Morley and Morley
[2015] FCCA 3568
•25 November 2015
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MORLEY & MORLEY | [2015] FCCA 3568 |
| Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Children - interim parenting - Recovery Order sought by mother – need to protect children from risk of neglect whilst in the mother’s primary care – Mother’s historical and present use and dependency on alcohol – lack of regular attendance by children at school particularly whilst in mother’s care – where in best interests of children that they live with father and spend regular time with mother – recovery order refused. |
| Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65D, 65DAA, 67V |
| Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346 Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36 |
| Applicant: | MR MORLEY |
| Respondent: | MS MORLEY |
| File Number: | PAC 4324 of 2015 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Newbrun |
| Hearing date: | 25 November 2015 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 25 November 2015 |
| Delivered at: | Parramatta |
| Delivered on: | 25 November 2015 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | No appearance |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Ms Youseff of Matthews Folbigg Pty Ltd |
| Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer: | Ms Nikitin of Legal Aid New South Wales |
ORDERS
The mother’s Application in Case filed on 21 September 2014 is dismissed.
Pursuant to section 62G(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 the parties and the children of the relationship attend upon a family consultant nominated by the Dispute Resolution Coordinator of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on a date and at time/s to be advised for the purposes of the preparation of a Family Report, such report to be released.
The Family Report to deal with the following matters:
(a)any views expressed by the said children and any factors (such as the said children’s maturity or level of understanding) that would affect the weight that the court should place on those wishes;
(b)the nature of the relationship between the children with each of the child’s/children’s parents and with significant other persons;
(c)the likely effect of any changes in the children’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the children of any separation from:
(i)either of the parents; or
(ii)any other child, or significant person, with whom the children have been living.
(d)the practical difficulty and expense of the child/children having contact with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the children’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis;
(e)the capacity of each parent or of any other person, to provide for the needs of the child/children, including emotional and intellectual needs;
(f)the children’s maturity, sex and cultural background and any other characteristics of the children that the reporter thinks are relevant to the children’s welfare;
(g)any physical or psychological abuse that the children have been or are likely to be subjected;
(h)any ill-treatment, family violence or other abusive behaviour that is directed toward a member of the children’s family, extended family or significant person and the likely impact of this on the children;
(i)each parent’s attitude to the child/children, and to the responsibilities of parenthood;
(j)the matters set out in ss.60CC, 61DA and 65DAA of the Family Law Act 1975; and
(k)any other matters that the Family Consultant considers important to the welfare or best interests of the said children.
The report writer has leave to read any document produced on subpoena to which the parties have been given such leave.
The matter is adjourned to 9.30am 2 September 2016 for mention following the release of the Family Report.
PENDING FURTHER ORDER
The children Y born (omitted) 2008 and X born (omitted) 2011 shall live with the Father.
Orders, notations and declarations are made in accordance with the Independent Children’s Lawyers proposed “Interim Minute of Orders” referred to in Exhibit ‘A’, with the exception of proposed Order 14.
Subject to the mothers compliance with the above orders relating to compliance with conditions as to alcohol, illicit drugs and conduct, the children shall spend time with the mother as follows:
(a)Each Wednesday from after school until school time Thursday morning
(b)Each Saturday from 9.00am to 5.00pm.
(c)From 2.00pm Christmas Day and 5.00pm Boxing Day
(d)The above time spent by the children with the mother shall continue during the school holidays.
For the purpose of facilitating the proceeding orders the parties shall conduct changeovers at McDonald's (omitted), apart from the mother is picking up or returning the children to and from their respective schools
Each parent shall facilitate telephone time with the children and the other parent at 7.00pm each night or as agreed in writing and /or through sms text message.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Morley & Morley is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA |
PAC 4324 of 2015
| MR MORLEY |
Applicant
And
| MS MORLEY |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This was an Interim Hearing between the parties. The mother filed an Application in a Case on 21 September 2015 in which she sought a Recovery Order in relation to the two children of the relationship, Y born on (omitted) 2008 and X born (omitted) 2011. The mother asserted that the children had been in her primary care until the father withheld the children in September 2015. Besides the Recovery Order, the mother also sought specific Interim Orders set out in Exhibit ‘P’, which included proposed Interim Orders that the children live with the mother and spend certain defined time with the father.
The father opposed the Application for a Recovery Order and he, for his part, sought specific Interim Orders as set out in Exhibit ‘O’. The father had sought Interim Orders that the children live with him and that they spend time with the mother on a certain basis.
The mother relied upon Affidavits filed 3 September 2015, 21 September 2015, 23 October 2015, and an Affidavit sworn 18 November 2015. In relation to this latter Affidavit, noting that that Affidavit was sworn on the morning of the Interim Hearing, the Court gave leave to the mother to rely upon that Affidavit, but it was made subject to the handwritten responses of the father to allegations made in that Affidavit of the mother, and the Court notes that the father’s handwritten responses were set out in the document, being Exhibit ‘B’.
The father relied upon an Affidavit filed 9 October 2015.
There were numerous documentary Exhibits tendered in evidence, being exhibits ‘A’ through to Exhibit ‘P’ inclusive.
The essential dispute at the Interim Hearing was whether the children should be returned forthwith to live with the mother. The father contended that there was an unacceptable risk to the children in being so returned to live in the primary care of the mother, whilst the mother disputed that assertion.
The father is aged 42 years, the mother 30 years. The parties were married on (omitted) 2009. They separated on 15 February 2015.
The mother had been the primary carer of the children during the parties’ relationship, whilst the father worked full time.
At separation on 15 February 2015, the mother moved temporarily to a women’s refuge with the children. She was there for 10 days. She then moved into her parents’ residence with the children. At about that time the parties agreed that the children would live with the mother during the week and spend time with the father from Friday afternoon to Sunday evening each weekend.
On about 29 May 2015 the mother and the children moved into a residence at (omitted). Thereafter, the mother would drive the children to their school at (omitted), about a 25 minute drive. The father continued to spend time with the children on weekends.
On about 11 September 2015 the father withheld the children when they were due to be returned to the mother pursuant to their agreement. The father thereafter arranged for the child Y to attend the (omitted) Public School. He arranged for the child X to be taken out of the (omitted) School where she was attending pre-school. Thereafter, the father arranged for X to attend pre-kindy two days a week. Again, on 21 September 2015, the mother filed an Application in a Case seeking a Recovery Order in respect of the children.
The mother submitted there was no unacceptable risk for the children in being returned to her primary care and to live with her. In particular, she submitted that her alcohol consumption was under control. The father asserted the contrary. The Independent Children’s Lawyer did not support the mother’s Application for a Recovery Order but nevertheless submitted that a “time with” order in favour of the mother was necessary and strict supervision would not be required. The Independent Children’s Lawyer did not put forward any specific “time with” proposal in this respect.
Relevant Legal Principles
The relevant principles in relation to parenting proceedings, including interim proceedings, are well settled: see Goode & Goode. [2006] Fam CA 1346 The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (the Act) refers to relevant principles to be applied when a party is seeking a recovery order. Section 67V of the Act provides that in deciding whether to make a recovery order in relation to a child, a Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.
In Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCA FC 101, the Full Court discussed the problems associated with making findings on disputed evidence as follows:
[120] As has frequently been emphasised interim parenting proceedings, and orders made as a consequence, are a necessary but temporary measure until all the evidence can be tested, evaluated and weighed at a final hearing by the making of final parenting orders. Decisions judicial officers have to make in interim proceedings are difficult and, often for very good reason, a conservative approach, or one which is likely to avoid harm to a child is adopted. This is often to the understandable distress of a party who may not achieve the outcome he or she desires, or thinks to be in the best interests of their child or children. Interim parenting orders are frequently modified or changed after a final hearing, and any allocation of parental responsibility made at an interim hearing is disregarded at the final hearing (s 61DB).
[122] In SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13 the majority (Boland and Thackray JJ) discussed at [88] of their Reasons the care necessary to be exercised in making findings in interim parenting proceedings. Their Honours said:
[88] In our view, findings made at an interim hearing should be couched with great circumspection, no matter how firmly a judge’s intuition may suggest that the finding will be borne out after a full testing of the evidence.
[123] Later, at paragraph 100 their Honours amplified their comments and said:
The intuition involved in decision-making concerning children is arguably of even greater importance when a judge is obliged to make interim decisions following a hearing at which time constraints prevent the evidence being tested. Apart from relying upon the uncontroversial or agreed facts, a judge will sometimes have little alternative than to weigh the probabilities of competing claims and the likely impact on children in the event that a controversial assertion is acted upon or rejected. It is not always feasible when dealing with the immediate welfare of children simply to ignore an assertion because its accuracy has been put in issue.
The Court also refers to the recent decision of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Banks & Banks (2015) FamCAFC 36, especially at paragraphs 46 to 52.
Section 60B of the Act sets out the objects of Part V11 of the Act relating to children that inform the making of parenting orders.
In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, the Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration: section 60CA.
Section 60CC of the Act provides that in determining what is in the child’s best interests, the Court must consider the matters set out in subsections (2) and (3).
When making a parenting order in relation to a child, the Court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child: section 61DA of the Act. When a Court is making an interim order, the presumption applies unless the Court considers that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for the presumption to be applied when making that order: section 61DA (3).
If the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in relation to the child applies and is not rebutted, the Court must firstly consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child and reasonably practicable.
If equal time is found not be in the child’s best interests or impracticable as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in section 60CC, the Court must consider making an order that the child spend substantial and significant time (as defined in section 65DAA (3) with the parents, unless contrary to the child’s best interests as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in section 60CC or impracticable.
If neither equal time nor substantial and significant time is considered to be in the best interests of the child or impracticable, then the Court may make such orders in the discretion of the Court that it thinks proper, being orders that are in the best interests of the child as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in section 60CC: sections 60CA; 60CC; 65D.
The Best Interests of the Children
Section 60CC considerations
The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents: a primary consideration
Both children have meaningful relationships with both parents and would benefit from those relationships being maintained.
The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence
The mother admits that during the relationship the parties were regularly using marijuana and alcohol. The mother underwent a detox program in the first half of 2013. She experienced a relapse after having been alcohol-free for two months. The mother attended a second detox program in August/September 2014. She was introduced to a drug and alcohol counsellor, Dr J, who has continued to provide ongoing counselling to her.
In the mother’s Affidavit filed 3 September 2015, paragraph 29, she stated as follows:
I have remained completely sober since attending the second detox program in August or September 2014. I have not used any illicit drugs or alcohol since that time.
It is clear on the evidence before the Court at this Interim Hearing that the mother’s statement in paragraph 29 of her Affidavit filed 3 September 2015 is not truthful and that she continues to consume alcohol. The subpoenaed material tendered in evidence at the Interim Hearing shows that the mother has been drinking alcohol since August/September 2014.
The subpoenaed material shows the mother has a significant alcohol-dependency problem. The Court will now refer briefly to some aspects of the subpoenaed material in that respect.
In Exhibit ‘E’, being certain documents produced on subpoena from Dr J, there includes the following clinical-note entries made by Dr J following consultations with the mother.
a)On 19 August 2014, at a consultation between Dr J and the mother, it is stated, inter alia,
Back to wanting to stop drinking again. Reason for contact: drinking two litres of wine per day at the moment. Wants to give up and get healthy…. No cannabis for 2 weeks.
b)In a clinical-note entry between Dr J and the mother of 13 November 2014, it is stated, inter alia:
Has been really bad. After she saw me last time, she went and drank with the neighbours, as they were moving. Has also been using THC. They are now broke. Thinking about selling stuff so she has money for pot and alcohol. Feeling overwhelmed. Still taking Pristiq….. Finds it very hard to get past 3 weeks of sobriety. Upset with herself for essentially stealing from her own family because she has spent all their money on drugs/alcohol. Says she loves the feeling of getting stoned. Always has. Then drinks when the rush wears off to moderate the come-down. Her life is full at the moment so she shouldn’t be bored. But she feels like she doesn’t get any enjoyment out of life. Discussed why she feels she needs to go crazy every few weeks. Says she enjoys it too much.
c)On 11 December 2014, there is a clinical-note entry relating to a consultation between Dr J and the mother, in which it is stated, inter alia:
Drinking again and using pot as well. Blood pressure (sitting): 161/110 is up due to alcohol - needs to stop drinking. Discussed in-patient rehab, says she might do it when she gets back. Is going away for a couple of nights with her sister and her baby. Stressed how important it is that she cut back drinking 2 bottles a night at the moment. Review next week.
d)There is a clinical-note entry for 16 December 2014 between Dr J and the mother, in which it is stated, inter alia:
Went away for the weekend with her sister and her boyfriend. Drank a lot on the Sunday night and then vomiting ++ on Monday and her parents had to drive her car home. She still has a cracking headache….Wants to come off Pristiq and try a different antidepressant…. Not a good time of year to try to stop drinking with all the festivities but needs to get some confidence that she can stay abstinent for a period of time. If she can stay abstinent until New Year’s (2 weeks) and then she will likely drink at New Years.
e)There is an entry for 9 February 2015 between Dr J and the mother, in which it is stated, inter alia:
Still coping well with the cravings. She has stopped sweating at night now, which means she is getting over the withdrawal.
f)There is a clinical-note entry for 15 June 2015 between Dr J and the mother, in which it is stated:
Not drinking much at all - has been too busy. Mostly on the weekends when she doesn’t have the kids, and not to excess.
In the subpoenaed records produced from the (omitted) Hospital, Exhibit ‘D’, there are certain references made to the mother’s historical drug and alcohol consumption. At the tab marked ‘ICL1.1’ it is stated, inter alia; in relation to the mother:
26 year old female presents with ETOH, cannabis and nicotine dependency on a background of a mood disorder. Summary of Key Events: admitted to detox unit with history of 100-200 grams of alcohol abuse for the past 14 years. Motivated to cease for kids’ benefit. Cannabis was used for 11 years non-stop $70 daily. Admits previous history of amphetamine and heroin usage IV.
At tab ‘ICL1.3’ it is stated, inter alia:
Admission date 4 October 2013. Presenting complaint: 28 year old female presents for detox from alcohol. Background history: alcohol: 1.5 litres of wine per day - 16 standard drinks per day. Drinking at this level for 2 years. Drinks every day. First drink age 15. Previous detox at (omitted) 18 months ago. Previously tried Acamprosate to no effect. Abstinent for two months following detox. Withdrawal symptoms - sweating, tremor, hot cold flushes. Nil withdrawal seizures. Last drink night prior to admission. Cannabis: 2 to 3 grams per day. Smokes with bong. Mixes with tobacco. Smokes every day. Smoking at this level since age 16. Last use on morning of admission. Longest abstinence - 2 months. Withdrawal symptoms - anxiety. Amphetamines: 8 years ago addicted to speed. IVDU. Has not used in 8 years.
The Court should state the second last reference to the (omitted) Hospital in relation to the mother presenting with “ETOH, cannabis and nicotine dependency on a background of a mood disorder” was on 2 February 2012.
At tab ‘4’ of Exhibit ‘D’, being records from the (omitted) Hospital, there is a progress/clinical-note entry for 17 February 2012 in which it is stated, inter alia, in relation to the mother:
Has been attending AA meetings.
At tab ‘8’ of Exhibit ‘D’, being records from the (omitted) Hospital, it is stated, in relation to an admission of the mother to the hospital on 1 February 2012, inter alia:
26 year old female presents with ETOH, cannabis and nicotine dependency on a background of a mood disorder.
In the Affidavit of the father at this Interim Hearing, the father asserted that the mother had been drinking alcohol since August 2014. In paragraph 76 of his Affidavit he referred to the mother drinking on 24 January 2015. This assertion was not denied by the mother in her evidence.
In that Affidavit of the father, he asserted that on 9 September 2015 he saw the mother on an iPad via Facetime with a wine glass in her hand, and that she appeared to be intoxicated. He stated she was slurring her words. He stated that the manner in which the mother spoke led him to believe that she had been drinking. These further assertions of the father were not denied by the mother. The Court accepts the father’s evidence in these respects.
At this Interim Hearing the Court finds that the mother has been drinking alcohol since August/September 2014. The subpoenaed material shows the mother has a significant alcohol-dependency problem. On the evidence before the Court at this interim stage there is a need to protect the children from being exposed to the real risk of neglect whilst in the mother’s care whilst she continues to consume alcohol, noting her alcohol-dependency problem.
The Court notes the father’s assertion in paragraph 4 of his Affidavit that he has not ingested synthetic cannabis since February 2015.
In relation to the findings above in relation to the mother’s consumption of alcohol since August/September 2014, and the Court’s view that there is a need to protect the children from being exposed to the real risk of neglect whilst in the mother’s care while she continues to consume alcohol, noting her alcohol-dependency problem, the Court is of the view that this need to protect primary consideration should be given substantial weight at this interim hearing.
The Court should state that it has perused the medical report of Dr J of 22 October 2015, in which he states, inter alia, the mother has abstained from problem drinking since January 2015 and she continues to not drink. In view of the above subpoenaed material and evidence from the father, it is clear that this statement of Dr J is inaccurate.
Any views expressed by the children and any factors (such as the child’s maturity or level of understanding) that the Court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views
There is no relevant evidence before the Court in relation to this additional consideration, and noting the tender ages of the children.
The nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child’s parents and other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child)
As stated previously, the children enjoy meaningful relationships with both parents. The Court refers to paragraph 117 of the father’s affidavit in which he states, inter alia, that during the parties’ relationship his parents readily helped the parents care for the children when they were at work. The children have a warm and caring relationship with his parents. Since about 11 September 2015, the paternal grandparents have been helping with the care of the children.
The extent to which of the child’s parents has taken or failed to take the opportunity: to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the children, and to spend time with the children, and to communicate with the children
Both parents appear to have taken these opportunities.
The extent to which each of the children’s parents has fulfilled or failed to fulfil the parent’s obligations to maintain the child
The mother asserts at this interim hearing that she has had no financial support from the father since separation. It is clear that both parties have spent regular sums of money during the relationship on the purchase of cannabis and/or alcohol.
The likely effect of any changes in the children’s circumstances including the likely effect on the children of any separation from: either of his or her parents; or any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child) with whom he or she has been living
Until about 11 September 2015, the mother had been the children’s primary carer, although the father had additionally cared for the children at those times when he was not working in paid employment. If a recovery order is not made, and an order is made that the children spend regular weekly time with the mother whilst living with the father, the Court is of the view that the children’s meaningful relationship with the mother can be maintained.
The practical difficulty and expense of the child spending time with and communicating with a parent, and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis
There would appear to be no such difficulty.
The capacity of each of the child’s parents, and 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
In relation to this additional consideration, the Court refers to certain subpoenaed records produced to the Court and tendered in evidence, firstly, Exhibit ‘I’, in relation to the child X’s attendance at the (omitted) Public School. In Exhibit ‘I’, records show that X had days absent from her class, being JB1, in 2015 as follows: in Term 1 she had 10 days absent; in Term 2, 17 days absent; in Term 3, 21 days absent; and in Term 4, at week 5, 15 days absent.
In relation to the child Y, certain subpoenaed records were produced from the (omitted) Public School, being Exhibit ‘K’. Y is in year two this year. Those records reveal historically that Y, “Has very poor fine motor, reading, comprehension”.
In exhibit K there are records produced from the (omitted) Public School which shows, inter alia, that Y never does homework nor participates in the home-reading program. In Exhibit ‘K’, Y’s attendance records for school are revealed for 2014 and 2015. In year 2014, he had the following absences from school: whole days absent, 22 days, and partial-day absences, 15 days. In 2015, for Term 1 to Term 3 inclusive, he had 40 whole-day absences and 27 partial-day absences. In Term 4, he had 10 whole-day absences.
The maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child’s parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the Court thinks are relevant
Both parties regularly used drugs and/or alcohol during the relationship. The mother has a longstanding alcohol-dependency problem. The father appears to have refrained from drug use since February 2015. It is apparent to the Court, on the evidence before it at this Interim Hearing, that Interim Orders for drug and alcohol testing are clearly necessary and in the best interests of the children.
The attitude to the children and to the responsibilities of parenthood demonstrated by each of the children’s parents
During 2014, and worsening in 2015, at least up until the time that the children were withheld by the father in about September 2015, it is apparent that there was an unsatisfactory lack of regular school attendances by the children at their respective schools. During the relationship, the parties used or consumed drugs and/or alcohol whilst the children were in their care. Since separation, the mother has continued to ingest alcohol whilst the children have been in her care, noting the mother’s alcohol-dependency problem.
Any family violence involving the children or a member of the children’s family
On 11 March 2015, there was an incident involving the parents of the children. There was an argument as to whether the mother had had sex in the view of a child. The father proceeded to drive off in a car with the children inside the car after he had allegedly pulled the mother out of the car and thrown her to the ground. The mother reported the incident to the police that led to apprehended violence order proceedings in September this year.
There is a dispute between the parties relating to this incident, and the Court cannot resolve this dispute at this Interim Hearing. There are further disputed allegations of family violence between the parties which the Court cannot resolve at this Interim Hearing. Nevertheless, it is clear that there has been incidents of family violence within the family home prior to the separation, with verbal abuse and physical altercations occurring.
If a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child’s family, any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following: the nature of the order, the circumstances in which the order was made, any evidence admitted in proceedings for the order, any findings made by the Court in, or in proceedings for the order, any other relevant matter
According to the father, an interim Apprehended Domestic Violence Order was made against him on 17 September 2015. That Interim Order, the father asserts, was made without admissions by him. The allegations against the father relate to the father pulling the mother out of the car on 11 March 2015. Those proceedings were instigated by the mother and they are listed for hearing on 17 December 2015. According to the father, an apprehended domestic violence order against the mother regarding an alleged assault on 5 July 2010, being an alleged assault by the mother on the father, was made for a period of 12 months.
Whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child
This additional consideration cannot be determined clearly at this interim stage.
Evaluating the primary considerations and relevant additional considerations under section 60CC of the Act, in the view of the Court at this interim stage, and as previously discussed in these reasons, there is a need to protect the children from the real risk of neglect should they be living primarily with the mother by reason of her alcohol-dependency problem. It is not, in the view of the Court at this interim stage, in their best interests to live primarily with her. A Recovery Order would not be in the best interests of the children and will not be made.
In the view of the Court, at this interim stage, it is in the children’s best interests to live with the father and spend some regular weekly time with the mother. This regular weekly time with the mother will, in the view of the Court, enable the children to maintain their meaningful relationship with the mother. The Court would anticipate that between the making of interim orders today and a final hearing, the mother will have taken meaningful steps to fully and adequately address her alcohol-dependency problem. It is noted at this Interim Hearing that both parents supported the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s proposed orders, and it is in the best interests of the children to make orders proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer as set out in Exhibit ‘A’.
It is noted that in Exhibit ‘A’, being the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s proposed Interim Minute of Orders, in paragraph 1, an Interim Order is sought providing that pursuant to section 61C of the Act that each parent shall have parental responsibility for the children at such times as they are in their respective care. Accordingly, the Court makes the following orders.
I certify that the preceding fifty-seven (57) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Newbrun
Date: 28 January 2016
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
0