McKenzie and Duncan and Anor - [2011] FMCAfam 770

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MCKENZIE & DUNCAN & ANOR

[2011] FMCAfam 770

FAMILY LAW – Parenting of children – competing application between father and maternal great grandparents – consideration of maternal great grandparents capacity to foster or even appreciate primacy of father’s role in parenting children – substance abuse and mental health issues relating to mother – failure of maternal great grandparents to recognise or appreciate effects upon children of interaction with mother – overview of objects, principles and considerations – commentary upon primacy of parental responsibility – exercise of discretion.

FAMILY LAW – Children – consideration of restraint upon institution of further proceedings until costs orders paid in full or leave granted by court of competent jurisdiction – consideration of financial and emotional effect upon children of further litigation – exercise of discretion.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60B(1) & (2), 60CA, 60CC(2) & (3), 118

Church v T Overton & Anor [2008] FamCA 965
Bemert & Swallow [2009] FamCA 5

Applicant:

MS MCKENZIE

First Respondent:

MR DUNCAN

Second Respondent:

MS CAMPBELL

File Number:

CSC 633 of 2009

Judgment of:

Coker FM

Hearing dates:

6 May 2011 and 13 July 2011

Date of Last Submission:

13 July 2011

Delivered at:

Townsville

Delivered on:

19 August 2011

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant:

In Person

Counsel for the 1st Respondent:

Ms Mayes

Solicitors for the 1st Respondent:

Roati & Firth Lawyers

For the 2nd Respondent

No appearance by or on behalf of the 2nd Respondent

ORDERS

That the Mother, MS CAMPBELL, be rejoined as a party to these proceedings.
That the Maternal Great-Grandparents spend time with the children, [X] born [in] 1997 and [Y] born [in] 1999, at all reasonable times as may be agreed in writing between the Maternal Great-Grandparents and the Father, but otherwise at times determined by the Father.
That the Maternal Great-Grandparents communicate with the children by telephone at all reasonable times as may be agreed in writing between the Maternal Great-Grandparents and the Father, but otherwise between the hours of 7.00pm and 7.30pm each Sunday, or as determined by the Father.
That the Mother, MS CAMPBELL, having been given leave to withdraw and subsequently rejoined as a party to these proceedings, be restrained and an injunction issue restraining her from commencing further proceedings in relation to the children, until such time as she has paid in full the costs orders made against her as follows, together with interest that has accrued to the present date at the Family Court Default Interest Rate, which is currently 10.75 per cent per annum:
(a)Order made in the Magistrates Court of Queensland on 17 December 2001 – costs outstanding $2,774.12;
(b)Interest to 27 June 2011 on $2,774.12, being $2,703.78 with interest accruing at $0.82 per day;
(c)Order made in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia at Townsville on 12 February 2007 in the sum of $2,545.00;
(d)Interest to 27 June 2011 on $2,545.00, being $1,167.53 with interest accruing at $0.75 per day.
That pursuant to Section 118(1)(c) of the Family Law Act1975, the Mother shall not, without leave of the Court or of a Court of competent jurisdiction, institute proceedings under this Act for parenting orders or enforcement of parenting orders.
That should there be any application for costs on the part of the Father then the Father be at liberty to file and serve any submissions in relation to same, within 28 days of the date of this order, and that the Respondent Great Grandparents have leave to file and serve any submissions in response within 42 days of the date of this order, and that unless otherwise requested in writing, that the determination of any such application proceed in chambers.
That all outstanding applications be otherwise dismissed.

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT TOWNSVILLE

CSC 633 of 2009

MS MCKENZIE

Applicant

And

MR DUNCAN

First Respondent

MS CAMPBELL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These proceedings are somewhat unusual in that they relate to an application by great-grandparents seeking to spend time with two young children. Those children are [X], born [in] 1997, 14 years of age, and [Y], born [in] 1999 and, therefore, 12 years of age.
At the time that the application was filed, 2 October 2009, the children were then respectively 12 and 10 years of age. The applicant is Ms McKenzie, though perhaps more accurately it should also include the maternal great-grandfather, Mr M. Certainly, it appears that both the great-grandmother and the great-grandfather join in the orders that are sought, in respect of these proceedings.
In the original application, though a little difficult to interpret, the applicants sought orders under the heading, “Requests of the Court”. Those requests were numbered 1 through 7 attached to the initiating application filed 2 October 2009.
1.That both [X] and [Y] as well as Mr Duncan’s defacto (partner) Ms N undergo testing to insure tha there is a healthy relationship for [X] and [Y] to live in.
2.To allow us to have custody of both [X] and [Y] for one half of all school holidays.
3.To pick up and return [Y] and [X] at a mutually agreed spot and time in [omitted].
4.To have permission to take both [X] and [Y] to visit their mother, sisters and brother during the summer holidays.
5.That the [Y] and [X] always bring sufficient clothing for their stay including dress clothes, play clothes, underwear, swimwear, and both dress and play shoes.
6.Permission to take [X] and [Y] to the doctor if we deem it necessary and after attempting to inform Mr Duncan and to be paid for by Mr Duncan.
7.We request to be allowed to have phone contact with [X] and [Y] at any reasonable time and that mail correspondence with [X] and [Y] be deliver to them.
It is noteworthy that the very first of those applications related to a request that the children, as well as the father’s partner, Ms N, undergo “testing to ensure that there is a healthy relationship for [X] and [Y] to live in.” That particular application was not pursued in relation to this matter, but it is the first indicator of the unpleasant nature of the application that was brought before the Court and the troubling issues that arose, as a result of the application by the maternal great-grandparents.
When the matter finally came to hearing a more specific notation was provided in relation to the orders that were proposed by the maternal great-grandparents. They were headed, “What We Want in Final Orders” and then numbered 1 through 5:
1.That the girls [X] and [Y] be allowed to visit with us, during the school holidays, any time which they would normally be with their mother but due to financial or physical constraints may not be able to do so.
2.That the girls [X] and [Y] be delivered to and picked up in [omitted] by Mr Duncan at a mutually agreed place and time.
3.That the girls [X] and [Y] bring with them, sufficient clothing and personal items for the duration of the stay.
4.That communications with the girls [X] and [Y] by phone between 6:00PM and 8:00PM any day and, mail be accepted and answered.
5.That phone messages left for Mr Duncan, on his home phone be acknowledged and replied to practically when pertaining to issues concerning the girls.
Obviously, there has been some significant reduction in the amount of time that was sought with the children, it being the case that initially one-half of school holidays were sought, but now it was sought that the children be allowed to spend time with the great-grandparents during the school holidays, at times upon which they would normally be with their mother.
It was also noteworthy that the orders that were finally sought, did not include any need for, “testing to ensure that there was a healthy relationship” or that there be the opportunity to take the children to see the doctor, if the great-grandparents deemed it necessary. The orders were still, however, somewhat open-ended and related very much to what the great-grandparents wanted in relation to these proceedings.
The respondent to the application is the children’s father Mr Duncan. I shall, for convenience, refer to him during the balance of these reasons as the father. In his response filed on 18 November 2009 he sought orders on a final basis in the shortest of form. They were as follows:
1.That the application made by the great-grandmother, Ms McKenzie, filed before the Cairns Registry of the Federal Magistrates Court on 2 October 2009 be dismissed.
2.That the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to this application on an indemnity basis.
The position actually taken by the respondent father at the time of hearing, however, had, in fact, softened and it was indicated in the case outline that was provided on his behalf and subsequently confirmed in an amended response filed on 30 June 2011, that the orders that were finally sought were simply that the costs should still be paid and further:
1. That the maternal great-grandmother spend time with the children, [X], born [in] 1998 and [Y] born [in] 1999, at all reasonable times as agreed between the parties but in particular from 9.30am to 4.00pm on the last Saturday and Sunday of each month.
Additionally, orders were sought to the effect that handover should occur at [omitted], which is the township in which the father and the children reside and the father proposed that the maternal great-grandmother be at liberty to telephone the children between 7 and 7.30pm each Sunday.
The second respondent to the application filed by the maternal great-grandmother is the children’s mother, Ms Campbell (now known as Campbell). No response was filed by the mother in relation to these proceedings, though she did file an affidavit on 1 November 2010, which was more in line with a response or answer to the affidavit evidence filed by the father. In fact, at the hearing on the first day it was confirmed that the mother did not intend to take part in the proceedings, other than as a witness supporting the position of the maternal great-grandparents, and it was deemed appropriate by all and ordered by the Court that the mother be given leave to withdraw as a party to the proceedings.
However, subsequent to evidence being given by her in relation to this matter, an application in a case was filed on 30 June 2011 in which orders were sought in respect of the mother being joined again as a party to the proceedings. The terms of the orders sought were as follows:
1.
That leave be granted to file this Application in a Case and the Amended Response to Initiating Application and Affidavit of

Mr Duncan sworn on 28 June 2011.
2.That Ms Campbell be rejoined as a party to these proceedings.
3.That the Second Respondent be restrained from commencing further proceedings in relation to the children, [X] born [in] 1998 and [Y] born [in] 1999, until such time as she has paid in full the Costs Orders made against her as follows together with interest that has accrued to the present date at the Family Court Default Interest Rate which is currently 10.75% per annum:
a.Order made in the Magistrates Court of Queensland on 17 December 2001 – costs outstanding $2,774.12;
b.Interest to 27 June 2011 in $2,774.12 being $2,703.78 with interest accruing at $0.82 per day;
c.Order made in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia at Townsville on 12 February 2007 in the sum of $2,545.00;
d.Interest to 27 June 2011 on $2,545.00 being $1,167.53 with interest accruing at $0.75 per day.
4.Such further or other Orders as this Honourable Court deems necessary.
5.Costs.
I shall come more fully to that particular aspect of the matter later in these reasons.
Before turning to consideration of the evidence of the parties given in relation to this matter, as well as an application of the fact situation to the law, it is noteworthy that an order was made of an interim nature by me, at the conclusion of the proceedings. It was not an order that was sought by either of the parties, but in light of the evidence that fell in relation to this matter and of the very serious concerns that I held with regard to the welfare and best interests of the children, should there be a situation where the father were required, pursuant to orders, to make the children available to spend time with the maternal great-grandparents and perhaps by extension with their mother, I deemed it appropriate that orders should be made which suspended the operation of any previous orders, including interim orders in relation to time to be spent by the children with their mother or the maternal great-grandparents, other than in circumstances that were agreed by the father. The terms of those orders were as follows:
1. That the operation of all previous Orders in relation to the parenting of the children, [X] born [in] 1998 and [Y] born [in] 1999, be suspended.
2. That the Father have sole parental responsibility for decisions relating to the major long term issues of the children, including but not limited to:
(a)     a child’s education (both current and future);
(b)    a child’s religious and cultural upbringing;
(c)     a child’s health;
(d)    a child’s name;
(e)     changes to the child’s living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the children to spend time with each parent.
3. Notwithstanding Order 2 herein:
(a)The Mother shall be responsible for the day-to-day care, welfare and development of the children whilst they are spending time with her; and
(b)The Maternal Great-Grandparents shall be responsible for the day-to-day care, welfare and development of the children whilst they are spending time with them.
4.   That the children live with the Father.
5.   That the Mother and the Maternal Great-Grandparents spend time with and communicate with the children at all reasonable times as may be agreed between the Father and the Maternal Great-Grandparents.
6.     That the judgment be reserved to a date to be fixed.
I turn now to the evidence in relation to this matter. I should commence by saying that I have no doubt as to the genuineness of the wish by both the maternal great-grandmother and the maternal great-grandfather to be involved in the children’s lives. However, it is unfortunately a situation where I have rarely, if ever, experienced a situation or heard evidence which has given rise to such serious concerns as those that are held by me, in relation to the benefits to these children of spending any time, except that which is agreed to by the father, with the maternal great-grandparents.
There are a number of reasons for those particular concerns in relation to this matter. I had the opportunity to see the maternal great-grandmother in the witness box. She impressed me in a number of ways as being an intelligent and articulate woman, determined to press ahead with what she considered to be arrangements which would be in the best interests of her great-granddaughters. In particular, she stressed, understandably, the importance of there being the opportunity for the two children the subject of these proceedings, to have the opportunity to interact with their older sister, [Z].
[Z], at the time of the commencement of the proceedings, was 14 years of age and is now approaching 16 years of age. She was, at the time of the commencement of the proceedings, living with the maternal great-grandparents, though the evidence which fell on the final day of hearing in relation to this matter, indicates that she is now living with her mother, attending school at another school to that which had previously been the case and was not, therefore, living, apart from the purpose of occasional visits, at the home of the maternal great-grandparents.
It was also the position of the maternal great-grandmother at the commencement of the application, that by enabling she and the maternal great-grandfather to have the opportunity to spend time with the children that they would be able to facilitate, on occasion, opportunities for the children to spend time with their mother and also to visit other siblings, who were living with their mother and those children’s father in the [omitted] area.
Again, the circumstances that existed by the time this matter came to trial were quite significantly different, with the mother having separated from her husband, having left those four young children in the care of her husband and having formed another relationship in North Queensland. Additionally, the mother is now pregnant with her eighth child and has been experiencing difficulties with that pregnancy, such that one of the reasons that [Z] is now living with her mother is to provide her with the physical support obviously necessary to cope with that difficult pregnancy.
Of course, the change in circumstances has significantly affected the position taken by the maternal great-grandmother in respect of this application because, as it was noted, one of the requests of the Court, contained within the application initiating proceedings, was for there to be an opportunity to take the children, the subject of these proceedings to visit their mother and younger sisters and brother during the summer school holiday period.
The motivation, therefore, for the application being made was no doubt one which was considered by the maternal great-grandmother to be child focused and to be in the best interests of these two girls. It also, of course, would have enabled she and the maternal great-grandfather to continue involvement in the children’s lives, and I must say that the distinct impression that I gained in relation to the maternal great-grandmother and the maternal great-grandfather was that they were the “rock” upon which much of their family hung and that they were the family members who were able to facilitate interaction between many of the extended family members, who might not otherwise or necessarily be able or be willing to interact with each other.
Having said all that, however, there was an undercurrent which became more and more obvious in relation to this matter of control and determination on the part of the maternal great-grandmother to achieve exactly what she wished, to the entire disregard of what might otherwise be wished or sought for by the father, as the only parent who has willingly taken a responsible and a proper approach, in relation to the welfare, care and provision for the best interests of these children.
A number of matters, unfortunately, illuminated these issues. They were investigated in cross-examination on the part of the father and the more evidence that fell the more obvious it became that the maternal great-grandmother and the maternal great-grandfather, as well as the mother, had no respect whatsoever for the significant and absolutely critical role of the father and his partner, Ms N, the children’s stepmother.
Without going at length into the various areas that were examined during cross-examination, it was clear that the concerns genuinely and, I believe, properly expressed by the father in relation to email exchanges between the children and, particularly, the younger of the two children, [Y], and their older sister [Z], were not appropriately addressed by the great-grandmother or the great-grandfather. The exchanges were unpleasant. They were inappropriate in the extreme, and they were indicative of there being little, if any, control or even appreciation by the maternal great-grandparents of the importance of monitoring and mentoring the behaviours of young children.

The maternal great-grandmother, when questioned about this generally indicated that the exchanges between these two sisters were “girlish behaviour”, that it was just of a joking nature and that there was nothing of a serious nature or issue of concern that arose from it. The fact that the name able to be utilised for access to the child, [Y], eight years of age at the time, was “sexy little bitch” seemed to be of little consequence or importance to the grandmother in relation to these proceedings.
The fact that it was suggested that there needed to be greater control exercised in relation to the use of email communication and the internet generally was flippantly disregarded by the maternal great-grandmother and I gained the distinct impression that whilst she suggested that her husband would be able to monitor such matters and control issues in relation to internet usage, particularly by the older sibling, [Z], there was no real intent or wish to do so and that, if anything, there was again a disregard about the father’s concerns in relation to the use of the internet and particularly inappropriate exchanges involving the two children, [Y] and [X].
When, after many of those matters were addressed by Ms Mayes in cross-examination, the great-grandmother was asked whether she could understand why the father was concerned about the girl’s use of Facebook, the great-grandmother rather nonchalantly, and I thought somewhat aggressively, said that she could not accept that there was any basis for concern and then as an aside, but I thought a telling one, indicated that, “His troubles are only just beginning.”
The fact was that the great-grandmother refused to appreciate or to consider that there might have been concerns properly had by the father in relation to the lack of monitoring of the computer and its use by the children. In fact, the great-grandmother’s response when challenged in relation to that position was simply to rather ironically state, “We are such dreadful people,” rather than appreciate there might properly be real concerns had in relation to the computer use.
The flippant disregard of issues in relation to [Z]’s continued use of the internet and the nonsensical and simply wrong assertion by the great-grandmother, that the use of the internet by [Z] and Facebook sites were at times that were relevant to American timekeeping rather than Australian timekeeping and that, therefore, it was not at inordinately late hours of the morning was basically a “cop out” by the maternal great-grandmother. I gained, unfortunately, the distinct impression that she gave little credence to the concerns expressed by the father, because she simply chose not to do so, and it was the first of very many real indicators of the total lack of respect or appreciation at all of the importance of the father’s role, in relation to these children.
It is noteworthy that in cross-examination about [Z]’s exchanges with others on the internet, including her exchanges with a boyfriend, the great-grandmother immediately indicated that it was simply a Facebook fantasy of the child and there was no boyfriend. Interestingly, however, in the affidavit of [Z]’s mother, the mother also of the children in these proceedings, filed on 1 November 2010 a specific notation was made by the mother to a comment about [Z] having a boyfriend when the mother said at paragraph 16:
[Z] has never had the opportunity to be alone with her boyfriend. He lives in [omitted] and works with my mother.
([emphasis] included by me).
What is clear is that [Z] does have a real, not a fantasy boyfriend or at least did at the time of concerns being expressed in relation to this matter and, no doubt, the great-grandmother knew of that relationship or at least should have properly inquired in respect of that relationship, but rather simply chose to disregard the position of the father.
Additionally, the father expressed very real concerns, understandably, about the lack of any real parenting or responsibility toward parenting shown on the part of the children’s mother. The position of the great-grandparents, however, was to indicate that they would and, in fact, continued to do so up to the last day of hearing, accept without question the indications of the children’s mother and of others, as to her behaviours and responsibilities as a parent.
Every indicator given in relation to these proceedings points to the fact that the mother is irresponsible in the extreme in relation to parenting. What is clear, for example, is that until only a month or so before the conclusion of this case, Ms Campbell was the mother of seven children, none of whom were in her care. More particularly, it was clear that that was, at least to some extent, her choice and, incredibly and tragically, the four youngest children being left with their father had been told that the mother was going away on a holiday and she had never disabused them of that particular expression.
One cannot begin to imagine the tragic nature of the hurt experienced by those children and the real possibilities of similar hurt being experienced by the children, the subject of these proceedings, if there was allowed to be significant interaction without proper monitoring and inquiry, in relation to the mother. Yet the position of the great-grandparents was simply to accept that she was a good mother, that she had ceased to use drugs despite the indicators, as late as October 2010 that that was not the case, and that she was dealing appropriately and being properly medicated, in relation to an apparent diagnosis of bipolar disorder.
Again, there was no evidence, whatsoever, provided in that respect, and the total lack of consideration of the father’s genuine and proper concerns in that regard reflected very poorly upon the maternal great-grandparents.
In fact, when the great-grandmother was asked whether in light of all of the indications that were given as to the inappropriate nature of the mother’s behaviours and her attitude, there might be a possibility of the children being emotionally damaged by uncontrolled interaction with their mother, the maternal great-grandmother indicated that she did not think there was any risk of emotional harm to the children and that if the children found that there were such behaviours occurring with the mother, then they would report it to the great-grandparents and they would, “understand”.
A less insightful and more damaging attitude could not be imagined in this situation, because the fact is that the great-grandparents, simply refused or were incapable of accepting that there were genuine and real concerns available in relation to the mother and her behaviours and their failure to accept that that was the case was, of its very nature, a risk that was unable to be acknowledged or understood by the great-grandparents.
They set out, determinedly, to disparage and ridicule the father and his partner Ms N. There was reference repeatedly made to a report by the child [X] of having being bruised and hurt, as a result of being smacked with a wooden spoon. Investigations showed that that was unsubstantiated and, in fact, the persons who were allegedly the collaborators of the story by [X] did not in any way confirm the child’s version. When asked whether she still believed the allegations to be true, the maternal great-grandmother indicated that, she could only accept the fact that, “[X] said it”, and at best, she did not know what to believe. The position subsequently taken by the maternal great-grandmother was to suggest that the police had not done a thorough enough investigation.
The allegations then continued to be made, they being reported on a number of occasions within the material filed by the maternal great-grandparents and were repeated to the report writer, at the time of interviews.
There were indications given, notwithstanding concerns that were obvious even at the time of the report being prepared and these proceedings progressing, that there were concerns in relation to the mother, and yet the maternal great-grandmother indicated at interview to the report writer that “[Ms Campbell] was a good mother”. Nothing could have been further from the truth.
There were indications also of the fact that correspondence that had been forwarded in relation to various exchanges were hurtful and determinately so, directed toward the father and Ms N. When asked whether, in light of all the evidence that had fallen, the great-grandmother thought that this might have been hurtful to the father or how it would be received by the father, her response was again telling and I thought most inappropriate, in that the maternal great-grandmother when asked about the feelings or perhaps hurt on the part of the father indicated that she, “didn’t really care”.
It was telling evidence in relation to these proceedings and, again, was an indicator of what unfortunately I thought was the real attitude and behaviours of the maternal great-grandmother.
I could continue on in relation to such matters in respect of an enormous amount of the evidence that was given in relation to this matter but, instead, I simply need to make findings and they are not in any way, I think, helpful to the position of the great-grandmother in relation to this matter. She was manipulative, she was rude, she was abusive, and she lacked any respect or appreciation whatsoever of the importance and significance of the role played by the father and of his partner, Ms N.
Her response to a question as to whether she had treated Ms N respectfully was, I think, simply horrible. She said that she, Ms N, was not the mother of the children and she never would be. She was, “just his partner”. The lack of insight as to the hurt and harm that this would cause, not only of course to the father and Ms N but, more directly and importantly, to the children was almost overwhelming and it was clear that there was a determination on the part of the maternal great-grandmother to get her own way and whatever collateral damage there might be, including damage psychologically to the children, was a matter of little consequence or concern to her.
She was asked about correspondence forwarded by her to the father in which she addressed the letter to “The boss”. When asked about that, she indicated that in her view, “In any household, the man is the boss, and in the father’s household, the father was the boss, not Ms N.”
She was asked whether she had told the children that, “The man is the boss of the house,” and she responded that she had done so. She was asked, most tellingly of all at that time, whether, if the father had a different view and that women were equal, that would affect her attitude in relation to this matter and she replied, “I don’t care”. When asked whether she was therefore trying to impose her views on the children and indirectly upon the father, she responded that she was, but that the father tries to impose his views on her as well.
The fact is that the great-grandmother entirely failed to appreciate the difference in their respective roles in relation to these children and their lives. The father has the role and the responsibility of determining the guidance and direction to be provided to these children and the maternal great-grandmother has no such role and should, without question, be respectful of that role, rather she took a determinately disrespectful stance and, in fact, set out clearly to undermine the position of the father and of the stepmother, in relation to these proceedings.
She was asked whether in correspondence and particularly addressing communication to the father as the boss she was, in fact, trying to have a “dig at Ms N” and she responded, “Yes”. She acknowledged that she provided no financial support for the children, but then again rather flippantly indicated that it was not up to her to do so, because the father took on the responsibility. Whilst there may be some relevance in that, it is also noteworthy and important that it be recognised that the father, whilst taking on the responsibility, had no choice in what had to be done, because someone had to act responsibly in relation to the parenting of these children, and it was only because the father had taken on this role, that there was stability and a settled arrangement, in respect of the children.
I was generally horrified by the attitude of the maternal great-grandmother. Her lack of respect or appreciation of what had been done for these children over many years because her granddaughter, the children’s mother, was unwilling or unable to do so, showed a lack of grace on her part that was almost overwhelming. The disparaging tone and direction of communication with the father and of correspondence with the father indicated to me that there was little prospect of there being a beneficial relationship between them but, more particularly, showed that there was, in my assessment, an almost overwhelming expectation that no matter what might be ordered ,if the maternal great-grandmother was to spend time with these children, other than in circumstances where the father was comfortable for that to occur, then there would be either overtly or certainly covertly, an undermining of the father’s role in relation to the parenting of these children and the respect that these children have and are entitled to maintain, in their father.
I was dismayed at the attitude of this lady.
As I indicated, whilst not named specifically in the proceedings, it was clear that the maternal great-grandfather also took a significant role in relation to the application being brought on the part of the great-grandmother. Mr M was, I thought, a generally impressive man and certainly appeared, I thought, younger than his mid-70s. He was, however, determined to support the application of the maternal great-grandmother and, in fact, to do so in the face of almost overwhelming indicators as to his belief structure, being incorrect.
For example, and perhaps most tellingly, he was cross-examined immediately about indications given by him that Ms N had been taken to Court for an assault. He said that he believed that to be the case and that he had been told that by [Ms Campbell]. He had to believe his granddaughter, it appeared, notwithstanding the fact that there was not a skerrick of evidence to suggest that what was alleged was true and, in fact, if anything, the behaviours of the mother were a constant indicator of her untruthfulness, her deceitfulness, and her manipulative nature.
When asked, however, if he was told that that was simply untrue, he responded he would have to believe it but, unfortunately, I gained the impression that it was more a statement for the benefit of the Court, than any real acceptance on his part of the fact that the story and the evidence that was relied upon, was simply untrue.
When questioned at length about issues in relation to the father’s concerns in respect of the internet use and the inappropriate exchanges involving [Z] and [Y], the position taken by Mr M was almost, I thought, rather uncaring. He said that he had spoken to [Z] and had retrieved all of the emails that had been exchanged and his attitude was to say that he had it raised with [Z] that the exchanges were inappropriate and she had apologised and that that was the end of the matter.
He said that he had banned her from the use of her computer and had pulled the cable out of the computer such that it had not been used. For a man who professed to have 50 years experience in the computer industry, the naivety of such actions and believing that a 15 year old girl would not, if she chose to do so, override any such actions and perhaps mislead him and the maternal great-grandmother as to what she might or might not be doing with the use of a computer, was overwhelming.
When asked whether, if she were determined to do so, [Z] could operate the computer, his response was telling, again, in that he said, “I guess so,” but then went on to say that, “she would not do it”. The fact is, of course, that every indicator, including the evidence of Facebook downloads, would show that [Z] does continue to act as any young girl would do, in defiance of the authority figures in their lives, and yet no proper steps were taken on the part of the maternal great-grandfather or great-grandmother to intervene in such issues.
When asked whether the child could, as appeared obvious from the evidence, make early morning entries on Facebook and, therefore, utilise the computer facilities at the home, the maternal great-grandfather said that he had raised this with [Z] and that she had said that she did not do so, and that he believed her. She said that she was asleep, and he believed that.
It was quite obviously and unfortunately, a triumph of hope over experience. Every indicator was that [Z], like so many young people, had acted in a manner that was inappropriate and had acted in a manner that was juvenile. What was more tragic, however, was that the persons apparently in authority, had failed to recognise or to in any way appreciate the importance of their role and the obligations that they had.
There was no confidence that could be raised from the evidence given by Mr M in relation to this matter, as to an ability to properly protect [Z] but, more particularly, [X] and [Y] from inappropriate activities, within their household.
It was telling also that the position at the very end taken by Mr M was to say that it was, “the children’s right to spend time with them”, rather than to appreciate that, whilst the children have a right to a relationship with all persons significant in their lives, the overriding consideration is to ensure that the children are protected, in situations of risk, and there was no appreciation whatsoever, of that particular aspect of the matter. Again, I was provided no comfort, whatsoever, from the evidence of Mr M in relation to this matter.
Finally, on behalf of the applicants, the children’s mother, Ms Campbell, gave evidence in relation to this matter. She was, I thought, one of the least impressive witnesses I have ever had appear before me. She was aggressive, she was untruthful, she was uncooperative, and I thought entirely focused on what her rights were, what her wishes were, and her determination to allow her grandparents to spend time with the children, rather than to appreciate in any way whatsoever, that the real issue here was the welfare and the best interests of the children.
She was asked about her diagnosis of bipolar and provided some evidence in that regard, though she refused to provide any assistance in relation to the medication she was on, or her future diagnosis. She was asked how her behaviours, and they were erratic in the extreme over the years, had affected the children or at least how she perceived that it might have affected the children and, again, her answer was telling in that her only response was to say that her behaviours, whatever they may have been, did not affect the children.
It was a tragic lack of insight. I commented previously that

Ms Campbell had left her four youngest children in the care of their father in [omitted]. She said that she had separated from her husband, Mr C, some two and half years previously. She confirmed that the children were still with Mr C and that she had last seen the children in October 2010.
This is noteworthy, in that it was some seven months at that time since the mother had seen the children. She was asked what those children thought about that and incredibly she indicated that she did not know and that perhaps Ms Mayes, counsel for the father, could ask them. Again, it was an incredible answer, indicative of any lack of appreciation whatsoever of the hurt that she had occasioned upon these four young children and, of course, in other ways upon the two children, the subject of these proceedings.
She lacked any insight whatsoever as to the effect of her own behaviours upon anyone else, and I gained the distinct impression that unfortunately, perhaps as a result of the issues with regard to her mental health, that she was incredibly self-centred and determined to get her own way in any respect. She was questioned about her drug use and become evasive in the extreme. She refused to answer questions and I thought was simply untruthful about comments that were made.

When shown her police file, and notations to the effect that there had been a complaint from someone within her own home, that the household was untidy, that drug deals were being done, and that the children within the house were not being cared for, she indicated that she had not been interviewed and when asked who complained, noted that it was Ms J who was, “supposed to be my cousin”. There was no appreciation whatsoever of the legitimacy of the concerns expressed but rather, again, a self-centred feeling of hurt and betrayal.
I was enormously troubled by the evidence given in relation to this matter. Whilst there were other issues of concern also arising in respect of the mother’s evidence, most concerning of all was the fact that, when the mother was asked whether in fact the application being brought by her grandparents was really just one brought in her stead, so that she could spend time with the children by relying on her grandparents, the children’s great-grandparents, to have time with the children, she indicated that that was not the case and when it was suggested that they simply stood in her stead, she replied, I thought rather tellingly that, “no, after all this was over,” she would bring her own application.
When asked whether she had paid the costs orders that had previously been made against her in proceedings, she indicated that she had not and, again, I think rather tellingly, indicated that she had no intention of doing so and, most incredibly of all, when asked whether she cared how the non-payment of moneys might affect the father’s household, because it meant that there was less available for the children, she indicated that she did not care how it affected his household and she did not care how it affected the children because, as she put it, the father says, “he is such a great father” and he is not and “Ms N is not a great mother”.
I have rarely been as disturbed as I was at the evidence given by the mother in relation to these proceedings and it is perhaps, therefore, understandable why the application in a case was brought, to have the mother rejoined as a party to these proceedings and for there to be a restraint placed upon her from commencing further proceedings, until such time as she has paid in full the costs orders, that have already been made against her.
I intend to make such orders in relation to this matter and, in fact, additionally, to make an order pursuant to the provisions of section 118 to prevent the mother from bringing further proceedings without leave of a Court of competent jurisdiction.
I consider that to be the very least that can be done, to appropriately provide security and stability for these children. The mother’s uncaring attitude to the effects upon the children, as a result of the effects upon the father’s household are damning indictments of the mother and having been served with these proceedings, being aware that the matter was before the Court and that was, in fact, confirmed by the great-grandmother, it is clear that there should be no opportunity available for this family to be put through the hell and expense that has already occurred as a result of the actions of the great-grandparents and, no doubt, are further envisaged by the mother.
I also had the opportunity of seeing the father in the witness box and of considering his evidence, in relation to this matter. He was, I thought, a witness of great character and I was enormously impressed by him. He has been put through the most hellish of circumstances as a result of the determined actions of the maternal great-grandparents and, previously, through the uncaring issue and continuation of litigation by the mother, without any legitimate basis upon which it could be suggested as being child focused.
The very first question that was directed by the maternal great-grandmother to the father in relation to these proceedings was to ask whether he was married. He responded, “No”. The question itself however, was a far greater indicator of that concern to which I had referred at the beginning of these reasons, the lack of respect or appreciation of the father’s role or his relationship with Ms N in respect of these children. The father was asked about his concerns as to harm that might occur at the great-grandmother’s household and he made reference to fungal infections, sunburn and also the legitimate concerns that he held in relation to unsupervised interaction with the mother.
Finally, he was asked by the maternal great-grandmother whether it was considered by him that his judgment in this matter might be flawed. He responded, “No”. Again, the question was a far greater indicator of the issues in relation to these proceedings than the answer because, if anything, it simply showed that the position and stance of the great-grandmother in relation to this matter, was that her judgment was not flawed and that anyone who disagreed with her was, in fact, in error.
I was, as I have indicated, impressed by the father. I thought that he had taken on the role and responsibility of the real parent of these children without any assistance whatsoever and, in fact, to a significant degree, hindrance by the mother and her extended family, with dignity and with great concern to ensure that the children’s best interests were met. I have nothing but the most sincere admiration for the responsible parenting and the attitude to parenting that has been shown by this father.
I turn now to the issue of the family report in relation to these proceedings. I must say that I was troubled by the family report, particularly having read it again after having heard the evidence that had fallen in relation to the proceedings, because I gained the distinct impression that there had been a most inappropriate weighting of the information provided by the maternal great-grandparents to the report writer, rather than any appreciation of the legitimate concerns that were held by the father in relation to involvement with the great-grandparents.
The recommendation that was made in relation to the matter was that the great-grandmother be permitted to spend time with [X] and [Y] and suggesting that there should be initial interactions and thereafter, that there should be opportunities for the children to spend one-half of the holiday periods with the great-grandmother.
As cross-examination was directed to Ms P and as the real facts of this case were outlined to Ms P through, I thought, most appropriate cross-examination and questioning by counsel for the father, it became clear that Ms P only had, at best, half the story and had, unfortunately, I would assess, taken on board the position of one side of the family without any real investigation.
The fact that she had been to no real extent, if at all, critical of the mother’s position in relation to this matter, because of the refusal by the mother to participate in any way in the interview process and yet was critical of the father for delay in answering telephone calls was, I thought, telling. It troubled me in the extreme that that was the case and, unfortunately, I did gain the impression that when all of the facts were outlined in relation to this matter, Ms P, if anything, became somewhat defensive.
It was interesting and proper, however, that when the full information in relation to this matter started to be revealed, Ms P acknowledged that the mother appeared on the evidence that was now before the Court to be self focused rather than child focused. She acknowledged that the person who acted in the manner of the mother, including a trend of ending relationships and leaving children behind, was, in fact, a person who could be a serious risk to children and that the father’s expressed concerns in relation to that were, therefore, reasonable and genuine, was an appropriate concession on her part.
When indications were given as to the changed circumstances, including the fact that [Z] no longer lived at the maternal great-grandparents and that there were other real concerns in relation to these proceedings, Ms P properly acknowledged that the recommendation she had previously made would now no longer be appropriate. Ms P acknowledged that she had not investigated and, perhaps understandably so in light of the material that was then available, the possibility of the father’s household being undermined by the actions, covert or overt, of the maternal great-grandparents. She acknowledged that this was a possibility and was a matter that needed to be understood.
She spoke of the, “archaic view”, expressed by the great-grandmother in relation to the man being the boss of the household and that if this was expressed to the children, as the great-grandmother has indicated she would do, then it could to lead to confusion for the children and that it could and would, no doubt, lead to long-term repercussions for the children.
Most importantly, and I think appropriately, when the full particulars in relation to this matter were made clear to Ms P and it became abundantly clear that there was no respect and, if anything, an undermining of Ms N’s role in the children’s lives, then that would not be in the best interests of the children, Ms P acknowledged that that was the case and that it was a most unfortunate situation.
Ms P acknowledged that undermining the father’s household would be a negative influence upon this family and she properly acknowledged, though I note it does not appear to come out abundantly in the material, that the children are happy and settled with their father and they should not be confused as to that important relationship with their father and with their stepmother, Ms N. It was noted by Ms P that the father and Ms N had done a very good job in relation to these children and that that had occurred without any real input and, if anything, interference by the mother and her side of the family.
Finally and quite properly, it was acknowledged by Ms P, that the prime issue in proceedings is to protect the father’s family relationship and the relationship between he and his daughters and, that had to be the first consideration in relation to this matter.
As I say, I was somewhat troubled having, obviously, heard all of the evidence in relation to this matter with the report that was prepared. I was pleased, that when the full factual basis of this matter was outlined in relation to the proceedings, that Ms P properly acknowledged that there were serious issues that needed to be examined and that her recommendations in relation to the matter, needed to be significantly reconsidered.
I turn then to the issues of law in relation to this matter. In particular, I am mindful of the provisions of section 60CA of the Family Law Act which is in these terms:
60CA 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.
Additionally, I am mindful of the objects and the principles set out in section 60B(1) and (2) and of the various considerations noted in section 60CC(2) and (3) which are, to all intents, a reflection of those objects and principles which are set out in section 60B(1) and (2). Section 60B(1) and (2) and section 60CC(2) and (3) are in these terms:
60B(1) [Object of Part] The objects of this Part are to ensure that the best interests of 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 interest 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.
60B(2) [Principles underlying object] The principles underlying these objects are that (except when it is or would be contrary to a 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).
Primary considerations
60CC(2)The primary considerations are:
(a)the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents; and
(b)the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
Additional considerations
60CC(3)Additional considerations are:
(a)any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child's maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child's views;
(b)the nature of the relationship of the child with:
(i) each of the child's parents; and
(ii) other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
(c)the willingness and ability of each of the child's parents to facilitate, and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent;
(d)the likely effect of any changes in the child's circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:
(i)either of his or her parents; or
(ii)(ii) any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living;
(e)the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child's right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis;
(f)the capacity of:
(i)each of the child's parents; and
(ii)any other person (including grandparent or other relative of the child);
to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs;
(g)the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child's parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant;
(h)if the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child:
(i)the child's right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture); and
(ii)the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right;
(i)the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents;
(j)any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family;
(k)any family violence order that applies to the child or a member of the child's family, if:
(i)the order is a final order; or
(ii)the making of the order was contested by a person;
(l)whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child;
(m)any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant.
It is noteworthy that the objects of the Act do not refer to the role of other persons significant in a child’s life, referring only to the parents and to their responsibilities, in relation to the children. Only pursuant to section 60B(2) is there reference under the principles, “except when it would be contrary to a child’s best interests” to consider the right of a child to spend time on a regular basis and to communicate with on a regular basis other people significant to their care, welfare and development, such as grandparents and other relatives.
I would accept, of course, that that is a relevant consideration in relation to these proceedings but it must be considered in light of the proviso that the principles are to be applied, except when it is or would be contrary to a child’s best interests, and that is the issue that arises in relation to this matter.
There is no question that the maternal great-grandparents are significant persons in these children’s lives. What is, however, of concern in respect of the matter is that there is a very real concern as to how their significant involvement in the children’s lives might in the longer term give rise to serious harm to these children. In that regard, I am mindful of the various matters that a Court must turn its mind to in determining what is in a child’s best interests.
The primary considerations relate to the benefit for the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents and, again, it is noteworthy there is no reference to others significant in the children’s lives under the primary considerations, but there is a specific direction for a Court to give consideration to the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.
In this matter, that looms large because there is, as I would hope is obvious from the comments that I have already made, a very real concern that the lack of any real appreciation of the role of the father or any respect for the father’s parenting of these children, means that the children’s relationship with their father can be severely hampered and that that has, as was indicated by Ms P, the real prospect of long-term damage being caused to these children.
Benjamin J in Church v T Overton & Anor [2008] FamCA 965, made comment about whether or not grandparents have a special entitlement to see or communicate with grandchildren. He said the following:
61. The law is that parents are entitled to parent children. If there is an assertion that parenting duties ought to be usurped it is for the person asserting that fact to establish that parents are not carrying out those duties in the best interests of the child.
….
63. In the absence of substantive issues as to the child’s best interests, it is not the role of a court to peer over the shoulders of functional parents and second guess the decisions they make regarding the upbringing of their children. A court should only intervene in such decision-making in a cautious, careful and thoughtful manner and consider whether a better approach is to make no order at all.
64. That is not to say that a parent who acts capriciously in isolating a child from a grandparent with whom the child had a meaningful relationship ought not be the subject of orders, nor should this derogate from the role of the many grandparents and relatives who have taken up the care of children in circumstances where the parents were unable or unwilling to care for them.
In Bemert & Swallow [2009] FamCA5, Watts J adopted those passages from Church v T Overton & Anor (Supra) and went on to say at paragraphs 142 and 143, referring to the facts in the case before him, the following:
142. The children’s parents oppose them having time with the maternal grandfather. I find in the circumstances of this case they are entitled to make that decision without having to justify it through litigation.
143. Given that the paramount consideration in determining any parenting application is what is in the best interest of the children, it would make no sense to embark upon a course of litigation which I find would be:
(a) Difficult to contain and would likely be protracted; and
(b) Be a source of high stress for a parent to whom the children are primarily attached; and
(c) Might psychologically injure or disable that parent and consequently put the children at psychological risk; and
(d) Was without any realistic prospect of success.

In particular those considerations noted in points (b) and (c) are relevant to the circumstances that arise in this case as well as additionally, there being a real concern as to there being psychological harm to the children, through possible adverse effects upon their primary relationships with their father.
There are concerns here about the behaviours of the maternal great-grandparents and of the likelihood, perhaps even unknowingly, that they would seek to undermine the important and significant relationship between the father, his partner Ms N and these children.
It is a matter of real concern because, of course, when one considers the additional considerations, the nature of the relationship of the child with other persons, along with and in conjunction with other considerations, including the willingness and ability to encourage a close relationship between the child and others, there is a concern that arises. I, unfortunately, find myself in a situation where the position in relation to this matter is that I have no confidence whatsoever that the maternal great-grandparents would be able to protect the children from inappropriate behaviours, and there is no other way that they can be described, of the mother including, being able to remove the children from the presence of the mother in the event of her being un-medicated or under the influence of illicit substances. Nor is there a basis upon which I could not have very real concerns, that to enable these children to have regular, uninterrupted and uncontrolled interactions with their great-grandparents would not, in the long-term, affect the children’s own relationship and the primary relationship and attachment with their father and their stepmother.
I have concerns as to the capacity of the great-grandparents to properly monitor the children and their behaviours, as is evidenced from the issues involving computer usage and the internet. Additionally, I have very real concerns as to the great-grandparents’ capacity to ensure that the children’s emotional needs are met, including the fostering and developing of the relationship and growth of the most important relationship that these children have, that being the relationship with their father and their stepmother.
Whilst the great-grandmother was at pains to say that she did not undermine the relationship, her own words indicated that, in fact, there was every risk that that would occur because, of course, she indicated when saying that she did not undermine the father’s relationship with the children, because she did not speak with the children of their father, is of itself hurtful and harmful because these girls, no doubt, being the bright intelligent children that they are, would very quickly realise that there was a lack of respect or appreciation in any way, shape or form of their father and of the rules and requirements that existed within the father’s household.
I have no doubt whatsoever, that the position in relation to this matter is that, if there were to be any orders made with regard to the children spending time with the maternal great-grandparents, that there would be risks imposed as a result of the maternal great-grandparents’ lack of appreciation of the risks that now exist in both the real world and the cyber world and the lack of appreciation as to how to monitor and control that, as well as a very direct risk as to harm being caused to these children, as a result of the unsupervised interaction with their mother whose behaviours fall far short of what could ever properly be expected, in relation to the parenting of these children.
I note that the father proposes in the amended response filed in relation to this matter that there should be an opportunity for the maternal great-grandparents to spend time with the children on a last weekend of each month on both Saturday and Sunday. That would, no doubt, be appropriate if the father were confident that there would be proper and non-destructive or damaging interaction between the maternal great-grandparents and the children. However, I am unable to satisfy myself that that would be an appropriate course to follow, at least insofar as there being orders made.
There is nothing to preclude the maternal great-grandparents from making proper arrangements with the father, being mindful and respectful of his primary role in relation to the lives of these children and I have no doubt that if proper arrangements could be made, that the father would facilitate the opportunity for interaction of some nature between these girls and the maternal great-grandparents. I do not, however, intend to make orders in that respect but rather to rely on the father continuing to make the child focused decisions that he has shown in the past.
I note further that there is a proposal for the maternal great-grandmother to be at liberty to telephone the children between 7 and 7.30pm each Sunday and I will, in light of the suggestion made on the part of the father, note that in relation to this matter simply so as to ensure that there is some agreed means of communication between the children and the maternal great-grandparents, but that it clearly be recognised that this is a privilege and not a right and that if it is abused then it will be father who is at liberty to cease such time.
It is not, nor should it be, a situation where the father is forced in circumstances of concern to facilitate the interaction, even by way of telephone between the children and the maternal great-grandparents.
The wording of the order will, therefore, be that the maternal great grandparents are able to communicate with the children by telephone each Sunday between the hours of 7 and 7.30pm provided that the father is satisfied that such communication is appropriate and to the benefit and best interests of the children.
As I indicated previously, I intend also to make orders pursuant to the provisions of section 118 in relation to precluding further proceedings being instituted by the mother. Her threat, and it was nothing short of a threat, to do so was bloody-minded in the extreme and designed to cause further hurt and harm to the father, to his partner Ms N and, more particularly, but perhaps uncaringly to these children.
There should be no privilege or opportunity to do so and the total disregard of the orders of the Court is, if anything, an indication of the lack of respect that the mother has not only for the Court but also for the father and the important role that he has taken in relation to these children as well as respect for the children and their best interests.
The mother’s behaviours in relation to this matter have been nothing short of appalling and whilst there may, to some extent, be able to be explained as a result of issues with regard to her mental health and drug use, it is the mother and no one else who can remedy that and until such time as she is able to satisfy a Court of competent jurisdiction that there is a benefit to these children in there being, at least, some further litigation considered unless there is agreement as to what might be appropriate, then there should not be further harm caused to the household of the father and, therefore, to the children by allowing additional litigation to be brought.
Finally, there is an application brought by the father seeking orders in relation to the payment of costs in respect of this matter. In my view, there should be liberty to apply in writing in relation to costs and in that regard if the father is to seek any order in relation to costs in respect of this matter I will direct that he file and serve written submissions in relation to costs no more than 21 days after the delivery of these reasons and orders. That the maternal great-grandparents file any submissions in reply no more than 35 days after the delivery of reasons and orders in relation to these proceedings. That unless otherwise requested in writing, that the application be determined in chambers.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and ten (110) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Coker FM

Date: