Navarro and Lewis

[2013] FamCA 292

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAVARRO & LEWIS [2013] FamCA 292

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim Parenting – Where the mother sought orders in relation to the child, in particular for the return of the children – Consideration of the best interests of the child – Consideration of 60CC factors – Where, on the evidence before the court, it was determined that there be no substantial change to the parenting orders currently in place given that the final hearing of the matter is in a matter of weeks.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CA; 61DA; 65DAA; 60CC; 60CG

APPLICANT: Ms Navarro

RESPONDENT: Mr Lewis

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Peter Baker Solicitors

FILE NUMBER: SYC 3350 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 16 April 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Aldridge J

HEARING DATE: 12 April 2013

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Gould

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Spanko Soulos & Co

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Haughton

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Uther Webster & Evans

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER Ms Baker

Orders

IT IS UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED THAT

1. The children N, born … April 2004, and L, born … August 2007, (“the children”) live with the mother.

2. The father is to deliver the children to the mother by 6.00 pm today.

3. The children are to spend time with the father from 10.00 am on Sunday 21 April 2013 to 9.00 am on 30 April 2013.

4. The father shall deliver the children to B School at the commencement of Term 2 on 30 April 2013.

5. Thereafter the children spend time with the father from Thursday after school to the following Monday before school each alternate week, such time to commence on 9 May 2013, with all collections and returns to take place at the school.

6. Order 5 made on 29 November 2011 is discharged.

7. Neither party is to use any form of physical punishment on either child.

8. In the event that arrangements are made for the payment of Dr C’s fees, the parties shall both attend on Dr C for the purpose of him preparing an updated report on such date arranged with him.

9. The children be permitted to see the counsellor at B School if the Principal of that school views that to be necessary or desirable.

10. Neither party shall refer the children to the school counsellor.

11. That pursuant to section 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in Attachment A and these particulars are included in these orders

IT IS NOTED THAT:

1. Order 9 made on 29 November 2011 continues.

2. The undertaking of Mr D and Ms E (attached).

[Note the undertakings are attached to the engrossed orders]

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Navarro & Lewis 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 SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 3350 of 2011

Ms Navarro

Applicant

And

Mr Lewis

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. These reasons were delivered orally.

2. These are the reasons for the orders I made in this matter last Friday.  The parenting proceedings between the parties are listed before me for final hearing in six weeks, commencing on 21 May 2013.

3. On Thursday, 21 March 2013, Mr Lewis (“the father”) collected the two children of the relationship from school in accordance with orders made by this Court on 29 November 2011.  Those orders required the children to be returned to Ms Navarro (“the mother”) at 6.00 pm the following Sunday.  He did not do so.

4. The children have not seen their mother nor have they been to school since 21 March 2013.  The father said that he kept the children because on 21 March 2013, N, the elder child, told him that his mother had assaulted him a week earlier.  The assault was denied by the mother.  On 3 April 2013, the father filed an Application in a Case seeking an interim order that the children live with him and have time with their mother, as agreed by the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer and as supervised by a professional supervision organisation.  A Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk of Family Violence was also filed.

5. On 5 April 2013 the mother filed an Application in a Case seeking orders that the children live with her, spend no time with the father and that he be restrained from contacting the children.  At the hearing, the Independent Children’s Lawyer proposed that there be a return to the orders of 29 November 2011 with some variation.  Thus, she proposed that the children live with their mother and spend time with their father at weekends and half the school holidays.

6. The variations were to swap the school-holiday times around so that the children would be with their mother for the first week of the holidays because they had not seen her since 21 March 2013.  The second variation was to extend the father’s time to before school on Monday, removing a changeover on Sunday evenings when both parties would need to be present.

Background facts

1. The parties commenced cohabitation in Sydney in 2000.  They were married in May 2003.  Much of the time they spent together was spent living overseas.

2. N was born in April 2004 and is nine.  L was born in August 2007 and is six.  Both children attend B School.

3. The parties separated on 26 May 2011. 

4. On 29 November 2011, interim consent orders were made by this Court relevantly as follows: 

   3.That the children [N] born on … April 2004 and [L] born on … August 2007 (“the children”) live with the mother.

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

   4.1Commencing on Thursday 1 December, on Monday 5 December and Wednesday 7 December from after school until 7.30 pm.

   4.2      On Friday the 9th December after school until 7.30pm.

   4.3      On Saturday the 10th December from 10am to 4pm.

   4.4The following Monday 12 December and Wednesday 14 December from 10 am until 4 pm.

   4.5      Friday the 16th December from 10 am until 4pm.

   4.6      On Monday 19 December from 10 am to 4pm.

   4.7Wednesday 21 December from 10 am to Saturday 24 December 2011 to 10 am with the father.

   4.8From 27 December 10 am to 31st December 4 pm and with the father.

   4.9That thereafter the parents share one half of the school holidays, the mother to have the first part of the remaining school holidays.

   5.During school the children live with the father have the first week after school on Thursday to 6pm on Sunday and in the second week after school on Monday to the commencement of school on Tuesday.

5. Order 9 of the Orders of 29 November 2011 provided that on days when the children are not collected from school, they be collected from the shopping centre at Suburb F.

6. The father’s evidence was that on 21 March 2013, N said to him, “I packed my bags to come to your house on Friday night.” 

7. According to the father and his new partner, N then said:

   I want to tell you about last week.  Mum said to me, “Maybe you should go live with your dad.  It will be easier here with just [L],” and so I said to her, “Okay.  I’ll go now, then.”  My mum then said, “No, let’s do it legally.”  But I said, “No, I want to go now.”

8. N then said to me words to the effect, “Mum got angry then and hit me, on the neck.”  The father and his partner then said N said to them the following things:

   I am telling the truth.  Mum said to me, “Why do you want to leave?  and I told her, “’cause I like it there.”  So I went to get Mum’s mobile phone and asked her for her pin so I could call you.  But I couldn’t call you because I didn’t have your number.  So I went to get the home phone and then mum grabbed me and she pulled me away from the phone.  She slapped me so that she could get the phone off me.

9. He said that:

   Auntie [Ms E] and Uncle [Mr D] were there, but they only saw mum screaming.  I went to pack my bags, so I could go to you.  I packed my bears, uniform, school books, lunchbox and clothes.  I then said to [L], “Why don’t you come with me?”, and then mum screamed at me, “He doesn’t want to come”…Being screamed at me makes me cry more.

10. N is then alleged to have said:

    Everyone tried to get me to stay.  [Mr D] came and said to “sleep on it.”  Auntie [Ms E] said, “it’s hard being the oldest, give it time.”  And [Mr J] [the mother’s father] said, “give it time.”  Mum then told me how bad you are and what a mistake it was living with you.  She said to me, “I made a mistake living with your dad and I don’t want that to happen to you.”  So I said to her, “Well, I’m still going,” and I gave [L] a hug and beso [“kiss” in Spanish]:.  Uncle [Mr D] was then going to drive me to your house, but he said he didn’t have any petrol and he wouldn’t drive mama’s car...

    He then said:

    She also kicked me in the back when I was walking down the hallway.

    Later he then said:

    [KK], I won’t go back to Mum’s, I won’t go back...

    And:

    Don’t make me go back, I don’t want to go back.  She’s going to know I told you and it’s going to be bad.

11. Later that afternoon, N was interviewed by a police officer and a provisional apprehended violence order was taken out with the children as the protected persons.  The police also referred the matter to the Joint Investigative Response Team (“JIRT”).  On 28 March 2013, the provisional apprehended violence order was before the Court.  The father did not attend.  He understands that the order was withdrawn.  The father did not send the children to school on 24 March 2013 because N had said to him, “I don’t want to go back to school.  Mum will come and get me, just like at [M School]” and also because he observed N to appear scared and anxious when school was mentioned.

12. The father did not say that he examined N for any scratches or bruises and does not describe any.  The notations to the apprehended violence order recorded N as stating that he had red marks on his shoulder and a scratch on the hand.

13. The mother’s version of events is quite different.  At the time of the events described, her sister, the aunt and her husband, the uncle, were present.  The mother records N as saying recently, “[KK] [which is the child’s name for his father] told me to tell you that I want to live with him and he told me to record what you say on my iTouch.”  On Tuesday, 12 March, N is said to have said to the mother and the aunt, the following, in relation to living with his father:

    Why can’t I just go now?  It would be easier for you if I wasn’t here.

14. The mother’s evidence continued as follows:

    He went to his room and we discussed it further in his bedroom.  That’s when he said words to the effect, “I will call my dad and get him to come and get me.”  He ran out to my desk where my phone was on the charger, charging.  [N] grabbed for it at the same time as I picked it up and pulled it towards me as he put his hand on it.  I said to [N], “No, I will organize it.  I will call your father if you really want to go.”  He said, “Yes.”  He went back to his room and I followed with him.  I had my hand on his back, guiding him to the bedroom.

    [N] was very upset.  I went into the bedroom and sat down on the bed.  [L] saw that I was upset and came and hugged me and asked what was wrong.  I explained to [L] that [N] wanted to go to his dad and that I did not know why.  [L] said to me words to the effect, “[KK] says ‘I hate your mother’ and [N] says back to him, ‘I hate Mamma’”.  [N] then said, “I only say that because that’s what [KK] wants to hear.”

    At this point, I was very upset and crying and [N] was crying as well.  My sister [Ms E] came into the room and asked what was wrong.  I explained to her that [N] wanted to go and live with his Fathers and that he hated me.  [Ms E] said she was sure that [N] didn’t hate me.  [L] said words to the effect, ‘It’s true, he does.  [KK] says how much he hates mum all the time and he makes [RR] say it too and [RR] does.”  He says, “I hate Mama and that makes [KK] happy.”  [L] refers to [N] as [RR] his family nickname:

    [Ms E] asked [N] why he wanted to go to his dads.  [N] said words to the effect, “I don’t know why, I just want to go.”

15. The uncle then had some conversation with N alone.  He says that he formed the view that N didn’t really want to go.  So he proposed that he would pretend to take N to his father, but say that the vehicle did not have sufficient petrol and see what happened.  His evidence continued:

    [N] and I walked to my car and I said, “I hope Aunty [Ms E] put petrol in the car.”  I told him to wait while I checked.  I opened the driver’s door, leaned into the car and put the keys in the ignition.  The dashboard lit up.  I turned to [N] and said to him, “The tank is almost empty.  I don’t think we will make it to your father’s place.”  [N] shrugged his shoulders and said, “OK.”  Then without saying another word ran back up the stairs into the house.  I saw [N] hugging [the mother] and [L]…

16. The mother’s evidence then continued with N returning to her saying, smiling, “There’s no petrol in the car, I’ll stay tonight.”  The mother then said, “Who wants milk and cookies” and everyone, including N, yelled, “yay.”  N seemed very happy.  As I was getting the cookies, N gave me a big hug and said words to the effect, “I don’t want to go tomorrow.  I’ll just see my dad next Thursday.” 

17. On this hearing, it is neither possible nor desirable to attempt to find which of these versions records the correct position.  It is, it must be noted, quite possible that each of the parties and their witnesses are accurately recording what they saw and heard.  For the purpose of the final hearing a single expert was appointed by the Court.  On 19 November 2012 Dr C provided that report. The evidence in this case clearly shows a marked degree of parental conflict.  Dr C said of this:

    It was evident that the children had been affected by the ongoing parental conflict in an ongoing and profound manner.

18. In relation to N he said the following:

    [N’s] presentation in particular was highly concerning.  He appeared to emulate his father’s dominating presence in interactions with his younger brother.  He felt it necessary to provide a strong view with regard to his experience and stated wishes.  It was, however, not possible for him to do this in a consistent manner.  He thus flip flopped in a dramatic fashion presenting opposing views during the course of the assessment in an evident attempt to please the parent concerned.  Over time he had learnt to present polarised descriptions of his experience, which served to amplify parental concern.  This was seen to be a perpetuating factor for the lack of trust and unresolvable conflict between the parents.  [N] gave a dramatic description of his need to tell lies about his experience.  At various times he spoke positively about each parent and desire to spend time with them and at other times said the opposite.  He was unable to express a consistent or balanced view.  Instead, it was necessary for him to describe one parent in a glowing fashion, whilst dismissing aspects of the other parent.  I formed the view that it was most likely that [N] had indeed experienced positive experiences with both sides of the family.  Unfortunately he felt pressured to choose and identify strongly with Team [Lewis] or his mother.  This polarisation contributed to a lack of integration with regard to his life experience.  His final statements did however indicate his preference for the more responsive and less controlled environment with his mother.

19. Dr C records the father’s partner as expressing specific concerns about N:

    He had a hard time and often felt frustrated, conflicted, scared and confused.  It was particularly evident at the time of handover.  [N] had become used to lying.

20. N acknowledged to Dr C that the mother could raise her voice at him.  Dr C said of the parties the following:

    Both parents had contributed to the current problematic family dynamics.  The father’s full-on presentation and high level of motivation was experienced by the mother to be dominating and abusive.  The children also felt the need to comply with his wishes.  This was amplified by the parents’ long-standing unresolvable conflict.  In the context of their volatile relationship the mother’s evident personality vulnerabilities had been exposed.  Although I did not find her to fulfil the criteria for a formal diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder or Bipolar Disorder, it was evident that she had been volatile in her own emotional and behavioural expression.  This was exposed in the previous Court case, the father’s extensive documentation and multi-media recordings and documentations produced under subpoena.  It appeared highly likely she continued to misrepresent key aspects of her experience, perhaps providing a model for [N] to do the same.  [Dr A] had initially diagnosed Borderline Personality Disorder but no longer regarded her as fulfilling the criteria for this condition.  She had been treated for Depression with a subsequent stabilization in her symptoms.

    Despite this concerning scenario it was evident that both parents were highly motivated to attend to the children’s developmental needs.  Individually they were seen to have adequate parenting capacity.  Unfortunately, the parents brought out the worst in each other.  Thus, although I am unable to make a definitive comment on the validity of the respective allegations, this was a moot point as the key issue was that the children needed to be provided protection from ongoing parental disharmony, allegations of conflict.  It is necessary for both parents to accept responsibility for their contribution to this dynamic.

21. Dr C recommended that there be joint parental responsibility, the children live with their mother and have significant and substantial contact with the father.

The relevant law

1. In determining how to deal with the matters before me I must apply the relevant provisions of the Family Law Act.  Section 60CA of the Act provides that the Court must regard the best interests of the children as the paramount consideration.  Section 61DA provides that the Court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the children for the children’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the children.  The presumption applies when the Court is making an interim order unless the Court considers that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for the presumption to be applied when making that order.

2. I do not consider it appropriate for the presumption to apply to the making of these orders, because the orders of 29 November 2011 did not expressly provide for parenting responsibility and because the final hearing on this issue is to be held in six weeks and because the resolution of that issue is beyond the limit of the scope of this interim hearing.

3. As a consquence of that finding section 65DAA has no operation. I shall now deal with the two primary considerations raised by section 60CC(2) of the Act.

4. The first is that the children have a meaningful relationship with both of the children’s parents.  The orders that I made on Friday provided that the children will live with the mother and spend every second weekend with their father from Thursday after school to before school on the following Monday.  The present school holidays will be spent as to half with each parent.  Pursuant to these orders the children will spend significant and substantial time with each parent.

5. Dr C was of the opinion that the children would benefit from the active engagement and involvement of each of the parents in their lives.  The orders will enable that engagement and involvement to continue.

6. The second primary consideration is the need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm and from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.  This is reinforced by section 60CG, which provides that in considering what order to make the Court must, to the extent it is possible to do so, consistently with the child’s best interests being the paramount consideration, ensure that the order does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.

1. At the hearing counsel for the father, because of the limited nature of the hearing, did not contend for a finding that the assault described by N had occurred.  Rather he submitted that in all of the circumstances there was an unacceptable risk to N or at least the potential for there to be an unacceptable risk to N if he were to spend time with his mother without being supervised.  In support of that proposition he referred to the evidence of the father that the mother had assaulted him on more than one occasion, that she had, on occasions, screamed and behaved hysterically towards N or in his presence.

2. The father refers to occasions when she hit both N and L when she was angry.  He, of course, also relies on the evidence to which I have referred earlier.  Whilst a number of these claims are contentious Dr C does note that the mother was volatile and emotional in behavioural expression.  N had told Dr C that the mother yelled at him at times.  N did not, however, say that he had been hit by his mother.

3. The mother had indicated to Dr C that she had hit and at one time tried to strangle the father.  Dr C did not record any complaints made to him by the father that the mother had hit the children.  The evidence of the assault is N’s hearsay version given by his father and the father’s partner.  There is no other evidence.  The father does not say that he saw marks or scratches on N.

4. N is a very conflicted child.  Dr C found that he would present opposing views in order to please the parent concerned.  He gave what Dr C described as a dramatic description of his need to tell lies about his experience.

5. In the absence of any corroborating evidence as to any injuries said to be suffered by N and having regard to those comments of Dr C, the lack of complaint to Dr C of violence directed towards the children, the statement by N to Dr C that his mother would yell at him but made no complaint about her hitting him noting that the children had been living with the mother for a year at the time they saw Dr C, and taking into account Dr C’s finding about N lying to please the parent with whom he then is, I am not satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that the children would be violently abused or assaulted by the mother.

6. Clearly, there are issues arising from the two versions of the events of March 2013, which no doubt will be ventilated at the final hearing but even accepting the version of the father at its highest – that is to say accepting that N made those comments to him – that does not of itself establish that an assault took place.  Taking that evidence at its highest I do not think that it gives rise to a finding such that would require the mother to be supervised when with the children for the next six weeks.

7. I note in this regard that the maternal aunt and uncle, to which I have referred earlier in this judgment, have proffered to the Court a written undertaking that they would report any inappropriate incidents to the Independent Children’s Lawyer and would take steps to remove the children from their mother if the case required.  The court accepted those undertakings.  I do note in that regard that that is not complete insurance in relation to what might be thought to be any risk to the children given that they do not live with the mother and the children but it is a significant undertaking given that they were said to be present having regard to the evidence I have given earlier.

8. I shall now deal with the additional considerations raised by section 60CC(3).  According to the father N not only wishes to live with him, he is scared of his mother.  According to the mother, N, whilst he said he wants to live with his father does not really mean that and only said so because of persuasion from the father.  Her evidence is to that effect.  There is an obvious difficulty about determining what precisely N’s present wishes are.  This is an interim hearing.  Dr C’s caveats on N’s statements to his parents must be borne in mind.

9. N is still relatively young and L even younger.  Neither party sought to give evidence of L’s views.  Last year N expressed a view in favour of living with his mother.  In the present application the Independent Children’s Lawyer informed me, to the extent she could, that both children had told her they wished to live with the father.  For the purpose of this application, having regard to the age of the children and the propensity of N to inform the parent with whom he is of what that parent desires, I place little weight on the children’s views.

10. When the children saw Dr C each of them appeared to have a close relationship with each of their parents, albeit it marred by the extreme parental conflict.  The children also had a good relationship with other members of their parents’ families and households.  Whether the nature of the relationship between N and his mother has changed since Dr C saw them both, as the husband alleged, seems to me to be properly a matter for the final hearing.  I shall proceed on the basis that each child has a good relationship with each of their parents and which was clearly derived from the substantial time that each child spends with them. 

11. Each parent is, in the words of Dr C, “highly motivated to attend to the children’s developmental needs”.  Individually, they seem to have adequate parenting capacity.  They each take time to spend with the children and to communicate with them.  The father has not sent the children to school since 24 March 2013.  This is a concern and home tutoring does not give the children the social experience of the school.  The father set out his reasons in evidence, but they were not the subject of submissions.  It was merely noted by counsel for the mother that the children had not been to school.  In these circumstances it is not considered appropriate to consider whether those reasons justified the children from not being sent to school, leaving that as an issue for the final hearing. 

12. There is no issue that each parent does not fulfil the obligation to maintain the children when they are with them.  The evidence as to the affect of the change in the children’s circumstances is contentious.  The father says that N will benefit from being removed from his mother and that in order to avoid separating the children from each other, L should be removed from his mother as well.  That evidence is contentious and very much a matter for the final hearing.  Dr C is to prepare an updated report for that hearing.  It is not appropriate for the children to be separated from each other at this stage.  For the last 14 months they have had a routine of living with their mother and spending significant time with the father. 

13. Each application in a case seeks a dramatic alteration in the time and the circumstance which the children will spend with each parent.  Although, it is impossible to predict the outcome of the hearing in six weeks, it cannot be assumed that the orders that the Court will then make will match the orders sought in either of the applications in a case.  It would not be desirable for there to be two, effectively three, taking into account the changes brought about by the father, changes to the children’s circumstances in a short period of time.  I find that the children’s best interests in this regard are for the circumstances that have prevailed for the last 14 months to continue for the next few weeks.

14. The Independent Children’s Lawyer has proposed that the father’s time with the children be extended to Mondays before school so that the parents would not have to meet at changeover as one would deliver the children to school and the other collect after school.  This is an attempt to minimise the conflict between the parents in the presence of the children.  It is a sensible and appropriate order to make.  Neither party suggested that there were any practical difficulties or expenses associated with the children spending time each week with both parents and communicating with the parents. 

15. Each parent, on the present applications, raises the issue of the other’s capacity to provide for the children’s emotional needs.  Their other needs appear to be met.  I cannot determine the factual issues that support those submissions on this hearing and I proceed on the basis that each parent has adequate parenting capacity of such a nature that would not make it appropriate to make a change in the children’s circumstances for the next six weeks. 

16. I proceed on the same basis in relation to the parents’ attitude to the children and the responsibilities of parenthood demonstrated by each of them.  I have discussed earlier the issues relating to family violence.  I am not satisfied that the children living with their mother will be attended with such an unacceptable risk of abuse or violence for the reasons I gave earlier.  A family violence order (the apprehended violence order) was in place for three days.  In all the circumstances, I draw no inferences from it.  There will be further proceedings in relation to the children, regardless of this proceeding, namely, the final hearing.  The other considerations raised in section 60CC(3) are not relevant.

Conclusion 

1. Taking all of these matters into account I find that a return, in effect, to the orders of 29 November 2011, pending the final hearing, is in the best interests of the children.  They will continue to spend significant time with each parent which they have done for almost all of their lives.  There is not such a risk for the children that in an interim hearing, with the final hearing only a few weeks away, that time with each parent should be suddenly stopped or dramatically curtailed.  A return to the status quo is thus desirable. 

2. I have already said that it was appropriate for time for the father to be extended to Monday mornings.  The other variation to the orders that should be made, arises from the fact that the children have been with the father since 21 March 2013.  School holidays started this week and under the November 2011 orders, the children were to spend the first week of the holidays with the father.  It is desirable that the children see the mother and for there not to be a longer period spent with one parent than the November 2011 orders provide.  The November orders provided for the children to spend significant time with each parent each fortnight.  For this reason I order that the children spend the first week of the holidays with the mother, the second with the father and that time otherwise spent with the father commence on 9 May 2013. 

3. The Independent Children’s Lawyer sought an order that the children be permitted to see the counsellor but only if the principal of the school thought it desirable.  On 4 September 2012 Ryan J had restrained either party from taking the children to any psychologist or allied health professional without the prior written consent of the other parent.  It is arguable whether this restraint extends to a school counsellor.  It is desirable that if the need arises, the children should be able to see the school counsellor but in the spirit of the orders of Ryan J, neither party should take steps to cause that to happen. 

4. The order proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer leaves it to the discretion of the school principal as to whether it is desirable for the children to see the counsellor.  I considered it appropriate to make that order but to restrain the parents from referring the children to the counsellor. 

5. Finally, the husband sought a variation to the orders of 20 November 2011 so that the changeovers between the parties occur at or near Suburb F instead of a shopping centre at Suburb F as ordered.  It is not desirable for changes to take place in or near a police station unless there are compelling reasons for doing so.  It tells the children there is some significant danger being avoided by such a changeover place.  There are no such compelling reasons here and there will be no variation to the changeover place as ordered in November 2011. 

I certify that the preceding fifty-four (54) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Aldridge delivered on 16 April 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  30 April 2013