McKittridge and Lyle

[2009] FamCA 1190

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MCKITTRIDGE & LYLE [2009] FamCA 1190

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – suspension of time a child spends with a parent

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms McKittridge

RESPONDENT: Mr Lyle

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Joe Harman Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner

FILE NUMBER: PAC 3509 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 20 October 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF: Judicial Registrar Loughnan

HEARING DATE: 19 October 2009

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr P. Batey

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: McIntosh McPhillamy & Co

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr G. Kenny

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: King Cain Solicitors

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER Joe Harman Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner

Orders

1. That orders be made in terms of the document titled “Minute of Order as Proposed by the Independent Children's Lawyer” marked Exhibit 3.

2. Leave to the parties to restore the proceedings to the list before Judicial Registrar Loughnan in relation to paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Exhibit 3 by arrangement with his associate on giving seven (7) days’ notice to the other parties and to the Court.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: PAC 3509 of 2009

MS MCKITTRIDGE

Applicant

And

MR LYLE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These are proceedings of McKittridge & Lyle.  The matter came before me yesterday in the duty list at Parramatta.  There was not time yesterday afternoon to give reasons and make a decision and so I indicated to the parties that I would reserve my decision and the parties were excused on delivery of judgment, as were their lawyers, and that notice would be given, albeit very brief notice, of the decision being handed down and reasons being given. I said that that would be done orally. 

2. The parties have been given notice. 

3. The matter relates to a child, A, who was born in January 2002.  That means that he is seven years of age. 

4. His mother is 40 years of age.  She is a business owner and lives in B, and the father is 41 and he is a salesman.  He is in a relationship with Ms J and she has a 10‑year‑old son, N. 

5. The parents started to live together in December 1986 and it appears that they separated on 21 April 2008.  I say "it appears".  That is the date the mother refers to in her Initiating Application and that issue is not contested by the father in his Response. The form of Response provides specifically for a party to contest a fact asserted in the application. 

6. The parties have four children.  I have mentioned A. There is K who is 22 years of age.  She lives independently of the parties with her partner and they have two young daughters. S and B are 20 and 19 years of age, respectively, and they live with the mother. 

7. At the time of separation the father had accommodation in regional New South Wales.  I mentioned the issue of separation because the father says that on 19 April 2008, that is three days before the date of separation, the mother came to the unit he was leasing, discovered that he was living with his partner, Ms J and that a fracas then ensued.  It seems to me a little unusual that the date of separation was after the husband had commenced living with somebody else. 

8. The father says that the parties struggled to make arrangements in relation to him spending time with A and that they had some mediation. Ultimately he started proceedings in the Local Court on 25 June 2008.  The parties had made arrangements to see a Ms M, psychologist, and, in fact, saw her on 26 June 2008. An agreement was reached, which agreement the parties put to the Local Court. On 23 September 2008 orders were made that provided for the child to live substantially with the mother and on alternate weekends from after school Friday until the commencement of school Monday and overnight on a Wednesday, also in alternate weeks, with the father.  They also provided for half the school holidays and some other special days.  When the child turns seven, the Wednesday overnight arrangement was to become weekly. 

9. The father says then there were ongoing problems with his relationship with A.  Not that he says the relationship itself was strained but he records problems with the older children and things that A said about problems in the mother's household. 

10. The mother says that from separation A resisted going to the father.  He was irregular in his attendance and it was necessary to bribe him to get the boy to go.  She says she consulted a Mr g, who is a Senior Clinical Psychologist at the regional Community Health. She attended some sessions with Mr G and the child and A had another three sessions over a six month period.  She says that Mr G had recommended, in 2009, that A’s time be reduced to one day a week. 

11. The mother seeks that the father's time with the child be suspended in the interim and she seeks that on the basis that the child acted in a violent way and she has generally noticed a deterioration in his behaviour.  She says:

    Typically when he returns home from spending time with the father he is angry and violent, has smashed his toys, broken a window in the house and in a shed.

    She says that he has displayed violence towards her on more than one occasion, grabbing her throat.  He has shouted at her, words to the effect:

    I don't want to go with dad.

    He has cried himself to sleep at night on the nights before he is due to spend a weekend with the father.  He said to her that he is scared of his father.  He becomes anxious and unwell on days when he is due to commence time with the father and the mother says that has caused an unacceptable level of absenteeism from school.

12. The father's position is that he thinks the order should be left in place.  The child is represented and his representative seeks orders which would wind back the time.  It is sought that the child spend time with the father each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school on Friday until 6 pm Saturday, and in the intervening weekend, from 10 am to 6 pm on Sunday.  Each week it is sought that the time be from the conclusion of school Wednesday until 7 pm. 

13. So the independent child lawyer is proposing that the child's time be reduced from in effect four overnights a fortnight to one overnight a fortnight.  It is still sought that there be block periods in the school holidays. 

14. I am to make orders in the best interests of a child.  The legislation gives guidance as to how one would determine that.  In interim proceedings the Full Court has said one first looks at the parties' proposals, looks at the common ground evidence and then is required to progress through the stream of logic set out in the legislation first based on an issue of parental responsibility. There is a presumption that the parties would have equal shared parental responsibility. If the court is to make an order to that effect it is to consider with a view to ordering equal time between the parents. If it does that and does not order equal time, it is to consider with a view to ordering, substantial and significant time. That is a term defined in the legislation. It means that the time a child spends with a parent includes both days that fall on weekends and holidays and days that do not; and that the time allows a parent to be involved in the child’s daily routine and occasions and events that are of particular significance to the child and the child to be involved in occasions and events that are of special significance to the parent.

15. The court is to make an order in the best interests of a child.  The criteria for that is set out in section 60CC and they start with primary considerations, being the benefit of a child having a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect a child from physical or psychological harm, being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.  Then there are additional considerations which I will go through in a moment. 

16. These are interlocutory proceedings.  There is no opportunity to test evidence.  There is no independent analysis of the relationships or the other issues identified in section 60CC, by an expert, except for the material that I have referred to from Mr G and a Children and Parents’ Issues Assessment from a Family Consultant at the Parramatta Registry. 

17. The mother's evidence is very unsatisfactory.  Her affidavit is largely composed of what Justice Young of the New South Wales Supreme Court referred to as a pleading affidavit, "a creature not known to the law, he opined, except to family law", and an example of that is the parties attended on a family consultant and the mother told the Family Consultant something which gave rise to this comment in the Family Consultant’s Assessment:

    The mother alleged that the father had been violent towards her throughout their 22 year relationship.  She alleged that he had been largely uninterested in the children.  The mother said she had little evidence aside from the accounts of her three older children to substantiate these claims.

18. The mother doesn't say that in her affidavit. The only reference I can find to evidence of that sort is a reference to something that happened on 6 January 2009.  She says:

    [The father] was charged with malicious damage to the door on the property I occupy with [A] and his two brothers.  [The father] was placed on bail.  One of his bail conditions was that he was not to assault, molest, harass, threaten or otherwise interfere with me.

19. She says, in paragraph 15 of her affidavit:

    Some of my allegations about [the father] are as follows:  that he makes derogatory remarks about me and my family to [A];  that he constantly uses profanity in front of [A] when referring to me and my family;  that the father permits his partner [Ms J] to discipline [A] inappropriately; that he and his partner argue in front of [A]; that [Ms J’s] son [N] bullies [A];  that he fails to take proper care of [A] in that he is often sick after time with his father;  that he tells [A] to keep secrets from me.

20. There is no reference to a history of violence between the parties over 22 years or at all. 

21. There is no evidence from one of the adult children to support the mother's case about this. As a general proposition one would applaud a parent for not involving adult children in proceedings but that does not explain why the mother does not give evidence in her affidavit of something as important as the allegation she made to the Family Consultant. 

22. Mr G has written two letters to the mother.  On 13 April 2009 he wrote to her and said A had written a note to state his views.  The note ended with A saying that dad had yelled at him again during access. A then talked about the recent access visit saying that both the father and Ms J, his partner, were there and that they all went to the river and that:

    Dad and [Ms J] had a really big fight in the forest.  It was dark in the woods and they both got angry and yelled.

    A said he was scared.  He was worried because he didn't know what was going to happen next. 

23. Mr G summarises the following conversation with A:

    Dad is mean to me.  Dad says things about mum's family, asks is nanna ‑

    She is the mother's mother -

    has died yet and says, "I hope she dies soon."  Then tells [A] that he gets family information from [Ms McKittridge’s] sister.

    That's the mother's sister:

    She doesn't like my mum.  There are always fights when dad and [Ms J] are together.  Access is much worse the weekends when [Ms J] is there.  They keep saying that [Ms J] is moving or has moved to [a regional centre of New South Wales] but I still see her.  [A] finds such messages confusing.  If it is just dad at access he can still get angry and be mean and say things about nanna.  He tends to ignore [A] in favour of talking to his friends.

    So [A] was clear, at the end of our conversation, that he would still prefer not to see dad.  As I noted, there doesn't seem to be any strength of attachment to bind [A] to [the father]. 

    [A] knows that [the father] is dad so he can say, when prompted, that he loves dad and dad loves him and this, no doubt, is what he would wish.  But almost in the same breath [A] remembers the bad stuff and so he says, "I hate dad."

24. Mr G says:

    If even some of the messages about mum's side of the family that [A] attributes to dad are accurate, then this is abuse by itself, apart from all of the other things that [A] has said.  His time with [the father] and [Ms J] together seems abusive to me because of the frequent fighting, confusing messages and [A’s] fear reactions.  In my opinion, access under these conditions is an unfair burden to impose on a young boy.  It threatens to de‑stabilise his behaviour and undermine his emotional wellbeing.

    I am satisfied [A] is stating his own case as best he can and on all the important points, I see little signs of undue influence from you. (meaning the mother)

25. Then there is a later letter of 1 September 2009 and I will read it:

    When I saw you and [A] together at [the local] Community Health on 27 August 2009 I learned that [A] had not had contact with [the father] for a while.  This occurred, I gather, after [the father’s] behaviour had deteriorated considerably.  You say you were struggling to get [A] to school on the day that [the father] was due to pick him up for access and [A] started attacking you physically.  In that session [A] seemed rather ashamed of his behaviour and indicated that another incident had occurred where [Ms J] left [the father] and [A] stranded in Sydney after conflict between the adults.  Once access was stopped it seemed [A’s] behaviour returned to normal. 

    I asked [A] to work out what he wanted to tell me, as we had done previously, and I said I would talk to him by himself in a few days time.  I saw [A] alone for a brief session on 1 September 2009, again at [the local] Community Health.  [A] began telling me about two birthday parties he was soon to attend.  I then asked him if he had anything else to tell me and I kept a note of his comments. 

    [A’s] position seems to be the same as that reported previously.  He wants to be with you and not [the father].  He keeps recalling fights between [Ms J] and [the father] that impact on him and he gets upset because he says dad says things against you and puts the idea in [A’s] head that he or [the father] should hit you.  "Once I wanted to go back home" and he said, "Do you want to go back home and push mum in the face?" 

    [A] continues to recall examples of [the father] being aggressive and yelling at [A] "even if I do something accidentally". 

    [A] also acknowledged in talking with me that his behaviour had been a problem but that now with no access he was back to being his old self again.  "I don't want to see him.  I'm not getting into fights with mum now 'since contact stopped'.  I am really ‑ I'm going really good." 

    My impression once again was that [A] does not seem to show much attachment to [the father].  That time with him is often aversive because of the way [A] sees himself as treated, plus the remarks and apparent antagonism by [the father] against mum and the constant fighting between [the father] and [Ms J] (who are apparently buying a house together). 

    [A’s] behaviour deteriorated when the access has been enforced by you, should give us pause, especially when the absence of access so quickly reverses the situation.

26. The problem with Mr F’s report is that there is no suggestion that the father was involved in providing any input or being involved in the report. The mother referred the child to Mr G for a therapeutic purpose, and that is fine, but it means that Mr G is not of great assistance in relation to the forensic purpose, which is getting to the bottom of the boy's presentation. 

27. The parties and the child attended upon a Family Consultant, a Mr P, at Parramatta.  Now, this is an issues assessment.  It is not a family report.  It is based on a meeting conducted on 1 October 2009 and it is not within the scope of such an assessment to come to any conclusions about matters.  The issues that Mr P identified:

    The parents present as having irreconcilable conflict with significantly different accounts of their relationship and subsequent events.  The views expressed by [A] do not appear consistent with his presentation in this assessment.  There has been family violence, although the accounts from the parents differ.

28. As to the child, Mr P says:

    [A] presented mixed views of his father.  His father was included in a family drawing as a smiling figure similar to others.  [A] said that his father was sometimes mean to him and gave an example of a time when he was sick and upset at his father's house.  On this occasion his father said he should go home and punch his mother in the face.  [A] said this was just after his father had been arrested.

    [A] also spoke positively of his father taking him to the Star Wars museum around the time of his last birthday.  [A] said he did not want to see his father, nor continue their telephone communication.  He said that his father asked him questions on the telephone about seeing the talking doctor.  [A] explained the talking doctor was [Mr G] and he saw him with his mother and told him what his father had done.  [A] said he had seen [Mr G] two weeks ago and last year.

    In fact, as I said before, the psychologist's name is Mr G:

    [A] was observed to shrug in response to his mother suggesting he could move to a different part of the court building from the Child Dispute Services reception area to avoid seeing his father.  [A] remained in that area with an older brother.  [A] said he felt scared when his mother and brother [S] fought.  He said that no‑one got hurt and they just yelled but he felt scared.  [A] said that his mother also said mean things sometimes but could not provide an example. 

    [A] said that he had stopped playing soccer this year because he kept getting sick.

29. As to what the parties had said to the consultant, the mother alleged, as I have reported before, that the father had been violent towards her throughout their 22 year relationship.  She alleged that he had been largely uninterested in the children.  The mother said that she had little evidence aside from the accounts of her three older children to substantiate these claims.  She said there was a current AVO.  The mother said she had signed consent orders last year as her legal advice was that she had no other viable options. 

30. The mother said that she had experienced significant difficulties with A’s behaviour in the early parts of this year particularly after he spent time with his father.  She gave examples of him behaving in an angry and destructive manner and said he had refused to attend school.  She said these had resolved within two weeks of her stopping him from spending time with his father in June 2009.  She said A had refused to continue to play soccer this year. 

31. The mother said that she would send A to spend time with his father if he wanted to go.  She said that she could see no value or benefit to A in having a relationship with his father. 

32. The father said that he was not certain what had led to the dispute as he had considered things were going well in relation to the parenting relationship and his relationship with A until he had re‑partnered.  He said in this time his three older adult children had also stopped seeing him and talking to him.  The father said that since he had not been seeing A he would maintain telephone communication.  He said these calls were generally positive but acknowledged that through the course of this communication A did not agree to spend time with him when it was suggested.  He said he only had a home number to call and that A tried to call him the night before the assessment as he was not at home. 

1. The father said there was a 12 month AVO against him since June 2009 which he felt had made it difficult for him to spend time with A.  The father said he had coached his older children at soccer and was unsure why A had stopped playing as he had previously enjoyed playing. 

2. The father said he wanted A to feel loved in both parents' household and to be able to go between the two without difficulty.  He said that he thought that the mother was a good mother. 

3. The consultant says:

   The parents present markedly different accounts of their relationship and [A’s] circumstances and behaviour since separation. 

   [A’s] views, that he wants no further relationship or communication with his father, do not record well with his affect on interview and the mixed positive and negative account he gave of his father.  It appears that there is no support for [A] maintaining a relationship with his father from his mother or siblings.

   In the context of substantially different and fundamentally incompatibility parental accounts of family life and circumstance, [A] is likely to be at risk of emotional behavioural and relationship difficulties.

4. As to future directions, Mr P says that he does not think dispute resolution is going to help the parties:

   If they cannot settle the dispute then the court would be assisted by a family report.  If they are unable to settle their dispute then allegations may need to be tested through evidence in court.

   Should the parents be unable to reach an agreement regarding [A] spending time with his father, then the use of the contact centre or other mutually agreed supervision arrangement may need to be considered to maintain [A’s] relationship with his father. 

5. As happens in most significant parenting cases, the primary considerations are very much in play here.  Unless I leave the orders in place as the parties agreed to them in September 2008, or at least that part of the arrangement that is proposed by the independent child lawyer, then there is some doubt as to the child having a meaningful relationship with the father. On the other hand the child has acted in a destructive way in the presence of the mother. 

6. There are comments from the child's school.  He attends B Public School. The school supports the evidence of problems this year.  There is a letter from the Principal of 2 September 2009 sent to a Dr T. There is no evidence from a Dr T in the proceedings.  I do not know who he is but this a letter sent to Dr T and the Principal starts:

   I understand you are to see [A] on Wednesday, 2 September.

   He says:

   [A] is currently enrolled in [B] Public School in year 2.  He commenced kindergarten at [B] Public School in 2007.  This year [A] has exhibited considerable anxiety when being delivered to school.  He has exited himself from the classroom or refused to go into the classroom on occasion and once exited himself from the school and made his way to his mother's place of work in the town.  Once in the classroom setting, however, he is happy and actively engaged in his learning.  Academically, [A] performs at a level consistent with his age and the New South Wales curriculum.

   In terms of social development, [A] is always friendly and polite to other students and staff.  He usually mixes well with other students and understands and follows school rules. 

7. The principal then quotes the classroom teacher, Ms D, in relation to observations and there is nothing there that comes to attend, just reporting him against the standards expected in relation to the curricula.

8. There are the statements made to Mr G by the boy and Mr G satisfied himself that these things came from the child, unprompted by the mother. 

9. Thus there is objective evidence that the child has been resistant to attending at school on days when he would go to his father.  There is evidence, albeit less objective, that the child has acted out in a violent and uncharacteristic way in the presence of the mother. Those matters are matters of great concern. 

10. As to any views expressed by the child and any factors as to his maturity and level of understanding the court thinks are relevant to the weight that should be given to his views -  the child is implacably opposed to spending time with the father.  That is not the end of the matter.  He is seven and seven year‑old children's views are not given particular weight in our community. 

11. In relation to the nature of the relationship of the child with each of the parents, it is difficult to make an assessment about that without there being some expert evidence. If the mother's version of events is true, and the observations made by Mr G are accurate and indeed those of the Family Consultant, then damage has been done to the boy's relationship with his father. However, the Family Consultant notices a level of dissonance between the child's affect and the words spoken by the child about his views about his father.  Mr G, of course, does not have the benefit of the father's involvement either in terms of obtaining a history or in terms of any observations of the boy with the father. 

12. We have the fact that the parties agreed in September, to orders that would have the child spending time with the father.  The mother says that she agreed to those orders because she felt she was obliged to. That is a dangerous thing to do, of course. It causes a real distortion in the legal framework around a child if a party asks a court to make orders that the party does not believe are in the best interests of the child. The legislation does not say that it is more important that a child spend time with a parent than that the child be protected from danger. On the other hand, if the father is right and the mother is poisoning the child in relation to him, and we know that she does not see any benefit in their relationship at all, then her relationship with the child is not a healthy one.

13. As to the willingness and ability of each of the parents to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent: each party says that the other parent fails in this regard. 

14. As to the likely effect of changes in circumstances: the concern here is that the mother's proposal would have the father having no time with the child.  That would be an arrangement that would be in place for a long time in terms of the delays presently before the court. It contradicts the thrust of the legislation as to the benefits of a relationship between a parent and a child. 

15. As to any practical difficulty and expense:  there is nothing much said there.  I understand that the parties live in regional New South Wales.  The current orders provide for the sort of time that is proposed on behalf of the independent child lawyer and on behalf of the father.  The mother's proposal would reduce the practical difficulties and expense because there would not be any time. 

16. As to the capacity of the parents and others: there is an issue about the father's partner, Ms J, and particularly about their relationship. However, it is not possible to make an assessment as to the capacity of the parents or of Ms J to provide for the needs of the child, including his emotional and intellectual needs, save to say that between them it appears that they were not able to adequately do that up until June of this year. 

17. As to the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background of the child:  nothing much comes to attention there except that he is a 7‑year‑old boy. 

18. As to the attitude to the child and the responsibilities of parenthood demonstrated by each of the parents: this is very much in issue. 

19. Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family: I have said what I have said about that.  It is of concern that the mother hasn't given any evidence of objectively concerning behaviour by the father that might affect the child.  None.  She has made an oblique reference to an event that gave rise to an AVO earlier in the year.  She has given no evidence consistent with a 22 year history of violence.  That history would be relevant to these proceedings. The mother told the Family Consultant that she would send A to spend time with the father if he wanted to go. You can read too much into isolated words used by a parent but that literally means she does not have any objective concerns about the child in the father's household.  One would not leave to a child the decision to spend time in a dangerous environment.  It might be that the Family Consultant has summarised things or that it the mother had the opportunity again she might express that sentiment differently. It might be that she meant "If things were safe and happy then the child would want to go, in which case I am happy to support him". But that isn't what she said. 

20. This is a court of law.  It makes a big difference that the mother gives no evidence of anything that would be objectively harmful to the child in the father's household. 

21. I mentioned the family violence order.  There is no suggestion that it is an order that names the child as a protected person.  The father says that this was an incident whereby he was not successfully charged with an assault or anything like it.  It was a circumstance where he was frustrated.  He attended at the home owned by himself and the mother.  That she slammed the door on him as he tried to enter the property.  That that caused damage to the screen door.  He concedes that was inappropriate and on the basis of a reckless act rather than something that was objectively more concerning.  His behaviour has been deemed inappropriate and that led to the apprehended violence order. 

22. They are the matters that I am to take into account. 

23. Putting all that together, we have a child who has acted in a way that is inconsistent, apparently, with his previous presentation at home and at school. That is of significant concern. There are very different versions of events expressed by the mother and the father. 

24. The child is represented and the child's representative says that the arrangements should be wound back. The thrust of the representative's submissions was that the matters referred to in the evidence do not seem to be matters of sufficient objective concern as to have led to the reaction that the boy is reported to have had. For that reason, and this was a point made on behalf of the father although not his primary position, if the court was to move to the proposal of the independent children's lawyer, that might allow some space and acknowledgement of the child crying out for something to be done, together with a gesture to the mother that some changes were being made. The submission is that such an approach would avoid an overreaction to circumstances that are not of the objective concern that would warrant a suspension. 

25. At the end of the day, it seems to me that that is a proper approach.  It is very worrying that there is no evidence from the mother of a background that would suggest that the father was so out of touch with the needs of a child that he would engage, in the child's presence, in extensive verbal arguments with his current partner.  Although there are reciprocal allegations, that he was so ill‑tuned to the needs of the child that he would suggest in the child's presence that the child should assault the mother; or that the maternal grandmother should die soon. On the father's version of events, all was well up until the time of separation. 

26. There is no guarantee with these things. Just because orders are in place, it does not mean the parties can cease being vigilant about the impact of those orders on a child. However it seems to me that winding back the current orders in the way that is proposed on behalf of the child, to one overnight on a Friday in alternate weeks; on the intervening weekend, day only time on a Sunday; each Wednesday evening and leaving in place the holiday arrangements; would be suitable. 

27. There is an order sought ‑ and this was not the subject of any submissions by anybody ‑ there is a proposal that the parties attend upon a parenting course.  That is different, of course, to the mediation that the Family Consultant does not think would be fruitful. 

28. I will order that the parties attend upon a parenting program. 

29. There is a restraint sought in relation to A attending upon a Psychologist or Counsellor without the written consent of the other parent or an order of the court.  That is an appropriate order. 

30. There is an application for a transfer of the proceedings to the Federal Magistrates Court for inclusion at the Central West Circuit.  I will make that order because it is the only way I can foresee the matter being heard in a timely way. I am relying on the fact that the independent child lawyer practices at Parramatta and will be familiar with the arrangements of that registry.  As I say, neither of the parties' barristers were heard to say anything against that approach.  It has the advantage, too, of the matter being addressed in a circuit perhaps out of the Dubbo registry where the parties' travel would be limited.

31. As I say, there were no submissions on those other issues, the parenting course and the transfer of proceedings.  I will give leave to the parties to restore the proceedings before me by arrangement with my associate on giving seven days notice to each other and to the court if they would like to be heard in relation to a revision of those orders but in the meantime I will make the orders I have foreshadowed. 

I certify that the preceding sixty-four (64) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Judicial Registrar Loughnan

Associate: 

Date: 4 December 2009