MULKIN & MULKIN

[2019] FamCA 211

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MULKIN & MULKIN [2019] FamCA 211

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – where the children are to live with the father – where the children spend time with the mother – where both parents have an impaired capacity to meet the needs of the children – where the parties have been unable together to provide a safe and stable life for their children – where the children have lived with the father since final separation – where the fragile stability currently present in the children’s lives needs to be preserved – where the mother has relocated interstate – where the mother has a history of intoxication – where the children have been exposed to severe and significant family violence, abuse and alcohol abuse from both parents – where both parents perpetrated family violence – where incidents of family violence were commonplace in the children’s lives – where the children have been severely adversely affected by their upbringing – where neither parent wishes to take responsibility for their own role in damaging the developmental and academic progress of the children and their self-esteem.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parental Responsibility – where the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility is rebutted – where the father has sole parental responsibility – where the parents have no respect for one another and do not communicate.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where proceedings were commenced in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia – where a recovery order was issued in the Federal Circuit Court – where the proceedings were transferred to this Court.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Mulkin

RESPONDENT: Mr Mulkin

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid NSW Newcastle Family Law

FILE NUMBER: NCC 526 of 2017

DATE DELIVERED: 9 April 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Newcastle

PLACE HEARD: Newcastle

JUDGMENT OF: Cleary J

HEARING DATE: 19-21 November 2018

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR ADVOCATE FOR THE

APPLICANT:

Mr E Craney

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Craney Family Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Davies

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Winder Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Rugendyke

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid NSW Family Law

Orders

1. That all prior parenting orders made in this Court and in the Federal Circuit Court in relation to: W born … 2005; X born … 2009; Y born … 2011; and Z born … 2013 (together referred to as “the children”) are discharged.

Parental Responsibility

1. That the father have sole parental responsibility for the children.

2. That the father shall, in a timely way, advise the mother in writing (includes email or text) of decisions taken by him about the long term issues for the children including, but not limited to, enrolment and change of enrolment at school; medical, dental, psychological and therapeutic treatment and counselling; and religious instruction.

Residence

1. That the children live with the father.

Time and Communication

1. That the children shall spend time with the mother as follows:

   5.1 During each school term, in the area of Town D or Town C, commencing in Term Two 2019:

   5.1.1 On the third and seventh weekends from 6.00 pm Friday to 6.00 pm Sunday;

   5.2 During holiday periods at the conclusion of each school term:

   5.2.1For the first half in even numbered years from 6.00 pm on the first day of the holiday period until 6.00 pm on the middle Saturday commencing with the holiday at the end of Term One 2020;

   5.2.2For the second half in odd numbered years from 6.00 pm on the middle Saturday until 6.00 pm on the last Saturday commencing in the holiday at the end of Term One 2019.

2. The parties or their nominees shall change over the children at a location agreed in advance in writing and if there is no agreement then as follows:

   6.1If the mother is living in Town C or on the mid North Coast of NSW the changeover shall take place at the Service Station at Town F, NSW;

   OR

   6.2If the mother is living at Town B, QLD changeover shall take place at a Police Station at the beginning and end of time spent.

3. That the children shall have FaceTime or other agreed social media communication with the mother for any period between 5.00 pm and 6.00 pm each Wednesday and on each of the children’s birthdays.

4. The father shall permit and encourage the children to communicate with their mother in accordance with Order 7 and shall allow the children privacy for that purpose.

5. Each party shall forthwith inform the other, and keep the other informed, in writing of their respective current residential address, mobile telephone number and email address.

6. Each party is restrained from denigrating the other in the presence or hearing of the children and from permitting the children to remain in the presence or hearing of another person denigrating the other.

7. Each party shall notify the other of any medical emergency, illness or injury suffered by the children whilst in their respective care warranting treatment by a third party, and shall authorise any treating health professionals to communicate with the other parent about the condition and treatment of the children.

8. Leave is granted to the father to furnish a copy of these orders and reasons for judgment to any therapist engaged to provide counselling services to any of the children.

9. The Independent Children’s Lawyer shall provide a copy of these orders to the respective principals of the schools which the children attend.

10. The father shall authorise and request the principals of the children’s schools to provide to the mother, at her expense if any, copies of all school reports, school newsletters, school photograph order forms and documents relating to the progress and welfare of the children at school.

11. The father shall keep the schools advised in writing of the address and contact details, including telephone number, of the mother.

12. Within 7 days the father shall arrange for the children (including V and T if they wish to be present) to meet with the Independent Children’s Lawyer to have the orders explained to them and to answer any questions the children, or any of them, may have about the orders.

13. Pursuant to s 62B of the Family Law Act, information about the family counselling services, family dispute resolution services and other courses, programs and services available, is set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto.

14. Pursuant to s 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in the Fact Sheet, attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.

15. All outstanding applications are dismissed.

16. A registrar of this Court shall provide a copy of these orders and reasons for judgment to the Secretary NSW Department of Family and Community Services and Justice.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT NEWCASTLE

FILE NUMBER: NCC526/2017

Ms Mulkin

Applicant

And

Mr Mulkin

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. These are competing applications for parenting orders in respect of four children W, X, Y and Z aged between 13 and five years.

2. The parties are the parents of the children. There are also two adult children of the parties’ marriage, namely V aged 19 and T aged 18.

3. The parties met in 1996 and married in 1998. The mother had one child from a prior relationship, R, who also became a member of the household. Over the following 15 years, six children of the marriage were born.

4. In February 2017 the mother left the home, alone. The father did not consent to the children going with her.

5. Soon after, the mother took the four youngest children into her care. The father and the two elder children then moved to live with the paternal grandparents.

6. The parties again lived together, although not reconciled, together with the children, for about four to five months from April to August in mid-2017.

7. In August 2017 the parties physically separated and have not reconciled. The children have remained living with the father and grandparents.

8. The mother has a new partner and at date of trial was living with him in Town B in North Queensland.

The Trial

1. The applicant mother was legally represented and had instructed a solicitor advocate to appear for her. The mother herself funded her representation.

2. The respondent father was legally represented and had briefed counsel. The father had the benefit of a grant of Legal Aid.

3. There was an Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) who briefed counsel.

4. The trial was allocated three hearing days commencing 19 November 2018. The trial concluded within that time.

5. On the first day of trial the parties were directed to re-formulate orders for two reasons. One, that the mother has now formed the intention to move from Town B Queensland to Town C on the mid north coast of New South Wales. Second, that neither party had contemplated being unsuccessful and had therefore not put forward orders in that event.

The Parties

The Applicant Mother – Ms Mulkin

1. The applicant is Ms Mulkin (“the mother”), now aged 43 years. The mother is currently employed full time in the hospitality industry. She works six days per week.

2. The household of the mother consists of herself and her partner of one year Mr Mr J (47). The mother relocated to Town B in Queensland in November 2017 to live with her new partner. Town B is located approximately 10 hours by car from the children’s residence with the father in Town D.

3. Mr J currently works full-time. He has three daughters aged between 17 and 11 years born of his previous relationship. He presently spends regular time with the youngest child, with all three children living with their own mother.

The Respondent Father – Mr Mulkin

1. The respondent father is Mr Mulkin, now aged 47 years. The father is currently unemployed and is in receipt of the disability support pension. The father suffers from a chronic illness. In addition, he was hospitalised for 10 days after a stroke early in 2017.

2. The father, the four subject children and the two young adult children all currently live in the home of, and with, the paternal grandparents, in Suburb H.

3. The father asserts that if a final order for residence of the children with him is made he will be provided with a suitably sized house by the Department of Housing.

Brief History of Relevant Events since separation

1. During February 2017, the parties’ relationship rapidly broke down and court proceedings were promptly commenced.

2. In early February 2017 the mother stated that she witnessed the father assaulting Y by hitting him with a metal pole and the head of a vacuum cleaner, as well as grabbing him by the throat and dragging him down the hallway.

3. The mother decided to separate from the father. She left the home. The father did not agree to the children leaving with her. The mother asked advice from police about removing the children from school. She later attended the children’s schools and collected W, X and Y. Z was at home with the father.

4. A provisional Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (“ADVO”) was taken out for protection of the mother and Y.

Proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court

1. On 27 February 2017 the mother commenced proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (“the FCC”) seeking among other parenting orders, a Recovery Order in relation to the youngest subject child Z.

2. On 1 March 2017 Judge Middleton in the FCC issued a recovery order in relation to Z, the child was recovered to the mother that afternoon not without conflict at the police station.

3. The mother and four subject children thereafter stayed with the maternal grandparents.

4. On 8 April 2017 a dispute between the mother and her father escalated from a verbal argument into a physical confrontation involving both of them and the mother’s step-mother (“the maternal grandmother”).

5. The mother made the decision to return to the home of the father and hide from the police leaving the children with her parents.

6. The father received a call from the maternal grandmother, requesting that he come and collect the children. The father states that maternal grandparents informed him that the mother was unable to care for the children and neither were they.

7. On the 20 April 2018 the father, who knew where the mother was, collected the children. As a result, the children returned to living with both parents. They have remained living in the home of the paternal grandparents with the father since that time.

8. The mother “handed herself in to police” one or two days after that event. The mother was charged and subsequently appeared in Town N Local Court. An ADVO was granted for the protection of the maternal grandmother from the mother.

9. On 14 July 2017 interim orders were made in this Court, discharging all former orders and giving the father sole parental responsibility and an order that the children live with him.

10. The mother was not present at Court on this occasion. The mother has since stated that she was not aware of that court event and that the father had simply told her that he was going to the dentist.

11. In October 2017 the mother met her current partner Mr J on line. Mr J came to Town D to meet the mother.

12. In November 2017 the mother travelled to Town B Queensland to spend a week with Mr J.

13. Further interim orders made on the 6 April 2018 allowed for the mother to spend time with the children each fortnight in the Town D area. The father states that this has only occurred a few times.[1] The mother states that the father has not allowed her to have contact with the children and she has not seen or spent time with them since September 2018.

    [1] Affidavit of the father filed 12/11/2018, pars 180-197

14. There is truth in both assertions.

Evidence

1. The documents relied on in respect of the application were as follows: 

   The Applicant Mother – Ms Mulkin

   (a)Initiating Application filed 27/02/2017;

   (b)Notice of Risk;

   (c)Affidavit of the mother filed 28/09/2018;

   (d)Affidavit of Mr J (the mother’s partner) filed 9/10/2018;

   The Respondent Father – Mr Mulkin

   (e)Response filed 1/03/2017;

   (f)Notice of Risk;

   (g)Affidavit of the father filed 12/11/2018;

   (h)Affidavit of Ms G (the paternal grandmother) filed 16/11/2018,

   Reports

   (i)Family Report dated 28/03/2018;

   (j)Child Dispute Conference Memorandum to Court dated 1/03/2017.

The Law

1. The objects of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) in relation to parenting orders are to ensure that:

   a)Children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives to the maximum extent consistent with their best interests;

   b)Children are protected from physical and psychological harm;

   c)Children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and

   d)Parents fulfil their duties and meet their responsibilities concerning the care welfare and development of their children.

2. These are applications for parenting orders pursuant to s 64B (2) of the Act. In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a court must have regard to the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. The way a court determines what is in a child’s best interests is by considering the matters set out in s 60CC(2) and (3) of the Act.

3. There is also a presumption when making a parenting order; that it is in the best interests of the child for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that equal sharing of parental responsibility would not be in the best interests of the child in question.

4. I have contemplated the issues of parental responsibility, residence, time to be spent and communication between child and parent as well as any other specific issues.

5. I have considered the mandatory factors and conclude that the following matters are relevant to the best interests of these children.

Parental Responsibility

1. The presumption of equal shared responsibility is rebutted by the evidence of the parties themselves.

2. For at least ten years and perhaps during the whole time the parties lived together, the household created by them has been a place of shouting, punching, threat, damage to property, anger and despair. The children have been helpless witnesses to their parents’ relentless conflict.

3. There is no possibility of the parents coming to decisions about the long term best interests of the children through consultation and compromise. They have no respect for each other. They do not communicate to the great detriment of their children. Each scornfully blames the other for that state of affairs.

4. It is likely that the parent with sole parental responsibility will glory in taking decisions which will displease the other parent. If so, that will be hurtful and upsetting for the children.

5. The alternative of equal shared parental responsibility is more damaging because it requires the two parents to come together, consult and compromise. Because they are both unwilling and unable to do so, decisions would not be made promptly and properly in the interests of the children, or any particular child under consideration. Any discussion face to face would probably lead to a violent confrontation.

6. Accordingly, the parent with whom the children live should have sole parental responsibility with the obligation to keep the other parent advised of decisions taken.

7. I have concluded, for reasons which follow, that the children should remain living with the father. As a result the obligation to make long term decisions will fall to the father. For the benefit of the children the father must keep the mother advised of the decisions he makes.

Primary Considerations

The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents

1. The relationships between the children and their parents are the most important relationships they have, as well as their relationships with each other. How meaningful the parental relationships are in terms of the children feeling confident that their parents love them, understand them and will do everything they can to meet their needs is uncertain.

2. The younger ones may still hope for occasional happiness. The older ones have become resigned to disappointment. The young adult children tried to protect the younger children. The Family Consultant observed that “this has caused significant psychological damage to both boys”.[2]

   [2] Family Report dated 28/03/2018, par 150

3. T (18) twice tried to end his own life at age 11 and again at 15. Neither of his parents have arranged therapeutic treatment for him.

The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm or from being subjected or exposed to abuse or family violence

1. The children have been exposed to abuse and family violence. That is likely to continue whichever parent they live with.

2. The mother has a history of intoxication where she either withdraws to drink or comes out fighting when she has been drinking. Recently she has had nasty physical confrontations with her own adult daughter, her step-mother and her partner’s former wife.

3. Although he blandly denied it the father is enraged and frustrated by his situation, sharing his parents’ home and caring for six children in cramped conditions. He suffers from a painful chronic illness for which he has often been hospitalised.

Additional Considerations

Any views expressed by the child 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

1. The children were interviewed separately by the Family Consultant and observations reported.

2. However the Family Consultant discussed the views of the children under the heading ‘The Children’s Experience of their Family’ “as a way to protect them from being singled out by either parent”. That comment alone highlights the misery which attends the life of the children.

3. One of the children thought that both parents were as bad as each other at least with reference to alcohol and other substances.

4. One child expressed the opinion that both parents needed help to change their behaviour and that when the mother was not drinking she was a good mother.

5. Unsurprisingly the children found it as difficult and stressful as all the adults to have eight or nine people living in one house. Whether the house is properly described as having two bedrooms or four,[3] it is agreed to be too small to accommodate everyone over the long term.

The nature of the relationship of the child with each of their parents and other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child)

[3] Exhibit 10

1. The children spoke positively about their parents and the mother’s partner.

2. The relationship between themselves and the paternal grandparents has been stretched to its limit, but the children were assessed to understand why that was. That understanding augurs well for an improvement and restoration of affectionate relationships between the children and the grandparents, if the father and children can move out of the grandparents’ home.

3. The children do have a relationship with their maternal grandparents although that relationship too has been put under pressure by the conduct of adults, the mother in particular.

The extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken or failed to take the opportunity to participate in making decisions, to spend time with the child and to communicate with the child

1. The mother is living in Northern Queensland. Of course, that makes regular frequent contact between herself and the children impossible.

2. Given the exceptionally high level of conflict between not only the parents but the extended families there is no certainty that regular contact and communication would take place if the mother returned to the local Town D area.

The extent to which each of the child’s parents has fulfilled or failed to fulfil the parent’s obligations to maintain the child

1. The mother is now working six days per week. She pays some child support, current and arrears. Her unchallenged evidence is that she is also repaying a Centrelink debt of $5000 attributable to the father.

2. My impression was that the mother draws real satisfaction from working. She is also slowly acquiring furniture and equipment for the children suitable for when they come to stay with her for holidays.

3. The mother and her partner have chosen to rent a four bedroomed house to provide space for the children for each of them to comfortably stay. They may move from Queensland to Town C.

4. I am confident that the mother will strive successfully to meet the costs of travel.

5. In 2017 the position was very different with the mother impecunious and asking the father for financial assistance.

6. The father is responsible for all of the children’s financial needs. He relies on a disability support pension and Commonwealth benefits for the children.

The likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either of his or her parents, or any other child or other person

1. Difficult as the living arrangements are for the children they are attending school and having their basic needs met.

2. The children spoke favourably of the mother’s partner but have never lived with him.

3. The success of the relationship between the mother and her partner hinges on their agreement with each other that both will work. How the children would be cared for and supervised in those circumstances is not clear and likely to be unsatisfactory for children who would have experienced recent disruption through a change of residence.

4. To uproot the children to live in North Queensland or even in Town C would be to risk their fragile stability with the father. That should be preserved.

5. If the children remain with their father he has reasonable prospects of obtaining public housing in a place and of a size suitable for their needs.

The capacity of the child’s parents and any other person to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs

1. The evidence is that both parents have an impaired capacity to meet the needs of the children.

2. Neither of the parents has had the experience of caring for the children as a single parent. Each have relied on the respective grandparents since separation.

3. Each is scornful of the other and oblivious both to the love the children have for each of their parents and their forbearance towards the parents’ frightening uncontrolled behaviour.

4. The mother is impulsive and can react aggressively to challenge. She has been and may still be dependent on alcohol. The disinhibition which alcohol can bring aggravates the mother’s behavioural problems. Since separation she has had physical altercations with her step-mother, her adult daughter and her partner’s ex-wife.

5. The father is bitter about separation and superficial in his acknowledgement of the impact of his overbearing behaviour. He is not impulsive like the mother. He demonstrates anger to send a message. I accept that he did sweep all the food and plates off the dinner table onto the floor on more than one occasion. He then directed the children to clean up the mess.

6. During the marriage the father’s anger undoubtedly erupted into violence usually directed at the mother.

The maturity, sex, lifestyle and background of the child and either of their parents and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant.

1. When interviewed and observed in March 2018 the children presented as follows;

2. W (13) was just starting her first year of high school. She presented to the Family Consultant as quiet, anxious and on the verge of tears throughout her interview. She was assessed to be under pressure over the issue of where she wanted to live and expressed an even handed view, probably on that account.

3. X (nine) was in Year Four. He presented as an anxious child with limited communication skills. His speech was poor and it was obvious to the Family Consultant that he was developmentally delayed. He did not know his own date of birth and appeared not to understand the underlying concept.

4. Y (six) was in Year Two (or possibly Year One). He presented as a lively, happy child but had difficulty communicating. He was even handed about where he wanted to live but did want to see his mother more often than he had been.

5. Z (four) was at home. She was not attending preschool or day care. She presented as a happy child particularly with the mother, but refused to talk to the Family Consultant who decided, given her apparent lack of communication skills, not to press her.

Older Children

1. The two young adult children V (18) and T 17) were interviewed. By date of trial T had just turned 18.

2. V presented as having an intellectual delay, he struggled with speech. His education was disrupted by constant change of residence and school. He had been mute for all his teenage years because “it was safer not to see things”.[4]

   [4] Family Report dated 28/03/2018, par 90

3. T presented as stressed and anxious, intelligent and an able communicator.

4. He has demonstrated at school the physical and verbal aggression to which he was exposed at home. On one occasion when police were called because of T’s violence, both parents attended the school and joined in with T.

The attitude to the child, and to the responsibility of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents

1. The parties have been content to blame each other for family conflict without facing up, alone or with professional assistance, to their own role in damaging the developmental and academic progress and self-esteem of the children.

2. Even now a course such as Parenting After Separation could assist the parents to understand the perspective of the children.

Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family, and 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

1. Each of the parents accuses the other of perpetrating family violence. The evidence supports a finding that they are each justified in their allegations.

2. The children have been exposed to an intolerable level of family violence. They have known nothing else. Vile, sexualised, angry language is also commonplace for them.

3. The mother has been punched, kicked and injured by the father. She withdrew from the household and retreated into alcohol dependence.

4. In 2017 the mother left the home and obtained a provisional ADVO for her protection.

5. In April 2017 the mother had the children in her care in the home of her father and step-mother, but could not sustain the arrangement.

6. The mother has run into trouble in Queensland with police acting in response to violence by the mother while intoxicated. The mother assaulted her partner’s ex-wife and the mother’s own young adult daughter who had come to visit or stay with her.

7. The situation has been too much for both sets of grandparents to cope with.

8. The Department of Family and Community Services has not intervened.

Any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant

1. The mother had a child of a previous relationship, R who was less than one year old when the parties met. R has been living independently of the parties since age 16 years. She is now 23 years.

2. The mother stated that in 2011 R had made a disclosure at school to the effect that the paternal grandfather asked R to give him a kiss and allegedly put his tongue in her mouth and that he had exposed his genitals to her.

3. The mother states that when R was about seven years old the mother had seen the paternal grandfather masturbating when R was present in the lounge room. She said she told the father who “scoffed at her concerns”.

4. The mother expressed her fears about the safety of her two younger daughters now living in the home of the paternal grandparents.

5. Tendered into evidence was a statement from R dated in 2011.[5] She was then aged 15 years. She stated she was aware of a report of an alleged sexual assault on her by her paternal grandfather. She did not wish to make a formal statement nor for police to apply for an Apprehended Violence Order on her behalf. She asserted “nothing like that has ever happened to me and I didn’t tell anyone that it did”.

   [5] Exhibit 6

6. Like so many of the alarming and disgraceful allegations in this matter this incident was touched on briefly without resolution. Perhaps something improper happened and R stepped away from investigation for reasons known only to herself. Perhaps a complaint without substance was raised on her behalf. It is impossible to know on the evidence available.

7. If the mother is, and was, genuinely fearful, her decision to move away to Queensland is inconsistent with those fears or at least with an intention to be available to the children if they needed her. The mother has seen the children three times in the seven month period since orders were made in April 2018 including the Sunday before this trial began.

Conclusion

1. The parties in this matter have been unable together to provide a safe and stable life for their six children, two of whom are now adults.

2. I conclude that all the children have been severely adversely affected by their upbringing. Two out of six, only T and W, were assessed to have met developmental milestones.

3. The children have been at risk of harm, physical and emotional, since each was born. They have learned to accept that violence, threat, destroying property, yelling and abusive language is part of normal life.

4. Each one has struggled to cope. V has withdrawn, T has attempted suicide twice. X has rejected his mother. Y has been the focus for his father’s anger. X and Z need speech therapy. W looks for happiness at school. They all quite desperately need help to learn to articulate their thoughts and identify their feelings.

5. For that reason a copy of these orders and reasons for judgment will be provided to the Secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services and Justice.

6. If the mother moves to live in Town C, and the father obtains independent housing, these changes may assist the subject children to feel more confident about enjoying a relationship with both parents and to feel safer. The other benefit would be consistency in their education and perhaps an increased ability to learn at school.

7. Orders are made accordingly.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and sixteen (116) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cleary delivered on 9 April 2019.

Associate:

Date:  9 April 2019