more fully appreciates the effects upon her own assessments in relation to the child and her interactions with others, including particularly her father, in light of her own past history. With that counselling so far had, and further counselling which, in my assessment, would be appropriate, the mother would be further able to foster and develop even more than she currently has, the relationship between the father and the child, and to more fully appreciate the need for that relationship to be of, at the very least, a significant and substantial nature, if not an equal time relationship.

3. By the same token, the father has been quick to criticise the mother.  The father has certainly taken a stance of distrust in the behaviours of the mother, rather than, perhaps more appropriately, recognising the demons that the mother has had to confront, before being able to recognise the benefits and importance to X of a relationship with him. 

4. The father, understandably, was horrified, I would think, at a suggestion that he should not have any interaction with the child, or subsequently, that that interaction should only be of a supervised nature.  One can imagine that he wished for as much time as possible with a little girl whom he loves very dearly, but his criticism of the mother and his continued distrust of the mother’s motives make interaction between the mother and the father as difficult as any of the issues that arise from the mother’s behaviour, making interaction and communication difficult. 

5. Both of these parents, as I noted when commenting upon the evidence of Ms W, lack insight, and both struggle to appreciate the need for this child, not only to spend time with the other parent, but in fact, to appreciate that each parent recognises the benefit and importance of time being spent with the other parent, and perhaps even more comprehensively, appreciate the benefits to X of knowing that her having that relationship with the other parent, and allowing that relationship to even more fully develop, is not something that causes hurt or dismay to the other parent.  It is a difficult issue, but it is one which, in my assessment, is reflective of the behaviours of both the mother and the father.

6. Suffice it to say, each parent has much that they can offer this child. Each parent has different qualities that will no doubt be beneficial to the child, but each parent needs to recognise that, together, they make a far better and more appropriate contribution to the needs of the child than is possible when they act as two separate and distinct entities, each trying to achieve their own goals, in relation to the parenting of the child.

THE LAW

1. The issue here is that which arises almost invariably in every dispute relating to the parenting of children. Section 60CA of the Family Law Act summarises it succinctly:

   In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a court must regard the best interests of the child as the  paramount consideration. 

2. How that might be able to be achieved is, of course, the far greater consideration that needs to be looked at in relation to the matter.  Issues with regard to the parenting need to be considered, and they need to be considered in that overall light of what arrangement is in the best interests of the child. 

3. The father’s perspective is to say that there is little trust that the mother can act appropriately, and that therefore there will be difficulties in respect of his future relationship, if the child is not primarily in his care.

4. The mother’s position, perhaps adopting, at least to some extent, the concerns expressed by Ms W, is to say that to move too quickly with regard to more time being spent with the father could be detrimental, though my impression with respect to the mother and in relation to Ms W is that they place less reliance upon the resilience of this little girl, than is actually there in relation to the child. 

5. I am certainly satisfied that the benefits to the child of time of a significant and substantial nature, at least, with both parents will be able to be adopted by both parents and the child, and more specifically, will be able to be adapted to by this little girl.  

6. It is noteworthy that both parents propose that arrangements should be made with regard to them having equal shared parental responsibility, in relation to the parenting of the child.  I am of the view that whilst there are difficulties in that regard, that it would be appropriate and beneficial to the child to order such an arrangement, though it places a reliance on the parents, of being able to put to one side their distrust, and to ensure that the child’s best interests are to the fore. 

7. Insofar as the issue of whether there should be equal shared parental responsibility, or whether that presumption which arises is rebutted, I am mindful of the comments of Murphy J in Lansa & Clovelly [2010] FamCA 80, in which his Honour made comments specifically relating to the considerations that a court, but more particularly, parents must look at, in relation to assessments as to parental responsibility. There, his Honour noted as follows:

   There are issues in relation to parenting.  There are issues in relation to responsibility for the decisions to be made with regard to the child, and there are concerns, certainly, as to the parties’ capacity to communicate with each other, and therefore, of course, whether the court can be satisfied that it would be in the best interests of this little girl for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility. 

8. As I noted, there have been difficulties in communication in the past, and no doubt, at times, into the future, such difficulties will arise again. But overall, there is a need to ensure that this child recognises that whilst there is, certainly up to this time, and perhaps into the future, but one would hope with lesser consequence for the child, difficulties in relation to decision-making, her parents are still working together to make decisions in relation to the child, and that is a significant consideration.

9. I am satisfied, therefore, that whilst there may be communication difficulties, that the parties will move forward, and that equal shared parental responsibility can properly be achieved. 

10. In that instance, of course, it is necessary to consider the matters that are outlined pursuant to the provisions of section 65DAA of the Family Law Act. Section 65DAA is in these terms:

    SECTION 65DAA   COURT TO CONSIDER CHILD SPENDING EQUAL TIME OR SUBSTANTIAL AND SIGNIFICANT TIME WITH EACH PARENT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES

    Equal time

    65DAA(1)  Subject to subsection (6), if a parenting order provides (or is to provide that a child’s parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, the court must:

    (a)consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interest of the child; and

    (b)consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable; and

    (c) if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents.

    Substantial and significant time

    65DAA(2)  Subject to subsection (6), if:

    (a)a parenting order provides (or is to provide) that a child’s parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child; and

    (b)the court does not make an order (or include a provision in the order) for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents; and

    the court must:

    (c)consider whether the child spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and

    (d)consider whether the child spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable; and

    (e)if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the child to spend substantial and significant time with each of the parents.

    65DAA(3)  For the purposes of subsection (2), a child will be taken to spend substantial and significant time with a parent only if:

    (a)     the time the child spends with the parent includes both:

    (i) days that fall on weekends and holidays; and

    (ii)    days that do not fall on weekends or holidays; and

    (b)the time the child spends with the parent allows the parent to be involved in:

    (i) the child’s daily routine; and

    (ii)occasions and events that are or particular significant to the child; and

    (c)the time the child spends with the parent allows the child to be involved in occasions and events that are of special significance to the parent.

    65DAA(4)    Subsection (3) does not limit the other matters to which a court can have regard in determining whether the time a child spends with a parent would be substantial and significant.

    Reasonable practicality

    65DAA(5)    In determining for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) whether it is reasonably practicable for a child to spend equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the child’s parents, the court must have regard to:

    (a)       how far apart the parents live from each other; and

    (b)the parents’ current and future capacity to implement an arrangement for the child spending equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the parents; and

    (c) the parents’ current and future capacity to communicate with each other and resolve difficulties that might arise in implementing an arrangement of that kind; and

    (d)the impact that an arrangement of that kind would have on the child; and

    (e)        such other matters as the court considers relevant.

    Consent orders

    65DAA(6)If:

    (a)the court is considering whether to make a parenting order with the consent of all the parties to the proceedings; and

    (b)the order provides (or is to provide) that a child’s parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child;

    the court may, but is not required to, consider the matters referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c) or (if applicable) the matters referred to in paragraphs (2)(c) to (e).

    65DAA(7)    To avoid doubt, subsection (6) does not affect the application of section 60CA in relation to a parenting order.

11. Of course, what needs to be considered therefore are the arrangements with regard to with whom the child lives and, noting that orders are to be made which provide for equal shared parental responsibility, the court must consider equal time and if not in the best interests or reasonably practicable, then substantial and significant time as defined pursuant to the Act.  The parties are agreed that at the very least, substantial and significant time is required.  The father’s proposal was in the alternative, with the child living with the mother and having a total of six nights in each 14 with him, or if living with him, then that the mother have six nights in each 14 with her. 

12. The mother’s proposals also included overnight time in each week during a 14 day cycle, but included an increase in 2014 over the time proposed in 2013. The mother’s suggestion was for 4 days in each 14 in 2013, 5 days in each 14 in 2014, and a further mediation to review the situation that existed and, as proposed in the orders, to ensure that there was “an effort to reach agreement on any changes to be made”.

13. The parties clearly recognised the benefits to this little girl of there being a meaningful relationship with each parent, and the need, at the very least, for substantial and significant time. The psychiatric evidence also, whilst addressing issues with regard to the mother, recognised the importance of both parents in the child’s life, as did the family report writer.

14. The report writer noted the attachment of X to both parents but the closer attachment to the mother, and recognised that X had coped well with two nights per week being spent with the father, but did not necessarily recommend an immediate increase in the number of overnight periods. It should be recognised of course that the reports were prepared in August and late November 2012, and that therefore there has been progress over the last eight months, and no indication of difficulties either from the perspective of the child, or from the mother failing to support the father/daughter relationship.

15. To consider the two factors which must be looked at when determining whether equal time or substantial and significant time should be spent with the parents, section 65DAA(5) is relevant. It relates to the issue of practicability but also addresses issues which reflect the consideration relating to whether such time arrangements would be in the best interests of the child. Clearly, there is a positive relationship and it would be appropriate for this little girl to have as much opportunity as possible for interaction with both of her parents.

16. However, there is the need to consider practicability and such issues were relevant and will become more relevant over time. The first of the considerations in section 65DAA(5) relates to the proximity of the parents’ residences, one to the other. There did not appear to be any real dispute as to the geography, it being acknowledged that the parties lived about 38 kilometres apart, and that travel would be a consideration, particularly now that X is of an age where school and the commitments associated with education arise. The evidence of the parents was that dependent upon traffic, travel could require between 25 and 45 minutes, but it was suggested that most travel would be against the flow of traffic. That may be the case but it is also clear that the costs associated with such significant amounts of travel on a daily or weekly basis, as well as the toll time-wise, could begin quickly to become a difficulty.

17. Additionally, and perhaps more significantly, there would also need to be consideration of the effects upon X of regular changes in relation to where she is living and, therefore, the travel components associated with her day to day life. 

18. Perhaps of greater significance, however, are those matters that arise pursuant to section 65DAA(5)(b) and (c). Ms W noted the difficulties in communication and flowing from that, the problems in implementing an arrangement for equal time. She mentioned the need for a more co-operative relationship for a shared arrangement to be successful, and melded that with the concerns in relation to trust, and therefore faith by each parent in the other, and their care of the child. Additionally, and perhaps most significantly, Ms W made reference to the “emotional distress and confusion” that X might experience if there were to be so significant a change as to be living primarily with her father rather than, as has been the case, with the mother.

19. In relation to section 65DAA, therefore, I am satisfied when considering issues of practicability, combined with the best interests of the child, that equal time or primary time spent with the father presents too many difficulties, but more importantly, too many concerns relating to the impact upon the child, to be in the best interests of X. Just as clearly, however, I am certainly of the view that substantial and significant time, as defined within the Act, is in the best interests of X, and that in light of the progress that has been made since the last report was to hand, that more time than was originally recommended would be appropriate and beneficial to the child.

20. Obviously consideration then needs to be given to the objects and principles, as set out in section 60B(1) and (2) and the considerations that reflect them in section 60CC(1), (2) and (3). I do not intend however to detail those considerations at any real length because much of what has been said already in these reasons, confirms matters such as the meaningful and beneficial nature of the relationship with both parents, the capacity of the parents to foster a relationship with the other parent, the capacity of the parents to facilitate time being spent with the other parent, and the capacity of each to provide for the needs of the child, including her emotional and intellectual needs, as well as displaying a proper attitude and approach to the responsibilities of parenthood.

21. When considering what might influence the determination of time in this matter, two factors in my view, loom large.  The first relates to concerns as to the effects upon X of any significant change which might lead to separation from her mother and, more generally, a consideration of the mother’s progress insofar as recognising her own difficulties arising from her circumstances of the past, and being able to put them to one side to allow the relationship with the father to be fully fostered and developed.

22. With regard to the concern arising in relation to a change in X’s circumstances leading to the separation from her mother, I am satisfied that the past observations of the child enjoying time with her father, and not being distressed, is an indicator of her capacity to spend longer periods with her father without concern as to any distress arising from what might be called separation anxiety.  I note that both parents propose different times during each week of a two-week cycle being spent with the other parent, but by the same token, propose one half of the school holidays with the other parent.  This, of course, reflects each parent’s acceptance of the fact that the child can spend more significant periods than a few days away from the other parent. 

23. I am certainly of the view that a more lengthy period, once per fortnight, with the father would not be too onerous for the child and would have significant benefits all-round, both in relation to allowing full involvement by one parent or the other in all aspects of the child’s life. As well as reducing the amount of travel and changeovers necessary for X to spend time with each parent.  Significantly, such an arrangement would also provide a settled routine during the gazetted school term, which was known and understood by both parents and the child.

24. I am satisfied that a period of five days from after school Wednesday until before school on the following Monday, or Tuesday, should the Monday be a public holiday or pupil-free day, is more child-focused and beneficial than the proposals put by each of the parents.

25. The other issue relates to the mother’s mental health and, flowing from that, her capacity to recognise the ongoing need for a relationship with the father and to foster that relationship. It was certainly the father’s concern to suggest that the mother is putting on a “good show” for the court, and that once the proceedings were determined, that there would be a return to attitudes which found reasons to preclude the father’s time with the child.

1. Both of the psychiatrists involved and the family report writer were questioned about that issue.  Dr M expressed confidence coming from the fact that the mother had “adopted her recommendations and the recommendations of Ms W”.  Dr H expressed a similar confidence in the mother’s capacity to support the child in having a relationship with the father, though he noted that there would need to be continuing behaviours of that nature once the proceedings were at an end.

2. Both psychiatrists were certainly of the view that the mother was not feigning compliance for the purposes of the proceedings but had taken on board their findings and recommendations and was genuine in her attempts to foster a relationship with the father. 

3. Ms W also indicated some confidence in that regard, flowing from the mother’s almost immediate adoption of recommendations, and noted in her second report that the mother “seems to be appropriately supporting the child’s relationship with her father”.

4. The issue in this matter is not, I assess, a concern that the mother will revert to her previous behaviours, but rather that there continues to be a lack of respect and trust which pervades the thinking of both parties but at the present time is perhaps more attributable to the father.  He has been hurt by the actions in the past of the mother and expresses concern that there will be a reversion to such behaviours in the future. The expert evidence, however, is that the mother has recognised her past difficulties and will not revert to behaviours which preclude the child’s opportunities for time with the father. 

5. Certainly, that is my expectation, but it should clearly be noted that there is no basis for suggesting that the child is at risk of sexual abuse, abduction or irresponsible or neglectful parenting on the part of the father. Such concerns previously expressed by the mother are a reflection of her illness and not of any evidence in this matter. It is clear that if such behaviours on the part of the mother were to reoccur without the strongest evidence, then there would need to be a significant re-consideration of arrangements with regard to primary caring responsibility. However, that is not my concern at the present time.

6. What is appropriate is orders that provide for the parenting of this child which recognises a meaningful relationship with both parents already existing and orders which further foster and develop that relationship with both the mother and the father.  To that end, therefore, I intend to order as detailed in the Orders at the commencement of these reasons.

I certify that the preceding eighty-two (82) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Coker

Date:  2 August 2013