Meldrum and Seddon
[2018] FCCA 200
•15 February 2018
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MELDRUM & SEDDON | [2018] FCCA 200 |
| Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Parenting of two young children – admission of domestic violence by Father against Mother – Mother’s scrupulous following of vegan diet and especially her aversion to the use of fluoride that has adversely impacted on the health and well-being of the children (including severe adverse dental health outcome) – lack of planning by Father in relation to his life or that of the children, more of a “free-floater” including in relation to his “weekend-partner” in Sydney for the last two years while he otherwise lives in (omitted). |
| Legislation: Family Law Act 1975, ss.60CA, 60CC(3)(a)-(m), 65DAA |
| Cases cited: Collu & Rinaldo [2010] FamCAFC 53 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 McCall & Clark (2009) 41 Fam LR 483 |
| Applicant: | MR MELDRUM |
| Respondent: | MS SEDDON |
| File Number: | NCC 2684 of 2015 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Neville |
| Hearing dates: | 19 June 2017 – 21 June 2017 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 21 June 2017 |
| Delivered at: | Newcastle |
| Delivered on: | 15 February 2018 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Sundstrom |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Legal Aid NSW |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Wilkinson |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Winder Lawyers |
| Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: | Mr Allen |
| Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer: | Jennifer Blundell and Associates |
ORDERS
All previous parenting Orders be discharged.
The parties are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the children, X (born: (omitted) 2011) and Y (born: (omitted) 2014) (“the children”), subject to Order 2 of these Orders.
In the event that the parties are unable to agree in relation to matters concerning health and education of the children, the Father shall have final authority to make any decisions in relation to these matters.
Subject to agreement between the parties, the children are to live with the parties in the following regime:
(a)Commencing immediately, the children are to live primarily with the Mother, and spend 5 nights per fortnight in a block period with the Father; then
(b)Upon Y commencing school, the children are to live primarily with the Mother and spend 6 nights per fortnight in a block period with the Father.
Subject to agreement between the parties and to Order 6, the children are to spend half of the school holidays living with each parent.
Subject to agreement between the parties, the parties are to alternate in the following regime:
(a)In each odd year the Mother is to spend from 4.00pm Christmas Eve until 5.00pm on Boxing Day with the children, and on each even year, the Mother is to spend from 5:00 pm Good Friday to 5:00pm Easter Monday with the children.
(b)In each even year the Father is to spend from 4.00pm Christmas Eve until 5.00pm on Boxing Day with the children, and on each odd year, the Father is to spend from 5:00 pm Good Friday to 5:00pm Easter Monday with the children.
Subject to agreement between the parties and notwithstanding any other Order, the children are to stay with the Father for the duration of the Father’s day weekend in September.
Subject to agreement between the parties and notwithstanding any other Order, the children are to stay with the Mother for the duration of the Mother’s day weekend in May.
Subject to agreement between the parties and notwithstanding any other Order, on the Father’s birthday, if the children are not otherwise in his care:
(a)If the Father’s birthday falls on a school day, the Father shall spend time with the children for a two hour period as agreed or in default of agreement from 5pm to 7pm; or
(b)If the Father’s birthday falls on a non-school day, the Father shall spend time with the children for a five hour period as agreed or in default of agreement from 1pm to 6pm.
Subject to agreement between the parties and notwithstanding any other Order, on the Mother’s birthday, if the children not otherwise in her care:
(a)If the Mother’s birthday falls on a school day, the Mother shall spend time with the children for a two hour period as agreed or in default of agreement from 5pm to 7pm; or
(b)If the Mother’s birthday falls on a non-school day, the Mother shall spend time with the children for a five hour period as agreed or in default of agreement from 1pm to 6pm.
On each of the children’s birthdays, the party who is not spending time with the children shall:
(a)If the child’s birthday falls on a school day, for a two hour period as agreed or in default of agreement from 5pm to 7pm; or
(b)If the child’s birthday falls on a non-school day, for a five hour period as agreed or in default of agreement from 1pm to 6pm.
That for the purpose of facilitating these Orders, the Respondent/Mother do all acts and things necessary to engage the maternal grandmother &/or grandfather to act as her agent to:
(a)collect the children from outside the Applicant/Father’s home at all commencement times; and
(b)return the children to outside the Applicant/Father’s home at all conclusion times.
In the event that the Respondent/Mother is unable or unwilling to comply with Order 8, then the Respondent/Mother shall instead:
(a)collect the children from the Applicant/Father outside Woolworths at (omitted) Shopping Centre at all commencement times; and
(b)return the children to the Applicant/Father outside Woolworths at (omitted) Shopping Centre at all conclusion times.
Subject to agreement between the parties, that the parent who does not have the care of the children at any given time, have telephone communication with the children any evening between 6:00pm and 7:00pm.
Both parties shall attend facilitated parenting meetings as follows:
(a)Arrange and attend, every month for 12 months, a facilitated parenting business meeting. It shall be facilitated by an accredited mediator (or other recognised professional, for example, the Family and Relationships Centre);
(b)For each meeting, in the absence of an agreed agenda, each party shall provide the mediator with an agenda of no more than 6 items. At the conclusion of each mediation session, the mediator/facilitator shall provide the Court with the agreed or individual agenda and a note (of no more than one paragraph) regarding what:
(i)matters were agreed and what were not;
(ii)what (if any) the stumbling blocks were encountered; and
(iii)why and who, in the view of the mediator, was responsible for the agreement or disagreement.
Subject to agreement between the parties, the children are to attend a Government run school, which is the nearest to the Mother’s residence.
Both parents are restrained from saying unkind or unpleasant things about the other parent to the children, in their presence, or allowing any other person to do so.
The parties shall communicate by text message or as agreed regarding the day to day care of the children.
Parents are to keep each other informed of their current contact telephone numbers and addresses and notify the other within 7 days of any change.
Each party, the parents: MR MELDRUM (born: (omitted) 1982, male), and MS SEDDON (born: (omitted) 1981, female), their servants and agents be hereby restrained from removing or attempting to remove or causing or permitting the removal of the children X (born: (omitted) 2011, male) and Y (born: (omitted) 2014, male) from the Commonwealth of Australia and it is requested that the Australian Federal Police give effect to this order by placing the name of the child on the Airport Watch List in force at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia and maintain the child’s name on the Watch List for a period of 24 months (being 15 February 2020) or until the Court orders its removal.
Upon the expiration of the period referred to in the immediately preceding Order and subject to any further order of a court of competent jurisdiction, the Australian Federal Police will cause the removal of the child or children’s name(s) from the Watch List.
A Registrar of this Court arrange for a copy of these Orders to be forwarded to the Australian Federal Police.
Pursuant to s.62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), information about the family counselling services, family dispute resolution services and other courses, programs and services available, is set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto.
Pursuant to s.65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in the Fact Sheet, attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.
All extant Applications are dismissed and the matter is now finalised and will be removed immediately from the docket.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Meldrum & Seddon is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT NEWCASTLE |
NCC 2684 of 2015
| MR MELDRUM |
Applicant
And
| MS SEDDON |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
The young parents to this litigation have two young children: X (born (omitted) 2011, now aged 6½ years), and Y (born (omitted) 2014, aged approximately 4 years).
The scope (and some features) of the contest, both positive and negative, may be summarised as follows:
(a)Neither parent seeks to deprive or to stop the other parent of spending time with the children;
(b)The children have lived primarily with their Mother for the duration of their young lives;
(c)The children have spent time with their Father reasonably regularly, albeit there have been times when he has been absent from their lives for months at a time when he has gone “a wandering” (on which more later in these reasons);
(d)The Mother has not re-partnered; the Father remains in a long-standing (approximately 2 year) casual, sexual relationship with another woman who lives in Sydney. He enjoys her company in Sydney most weekends, usually (he said) travelling from the (omitted) area on a Friday and staying usually until the Sunday or Monday;
(e)There have been some significant health issues for the children, primarily in relation to their poor dental hygiene. This has now been addressed, primarily by the Father’s actions. In my words, the Mother said in her oral evidence that she was now converted to the benefits of fluoridated water, which previously had not been her position, and that she will attend more rigorously and diligently to the dental hygiene of the children;
(f)The Mother has followed a quite rigorous “vegan” diet and associated way of life for some time. The Father has followed both aspects too (diet and way of life) but not quite with the same zeal as the Mother. He seems to have waivered in his original conviction for a more alternative life-style which had formerly taken his attraction;
(g)As noted earlier, the Mother has been the primary carer for the boys since birth. She remains their full-time carer. The 35 year old Father’s “life goals”, if they may be so described, are quite amorphous. He seemed relatively content to meander through life with little in the way of any specific goal(s) on almost every front. He expressed, for example, an interest and aptitude in mathematics, but nothing has, thus far, come of it, either in terms of study or in terms of employment. He describes himself as a “student” but precisely of what is rather unclear;
(h)The Mother maintains that the short relationship between the parties (between approximately 2011 and 2014) involved various kinds of abuse towards her from the Father;
(i)In short: the Mother seeks to have the children remain living with her and to spend regular time with the Father, while the Father seeks a change in residence of the children to live with him and to spend regular time with the Mother. Both positions have reasonable arguments to commend them. However, because (i) the Mother has been the children’s primary carer since their birth, and removing them to their Father (in my view) would be, at such a young age, harsh and potentially very difficult for them to manage, (ii) the Father has so little detail about his life and or plans in relation to the children, and (iii) the significant time I propose for the children to spend with their Father (plus some other “safety measures”) will ensure that the health and education issues previously encountered should be able to be well monitored by the Father, in my view it is in the children’s best interests that they live primarily with the Mother and spend regular time with the Father in a cycle of 5 nights per fortnight with the Father and the remainder of the time with the Mother. This should commence immediately; it will increase to a 6/8 arrangement (six nights per fortnight with the Father and eight nights per fortnight with the Mother) as set out later in these reasons. Having regard to all the evidence, and having the singular benefit of observing the parties over a not insignificant period,[1] such Orders are, in my view, in the best interests of the children in accordance with s.60CA of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”);
(j)Also, it should be made plain to the Mother that should anything approaching the health (dental health in particular) issues that were on display before the trial arise in the future (supported of course by expert evidence), it is very likely that a change in residence will be required.
[1] In this regard, see the signal comments by the High Court in relation to the [admittedly not absolute] advantages of trial judges regarding the assessment of witnesses and their evidence, in Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118.
Minute of Orders Sought filed on behalf of the Applicant Father
The Father provided the Court with a Minute of Orders Sought; his Orders sought were as follows:
1. That the children X born (omitted) 2011 and Y born (omitted) 2014 live with the Applicant/Father.
2. That the Applicant/Father have sole parental responsibility for the children.
3. That the Applicant/Father and Respondent/Mother be restrained from denigrating each other in the presence or hearing of either child, or allowing either child to be exposed to such comments by any third party.
4. That the Respondent/Mother:
(i) clean the children’s teeth every morning and night that the children are in her care using a toothbrush and toothpaste containing fluoride;
(ii) be restrained from informing or otherwise communicating to either child, or allowing either child to be exposed to communications implying that fluoride is dangerous or detrimental; or that vaccinations are dangerous or detrimental.
5. That the children spend time with the Respondent/Mother as follows:
(i) During school term periods, each alternate weekend from 5pm Friday to 5pm Sunday;
(ii) During the first half of all school holiday periods to commence at 5pm on the last day of school and to conclude at 5pm on the mid-point Saturday.
6. That notwithstanding any other Order, the children remain with the Applicant/Father for the duration of the Father’s Day weekend in September.
7. That notwithstanding any other Order, the children spend time with the Respondent/Mother from 5pm Friday to 5pm Sunday on the Mother’s Day weekend in May.
8. That for the purpose of facilitating these Orders, the Respondent/Mother do all acts and things necessary to engage the maternal grandmother &/or grandfather to act as her agent to:
(i) collect the children from outside the Applicant/Father’s home at all commencement times; and
(ii) return the children to outside the Applicant/Father’s home at all conclusion times.
9. In the event that the Respondent/Mother is unable or unwilling to comply with Order 8, then the Respondent/Mother shall instead:
(i) collect the children from the Applicant/Father outside Woolworths at (omitted) Shopping Centre at all commencement times; and
(ii) return the children to the Applicant/Father outside Woolworths at (omitted) Shopping Centre at all conclusion times.
10. That the Mother, Father, their servants and agents are restrained from removing or attempting to remove or causing or permitting the removal of X born (omitted) 2011 and Y born (omitted) 2014 from the Commonwealth of Australia.
11. It is requested that the Australian Federal Police give effect to the preceding order by placing the names of the said children on the Watch List in force at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia and maintain the children’s’ names on the Watch List.
The Father filed a further Minute of Orders Sought in Court on 20th June 2017, which addressed the Orders the Father would seek should the children [continue to] reside with the Mother on a final basis.
That Minute was as follows:
ALTERNATE PROPOSED FINAL ORDERS OF THE FATHER, IN THE EVENT THAT THE CHILDREN RESIDE WITH THE MOTHER ON A FINAL BASIS
1. That the children spend time with the father during school term periods, each week from 10.00am Sunday morning to 6.00pm Wednesday afternoon.
2. During the second half of all School Holiday periods.
3. That the Father have sole parental responsibility for the children’s education and health issues.
Minute of Orders Sought filed on behalf of the Respondent Mother
The Mother filed a Minute of Orders Sought in Court on 21st June 2017. That Minute provided as follows:
1. That the children X born (omitted) 2011 and Y born (omitted) 2014 live with the mother.
2. That the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children.
3. That the children spend time with the father as agreed but failing agreement as follows:
(a) Until each child enters year 2 of school, each alternate weekend from 5.00pm Friday until 5.00pm the following Sunday.
(b) Once each child enters year 2, each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school on Friday until the commencement of school on the following Monday.
(c) From the commencement of these orders, half of all mid-year school holidays commencing at 10.00am on the first Saturday following the cessation of school and concluding at 10.00am on the following Saturday.
(d) Until each child reaches 8 years of age, for 2 one week periods during the Term 4 holidays, commencing at 10.00am on 27 December and concluding at 10.00am on 3 January and commencing on 17 January and concluding at 10.00am on 23 January,
(e) Upon each child reaching 8 years of age, half of the term 4 holidays commencing at 10.00am on the Saturday that marks the mid-way point of the holidays until the 10.00am the Sunday prior to the commencement of school.
4. That the parent who does not have the care of the child at any time have telephone communication with the children any evening between 6.00pm and 7.00pm.
5. That the mother’s name be removed from the airport watch list.
Minute of Orders Sought filed on behalf of the Independent Children’s Lawyer
The Independent Children’s Lawyer filed a Minute of Orders Sought in Court on 21st June 2017; it was as follows:
1. The children X born (omitted) 2011 and Y born (omitted) 2014 shall live with the Applicant Father.
2. The Father shall have sole parental responsibility for the children X born (omitted) 2011 and Y born (omitted) 2014 but the Father shall use his best endeavours to discuss his exercise of parental responsibility with the Mother and consider her views before doing so.
3. The parties shall communicate by text message or as agreed regarding the day to day care of the children.
4. For Father authorizes any educational institution attended by either of the children to provide to the Mother, at her expense, copies of school reports and information usually provided to parents and the Mother is able to obtain, at her expense, copies of school photographs.
5. The Father shall provide to the Mother such reports and information as he deems appropriate to the Mother about the medical treatment of the children for the purposes of order 2 and 3.
6. Any health care professionals involved in the care of the children are required to have no verbal communication with the Mother regarding the children’s appointments, therapy and treatment.
7. The parties shall keep each other informed of their current contact telephone numbers and address and notify the other within 7 days of any change.
8. Orders 4 to 11 as proposed by the Applicant Father in his Amended Application filed 13/6/17.
The Father’s Evidence
Summarised, the Applicant Father’s evidence was as follows.
The Father was very candid if not also rather matter-of-fact about the following matters:
(a) his long use of cannabis which he said started when he was a boy and ceased as a “habit” in 2007 but he continued to use recreationally for another five years;[2]
[2] Transcript (19th June 2017) p.21. Hereafter, such citations will be (unless otherwise recorded) “T” followed by the page number of the transcript. At the time of the trial the Father was aged 35 years and the Mother 36 years of age.
(b) his convictions for possession and cultivation of cannabis;[3]
[3] T 21 & 22
(c) his very poor communication with the Mother and difficult relationship with her. He said he did not know how to improve the communication between the parties, and also fairly admitted that the problems in the relationship were as much his responsibility as the Mother’s;[4]
[4] T 28, 41 & 44
(d) his “longish” absences from the children’s lives (up to six months) when they were very young while he was “(omitted)” (“(omitted)”), including when the children were born. He said that he did not think the Mother would need him during the pregnancy and that, on his assessment, he thought he would just give her “some space”;[5]
[5] T 29 ff,
(e) apart from some occasional work, he has never been in paid employment and has never applied for such;[6]
[6] T 23 & 31
(f) the Father has completed a course as a (omitted); he has done some courses at university, but has not completed any formal degree; although he would like to complete some studies he has no plans to do so;[7]
[7] T 37 & 38
(g) that he was occasionally violent towards the Mother during the relationship, which led, on one occasion, to his conviction for assault in 2015;[8]
[8] T 23 – 26. The “fact sheet” in relation to this conviction was annexure B to the Father’s trial Affidavit.
(h) the Father contended that he found the Mother to be “physically intimidating”[9] (this is so notwithstanding the Father is clearly very much taller than the Mother, who is quite slight and rather diminutive in stature);
(i) the Father confirmed that he uses “porn” for recreational purposes. He said that for him it was a form of “stress relief”. He also confirmed that following viewing pornography he and the Mother would occasionally “experiment” but there was no “force” used.” He denied the Mother’s allegation that after viewing “porn” the Father was more aggressive. He also said that while he viewed the use of “pornography” as “normal” he would never introduce his boys to it when they got older;[10]
(j) the Father confirmed that he was in a relationship (for the last two years) with a Ms V, who lives in Sydney (he described her candidly as a “friend with benefits”). She provided no affidavit for the proceeding. He spends most weekends with her when he does not have the boys; he said that they sort of have plans but he was not able to articulate any of them. They have not yet decided if they will have any children. He confirmed that she is the “bread-winner” in their relationship, a term which he said she uses to describe herself. He said that she had met the boys a couple of times;[11]
(k) the Father confirmed that the children have never lived with him for more than two nights at a time, and that he has never cared for them solely, because his Mother is usually on hand to assist. He also confirmed that he and the Mother never lived as “Mother and Father” together and looking after the children;[12]
(l) he also said that he and the Mother had been able to work out some arrangements for the children, such as in relation to medical appointments and changeovers;[13]
(m) the Father said that he was agreeable to using a “communication book” with the Mother (including an electronic form of it), and also to attending monthly facilitated parenting meetings with the Mother;[14]
(n) he confirmed that he had arranged for urgent dental work for X (as set out in records that became Exhibits A & B);[15]
(o) the Father confirmed that there were some behavioural issues in relation to Y, which are referred to in the Family Report (see par.58) and as set out also in the report from the psychologist that is annexure F to the Father’s trial Affidavit;
(p) the Father said that he hoped to work part-time as a (occupation omitted), even if/when the children were to come into his full-time care. But he had little or no specific plans in train to achieve this;[16]
(q) I did not put much or any stock in the Father’s claim that the Mother had some “mental health issues”. This assertion was on the basis that the Father found dealing with the Mother quite difficult at times. In my view, “difficulty”, without more, hardly qualifies to be described as “a mental health issue.”
[9] T 28
[10] T 40
[11] T 44 – 45 & 65
[12] T 38
[13] T 55
[14] T 54, 55 - 56
[15] There was an extensive discussion about dental treatment at T 57 - 61
[16] T 65
As candid, credible and helpful as the Father’s evidence was, as I have just summarised it, a few more detailed tracts from the transcript are, in my view, important to set out in full. Thus, regarding his relationship with Ms V and any plans for the future regarding this relationship, there was the following exchange:[17]
[17] T 44 - 45
So when you’re in Sydney, does Ms V work while you’re in Sydney, staying at her place?‑‑‑Yes. I mean, I aim to be there on the weekend when she’s not working. But sometimes she’s working. Like, I will be there on a Friday while she’s at work and then ‑ ‑ ‑
So what do you do during on – during those days when she’s at work and you’re staying at her place?‑‑‑I sort of do house husband duties. I might do the shopping, prepare the dinner or maybe watch, you know, a bit of the news.
Catching up on the news?‑‑‑Yes. That’s something I enjoy, actually.
Okay. We will go with that. But you say you’re taking the relationship slowly. But it has been a relationship for two years now, you say?‑‑‑Yes. What does it mean to say slowly? It means ‑ ‑ ‑
Like, do you have any plans at all for this relationship? Or is it just, like, a day-by-day, week-by-week proposition?‑‑‑No, no. It’s a committed relationship.
Well, how committed?‑‑‑Well, I’m not sure what you mean exactly. I don’t know how to define how committed it is. We’re – you know, we don’t have other partners or anything like that, obviously. Well, that might not be obvious. But, you know, I’m not a person who’s casual about ‑ ‑ ‑
Well, could I suggest someone – I’m not saying that I do – someone might take of you, listening to your evidence, that on a whole range of matters you have no plans about anything, other than you want to do what’s the best for the boys. Correct?‑‑‑I suppose.
Which is a little bit like – again, I’m not – please don’t be offended. But it’s a bit like trying to nail jelly to the wall?‑‑‑Yes.
You know, like, kids need routine, stability, certainty as far as that’s possible with all the other day-to-day things that go on. And I’m just trying to get a handle on do you have any plans on any front? Because apart from the (omitted) course, you know, you said a number of times, “Well, you know, courses, well, I’ve tried some, it hasn’t really worked out. I’m having difficulty concentrating and working on things. I’m in a relationship, it’s committed, it’s sort of committed.” Well, it’s been going for two years but you don’t know where it’s going. I’m just trying to get a handle on what are the pieces of this puzzle that I’m being asked to put together in whatever shape or form is in the best interests of the children. That’s all?‑‑‑Fair enough.
Now, sir, I understand everybody’s lives are different. But, ultimately, in the absence of agreement, I’ve got to make orders that are in the best interests of these children. And I want to know what sort of building blocks I’ve got, as it were, to play with or what pieces of the puzzle, as I’ve said. And, I’ve got to say, I’m struggling a bit here with some of the information that I’m getting?‑‑‑Okay. So I’ve thought about the future a fair bit. But I – with the uncertainty, I kind of – I struggle to determine exactly which plan I’m going to go with. So I sort of, at the moment, take things as they come. Now, my relationship with Ms V is committed. But we don’t know what is going to happen in the future in terms of the children and ‑ ‑ ‑
Well, nobody does?‑‑‑So we can’t plan for our future precisely.
But you can’t even have any, you know, rough plans? You know that if this happens, then, you know, here’s option A. If this happens, here’s option B, whatever. You can’t ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes. We sort of that kind of thing going on. But it’s – that’s, you know – it’s also complicated by the children in the sense that, you know, so one option would be maybe that Ms V will eventually come and live with us. But then we would have to look at that and say, well, you know, how is it – how does she get along with the children. You know, how – we would have to sort of see how that went and then make a decision from there. Otherwise, we could look at her still living separately, visiting on weekends or – we’ve talked about it but we still just kind of wait to see how things unfold.
As I indicated in the course of this exchange and a number of others, to try to elicit from the Father any basic plan for anything was extremely difficult. His frank evidence was basically that, even at aged 35, apart from his (omitted) course, he has not completed any formal study (although he started some courses), he is in a sort of permanent but still somewhat casual, long-distance sexual relationship with a lady in Sydney who has met the children perhaps a couple of times, and with whom he may have children in the future (if they are still together), and he continues to rely on his Mother for degrees of parenting assistance. In none of these matters do I criticise the Father. I present them as the factual matrix as presented to the Court by the Father. However, in terms of having any confidence in relation to him having any plans and the wherewithal to parent these children, and do so as a primary carer, I have very significant reservations. There are equally concerning reservations on the Mother’s side, but they of a somewhat different kind, to which I will turn shortly. I need only note one other part of the Father’s evidence.
After the Father confirmed that he and the Mother were sort of “alternative parents” (i.e. in terms of life-style, such as the use, or not, of things like fluoridated water, having children vaccinated, use of public transport, etc), he said:[18]
[18] T 49 - 50
… that’s more of a legal question but just say, for example, if the mother in her evidence – and obviously we don’t know what she is going to say in the witness box, but just say she says, look, I am a dedicated vegan but I will agree to feeding the children a range of non-vegan foods whether it’s dairy or meat or whatever it is or, you know, whether it’s a pescetarian diet or, you know, whatever it is ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑I suppose ‑ ‑ ‑
‑ ‑ ‑ so that she agrees to it. The court makes such an order. Would that alter your views in terms of orders sought?‑‑‑I suppose this question is if the mother agreed to take care of the children properly, would I still be seeking that they live with me. Would that be a correct understanding of the type of question you’re asking me?
There are a whole range of questions that are inbuilt to that but just assume, in general terms – so whether it’s that, whether it’s the vaccinations – if they’re both dealt with, would that alter your view in terms of orders sought?‑‑‑So I don’t mean to be indirect. So when I started this whole procedure – proceedings, my point of view was that it was necessary for me to step up because I didn’t think the children were being taken care of properly.
I’m aware of all of that?‑‑‑They ‑ ‑ ‑
So you’re not able to answer my question with a yes or no?‑‑‑If – sorry. If – if I saw the mother was taking care of them properly then I wouldn’t be so concerned about having them live with me.
And how much – like accepting – as Mr Wilkinson said – accepting your love and concern for the children would it not also be the case – and again, I apologise for the brusqueness of the question – but if the children remained living with the mother, wouldn’t that then effectively enable you and Ms V to continue to “develop your relationship” so that you have the best of both worlds, of being father but also taking whatever course – you know, the winds – you know, the winds of life take you and Ms V?‑‑‑Well – yes, I could just go and live with her and – but the problem is I care about the children.
No, no. I understand that. That’s what I’m saying. But wouldn’t it – if you could be satisfied and the court could be satisfied that the kids are okay with mum you would get the best of both worlds, wouldn’t you?‑‑‑In a sense.
In short: the Father’s evidence was candid. Like his life, it was unstructured. He has no obvious plan for his life, including his relationship with Ms V. He has quite limited experience in caring for his children, whom he obviously loves. He acted most appropriately in taking action to remedy serious dental problems for X. Otherwise, he has no obvious or clear plan for his children (or for his own life). While parenting is necessarily a “work in progress” which requires constant and ready adaptability, for someone of his age (mid 30s), I would have expected, if not hoped for, something more substantial on display to give the Court rather more confidence and certainty regarding the care and future of these young boys. That said, the Court’s “hopes and expectations” are not the relevant criteria; rather, s.60CA of the Act prescribes that the Court [only] make Orders that are in the children’s best interests. That is and remains the Court’s paramount consideration. In no critical way, the Court is playing (as it must do and does constantly), so to speak, with the deck the parties have presented.
I should in fairness emphasise that the Father did act most appropriately in attending to the very serious “teeth” issue, and he has been dogged in his pursuit for Orders that he considers to be in the children’s best interests.
However, subject to what is said later in these reasons, in my view (a) it would be much too radical a change to alter the primary residence of the children and place them primarily in the care of the Father, and (b) the children need both parents, and the parents need each other, both to counter, but more relevantly to complement, each other (as well as to monitor the care and welfare of the children). The Father needs to be and will be much more involved in the lives of the children. Initially there will be an arrangement whereby the children live primarily with the Mother and spend 5 nights per fortnight with the Father. When Y starts school, subject to any other agreement between the parties in writing, it shall move to an arrangement where the children live 8 nights per fortnight with the Mother and 6 nights per fortnight with the Father.
The Mother’s Evidence
Again in summarised form, the Mother’s evidence was as follows:
(a)The Mother and the Father were in a quite short relationship and where the Mother said that she sometimes lived with him (at the paternal Grandparent’s residence) and then moved out, with this process of moving in and out of this residence being somewhat commonplace (my word). When not living at that residence she lived with her parents;[19]
[19] T 76 - 79
(b)The Mother confirmed that she was assaulted by the Father in July 2014; she said that while there were some arguments with the Father, this was not all the time. She said that often she did not speak with the Father. There were arguments regarding the children’s diet, e.g. regarding the consumption (or not) of meat and animal products. She said that her views regarding the children’s diet had softened and were not as extreme as they had been in 2014;[20]
[20] T 81 - 82
(c)She confirmed that she did not get on well with a particular case-worker from a women’s support shelter ((omitted) Women's Accommodation). This person had noted the poor state of the Mother’s residence, the youngest child without a nappy and urinating on the floor. The Mother conceded that there were some occasions when the child was without a nappy but that she did not get on well with this case-worker (but did with an earlier worker) and that because of her not completely clear English she was probably misunderstood;[21]
[21] T 83 – 87. I note here that there was not much context of questions in relation to this matter, such as the size of the residence, the surrounding circumstances and the like. The Mother also said that she thought that because of the difficult relationship with this particular case-worker, the latter may have exaggerated matters in her notes, which were part of Exhibit D.
(d)The Mother said that she had changed her earlier view and was now willing to do a course to assist with parenting (previously she had taken the view that some of the “suggestions/recommendations” in this regard were intrusions into her parenting and therefore something of an invasion of her “privacy”). She also said that she was now willing for the children to have dairy products, and accepted that the Father [now] likely gave them meat;[22]
(e)There was regular discussion regarding the Mother’s views pertaining to immunisation of the children. Like a number of other matters, this was something regarding which the Mother said she had changed her opinion, albeit with some reluctance and somewhat recently.[23] In a slightly similar category of “children’s health”, the Mother confirmed that when the boys were babies she did not take them to any baby health centre to have them weighed or generally assessed. In her [then] view, she said that she could do such things herself and record them. This became rather problematic in Y’s case because he has now been assessed as having certain speech issues which need addressing through speech therapy;[24]
(f)The Mother said that she now accepted the need for the children to be vaccinated, again with obvious reservations.[25] In my view, this was one of a number of concerning issues in relation to the children’s health. With obvious significant reluctance, she had difficulty in accepting the detail and accuracy of information provided by the Commonwealth Department of Health regarding the benefits of immunisations that were annexed to one of the Father’s earlier affidavits (see Exhibit F, which is taken from the Father’s Affidavit affirmed 29th February 2016);
(g)The Mother confirmed that she still co-slept with the children; she recognised that they did not do this when they were with the Father, albeit that they slept on mattresses on the floor when with him. She said that, among other things, co-sleeping was her experience when she was growing up;[26]
(h)She said that she had not thought of the [negative] social impact on X of his very poor dental health and obvious tooth decay. Indeed, she said that socially X was fine.[27] Understandably, there was much focus on the state of X’s dental health and the Mother’s attention (or lack of it) to it. Relevant dental records and reports were attached the Father’s affidavits. As with the immunisation issue, X’s dental health was, at trial, and remains, a matter of high importance for the Court;
(i)The Mother has not worked in paid employment since 2010. She has one or more certificates (from TAFE) in (qualifications omitted). She obtained these qualifications in 2006. She has worked for a number of years as a (occupation omitted). She said that she did not think she would have any difficulty in regaining paid employment; she did not wish to return to employment until both boys were at school; and she was confident that she would be able to update her qualifications by volunteering;
(j)Her employment was an issue in the light of her desire that the children attend a private, (omitted) school and the necessary school fees (of $4000.00) per student per year) that would be incurred. She accepted that if she was unable to secure employment she would not be able to fund such fees and the children would have to attend a state school, which is the Father’s preference;[28]
(k)The Mother said that the children saw her parents every week, but very curiously also confirmed that they never slept over at her parent’s residence and that she did not know why.[29] She was not questioned further on this, in my view, rather implausible proposition of not knowing why this was the situation regarding the children’s maternal Grandparents;
(l)She said that SMS was working reasonably well for communication with the Father;[30]
(m)She also said (as she had done with the Family Consultant – see the Family Report at par.69) that she did not trust the Father and equally that she did not regard him as a “good person”. Such an assessment was based on her past experience of him. Nonetheless she confirmed that she wanted the children to have a relationship with him.[31]
[22] T 90 - 92
[23] See, among a number of places, T 94, 96, 99, 100 and 120.
[24] T 120 - 126
[25] T 100 - 108
[26] T 109
[27] T 113
[28] T 115 - 116
[29] T 118
[30] T 120. A large bundle of SMS messages was tendered by the ICL, which became Exhibit J.
[31] T 128 - 129
As with the Father, there is at least one excerpt of the Mother’s evidence that should be set out in full, which concerns X’s dental health, thus:[32]
[32] T 93 - 94
HIS HONOUR: So did you look up anything from say the Royal Australian College of Dental Surgeons? Did you look up their website?‑‑‑Yes. But they would have a biased view and ‑ ‑ ‑
Well, no, no, but ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Sorry.
Why? Surely their interest relates to promoting good dental health and hygiene. Would you accept that?‑‑‑Yes.
So why would they be likely to promote anything that is not going to promote good dental health and hygiene?‑‑‑I don’t know.
Well, you just said that they’re biased?‑‑‑Because – well, I was mistaken. Sorry.
You were mistaken about what?‑‑‑About them being biased.
So you say that they’re not biased?‑‑‑No.
So that if the college or a group associated with the college of dental surgeons promoted the use of fluoride, you would accept that that’s an authoritative dental health body which, in the absence of some expertise being able to be shown that they’re wrong, that what they say must be taken to be correct?‑‑‑Yes.
Would you accept that?‑‑‑Yes. What I meant to say was that – what I should have said was there’s more than just one. You have to look at more than one source, not just the Royal College of Dentists.
Is there some other body of dentists that would challenge the College of Dentists?‑‑‑I – I agree fluoride is good for the teeth; I agree about that. Like, I don’t disagree with fluoride being good for the teeth.
But you understand that I’ve got to make orders that are in the best interests of the children; understand that?‑‑‑Yes.
And that includes parental responsibility in relation to matters of health, education etcetera. And the father’s seeking orders, wherever the children live, that he have sole parental responsibility in relation to matters pertaining to health and education; you understand that that’s what he’s seeking?‑‑‑Yes.
And you understand, certainly, on the evidence that’s before the court thus far, both the written evidence – that is the documentary evidence – and your oral evidence could be taken to suggest that you have – and these are my words, of course – significant doubts or reservations about authoritative public health bodies, such as the College of Dentists, and what they do or don’t do and say and don’t say in relation to the care of teeth and dental hygiene; do you understand that?‑‑‑Yes
To say that the Mother showed a clear and convincing understanding of the importance of dental health, and or appreciation of expert evidence/opinion in relation to certain children’s health matters, was not readily evident. Giving every allowance for the Mother’s expressed change of heart, in my view, authoritative opinion, such as provided by the Father from the Commonwealth Department of Health in relation to immunisation of children and the dental reports, remains a challenge for the Mother and more generally, expert evidence in health matters is somewhat tempered by the Mother’s still rather oppositional or contrary beliefs. This is very much where the Father’s responsibility and efforts are to remain central.
As a general proposition, as with the Father, I found the Mother’s evidence to be lacking in a number of respects. While I did not, and do not, regard her as endeavouring to garnish (or varnish) the truth in any way, a number of her “changes of view” (e.g. notably in relation to immunisation and dental health) were not as certain or as fixed as I would like them to be. That said, I accept her evidence that while she and the Father once held very similar views in relation to diet and such other “life-style” matters, the Mother was clearly a more devoted follower of her views whereas the Father was rather more malleable.
It also seemed to me that, although her English was quite good (it not being her “Mother tongue”, which was (language omitted) – the Mother’s family are from (country omitted)), some nuance and similar things was not always readily appreciated by the Mother. This may have accounted for some interpretation and other issues over the life of the relationship, and especially for the Mother and her engagement with various figures of authority (e.g. case-workers) which did not always go easily.
The Evidence of the Family Consultant (The Report)
The Family Consultant, Ms D, prepared two reports: a “Limited Issues Report, dated 18th March 2016 (Exhibit I1), and a full Family Report, dated 12th January 2017 (Exhibit I2).
In relation to the Limited Issues Report it is sufficient to record that the Family Consultant there noted the significant concerns in relation to (a) X’s teeth and dental health generally (pars.21 – 27), and (b) immunisation of the children (pars.28 – 29). There was also somewhat passing reference to Y’s developmental issues. In her evaluation at that time, the Family Consultant said (at par.42) that in her view a change of residence of the children was not supported. She said that she hoped that matters would improve in relation to the health and other issues regarding the children. She also opined that it may become necessary to ask the Department of Family and Community Services to intervene in the matter, given the complexity and delicacy of the issues involved, including the competing and varying parenting capacities of each of the parties.
In her more detailed Report, dated 12th January 2017, I set out in full the following parts of the Report: (a) “Issues identified”, (b) “Observations of the children”, and (c) “Evaluation”.
Ms D identified the following matters for attention in her Report (pars.48 & 49):
(48) Poor Communication: There are significant communication difficulties and trust issues that are currently impeding the sharing of parenting information. The children are both very young and Y has been identified with a developmental delay in the area of communication that will require intensive and ongoing treatment. Any strategies devised to assist him will need to be implemented in both households if he is to make any progress. If the parents are unwilling to communicate at changeover, then it is suggested that a communication diary is utilised and that any strategies that the father is given to assist Y are documented and shared with the mother.
(49) The mother’s willingness to facilitate the children’s relationships with the father: The mother appears to be unwilling or unable to promote and encourage the children’s relationships with the father. She appears to be actively undermining these relationships as well as seeking to marginalise the role that he plays in the children’s lives. She continues to encourage the boys to refer to their father as ‘Mr Meldrum’ and has told X that he will be able to have a say as to whether he has to spend time with his father as soon as he is considered to be old enough to do so. The mother appears to be placing loyalty demands on the children that they are ill-equipped to deal with. The impact of the mother’s behaviour on the children will need to be taken into consideration if the matter should proceed to a final hearing. In the meantime, it would appear that the mother may benefit from attending a Parenting after Separation Course. An Order may be required.
It will be readily seen that further to the issues identified in the emboldened headings in the Family Consultant’s Report, other issues that are directly relevant to those to be determined, include the [historical] domestic violence of the Father towards the Mother, and notably the issues surrounding the dental and general health and hygiene of the children.
In relation to both children, Ms D observed as follows (pars.85 – 99):
(85) The children were initially observed together with the father and paternal grandmother and then together with the mother.
(86) The children played very well with one another, utilising a number of toys as well as the painting activity provided for them. Both boys are very active and Y was observed to enjoy building stacks of blocks with the father. Y did not verbalise during play, but X chattered continuously. The adults addressed both children during play.
(87) The interaction between the children and the adults was very appropriate and they were provided with food and drink during their time in the childcare room. The children were dressed in neat and appropriate clothing.
(88) The boys appeared to have a warm and affectionate relationship with one another. X was observed to pay a lot of attention to Y and he gave him lots of hugs and cuddles.
(89) Both children appeared to be very relaxed in the company of the father and paternal grandmother. Y started to cry when the father left the room and was immediately comforted by his brother, who put his arms around him and kissed the top of his head.
(90) The children appeared happy to see the mother upon her arrival in the childcare room and offered hugs and kisses. X was very keen to show her his paintings and craft which were laid out on the table. The mother gathered up the artwork and placed them in her bag, despite warnings from X that they were still wet and needed to dry. There was no discussion as to whether X might have wanted to take them home with him to the father’s house, regardless of the fact that the boys were in his care and would be going home with him.
(91) Soon after her arrival, the mother picked up Y and didn’t put him down again for the remainder of the observation session. At times, Y was hanging sideways in an attempt to look around her in order to see what X was getting up to with the toys. The mother then seated herself on the couch and placed Y across her body holding him tightly, as one might hold an infant. She offered Y her breast and he began to suckle. As soon as he stopped feeding and began looking at X, she flipped him over to the other side and offered the other breast. At no time did Y physically initiate feeding or attempt to verbalise a request to do so. Once he stopped drinking she continued to hold him on her lap, occasionally offering him the breast, although he didn’t appear very interested. X darted around trying to get her attention before eventually dragging a toy castle over to the couch. The mother and X then played a game together with the castle while Y watched from his mother’s lap.
(92) When it was time to end the observation session the boys separated easily from the mother and did not show any signs of distress. The mother used a number of delaying tactics, including giving the children bananas to eat. She did not appear to notice when X dropped part of his banana onto the carpet and left it there.
(93) The children seemed happy to be reunited with the father and paternal grandmother and left the childcare room in a positive mood.
Interviews with the children
(94) Y was not interviewed as he is non-verbal.
(95) X interviewed briefly. He separated easily from his father and grandmother and appeared quite happy to accompany the Family Consultant to her room. He wasn’t quite sure why he was being interviewed and suggested that the Family Consultant may be a teacher or a family friend. He didn’t seem to be aware of the Family Law proceedings.
(96) X said that he enjoys spending time with both of his parents and likes both of his homes. He described his father as a good cook and said that his favourite meal is pasta. He said that he and Y have lots of fun at his father’s house and that they have a lot of toys to play with. He said that he also enjoys being with his mother and that the best thing about his mother’s house is being allowed to play Zombies on the computer.
(97) X said that he is looking forward to starting school. He said that he does not have any worries or any problems in his life. He said that he doesn’t have bad dreams and sleeps well at night. He said that sometimes his brother wakes him up and will want to cuddle him to go back to sleep again. X said he fell out of bed recently, but didn’t hurt himself as the mattress is on the floor.
(98) X said that his parents don’t get on well and don’t speak to one another. When he was asked how this made him feel, he just shrugged and changed the subject.
(99) X seems to be well on track from a developmental perspective and no health issues or behavioural difficulties were reported or observed.
The “Evaluation” section of the Family Report (pars.100 – 110, plus the “Recommendation” of a single paragraph), was as follows:
(100) The children do not appear to be at risk of harm from family violence in either parent’s household at the current time; however, the Court will need to make a finding in regard to the parents’ behaviour after examining the evidence, if the matter is to proceed to a defended hearing.
(101) While the mother has historically been the children’s primary carer, they appear to have more recently developed a good attachment relationship with the father. At the current time, they appear to be quite happy to spend time with each of their parents and are able to transition fairly easily between the two households.
(102) Unfortunately, these parents have very different parenting styles and values and it would appear highly unlikely that they will find enough common ground to enable them to successfully co-parent their children into the future. This would appear to suggest that future parental conflict is both inevitable and unavoidable, unless things change dramatically.
(103) The best parenting arrangement for the children on a final basis would appear to be one that sees both children living primarily with one parent and spending alternate weekends and half school holidays with the other parent. This does not appear to be a matter suited to a shared-care arrangement. It is suggested that sole parental responsibility would need to be assigned to the parent with whom the children are to live.
(104) The father appears to have the ability to recognise and meet the children’s needs and is willing to accept and act on professional advice in regard to the children’s care. He appears willing to abide by Orders made by the Court.
(105) Some concerns remain as to the mother’s parenting capacity, particularly in regard to her practice of prioritising her own aspirational ideas and values over and above the children’s immediate needs (for example: in regard to dental care). It is also unfortunate that the mother appears unwilling to accept professional advice in regard to parenting issues and medical care, preferring to obtain her information from less mainstream sources. There are also concerns about her willingness to abide by Court Orders.
(106) While it is within an individual’s rights to make decisions that affect their own lifestyle, the Court will need to decide whether the mother’s parenting choices to date have incurred any negative consequences for the children and assess for future risk of harm in regard to the children’s care and development.
(107) If the Court finds that the risk to the children is reduced in one parent’s care, then it would make sense for the children to live primarily with that parent, whilst ensuring that steps are taken to minimise risk in the care of the other parent.
(108) The Court will also need to look at the ability or willingness of each parent to facilitate the children’s relationships with the other parent if the children are to be placed in their care. At the current time, the father seems more likely to facilitate the children’s relationships with the mother if they are to live with him, than the mother would be if the children were to be placed in her primary care. The same would apply to the allocation of parental responsibility, with the mother assessed as being unlikely to consult with the father or take on board any of his suggestions if she were to be given sole responsibility for decision making.
(109) If there is to be any form of shared care or co-parenting, both parents will need to make significant changes with regard to sharing information and improving trust and communication. It is suggested that they both separately attend Parenting after Separation courses such as those run by Relationships Australia and Interrelate. Both parents would also benefit from attending a parenting course such as the ‘Triple P’ Positive Parenting Program or 1,2,3 Magic. These are usually offered by Community Health Centres or by schools. It is suggested that the parents attend the same course as opposed to different courses.
(110) If no agreement is reached, the matter will need to proceed to a defended hearing. It is suggested that the interim orders are revisited prior to that occurring so as to ensure that the father is able to enrol Y at preschool/childcare in 2017.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Family Consultant supports the father’s proposal to increase his time with the children to include Sunday overnight time on an interim basis. It is suggested that the ICL monitors X’s school attendance over the 1st Semester.
Oral Evidence of the Family Consultant
The Family Consultant’s evidence was a tad difficult, primarily but not only for her, because (a) both parties provided during the course of the hearing different proposals in relation to their respective “Orders Sought”, with each parent seeking a sole parental responsibility Order in toto or at least in relation to specific long term issues (e.g. health and education), and (b) the early questions put to the Family Consultant by Counsel for the ICL combined issues of parental responsibility with a change in residence.[33] While related, in my view (which I expressed at the time on more than one occasion) each issue required distinct questions. This was undertaken with some difficulty.
[33] See T 133 - 138
The Family Consultant’s (Ms D) relatively brief evidence was as follows:
(a)At the time of her January 2017 Report, “communication between the parties” was an issue. Notwithstanding this, the children had, in her view, a good “attachment” to both parents;[34]
(b)The Family Consultant confirmed the accuracy of what she recorded at par.69 of her Report of the Mother’s very negative view of the Father;
(c)There was a discussion with the Family Consultant regarding the impact on the Mother (and later on the children) of the Father’s domestic violence towards her (described in her Report as “situational”).[35] This led her to agree with the proposition put to her that the domestic violence could be a reason (even a significant one) for the Mother’s lack of trust towards the Father;
(d)A series of questions were attempted by Counsel for the ICL regarding the need to manage a “transition” of the children from one parent to the other if there was to be a change in residence. Reasonably, she said that this would be important to ensure and further commented that probably it would be best, if it were to occur, to do so quickly and “jump in the deep end.”[36] While this line of questioning was unproblematic, as far as it went, there was no fundamental, precursor question as to whether there should be a change in residence for the children and if so, why this would or might be in their best interests. This occurred, in a manner of speaking, quite some time later;
(e)She further commented that if issues were not addressed pretty much immediately, to do so later would only exacerbate the problems faced by the children. This was perhaps most acute in the case of Y and his developmental issues, including speech;[37]
(f)The main “risk analysis” put to the Family Consultant occurred towards the end of her cross-examination on behalf of the ICL. It is apposite to set this out in full, thus:[38]
[34] T 139 - 140
[35] See T 143, 149-150 and 151
[36] T 144
[37] T 145 - 147
[38] T 148
So there’s a risk and benefit analysis to be considered. Do you agree with that?‑‑‑Absolutely.
The risk of damage to his relationship with his mother, if there’s a change of residence?‑‑‑Yes.
Yes. And if the court is not satisfied with her evidence about her bona fides in relation to addressing these issues, then the benefit is lost. So there comes – what I’m suggesting to you, Ms D, is on the material you’ve read, the two critical issues are ongoing risk, if the court finds the mother can’t be accepted and the need to put these things in place and avoid any further proceedings, if the court comes to that ..... and having read the – that’s really all I wanted to get to, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Sorry. I think the ICL has got another view.
MR ALLEN: Do you have a view on whether, if the children continue to live with the mother, and have significant time with the father, with sole parental responsibility for the medical and educational needs to the father, that this arrangement will meet the children’s long-term needs, satisfactorily, if there’s no change of residence?‑‑‑It’s hard to say.
What factors would help you in giving an opinion on that?‑‑‑I am concerned that, unless the mother actually believes that the children will benefit from the extra assistance and the medical care and the dental care, rather than it harming them I think that there is a good possibility that she will not follow through with her stated intentions, and that she will try and continue to undermine their relationship with the father. In the back of my mind, what I keep thinking about was her view that she kept pushing, that the older boy was resistant to spending time with the father, didn’t enjoy it and that, as soon as he got old enough, he would be able to have a voice and not go. And that rang a lot of alarm bells for me. I’m not sure that she is willing to follow through on her stated intentions, and I don’t think that she is willing to promote that relationship with the father. I think it will fall in a heap.
I move now to the submissions of the parties and the ICL. I note that while brief oral submissions were given on the third day of the trial, a written summary from each Counsel was provided, which is, in my view, more than sufficient for present purposes. Those submissions are set out in full below.
Submissions filed on behalf of the Applicant Father
The Father’s brief Written Submissions were as follows:
1) Family Violence – father convicted of physical assault on mother. Inexcusable. Father takes anger management course. Family Consultant says “situational violence” low future risk. (paras 25,26, oral evidence) Submission : would not in this case disqualify father from sole parental responsibility or children live primarily with him
2) Relationships: each party said to have good attachment to and appropriate loving relationships with each child. No apparent relationship problems for children with either extended family. Father assessed by Family Consultant to be likely to promote children’s relationship with mother, but reverse unlikely (para 69,108, oral)
3) The father has proved his capacity and focus in providing for the children’s health and educational needs, and there are no criticisms of his general care of them. The observations of the paternal grandmother, which are uncontested, carry weight here.
4) Conversely, the mother holds views which lead her to neglect serious health issues for the children, which have only received remedial attention at the hands of the father. The mother also failed to arrange inoculations, and was prepared to lie to the General Practitioner Dr W about this regarding X. (exhibit E). Normal post-natal care was not offered to either child. (Exhibit [sic] )
5) The mother is proposing education for the children in the (omitted) School System. This system provides an alternative to mainstream schooling and curricula. The mother produces no compelling or even reasonable evidence as to why this should occur, particularly for Y with his unique presentation. X is already in mainstream education and the mother advances no persuasive reason as to how a change would benefit him. Furthermore, the mother displayed a concerning lack of knowledge about the (omitted) School System during her evidence. For Y, the mother has refused to accept opinion that he needs to attend pre-school immediately to promote his development of language and social skills.
6) It is submitted that the mother’s lack of insight, negligence, and oppositional views are compelling in arriving at the conclusion that the father’s sole paternal responsibility interim orders for health and education issues must continue.
7) It is the father’s position that he ought to have overall sole parental responsibility to make things work. There is support from the Family consultant in her oral evidence, that splitting the parental responsibility was unworkable and likely to “fall in a heap”. Her assessment in para 108 of allocation of parental responsibility remains valid after an overall assessment of the evidence.
8) It is submitted that in this matter, with its peculiarities, allowing one party sole PR while the other has primary residential care is highly unlikely to work, and would only bring the parties back for further litigation.
9) The mother has demonstrated a lack of recognition of professional and or highly qualified advice offered to her. Her evidence provides no comfort that this has or would change. Even in the event that she has agreed with proposals, she routinely fails to follow through. It appears that she believes that she knows best, even when opposing highly qualified and accredited viewpoints.
Submissions filed on behalf of the Respondent Mother
In something of a contrast with the Father’s submissions, which focussed (understandably) very heavily on matters of evidence, the brief written Submissions on behalf of the Respondent Mother took (again quite understandably) a rather more “classical” approach with a focus on the so-called legislative scaffold or pathway. In my view this enabled Counsel for the Mother to take a more nuanced approach, and to provide something of a “small target” in relation to the Mother’s evidence to the degree that the Court may take a more adverse position regarding certain aspects of it. The Mother’s submissions were as follows:
S. 60CC Factors
Primary Considerations
(a) The benefit of a meaningful relationship with each of the child’s parents
Neither party denies the benefit of a meaningful relationship with the other.
(b) Protection from Harm
No issues are raised indicating an unacceptable risk to the child in either party’s care.
Additional considerations
(a) Any views expressed by the child
Appropriately, neither child was asked to express a view;
Although the children were relaxed in observation with the father by the Family Consultant, this does not indicate a desire by the children to live with the father in preference to living with the mother;
R & R (2000) 25 Fam LR 712 suggests a process of intuitive synthesis;
(b) Nature of the Relationships
In observation by the Family Consultant, children observed to be relaxed in the presence of the father;
In his trial affidavit, father gives evidence of his care of the children . No evidence led by the father of his relationship with the children.
Family Consultant gives evidence of the close relationship between the children.
No suggestion has been made that the children enjoy anything but a normal loving relationship with their mother.
(c) Extent to which the parents have involved themselves in the life of the child
The evidence is that the mother and the father lived under the same roof for periods of time during their relationship.
The father admits taking no part in the children’s lives between the birth of X in (omitted) 2011 and some time after final separation in July 2014.
The father spent long periods of time away from the mother and the child X pursuing his own interests. His evidence was that he had not contacted the mother for some months prior to X’s birth.
(ca) Participation in the maintenance of the child
The father admits that he did not and has not provided meaningful financial support to his children.
It is clear from the father’s evidence that he has no viable plan for future support of his children.
He states, with regard to Ms V, that she is, and presumably will remain, the breadwinner.
(d) Likely Impact of Changes in Children’s Circumstances
The two children have lived their entire lives with their mother and have not, at any stage, spent more than two or three nights away from her.
She has been their primary carer and quite clearly has a strong bond with the two boys.
A change of residence to the father has the potential to have a deleterious effect upon the lives of the children and their relationship with their mother.
(e) Practical Difficulty of a Child Spending Time and Communicating with a Parent
The parents live relatively close to one another, being a short bus journey apart.
At present neither parent is qualified to drive a motor vehicle, nor does either parent own a vehicle.
(f) Capacity of Parents to Provide for Children’s Needs
The father elected not to take part in the care of the children until sometime in 2014.
Since that time, the father has not had the care of the children in excess of two nights.
Throughout that time, the father has lived with the paternal grandmother, who has provided support.
The father’s parenting capacity has yet to be demonstrated.
The father criticises the mother’s parenting capacity on the grounds of her alternative lifestyle, including her views on diet and education.
The mother acknowledges that her vegetarian approach to diet will not be followed by the father when the children are in his care and makes no issue of that.
In cross-examination, the father demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the (omitted) School system and enunciated views on the subject of education which may well be better satisfied in fact by the (omitted) School system.
(i) Attitude to the Child and Responsibilities of Parenthood.
The father’s attitude to his responsibilities is clearly demonstrated by his absence for the first three years of X’s life.
It is also demonstrated by his complete rejection of any financial responsibility for his children.
The father freely admits past and continuing access to pornography and believes that his boys should be introduced to pornography at some stage.
.(j) Family Violence Involving a Child
The father admits family violence on at least two occasions.
(k) Family Violence Order
There is no current AVO.
S.61DA
Both parties seek sole parental responsibility.
The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility is rebutted by the father’s admission of family violence.
S.65DAA
Neither party seeks equal time.
The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility having been rebutted, your Honour is not required to consider equal time.
Submissions filed on behalf of the Independent Children’s Lawyer
The Independent Children’s Lawyer’s submissions were as follows:
1) Parental Responsibility. Neither the Mother nor the Father seek equal shared responsibility. Each want sole. Despite the encouragement of the text messages and cross-examination about their initial applications this remains. If the children remain living with the Mother, allocation of parental responsibility for health and education to the Father must be considered. The Father has had responsibility for health and has been addressing the dental issues raised by the ICL. The evidence is that the Mother was opposed to educational issues for both children that were in their best interests.
The issue of family violence was assessed by the [sic] Ms D and her evidence. The period of either cohabitation or merely sharing a home is now clear and must be considered when assessing this factor along with what appears to be the absence of such violence since separation consistently with parenting plans and other arrangements for the children. The Father failed to file an affidavit from Ms V on this issue.
2) Communication between the parties. The texts give some solace that the parties can communicate about day to day matters. An order for that is sought. The parties have communicated about long term matters in those texts and an order for consultation before making a long term decision is sought by the ICL.
4) Residence. The Mother’s alteration of position is recent in relation to (a) vaccination, (b) dental and (c) education. The history of the matter and her evidence in cross-examination is such that the Court would have no confidence that this is other than lip service. If the Mother truly remains of the opinion she had consistently expressed in relation to these matters, then what is clearly required will not occur if the children are living with her or not occur in a dedicated way.
The relationship of the children to the Mother appears clear. The problems leading to the ICL affidavit are on her substantial watch.
Both parties have not included in their affidavits matters of confidence or benefit about the relationship of the children with the other parent. It may be inferred from the parenting agreements that the Father has reposed some faith in the capacity of the mother as a residence parent until the matters in his affidavit. The Mother is the more worrying since she would prefer no contact and told the FC so at 96. She was reluctant in the Issues report to accept that the children would have the relationship observed and appears to remain of that view.
The Mother has failed to engage in services such as Brighter Futures and rejects the need for any assistance from anyone as an invasion of privacy. Her view only changed because things were produced on subpoenae. The Mother has not done parenting courses. The Father has sought assistance, has the support and familiar home of his Mother and her evidence is unchallenged. The cross-examination of the Mother by Mr Sundstrom, exhibit “D”.
The Mother is often late for appointments of importance with the children with such frequency as to suggest lack of commitment or disorganization.
4) Alternatives to a change of residence include the alternative proposal of the Father that allows him to meet the needs of Y for medical appointments, i.e. substantial time with the Father together with sole parental responsibility for medical, dental and education. The needs of the children especially Y and the submission that the Mother’s changed views are lip service require the orders sought by the Father.
5) Whether the trauma of a change of residence is such that it ought not to be done. The Father did not seek a meaningful relationship with the children for a period after birth until 2012 and they have not spent more than two nights at a time with him. This must be balance with the benefit to the children, especially of Y in having their medical and educational needs met in a dedicated was by the Father. The risk of the Mother not pursuing or not pursing in a dedicated way the needs of the children will lead to further proceedings and further damage to the children in that period.
The relationship of the Mother to her family and the children to her family was not the subject of any affidavit from her parents or her sister despite Ms D’s evidence.
Outline of Principle
It is as well to set out the most basic jurisprudential touchstones in parenting matters as follows. In doing so, I am especially conscious that on the facts and circumstances of the current proceeding, particular emphasis needs to be given to the protection of the children regarding health matters. In my view, this can and will properly be achieved by Orders for the Father to have sole parental responsibility in relation to such matters.
In Mazorski v Albright, in the light of, and by reference to, relevant Full Court authority, Brown J conveniently set out an overview of principle in relation to Part VII of the Act. Respectfully and gratefully I adopt her Honour’s comments. Brown J said:[39]
[3] The provisions in the Family Law Act 1975 (the Act) relating to children rest on twin pillars. The first is the importance to children of having a meaningful relationship with both parents; the second is the need to protect children from physical and psychological harm. These are stressed in s.60B(1) which sets out the objects of the legislation relating to children and are reiterated as the primary considerations in s.60CC(1).
[4] When deciding what parenting orders to make it is the best interests of the children which are the paramount consideration. In determining where those best interests lie, the Court must consider the primary and additional considerations set out in s.60CC.
[5] There is a presumption that it is in a child’s best interests for his or her parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for him or her (s.61DA). The presumption relates to the allocation of parental responsibility, not the time a child spends with each parent. The presumption does not apply if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent has engaged in abuse of the child or family violence. The presumption may be rebutted if the Court finds that it would not be in the best interests of the child for it to apply.
[6] If the presumption applies, and there is an order for equal shared parental responsibility, the court must consider whether spending equal time with each parent would be in the child’s best interests (s.65DAA(1)) and, if no such order is made, consider whether spending substantial and significant time with each would be in the child’s best interests (s.65DAA(2))
[39] Mazorski v Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518 at [3] – [6]. Brown J’s comments were endorsed by Boland J (with whom May & O’Reilly JJ agreed) in Moose & Moose (2008) FLC ¶93-375 at [67] – [68].
Her Honour also made important observations about “meaningful” as that term is used in Part VII of the Act in the context of what is comprehended by a “meaningful relationship.” Beginning at [20], through to [26], her Honour outlined a range of considerations. I set them out below, and again respectfully (and gratefully) adopt Brown J’s observations, thus:[40]
[40] Brown J’s remarks in this regard were endorsed by the Full Court in Moose & Moose (2008) FLC ¶93-375 at [69], and more recently by a differently constituted Full Court in McCall & Clark (2009) 41 Fam LR 483 at [115] & [121]. More recently still, a further Full Court in Collu & Rinaldo [2010] FamCAFC 53 at [335], similarly endorsed Brown J’s remarks.
[20] The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill Revised Explanatory Memorandum (2006) refers to the concept of a meaningful relationship on a number of occasions. At para 52 it noted that the primary factors mirror the first two objects set out in the new s.60B and that the objects are elevated to primary considerations as they deal with important rights of children and encourage a child-focused approach. The paragraph continues:
The elevation of the object relating to the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents is consistent with the introduction of a presumption in favour of equal shared parental responsibility.
[21] Here, the concept of a meaningful relationship is closely tied with the introduction of the presumption of equal shared responsibility, and the passage links the concept of a meaningful relationship with the objects of the Division. The objects use the words “meaningful involvement”.
[22] At para 128, discussion of a meaningful relationship is again linked to discussion of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, the explanatory memorandum noting:
The government considers that it is important to ensure that a child has a meaningful relationship with both parents and that both parents participate in decisions about the child. The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility is not a presumption of 50:50 joint custody. The presumption relates solely to the decision making responsibilities of both parents. New section 65AA inserted by Item 31 is the provision dealing with the time a child spends with each parent and the circumstances where the court should consider equal time arrangements.
[23] When considering s 65DAA, the explanatory memorandum states (at [196]–[199]):
[196] Subsection 65DAA(2) recognises that an equal time arrangement will not be appropriate in some cases but that the court must consider other arrangements that promote a meaningful relationship. This provision places an obligation on the court in situations where there is equal shared parental responsibility and equal time is not appropriate, to consider whether it would be in the best interests of the child and reasonably practicable for the child to spend substantial and significant time with both parents. This is intended to ensure that in making parenting orders related to time that the court focuses not just on the substantial quantity of time that is spent with each parent, but also on the significant type of time. The note in this section emphasises that the best interests of the chid remain the paramount consideration for parenting orders. This is set out in s 60CA by item 9.
…
[199] Section 65DAA (2) — (4) is intended to ensure that the courts consider arrangements that are much more than “1 weekend a fortnight and half of the holidays” or an 80:20 arrangement. It is intended to ensure a focus both on the amount of time and the type of time. It would include both day time contact and night time contact. It recognises that what is important is that the focus be on ways that both parents are able to develop a meaningful relationships with their children and share important events including everyday time with the child. It recognises that in order to have a meaningful relationship and to share equal shared responsibility that this would generally involve “both” parents spending both substantial and significant time with their children.
[24] The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1993, defines “meaningful” as “full of meaning or expression; significant; amenable to interpretation; having a recognisable function in a language or sign system; able to function as a term in such a system”. “Meaning” is defined as “having intention or purpose; chiefly with a qualifying adverb (as well-meaning)”. A second definition is “conveying or expressing meaning or thought; expressive, meaningful, significant; suggestive”. These definitions are repeated and further fleshed out in the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989. It defines “meaning” (in generalised use) as “significance”. The examples provided take the matter no further.
[25] The Macquarie Dictionary, 4th ed, Macquarie University Press, Sydney, 2005, defines meaningful as “full of meaning; significant”. Within the definitions of meaning, the relevant one defines the word as “expressive or significant: a meaning look”.
[26] What these definitions convey is that “meaningful”, when used in the context of “meaningful relationship”, is synonymous with “significant” which, in turn, is generally used as a synonym for “important” or “of consequence”. I proceed on the basis that when considering the primary considerations and the application of the object and principles, a meaningful relationship or a meaningful involvement is one which is important, significant and valuable to the child. It is a qualitative adjective, not a strictly quantitive [sic] one. Quantitive [sic] concepts may be addressed as part of the process of considering the consequences of the application of the presumption of equally shared parental responsibility and the requirement for time with children to be, where possible and in their best interests, substantial and significant.
Consideration
Before dealing with the statutory scaffold, I note the following matters that provide (a) context and (b) highlight what I consider to be the main factors that weigh heaviest on my mind in making Orders that I consider to be in the children’s best interests.
On the Father’s side, his recent attention to X’s dental health was very important. Conversely, the Mother’s lack of attention to such a fundamental issue was and remains very concerning. This is especially the case since it was an issue that was highlighted by the Family Consultant in her limited issues Report in March 2016. It would seem inescapable to conclude that she did nothing, or very little, from the date of that Report until the Father intervened and took remedial action.
Also of very significant concern is the Mother’s almost antipathy to expert opinion in relation to the value and importance of vaccinations for children. While parents are entitled to their own views on a very wide number of things, it cannot extend to a degree of considered wilfulness to choose to ignore, and thereby put in peril the health and well-being of a child (and in turn of other children with whom that non-vaccinated child comes into contact), proper and publicly disseminated material by public health authorities.
The Mother needs to be reminded in the strongest possible terms of not only the health risks to the children if she does not properly and very diligently attend to their needs (this obviously must include dental needs of the children), but also the personal risks that could ultimately lead, in a worst case scenario, to a Court finding her to be negligent in the care of the children.
The other matters that weigh heavily in my considerations regarding the best interests of the children are (a) the domestic violence perpetrated against the Mother by the Father to which he pleaded guilty, (b) the fact that the Mother has been the children’s primary carer all of their lives (and the related fact that the Father was significantly absent from the lives of the children for considerable periods of time when they were very young), and (c) the Father’s almost abject lack of plan for his life, whether it be in relation to the children and or regarding his relationship with Ms V. Among other things, one might expect that she would want some certainty in her life, just as the children should be able to expect the same. It is concerning that the Father filed no evidence from her; likewise the Mother filed no evidence from anyone in her family.
I turn then to the “scaffold” or “pathway”. I should be taken to follow in order the “considerations” in s.60CC(3) without necessarily naming each sub-category, unless otherwise required.
Given the ages of the children there are no relevant “views” for the Court to consider.
There is no question or issue that the evidence supports a finding that the children have a good and close relationship with both parents. No findings, or even comments, are possible regarding their relationships with others, such as Ms V or the maternal Grandparents. There is no relevant evidence to do so.
Matters embraced by the considerations in sub-paragraphs (c), (ca), (f), (g) and (i) may be dealt with in the following way by reference to the evidence and observations on it.
First, I have already commented on the various capacities of both parents, notably the remedial work of the Father in relation to X’s teeth and the issues, negatively speaking, from the Mother’s relevant lack of attention to them. Likewise, I have noted the Father’s absence from the children’s lives when they were very young while he attended to “other things”, and equally so his general lack of any relevant plan for his life or for theirs. Giving every allowance for much needed “flexibility” and “go with the flow” approaches to life, for my part it is concerning that a Father of the age of the Applicant has not applied himself to anything to advance his position, or that of his family. This is so notwithstanding him having completed a course as a (occupation omitted), but to little or no practical effect flowing from it.
In short, both parents have not insignificant deficiencies in relation to their parenting capacities and the exercise of relevant responsibilities towards the children. If one was to be utterly crass about such things and use a very utilitarian measure, most recently, the negative column for the Mother in this regard would be significantly “negative”, primarily because of her lack of attention to X’s teeth, and equally so to Y’s developmental issues.
Secondly, the other difficulty the Mother faces, as she did at trial, is that there was no evidence about how she would afford to pay for the children’s tuition at the (omitted) School of her choice. In those circumstances I do not see how she can, or should, enrol them in such a school. Her evidence was that she would get a job without much difficulty. Her optimism was important but it does not constitute much in the weight that should be given to that evidence. Unless and until both parents agree on the children attending some alternative school and have demonstrated the means to pay for it, both children should attend the nearest government-run school.
Further, while the Mother is doubtless committed (in her own ways) towards the well-being of the children, she has not properly followed basic care (or standard information) in relation to dental and developmental matters for the children. She has her reasons for doing so. In my view, they are not sufficient to displace the information and advice from public health and other health professionals. She is to follow their advice diligently and promptly. If not, the children, as will she, will pay a heavy price for not doing so.
I accept that part of her parenting responsibilities have been hampered somewhat by (a) the Father’s early and long absences, and (b) the unusual but sometimes difficult (it would seem) relationship with her family.
On the Father’s side, while he has now come back into the children’s lives in recent years and has attended to them diligently, the actual time-with arrangement with them has meant that he does not have a large amount of experience in the ongoing, day-to-day care of the children. He has, as it were, the benefit of all worlds: he has the immense benefit of his ongoing, sort of committed relationship with Ms V, who remains the “bread-winner”, and much else besides, so that he has regular “diversional and respite” therapy available to him that the Mother does not. He also regularly has the benefit and support of his Mother in the care of the boys when they are with him, which the Mother does not.
In terms of “practical difficulty” as countenanced by sub-paragraph (e), neither parent owns a car (or has a licence) and therefore is dependent upon public transport. Fortunately, both parents live within relative proximity to each other – when the Father is not in Sydney.
I have noted a few times in these reasons the aspect of domestic violence. While it was historical, it was nonetheless a matter of some significance, which may (as the Family Consultant acknowledged) have impacted on the Mother’s level of trust (or lack of it) and disposition towards the Father.
For completeness, I note the Family Consultant’s evidence to the effect that because of the lack of communication she did not think that a shared care arrangement was appropriate. In this regard I note the following “antidote” to such a [frequent] problem.
A so-called “antidote” (of sorts) was canvassed briefly with the Father during the trial.[41] This was that he was agreeable to attending monthly facilitated parenting meetings with the Mother to discuss and to resolve parenting issues. In my view, given the lack of “structure” and planning in the lives of these parents, such a course (and an Order to achieve this) is essential.
[41] See T 54 - 56
Disposition
The fundamental difficulty with this matter, as it is with many others, is that there is no “optimal” Order that is in the best interests of the children, including what might, conceivably lead to less litigation in the future. For example, if the children’s residence is changed to that of the Father, it may well impact adversely on/in their relationship with their Mother, especially since she has been their primary carer since birth.
But if the children remain living with the Mother, there is the risk that she will (a) not diligently follow public health directions and advice, and (b) not promote the children’s relationship with the Father.
To deal with these matters, the following Orders are, in my view, in the children’s best interests (some of the comments here are somewhat more general while the Orders obviously set out in detail the precise parameters of the authority and responsibility of the parents):
(a)Both parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the children, X and Y. However, in the event that the parents are unable to agree in relation to matters concerning health and education, the Father shall have the final authority to make any decisions in relation to such matters.[42]
[42] Such an Order requires the Court to consider the operation of s.65DAA of the Act, including whether an “equal time” arrangement is in the best interests of the children. While formally not a shared care or equal time arrangement, the Orders in effect relevantly amount to such an equation. In my view, with the other Orders, they are in the best interests of the children.
(b)Subject to any other agreement between the parties in writing, until Y starts school, the children shall live primarily with the Mother (for nine [9] nights per fortnight) and with the Father for five [5] night per fortnight.
(c)When Y commences school, subject to any other agreement between the parties in writing, the children shall live eight (8) nights per fortnight with the Mother and six (6) nights per fortnight with the Father.
(d)Both parties shall attend facilitated parenting meetings as follows:
(i)Arrange and attend, every month for 12 months, a facilitated parenting business meeting. It shall be facilitated by an accredited mediator (or other recognised professional, for example, the Family and Relationships Centre);
(ii)For each meeting, in the absence of an agreed agenda, each party shall provide the mediator with an agenda of no more than 6 items. At the conclusion of each mediation session, the mediator/facilitator shall provide the Court with the agreed or individual agenda and a note (of no more than one paragraph) regarding what:
1. matters were agreed and what were not;
2. what (if any) the stumbling blocks were encountered; and
3. why and who, in the view of the mediator, was responsible for the agreement or disagreement.
(e)The children shall spend half of each school holidays with each parent.
(f)Standard orders for birthdays, Father’s and Mother’s day, telephone communication etc.
In my firm view, these parents need some basic order and stability in their lives which needs to flow on to their children. They also need some mechanism that will bring a degree of responsibility and accountability to their lives and the decisions they take in relation to the children. The Orders of the Court are designed to provide these checks and balances. With the Father’s formalised extra time with the children, he can more regularly monitor their well-being and take appropriate action if necessary. This is especially so because of the ultimate decision-making responsibility given to him in relation to matters relating to the health and education of the children.
Likewise, the monthly facilitated parenting meeting (I would expect that the facilitator would be someone from Relationships Australia or similar organisation) is intended to facilitate the communication between the parties. If these Orders are properly followed, it should minimise the prospect of any further litigation, which can only benefit everyone.
I certify that the preceding sixty (60) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Neville
Date: 15 February 2018
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
-
Injunction
0
2
2