METFORD & FADDIN (No.2)

[2018] FCCA 3001

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

METFORD & FADDIN (No.2) [2018] FCCA 3001

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Children – sole parental responsibility because of failure to communicate – children to live with mother and spend five nights per fortnight with the father.

Legislation:

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

Applicant: MR METFORD

Respondent: MS FADDIN

File Number: BRC 9993 of 2017

Judgment of: Judge Cassidy

Hearing date: 24 August 2018

Date of Last Submission: 24 August 2018

Delivered at: Bundaberg

Delivered on: 25 October 2018

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Self-represented

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Drysdale

Solicitors for the Respondent: Baker, O'Brien & Toll

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS ON A FINAL BASIS:

1. That the children [W] born … 2006 (“[W]”), [X] born … 2007 (“[X]”), [Y] born … 2009 (“[Y]”), and [Z] born … 2011 (“[Z]”), (collectively referred to as “the children”), live with the mother.

2. That the mother shall have sole parental responsibility for the children on the basis that:

   (a)The mother is to advise the father (by email) about the decision to be made and make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision; and

   (b)Should the parties not be able to agree, then the mother is to make the decision.

Time with

1. That the children shall spend time (and communicate with) the father at all such reasonable times as might be agreed upon between the parties, but failing agreement as follows –

   (a)During the school term, every second week from the conclusion of school on Friday afternoon until the commencement of school on Wednesday morning, commencing from Friday 2 November 2018 (and if Wednesday is a pupil free day or public holiday, then changeovers shall occur at Location C in Town K at 8:00am);

   (b)For alternating weeks (the first week in 2018 and every even numbered year thereafter, the second week in 2019 and every odd numbered year thereafter), of each Queensland government gazetted school holiday period from 3:00pm on the Friday prior to holidays commencing to 3:00pm on the Friday immediately prior to the conclusion of the holiday period, on the basis that –

   i.The provisions of sub-paragraph 3 (a) shall be suspended during all school holiday periods (but notionally continue in the background); and

   ii.Changeovers shall occur at the Location C in Town K;

   (c)Reasonable telephone and FaceTime contact on each evening that the children are not spending time with the father in accordance with these Orders. The mother shall have the same privileges on each evening when the children are spending time with the father in accordance with these Orders; and

   (d)For the purposes of the preceding sub-paragraph, each party shall facilitate any reasonable request by any of the children to exchange messages with the other party.

2. That notwithstanding anything contained in these Orders –

   (a)If the children are not otherwise with the mother, then they shall spend Mother’s Day with the mother (from 9:00am to 5:00pm) with changeovers to occur at Location C in Town K; and

   (b)If the children are not otherwise with the father, then they shall spend Father’s Day with the father (from 9:00am to 5:00pm) with changeovers to occur at Location C in Town K.

Specific issues

1. That the mother and father shall –

   (a)Keep the other parent informed at all times of their residential address and landline contact telephone numbers;

   (b)Keep the other parent informed of the names and addresses of any treating medical or other health practitioners that treat the children and authorise that practitioner to provide the other parent with information that they are lawfully able to provide about the children;

   (c)Inform the other parent as soon as reasonably practicable of any medical condition, significant health issue or illness suffered by the children. This Order authorises any treating medical practitioner to release the children’s medical information to the other parent.

2. That the parents authorise, by this Order, the schools attended by the children to give each parent information about the children’s educational progress and other school related activities and supply them with copies of school report, photographs, certificates and awards obtained by the children (at that parent’s cost).

3. That during the time the children are with either parent that parent shall –

   (a)Respect the privacy of the other parent and not question the children about the personal life of the other parent;

   (b)Speak of the other parent respectfully; and

   (c)Not denigrate or insult the other parent in the presence or hearing of the children and use their best endeavours to ensure that others do not denigrate or insult the other parent in the hearing or presence of the children.

4. That contact between the parties shall be –

   (a)Limited to matters directly concerning the children; and

   (b)By way of email.

Costs

1. That the mother file and serve any written submissions she seeks to rely on in relation to the costs issue, by no later than 4:00pm on 8 November 2018.

2. That the father file and serve any written submissions he seeks to rely on in relation to the costs issue, by no later than 4:00pm on 22 November 2018.

3. That the matter be adjourned for judgment in relation to costs at 9:30am on 30 November 2018 in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Brisbane.

4. That both parties be at liberty to appear by telephone on 30 November 2018, provided that each party notify the Court by email ([email protected]) or by telephone [phone]) of an appropriate contact number by no later than 4:00pm on 23 November 2018.

5. That all pending applications and previous Orders shall be otherwise dismissed.

IT IS NOTED:

A.That pursuant to section 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 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 “Parenting orders – obligations, consequences and who can help” and these particulars are included in these Orders.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Metford & Faddin (No.2) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRC 9993 of 2017

MR METFORD

Applicant

And

MS FADDIN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. Sadly for the children in this matter there has been a long history of litigation. There are four children, [W] born … 2006 (“[W]”), [X] born … 2007 (“[X]”), [Y] born … 2009 (“[Y]”), and [Z] born … 2011 (“[Z]”), (collectively referred to as “the children”).

2. [Z], the youngest child, was born in June 2011 and the parties separated shortly thereafter in August 2011. In March of 2012, the father filed an Initiating Application for parenting orders. Judge Coates made final Orders for parenting following a contested hearing on 14 February 2013. The Judge, in his published reasons records at paragraphs 32 to 37:

   “32. … It brings into consideration the capacity and responsibility to parenthood consideration stated in ss.60CC(3)(f) & (i) of the Act.

   33. I also observed the recurring disagreements in a number of day-to-day issues, which undermine the basis for long term decision-making.

   34. The communication concern was also manifested in a series of written communications between the parents, but particularly from the father, where such communications have to be regarded as being denigrating and abusive of the mother.

   35. Pages of text messages are attached to the mother’s material, calling her a liar, accusing her of infidelity, that she is mentally disturbed and other things. They accuse her solicitor of acting improperly and engaging in bullying tactics – of which there was no evidence. They make vulgar references about her sex life. The father expressed some of these things to Mr B.

   36. In assessing these events as a s.60CC(3)(c) factor, I am doubtful that such correspondence was going to reflect a willingness and ability to encourage the relationship. In evidence the father said things had changed since the report was written four months before trial. He said his frustrations had lessoned. Yet in August he wrote to the Child Support Agency complaining that he found the mother confrontational and that she had lust for money. He agreed that his sister had said the mother had a personality disorder, an obsessive compulsive disorder and he also said he had researched this issue.

   37. This type of evidence does not auger well for the future and the father needs to be careful that he does not draw the children into the dispute as they grow older, because it may be difficult not to make comments to them about the mother. The criticism was also at odds with some evidence that the father was wanting to reconcile. He said his previous hope to reconcile lead him to asking very personal questions about the mother’s partners. That is an odd explanation.”

3. The father filed a further Initiating Application on 21 September 2017. The mother sought to put forward the preliminary argument that there was no change in circumstances. That argument was unsuccessful. However, having heard this trial and the father’s concerns about the mother as identified by Judge Coates, there has been no change of circumstance on those issues.

The mother’s proposal

1. The mother seeks the orders set out in the minute attached to her outline of case document filed 17 August 2018. If I were to make those orders, the children would remain living with her and would continue to spend five nights per fortnight with the father. The only difference would be that the nights were split over the two weeks with the 2013 Orders and now they would be consecutive. The mother’s orders provide for her to have sole parental responsibility. In this respect they do not differ from the Orders made by Judge Coates.

2. I note the mother now concedes that the changeover can occur at Location C, rather than Location D set out in her draft order. Otherwise her orders provide for half of all school holidays, telephone time and some non-contentious specific issues orders. The mother is also seeking an order for costs fixed in the sum of $32, 762.37.

The father’s proposal

1. The father’s proposal is set out in his ‘Amended orders sought by the Appellant’ (sic) document filed 10 November 2017. The father seeks equal time and equal shared parental responsibility. The father sought an order that [Z] be baptised but that is no longer necessary as this has occurred.

2. The father’s amended orders sought, also seek that his partner, Ms A, be permitted to facilitate changeovers if the father is not available.

Background

1. The father is forty-four years old. He will be forty-five on … 2018. The mother is forty-two years old, she was born on … 1976. The parents married on … 2006.

2. The children are now aged twelve, ten, eight and seven respectively. The final Orders made by Judge Coates were pronounced on 14 February 2013. The father appealed that decision and the parties agreed on an order that varied the final Order of Coates J, and the father then discontinued his appeal.

3. The final Orders have been in place since 2013 that provided for the five nights with the father in a two/three night arrangement across weeks one and two.

4. The children attend School E. The mother works part-time as a driving instructor while she studies part-time at Employer F. The mother is studying for a degree. The mother also occasionally works for Employer G as a casual.

5. The father works as a tradesman. He lives with his partner, Ms A. The father and Ms A have a son, [C], who is now two years old. Ms A has two children of her own from a previous relationship who live with her and their father in an equal time arrangement.

6. The father admitted to retaining the children on a number of occasions in June and July 2018. The mother filed an Application in a Case. That Application was heard and Orders were made on 18 July 2018 that changed the existing parenting arraignments so the five nights were in a block from after school Thursday until before school Tuesday.

Education

1. [W] is twelve years old. The father’s evidence, which was not challenged is that she is “the perfect student, caring, compassionate, attentive and meticulous with her book work.”

2. [X] is eleven years old. Again the father’s unchallenged evidence is “he has extremely advanced problem solving abilities … [X] is very smart.”

3. [Y], aged eight, is on the father’s case “academically a high achiever.” [Y] also loves sports and is naturally good at any sport he tries.

4. [Z] who is seven, is on the father’s evidence “very intelligent,” and “learns quickly at school and is up the top of her class.”

5. I accept the father’s evidence and I am able to conclude that these children are doing well at school, enjoy sports and behave well while in his care.

Domestic violence and abuse

1. This is not a matter where there are any issues of domestic violence or allegations of violence or abuse of the children by either parent.

The parties’ capacity to communicate

1. This was an issue that was of concern as evidenced in the judgment of Coates J. I am not persuaded that the parties are any closer to being able to communicate now.

2. The father’s Affidavit is replete with complaints about the mother’s decisions in relation to the children. The father referred back to [X]’s asthma, an issue discussed by Judge Coates. The father is critical of the mother for how she dealt with [Z]’s baptism. The father also complains about [W] and [X] completing their sacraments. The father describes a bus incident that occurred on 21 May 2018. I consider the incident was no one’s fault from the evidence I have seen. The father however swears that the mother “lied in her recollection of events.”

3. The expert, Ms H, records at paragraph 168 of her report:

   “168. It is unlikely that Mr Metford and Ms Faddin have the capacity to effectively establish a co-parenting relationship. For ‘joint parental responsibility’ to succeed the parties have to be prepared to maintain a child focused perspective at all times.”

4. The family report goes on to note at paragraph 172:

   “172. Joint parental responsibility presupposes a cooperative parenting approach based on trust and effective communication; there is at present no evidence of any initiative to cooperation, nor is there any agreement about these particularly important aspects.”

The father’s attitude to the mother

1. Coates J raised a concern in his judgment about the father’s attitude to the mother, referring to pages of material calling the mother a liar, accusing her of infidelity and that she is mentally disturbed. The present case has the father raising the same concerns about the mother. This is evidenced in the father’s Affidavit filed 20 August 2018 in which he says:

   “Mothers tactics (sic)

   52) Ms Faddin is relying on character assassination, manipulation of facts and fabricating events. Anything that has no proof from Ms Faddin should be dismissed…

   53) Ms Faddin is extremely good at fabricating stories sprinkled with dialogue or incidents that are believable and at times may contain truths that have been twisted and manipulated to suit her agenda.”

2. The father sets out under the heading ‘Mother’s relationship’:

   “90) The mother is not guarded in her relationships. She has had a minimum of a dozen failed relationships that the children have been witness to.

   …

   93) I have met some of these men and had conversations with some during and after the eventual breakup of their relationship with Ms Faddin. The common theme with Ms Faddin’s failed relationships has to do with Ms Faddin’s manipulative behaviour.

   94) (omitted) informed me that they separated because we spoke at a function. He said she gave him an ultimatum to never speak with me again or break up, but due to him being a lifetime member of Football club I and a coach that he was not able to agree to her request…

   95) Another told me they separated because he recognised that Ms Faddin was trying to shut me out of the children’s lives and when he asked why she would do that, she ended the relationship.

   96) Our eldest daughter [W] came to me when she was six saying she had seen Ms Faddin’s boyfriend Mr J naked.”

3. The father repeats a concern he raised with Coates J. His Affidavit records:

   “96) Our eldest daughter [W] came to me when she was six saying she had seen Ms Faddin’s boyfriend Mr J naked.”

   Coates J did not accept that evidence.

The father’s involvement of the children in the proceedings

1. The father gives evidence of the mother discussing the family report with the children. The father then gives evidence of what the children said to him at paragraphs 25 to 30 of his Affidavit filed 20 August 2018. The father had little recollection of the conversations when cross-examined by the mother’s counsel. I place little weight on that evidence.

2. I do however, have concerns about the father discussing the proceedings and his desire for an equal time arrangement with the children.

3. Ms H records at paragraph 161 of the report:

   “161. It is my view that the discomfort experienced on the part of the older children was attributable to the expectations they felt had been placed upon them by their father.”

4. I accept her view and will discuss it further under the heading ‘The children’s views.’

Legal principles

1. The principles governing the Court’s determination in this matter are set out in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (hereafter “the Act”).

2. Section 65D of the Act, subject to s.61DA (“the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility”) and s.65DAB (“parenting plans”), gives the Court the power to make a “parenting order”.  A “parenting order” is defined by s.64B of the Act.

3. In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order s.60CA requires that I must have regard to the best interests of the children as my paramount consideration.

4. In determining what is in children’s best interests I must consider the matters set out in s.60CC(2), the “primary considerations”, and s.60CC(3), the “additional considerations”.

5. There are two primary considerations. The first is the benefit to the children of having a meaningful relationship with both their parents and the second is the need to protect a child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.

6. The Act indicates that these considerations are to be considered as having particular importance.  They are described as “primary” and as a note to s.60CC indicates, are consistent with the first two “objects” of Part VII, as stated in s.60B that the best interests of children are met by ensuring they have the benefit of both their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives to the maximum extent consistent with their best interests and protecting them from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.

7. There are thirteen “additional considerations” set out in s.60CC(3) which I will refer to later in detail in these reasons.

8. I must also consider (to summarise) the extent to which each parent has fulfilled his or her parental responsibilities and has facilitated the other in fulfilling his or her parental responsibilities. I must ensure that any order I make is consistent with any family violence order and does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence to the extent that doing so is consistent with the child’s best interest being treated as paramount (s.60CG).

9. I will also be guided by s.60B which sets out the objects of Part VII of the Act and the principles underlying it.

The primary considerations

1. Turning firstly to the application of the primary considerations set out under ss.60CC(2) and (2A):

   “(2)  The primary considerations are:

   (a)  the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents; and

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

   …

   (2A)  In applying the considerations set out in subsection (2), the court is to give greater weight to the consideration set out in paragraph (2)(b).”

1. I accept that it is important for [W], [X], [Y] and [Z] to have a meaningful relationship with both their mother and their father. There is no need to protect these children from being exposed to the risk of family violence, harm or abuse.

The additional considerations

1. In this matter I consider the additional considerations that are relevant to be as follows:

The children’s views

1. Ms H in her report sets out the children’s views as expressed to her.

[W]

1. At paragraph 118 of the report [W] indicated:

   “118. … that she was concerned about the discord between her parents when she said “Mum and Dad are not friends; we don’t talk about it”. Even before she was asked about her views regarding future living arrangements [W] stated “I want to spend the same amount with each”.

   119. [W] stated “I can talk to Mum a lot but I miss Dad a lot when I am with mum”; she said that they talk with Dad “because Daddy says ‘do you want week about or do you want the same’ and we say ‘we do week on week”.

2. The report continues:

   “121. Without prompting [W] reiterated “I want week about” whereupon she started to cry. [W] was asked if she wanted to stop the session but she indicated that she wanted to continue and said “it is sort of scary that everyone can see the Family Report” and she explained “I don’t want Mum and Dad to be angry with what they are reading.”

   122. When [W] was asked what she would wish for if it could be anything at all she responded “I’s wish that I could have a fairy friend and that she could help me and guide me”. [W] indicated that she was able to talk to “the counsellor at school” or to “Mum” adding “I don’t know about Dad, and Ms A”.

3. The report continues:

   “125. When [W] was asked what she would say if she could talk to the Judge she said “same amount of time with my Mum and my Dad”. When asked if she knew what her parents wanted she said “Mum wants it to stay as it is; Dad wants week about; when asked about her own thoughts she said “I want what Dad wants” whereupon she said “Dad told me what should happen”; she then stated reluctantly “yes, I am scared.”

[X]

1. [X] told the report writer:

   “129. When asked about his favourite ‘grown-ups’ [X] responded ‘Mummy and Daddy; probably both of them”….

2. [X] then described:

   “131. [X] stated that he had no worries at present other than “change-overs” whereupon he disclosed “I sort of want it to be like one week with Mum and one week with Dad. When asked why this was so [X] answered “Mum wants it to stay as it is and Dad says he never wins; and he added “I sort of want week about”.

3. The troubling aspect of [X]’s interview with Ms H is set out at paragraphs 134 to 135:

   “134. [X] said that given the opportunity he would tell the Judge that “Mum wants it to stay as is and Dad wants week about so we can spend as much time with him as we spend with Mum”.

   135. Without any further prompting [X] commented that “Dad says it should be fifty-fifty because everyone gets fifty-fifty to see their Mum and Dad the same time”.

[Y]

1. [Y] said:

   “137. [Y] nominated “Mum” as his favourite grown-up; he said that the best thing about his life is “that I get to go to school…”

2. [Y] also said:

   “140. [Y] said he enjoys it when either Mum or Dad plays with him and his siblings. When asked about the present matters that need resolving [Y] stated “Mum wants it to stay as it is; Dad wants week about and I want week-week”. [Y] added that his siblings want the same and he said “they all want week-week as well; it will make Dad happy”.

[Z]

1. [Z] is still very young but of note the family report records:

   “144. [Z] nominated “Mum and Dad” as her favourite grown-ups…

   145. … [Z] mentioned that she still suffers from an occasional nightmare; she said that when this happens “I got to Mummy’s room and I just cuddle my teddies at Daddy’s house”.

   …

   147. [Z] summarised “I like both Mum and Dad” whereupon she declared that she had nothing more to say and no questions to ask.”

2. Ms H’ conclusion of her observations is of significance. The report records at paragraphs 154 to 155:

   “154. The older children displayed some understanding of the present dispute between their parents whereas the younger children and [Z] in particular do not comprehend their parent’s differences. All the children are doing well in spite of the ongoing conflictual circumstances. There is little doubt that the children are burdened to some degree.

   155. For [W], [X], [Y] and [Z] to focus optimally and realise their full potential they ought and need to be presented with parental acceptance instead of ongoing tacit and poorly hidden parental conflict.”

The children’s relationships with significant persons

1. This consideration is set out in s.60CC(3)(b) as follows:

   “(b)  the nature of the relationship of the child with:

   (i)  each of the child's parents; and

   (ii)  other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);”

2. I have already found when referring to the primary considerations that the children have a close and attached relationship with the mother and father therefore there is no reason in my view to consider this part of s.60CC further.

Parenting and the discharge of parenting responsibilities

1. In the circumstances of this case, it is convenient to deal under this heading with a number of considerations listed in s.60CC. I consider, under this heading, the following paragraphs of s.60CC(3):

   “(c)  the extent to which each of the child's parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity:

   (i)  to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and

   (ii)  to spend time with the child; and

   (iii)  to communicate with the child;

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

   …

   (f)  the capacity of:

   (i)  each of the child's parents; and

   (ii)  any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);

   to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs;”

2. I have already discussed the parties’ capacity to communicate at paragraphs 20 to 23 above. I do not consider this is a matter where the parents would be able to participate in decision making about major long term issues in relation to these children.

3. There is no doubt that both parents have fulfilled their obligations to maintain the children. I have some reservations about the father’s capacity to provide well for these children’s emotional needs because of the extent to which he seems to have involved these children in the proceedings to convince them to be an advocate for the equal time arrangement he desperately desires. The mother does not seem to have exerted any pressure on these children.

4. Ms H, when questioned by the mother’s counsel at trial, also accepted the following:

   “Mr Drysdale: …there was a difference you noticed in the warmth of the relationship between the children and the mother and the children and the father?

   Ms H: That’s correct.

   …

5. Ms H also observed, when asked about the impact of the ongoing litigation on the children:

   “Ms H: It means for the children that there is no stability. They are confused: they hear one story in one home and another story in another home. The children will … significantly psychologically hurt them. They … don’t know where their home is and it goes on and on. The longer it goes on, the worse the psychological problems become. And I have noticed that with the children in this case. And it really has little to do with not seeing either the mother or the father for two weeks. That is not the issue.

   … I noticed that the children are – it’s not clear to the children what is going to happen. They, all in their own way, express a certain fear. They – the fear in terms of, what am I going to say here, what am I going to say there, this may displease mum, this may displease dad. There’s that uncertainty. They know that there is something going on. They have all of all of (sic) different ages and they are at different level of understanding in … of the problems (sic). So it is for them a very uncertain and anxiety-ridden time. And I’ve noticed this on the children in my interviews with them. They are all in a way quite – I wouldn’t say depressed, I do not like to use label, but they – they’re anxious and they do not want to hurt either parent.”

The effect of any change in the children’s circumstances

1. As of July 2018, these children have been spending five consecutive nights with the father. There would be no change in their circumstances if I adopt the mother’s proposal. The father’s case seeks an equal time arrangement. This would be a change that is not recommended by the family report writer, who gave the following evidence when I asked:

   “…is it fair to say that parents who have a week about arrangement need to have good, positive communication skills?

   Ms H: Absolutely, your Honour.”

   “And it could compromise the children’s wellbeing if you put in a week about arrangement and the communication skills were very poor?”

   Ms H: Absolutely. The children would suffer.”

2. I accept the expert’s evidence on this issue.

Parental responsibility

1. Under s.61DA(1), when making a parenting order, the Court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the children for their parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for them. The presumption does not apply however if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent has engaged in abuse of the child, or family violence.

2. In the present case, there is no abuse or family violence but I do not consider it is in the children’s best interest for these parents to have equal shared parental responsibility. This is because of the parties’ complete failure to communicate and the father’s attitude to the mother, describing her as a liar and raising questions about her relationships with male partners.

3. The consequence of that decision is that I do not need to consider equal time. However I do not consider equal time to be in these children’s best interest because:

   a)   They are achieving very well in the current arrangement, which is substantial and significant time with the father;

   b)     The children have a warmer relationship with their mother that justifies the extra time with her; and

   c)     The complete failure of these parties to communicate mitigates against an equal time arrangement.

Conclusion

1. I am satisfied that the mother’s proposal for the orders she seeks are in the children’s best interests and I will make those Orders.

Costs

1. Considering the Orders I have made, I will give the parties an opportunity to provide me with written submissions on the issue of the costs sought by the mother. I will determine that issue on the papers. 

I certify that the preceding sixty-seven (67) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Cassidy

Date: 25 October 2018