Molloy and Turner

[2013] FamCA 587

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MOLLOY & TURNER	[2013] FamCA 587
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parental responsibility – With whom the child lives – Where Father seeks order for equal shared parental responsibility for the long term issues relating to the child –Where Father seeks Order for his contact with the child to be supervised by the paternal grandparents – Where Father has a substance abuse problem – MRR v GR (2010) 240 CLR 461 – Where his Honour was not satisfied that the paternal grandparents should supervise contact between the Father and the child – Mother to have sole parental responsibility – Child to live with Mother – Father to have monthly, supervised contact with the child in a contact centre.
APPLICANT:		Ms Molloy

RESPONDENT:	Mr Turner
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:	Mr Murray Shaw, Solicitor

FILE NUMBER: BRC 8662 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 19 July 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J

HEARING DATE: 17 July to 18 July 2013

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Thiele of Counsel appearing for the Applicant Mother

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Rhonda Sheehy & Associates

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr McGregor of Counsel appearing for the Respondent Father

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Whitehead Gupta Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT

CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Malcolmson of Counsel appearing for the Independent Children’s Lawyer

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT

CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Sandgate & Districts Family Law Centre

ORDERS

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The child, B born … 2007, live with the Mother.

2. The Mother have sole parental responsibility for the child and in the exercise of that responsibility the Mother:

   a.        notify the Father in writing prior to making decisions about major long       term issues in relation to the said child, including but not limited to the       child’s education and health;
   b.        invite the Father to indicate his views in writing;
   c.        take the Father’s views into account in making decisions; and
   d.        inform the Father in writing of her decisions.

3. On the conditions set out in Order (4) below, the Father spend time with and communicate with the child at all reasonable times by arrangement with the Mother to include the following:

   3.1that the child shall spend time with the Father only on either a Saturday or Sunday on the second weekend of each calendar month on the following terms:

   a.that such day is at such time and is for such duration as notified to the parties by the D Contact Centre E Town “(D Contact Centre”);

   b.that such time is supervised by an agent, staff member or employee of D Contact Centre;

   c.that the parties will forthwith inform D Contact Centre of this Order and will thereupon forthwith undertake any re-enrolment/re-application process required by D Contact Centre;

   d.the parties will abide by and in all other respects, comply with any lawful direction of any agent, staff member or employee of D Contact Centre in relation to the child spending time with the Father; and

   e.the Father and the Mother will bear the costs of supervision of time equally;

   3.2the child shall spend time with the Father only on either a Saturday or Sunday on the fourth weekend of each calendar month on the following terms:

   a.that such day is at such time and is for such duration as notified to the parties by the F Contact Centre (“F Contact Centre”);

   b.that such time is supervised by an agent, staff member or employee of F Contact Centre;

   c.that the parties will forthwith inform F Contact Centre of this Order and will thereupon forthwith undertake any re-enrolment/re-application process required by F Contact Centre;

   d.that the parties will abide by and in all other respects comply with any lawful direction of any agent, staff member or employee of F Contact Centre in relation to the child spending time with the Father;

   e.that the Father and the Mother will bear the costs of supervision of time equally;

   f.that the Mother is not obliged to make the child available at F Contact Centre unless the Father has provided notice to F Contact Centre no less than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the commencement of each period of time that he intends to participate in such time; and

   g.in the event that the Father has provided the notice in clause (f) above, but then failed to attend in time AND the Mother has attended F Contact Centre on that occasion, the Father shall pay the sum of $40 to the Mother for waste of travel costs.

4. The time spent by the Father with the child be subject to and conditional upon the following:

   4.1the Father attending upon a psychiatrist organised by the Independent Children’s Lawyer at all such times and at such intervals as the psychiatrist may determine;

   4.2the Father is not to use or consume any:

   4.2.1unlawful drugs;

   4.2.2addictive drugs save as prescribed by his treating psychiatrist and then strictly as prescribed;

   4.3the Father shall submit to urinalysis or other pathology testing as required by the psychiatrist and shall make the results of all such urinalysis and testing immediately available to the Mother and/or her solicitors;

   4.4the Father comply with all reasonable directions of the psychiatrist (or his authorised locum) in relation to the control of the Father’s drug intake.

5. The Father’s time with the child be suspended in the event that the Father (for whatever reason):

   5.1      fails to comply with Order (4) hereof;

   5.2fails to attend any two (2) consecutive drug tests as provided for in Order (4) hereof; or

   5.3if any drug screen test reveals the presence of drugs other than as prescribed by the psychiatrist (or authorised locum) or Dr C or quantities in excess of the dosage so prescribed;

   and the suspension of the Orders shall continue until such time as the Father either:

   5.4      complies with the provisions of Order (4) hereof; or

   5.5produces to the Mother’s solicitors three (3) consecutive weekly drug screens complying with the requirements of these Orders;

   as the case may be; and

   5.6the treating psychiatrist provides written confirmation of his            suitability to resume contact with the child.

6. Within seven (7) days of the date of these Orders, the Father shall provide an irrevocable authority to the psychiatrist and/or Dr C to release the following information to the Mother and/or her solicitors as and when they shall require:

   6.1      whether, in the psychiatrist’s or Dr C’s opinion, the Father is able     to provide safe parenting to the child;

   6.2      whether the Father is either in remission or relapsing or at risk of      relapsing from bipolar disorder;

   6.3      whether the Father has changed psychiatrists, save for Order (4) hereof;

   6.4the Father’s compliance with the psychiatrist’s or Dr C’s directions for his attendances on the psychiatrist or Dr C and engaging in treatment and medication regimes in accordance with the psychiatrist’s or Dr C’s directions.

7. The Father shall specifically request and authorise the psychiatrist or Dr C to forthwith inform the Mother in the event that the Father:

   7.1fails to attend any of his appointments with him/her (or his authorised locum);

   7.2fails to comply with any treatment or medication regime he/her (or his authorised locum) has prescribed to the Father;

   7.3sources or attempts to source any psychotropic medication other than as prescribed by the psychiatrist, Dr C or his authorised locum or has consumed quantities of such drugs in excess of the quantities prescribed by the psychiatrist, Dr C or his authorised locum.

8. The Father shall ensure that the psychiatrist or Dr C (or his authorised locum) shall be solely responsible for prescription of any drugs of dependence or drugs that may be addictive or abused.

9. Each party shall keep the other informed of issues relating to the child, such as school events, medical appointments and extra-curricular activities as well as invitations to activities occurring whilst the child is with the other parent and shall keep the other informed of the names and contact details of any medical practitioner or health provider for the child, and to this end notice shall be given by each party to the other as soon as practicable of receiving such information and in any event, no later than forty-eight (48) hours after receiving that information.

10. This Order shall be sufficient authorisation for each parent to obtain all medical information, documentation or reports from any doctor or other medical practitioner, and/or health professional who may treat the child from time to time.

11. This Order shall be sufficient authorisation for each parent to make contact with the school or day care centre which the child attends and make arrangements with the school or day care centre to provide them on a regular basis copies of all school reports, any other reports, and school progress and behavioural issues and all school circulars in relation to the child.  Each parent is responsible for making their own arrangement with the school or day care centre in this regard.

12. Each party keep the other advised of their current address and phone number at all times.

13. If either party leave their usual address for a period in excess of forty-eight (48) hours they provide the other party with an emergency contact number.

14. Each party be at liberty to contact the child by telephone, with the Father to initiate such calls to the Mother’s residence or mobile phone, but no more than once per week on a Tuesday or Wednesday evening between 6.00 pm and

    
    

    6.30 pm for no longer than fifteen (15) minutes.

15. During the time the child is with either party that parent shall:

    15.1respect the privacy of the other parent and not question the child about the personal life of the other parent;

    15.2speak of the other parent and their respective family, parents and friends respectfully; and

    15.3not denigrate or insult and be of good behaviour towards the other parent, and their respective family, parents and friends in the presence or hearing of the child and use their best endeavours to ensure that others do not denigrate or insult the other parent and their respective family, parents and friends in the hearing or presence of the child.

16. For the purposes of this Order, “school holidays” means the gazetted school holiday period applicable to the child’s school.

17. Order (3.1) shall be suspended during school holiday periods and shall recommence at the commencement of the next school term as if the school holiday period interrupted the three (3) week cycle.  The first weekend of the resumed three (3) week cycle is the weekend following the recommencement of the school term.

18. Pursuant to s 62B and s 65DA(2), the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders, and details of who can assist parties to adjust to and comply with an order, are set out in the document entitled “Parenting orders – obligations, consequences and who can help”, a copy of which is annexed to these Orders.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Molloy & Turner has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 8662 of 2009

Ms Molloy

Applicant

And

Mr Turner

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This application has been before the Court since 2009.  In 2010 an order was made by consent in which there were certain orders made in relation to a child of the parties, they being Mr Turner, who at that stage was the applicant, and Ms Molloy at that stage, who was the respondent.  The child is B, who was born in 2007 as a result of a de facto relationship which existed between the father and the mother for a period.  Since that time various things have happened, but in particular an application was made by the mother that the order of 21 December 2010 – be varied.

2. Another order was made in – on 28 March 2012 by Purdon-Sully FM as she then was in relation to testing to be carried out by the father.  The application of the mother today is that she have sole parental responsibility, and that the father has supervised contact – with the child at D Contact Centre, E Town, for up to two hours per fortnight at his cost.  What is before me is not so much whether in fact the father should have contact with the child, but as to what period of contact he should have, whether the contact is to be at a contact centre or is to be supervised, as he has put forward, his parents, Mr and Mrs Turner senior.

3. I have had put before me, fortunately, extensive documents prepared by Mr G.  There are three family reports in this matter extending back to 2010.  I do not intend to set out in any great length the contents of those affidavits – those documents, reports, but I do refer to them and incorporate them in these, my reasons for judgment.

4. As far back as 2010 Mr G was indicating to the father that in effect he has got to straighten himself out, that at that stage Mr G was concerned that the father had an aggressive attitude towards the mother, that in fact he was denigrating of her, and that – by clear inference, he said that this has got to be straightened out for the sake of the child, and particularly for the sake not only of the mother, but of the father himself. 

5. He was piously hopeful that this perhaps may improve the father’s attitude; it has not.  If anything, the father has got worse since then.  He has sworn before me that he has recognised the error of his ways and gone forward.  The last report of Mr G was towards the end of 2012.  He once again raised the attitude of the father towards the mother and was concerned about it.  He, even subsequent to that stage, sent what I consider to be disgusting emails to the mother in which he refers to her as a “cunt” and a “fucking shit” and things of that nature. 

6. Since the question of whether the paternal grandparents can supervise is in issue, I must express my absolute surprise that when these documents, or the contents of them, or the content of one of these emails, and they are referred to in two affidavits of the mother, one towards the end of last year, and the other June, 3 June this year, were put to the paternal grandmother.  The paternal grandmother was of the view that this in no way, if said to the children – to the child – would in any way be emotional abuse (see transcript of the paternal grandmother’s evidence of 18 July 2013 page 8, line 11).  I am staggered.  The denigratory attitude of the father towards the mother is endemic.  It is almost poisonous.  He does not have any respect for the mother whatsoever. 

7. He concedes grudgingly that she is a good mother.  The paternal grandmother, with great respect, surprised me.  She, as perhaps most mothers do, considered that her son does nothing wrong and has not done anything wrong.  She, with great respect, on the material before me, on the evidence before me, is wrong.  Her son is almost like a person ready to explode.  He is cranky, he gives me that impression.  I am somewhat concerned about his – as he says now, he is in control of the drugs.  He is only, as he says, on one, which is lithium, for the purpose of controlling his bipolar disorder which was diagnosed some little time ago by Dr C, more of whom later.

8. He gave me the impression of having a poor memory, which concerned me to a great extent, and I emphasise that in relation to the fact that when he went overseas for a period of about six months in 2011, he complained when he returned of the fact that the mother would not allow him to have contact with the child for the period specified in the order of – Purdon-Sully, and that was for a period on Christmas Day going into Christmas morning.  Negotiations had taken place between the parties, and it was agreed in a letter – in a document that in fact he would have a limited time of contact not in full compliance with the order.  He complained bitterly about this now and says it was not an agreement, and that he was not going to comply with it, and in fact did not.  He did not even inform the mother when he held the child over for the night that he was going to do so.  He had contact with the child subsequent to his return and before Christmas.

9. The child herself has been affected by that holding over.  She has mentioned it to Mr G.  She was at that time four years of age.  It is a memory in her mind that daddy didn’t take her back, or words to that effect;  that in itself is appalling for a child of that age.  He has, as I have said on other occasions, been dismissive of the mother, exceptionally dismissive.  I refer to those emails in March, May and April of this year – this year – where he said he has “moved on”, that he no longer considers that these statements contained in his emails were proper or correct.  He said that back in 2009, and I refer, if necessary, to Mr G’s report, and it was in his first report.

10. He – his memory is such that he does not even remember the stalking charges for which he was convicted in the year 2002 or thereabouts.  He does not remember the fact that he was throwing letters at the mother’s house, five-page letters concerning some difficulties he may have had with the mother’s father.  He does not remember that in fact he saw the child on at least two occasions prior to December 2011 wherein he indicated to me that the first time he saw the child after his return, was on Christmas Day. 

11. He has – I consider he still has a drug problem.  There is concern expressed, insofar as I am concerned, in the medical reports and in the pathology reports.  I must confess I find them very confusing.  I have had little support from his case by having it explained to me.  I am not an expert in the field of pathology, but these reports indicated that he has drugs in his system.  He himself concedes that he has been taking the coca plant when he was in South America, and he gives me the impression that he does not think this is a drug in any way at all, or an illegal drug.  It clearly is; it is the base of cocaine.  This is why he is showing signs of cocaine in his tests, in his hair follicle tests.

12. He seems to be able to get it on the internet.  He is still – I do not know if he still is at present, but he has, subsequent to his return from South America – Country H, I think it was – he still has it in his system, so he is still using it, up until at least 2012, when the last pathology report was presented to this Court.  It is exceptionally concerning.  The father of Mr Turner, the paternal grandfather, who impressed me as a decent type of man, he does not know about this.  He does not believe his son is a drug addict – he concedes that he used to take marijuana, everybody thinks marijuana is a lovely type of drug, you know, a recreational fun drug, it does not do you any damage;  it is even more insidious than cocaine.  It can lead to people using methadone.  Methadone is one of the worst drugs in the whole of the world.  It is more addictive than cocaine. 

13. He does it, and the paternal grandfather did not recognise this.  As Mr G said, “It smacks of naïveté.”  And this is not they type of person that I would think that any child of six years of age could rely upon to adequately and properly supervise her father, with whom she has a close relationship.  I recognise that, she loves her father, he loves her, but I am not going to put that child in a position where she could be – I can take it no further – could be subject to the father being affected by drugs, could be affected to such an extent that as he did in 2009 or thereabouts, carry on in the most aggressive fashion, smashing furniture, breaking windows, which I believe was either brought about as a result of anger, or as a result of a bad drug effect.

1. He has not impressed me at all with his attitude, and the worst thing that I consider in this case is a man who expresses such love and affection for his child, who wants the best for his child, who wants to be able to see his child as frequently as possible, when he given an order, the opportunity to see the child, not in perfect surroundings, not in perfect circumstances, in a small room at D Contact Centre, he does not do it.  He was entitled to have contact with the child as a result of that order in 2012 at D Contact Centre.  First of all the order was made early in 2012;  he did not attempt to see the child until July 2012.  Thereafter he saw the child four times or thereabouts, four or five times at D Contact Centre, the contact centre, and informed them that he is not coming anymore, that he thought the place was a “shithole”.

2. This is the type of language he uses.  This child was distressed because daddy did not turn up anymore.  Is that what a father should do because he dislikes the surroundings, because it is too small and the child appears to be bored?  If she is bored, he is the one who is not entertaining her because he is there in close proximity, as he says, in a small room.  So he drops out because of two reasons, as I opine, having read the material, and particularly what he says to Mr G. 

3. His second reason: costs.  Fifty dollars for his motorbike per visit, and I will be touching on that in a moment, and also the fact that he wanted to play drums in some Kung Fu club that he enjoys.  I do not criticise him for enjoying that, it is very good for him, but he says that was a mistake on the part of Mr G, that he only partook of this club in February and March, in the early part of the year.  He stopped seeing his daughter, then, for only two reasons:  (1) the room was too small, and it was too expensive for him to get there from the J Town to D Contact Centre at E Town on his motorbike.

4. Now, for instance, his motorbike – this is very impressive – here is a man who expresses great love and respect for his daughter, and yet he pays, he says,  legally, $16 a fortnight child support.  He religiously complies with it, and yet he pays $150 per fortnight hire purchase on an 1100CC BMW.  He is paying ten times more for a motorbike than he is paying for the welfare of his child. 

5. The mother has put forward that she does not object to the father having contact with the child.  As I have said before I think he is very lucky that she has offered that.  The child loves her father, as I have said.  It is quite clear on the material before me that she is affectionate towards him.  She likes the paternal grandparents too.  She thinks they are nice people.  But the father does not think enough of his daughter to sell the motorbike and perhaps put $50 a fortnight towards the milk and food that his child might eat and consume.

6. The mother has remarried to a man who is in the army.  He is the one who is paying for the father’s child’s maintenance.  He is feeding her, not the father.  Not at $16 a fortnight.

7. Contact has been offered, as I have said, what appears to me to be the most important part in this is are we to have each alternate Sunday or Saturday as a contact period and it appears that it is not objected to by the mother.  Where is it to take place?  The father is looking for F Contact Centre, because he says that is approximately half way between his residence down on the J Town and her residence up in K Town.

8. The mother, as I understand, does not really oppose that.  What she wants though is that the contact be supervised at those places.  The father says, “No.”  He recognises because of the lack of contact he has had with his daughter for some period that there should be an easing-in period and that perhaps his contact should be supervised by his parents.  I have already touched upon my view of the father’s parents.  They do not believe their son could do any wrong.  It is more than clear on the numerous authorities that have been to our Full Court that close family members should not supervise unless the Court can be convinced that they would put the welfare of the child first and not the welfare of their son in this case.

9. I am sorry, with respect to the paternal grandmother, I doubt if she will be able to do that.  She does not think that the conduct of the father, where he denigrates the mother, where he tells the child at the contact centre, D Contact Centre, “That I’m not to see you anymore”,  - is not emotionally abusing (see transcript of Ms L Turner (the Father’s mother) of 18 July 2013, page 5 at lines 3 to 17 and 44 to 45, page 6 at lines 1 to 5 and page 8 at lines 1 to 16).    

10. B is already concerned that she will not see her father again.  I think he might realise that now.  Unfortunately he did not realise it at the time.

11. I think he does have anger management problems.  He was ordered – and he ignores the orders of the Court.  It is clear, he has been ordered on at least two occasions to have a hair follicle test.  He has failed on at least one occasion to do so, because, as he said, it was requested by the independent children’s lawyer, as the order required, but he could not afford it. 

12. In an email sent by the Father to the Independent Children’s Lawyer dated 10 July 2013 (see exhibit 3) the Father says as follows:

    As I am unemployed I have not had the money to do the tests which are $700 each.  I also [sic] not very happy that you have chosen to ignore the fact of [Ms Molloy] taking drugs while pregnant which I find extremely biased and detrimental to this case as she has committed purgury [sic].

    He could not afford it because it cost $700.  That would be about be about eight weeks of his motorbike repayments.

13. Also the emails as annexed to the Mother’s affidavit filed 4 June 2013 are illuminating to show his denigration of the Mother.

14. He has not complied with the orders.  Not only in that, but in other areas too as well.  As I have said I think he is particularly lucky that the mother recognises that the child deserves and has the right to know her father, but I cannot trust him, - that is my problem.  I cannot trust him by saying, “That she’s a piece of shit”, or something like that, to the child.  He has not said that, as I understand on the evidence before me, but he said other things which have affected the child in two particulars and I have touched upon them already.

15. I am sorry, I cannot, in this case, be persuaded that the paternal grandparents should supervise and consequently - I have already mentioned the fact - is there anybody else who could do it;  no one has been put forward, so consequently, I would have to order that the contact be at a contact centre.

16. Now, I must touch upon Dr C.  It has been put before me by McGregor of counsel – a very experienced counsel in this field – a draft order in which he suggests that Dr C should be a person who supervises the mental welfare of the father.  I think he has got bipolar, which is most unfortunate.

17. Dr C was dismissive of the Court.  He was ordered to supervise a drug rehabilitation course.  In Dr C’s letter dated 5 September 2011 (see annexure “CT3” which is annexed to the Father’s affidavit filed 30 November 2012) - he says, why should I order that when there is nothing wrong with him, when he is not hooked by drugs, if I can use that word.  It is not for him to determine.  He is an expert.  As Mr McGregor said, of course, he is.  But the Court says he is to supervise, but he would not do so.  Consequently, I am somewhat dubious about allowing Dr C to do those matters which have been set out in the draft order put before me.

18. I feel that in those circumstances I will modify that order and have done so.  And I will give counsel time to consider it before I pronounce the order.  Consequently, I am now faced with the position of having to decide whether the provisions of section 60CC apply.  The father is still seeking that there be joint parental responsibility, as I understand, although in his draft order it is not prosecuted.  I have to take it into consideration and the doctrine enunciated in MRR v GR (2010) 240 CLR 461. I am quite satisfied a case such as this – and Mr G has referred to this, but this is not a case for joint parental responsibility. These parties probably could not agree on what day of the week it is. There is too much heat and friction in this.

19. There has to be a joining of minds with this joint parental responsibility.  The child’s welfare must come first and must overcome everything else.  It has not happened in this case.  Consequently I will order that the mother have sole parental responsibility.  I then have to determine whether, in fact, there is significant and substantial contact.  I am more than satisfied that in these circumstances there is.  Is it reasonably practicable?  Unfortunately, the father lives on the J Town and the mother lives at K Town.

20. I am persuaded as a result of that – I think Mr G refers to it as saying it is not unfair to ask that the mother on one occasion to take the children to the F Contact Centre and I understand that she is agreeable to that, but I will order that she be responsible for taking the children to the F Contact Centre Contact Centre and that he has the other fortnight Saturday or Sunday at D Contact Centre at E Town. 

21. I do not believe – this is - my judgment has not been a thing of elegance or well crafted and I make no apology for that.  I think it is absolutely essential that these parties know as speedily as possible as to the view of the Court.

22. I believe that they are entitled to that and I am not going to adjourn it, as happens, unfortunately, in some other areas for a considerable number of months.  I have made my orders.  I will publish these orders.  Gentlemen, if you would have a quick look.  I doubt if I will amend it in any way at all, but it is very similar to Mr McGregor’s draft – similar, but it has been modified quite substantially.  If there are no queries about it you can tell the Court officer and then I will make the order as per – I will order in accordance with this, signed by myself.

    RECORDED   :   NOT TRANSCRIBED

23. I have overlooked the question as to whether it should be final or interim and I have been persuaded by Mr Thiele’s arguments that the Father has got to show - he has got to show that he has improved and that he has put his child first rather than the other things that I have referred to, and consequently, this is a final order.  I refer to and empathise with what was said by Mr G in his cross examination by Mr McGregor counsel for the Father on 18 July 2013, the Father has to make the assessment (see transcript of Mr G’s evidence of 18 July 2013 page 22 at lines 20 to 45) as follows:

    MR MCGREGOR:     All right.  And at some point, would you agree that it’s not desirable that supervision continue on a long term basis but there should be a move away from the contact centre?  I’m not suggesting a time yet but just at some point in the future if that can be achieved?

    [MR G]:        It it can be achieved.

    MR MCGREGOR:    Right?

    [MR G]:        Yes.  If it is felt to be appropriate.

    MR MCGREGOR:    Right.  And that would involve Mr Turner, I expect, in demonstrating to the court that he hasn’t been denigrating the mother, that he has been going to his psychiatrist, that he has been complying with his treatment regime and that he hasn’t been taking illicit drugs and things of that nature, wouldn’t it?

    [MR G]:        Yes.

    MR MCGREGOR:    Anything - - - ?

    [MR G]:        And that he hasn’t been sending any further denigrating emails.

    MR MCGREGOR:    Yes?

    [MR G]:        And doesn’t say inappropriate things to his child.

    MR MCGREGOR:    Right?

    [MR G]:        And, of course, he – there’s always the concern that he may have just enough sense to not do that for the period of the supervision.

    MR MCGREGOR:    All right?

    [MR G]:        And to, for want of better terms, keep his nose clean for a period of time and do what he likes later.

    MR MCGREGOR:    Sure.  But somebody is going to need to make an assessment at a point in the future whether he – it is genuine or not, won’t they?

    [MR G]:        Yes, yes.

    MR MCGREGOR:    Before things move to an unsupervised regime?

    [MR G]:        Yes, yes.

    RECORDED   :   NOT TRANSCRIBED

24. It should read only insofar as phone calls are concerned.  As I have said, this has been done in a bit of a rush and I apologise for that.  Contact by telephone - email and/or Skype is out. 

    RECORDED   :   NOT TRANSCRIBED

25. It will read each party be at liberty to contact the child by telephone with the father to initiate calls to the mother’s residence or mobile phone, but no more than once per week on Tuesday or Wednesday evening between 6.00 pm and 6.30 pm.

I certify that the preceding thirty eight (38) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Bell delivered on 19 July 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  19 July 2013