NESBIT & NESBIT

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NESBIT & NESBIT

[2013] FamCA 103

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – children’s living arrangements – where the children live with the father – where the two younger children spend alternate weekends with the mother – where the two older children spend monthly time with the mother – where the two younger children have meaningful relationships with both parents – where the two older children have an estranged relationship with their mother – where neither parent posed an unacceptable risk of physical or psychological harm through perpetrating abuse on the children – where both parents are unable to encourage a relationship between the children and the other parent – where the mother is unable to meet the children’s needs for security and stability – where the children’s wishes to reside with the father were given weight – where the father had demonstrated an ability to foster the children’s Aboriginality – where the maternal family other than the mother do not identify as Aboriginal – where the parties’ youngest child suffers significant global intellectual and developmental delay – where the parties’ second youngest child suffers from developmental delays and deafness - where the two older children were aligned with their father – where the mother was estranged from the maternal family – where the father had encouraged ongoing relationships between the children and the maternal family

FAMILY LAW – PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY – where the father has sole parental responsibility due to the parties’ inability to communicate about issues effecting the children – where the presumption of equal parental responsibility applied as there were no reasonable grounds to believe allegations of child abuse

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Child Abuse – where the Court found that there had been no child sexual abuse by either parent – where the parents made cross-allegations that the other parent had inappropriately touched their youngest daughter – where the alleged child victim had global intellectual and developmental delay

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC

APPLICANT:

Ms Nesbit

RESPONDENT:

Mr Nesbit

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Aid NSW

FILE NUMBER:

NCC

3259

2011

DATE DELIVERED:

26 February 2013

PLACE DELIVERED:

Newcastle

PLACE HEARD:

Newcastle

JUDGMENT OF:

Cleary J

HEARING DATES:

5, 6, 7 and 8 November 2012

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Murray

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Lawler Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Weightman

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Peter Hamilton & Associates

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr I Duane

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Aid NSW
(Mr Squires)

Orders

That the father have sole parental responsibility for the children P born … December 1997, N born … January 2000, B born … June 2002 and M born

… February 2004 (“the children”).
That the children shall live with the father.
That the children shall spend time with the mother as agreed between the parties but failing agreement:
(a) P and N:
(i)One weekend in four from 5.00 pm Friday to 5.00 pm Sunday (coinciding with B and M every second time);
(b) B and M:
(i)during school terms each alternate weekend from after school Friday until 5.00 pm Sunday;
(ii)for one week of each school term holiday period; and
(iii)for two separate periods of one week in each Christmas school holiday period, one of which is to include Christmas Day in 2013 and in each alternate year thereafter.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Nesbit & Nesbit 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 NEWCASTLE

FILE NUMBER: NCC3259 of 2011

Ms Nesbit

Applicant

And

Mr Nesbit

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This is a parenting dispute over four children now aged 15, 13, 10 and nine years.
The parents are the applicant mother Ms Nesbit, aged 42 years and the respondent father, Mr Nesbit, aged 47 years. They began living together in 1996. The mother has a daughter L from a prior relationship, who then became a member of the household. She was six years old.
The parties married in mid 1997 and had four children by February 2004. The two younger children, B and M, have special needs. B because he is deaf and somewhat delayed due to prematurity, M because she suffers from global developmental and intellectual delay as a result of greater prematurity.
On 12 September 2011 the parties separated. They have not spoken directly since. The mother moved with all four children out of the family home into rented premises. There were proceedings in the Local Court which gave rise to a provisional and then an interim Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) for the protection of the mother.
On 18 October 2011 the two older children, P and N, contacted their father and returned to live with him. They do not spend time with their mother.
On 14 December 2011 the father took the two younger children into his care and they have lived with him since then.
On 31 January 2012, interim orders were made by consent whereby the children live with their father and spend supervised time with their mother.
From early February until mid April 2012, those supervised periods of time took place. Since then, they have not spent time with their mother at all.
Each parent seeks sole parental responsibility for and residence with the children. Each one proposes some time with the other parent to a very different degree. The past 14 months have been damaging and disruptive for all the children in different ways.

The evidence

The mother, Ms Nesbit

The mother relied on the following material:
(a)Amended Initiating Application filed 25 September 2012;
(b)Affidavit of the mother filed 18 October 2012;
(c)Affidavit of the mother filed 29 October 2012.
The mother relied on her own affidavit and no other evidence. She was supported in Court by Mr S, with whom she was in a relationship although not living together fulltime. This relationship ended during the course of the proceedings. From 3.00 pm on the first day of this four day hearing, the mother was a solitary figure in the court room.
At the beginning of cross-examination, the mother referred to the relationship with Mr S as having been on foot for 12 months (since November 2011) and seeing each other for two to three days at a time, the mother travelling to Sydney where Mr S lived and alternately Mr S travelling to Town C where she lives in a two bedroom townhouse.
In her affidavit sworn 17 October 2012, the mother asserted a history of physical and verbal abuse by the father throughout the relationship. She also asserted that the father was an alcoholic, a drug dealer and heavy user of marijuana and generally an emotionally and verbally abusive man. The most violent incident that the mother described is said to have taken place in June 2005. The mother asserts that the father: picked up the chair that she was sitting on, upended the chair so that she hit the ground, stood over her, grabbed her face and repeatedly smashed her face into the concrete floor, “He also pushed his fingers into her left eye, leaving her with a black eye and bumps and raised lumps along bruising to my skull.” [1] The mother agreed that she had not made a complaint to police in relation to that incident, nor had she attended a medical practitioner after any event, including that one. The first time the mother made a statement to police was on 29 September 2011, after separation. In that statement the mother referred to “constant verbal, psychological and physical abuse. [She] never reported any of these incidents to police as she was too frightened.”[2]I do not accept the whole of this evidence.
[1] Mother’s affidavit filed 18/10/2012 , para 22
[2] Mother’s affidavit filed 18/10/2012, Annexure A pg 5

Evidence of the father, Mr Nesbit

The father relied on the following material:
(a)Affidavit of the father filed 19 October 2012;
(b)Affidavit of Mr Nesbit Snr, paternal grandfather filed 19 October 2012;
(c)Notice of Child Abuse of Family Violence filed 30 January 2012;
(d)Notice of Child Abuse of Family Violence filed 7 June 2012.
The father conceded that he was distressed to the point of being disturbed and suicidal when the mother chose to end the marriage without notice. Annexed to the mother’s affidavits are copies of the diaries which the father wrote and subsequently delivered to her[3]. In those diaries the father refers to his inability to sleep, appears to admit that he had had a drinking problem and otherwise speaks of the strength of his wish to restore the marriage.
[3] Mother’s affidavit filed 18/10/2012 Annexure B & C; Mother’s affidavit filed 29/10/2012 Annexure A
In his evidence, the father said that he had written that material not because he considered that he was dependent on alcohol, or that he had neglected the mother or children, rather he had written what he knew his wife wanted to hear in an attempt to persuade her to come back home with the children. I do not entirely accept this evidence.
Part of the father’s distress was his belief that the mother had entered into a new relationship with Mr S and was leaving the marriage for him. He also conceded that he knew his wife considered that he had a problem with alcohol, although he himself did not think so. However, given that it was the father who arranged for the diaries to be delivered to the mother, I do accept that he was saying and doing whatever it took to restore the relationship. The logical implication of that is that the father had no sufficient complaints at that time about the mother’s care of the children, because it was that role that he wanted her to resume. Events subsequent to separation have changed his view.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer relied upon the following material:
(a)Affidavit of Ms H filed 5 November 2012;
(b)Affidavit of Ms F filed 22 June 2012
(c)Notice of Child Abuse of Family Violence filed 24 April 2012.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer arranged for Ms F to be brought to Court to give evidence, since the mother no longer relied on her affidavit. This was a helpful and appropriate course.

The law

In determining what is in the child’s best interests the Court must consider the matters set out in s 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”).

Section 60CC(3)(a) - any views expressed by the children and any factors relevant to the weight it should give to the children’s views

P and N have strongly held views about living with their father. From the date of B’s birth in 2002 and even more so after M was born in 2004, the older boys spent increasing amounts of time with their father, especially on weekends. The three of them enjoyed some weekends away fishing and surfing. A strong bond is apparent.
The parents agree that the two older boys should continue to live with their father. Their views owing to their maturity would have been given considerable weight even if that were not the case.
B wants to see his mother. He does not want to live with her “but just wants to spend day time with her”[4]. His stated reason for not wanting to sleep over was that his mother smacked him all the time. B agreed that his mother had burnt his nose with a cigarette, but explained how the accident had happened and that his mother apologised.
[4] Family Report dated 13/08/2012, para 91
B likes living with his father who he says does not smack and takes good care of him. He feels bullied by N and protected by P. He enjoys talking to M about their mother and believes that his brothers do not want to see her. I have the impression that B appreciates being together with his brothers and sister.
At 10, although he functions at a younger age, his wishes should be given some weight. I also take into account the experiences B had after the separation of his parents. He moved away with his mother, brothers and sister seeing very little of his father for three months. During that time P and N moved back to the family home and he did not see them. He learned that Mr S was an important new person in his mother’s life and that he would sometimes be a member of the household. Following his parents’ separation he would have also witnessed his mother struggling with mood swings, being generally anxious and depressed.
The deterioration in the mother’s mental health culminated on 9 December 2011, the mother told a worker from Brighter Futures that she was “seeing and hearing things” and that this was affecting her capacity as a mother, friend [and] partner[5]. B must have suffered from the uncertainty and chaos at home.
[5] Exhibit 1 – Brighter Futures entry
In mid December 2011, B was removed by his father into his fulltime care. Since it was a return to the family home and a reuniting of the siblings, B adjusted quickly. His wish to remain living with his father should be given some weight.
There will be a change of circumstance in the home of the mother. Mr S will no longer be a visitor to the household. The consequence of that for B is unknown. His older brothers and his adult sister L believe he was frightened of Mr S. B spoke positively about him to the Family Consultant. The mother gave up the relationship after an outburst of verbal aggression by Mr S at Court. She may be relieved or disappointed.
The situation for B returning to his mother’s home now is unknown. The smacking and emotional volatility could increase or decrease. There is certainty and stability in the home with the father.
M wants to spend time with her mother. She functions at half her chronological age. She has been put under pressure to criticise her mother, but her true feelings were on display.
Like B, she must have had a confusing existence post separation. She left the home with her mother and brothers and saw very little of her father for three months. Her two brothers left a few weeks later. Mr S appeared in the household from time to time from November 2011.
On 1 December 2011, M was observed by a visitor from Brighter Futures at the mother’s home. M was waiting for a taxi to school, hair not done and no jumper on a cold day. Her mother was on the lounge and stated that she had drunk half to three-quarters of a bottle of rum the previous night. By all accounts this was a most unusual level of drinking by the mother. Mr S was at the home and got out of bed to take M out to the taxi.[6]
[6] Exhibit 1 – Brighter Futures entry 01/02/2011
On 9 December 2011, M was again observed by a Brighter Futures worker waiting to go to school. The mother stated that M did not want to go because her “boyfriend” was there. This was a reference to Mr S. The mother said M “has a huge crush on him”[7] having known him for six weeks. The mother was asked about M referring to Mr S as her “boyfriend”. In cross-examination she agreed she did and thought it was “innocent child talk, not unusual”. I have no reason to doubt this assessment. However, it does suggest that M was short of affection and was turning to a very new adult in her life to have that need met. This is a poignant example of the special vulnerability referred to by the Family Consultant, Ms R.
[7] Exhibit 2 – Brighter Futures entry 09/12/2011
On 14 December 2011, M was removed from her school into the fulltime care of her father. Her behaviour at school had deteriorated and the Principal had first contacted both parents and then arranged a meeting with the father[8]. Since then M has settled at school. She enjoyed seeing her mother during supervised visits between February and mid April 2012. She talks to B about that.
[8] Affidavit of Father filed 19/10/2012, para 52
There is real value for M in growing up with her brothers, but she also wants and needs time with her mother. M was unable to articulate that but the observations of her by the Family Consultant made it clear. Each parent wants M to live with them.

Section 60CC(3)(b) - the nature of the relationship of the children with each of their parents and other persons

All the children have a close and loving relationship with their father. The older boys are especially close. All the children love their mother. N is angry with her about the introduction of Mr S into their lives. Some of that anger appears to have been on behalf of his father, who was emotionally devastated by separation.
All the children love their older sister L and her three little girls; their maternal grandmother Ms A and maternal great aunt, Ms D. They see more of their extended maternal family in the care of their father. Their mother is presently not on good terms with any member of her own family. The three female relatives referred to all attended for interviews with the Family Consultant, but did not become witnesses in the proceedings.

Section 60CC(3)(c) - the willingness and ability of each of the children’s parents to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship

This is a significant issue. The mother allowed the two older children to remain living with their father after they returned to live with him in the family home in October 2011. She acknowledged their relationship and concluded they were safe having come to the conclusion that the father had given up drinking[9].
[9] Affidavit of Mother filed 18/10/2012, para 68-69
Thereafter, the father either did not encourage P and N to keep in contact with their mother or was unable to persuade them to do so.
The mother has seen very little of her two older sons for more than a year. During the family report interviews, P and N were observed to be openly hostile to their mother[10]:
When the mother entered the room the two older boys ignored her and sat together on the sofa watching television with arms folded. The two younger children could not wait for the mother to find them and instead jumped out, running to her and hugging her. The two older children rolled their eyes and laughed in a snide manner.
[10] Family Report dated 13/08/2012, para 112
The father was personally observed by the Family Consultant to be “laughing and pulling faces at the mother and her party in what can only be described as juvenile behaviour”[11]. The father denies any such conduct.
[11] Family Report dated 13/08/2012, para 120
Given this observation, it seems unlikely that the father, even if there was an element of misunderstanding, has not been encouraging his two young adolescent sons to focus on the positive aspects of their relationship with their mother.
I consider that the shock and emotional pain suffered by the father when his wife and children left the home, affected his judgment as a parent. He was unable to contain his feelings about separation and the mother’s relationship with Mr S. He had no wish to end his marriage and initially hoped to restore it. He clearly holds the mother responsible for the break-up of the family and now his two older sons believe this also.
The mother was the primary carer for all the children until separation. It is important for the father to acknowledge to them that love and commitment by their mother.
In relation to the younger children the father saw very little of them between separation in September 2011 and mid December 2011. To some extent that was due to an interim AVO having been put in place for the protection of the mother.
The two young children did not see their mother during the whole of the school holidays. Neither of them had been away from their mother for long periods. Supervised time began in February 2012 after the interim orders had been put in place. Supervised time broke down in the context of allegations of abuse of M, each parent accusing the other.

The two younger children have not seen their mother for seven months (other than during family report interviews). In my view neither parent is willing or able to facilitate the children’s relationships with the other parent.
They have both been loving and committed parents in the past. Each of them needs to engage in therapeutic or medical intervention to improve their level of functioning.

Section 60CC(3)(d) - the likely effect of any changes in the children’s circumstances

The children are all living with their father in the former family home. To divide the sibling group is likely to upset the children for two reasons:
(i)In the present circumstances, where the parents do not communicate at all and are openly angry, critical and resentful of each other, the prospect of the children easily spending time with each other is limited.
(ii)There is no certainty about the mother’s circumstances. She ended her relationship with Mr S. Apart from her friendship with Ms F, the mother appears unsupported.
I accept that she was struggling to manage B and M after separation and was looking for respite care from Brighter Futures.
B, N, P and L all refer to the mother regularly smacking the younger children. The mother agreed she did smack, although more often yelled.
M had 44 days absent from school in the 18 months prior to separation. There is some risk to the emotional and educational stability of the children if they are placed back with their mother.

Section 60CC(3)(e) - the practical difficulty and expense of the children spending time and communicating with a parent

The mother lives in Town C in a two bedroom rented residence. The father lives in Town T. The households are approximately 60 kms apart. The mother says she intends to move back to the Town T area whatever the outcome of these proceedings. Both parents drive a car.
Accordingly, there will be no practical difficulty in the children spending time and communicating with the other parent.

Section 60CC(3)(f) - the capacity of the children’s parents and any other person to provide for the needs of the children

The father

The father had been a public servant for 29 years, when he resigned in December 2011. He did so in anticipation of having the children in his fulltime care. For the past 11 months, he has been the primary carer for the children. I regard his resignation as a commitment to the children and not as a procedural tactic.
This is the first time that the father has consistently had the care of the children. I am satisfied he has taken his new role seriously. P is reported to be doing well at school. N struggles. The father has arranged for both boys to have counselling through a referral from Catholic Care.
B attends mainstream and hearing impaired classes. The father has established a communication book with B’s teacher and keeps in contact with her. B saw a psychologist in Town T until she recommended no further treatment. His behaviour, which included fire lighting, has settled.
M is in an Intellectually Moderate disability class (“IO class”). The school counsellor reported in May 2012 that M’s behaviour had improved. She had stopped swearing.
When M had nightmares, the father arranged through the school counsellor for her to see a senior psychologist. The father has kept up with appointments for M with her paediatrician and assessments at the hospital.
The Benevolent Society has continued to provide support workers as they did prior to separation. The father is managing on Centrelink benefits, but is financially assisted by his parents. The mother pays $14 per fortnight in child support.
I consider that the father has the capacity to meet the needs of the children with one exception. He has not yet considered the emotional need of the children to have a loving relationship with their mother as a priority, independent of his feelings about her.

The mother

The mother had her first child just before her twentieth birthday. Now for the first time in more than 20 years, she does not have any children in her care.
The mother was stretched to the limit by a big household and two children with special needs. B and M have been demanding children to care for, not only day to day, but in regard to all their appointments, assessments and special requirements at school. When the parties only had L and P, the mother struggled emotionally. The father called in the Mental Health Team in 1999.
In February 2000, after N was born, the mother was reported in the hospital records as[12]:
… feeling exhausted and very distressed re family situation lack of support etc.
[12] Exhibit 13, Progress Notes HNEAHS
During her pregnancy with B in 2001/02, the mother reported that she stopped eating due to some personal issues that she did not disclose.
L attended an interview with the Family Consultant. She did not provide an affidavit and was not called to give evidence. Accordingly, her comments to the Family Consultant are just that. However, I infer that her evidence would not have assisted the mother. I give some weight to what L had to say, especially as the Family Consultant assessed her to be[13]:
… a very thoughtful well adjusted and mature young woman …. [who] appeared to be child focused rather than taking sides.
[13] Family Report 13/08/2012 para 151
L moved out of the household in 2005, aged 15 years due to her poor relationship with her mother. As a mother now herself of three very young children, she said she now understands why her mother did not engage with family activities. Of significance, is L’s statement that the mother “smacked all the children because she was an emotional wreck.”[14] She also said this[15]:
Mum would shoot first and ask questions later… I spent my whole childhood fearing her.
[14] Family Report 13/08/2012 para 156
[15] Family Report 13/08/2012 para 153
The mother was cross-examined about the passage in the family report. She said she was shocked by that statement. I accept she was. I consider that the mother did not have very much insight into the impact of her mothering style which seems to have been quick to hit and slow to listen. The mother was also sometimes impulsively aggressive to third parties.
She agreed that she had a physical altercation with another mother at football training in 2010. According to the father, the mother punched, pulled hair and wrestled with the other woman. The mother offered the explanation that it was the father who was responsible for her conduct, that her son was being bullied and that the father had said to, “Get there (to football training) and sort that [name omitted] out”. Whether she was encouraged by the father or not, it was the mother who threw punches at an event where her children and other children were present.
The mother also conceded that she had hit the father in anger with a vacuum cleaner handle and had picked up a knife. When the father put his hand up protectively (father’s version), or grabbed at the blade (mother’s version), he was injured. P brought a towel for his father who was bleeding. In answer to the question:
Was it a good idea to approach him with a knife?
The mother answered:
No. I didn’t think.
I accept the truth of that response. It is consistent with the other examples of impulsive aggression.
On 24 July 2011, the mother had a mental health assessment at Town T Hospital. She described to the health care worker 14 years of marriage as “mostly unhappy. No physical abuse. No sexual abuse.” The mother offered an explanation for the disparity between those statements and the allegations of both physical and sexual abuse on her by the father in her affidavits. She said she was afraid and had withheld information from the worker. She was also unable to explain why she had not been afraid to tell of emotional abuse.
On balance, I consider it likely that the mother felt overwhelmed and angry for many years of the marriage and was unaware of her own physical aggression. There seems little doubt that there were verbal arguments, shouting and insults between the parents. I consider that the mother presently has a diminished capacity to meet the needs of the children.
After separation the mother focused on her new partner, with little appreciation of how the children might react to his introduction within weeks of separation. She was angry with her older sons for leaving her. The mother was dismissive of the Principal of M’s school who contacted her about M’s escalating disruptive behaviour[16]. The mother kept B and M home from school for weeks after separation. She blamed delays in reconnecting with the special transport service for their non-attendance.
[16] Exhibit 3 – Report from school, entry 10/11/2011
The mother is contributing minimal child support, but intends to find work when her current studies are complete.
Finally the mother made a report to the Department of Family and Community Services (“the Department”) that M had disclosed sexual abuse by her father. She fairly conceded in cross-examination that she did not consider it likely that the father had or would sexually abuse M. If the child said the words attributed to her about the father putting his finger in her wee and hurting it, I am satisfied it was as a result of being questioned and requestioned by her mother and Ms F on the relevant day in April 2012. On balance, I do not consider this was deliberately malicious conduct.
The mother was both angry and panicking about the loss of her children. On her own evidence, she had said nothing to the father about M’s tendency to become itchy and sore in her genital area which she would then scratch. She had not given the father this information or supplied him with the cream she used when M moved into the fulltime care of her father. If the mother genuinely did not anticipate that sooner or later M would have a “sore wee”, she had not been focusing on her daughter.

Section 60CC(3)(g) - the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background of the children and of their parents.

P, date of birth … December 1997

P is the oldest of the parties’ four children. He was almost 15 at the date of hearing. When his parents separated in September 2011, he along with the other children, moved with his mother, at first to the home of a friend and then into rented accommodation. Five weeks later he and his younger brother N had returned to live in the family home with their father.
I am satisfied that from the time of separation, P wanted to live with his father. The mother acknowledged as much in her evidence with considerable sadness about her own loss. She said that she had wanted orders before letting the two older boys go to live with their father and had accepted their decision. She conceded that she had been hurt:
I was angry, I was hurt. It was all done very sneakily. They didn’t understand the paperwork.
This is a reference to the fact that the mother wanted orders in place before she agreed to the older boys living with their father, or spending significant amounts of time with him. When they asked the mother for their possessions, the mother concedes that she said, “You should have thought of that before you pissed off up the road”.
P is in year eight at School E. He enjoys school, does not have difficulty with the work and prefers art and maths. P appears to be doing well and has said that he feels better now that he is living with his father[17]. P gets on well with all three of his younger siblings and is protective of B. The Family Consultant noted that he was a friendly quiet young man, who presented developmentally within normal parameters. He has missed his mother and enjoyed a long telephone conversation with her on one occasion. P had not met the mother’s partner, Mr S and did not want to. He reported that B and M did not like Mr S and were scared of him. Some of P’s reaction no doubt relates to his view that Mr S was responsible for the breakdown of his parent’s marriage.
[17] Exhibit 23 – Hunter Headspace Records, assessment 01/03/2012
The proposals of each of the parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer are for P to continue to live with his father, in accordance with his wishes. The issue for him is what orders if any should be made for spending time with his mother. His own view was that his father would allow him to visit his mother if he wanted to and that he would spend time with his mother when and if he wanted to. At present he is content with telephone conversations.

N, date of birth … January 2000

N is the parties’ second child. He was a few weeks short of his thirteenth birthday at the time of the hearing. N attends the same school as P and was then in year seven. As for P, N initially left the family home with his mother, but returned after five weeks to live with his father and P. Other than for family report interviews, he has not seen his mother since October 2011 and has expressed strong views that he does not wish to.
N reported to the Family Consultant that he was scared of his mother and when asked to explain said[18]:
Everything. She rages. … her reactions …. her personality. I don’t like her.
She goes into a hitting yelling rage. She hits me across the head and says the ‘f’ word.
[18] Family Report dated 13/08/2012, paras 75 and 76
The Family Consultant reports that N enjoys school and that his behaviour and grades are starting to improve. He has been involved in physical fights at school and was assessed as “not a mature 12 years old and is a reactive adolescent, hence his violent behaviour at school[19]”. Both parents and the Family Consultant note N’s anger about the mother’s relationship with Mr S: “He, [Mr S] wrecked my life”.
[19] Family Report dated 13/08/2012, par 82
N was the most positive of the children about his experience of the family prior to separation. He did not enjoy his parent’s fighting, but otherwise found family life okay. He had never seen his father drunk and said his mother didn’t drink. It may take some time for N to repair the relationship with his mother. Clearly he has been hurt by the separation of his parents, but is also offended by his mother entering a new relationship, from his point of view replacing his father so soon after separation.
Both parents and the Independent Children’s Lawyer propose that N continue living with his father.

B, date of birth … June 2002

B is now 10 years old. He was born five weeks premature due to intrauterine growth retardation. At the age of two and a half years, he was taken by his mother to be assessed by Hunter Health Speech Pathology. The reason for the referral of B was due to concerns held by the Early Intervention Team at Town G. The mother herself was not concerned at that time[20]:
Mother reported that [B] hardly uses any words at all. She reported that she is unsure of his receptive language skills because with five children she does not spend much time with him. Mother is concerned that he is not talking yet.
[20] Exhibit 14 - Progress Note 30/11/2006
The concerns held by the Early Intervention Team were said to be late development, concerns about coordination (balance and walking), in addition to speech and language. At the time of the assessment in November 2004, B was waiting for an appointment for testing of his hearing and vision. In 2005 B’s hearing was assessed as follows: “He may have a mild mainly low and mid frequency hearing loss”[21].
[21] Exhibit 14 - Letter dated 20/04/2005
B participated with his mother in a speech pathology language playgroup. Parent stimulation strategies were provided to the mother, which she implemented. In May 2005, B had hearing aids fitted.
At the age of four and a half years (November 2006), B was given an auditory comprehension test and scored comprehension at the level of two years seven months. The note in the record was, “severe delay[22]”. His articulation assessment revealed, “moderate delay”. He attended pre-school and an Early Intervention Centre in Newcastle. He was referred to a Speech Sound Clinic. The mother was instructed in providing B with tailored homework.
[22] Exhibit 14 - Bureau Auditory Comprehension Test
In the first half of 2007, B’s appointments with the speech pathologist were attended on five occasions and cancelled on five occasions. Previously in around April 2005 B’s general practitioner had conducted a hearing assessment. His general practitioner’s records indicate he had suffered from Impetigo, Congenital Deafness and Bilateral Mild to Moderate Deafness to his right ear and Moderate to Severe Deafness in his left ear[23].
[23] Exhibit 20 - Complete Record for the child B
There is no other direct evidence of the extent of B’s present functioning and development. He attends a school for the deaf. The Family Consultant notes[24]:
[B] enjoys school and is reported to be enjoying the social aspects of school and whilst academically is far below that of a child the same age, he is making sound progress.
[24] Family Report dated 13/08/2012, para 84
The Family Consultant also noted[25]:
[B] presented as a gentle, happy child who is a good conversationalist. [He] did not present developmentally within normal parameters. [He was noted to have] deficits with his hearing but uses bilateral hearing aids, which assist him considerably
[B’s] interests are reported as him enjoying football… [he attended the interview wearing his team’s jersey] as well as having one red hearing aid and one green one [the colours of his team].
[25] Family Report dated 13/08/2012, paras 83, 84
B was disrupted in his attendance at school to some extent, after the separation of his parents in September 2011. He is supported by student assisted transport and for the weeks that it took for the service to be provided to the mother’s new address, B remained at home, as did M. B is sometimes the target of his older brother N’s anger.
It may be that B is somewhat overlooked in the family and that although his obvious hearing deficits have been addressed, his other developmental problems, especially difficulty walking, have not been fully addressed. If they have, there was no evidence of it in these proceedings.
B clearly loves both his parents. He said he genuinely liked living with his father and looks forward to being able to see more of his mother. He does not want to live with her, but does want to spend day time with her. B is close to his younger sister and talks to her about the fact that they both miss their mother, although he indicated that he does not talk to his older brothers or father about her. B is sometimes protected by his older brother P who steps in when N is making his life difficult. B has missed his mother and worries about her.
Each parent seeks an order for B to live with them.

M, date of birth … February 2004

M is the fourth child of the parties. She was eight years and 10 months at the time of the hearing. M was the overwhelming focus of these proceedings. She has been living with her father since mid December 2011, when the father decided to take B and M into his care. For almost two months she did not see her mother at all, between December 2011 and February 2012. However once there were orders in place, she began having regular contact with her mother, supervised by Ms F. That time came to an abrupt halt in mid April 2012. There were counter allegations at that time by the parents, directed at each other, of what has been described as sexual abuse of M.
M was born 11 weeks premature and suffers from intrauterine growth retardation. She is globally delayed, both developmentally and intellectually. Her very premature birth was traumatic for the mother and no doubt for M herself. She has been managed by a paediatrician, Dr I, for the last two and a half years. Subsequently she has been diagnosed with Atypical Autism, Attention Deficit Disorder and at one stage, Cerebral Palsy, although that diagnosis later became uncertain. On 2 June 2009 testing placed M in the range of moderate intellectual impairment[26].
[26] Exhibit 21, letter Dr I dated 22/10/2010

In October 2010, after M had started school, there were serious difficulties noted with her behaviour. She would not stay in the class room, would eat play dough, bite, kick, hit or spit at the teacher, walk around the room and disrupt other children, rub herself on the floor. For her benefit the class room door had to be locked, external gates had to be locked so that M would not leave the school grounds. A teacher’s aide was essential for M to be able to remain in mainstream school.
In May 2010, M had been placed on a trial of Ritalin for her overactivity and impulsiveness. There had been an excellent response. Because of the allegations of abuse of her, M has been the subject of a Joint Investigation and Response Team (“JIRT”) inquiry. A DVD of her interview was played in Court. M’s language was difficult at times to understand, she coloured in intensely throughout the interview process, responding to most of the questions without necessarily looking up. She seemed restless, distractible and obsessed with colouring in. She also seemed happy enjoying the task and the attention.
M unreservedly loves both her parents and was excited at the prospect of seeing her mother at the family report interviews on 30 July 2012. At that time, it was more than three months since M had seen her mother. M and also her brother B, are reported to have been[27]:
…so excited and jumped up and down…and they decided to hide so they could jump out and surprise her…[they] could not wait for [their] mother to find them and instead jumped out, running to her and hugging her…[M] sat on [her] mother’s knee cuddling her.
They were relaxed and showed no signs at all of being fearful of the mother
When it was time to leave [M and B] clung to their mother and were kissing her.
[27] Family Report dated 13/08/2012, paras 111, 113 and 119
On the 14 April 2012 the mother reported an allegation to the Department to the effect that M said that her father had put his finger in her vagina and made it sore. Shortly after this the father has made a similar report to the Department that M told him that it was in fact the mother who had inserted her finger in M’s vagina and hurt her[28].
[28] Magellan Report dated 20 June 2012
M was then interviewed by the JIRT team where M repeated the allegation made by the father. Subsequently, during JIRT’s interview with the mother in April 2012, advising her that she should not be permitted to see the children unless ordered by the Court[29]. Subsequently the children have spent no time with their mother.
[29] Exhibit 6 – JIRT Interview of Mother dated 24 April 2012
The father remains convinced that M was deliberately hurt by the mother in her genital area in order for the mother to frame him for sexually assaulting M. The mother in contradiction of her earlier report[30] now considers it unlikely that the father sexually abused M.
[30] Exhibit 12 – Contact Report dated 15 April 2012
The parties do not agree about where M should live. The mother seeks an order for M to reside with her, the father is also seeking that M remain resident with him.
Despite all her developmental difficulties, M was able to express an opinion about whether her parents liked each other. M said this[31]:
Mum likes dad little bit. Dad’s mean to mum sometimes, but mum’s not mean to dad. Dad yell and be mean to mum, but not mum to dad.
When M was asked if there was anyone she was scared of, she said: “Mum.” Asked if she liked her father she said, “Yeah”, her mother “Nah.” However she gave an enthusiastic “Yeah” to spending time with her mother. The family consultant observed M to be a happy, busy and affectionate little girl, hard to keep up with, impulsive, distractive and difficult to understand. She loves her brothers.
[31] Family Report dated 13/08/2012, para 101
M has become the focus for both parents of the bitter dispute which has arisen from their unresolved separation. The father proposes that M should see her mother on four short occasions per year on a supervised basis. The mother wants M to live with her and spend regular weekend and holiday time with her father.
In September and October 2011, M missed weeks of school while her mother organised transport for her. Her behaviour at school deteriorated sharply until mid December 2011, when she moved with B to live with her father and brothers back in the family home. M functions at approximately half of her chronological age and is especially vulnerable on that account.

Section 60CC(3)(h) - if the children are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

The mother identifies as an Aboriginal woman and this has become more significant. She said that the father would often make derogatory remarks and comment about Aboriginal members of her family. The father denies doing so.
There was no other relevant material in the affidavit of the mother. However during cross-examination on the topic by counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer, a great deal of relevant information emerged. L’s father, the mother’s first partner, was an Aboriginal man and his family taught L language and history.
In relation to the children of this marriage, the mother said she painted their faces for National Aborigines and Islanders Day and went to special assemblies. She tried to encourage P to take up traditional painting.
The mother identified a number of Aboriginal relatives. However it was Ms J, now deceased, who had the biggest role during the marriage and no one else. The mother wants to continue to be involved in the National Aborigines and Islanders Day Observance Committee (“NAIDOC”) celebrations and school activities. In answer to the question what could the father do, the mother said, “Stop telling them they are not Aboriginal because they are not black”.
There does seem to have been some tension in the family over Aboriginality. In her interview with the Family Consultant, the maternal grandmother said this on the topic:
[Her sister, the mother’s maternal aunt] did a family tree and found an Aboriginal ancestor.
….. the mother was never raised in the Aboriginal culture because they did not even know there was a connection. She continued to say “I doubt if we really have a drop of it in us”[32].
[32] Family Report dated 13/08/2012, para 166
The maternal grandmother did not provide an affidavit and was not called to give evidence.
I am left with the impression that the subject of Aboriginality and the mother’s identification as Aboriginal is another area where the mother is at odds with her estranged husband, mother and others.
Mr S is an Aboriginal man. I do not know whether the termination of the relationship with Mr S will have an impact on the mother’s engagement with her Aboriginality.
The father has certainly been critical about the mother’s relationship with Mr S. The two issues appear to have become enmeshed. He said this:
I am aware that [the mother] identifies as Aboriginal. She had told me during the relationship that her great great grandfather was Aboriginal. She only began to show an interest in her Aboriginality in the last few years and this increased shortly before separation when she met [Mr S][33].
[33] Affidavit of the father filed 19/10/2012, par 142
I accept the evidence of the father that he has attended Sorry Day and smoking ceremonies at the schools with the children, and that he has completed Personalised Learning Plans for P and M through the Aboriginal Education Officer at their schools. I am satisfied that the father will become involved in Aboriginal cultural activities in a supportive way. I am also satisfied that the antipathy the father feels towards Mr S is based on anger and jealousy rather than racism.

Section 60CC(3)(i) - the attitude to the children, and to the responsibility of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the children’s parents

Each parent has taken a responsible attitude to the children. The mother by providing their day to day care, the father by working to provide for them. However, each party has lost sight of the children’s needs for stability and security in their relationships since separation.
M has been used as a means of punishing the other parent by each of them. She does not understand motivations and agendas and has tried to please both of them. M cannot articulate her feelings, they emerge through her behaviour. Both parents need to refocus on M as an individual.

Section 60CC(3)(j) & (k)– any family violence involving the children or a member of the children’s family and any family violence orders

The mother alleges a history of physical, sexual and verbal abuse of her by the father. He denies it. There is no objective evidence to support the allegations. The mother has told third parties that the father was violent and alcoholic. There is evidence that the father was a regular drinker including his own evidence. The mother does not allege that the children were abused by the father.
The father was concerned by the mother hitting the children, but clearly not sufficiently concerned to end the marriage. Quite the opposite, he made strenuous efforts to encourage the mother to return to the marriage.
An interim AVO was made without admissions for the protection of the mother in the Local Court in mid October 2011. When the matter came back before the Court on 12 April 2012, no final AVO was made. By that date all four children were living with the father and there were interim orders by consent to that effect.

Section 60CC(3)(l) - whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of future proceedings

Having had the children in his fulltime care for approximately 12 months, the father is not untested in the role.
On 26 September 2012, there was a progress report on the family provided by Brighter Futures[34]. It is a glowing report on the achievements of the father, especially the levels of security and trust observed in relationships between him and the children. To disrupt the household by removing two of the children would likely lead to further applications.
[34] Affidavit of Father filed 19/10/2012, Annexure ‘B’ Brighter Futures Report 26/09/2012, Ms K
Keeping the children together in the former family home with the father available fulltime to meet their needs appears to be their best chance of stability and the option least likely to lead to further applications.

Section 60CC(3)(m) - any other fact or circumstance that the Court thinks is relevant

The cross-allegations of child abuse

Each parent has made allegations that the other parent has abused M since separation. Each parent nominates a third party who provided information to him/her. Ms F by the mother, Mr F by the father. Ms and Mr F are a married couple who have become involved and aligned in the breakdown of the Nesbit marriage.
There was a JIRT investigation of the allegations. The interview in April 2012 was recorded and was played in Court at the commencement of proceedings. The JIRT team substantiated an allegation of misconduct by the mother and recommended that there be no more time spent between M and her mother. There was adverse comment on the role of Ms F. Without reference to the Court, orders for supervised time were effectively suspended.

The Mother

The mother’s time with M and B was supervised by Ms F[35].
[35] Annexure A Order 5 of Orders made 31 January 2012 in Federal Magistrates Court
The allegations made by M against the father[36]. The allegations relate to three periods of time:
(1)February 2012 - M says to her mother:
[M]:         I got big boobies don’t I?
Mother:    Why would you say that [M]?
[M]:         Daddy said I got big boobies.
[36] Affidavit of Mother filed 18/10/2012, paras 152 - 171
Ms F also says she heard this comment from M in February 2012[37]:
Daddy says I got big boobies. ([M] was pointing to her chest area when she said this).
[37] Affidavit of Ms F filed 22/06/2012, para 16
The father was not asked whether he had said these words or anything similar to M.
The mother goes on to say that at that time Ms F reported the following statement alleged to have been made to her by the father[38]:
[The mother] may as well give up she is not getting the kids, she’s not getting the house and the kids will go to foster home before she get’em.
(2)Early April 2012
[38] Affidavit of Mother filed 18/10/2012, para 153
In a visit on an unspecified date, but probably early April 2012, the mother says M had “complained of a ‘sore wee’”[39]. Ms F says that in approximately February 2012, she observed M talking to her mother and grabbing onto her genitals and saying “sore sore”. Further Ms F says that throughout her friendship with the mother (the whole of M’s life) she had observed “[M] to often touch, rub and grab her own genital area”[40].
[39] Affidavit of Mother filed 18/10/2012, para 157
[40] Affidavit of Ms F filed 22/06/2012, para 15
This is consistent with the mother’s evidence that M often touched herself (in the genital area) and that she, the mother, would often find that M’s vaginal area would be red from touching and scratching. She had regularly applied nappy rash cream, ensured the area was kept dry and put her in cotton panties to allow the “area to breathe”[41].
[41] Affidavit of Mother filed 18/10/2012, para 130
There was also evidence from the mother that M’s teacher had called a meeting with her in relation to “[M’s] inappropriate touching in class and at the school.” The teacher is said to have referred to M masturbating in class. This is not the language of the report annexed to the mother’s affidavit[42] but “rubbing herself” may be a euphemism. I am unable to conclude that M was masturbating or rubbing her genital area in response to soreness. The latter seems more likely.
[42] Affidavit of Mother filed 18/10/2012, Annexure ‘F’ letter from Brighter Futures 22/10/2010 to Dr I
M has eczema and dry skin as an infant. Although toilet trained, she is apparently still impatient at the toilet and needs help. I accept the evidence of the mother that she bathed M at night if her genital area was sore and then applied cream. She assisted M to wipe herself after using the toilet. She did not wash M after she used the toilet having not thought to do that. The mother said M’s skin was often sore.
Further, the mother always attended to this aspect of M’s care and did not discuss it with the father. Her oral evidence was that when M moved into her father’s care, she did not tell the father about M’s problems with genital soreness, nor about the cream she applied, although she had said to him during the marriage, “It’s really awful, you go out in public and she is scratching herself.”
The mother was apparently embarrassed by M’s behaviour, which to some extent she saw as masturbation or bad habits. More likely M in an uninhibited way, scratched herself whenever her genital area was itchy and painful. That was quite often. Accordingly nothing should have been less surprising to the mother, or Ms F, than that M was complaining of a “sore wee”.
(3) Mid April 2012
In April 2012 probably on Sunday 15 April, the mother in her affidavit says she asked M[43], “Is your wee still sore?” because M had complained of it during the last visit. M’s answer was, “It’s all better now.” The mother then says, “Oh good no more bubble baths or coke and that will help”. Then the affidavit suggests that the next statement of the child was, although not in a continuous sentence, “Dad put his finger in there and pushed hard and I said don’t Dad that hurt.” The mother then asked a series of questions:
To [Ms F], whether she had heard.
To [M]: Was it a long time ago. A: Yes
Where did it happen? A: In bed.
Did Dad have a beer? A: Yes.
[Ms F] then asked [M] to repeat what she had said to her mother. [M] said: “Dad put his finger there (pointing to her vagina) and hurt me”.
[43] Affidavit of the Mother filed 18/10/2012, para 157
The mother then made a call to the Department who notified JIRT.
Ms F gives an entirely different version of events. She says that the mother was explaining to M that no one was allowed to hurt her or smack her and that if someone did hurt her, she needed to tell someone.
This must have been somewhat confusing for M as, on the evidence of the mother, she had often smacked M. There is no explanation as to why the mother was speaking to M in this way. Ms F goes on to say that M responded: “I’m sore. Sore. Daddy hurt”[44].
[44] Affidavit of Ms F filed 22/06/2012, para 17
This is significantly different to what the mother said M had told her that her wee was “all better now.”[45] Ms F asked M to repeat herself. M said[46]:
Daddy hurt me. Daddy put his finger and it hurt ([M] was pointing to her genital area when she said this).
Q: When did that happen?
A:In my room. Long time ago. Daddy doesn’t do it any more. I said stop it daddy, it hurts.
[45] Affidavit of the Mother filed 18/10/2012, para 157
[46] Affidavit of Ms F filed 22/06/2012, para 17
The mother then rang the Department. There is no evidence the mother or Ms F discussed the possibility of any innocent explanation such as the father applying cream or assisting M at the toilet. I have the impression that the mother used the words of the child to become the foundation for a complaint without more. There is also no evidence of an examination of the child by the mother to see if the child was sore. On her own evidence, she wasn’t it was “all better.”
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was no sexual misconduct by the father towards M. The mother conceded in her oral evidence that she did not believe that the father would abuse M.
The point was well made by counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer that neither parent had complained to each other or any external authority of sexual misconduct and had no thought of such a thing during the marriage.

The Father

In his affidavit the father says that in February or March 2012, M complained of a sore vagina after a visit with her mother[47]. As previously stated, it was inevitable that M’s genital soreness would flare up. The father took her to the doctor who tested her urine and examined her. The general practitioner advised the father that M’s genital area was normal but needed cleaning with a wet cotton ball. The father was not comfortable to do that and the doctor cleaned the area.
[47] Affidavit of the Father filed 19/10/2012, para 74
M apparently complained three more times in the following days and weeks of a “sore wee”. It was after a bath each evening. Again, this is entirely consistent with the evidence of the mother that M was made comfortable by a bath.
At about this time Mr F, the husband of Ms F, telephoned the father and told him that his wife and the mother were planning to accuse the father of interfering with M. He also referred to a financial conspiracy between the women to sell both their houses, buy one big house and “rake in the Centrelink money”[48].
[48] Affidavit of the Father filed 19/10/2012, para 76
Mr F did not provide an affidavit and was not called to give evidence. I infer that his evidence would not have assisted the father’s case, especially as the marriage of Mr and Ms F is in trouble, the parties having separated under one roof. However, I accept that Mr F did say those things, although I am not satisfied that there was any basis to Mr F’s claims. The father alerted the Brighter Futures (Benevolent Society) workers and remained alert for false accusations.
On 15 April 2012 M returned to her father after the visit during which the mother had made a notification to the Department. She said to her father[49]:
[M]:               Dad you hurt my wee?
[The father]:   How have I hurt your wee [M]?
[M]:              No you haven’t Dad, Mum has.
[The father]:   How has Mum hurt your wee?
[49] Affidavit of the Father filed 19/10/2012, para 80

M then pinched herself on her genitals through her clothes.
The next day the father rang his case worker and took M to Dr O and then to the police. JIRT attended that afternoon, interviewed M and told the father that “[M] demonstrated to us what her mother did to her.” JIRT then interviewed the mother on 24 April 2012 and reported back to the father that the mother told them, “[M] masturbates all the time.” That is consistent with the evidence of M rubbing and scratching her genitals and consistent with the mother’s belief that this was masturbation.
Also consistent with the evidence, the father said he had never seen M masturbate and it had never been brought to his attention. It was the mother who had engaged with the school previously and sought advice from the Benevolent Society about managing masturbation.
The following day M told her father, “Mum hurt me” and pushed her finger hard against her genitals. It is open for me to find that the mother has hurt M in the genital area. She has regularly attended to soreness and helped M at the toilet. Further, if Ms F is correct, the mother instructed M to tell someone if anyone hurt her.
The father does not believe that the mother molested M for her own gratification. Although the term “sexual abuse” was used throughout the trial, it was not accurate. Rather the father believes that the mother deliberately hurt M’s genitals and instructed her to blame the father. I do not consider that the evidence supports such a finding.
In July 2012, M was interviewed by the Family Consultant. She volunteered “my mum hurt me’. In answer to the question, “Where did mum hurt you”, M answered, “On my bum. I was cranky at my mum”.[50] There was no reference to her “wee”, her word for her genital area.
[50] Family report dated 13/08/2012, par 98
Undoubtedly the mother had hurt M by smacking her from time to time. B complained about that in similar terms. M was then asked if the mother had hurt her anywhere else on her body. M answered, “Mum kicked my ear”.
In observation with the mother and the other three children, M told the Family Consultant, “Daddy hurt me.” Her brother P contradicted her.
I accept the evidence of Ms R on the point that M is unable to understand adult motivation and could be manipulated. She has been encouraged by her parents to each complain about the other and in this way she has been manipulated. Her true feelings are on display in the observation of the Family Consultant. She unreservedly loves both her parents and needs both of them.

Parenting Orders

Parental Responsibility

The presumption of equal parental responsibility would normally not apply to this case due to the party’s allegations of child abuse pursuant to section 61DA(2) of the Act. However, as has been established by the evidence I am not satisfied that there are “reasonable grounds” in this to suggest either parent has subjected the children to abuse. As such I now turn to consider whether the evidence satisfies me that the presumption should not apply (s 65DA(4)).
The parties have not spoken directly to each other since separation. The father believes the mother cruelly treated M as part of a deliberate plan to have him accused of sexual abuse. It was evident that there is no trust and confidence between the parents. There is little prospect of cooperation.
The father did not encourage the boys to maintain contact with their mother in the months before the allegations arose in April 2012 about M. Neither parent has addressed their feelings about separation, nor the causes which gave rise to it.
There is no doubt that the parents are currently unable to discuss long term issues affecting the children. Accordingly, I make orders for the father to have sole parental responsibility subject to the mother having the opportunity for consultation prior to long term decisions being made. The children will primarily reside with the father thus he will be in the better position to determine long term issues in relation to the children as they arise.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and sixty-eight (168) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cleary delivered on 26 February 2013.

Associate:

Date: 26 February 2013

[2013] FamCA 103

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law