Mosley and Alban (No 2)

[2016] FamCA 118

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MOSLEY & ALBAN (NO 2) [2016] FamCA 118

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – contact – modest dispute about number of days of the husband’s time but significant dispute about which particular days should be ordered.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Mosley

RESPONDENT: Ms Alban

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

FILE NUMBER: MLC 1463 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 2 March 2016

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 February 2016

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Williams

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Coote Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Benjamin

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Resolve Conflict

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT

CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Agresta

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT

CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Victoria Legal Aid

Orders

1. That the children spend time with the father as follows:

   (a)Until the father relocates to within 25 kilometres of the children’s current school:

   (i)From the conclusion of school on Monday until the commencement of school on Wednesday in each week; and

   (ii)For one half of each of the school term holidays as agreed and, in default of agreement, from 5.00pm on the middle day of the holidays until the commencement of the new school term in even years and from the end of school term until 5.00pm on the middle day in odd years.

   (b)Once the father relocates to within 25 kilometres of the children’s current school:

   (i)During school term:

   A.Until the commencement of Term 1, 2017

   1.   From 10.00am on Sunday until the commencement of school on Tuesday each week;

   2.   If the mother provides the father with 7 days’ notice that she seeks to spend Sunday with the children, from the conclusion of school on Monday (or 10.00am if Monday is a public holiday) until the commencement of school on Wednesday and this shall not occur more than once per month;  

   B.From the commencement of Term 1, 2017:

   1.   In week one:

   a.From 10.00am on Sunday until the commencement of school on Tuesday; or

   b.If the mother provides the father with 7 days’ notice that she seeks to spend Sunday with the children, from the conclusion of school on Monday (or 10.001m if Monday is a public holiday) until the commencement of school on Wednesday and this shall not occur more than once per month; and

   2.   In week two, from 10.00am on Sunday until the commencement of school on Wednesday.

   (ii)For one half of each of the school term holidays as agreed and, in default of agreement, from 5.00pm on the middle day of the holidays until the commencement of the new school term in even years and from the end of school term until 5.00pm on the middle day in odd years;

   (iii)For half of the summer school holidays each year as agreed and, in default of agreement, from 5.00pm on the middle day of the holidays until the commencement of the new school term;

   (iv)At Christmas as agreed and, in default of agreement, from 11.00am on Christmas Day to 5.00pm Boxing Day;

   (v)On the father’s birthday and Father’s Day each year as agreed and, in default of agreement, from 9.00am on the father’s birthday until 9.00am the day after the father’s birthday each year;

   (vi)On the children’s birthdays as agreed and, in default of agreement, if the children are not otherwise in the father’s care

   A.If the birthday falls on a school day, from the conclusion of school to 8.00pm;

   B.If the birthday does not fall on a school day, from 10.00am to 2.00pm.

   (vii)The time the children spend with the father will extend by 24 hours to include any public holiday adjacent to the time the children otherwise spend with the father.

   (viii)As otherwise agreed between the parties in writing.

2. That pursuant to s.65DA(2) and s.62B, 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 adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Mosley & Alban 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER:

Mr Mosley

Applicant

And

Ms Alban

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The issue to be determined between Mr Mosley (“the husband”) and Ms Alban (“the wife”) only concerns how much time the husband will spend with the parties’ children B (aged 11) and C (aged nine).

2. The parties litigated over four days predominantly about the wife’s desire to move to live with the children in Europe.  At the conclusion of the evidence, the wife withdrew that application.  The respective final addresses therefore only concerned the husband’s time with the children but the evidence over four days, guides this determination.

3. These proceedings arise out of the breakdown of the marriage of the husband and the wife.  Although long divorced (and indeed in the case of the wife, she has remarried) I propose to refer to them as husband and wife.  I do so without any disrespect to their current status.  It is for my convenience only.

4. The husband’s proposal is that he care for the children as follows:

   (a)Until he moves to live within 25 kilometres of the children’s school, from the conclusion of school on Monday until the commencement of school on the Wednesday of each week;

   (b)Upon moving to a residence within 25 kilometres of the school:

   (i)For 2016, from 10.00am on Sunday until the commencement of school on Tuesday in each week (but if the wife gives the husband seven days notice of wishing to spend Sunday with the children - and this is not to occur more than once a month - then he have from the conclusion of school on Monday until the commencement of school on the Wednesday of each week); and

   (ii)From the commencement of Term 1 in 2017 and on a fortnightly cycle:

   1.In week one, from 10.00am on Sunday until the commencement of school on Tuesday; and

   2.In week two, from 10.00am on Sunday until the commencement of school on Wednesday.

5. In respect of 2017 and onwards, the husband proposes that the same provision about the wife spending a Sunday if she so desires with the children, should apply.

6. His proposal also is (and there is no dispute about this) that the parties share the school holidays.

7. The husband’s proposal is supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer. 

8. The wife’s proposal is that the husband spend time with the children on the basis that his time commence on Saturday, and not the Sunday, and from 2017 onwards, he spend two days (or nights) per week and not the three that he proposes. 

9. The wife’s proposal is that if the husband cannot fulfil her suggestion because of his employment, then his initial proposal of Sunday to Tuesday should apply.

10. Each of these proposals needs consideration in the context of how each party saw the history of the husband’s past relationships with the children.  From the husband’s perspective, Saturday is not workable because of his employment. From the wife’s perspective, the husband should commit himself to the weekend regardless of his employment (but if he cannot, then her alternative proposition should apply).

11. For the reasons that follow, and particularly after hearing the evidence of family consultant Dr D, I accept that the position of the husband and the Independent Children’s Lawyer, is in the best interests of the children.

Background

1. Each of the parties has been represented in this final hearing and throughout their litigation by lawyers and in particular, by counsel.  Although the immediately dispute actually saw the wife as the applicant, for reasons that no longer matter, the husband took on that role.

2. The husband is aged 49 years.  He was born in Australia.

3. The wife is aged 42 years.  She was born in Country E.  Despite having a position of employment this year, she maintains she has no job security.  Having said that, she is contracted until the end of 2016. 

4. The parties met overseas, came to Australia at the end of 1999 and married in early 2000.  The two children followed and on any view, were predominantly cared for by the wife.  Much was made during the hearing about the minor parenting role that the husband played in the children’s lives. 

5. In September 2009, the parties permanently separated.  Litigation in this court followed on both property and parenting issues.  The issue of “relocation” has been ever-present in the lives of the parties since separation.

6. Since separation, the children have attended four schools, had at least two changes of residence and the wife has had to change campuses for employment purposes.  The children have been involved in all of this uncertainty.  Despite that, there has been no overt parental conflict or family violence.  Both parents are articulate and intelligent people. The children are therefore lucky to have caring parents. 

History of the husband’s time with the children

1. Two factors in this case are inter-connected.  One has been the discussions between the parties about moving overseas and the other has been is the husband’s time spent caring for the children.

2. Even before separation, there was travel and/or contemplation of moves relating to the parties’ careers.  In 2006, the husband was in Canberra for two to three days per week.  The parties discussed work opportunities with a focus on Country F and Country E;  the husband applied, but was unsuccessful.  Whilst the husband was working in Canberra, he was also working on weekends and nights.  Hence, his role in the early developmental years of the children’s lives was modest.

3. In 2007, the husband contemplated moving to the United States of America and also Europe.  Neither eventuated.

4. After separation, the parties discussed a move by the wife to Europe for her career purposes.  In 2011, the husband told the wife he wanted to study in Country G but he did not pursue that plan. 

5. In the years after separation, the husband’s time with the children was limited.  The parties agreed upon a parenting plan which provided for the children to have three nights per fortnight with the husband. 

6. The wife’s unchallenged evidence was that during 2010 she advised the husband of activities.  She said he was rarely willing to set aside time to see the children and accordingly, he had “rare and sporadic contact” with them and “was not actively involved in their lives”.

7. In 2011, the wife went to Country E to be by her mother’s side when she died.  The children remained with the husband during that period.

8. In 2011, the wife was in Country E with the children on a holiday and fractured her wrist.  The husband went to Country E and stayed for two weeks. 

9. Notwithstanding the parties put the parenting plan in place, the wife described the husband’s involvement as unpredictable.

10. In 2012, discussions took place at various times between the parties about extra-curricular activities and it would seem that the husband was unable to commit himself.  During discussion that did take place between the parties, the husband raised problems that he was having with the children.  

11. Although they were separated there seemed to be good communication even if the wife was frustrated by the lack of consistency and frequency in the husband’s relationship with the children.  The wife had moved from the urban to the rural area making the relationship continuation more complicated for the husband.

12. In her trial affidavit, the wife said that on 6 August 2014, consent orders were “filed” with the court providing for the children to spend alternate weekends from after school on Friday to the commencement of school on the following Monday.  She described the husband cancelling his contact on many occasions thereafter.  I am not convinced that that is an accurate picture of what occurred.

13. The proceedings which culminated in the orders of 6 August 2014 related to the wife’s desire for international relocation.  The orders were for the husband to have alternate weekend of the children from Friday until Monday; and he consented to those orders.  However, there is a notation to that order which reads as follows:

    The father asserts that the time ordered herein is not adequate and he consents to these orders as an interim measure only until the hearing of his amended application on 10 September 2014.

14. On 18 August 2014, the wife filed a further amended response setting out her position but it was focussing on her then desired move to H Town in Queensland, not overseas.  She proposed an interim order that that the husband:

    Spend reasonable time and have reasonable telephone communication with the children by agreement between the parties.

    That was her position pending the children’s “relocation to [H Town]”.

15. The orders made by the Court in August 2014 were clearly temporary and another hearing was set for September 2014.  In anticipation of that hearing, the husband proposed orders similar to those that he now proposes, and which are supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

16. In 2014 and thereafter, the focus of the husband was on continuing his work as a musician.

17. In addition to the concerns of the wife about the inconsistency of the husband either because of his lack of interest or his employment, she also said that the lives of the children had been impacted by the various partners to whom the children had been introduced.  I could not find that that was the cause of any significant problem here. 

18. Another issue raised by the wife was the lack of adequate accommodation provided by the husband.  She said his home in Suburb I was a one bedroom flat and the bedding was inadequate.  The wife pointed to the changes going on in B’s life and her natural desire not to share a room with her younger brother.  The husband spoke to the children to address that issue but any change was suspended until the relocation of the children to Europe was sorted out.  The husband’s position was that he had spoken to the children about moving to a town close to them and hence, his proposal as I have outlined it, is based upon that move.

19. There were problems for the children in 2015 which were manifested in some of the text messaging.  Just what happened there remains unclear because although the parties had agreed that the children would not attend on contact visits with mobile telephones, the text messaging continued.  There was considerable debate between the parties about who sent the messages first.  The wife was required to produce all of the text messages that she had and the subject was not raised again.

20. The wife’s point was that the text messages showed the children did not want to be with the husband.  The husband’s point was that the pro-active participation by the wife in the messaging, was destructive of his relationship.  Because of the evidence of Dr D below, I find that whilst it might be a combination of both, the wife’s role was unhelpful.

21. During all of this time, the parties continued to have some communication.  From the wife’s perspective, she said she was urging the husband to listen to the children.  If that was a message he received, he certainly was not carrying it out effectively at the time that the children attended upon Dr D, the appointed family consultant.  I find there was inconsistency in the husband’s time with the children.  I am satisfied however, that was not for lack of interest but rather because of his focus on employment. 

22. It will be evident from the parties’ respective proposals that the wife wants the husband, as a matter of principle, to organise his life around the children and have full weekends.  However, it was apparent from the cross-examination by counsel for the wife that she acknowledged his work life over previous years has been in orchestras where his time was required between Wednesday and Saturday and at times on Sundays although only for matinees.  She put to the husband that it was obviously difficult for him to establish a routine for the young children and he readily agreed.

23. To his credit, the husband did not blame the wife for the breakdown of the August 2014 arrangements.  He acknowledged that he had to work Fridays most of the year.  The other focus of his work was Saturdays.

24. When the husband was asked why his proposal was ideal in the context of what had happened in the past, he explained that he was reacting to uncertainty in the children particularly because they were absorbing the strain of the uncertainty about a possible move to Europe.  In the 2015 year, the husband obtained counselling and advice from a psychologist.  All of that led up to the family report.

The evidence of Dr D

1. Because the only issue now for determination is the amount of time that the husband spends with the children in future, it is unnecessary for me to detail much of the evidence of the family consultant.  No-one challenged her expertise or qualifications. 

2. Dr D described B as an astute and highly verbal child.  B felt a great sense of responsibility about the interview and was concerned that significant weight would be given to her views.  She said however that she did not think children should be asked their opinions because it was the problem of the parents.  As to how her parents raised her, she said:

   34.[B] described a difference in parenting styles for her parents, with her father described as being more permissive.  [B] made comments to suggest she had either been told by her mother, or had inferred from something her mother said, that [Mr Mosley] (sic) permissive style of parenting was inappropriate and that is was due to “the way he’s been raised”.

   35.[B] was aware that her mother is primarily financially responsible for her and her brother and reported that her father had money but chose not to spend it on her and her brother.  She reported that she knew this because she saw it happening (e.g., she said her father recently paid $380 for an application for his tablet but was “not prepared to spend it on us”), but she knew her father did not spend money on her education because her mother told her.  [B] appeared critical of her father’s low contribution to her maintenance, stating, “Parents are supposed to split responsibilities.”  For these reasons she viewed her mother as being more powerful, and her father weaker, in character.  [B] described herself as being like her mother, reporting that she was “a leader, good at discussing things.”

3. As for her relationship with her father, Dr D noted that B said:

   36.…She reported that she felt it was important to spend time with her father to know who he is and that she did enjoy spending time with him, describing positive characteristics (e.g., “generous, friendly”).  She reported that her mother had told her he was not “mentally strong” and “very insecure,” though she was “not 100 per cent sure” what this meant.  She rated her emotional bond with her father as “6/10” because she did not feel comfortable to talk with him about daily trivia (friendships and the like).  In contrast, she rated her emotional bond with her mother as being “9.5/10,” which she felt was the highest rating possible that you could give someone other than yourself.

4. Dr D interviewed C.  She observed:

   38.…He appeared cautious when responding, seemingly conscious of the audience for the report (which was explained to him) and the impact of sharing his views.

5. C described the time that he spent with the husband as “Works well usually”.

6. Dr D decided not to press the children as she saw little point in it.  She also did not observe the husband and the children together.  She opined:

   46 Though [the husband] states a long-standing dissatisfaction with the amount of time he spends with the children, he appears to have never initiated any dispute resolution until these proceedings, nor participated in those initiated by the mother, and the arrangements since at least October 2014 have been by agreement, suggesting at least some satisfaction with (if not responsibility for) the less than optimal time arrangements to date.

1. Dr D thought that B’s views about her father were “marred” by exposure to the views of the wife.  I accept the wife was critical of the husband and that had created a problem in the children’s understanding of their father which in turn, reduced their enthusiasm for any relationship.

2. Dr D observed that little weight could be given to the children’s views having regard to their age and maturity.  She did however think that history had shown that arrangements had not been kept and accordingly, it was unlikely that the nature of the relationship between the children and the husband would improve.  All of that led to the following opinion:

   57.In summary, based on this assessment, the children’s relationships with their father appear to be generally positive but lacking in depth and intimacy.  Given the history of irregular time and arrangements varied by agreement, the writer is not confident that denying or delaying relocation or even providing the father greater time will create change in these relationships; [the mother’s] employment will continue to be tenuous and the terms of her contract may change again, requiring even more travel for work and uncertainty about future placements which could impact upon parenting arrangements. 

3. Despite that pessimistic conclusion, Dr D said that it was in the best interests of these children to see the husband on a regular and frequent basis because he had a lot to offer them.  There is a very small window of opportunity here where regular and consistent time and effort must be put into the relationship between the husband and the children.

The submissions of the parties

1. Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer said that the husband needed to commit time but then carry out his commitment.  Counsel stressed the need for the husband to prioritise the children and the evidence supports a conclusion here that, with his change of focus in respect of his employment beginning in 2016, he has done so. 

2. Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer observed that the orders made in 2015 (and I would add 2014) which were clearly not ideal, have failed.  It is important therefore to make orders in this case that are workable.  To be workable, they need to be such that they can be carried out consistently so that the children are not disappointed.  The occupation of the husband militates against availability on weekends.  Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer observed that weekend work has been the reality and there is no indication in the evidence that that is likely to change.  I agree with that submission.

3. As for the future, counsel submitted that there is a window of opportunity on which to build the depth of the relationship that the family consultant recommended. 

4. It was submitted that there were questions over the wife’s commitment to prioritising the needs of the children but in my view, these orders will be tailored around the husband’s capacity and therefore she should have no future basis for criticism of the husband.

5. Counsel for the husband reiterated the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s submissions and indicated that the husband had committed himself to an orderly progression to five nights per fortnight and had begun to address all of the extra-curricular activities that were of concern to the wife. 

6. Counsel for the wife submitted that the husband had been grossly lacking in commitment in the past and that for whatever reason, the previous arrangements have not worked.  Rather than therefore disappoint the children, it was the wife’s submission that the husband’s position should be the fallback one.  She went on to submit that there was nothing to suggest that a new regime which increased the time would work.  The difficulty I have with that submission however is that the evidence shows that the husband can do things with the children and that they were excited about those things.  Whilst the wife may not have been able to acknowledge that the children were saying those things to her, there may be reasons for that lack of enthusiasm having regard to her own views about the husband’s parenting capacity.

The legal issues

1. Part VII of the Act guides the process in relation to the making of parenting orders. 

2. Section 60B of the Act sets out the objects of Part VII.  They are to ensure that the best interests of children are met and hence, the objects act as a guide.  The objects are:

   (a)ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child; and

   (b)protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and

   (c)ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and

   (d)ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.

3. Section 60CA requires that in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, the court must consider the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.

4. To determine what is in the best interests of a child, the court is obliged to examine the factors set out in s 60CC.

5. The power to make a parenting order is found in s 65D and that provides:

   In proceedings for a parenting order, the court may, subject to ss 61DA (presumption of equal shared parental responsibility when making parenting orders)…and this Division, make such parenting order as it thinks proper. (my emphasis).

6. As can be seen, s 61DA has a role to play.  Section 61DA requires the court to apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of a child for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility.  The presumption does not apply in circumstances of abuse or family violence and it may be rebutted by evidence that satisfies the court that it would not be in the best interests of a child for the parents to have that responsibility.  Here, there is no reason to ignore or rebut the presumption in favour of equal shared parental responsibility.  Both parties certainly seek the sharing of that responsibility.

7. Section 61DA does not provide any presumption about the amount of time that a child should spend with a parent.  That issue is dealt with in s 65DAA.  That provision provides:

   (1)Subject to subsection (6), if a parenting order provides (or is to provide) that a child's parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, the court must:

   (a)consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and

   (b)consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable; and

   (c)if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents.

8. If a court decides that equal time is not required then the question of substantial and significant time arises.  That is defined in s 65DAA(3).

9. The husband does not seek an equal sharing of time.  He seeks substantial and significant time which is defined in s 65DAA(3).  That provides:

   (3)      For the purposes of subsection (2), a child will be taken to spend substantial and significant time with a parent only if:

   (a)      the time the child spends with the parent includes both:

   (i)       days that fall on weekends and holidays; and

   (ii)      days that do not fall on weekends or holidays; and

   (b)the time the child spends with the parent allows the parent to be involved in:

   (i)the child's daily routine; and

   (ii)occasions and events that are of particular significance to the child; and

   (c)       the time the child spends with the parent allows the child to be involved in occasions and events that are of special significance to the parent.

   (4)Subsection (3) does not limit the other matters to which a court can have regard in determining whether the time a child spends with a parent would be substantial and significant.

10. A court must consider whether such an order would be in the best interests of the children but also whether it would be reasonably practicable.

11. The views of the family consultant are that the husband has something to offer these children.  The parties themselves only have a modest dispute over the construction of the days involved.  Is it best for these children to have the combination offered by the husband which I consider also meets the definition in s 65DAA(3)?  When the wife was challenged about the husband’s construction, she thought that disrupting the weekly routine of the children was unnecessary.  I consider on the other hand that it will be good for the children to know that the husband can fulfil the commitment and that he will not be distracted by employment requirements.  If the husband moves closer to the wife as he anticipates, it is reasonably practicable for the weekend and week day contact regime to be implemented.  In my view therefore, it is in the best interests of the children and reasonably practicable for them to have substantial and significant time in the context of the definition to which I have referred.

12. Any order however must have the best interests of the children as the paramount consideration.  Section 60CC(2) and (3) provide the guidance.  In respect of those considerations, I make the following findings:

    ·The children will benefit from a relationship which has depth and whilst at the moment there is some doubt as to how meaningful that relationship is, the evidence clearly supports the conclusion that it should be enhanced and became one about which the children are enthused;

    ·There are no issues of family violence or abuse in this case;

    ·The children’s views were not really pursued and in any event, the family consultant’s evidence which I accept, is that they are not mature enough to have their views carry any weight;

    ·There is no doubt that the children have an excellent relationship with their mother and they will benefit from enhancing the relationship with their father.  I am not clear on what sort of a relationship they have with their step-father but neither parent expressed concern about it;

    ·The children have not had the extensive time to develop a deep and meaningful relationship with the husband and each of the parties has to take responsibility for that.  The husband was less than enthusiastic about fulfilling every opportunity to spend time with the children and develop a relationship with them as he should have been but equally, the wife did not encourage that relationship even to the point of being destructive of it;

    ·The husband was questioned about lack of financial support.  Whilst he was challenged about much of his evidence, I accept that he did the best he could and nothing I read indicated that the children went without basic needs;

    ·The proposed orders will not impact on the children.  They seem to have been happy enough to spend time and even though the text messages would suggest that the children were at times unhappy and wanted to come home, the husband had a different view.  His evidence was that he was listening to the children and engaging with them.  He was able to describe the things he did with them and their consequential enthusiasm.  Nothing in the evidence indicates to me that the children could not spend more time with the husband;

    ·Each of the parents seems to have the capacity to provide for the children and in particular, the main complaint of the wife about the husband’s parenting has been in relation to the provision of accommodation.  That problem now seems to have been resolved;

    ·Notwithstanding my criticism of the wife about her negativity, she has provided for the children properly and adequately in trying circumstances.  I have already mentioned a number of moves that the children made but in many cases, that was motivated by her own employment needs.  Both of the parents therefore have acted responsibly in protecting their children’s needs and each has the capacity to provide for them;

    ·As the relocation internationally is no longer an issue, both parties can now work on the basis that the orders proposed will settle the children’s needs for the foreseeable future and on that basis, it is important to make final orders here to prevent further discord and litigation.

13. These children indicated that they did want a relationship with their father and the family consultant’s view is that it is good for them to do so.  In my view therefore with the commitment of the husband to fulfil the arrangements that he proposes increasing in time with a move close to where the children will be living, the orders set out at the start of these reasons are in the best interests of the children.

I certify that the preceding Sixty Nine (69) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 2 March 2016.

Associate: 

Date:  2 March 2016