Meese and Meese (No. 2)

[2018] FamCA 654

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MEESE & MEESE (NO. 2) [2018] FamCA 654

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting – interim – existence of family violence – impact of family violence – where child exposed to family violence – where family violence not directed to child – orders in relation to youngest child only – where high level of conflict between parties – where high level of conflict between parties and child – benefits of relationship – protection from harm.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA, 65DAC

APPLICANT: Ms Meese

RESPONDENT: Mr Meese

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr P Smith

FILE NUMBER: CAC 773 of 2017

DATE DELIVERED: 27 August 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Gill J

HEARING DATE: 23 August 2018

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:	Andrew Warren Associates
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:	Mr J Miller
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:	Farrar Gesini Dunn Family & Collaborative Law

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid, ACT

Orders

IT IS ORDERED UNTIL FURTHER ORDER

1. All previous orders be discharged.

2. That the children, X, born … 2002 (“X”), Y, born … 2005 (“Y”), and Z, born … 2009 (“Z”), live with their mother.

3. That, unless otherwise agreed between the parents, the parents do all things necessary to facilitate Z spending time with his father as follows:

   (a)       During school terms, in a fortnightly cycle as follows:

   (i)In week one, each alternate weekend from after school on Friday until before school the following Monday; and

   (ii)In week two, from after school on Thursday until before school the following Friday;

   (b)For the first half of each school holiday period in years ending in an even number; and 

   (c)For the second half of each school holiday period in years ending in an odd number. 

4. That the mother do all things necessary to facilitate Z communicating with his father by text message, telephone, FaceTime or similar if and when Z expresses a wish to do so.

5. That, without admissions, and except for the purposes of complying with these Orders, the father be restrained from approaching, contacting, assaulting, threatening, stalking, harassing, intimidating, or destroying or damaging any property that belongs to or is in the possession of:

   (a)       The mother; and/or

   (b)       X; and/or

   (c)       Y.

6. That the father be permitted to approach or contact the mother, X, or Y where it is consented to in writing (including SMS).

7. That, without admissions, the father be restrained from attending at, contacting, or approaching:

   (a)D Hospital (being the mother's place of work), except for medical treatment;

   (b)Any place where the mother and/or any of the children shall reside, including E Street, F Town; and

   (c)The mother's lawyer's offices at K Street, L Town, M Street, N Town, or O Street, Suburb P;

   except with the mother’s written consent (including SMS).

8. That the father have leave to provide a copy of the Family Report prepared by Ms G dated 13 July 2018 to his treating psychologist and the father continue to attend upon his psychologist as required.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Meese & Meese (No. 2) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: CAC 773 of 2017

Ms Meese

Applicant

And

Mr Meese

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The parties separated in April 2017.  While there are three children from the relationship, X aged 16, Y aged 13 and Z aged nine, the father has spent little time since separation with X or Y.  The time with Z has been inconsistent.  The children’s primary residence with their mother is not the subject of contest.

2. The interim proceedings primarily involve a contest about whether Z, who is nine years old and the youngest child of the parties, should spend time with the father pending the final disposition of the case.  The father seeks that he have regular time, including overnight time with Z.  The mother seeks that there be no time spent.  The Independent Children’s Lawyer (‘ICL’) asks that there be a gap of approximately six months in spending time with the father, at which point he proposes to interview Z in order to restore Z spending time with the father.

3. The background to this application is that immediately following the release of the Single Expert’s report at the start of August 2018 a short notice application to suspend the father’s time with Z was heard.  Pending a further date for interim hearing being set for 23 August 2018, which gave the parties greater capacity to prepare their cases, the father’s time was suspended.

4. The key matters focused upon at the hearing concerned an allegation of volatility on the part of the father in his interactions with the rest of the family, and the question of whether the father spending time with Z was producing adverse consequences for Z.

5. The mother posed a series of questions to answer whether Z should recommence spending time with the father.  These were whether or not Z is suffering from a significant distress or trauma, what is causing such distress or trauma, how the distress or trauma might be stopped, and what risks are caused to Z in stopping the trauma and distress by ceasing his time with the father.

6. The father pointed to the time that he has spent with Z post-separation, and in particular a recent block period of time of 15 days while the mother was away.  He says that this undermines the notion that he constitutes a risk to Z.  He contests the idea that there is a causal link demonstrated between trauma or distress on the part of Z and spending time with the father.

Documents relied upon

1. The Applicant Mother relied upon:

   a.Affidavit of Ms Meese, filed 10 August 2018;

   b.Affidavit of Ms R, filed 14 August 2018;

   d.Affidavit of Ms S, filed 6 March 2018;

   f.Affidavit of Ms T, filed 4 May 2017;

   g.Affidavit of Ms G, filed 2 August 2018;

   h.Email from Ms R, dated 22 August 2018 (became exhibit M1); and

   i.Reports of Mr H, dated 25 November 2017 and 13 February 2018.

2. The Respondent Father relied upon:

   a.Amended Application in a Case, filed 17 August 2018;

   b.Affidavit of Mr Meese, filed 17 August 2018;

   c.Affidavit of Ms Q, filed 17 August 2018; and

   d.Affidavit of Ms U, filed 17 August 2018.

Orders sought

1. The Applicant Mother sought, in accordance with Exhibit M2:

   1.That all previous order be vacated, with the exception of order 15 made 8 December 2017 (which relates to the appointment of an Independent Children's Lawyer).

   2.That the mother have leave to rely upon:

   a.her affidavits affirmed 22 February 2018, 7 June 2018, and 28 April 2017;

   b.the affidavit of [Ms T] affirmed 4 May 2007;

   c.the affidavit of [Ms V] affirmed 16 February 2018;

   d.the affidavit of [Ms S] affirmed 5 March 2018; and

   e.the affidavit of [Ms G] affirmed 13 July 2018.

   3.That the children [X] born … 2002, [Y] born … 2005, and [Z] born … 2009 live with the applicant mother.

   4.That the applicant mother have sole parental responsibility for the said children.

   5.That the respondent father spend no time with the said children.

   6.That the father be restrained from approaching, contacting, assaulting, threatening, stalking, harassing, intimidating, or destroying or damaging any property that belongs to or is in the possession of:

   a.the applicant mother and/or

   b.[X] born … 2002 and/or

   c.[Y] born … 2005 and/or

   d.[Z] born … 2009.

   7.That the father be restrained from attending at, contacting, or approaching:

   a.[B School, C Town], (being the children's current school), or any other school that any of the children might attend,

   b.any of the children's teachers,

   c.any of the children's extracurricular activities, or the teachers or instructors thereof,

   d.[D Hospital] (being the mother's place of work), except for emergency medical treatment,

   e.any place where the mother and/or any of the children shall reside, including [E Street, F Town],

   f.the mother's lawyer's offices at [K Street], [L Town], [M Street], [N Town], or [O Street, Suburb P].

   8.That the father be restrained from bringing further interim parenting applications without leave of the Court.

   9.That this matter be forthwith listed for final hearing.

   10.The mother’s costs of this application be reserved.

2. The Respondent Father sought, by Amended Application in a Case filed 17 August 2018:

   1.That the children, [X], born … 2002 (“[X]”), [Y], born … 2005 (“[Y]”), and [Z], born … 2009 (“[Z]”), live with their mother.

   2.That, unless otherwise agreed between the parents, the parents do all things necessary to facilitate [Z] spending time with his father as follows:

   2.1 During school terms, in a fortnightly cycle as follows:

   2.1.1        In week one, each alternate weekend from after school on Friday until before school the following Monday; and

   2.1.2        In week two, from after school on Thursday until before school the following Friday;

   2.2 For the first half of each school holiday period in years ending in an even number; and 

   2.3 For the second half of each school holiday period in years ending in an odd number. 

   3.That the mother do all things necessary to facilitate [Z] communicating with his father by text message, telephone, FaceTime or similar if and when [Z] expresses a wish to do so.

   4.That the mother do all things necessary to ensure that [X] and [Y] continue to receive professional support from a psychologist in relation to:

   4.1 Re-establishing their relationships with their father at some stage in the future; and

   4.2 Supporting [Z’s] relationship with his father.

   5.That, without admissions, and except for the purposes of complying with these Orders, the father be restrained from approaching, contacting, assaulting, threatening, stalking, harassing, intimidating, or destroying or damaging any property that belongs to or is in the possession of:

   5.1 The mother; and/or

   5.2 [X]; and/or

   5.3 [Y].

   6.That the father be permitted to approach or contact the mother, [X], or [Y] if instigated by that person, or with the consent of that person or the mother.

   7.That, without admissions, the father be restrained from attending at, contacting, or approaching:

   7.1 [D Hospital] (being the mother's place of work), except for medical treatment;

   7.2 Any place where the mother and/or any of the children shall reside, including [E Street, F Town]; and

   7.3 The mother's lawyer's offices at [K Street, L Town], [M Street, N Town], or [O Street, Suburb P];

   except with the mother’s written consent.

   8.That the father have leave to provide a copy of the Family Report prepared by [Ms G] dated 13 July 2018 to his treating psychologist and the father continue to attend upon his psychologist as required.

3. It may be observed that there was little contest about a large number of matters, including who the children should live with and the making of injunctions restraining the father.  While the father sought orders in respect of the mother encouraging his relationship with X and Y, these were not the subject of any submissions or focus in the interim proceedings.  I have not been directed to evidence which would allow me to conclude that those orders are currently in the best interests of either X or Y.

The case

1. The father says that for a significant part of the relationship he was the parent primarily responsible for the care of the children.

2. The mother alleges frightening and violent behaviour from the father towards the children. The Single Expert records that the father “acknowledged that his behaviour towards the children during the parental relationship would have been experienced by the children as frightening.  He said, ‘I recognise it.  I absolutely get it.  I frightened them.’  The father admitted that he had hit X and had thrown plates in the house, although he noted that he had never thrown anything in the direction of the children.  He also said that he had ‘screamed’ and ‘yelled’ at the children, “particularly the girls.”

3. The mother also alleged that the father became enraged with X at Easter 2014, slapping her across the face.  The mother described that X then appeared to physically retaliate, at which the father shaped up to her with fists raised.    The father admitted that he slapped X across the face in response to being told to “piss off.”

4. Despite this background, at about the time of separation the mother travelled overseas, between 22 March 2017 and 5 April 2017.  She left the children in the father’s care for this period.  During this period the father and Y had an interaction which the father described to the mother as a “bit of an incident” but in relation to which the mother tendered exhibit M3 which contained six audio video recordings taken by X of the interaction between the father and Y.  The recordings variously show the father remonstrating with Y in relation to her preparation for school, Y screaming at him, an escalation where he seeks to pull Y from her bed by her feet, where Y continues screaming and the father continues to remonstrate with her.   

5. Over the first sequence of these recordings the father does not appear to have lost control.  A later recording in the sequence shows the father yelling at Y, in a similar manner to that in which Y was screaming at him.  Again this did not appear to be a loss of control.  However, in the last two of the recordings the sound of an object breaking can be heard, although not seen and Y subsequently complains that she is bleeding.  Y at that point was whimpering.  The complaint was made that the father had thrown crockery at Y.  The father denied doing this but appeared to accept that he had smashed a plate on the floor.  The concession made by the father in the context of the video recordings is redolent of an eventual loss of control on the part of the father, in response to Y’s continued screaming at him.  In making this observation I acknowledge that these are interim proceedings and that final proceedings may reveal further evidence, and the testing of evidence such as to provide a different perspective on this incident.  However, the incident at least shows a risk of loss of self-control on the part of the father when interacting with Y under extreme circumstances.

6. Z reported to the Single Expert that “my dad has been horrible to [Y] and [X] and mum.”  He told the family consultant that he had seen his father throw plates at X, frequently yell at them, and he had witnessed his father ‘drag’ Y up the stairs and attempt to ‘punch’ her.  The father had been yelling on these occasions.  Z said that he felt scared on those occasions.

7. In contrast Z felt “safe and happy” with the mother.

8. From separation in about April 2017 until the present, the general scheme of Z spending time with the father was as follows.

9. On 31 July 2017 interim orders were made to provide for the husband to spend time with Z.  Until the orders were made, time was not facilitated between the father and the children.  He started to spend time with Z from 20 August 2017 during the day each alternate Sunday.  This continued until further orders were made on 8 December 2017 that also provided for after-school time each alternate Wednesday.  The father’s time with Z continued largely in accordance with this pattern until early February 2018.

10. The father says that between 4 February and 15 March 2018 the mother did not facilitate time. 

11. The parties disagree as to the circumstances surrounding the breakdown of this arrangement.  The mother says that it was in response to stress that Z was suffering spending time with the father.  The father denies that this is the case. This conflict is not able to be resolved at present.

12. The father did not recommence spending time with Z until mid-March 2018 when he started attending Z’s soccer training, at the same time as the mother, with the mother’s agreement.  Shortly thereafter, the parties agreed to Z spending time with the father during the day on weekends.  This further increased to overnight time on 14, 17 and 18 April 2018, 24, 25 and 26 April 2018 and from 2 to 6 May 2018.  The father continued during this period to also see Z at soccer training.

13. On 24 April 2018 further interim orders were agreed to that provided for the children to live with the mother and spend time as agreed between the parents.

14. On 7 May 2018 the mother asked the father to come and assist her to deal with Y, following Y assaulting the mother.  The mother complained to the father that Y was regularly engaging in such behaviour.  This marks the first time that the father had spent time with Y since separation in April 2017.

15. The mother telephoned the father saying that Y said that she would kill herself if she went to live with the father but that the mother thought that Y needs to go to boarding school “because she says she will kill herself if you’re anywhere near her.  I’m happy if you just come and fucking take her.” 

16. The parties are at odds about what occurred between them on 7 May 2018.  The mother says that the father remained at home and returned to the home over her objection on that day, while the father says that he remained at the home at the invitation of the mother.

17. On 7, 8 and 9 May 2018 there was an email exchange between the parents regarding Y’s behaviour.  This included an email from the mother on 8 May 2018 where she said “we need to look at you having shared care of Y or she goes to boarding school.”  Further, on 9 May 2018 the mother emailed the father saying “I’ve told Y her options are to live with you or go to boarding school, you can decide with her which option she chooses.”  This exchange sits uncomfortably with the mother’s assertion that the father remained in the home on 7 May and refused to leave.

18. Whatever the case, between 10 May and 25 May 2018 the mother travelled away from her home on the south coast of New South Wales to Sydney, looking for alternate employment.  She had said that she would be away for a number of weeks and was away in total for 15 days.  During this period of time Z and Y stayed with the father.

19. Following her return, on 30 May 2018 the mother told the father that Z did not want to come and stay.  Z subsequently spent overnight time with the father  on 2 June, 8 to 11 June, 23 June, 25 to 27 June, 30 June, 6 to 8 July, 13 to 15 July, 20 to 22 July and 27 to 29 July 2018.

20. Z’s time with the father was suspended following the release of the Single Expert’s report by interim orders of 2 August 2018.  The father has not spent time with Z since then.

The critical factual issue

1. The mother’s case concentrated on a critical factual issue relating to the significance of Z exhibiting a tic, having engaged in self-harm and otherwise fighting and acting out at school.

2. The mother says that in March 2018 Z was reported to have behaved violently at school.  On 1 April 2018 Z had overnight time with the father.  Later in April 2018 Z was again reported to have behaved violently at school, choking another student.

1. In June 2018 Z was reported to be punching other children.  This occurred following an overnight period of time with the father.

2. At [84] the Single Expert reports that “both [Mr Meese] and [Ms Meese] articulate concerns for [Z’s] well-being.  Recently [Mr Meese] said that [Z] had said to him that he is not liked by his peers and threatened to hurt himself with a knife.”  Further the mother noted that “[Z] may be developing a physical tic associated with family stress … and having numerous difficulties at school, such as selective mutism, being physically violent to other children and being bullied by children.”  During the assessment for this report the school raised concerns with both parents by email regarding Z’s progress and behaviour at school.

3. In July 2018 the Single Expert observed the tic on the second day of her assessment of the family.

Causal link

1. The father contended that there was insufficient evidence to establish the causal link with the above issues facing Z as coming from spending time with the father.

2. The mother relied upon the views expressed by Mr H, psychologist, who has provided therapeutic services for Z.  In his report of 25 November 2017 he emphasised the issue of Z having anxiety “around being in the middle of conflict between his parents and tensions with his siblings.”  His report of 13 February 2018 again emphasised the difficulties that Z was experiencing with the conflict between his parents.  Z had expressed both a desire to spend more time with his father and less time with his father.  Mr H did not think that he could accurately ascertain Z’s views regarding spending time with his father.  This did not appear to draw the link sought by the mother, but rather emphasised the conflict between the parties as problematic for Z.

3. The mother also relied upon the views expressed by Ms R, a psychologist.  Ms R, who is involved therapeutically with Z, provided a report of 12 June 2018.  She noted in relation to Z that “he was most communicative about the distressing communication between Y and the rest of his family at home that he wanted help with for his mum.” She reported views expressed by Z wanting to have overnight time with his father once a week.  As to Z’s acting out at school, she predicted this was connected to the “current stress on-going between his parents and his siblings.”  She said that she was not able to comment as to the connection between the acting out and an increase in overnight time between Z and the father.

4. That is, again this was not supportive of the mother’s asserted connection.  Rather the focus was on the exposure of Z to conflict.

5. The mother also relied upon the coincidence of the father’s times with Z coinciding with the difficulties that Z is exhibiting. In relation to this aspect the mother points to Z being settled in the time that he spent without contact with the father between January and March this year.  She says that she told Z that his time with the father would recommence shortly before 15 March 2018.  On 15 March 2018 Z’s physical education teacher told the mother that Z, that day, had been violent to other children.  He had also yelled at the teacher to “piss off.”

6. During the following two weeks the father attended soccer training. For both of those weeks the mother said that Z complained of a sore stomach and was clingy.

7. Z complained to the mother regarding the father’s discussions with him during time on 1 April 2018.  Subsequently later in April 2018 Z became distressed at school.

8. While there is some temporal link, it is not strongly supportive of the connection sought by the mother.  This is particularly so where the other evidence put forward directs attention to the conflict between the parties and within the family as being causative of Z’s stress.

S60CC considerations

1. The parties’ cases centred on the questions of the benefits of spending time with the father, and the need to protect Z from emotional harm in spending time with the father.

2. Accordingly the primary considerations were engaged, along with the nature of the relationship between Z and the father (s 60CC(3)(b)), the capacity of the father to provide for Z’s emotional needs (s 60CC(3)(f)), Z’s characteristics (s 60CC(3)(g)) and the issue of family violence involving the family (s 60CC(3)(j)).

3. The mother’s case did not rely upon the notion that the father has been violent toward Z, but rather that Z has been exposed to family violence.  There appears to be a strong case to establish this, given the audio visual recordings, and Z’s description of the father’s behaviour toward the family. 

4. Absent testing of the evidence, in the knowledge that these are interim proceedings, the recorded incident speaks to there being a likelihood that spending time with the father involves spending time with a person who has inflicted family violence upon Y. Based on the father’s acknowledgement to the Single Expert there is a good foundation to accept that the previous relationship between the father and the children has been productive of fear on the part of the children.

5. On the question of whether there is an ongoing risk of exposure to family violence, the father points to the steps that he has taken to deal with issues that otherwise support the notion that there is such a risk.  This includes a longitudinal assessment by a psychologist.  Although untested, these matters speak to a lowering of risk, although not definitively.

6. Of greater force is the mother’s conduct in, during March 2018, leaving both Y and Z in the father’s care.  This undermines the idea that there is a significant present risk of exposure of Z to family violence in the presence of the father, particularly given the difficulties that have apparently occurred for each party in interacting with Y.  Where there have been such difficulties the circumstances of leaving Y and Z together in the father’s care provided ripe conditions for such exposure.  There is no suggestion of violence in this period by the father.  Rather, the leaving of the children in that circumstance undermines the notion that the mother regards that there is, in fact, a strong risk in this respect, and in turn undermines the presence of such a risk.

7. Pivotal to the mother’s case is what is being exhibited by Z, incorporating a threat of self-harm, violence to others and a tic.  Each of those does not seem to be the subject of challenge.  They indicate a likelihood that Z is at present under great emotional strain.  What is not however clear is whether the strain is attributable to spending time with the father. 

8. Further, it should not be thought that the removal of the father from Z’s life is necessarily without adverse impact upon Z.  While reliance was placed upon exhibit M1 by the mother, being an addendum to a report by Ms R, which appeared to support a break of up to six months in Z spending time with the father (except that there would be school holiday time), there was both a lack of disclosed reasoning and a caveat that the view was subject to the qualification that “the majority of the evidence supports this.”  No weight should be placed upon the addendum.

9. While there are questions as to the father’s capacity to emotionally care for Z, given both allegations that he has spoken inappropriately to Z, and his concession that the manner in which he spoke to Z in the presence of the Single Expert was inappropriate, the leaving of Z with the father for 15 days while the mother travelled to Sydney speaks to this concern being minimal.

10. In considering the question of the benefits of time with the father, it should also be acknowledged that prior to separation the father had significant involvement in Z’s care.  Following separation, despite there being gaps in the time with Z, Z has had significant time with the father.

11. Rather, what emerges from the evidence is that emphasis should be placed upon protecting Z from conflict between the parties.

Parental responsibility

1. Given the content of the audio visual recordings, and the father’s acceptance that he caused fear in the children, there are reasonable grounds to believe that he has engaged in family violence.  It should be noted that this does not constitute a finding that there has been family violence, but that there are reasonable grounds available that support such a finding.  That is sufficient to render the presumption in favour of equal shared parental responsibility inapplicable by application of s 61DA(2).

2. The allocation of parental responsibility falls to be determined on the basis of the best interests of Z, in the context of the matter awaiting final trial, and absent the application of a presumption.

3. As indicated by counsel for the father, the decisions for which the parents would be required to cooperate by virtue of an order for equal shared parental responsibility are few, and there is no indication any such decisions are imminent for Z.  That is, the obligations imposed upon the parties by s65DAC to consult and make a genuine effort to come to a joint conclusion are unlikely to be regularly invoked.

4. Given that the decisions that may be required to be made are likely to be few, and that they, if made, are likely to have long-term consequences for Z, it is in his interests that both parents participate equally in the interim in making such decisions, despite the difficulty that it may pose for them.  The sharing of such decision making assists to protect against unilateral decision making in the face of uncertainty as to what may be the long-term arrangements for Z.

Orders for time with the father

1. The determination that an order for equal shared parental responsibility should be made requires consideration of the arrangements for Z in accordance with the reasoning process set out at s 65DAA.  Neither party seeks equal time, indicating that it is accepted that such is not in Z’s best interests at present.

2. The father seeks substantial and significant time. A particular advantage identified by the father is that such a regime would mean that the parties would not have to come into contact with each other as the handover could occur to and from Z’s school.  Where the conflict between the parties is such a significant issue, and where Z has expressed his concern about the father being mean to the family, keeping space between them is in Z’s interest.  This means that even where there are questions as to the extent of the father’s capacity to emotionally care for Z which may tend toward a position of less time, the benefits of an arrangement that provides to reduce the prospects of conflict outweigh the benefits of slightly shorter time.

3. Given the assessment of risk of exposure to family violence for Z, the times proposed by the father do not constitute a risk of significance.  The arrangement proposed by the father allows for time each week, allowing reasonable consistency for Z while still allowing each second weekend in full in the mother’s household.  Such an arrangement strikes a reasonable balance in maintaining Z’s current primary care arrangements while allowing sufficient time with the father to gain the benefits from that relationship.

4. This is sufficient, given the factual matters dealt with above, to mean that it is in Z’s best interest for such an arrangement to be in place.  It is not in his interests to have a further break in time from his father.

5. A further advantage of the arrangement is that it gives Z a break from the conflict in the mother’s home involving Y, such conflict being identified as problematic by Z to Ms R.

6. Each party sought injunctions be made upon the father. To the extent they agreed, such orders should be made, given the volatile interactions of the past. It is appropriate that should the circumstances call for it, that there be a mechanism for the father to approach the mother, X or Y. For certainties sake, it should be consent in writing, such writing to include SMS. Given that the collection point for Z will be school, the father will be permitted to attend the school. No adequate basis has been set out for restraints regarding contacting teachers and the other restraints sufficiently deal with extracurricular activities.

7. Regarding the restriction from attending at the D Hospital (the mother’s work) the restraint sought by the husband strikes an appropriate balance, which allows him to attend for medical treatment, rather than the restriction to emergency treatment. The nature of the venue, being a public staffed institution, provides reasonable protection when coupled with the above restraint.

I certify that the preceding sixty-six (66) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Gill delivered on 27 August 2018.

Associate:

Date:  27 August 2018