MEDRICK & MEDRICK

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MEDRICK & MEDRICK

[2020] FCCA 3024

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting - interim applications - best interests of child - Orders made.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA, 65D, 65DA,

Cases cited:

Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36

Clarke & Brydon (No. 2) [2020] FamCAFC 206

Eaby & Speelman [2015] FamCAFC 104

Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286

Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101

Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725

Applicant:

MS MEDRICK

Respondent:

MR MEDRICK

File Number:

PAC 496 of 2019

Judgment of:

Judge Newbrun

Hearing date:

21 August 2020

Date of Last Submission:

21 August 2020

Delivered at:

Parramatta

Delivered on:

10 November 2020

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Mr Bui - Jb Solicitors

Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr Othen- Sydney Family Law Specialists Pty Ltd
Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer	Mr Samuel - Brian Samuel & Associates

ORDERS PENDING FURTHER ORDER

That Orders 2 and 3 in Exhibit A of the parenting Orders dated 4 March 2019 be discharged.
That Orders 4(k) - (n) in Exhibit A of the parenting Orders dated 4 July 2019 be discharged.
All previous Orders relating to changeover are discharged.
That the children live with the Mother.
That the children spend time with the Father as follows:
(a)During school terms:
(i)In week 1 from the conclusion of child care/school on Thursday until the commencement of child care/school on Monday; and
(ii)In week 2 from the conclusion of child care/school on Thursday until the commencement of child care/school on Friday.
(b)For half of each NSW school holiday period at times and dates and for such periods as agreed by the parties in writing and in the absence of such agreement between the parties as follows:
(i)During each short NSW school holiday period for the first half in even years and the second half in odd years; and
(ii)During the summer school holidays in a week about arrangement with the children to spend time or live with the Mother during the first week and with the Father during the second week and to alternate thereafter with the changeover day being at 10am on Saturday and concluding at 10am on the following Saturday.
(c)At such other times and dates and for such other periods as agreed to by the parties.
That unless otherwise specified in these Orders or agreed to between the mother and father from time to time, for the purposes of changeover:
a)The father and/or his nominee shall collect the children from the mother and/or her nominee from KFC at B Street Shopping Centre, Suburb C (“KFC Suburb C”) at the commencement of the father’s time with the children;
b)The mother and/or her nominee shall collect the children from the father and/or his nominee from KFC Suburb C at the commencement of her time with the children; and
c)That any nominee who attends changeover on behalf of the mother or father must be a person who is familiar to and known to the children.
That notwithstanding Order 6 if the mother’s or father’s time with the children commences or concludes at the children’s daycare or school, they and/or their nominee/s shall collect/deliver the children from/to daycare or school.
That the Mother and Father shall be at liberty to communicate with the children and for this purpose:
(a)The Father shall communicate with the children each Wednesday from 6:00pm until 6:30pm on a contact number/skype address provided by the Mother;
(b)The Mother shall communicate with the children each Thursday when the children are not in her care from 6:00pm until 6:30pm on a contact number/skype address provided by the Father;
(c)Communication can be by Skype, FaceTime and/or telephone; and
(d)In addition to telephone calls referred to above the Mother and Father shall facilitate the children communicating with the other parent by telephone/FaceTime/skype at all other times requested by the children.
That WITHOUT ADMISSION both parties be restrained from;
(a)Exposing the children to violence including physical or verbal threats or intimidation, whether such threats or intimidation or violence be directed at the children, the Mother, the Father, or any other member of either party's household;
(b)Denigrating the other or members of the other party's family in the presence or hearing of the children and each party shall do all acts and things reasonably necessary to prevent any other person doing so.
(c)Discussing these proceedings or any issues arising out of these proceedings with the children or permitting any third party to do so.
(d)Making critical or derogatory remarks on social media, such as Facebook or Twitter in relation to the other parent or referring in any way to the proceedings.
(e)Recording, taping or filming the children either by way of audio or visual tool such as mobile phones, cameras or other electronic device for the purpose of using such recordings or footage for these proceedings.
(f)Being under the influence of alcohol in the presence of the children or whilst the children are in his or her care to a point of a blood alcohol level of in excess of 0.05;
(g)Driving the children in a motor vehicle after consuming any alcohol within 2 hours of such consumption of alcohol or from permitting or authorising any third party from doing so;
(h)Using, ingesting or administering to himself or herself any illicit or non prescribed drugs (other than over the counter medication); and
(i)Bringing the children into contact with any person under the influence of illicit drugs or alcohol in excess.
That each party submit to Urinalysis, under supervision and chain of custody, upon written request of the Independent Children's Lawyer, no more than once per month, with such testing to take place within 48 hours of such request and to be conducted in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Standard 4308:2008: Procedure for the collection, detection and quantification of drugs of abuse in urine ("the drug test").
Each party to cause the drug test results to be forwarded to the Independent Children's Lawyer and to the other party within 48 hours of receipt.
Each party to pay their own costs associated with the drug tests.
That the parties keep each other advised at all times of all organisations, schools, day care providers, medical practitioners and health workers with whom the children attend from time to time or are involved in and that each such person, organisation or group be provided with the contact details for both parties.
That each party notify the other of any serious illness or accident that the children suffer as soon as is reasonably practicable.
In the event that they have not already done so the Mother and Father to forthwith attend upon and complete a post separation course such as Keeping Kids in Mind through D Families, Parents not Partners through E Families or Parenting After Separation through F Counselling Centre.
That the Mother is to forthwith engage with a suitably qualified therapist/counsellor and follow the guidance and recommendations of such therapist/counsellor.
That the Mother have leave to provide to her therapist/counsellor a copy of CDC Memorandum prepared by Ms G and dated 30 March 2020 and that she further provide a copy of such report along with the report prepared by Ms H, psychologist dated 3 March 2019 to her treating counsellor/therapist.
That the parties are to keep each other advised and informed in a timely manner as to any changes to their respective residential address and or contact details (telephone and email address).
That the Mother and Father shall do all things necessary to authorise the children's school to provide to the other parent on a regular basis copies of all school reports, school newsletters and other information regarding the children's school activities.
That the Mother and Father be entitled to obtain directly from any school attended by the children or any health or welfare professional or other professional attended by the children, copies of any reports, notices or other relevant verbal or written advice affecting the education, health and welfare of the children and for this purpose the Mother and Father shall immediately notify the other of the names and contact details of any relevant education, health or welfare professional and keep the other party so informed.
That the Mother and Father shall do all such things and acts and sign all documents necessary to provide their authority to any school attended by the children or any health or welfare professional or other professional attended by the children, to provide information to the other parent pursuant to the above Orders, within seven (7) days of being requested to provide such authority.
That the Mother and Father be entitled to attend all day care/school functions, sports carnivals and other day care/school events in which parents are invited to attend regardless of whose care the children are in at the time.
That the Mother and/or the Father, their servants and/or agents be and are restrained from removing or attempting to remove or causing or permitting the removal of the children from the Commonwealth of Australia.
That the Marshall of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and all officers of the Australian Federal Police and of the police forces of the states and territories of the Commonwealth of Australia are requested to give effect to these Orders and to take all necessary steps to restrain either party from removing or attempting to remove the said children from the Commonwealth of Australia.
That the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and the Secretary of the Ministry of Immigration take all necessary steps to immediately place the said children on the Family Law Watch List in force at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia and maintain the child's names on the Watch List.
That the Australian Federal Police and the Police Forces of the States and Territories of the Commonwealth of Australia assist in the implementation of, and give effect to, these Orders.
That pursuant to Section 62G of the Family Law Act 1975 a family report be ordered otherwise usual orders.
Pursuant to s.65DA(2) and s.62B, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist the parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

PAC496 of 2019

MS MEDRICK

Applicant

And

MR MEDRICK

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This interim hearing relates to the children X born in 2015 and Y born in 2017.
On 4 March 2019, this Court made interim parenting orders by consent providing, effectively, inter alia, that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the children; that the children live with the Father on Wednesday and Thursday nights each week, in addition to each alternate weekend from after school/daycare Friday to before school/daycare Monday; otherwise, the children would live with the Mother; the Father was to have sole occupancy of the home at Suburb J.
On 4 July 2019, this Court made interim parenting orders by consent, inter alia, relating to the parties spending time with the children on special occasions, and the parties facilitating and having telephone time with the children.

Proposals

The Mother’s proposals are set out in her Application in a Case filed 14 January 2020. The Mother seeks interim parenting orders, inter alia, that the children live with her; and that the children spend time with the Father for three nights in week one, and one night in week two; effectively, the Mother proposes that the children spend time with the Father, in the aggregate, four nights each fortnight. Again, by reference to the Court’s Orders of 4 March 2019, the children spend, in the aggregate, seven nights each fortnight with the Father.
The Father’s proposals are set out in his Response to Application in a Case filed 1 April 2020. The Father seeks the dismissal of the Mother’s above Application a Case. In the alternate, he seeks orders, inter alia, that all previous parenting orders be discharged; the children spend time with the Mother, in the aggregate four nights each fortnight; and equal sharing of school holidays between the parties; the children live with the Father at all other times the children are not living with the Mother. He seeks other ancillary related interim parenting orders.
The ICL proposed interim parenting orders, inter alia, that the children live with the Mother; and the children spend time with the Father, in the aggregate, five nights each fortnight; and equal sharing of school holidays between the parties. The ICL sought other ancillary related interim parenting orders.

Material relied upon

The Mother relied upon the following documents:
a)Notice of Risk filed 4 February 2019;
b)Affidavit of Ms H, Psychologist, sworn 3 March 2019, filed 4 March 2019;
c)Application in a Case filed 14 January 2020;
d)Child Dispute Conference Memorandum dated 30 March 2020;
e)Affidavit of Ms Medrick sworn 13 January 2020;
f)Submissions contained in the Mother’s Case Outline document dated and filed 28 April 2020;
g)Affidavit of Ms Medrick sworn 27 July 2020, filed 28 July 2020; and
h)Subpoenaed material exhibited to the Mother’s Affidavit sworn 27 July 2020 and a recently produced note from Dr K dated 18 June 2019.
The Father relied upon the following documents:
a)Response to Application in a Case 1 April 2020;
b)Consolidated Affidavit of the father 10 August 2020;
c)Affidavit of the paternal grandmother Ms L, 9 April 2020;
d)Tender Bundle sent to Court on 19 August 2020; and
e)Orders made 4 March and 4 July 2019.
The following Exhibits were relied upon:
a)Exhibit A: Mother’s Tender Bundle of documents;
b)Exhibit B: Father’s Tender Bundle of documents;
c)Exhibit C: Child Dispute Conference Memorandum dated 30 March 2020.

Evidence

Both parties are aged 34 years. The Mother was born in Country M, and migrated to Australia in 1997. The Father is Anglo Australian.
The Father alleges that the parties started living together in about 2013. They married in 2016. They separated on 20 December 2018.
The Mother alleges that when each child was born, she took between 6 to 8 months maternity leave to attend to them. The paternal grandmother alleges the Mother returned to work after the eldest child was two months old for three days each week from 7 AM until 6 PM. The paternal grandmother alleges that the Mother returned to work three – four months after the second child was born.
The Mother alleges that during the relationship she did not work on Friday in employment.
The Mother alleged to the family consultant that the Father had a criminal history of physically assaulting his previous partner, obtaining money by deception, and drug offences.
The Father alleged to the family consultant that his criminal history involved an assault charge when he was young.
Exhibit A, the Mother’s Tender Bundle, contains a copy of the NSW police force criminal history relating to the Father. That criminal history records that the Father was convicted of common assault, stalk/intimidate W/I to cause fear physical/mental harm in February 2006. He was placed on a bond for 18 months. He was ordered to accept supervision, anger management counselling, and medical advice as directed.
The criminal history refers to the Father being convicted of obtaining money by deception in 2007 and was placed on a bond. His sentence included obeying all reasonable directions to counselling, educational development or drug and alcohol rehabilitation. He was to accept the guidance of a psychologist, to take medication as prescribed, and to attend counselling with medical advice. At this time he was also convicted of goods suspected stolen in/on premises, and larceny, and for which he was fined.
The Father was convicted on 13 September 2011 of common assault (DV), and was fined.
The Mother suffered a miscarriage in about early 2018 and experienced depression. Her GP referred her to a clinical psychologist.
The Mother alleges that she presently is employed full-time and works from 9 AM to 4:30 PM. She alleges that she is able to look after the children and be flexible with her work arrangements if needed. She alleges that she currently lives in a two-bedroom apartment in Suburb N and the children have their own beds.

Relevant legal principles

The relevant principles in relation to parenting proceedings, including interim proceedings, are well settled: see Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286.
In Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia discussed the problems associated with making findings on disputed evidence as follows:
[120] As has frequently been emphasised interim parenting proceedings, and orders made as a consequence, are a necessary but temporary measure until all the evidence can be tested, evaluated and weighed at a final hearing by the making of final parenting orders. Decisions judicial officers have to make in interim proceedings are difficult and, often for very good reason, a conservative approach, or one which is likely to avoid harm to a child is adopted. This is often to the understandable distress of a party who may not achieve the outcome he or she desires, or thinks to be in the best interests of their child or children. Interim parenting orders are frequently modified or changed after a final hearing, and any allocation of parental responsibility made at an interim hearing is disregarded at the final hearing (s 61DB).
[122] In SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13 the majority (Boland and Thackray JJ) discussed at paragraph 88 of their reasons the care necessary to be exercised in making findings in interim parenting proceedings. Their Honours said:
In our view, findings made at an interim hearing should be couched with great circumspection, no matter how firmly a judge’s intuition may suggest that the finding will be borne out after a full testing of the evidence.
[123] Later, at paragraph 100 their Honours amplified their comments and said:
The intuition involved in decision-making concerning children is arguably of even greater importance when a judge is obliged to make interim decisions following a hearing at which time constraints prevent the evidence being tested. Apart from relying upon the uncontroversial or agreed facts, a judge will sometimes have little alternative than to weigh the probabilities of competing claims and the likely impact on children in the event that a controversial assertion is acted upon or rejected. It is not always feasible when dealing with the immediate welfare of children simply to ignore an assertion because its accuracy has been put in issue.
Of this, the Full Court in Eaby & Speelman [2015] FamCAFC 104 said at [19]:
As would be immediately apparent, this approach enables the court to appropriately and carefully deal with contentious issues relevant to the welfare of the child, and for those issues to not be ignored.
The Court also refers to the recent decision of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36, especially at paragraphs 46 to 52.
Section 60B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) sets out the objects of Part VII of the Act relating to children that inform the making of parenting orders.

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: section 60CA of the Act.
Section 60CC of the Act provides that in determining what is in the child’s best interests, the Court must consider the matters set out in subsections (2) and (3).
The Mother contends that there has been a significant change in circumstances since the Court’s Orders of 4 March 2019, and that the relevant threshold requirements in the decision of Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 have been met, with such contention disputed by the Father. The Court observes that the Orders of 4 March 2019 were made by consent. In the view of the Court, at least the occurrence of each parent reporting to the family consultant a poor co-parenting relationship and poor communication, together with significant allegations of conflict between the parties, within the context of the parties seeking to co-parent the children in an equal time arrangement, indicates that the above threshold requirements have probably been met such that the parties should be able to seek fresh parenting orders in the best interests of the children. In the view of the Court, there is a likelihood that fresh interim parenting orders will be made in the context of the present competing applications. The potential benefit to the children of fresh interim orders being made outweighs the possible detriment to the children of allowing the parties to seek and litigate fresh proposed interim parenting orders, and in this regard the Court refers to its discussions below under section 60CC of the Act.

The Best Interests of the Children

Section 60CC Considerations

Subsection (2a): the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents: a primary consideration

The children have a meaningful relationship with both parents and would benefit from a continuance of those relationships.
There is a significant suggestion, on the material before the Court, that the Mother was the children’s primary carer from birth until the party’s separation in about late December 2018, albeit that the Father provided his own significant care of the children. Again, the parties’ consented to an equal time arrangement in about March 2019.
In this context, the Court observes that the Mother had taken maternity leave after the birth of each child, and that whilst both parties worked during their relationship (the Mother in employment in an office job, and the Father conducting his own business), there is a significant suggestion on the material before the Court, that the Father’s work hours in his own business were significantly greater than the Mother’s work hours in her employment. For example, the Mother alleges that she did not work on Fridays during the relationship. Further, there is a significant suggestion that the Father worked on a Saturday albeit that he alleges that he often interrupted his work on the Saturday to take the children to activities.
The Court refers to, and takes into account, the family consultant’s opinions under the heading “Future directions” in the Child Dispute Conference Memorandum, whilst acknowledging that these opinions are untested. The family consultant had stated:
30.    If Ms Medrick’s account of Mr Medrick’s behaviour is accurate (including him not permitting the children to see her unsupervised for 2 months without a reason, changing contact details at the day care, speaking negatively about her to and/or in front of the children, undermining her relationship with the children with money, and/or making threats to her), then it is unlikely to be in the children’s best interests that an equal time arrangement continues, as it may expose them to conflict.
31.    If Mr Medrick has behaved in the way that Ms Medrick alleges, he may be actively undermining their relationship and they may eventually lose their relationship with her. In this event, it would be recommended that the children live primarily with Ms Medrick.
32.    Each parent reported a poor co-parenting relationship, which may also mean that an equal time arrangement would be contra-indicated. They both reported instances of conflict between them, post separation. If both parents are equally responsible for being abusive and/or making threats and it is likely that that behaviour from both parents will continue, then the children may be assisted by living primarily with one parent and spending time with the other parent (no more than five nights per fortnight).
33.    The children are young and may be having difficulties with the current arrangement from a developmental perspective, but this may be exacerbated if the arrangement or one or both parents exposes them to conflict. If there are any issues with their behaviour, including sleeping and eating routines, their speech or their toileting, then this may indicate that they are in some distress. If the children continue to live in an equal time arrangement or are spending substantial time with the other parent, then it would be suggested that they do not spend too many days apart from either parent (for example, a week about arrangement would not be recommended at their current ages).
In view of the family consultant’s concerns as to an equal time arrangement being possibly contra-indicated, the Court refers to aspects of the parties’ allegations below.
At the outset, the Court has a concern, based on the material before the Court, there is at least a real possibility that the Father has denigrated the Mother in front of the children, both in telephone communications and at changeover post separation and may have verbally threatened her as alleged.
The Mother alleged to the family consultant that there has been abusive and threatening communications, including over the telephone. The Father denied to the family consultant that any communication between the parties was abusive.
The Mother alleges that the Father continues to denigrate her in front of the children. She makes numerous factual allegations in this context. She provides particulars of alleged conversations with the Father at changeover; on 25 January 2020, 25 May 2020, and 20 July 2020. In relation to the alleged conversation on 20 July 2020, the Mother annexes an alleged text message to the Father setting out her alleged version of what the Father stated to her at the changeover. The Father disputes the Mother’s allegations as to the Father denigrating the Mother at changeover.
The Mother alleges that the Father has verbally abused her during telephone contact with the children, alleging that the Father has berated her and called her names over the phone, such as bitch and whore. She annexes alleged text messages between the parties wherein she particularises alleged denigration by the Father of the Mother in front of the children.
The Mother alleges that on about 11 December 2019 the Father swore at the Mother over the telephone in relation to the children’s future schooling. The Mother alleges she then hung up the phone because she did not want the Father to berate her.
Further, on 18 December 2019, she alleges that the Father phoned her, when he was in the car with the children, and told her she was “a fucking shit mother”, and annexes an alleged text message to the Father wherein she refers to this alleged verbal denigration.
She alleges that the Father, in front of one of the children, on 15 April 2020 verbally threatened the Mother. The Mother further alleges that on 25 May 2020 at changeover the Father verbally threatened her in front of at least one of the children.
The Mother, in her Affidavit filed 28 July 2020, produces a copy of alleged text messages passing between the parties over the previous 12 months. The alleged text messages suggest significant animosity and conflict between the parties in relation to, for example, telephone contact, including significant criticism of each other as parents. Some of the alleged text messages from the Father to the Mother are particularly critical of the Mother referring to her as “a junkie and lowlife person”, “You think you are a good mum your fair (sic far) from that and my kids will see what type of mum they have”, “your friends don’t even give a fuck about you you are sick just like your mum”. The Father, for his part, inter alia, alleges in one text message to the Mother that the Mother swore at him over the telephone in the presence of the children.
The family consultant’s Memorandum refers to each parent reporting a poor co-parenting relationship and poor communication. In the Father’s Affidavit filed 10 August 2020, he refers to the parties continuing to have difficulties communicating.
The family consultant, in paragraph 30 of her Memorandum, referred to the Mother’s allegations that the Father had not permitted the children to see the Mother unsupervised for 2 months without a reason. In this context, based on the material before the Court, the Court has a concern that there is at least a real possibility that the Father unreasonably limited the children’s time with the Mother post separation until about early March 2019 in circumstances where the eldest child’s behaviour was reported (to O Centre in about February 2019) to have worsened since the parties’ separation.
In this context, the Mother alleges that on 20 December 2018, she was locked out of the former matrimonial home by the Father.
The Mother alleges that between 20 December 2018 to 4 March 2019, the Father ensured that she was not able to see the children without him present. The Mother alleges that she was able to see the children on at least four occasions, with the Father present during this period. She alleges that the Father would use this time to berate her in front of the children, allegedly denigrating her often in front of the children. The Father had stated to the family consultant that, at the time of separation, he told the Mother that she could not attend the house, which meant that she did not see the children.
The Father, for his part, in this context, alleges that after separation he had concerns that the Mother would take the children to Country M, he had concerns about the Mother’s mental health, and he refers to the Mother’s alleged use of cocaine in late 2018. He alleges that he had changed the locks on the house after separation because he was concerned that the Mother’s brother or the maternal grandmother’s boyfriend may have access to the property, and he was fearful, given an alleged incident that occurred on about 13 December 2018, for the well-being of the children and himself if they did have such access. The Court has a concern, without proceeding to make any finding of fact, as to the accuracy of these allegations of the Father, and makes the following observations.
As to the alleged incident on about 13 December 2018, the Father alleges some confrontation between himself and the Mother’s brother on about 13 December 2018, together with alleged statements by the maternal grandmother’s boyfriend as to the Mother’s family “partying, they have just lost their brother and son”. Yet he refers to the Mother’s family leaving the family home on the evening of 13 December 2018 after being requested to do so, and does not adduce any significant material suggesting that the Mother’s brother or the maternal grandmother’s boyfriend might have wanted to thereafter enter the family home uninvited. For example, he does not adduce any material relating to any alleged threats by the Mother’s brother or the maternal grandmother’s boyfriend to do so or in any respect.
It is not clear from the Father’s allegations as to when he alleges the Mother had first allegedly threatened to take the children to Country M and the Father would never see the children again. He does allege that the Mother “again said” on 25 January 2019 that she would take the children to Country M and the Father would never see them again. The Court observes that the Father does not adduce any evidence as to the Father communicating his concerns, post separation, with the Mother, as to the Mother possibly taking the children to Country M. He does not adduce evidence as to the children’s passports position in the period post separation. He does not refer to any steps he might have taken to prevent the Mother taking the children to Country M without his permission, apart from allegedly seeking to have supervised the Mother’s time with the children post separation. And (see immediately below) the Father had criticised the Mother, after she had gone to Country M in early December 2018, for having left the children with the Father at a particularly busy time in his business. The Court should state that the Mother denies the Father’s allegations in relation to this Country M travel issue.
As to his allegation as to the Mother’s alleged parlous mental health and use of cocaine, the Father concedes to speaking to the Mother over the telephone when she was in Country M in early December 2018 and the Father had said to her, “How could you leave me with the kids and a business? You need to come back. I’m trying to run a business and look after the kids.” There is a suggestion from this alleged conversation that the Father was desirous of the Mother returning home from overseas to resume care for the children.
The Court also observes that in the period post separation, there is a significant suggestion, on the material before the Court, that the Father was particularly upset with the Mother for having allegedly had an affair whilst overseas in about early December 2018. There is a suggestion from the police material in the Mother’s Tender Bundle, Exhibit A, that on about 20 January 2019 the Father had sent the Mother about 25 text messages over a 12 hour period relating to the Mother allegedly having had an affair whilst overseas. The Father, in his own Affidavit, admits that around January 2019 he felt hurt, disrespected and unworthy and belittled by reason of the Mother’s alleged affair overseas. He admits saying certain things to the Mother around this time that were wrong.
The Mother alleges that the Father failed to seek her permission to put the eldest child into behavioural therapy with O Centre. The alleged text messages in about late February 2019 in relation to this issue suggest a dispute between the parties as to whether or not the Father had communicated with the Mother previously about his intention to so place the eldest child into such therapy. In any event, the content of the Father’s text messages to the Mother in this context suggest that the Father had unilaterally decided to so place the eldest child into such therapy and he had informed the Mother of his decision, albeit that he had asked the Mother “to do this with me.”
The family consultant had stated that the children are young and maybe having difficulties with the current arrangement from a developmental perspective, but this may be exacerbated if the arrangement or one or both parents expose them to conflict. She stated that if there are any issues with their behaviour, including sleeping and eating routines, speech or their toileting, then this may indicate that they are in some distress.
The Mother makes certain detailed allegations that the children have demonstrated adverse behaviour on returning to her care from the Father. The Father denied the children having any difficult behaviours when they were in his care.
The Mother alleged to the family consultant that when the children returned to her care, they can exhibit difficult behaviours. She alleged that X becomes very upset when she leaves her at daycare, and makes her promise that she will return to pick up.
The Mother alleges that she has observed the children have been experiencing anxiety during changeover when they have to leave her. In this context, for example, the Mother alleges that on about 7 April 2020, the parties attended the changeover in front of childcare, where the Mother was providing the children to the Father. The Mother alleges that the children began to scream and cry uncontrollably, saying “Mummy, please don’t go. Mummy, I want to go with you.” The Mother allegedly observed the eldest child trying to open the door after she was put in the Father’s car to try and come back to the Mother.
The Mother alleges that on 15 April 2020 she attempted to call the Father to speak to the children. She alleges that when she eventually got through to the Father, she heard the youngest child crying and shouting “Mummy”.
The Mother alleges that she has observed that the children become restless when they are returned to her care, and that it takes her at least two days to get the children back into the routine she has for them. She alleges in particular, that she has found it difficult to settle the children for bed by 7:30 PM.
The Court has a concern that there is a real possibility that the parties’ equal time arrangement may be a contributing cause to the children’s above alleged adverse behaviour.
Taking into account the above discussions, the Court has a significant concern that the continuation of the parties’ equal time arrangement may expose the children to significant conflict, may lead to the children experiencing emotional harm, and may detrimentally affect the children’s meaningful relationship with one or both of the parties, in particular the Mother.
Further, taking into account the above discussions, should the children now live primarily with the Mother, at least during school term times, there is a real prospect that such live-with arrangement will significantly reduce the risks present in maintaining the parties’ equal time arrangement, as discussed previously.
And further, should the children live with the Mother and spend time with the Father in accordance with the ICL’s proposed interim parenting orders, providing, effectively (apart from the below proposed telephone time Orders), for such time to occur:
a)during school terms, in the aggregate, for five nights each fortnight,
b)half of each short NSW school holiday period,
c)week about during the summer school holidays,
d)on special occasions as provided in the Court’s Orders of 4 July 2019,
e)telephone time orders in accordance with the Father’s proposed Order 10, but deleting in 10 a) the words “during school holiday periods”, deleting in 10 b) the word “Wednesday” and in lieu thereof inserting the word “Thursday”, and in 10 d) deleting the words “in Order 10 a) and 10 b)” and in lieu thereof inserting the word “above”,
there is a significant prospect that the children’s meaningful relationship with the Father can be maintained. And further, there is a real prospect that such proposed orders will significantly reduce the risks present in maintaining the parties’ equal time arrangement, as discussed previously.
The Court has not overlooked that the children have been subject to a well settled equal time arrangement since about early March 2019. The Father refers to the importance of the stability of such a well settled arrangement and in this regard refers to Clarke & Brydon (No. 2) [2020] FamCAFC 206. That decision refers to the Court needing to pay careful attention in interim hearings to the effect of changing well settled arrangements. The Court has considered this issue carefully.
Again, the Court is of the view that the continuation of the parties’ equal time arrangement, at this interim stage, carries not insignificant risks, as discussed previously. The Court’s proposals relating to the children spending certain time with the Father, discussed above, would represent a not insignificant reduction in the children’s time with the Father but not a major reduction; under the Court’s proposals, the children would spend, during school term times, five nights each fortnight with the Father, as opposed to seven nights each fortnight, and the children would otherwise spend significant holiday time and other time with the Father. Again, in the view of the Court, based upon the Court’s above discussed proposals, there is a significant prospect that the children’s meaningful relationship with the Father can be maintained.

In relation to the Father’s proposed interim live-with and time-with proposals, the Court has a concern, taking into account the above discussions, including the Mother’s historical primary care of the children prior to the institution of the parties’ equal time arrangement, that the children may experience emotional harm if such proposed orders were made, and that their meaningful relationship with the Mother may be detrimentally affected.
The Court gives significant weight to this meaningful relationship primary consideration.

Subsection (2b): the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.

The Mother alleges that throughout her relationship with the Father that he used cocaine. She alleges that she observed the Father to display emotions of jealousy, anxiety and paranoia when he used cocaine. The Court refers to the contents of the Mother’s Notice of Risk filed 4 February 2019 in relation to this cocaine issue.
In this context, the Court observes that the Father admits that in or about January 2019, after he allegedly found out about the Mother’s “affair”, he said things to the Mother which were wrong.
The Mother also alleges that she observed the Father to display violent and aggressive behaviour towards her, heightened when he used cocaine. In this context, she alleges an incident of family violence perpetrated against her by the Father on 11 July 2018. The Court observes that in the Mother’s consultation with the clinical psychologist Ms H on 28 February 2019, the Mother did not report any physical violence at the instance of the Father. The Father denies being physically violent to the Mother, and he alleges a contrary version of the alleged incident on 11 July 2018. However he does admit, in relation to this incident, that after the Mother had run to the bathroom, he was upset and angry so he kicked the bathroom door and broke his foot.
A medical consultation of the Father on 27 April 2015 (see Exhibit A) records the Father stating that he likes to go out to parties and do cocaine, and having had some on the weekend. It records the Father using cocaine every few weeks. It records him getting quite jealous, especially when he has cocaine. It records the Father being 100% committed to stopping cocaine and he would like to see a counsellor.
The medical consultation of the Father on 1 June 2018 refers to the Father’s long-term use of cocaine, almost daily, doesn’t impact work/life, uses it at night, paranoia and obsessive thoughts, gives him a settling effect, “always has”.
The medical consultation of the Father on 16 July 2018 refers to a discussion of cocaine use, “ongoing and needs to get off. Discussed with (the Father) counselling. Long discussion with (the Father). Discussed cessation. Impact on family.” The GP refers to his actions as including a GP mental health care plan (anxiety), and a letter to a psychologist referring to, “Assistance with drug use (cocaine).”
The Mother alleged to the clinical psychologist Ms H on 28 February 2019 that the Father was a regular cocaine user. However she stated that after avoiding this drug early in the relationship, she eventually also started taking it albeit casually and sporadically throughout the relationship. She alleged to the clinical psychologist that after her miscarriage in 2018 she started using this drug a couple of times a week as a coping strategy for a few months. She alleged to the clinical psychologist that she no longer uses this drug, and has never tried any other illicit substance. The Court observes that the Mother denied to the family consultant using cocaine.
On 17 March 2019, the Mother alleges that she attended the former matrimonial home to collect her belongings. The Mother requested the police to attend those premises whilst the collection occurred with the police complying.
The Father points to negative drug urine tests on 20 April 2020 and 24 April 2020, being chain of custody urine drug tests. The Mother contends that these tests were taken at times of his choice.
The Father alleges that he no longer uses cocaine or any other illicit substances. And he alleges that he attended therapy during the relationship for his cocaine use. He does not adduce any objective third-party material relating to such therapy.
At this interim stage, taking into account the above matters in relation to the alleged cocaine issue, the Court has some concern that the children may be exposed to emotional harm if the Father was significantly affected by cocaine use when in his care. Inter alia, there is a significant suggestion from the above discussed medical consultations relating to the Father that his cocaine use, historically, has been significant. The Court has a lesser concern in relation to the Mother’s alleged cocaine use; the Court’s impression of the material before the Court is that her cocaine use was not as significant as that of the Father. In any event, the ICL’s proposed restraining orders in relation to illicit drugs and urinalysis at the written request of the ICL, can minimise the risk of the children being exposed to harm in relation to this alleged cocaine issue by either party.
The Father contends that the Mother has failed to adduce updated evidence with respect to her mental health. He contends that in the absence of such material the Court would be concerned as to the state of the Mother’s mental health particularly bearing in mind that she seeks to primarily care for the children.
Again, as to the Father’s allegation in relation to the Mother’s alleged parlous mental health, the Father concedes to speaking to the Mother over the telephone when she was in Country M in late 2018 and the Father had said to her, “How could you leave me with the kids and a business? You need to come back. I’m trying to run a business and look after the kids.” There is a suggestion from this alleged conversation that the Father was desirous of the Mother returning home from overseas to resume care for the children, with the Court observing that the Mother’s alleged parlous mental health did not appear to be an issue to the Father at this time.
On 28 February 2019, the Mother was assessed by clinical psychologist Ms H. Acknowledging that the report of Ms H is untested, the Court takes into account the contents of this report. The clinical psychologist provided a provisional diagnosis in relation to the Mother of Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. It was opined that the development of this disorder is typically in response to identifiable stressors (marriage breakdown, separation from children, legal proceedings) within three months of onset of the stressors, and it is expected that once the stressors and/or its consequences have been terminated, that the symptoms do not persist for more than six months. She opined that during the assessment of the Mother there was no evidence of risk to self or others, nor any identifiable or reportable potential risk to a child should the Mother have been caring for children. She opined that the Mother presented as a functioning individual with a well-rounded history.
In light of the above, whilst the Court has some concern in relation to the Mother’s mental health, it is not a significant concern at this interim stage. In any event, the parties agreed to the ICL’s proposed Order 14 relating to the Mother forthwith engaging with a suitably qualified therapist/counsellor and following the guidance and recommendations of such therapist/counsellor. The Mother’s compliance with this proposed Order should minimise any risk of harm to the children relating to the Mother’s mental health. And further, there is a real prospect that the reduction in the children’s time with the Father from an equal time arrangement to, during school term times, five nights per fortnight, should reduce the risks, previously discussed under the meaningful relationship primary consideration, present within the context of the parties equal time arrangement, and thereby lessen the risk of conflict between the parties and reduce stress to the parties; such consequences should aid in the maintenance of the Mother’s optimal mental health.
As to the Father’s criminal history, the Court observes that it is of some antiquity. The Father, for his part, in his Affidavit filed 10 August 2020, alleges that whilst he is not proud of the history, the incidents occurred in his late teens/early 20s, and he has since changed his circle of friends who he associates with. He alleges that he has no guns anywhere in his house and denies ever discussing with the Mother, as alleged by her, that he owns any guns.
Further, as to the Father’s allegations and concerns in relation to the children primarily living with the Mother, the Court takes into account the absence of any alleged risk to the children within the Father’s Notice of Risk filed 1 March 2019.

Section 60CC(3) - Additional Considerations

(a) Any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views

The children are too young to express relevant views.

(b) The nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child’s parents; and other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child)

The Court refers to its discussion above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration. The children enjoy positive relationships with the grandparents.

(c) The extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken or failed to take the opportunity; to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and to spend time with the child; and to communicate with the child

The Court refers to its discussions above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration.
There is a significant suggestion on the material before the Court that both parties have sought to take such opportunities.

(ca) The extent to which each of the child’s parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent’s obligations to maintain the child

Each parent would appear to have maintained the children when in their respective care.

(d) The likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either of his or her parents; or any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living

The Court refers to its discussions above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration.

(e) The practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with the 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

Not applicable.

(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

The Court refers to its discussions above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration.

(h) If the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child: 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 the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right

Not applicable.

(i) The attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents

The Court refers to its discussions above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration. Otherwise, the parties would appear to have demonstrated appropriate attitudes towards the children and to their responsibilities of parenthood.

(j) Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family

The Court refers to its discussions above under the meaningful relationship and need to protect primary considerations.

(k) If a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child’s family – any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following: the nature of the order; the circumstances in which the order was made; any findings made by the court in, or in proceedings for, the order; any other relevant matter

Not applicable.

(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

Whilst these are interim parenting proceedings, on the material before the Court, having regard to the above discussions under s 60CC, the Court is of the view that the ICL’s proposals would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the children.

m) Any other fact or circumstance that the Court thinks is relevant

The parents seek differing interim orders relating to telephone time.
The ICL’s proposed orders relating to live with and time will necessitate Orders 4(k) - (n) in Exhibit A of the parenting Orders dated 4 July 2019 being discharged.
The Court refers to its discussion above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration relating to the parties’ poor communication and alleged denigration by the Father of the Mother during telephone conversations. In these circumstances, telephone time should be circumscribed. It will be in the best interests of the children to make telephone time orders in accordance with the Father’s proposed Order 10, but deleting in 10 (a) the words “during school holiday periods”, deleting in 10 (b) the word “Wednesday” and in lieu thereof inserting the word “Thursday”, and in 10 (d) deleting the words “in Order 10 (a) and 10 (b)” and in lieu thereof inserting the word “above”.
It will be in the best interests of the children to make the ICL’s proposed Order 6, being proposed without admissions restraining orders applicable to both parties. In relation to proposed Order 6 (a), the Court refers to its discussions above under the primary considerations.
The Court is not persuaded that the ICL’s proposed Order 7 relating to a paediatric assessment, and his proposed Order 16 relating to the Father completing an anger management program or a men’s behaviour change program, should be made, based on the material before the Court. In this latter regard, the parties agreed with the ICL’s proposed Order 13 relating to the parties completing a post separation course, which in the view of the Court will be of assistance to the parties in seeking to co-parent the children without conflict, and will be an order in the best interests of the children.
The ICL’s proposed Order 8-10, relating to urinalysis tests at the request of the ICL, will be orders in the best interests of the children. The Court is not persuaded that hair follicle tests are required to be ordered at this interim stage.
The Father’s proposed changeover orders (Orders 6 and 7) will be in the best interests of the children, with the Court proposing to supply minor amendments to proposed Order 7 effectively providing for collection/delivery of the children from day care or school, where applicable. Accordingly, all previous orders relating to changeover can be discharged.
The ICL’s proposed Order 18 will be an order in the best interests of the children relating to advising of changes to residential and/or contact details. The Mother consented to this order. The Court observes that the Father disclosed his current residential address in his Affidavit.
The Father’s proposed Orders 13, 14, 15, 17, relating to the provision of information will be orders in the best interests of the children. Although the Court has some concern as to the accuracy of the Father’s allegations that he has previously been concerned that the children would be taken to Country M by the Mother, for abundant caution, the Court proposes to make the Father’s proposed Orders 21 to 24.

Parental responsibility

There is an existing order for equal shared parental responsibility made, by consent, on 4 March 2019.
At this interim stage, the Court is not persuaded that this order should be varied. It is important for the children to see both parents as playing a role in reaching major decisions relating to their care development and welfare.
As to equal time, the Court refers to its discussions above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration. It will not be in the best interests of the children to continue to be subject to an equal time arrangement. As to substantial and significant time, the ICL’s proposed interim parenting orders will probably constitute substantial and significant time between the children and the Father. Relating to both equal time and substantial and significant time, such time is probably reasonably practicable.

Summary

Evaluating the above discussed considerations under section 60CC of the Act, it will be in the best interests of the children to make the following interim Orders:
(1)That Orders 2 and 3 in Exhibit A of the parenting Orders dated 4 March 2019 be discharged.
(2)That Orders 4(k) - (n) in Exhibit A of the parenting Orders dated 4 July 2019 be discharged.
(3)All previous Orders relating to changeover are discharged.
(4)    That the children live with the Mother.
(5)    That the children spend time with the Father as follows:
(a)     During school terms:
(i) In week 1 from the conclusion of child care/school on Thursday until the commencement of child care/school on Monday; and
(ii)In week 2 from the conclusion of child care/school on Thursday until the commencement of child care/school on Friday.
(b)For half of each NSW school holiday period at times and dates and for such periods as agreed by the parties in writing and in the absence of such agreement between the parties as follows:
(i) During each short NSW school holiday period for the first half in even years and the second half in odd years; and
(ii)During the summer school holidays in a week about arrangement with the children to spend time or live with the Mother during the first week and with the Father during the second week and to alternate thereafter with the changeover day being at 10am on Saturday and concluding at 10am on the following Saturday.
(c)At such other times and dates and for such other periods as agreed to by the parties.
(6)That unless otherwise specified in these Orders or agreed to between the mother and father from time to time, for the purposes of changeover:
a) The father and/or his nominee shall collect the children from the mother and/or her nominee from KFC at B Street Shopping Centre Suburb C (“KFC Suburb C”) at the commencement of the father’s time with the children;
b) The mother and/or her nominee shall collect the children from the father and/or his nominee from KFC Suburb C at the commencement of her time with the children; and
c) That any nominee who attends changeover on behalf of the mother or father must be a person who is familiar to and known to the children.
(7)That notwithstanding Order 6 if the mother’s or father’s time with the children commences or concludes at the children’s daycare or school, they and/or their nominee/s shall collect/deliver the children from/to daycare or school.
(8)That the Mother and Father shall be at liberty to communicate with the children and for this purpose:
(a)The Father shall communicate with the children each Wednesday from 6:00pm until 6:30pm on a contact number/skype address provided by the Mother;
(b)The Mother shall communicate with the children each Thursday when the children are not in her care from 6:00pm until 6:30pm on a contact number/skype address provided by the Father;
(c)Communication can be by Skype, FaceTime and/or telephone; and
(d)In addition to telephone calls referred to above the Mother and Father shall facilitate the children communicating with the other parent by telephone/FaceTime/skype at all other times requested by the children.
(9)    That WITHOUT ADMISSION both parties be restrained from;
(a)Exposing the children to violence including physical or verbal threats or intimidation, whether such threats or intimidation or violence be directed at the children, the Mother, the Father, or any other member of either party's household;
(b)Denigrating the other or members of the other party's family in the presence or hearing of the children and each party shall do all acts and things reasonably necessary to prevent any other person doing so.
(c)Discussing these proceedings or any issues arising out of these proceedings with the children or permitting any third party to do so.
(d)Making critical or derogatory remarks on social media, such as Facebook or Twitter in relation to the other parent or referring in any way to the proceedings.
(e)Recording, taping or filming the children either by way of audio or visual tool such as mobile phones, cameras or other electronic device for the purpose of using such recordings or footage for these proceedings.
(f)Being under the influence of alcohol in the presence of the children or whilst the children are in his or her care to a point of a blood alcohol level of in excess of 0.05;
(g)Driving the children in a motor vehicle after consuming any alcohol within 2 hours of such consumption of alcohol or from permitting or authorising any third party from doing so;
(h)Using, ingesting or administering to himself or herself any illicit or none prescribed drugs (other than over the counter medication); and
(i)Bringing the children into contact with any person under the influence of illicit drugs or alcohol in excess.
(10)That each party submit to Urinalysis, under supervision and chain of custody, upon written request of the Independent Children's Lawyer, no more than once per month, with such testing to take place within 48 hours of such request and to be conducted in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Standard 4308:2008: Procedure for the collection, detection and quantification of drugs of abuse in urine ("the drug test").
(11)Each party to cause the drug test results to be forwarded to the Independent Children's Lawyer and to the other party within 48 hours of receipt.
(12) Each party to pay their own costs associated with the drug tests.
(13)That the parties keep each other advised at all times of all organisations, schools, day care providers, medical practitioners and health workers with whom the children attend from time to time or are involved in and that each such person, organisation or group be provided with the contact details for both parties.
(14)That each party notify the other of any serious illness or accident that the children suffer as soon as is reasonably practicable.
(15)In the event that they have not already done so the Mother and Father to forthwith attend upon and complete a post separation course such as Keeping Kids in Mind through D Families, Parents not Partners through E Families or Parenting After Separation through F Counselling Centre.
(16)That the Mother is to forthwith engage with a suitably qualified therapist/counsellor and follow the guidance and recommendations of such therapist/counsellor.
(17)That the Mother have leave to provide to her therapist/counsellor a copy of CDC Memorandum prepared by Ms G and dated 30 March 2020 and that she further provide a copy of such report along with the report prepared by Ms H, psychologist dated 3 March 2019 to her treating counsellor/therapist.
(18)That the parties are to keep each other advised and informed in a timely manner as to any changes to their respective residential address and or contact details (telephone and email address).
(19)That the Mother and Father shall do all things necessary to authorise the children's school to provide to the other parent on a regular basis copies of all school reports, school newsletters and other information regarding the children's school activities.
(20)That the Mother and Father be entitled to obtain directly from any school attended by the children or any health or welfare professional or other professional attended by the children, copies of any reports, notices or other relevant verbal or written advice affecting the education, health and welfare of the children and for this purpose the Mother and Father shall immediately notify the other of the names and contact details of any relevant education, health or welfare professional and keep the other party so informed.
(21)That the Mother and Father shall do all such things and acts and sign all documents necessary to provide their authority to any school attended by the children or any health or welfare professional or other professional attended by the children, to provide information to the other parent pursuant to the above Orders, within seven (7) days of being requested to provide such authority.
(22)That the Mother and Father be entitled to attend all day care/school functions, sports carnivals and other day care/school events in which parents are invited to attend regardless of whose care the children are in at the time.
(23)That the Mother and/or the Father, their servants and/or agents be and are restrained from removing or attempting to remove or causing or permitting the removal of the children from the Commonwealth of Australia.
(24)That the Marshall of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and all officers of the Australian Federal Police and of the police forces of the states and territories of the Commonwealth of Australia are requested to give effect to these Orders and to take all necessary steps to restrain either party from removing or attempting to remove the said children from the Commonwealth of Australia.
(25)That the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and the Secretary of the Ministry of Immigration take all necessary steps to immediately place the said children on the Family Law Watch List in force at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia and maintain the child's names on the Watch List.
(26)That the Australian Federal Police and the Police Forces of the States and Territories of the Commonwealth of Australia assist in the implementation of, and give effect to, these Orders.
(27)That pursuant to Section 62G of the Family Law Act 1975 a family report be ordered otherwise usual orders.
(28)Pursuant to s.65DA(2) and s.62B, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist the parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and eight (108) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Newbrun

Associate:

Date: 11 November 2020

[2020] FCCA 3024

10 November 2020

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law