Oakland and Oakland
[2018] FCCA 1405
•28 June 2018
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| OAKLAND & OAKLAND | [2018] FCCA 1405 |
| Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Applications for parenting and property adjustment orders – best interests of children – assessment of contributions – orders made. |
| Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65D, 65DAA, 75, 79 Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s.14 |
| Cases cited: Young v Queensland Trustees Ltd (1956) 99 CLR 560 In the Marriage of Harris (1991) 104 FLR 458 Davey v Lee (1990) DFC 95-084 Pierce & Pierce [1998] FamCA 74 Dickons & Dickons [2012] FamCAFC 154 Norbis v Norbis [1986] HCA 17 Trebiano & Trebiano [2018] FamCA 344 |
| Applicant: | MS OAKLAND |
| Respondent: | MR OAKLAND |
| File Number: | PAC 1709 of 2015 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Newbrun |
| Hearing dates: | 21, 22, 23 February 2018 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 23 February 2018 |
| Delivered at: | Parramatta |
| Delivered on: | 28 June 2018 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr P Schroder |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Mark Brown & Associates |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr R Harper |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Armstrong Legal |
ORDERS
That the parties shall have equal shared parental responsibility in consultation with each other for making decisions about the long term care, welfare and development of the child [X] (born 2007).
That each party respectively shall have sole parental responsibility for making decisions about the day to day care, welfare and development of the said child whilst the said child in their respective care.
That the said child live with the mother.
That the said child spend time with the father as follows:
(a)Each alternate weekend from after school Wednesday to the commencement of school Monday.
(b)In the event that any such weekend falls on a long weekend including a Monday then it shall be extended to the commencement of school on Tuesday.
(c)For one half of each school holiday period other than Christmas by agreement and failing agreement for the first half in years ending with an even number and the second half in years ending with an odd number.
(d)For one half of the Christmas school holiday period in 2 two week blocks by agreement, and failing agreement, commencing at the start of the Christmas school holidays in even numbered years and commencing two weeks after the start of the Christmas school holidays in odd numbered years.
(e)From 9.00am 24 December 2017 to 9.00am 25 December 2017, provided the child shall be in the wife’s care from 9:00 am 25 December 2017 to 9:00 am 26 December 2017, and each alternate year thereafter, and that that arrangement shall be reversed in the intervening years.
(f)For a period of 6 hours on the father’s birthday if the child is not already in the father’s care, provided that the child shall be with the mother on the mother’s birthday for a period of 6 hours if the child is not already in the mother’s care on the wife’s birthday.
(g)On the birthday of the child for 2 hours if a school day and 4 hours if a non-school day, provided the mother shall have the same period of time with the child if the child would otherwise be in the father’s care on the child’s birthday.
(h)On the Father’s Day weekend from 6:00 pm Saturday until commencement of school on the following Monday provided the husband’s time with the child shall be suspended on the Mother’s Day weekend during the same times.
(i)Such further times as the parties may agree.
That periodic time shall be suspended during school holiday periods and resume following the commencement of each school term in the same pattern as if school holidays had not intervened.
That school holidays shall be deemed to commence at 9:00 am following the last day of attendance at school and conclude at 5:00 pm immediately prior to the first day of attendance at school in the new term.
That for the purpose of facilitating Orders for time other than at school, the father shall collect the child from the mother’s residence at the commencement of time and the mother shall collect the child from the father’s residence at the conclusion of time.
That neither party physically chastise the child, nor allow any other person to do so.
That neither party denigrate the other parent or anyone living in a close personal relationship with the other parent, to the child, nor allow any other person to do so.
That each party shall keep the other informed of any significant issues relating to the health and general wellbeing of the child and shall forthwith advise the other of any accident or significant illness affecting the child including providing details of treatment and attendance at doctors and hospitals.
That in the event that the child is referred to a specialist medical practitioner, the party who arranged the referral shall:
(a)Consult with the other party prior to making an appointment for the child;
(b)Advise the other party of the details of the specialist medical practitioner;
(c)Ensure that sufficient time be allowed prior to the appointment to enable the other party to attend;
(d)And in the event of a change of appointments, shall forthwith notify the other party of such changed details.
That each parent forthwith notify the other by text message or email when giving consent for the child to be involved in any school or extracurricular activity for which parental consent is required.
That
(a)The father be and is hereby restrained from consuming illicit drugs including but not limited to marijuana 48 hours prior to and during the time when he is caring for the child.
(b)For a period of twelve months following these final Orders the father undergo chain of custody urinalysis screening pursuant to the requisite Australian standards for illicit drugs including but not limited to marijuana, on at least 6 random occasions selected by the mother, and within 24 hours of the mother requesting same by e-mail sent to the father.
(c)The father to advise the mother by e-mail within 2 hours of undergoing such drug screening, the name and address of the drug screening agency and the time at which he underwent urinalysis testing.
(d)The father supply to the mother by e-mail scanning within 12 hours of receipt by him of the result of the urinalysis testing.
That the child may communicate with each of the parties by telephone, or video such as Skype or Facetime, at any reasonable time requested by the child, and the parent with whom the child is living, shall facilitate such communication.
That each parent be permitted to travel overseas with the child to Hague Convention countries only and for periods of time when that parent is otherwise spending time with the child as provided by these Orders, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the other parent.
Pursuant to Section 65DA(2) the obligations that these Orders create and the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders, details of which are annexed, are included in these Orders.
That each party shall forthwith take all necessary steps and sign all documents to cause the property situate at and known as Property A and being more particularly described in Certificate of Title to be sold by private treaty at the earliest possible date at a price and with an agent to be agreed between the parties, and failing such agreement to be determined by the President of the NSW Division of the Australian Property Institute or his nominee and that the proceeds of sale be disbursed in accordance with these Orders.
That in the event that the said property fails to be sold by private treaty within a period of 4 months, the parties shall at the request of either of them, take all necessary steps and execute all necessary documents to cause the said property to be sold by auction at the earliest possible date at a reserve to be agreed between the parties, and failing such agreement, to be determined by the President of the NSW Division of the Australian Property Institute or his nominee and that the proceeds of the said sale be disbursed in accordance with these Orders.
If the property is not sold at auction then the parties shall follow the directions contained in Orders 17 and 18 herein so far as they apply provided a period of 5 calendar months shall elapse after the attempted auction sale before the property is again put to public auction.
That the proceeds of sale of the property situate at and known as Property A be disbursed in the following manner.
(a)The payment of legal costs and agent's costs on sale.
(b)The payment of any mortgage.
(c)The payment to the maternal grandmother of a sum of $34,000.00, relating to an acknowledgment of monies owed to the maternal grandfather’s estate.
(d)The net balance be divided as to 55% to the mother and 45% to the father.
That the father continue to pay as they fall due, all regular instalments in respect of the mortgage, council rates, water rates, household insurance in respect of the property.
And the Court notes that the monthly mortgage payment due to be paid by the father is the interest and capital inclusive amount on the loan set by Bank 1, currently in the sum of $1,934.00.
That the father forthwith do all things and sign all documents necessary to transfer to the mother all of his right title and interest in the Motor Vehicle A registered number.
That within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, the father provide to the mother two lists of all furniture and chattels located within the former matrimonial home, and that within seven (7) days thereafter, the mother shall choose furniture and chattels in one list, and the father shall thereafter allow the mother and/or her representative to attend at the home to collect all furniture and chattels on the mother’s list.
That the father and mother do all acts and things and give all consents and execute all documents and writings necessary to give effect to the Orders made herein.
That in the event that either party refuses to execute any deed or instrument necessary to give effect to these Orders, within seven (7) days of being requested so to do, the Registrar of the Court be appointed pursuant to Section 106A to execute such deed or instrument in the name of such party and to do all acts and things necessary to give validity to the operation of the deed or instrument.
That except as otherwise provided for in this Order the father and mother each be the sole legal and beneficial owners of all items of all property including furniture, money, motor vehicles, insurances, equities, superannuation entitlements and personal effects currently in the possession or control of each of them respectively to the exclusion of the other.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Oakland & Oakland is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA |
PAC 1709 of 2015
| MS OAKLAND |
Applicant
And
| MR OAKLAND |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This was the final hearing of property and parenting proceedings between the Mr Oakland (hereafter “the father”) born 1961, now aged 57 years, and Ms Oakland (hereafter “the mother”) born 1972, now aged 45 years.
The child of the relationship is [X] born 2007. He attends Year 5 at School E.
The father presently lives in the former matrimonial home (“the property”). The mother lives with the maternal grandmother in a house owned by the maternal grandmother. The maternal grandmother’s home is located about 100 metres from the property.
The parties attended a mediation in 2014. After that mediation, and from about July 2014, the child has spent time with the parties in an equal time arrangement. The arrangement was, inter alia, that the child spend time with the father, in Week One, from Monday after school to Wednesday before school and from Friday after school to Monday before school, and in Week Two, from Wednesday after school to start of school Friday. At other times the child was in the care of the mother.
The mother’s occupation is (occupation omitted), and the father’s occupation is (occupation omitted).
The parties’ proposals
The father sought orders as set out in his Case Outline. In relation to parenting, inter alia, he sought Orders that the child live with the parties in a week about arrangement. As to property, he sought Orders, inter alia, that the property be sold with the net proceeds divided equally.
The mother initially sought parenting Orders as set out in her Case Outline, including a proposed Order that the child spend time with the father from after school Thursday to the commencement of school Monday each fortnight.
At the commencement of oral submissions, the mother sought an amended parenting Order, namely that the child spend time with the father, on a fortnightly basis, from Friday after school to before school Monday. This application to amend was rejected by the Court. Despite the Court not granting leave to amend, the Court has expressly considered this belated proposal by the mother and rejects it for the reasons stated later in these Reasons.
The balance of parenting Orders sought by the mother are set out in her Case Outline. As to property, inter alia, she sought Orders that the property be sold with the net proceeds being divided 65% in her favour.
The parties were in agreement that an Order should be made that they have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.
Material relied upon
The mother relied upon the following documents:
a)Further Amended Initiating Application filed 28 April 2017;
b)Affidavit of Ms A filed 28 April 2017;
c)Affidavit of Ms K filed 28 April 2017;
d)Affidavit of Mr H filed 24 January 2018;
e)Affidavit of Ms Oakland filed 25 January 2018;
f)Financial Statement of Ms Oakland filed 25 January 2018.
The father relied upon the following documents:
a)Affidavit of Mr Oakland filed 28 April 2017;
b)Affidavit of Mr Oakland filed 14 February 2018;
c)Financial Statement of Mr Oakland filed 14 February 2018;
d)Affidavit of Ms L filed 14 February 2018;
e)Further Amended Response to Initiating Application filed 15 February 2018.
There were certain documents tendered into evidence:
a)4 x photos (Exhibit A);
b)Copy of text message (Exhibit B);
c)Notes of psychologist Ms S (Exhibit C);
d)Family Report dated 7 July 2016 (Exhibit D);
e)Child Inclusive Memorandum dated 28 July 2015 (Exhibit E);
f)Joint balance sheet (Exhibit F);
g)Consent Orders (Exhibit G).
Both parties were cross-examined. The father’s new partner, Ms L, and psychologist, Ms S, were cross-examined. Ms S had been engaged by the father, in the second half of 2017, to assist him “in addressing his presenting concern of Substance Use Disorder-Marijuana Type”.
Credit issues
The mother was an impressive witness. In cross-examination, she answered questions responsively, and made concessions from time to time.
The father was not an impressive witness. The father often presented as evasive witness in cross-examination, and the Court refers, for example, to his oral evidence relating to his past use of marijuana.
The Court has significant concerns as to the reliability of the father’s evidence. For example, his oral evidence relating to his consumption of alcohol was inconsistent with his reports of alcohol consumption to Ms S, psychologist.
Where there is any conflict between the parties’ evidence, the Court prefers the mother’s evidence, subject to any express finding of fact to the contrary.
Parenting
Evidence
The parties commenced cohabitation in 1998. They separated in about June 2014. On separation, the mother moved from the property, and the father has continued to reside there since that time.
Throughout the whole period of the relationship, the mother observed the father to smoke marijuana on a daily basis. He continued to smoke marijuana on a daily basis after the child’s birth. His usual routine was that within about half an hour of arriving home, he would go to the backyard and smoke one to two marijuana joints, whilst the mother cared for the child.
At the time of separation, in mid-June 2014, after the mother returned to the house with the child, the mother observed that the father had placed her personal belongings from the main bedroom onto the landing, and the mother saw the father subsequently throw many of her personal belongings onto the landing. When the mother attempted to put them back, the father pushed the mother out of the way, and threw those items, which the mother had brought back into the bedroom, out onto the landing. Eventually, the mother gave up trying to put her clothes back into the bedroom. She began to pick up her clothes, which had been thrown over the floor, and placed a number of items on a coffee table. Shortly after she did that, as the father walked past, he pushed the clothes that were on the coffee table, onto the floor, and said to the mother, “Tidy up, you dirty pig”, or words to that effect. As a result of the father’s behaviour, the mother moved from the family home the following day.
From the time of the child’s birth, the mother was primarily responsible for his care and upbringing (with the maternal grandmother assisting in the care of the child for a period of time). The father assisted the mother throughout the relationship in caring for the child.
As the child became older, and the elements of his routine changed, the mother always maintained a primary role in implementing his day-to-day routine both during the week and on weekends.
In April 2010 the child was diagnosed with high functioning autism. The mother primarily organised numerous therapies for the child, as recommended by his various health professionals. The mother always attended health related appointments for the child and the father attended most doctor’s appointments.
The parties are of the view that the child presently requires no therapy for his autism and he is presently having no therapy.
In about August 2015, the mother had a discussion with the child, in which the child said that the father had called him fat. The mother sent an email then to the father requesting that he not call the child fat. The father responded by email stating, inter alia, that he had said to the child,
‘You’re looking fatter?’
I said it in a very even manner – almost simply in passing.
No malice and certainly not to upset him.
Merely a voiced thought.
– I said to him what I thought. His chin and cheeks seem fatter. It is nothing to me. Absolutely nothing.
The mother asserts that the father is almost always unresponsive in relation to any suggestions she makes in relation to the child, and when speaking to the mother or sending emails, he usually addresses the mother in a derogatory manner. For example, in early October 2015, the mother sent the father an email about the child’s weight gain during the holiday time that the child had been with the father. The mother asserted that the child had gained 1.5 kg. The father’s email in response stated, inter alia,
The weight gain is 100 g on his weight when he came here. He is a growing boy, and there isn’t a doctor who would think him anything but healthy in comparison to his peers.
…
Grow up and try to remain focussed on doing something to help this situation, rather than ramming down my throat your thoughts, threats, and absolute crap.
Try to think of How can [X]’s life be made better… Not how you can feel better about yourself by constantly criticising me?
…
Now talk to me on a civil respectful basis, or continue NOT talking to me and feel all that HATE you seem to have for me.
You are not only wasting your own life, and [X]’s as well.
We NEED to get together on [X]. I am more worried about his ASD.
Please talk to me for his benefit.
The mother in about July 2016 found a course called Go4Fun that teaches children about healthy eating and lifestyle. The mother proposed to the father that the child participate in the course. The father would not agree to the child’s participation.
The mother, in about October 2015, invited the father’s involvement in arrangements that she had made for the child to undertake his (religious activity), the child having been christened in the Church. Initially, the father told the mother that under no circumstances would he allow the child to do his (religious activity). Ultimately, the child made his (religious activity) in 2016.
Until the age of eight, the child wet the bed nightly. The mother proposed to the father using a bedwetting alarm, but the father was unresponsive to that proposal, and also to the mother’s further proposal to take the child to a continence clinic. Subsequently, the father agreed with the mother to take the child to a continence clinic. Following implementation of a treatment strategy, within about four months the child’s bedwetting ceased.
In January 2017, the child started inconsistently wetting the bed again. The mother did not discuss the problem with the father, by reason of her previous experience dealing with the bedwetting issue with the father. The mother reinstated the use of the alarm and the problem resolved.
The father does not assist the child with his school work that involves special or larger school projects. The mother assists the child to complete these projects. As for usual homework tasks, the mother generally supervises the child doing most of his homework whilst he is with the mother, and the father, to some extent since March 2015, assists the child in this regard.
On a number of occasions, the father has failed to advise the mother of school activities for the child, which are notified through the child whilst he is in the father’s care; for example in July 2016 the father did not notify the mother about an upcoming excursion.
In late June 2017, the mother became aware that both copies of the child’s first semester report had been taken home by him to the father’s house. The child was in the father’s care, and was to remain in the father’s care for the first week of that holiday period. The mother sent the father an email enquiring whether he had both copies of the school report, and the father’s initial response was “Yes.” The mother responded by text message asking the father, “And you didn’t feel the need to mention it.” The father responded, inter alia, “No. Why?” The father initially proposed to the mother to deliver the school report to her about ten days later, when the child was to be returned to the mother’s care, but the mother subsequently collected it within a much shorter period of time. It should be observed that at this time the parties were living within about 100 metres of each other. (In cross-examination, the father agreed that that episode relating to the mother’s copy of the school report did not demonstrate cooperative parenting on his part.)
The child participated in mid-year school musicals and 2014 and 2016, and the father did not attend any of those events. The 2016 musical was staged on four separate occasions, being lunchtime and night-time on a Friday, and the following Saturday, and it was compulsory for the child to attend each performance. The father did not take the child to either of the Saturday performances. When the mother became aware that the child was not going to attend the Saturday performances, she raised that issue with the father, and he wrote an email to the mother stating, words to the effect, “I feel no need, or reason to have to explain this to you”.
In early November 2016, the mother sent the father an email to ascertain why the child had not done his homework during the previous day whilst in the father’s care. The father responded by email, stating, “Ask him.”
Since separation, the mother has been primarily responsible for the child’s financial support. There are certain costs that the parties have shared equally including, for example, school fees. The costs that the mother alone has paid for the child include school uniforms, school holiday workshops, school photos, and private health cover from 26 August 2017.
Since separation, the mother has become more and more reluctant to attempt to seek the father’s assistance with the payment for additional costs for the child due to the responses that the mother receives from the father whenever she makes requests for financial assistance. In early February 2017, the mother received a request from the father that she provide to the father, through the mother’s solicitor, “full clarification of how [X]’s costs for all items are shared”. One email received by the mother from the father at this time stated, inter alia,
I cannot debate this with you any further
Until i have agreement with you, i will not pay for any costs, nor will i converse with you again
Please ask Mr Brown to contact me via letter
Thanks
The mother currently pays about $175 per month to the father for child support. She has paid child support to the father for the child’s care since a child support assessment was issued in the second half of 2015.
Initially following separation, the mother received the Centrelink carer’s allowance, for the child, in the sum of about $121 per fortnight. In late May 2015 that was changed by the father, and since then the allowance has been divided equally between the parties. The mother has deposited the allowance in a bank account in the child’s name so that it is available for therapy for the child, as required, as he matures. In numerous emails and text messages received by the mother and the father in the first approximate six months following separation, the father accused the mother of stealing the child’s savings, with the father variously stating to the mother, “you’ve stolen [X]’s savings”, and “you’re a thief”.
From shortly after separation, the father insisted that the child call him, or have Facetime with him, every day that the child was in the mother’s care. The mother asked the father why he needed the child to call him when it was causing the child so much worry. The father replied that he wanted the child to be the one to call him, because it was his responsibility.
In about early February 2015, the child told the mother that he was worried that the father was going to be angry with him because he had not called the father or had Facetime with him during the weekend. Due to the child’s increasing anxiety about the issue, and the child’s determination not to have Facetime with the father on every night that he was in the mother’s care, the mother stopped encouraging the child to have Facetime with the father, at that time. The child and the father now communicate via Skype text.
On 13 February 2015, the mother sent an email to the father stating that the child in the car that morning had had a great deal of anxiety because he was worried the father was going to be angry with him. The child told the mother that the father was always angry with him on the first day he was with the father, but fine the next days. The child told the mother that things that the father would get angry with him about included the child not calling the father, not remembering everything that he had done during the day, and not drinking all his water. The mother told the father in the email, inter alia, that the child was so worried that he was asking the mother what he could do if the father got angry. The mother received no response to that email from the father.
In about mid-March 2016, the child told the mother that he was worried that the father would be angry with him, because he had forgotten to Skype him “last night”.
The child is often confused about the arrangements for him to spend time with the parties.
Almost every negotiation with the father about arrangements for time with the child, other than the settled week to week periodic time, has been problematic for the mother.
For example, prior to the September/October school holidays 2016, the mother requested that the father swap the weeks that the child was to be in their respective care, so that she could attend a work-related conference in Melbourne. Initially the father agreed. Then about two weeks before the commencement of the school holidays, the father changed his mind, after the father expressed his disappointment at the mother not having said “thank you” earlier.
On 3 July 2017, the mother received a proposal from the father for time with the child during the 2017 Christmas school holidays, and which included the child being with the father on Christmas Day, and New Year’s Eve, which were times that the child was in the father’s care during 2016. When the mother responded to the father seeking an alteration of those times, she received an email from the father in which he stated, “First in best dressed! Suck it up baby!” The mother took that email from the father as extremely offensive and rude.
Because the mother was not able to negotiate with the father a satisfactory arrangement for the child to participate in physical activity, the child did not participate in any physical activity in 2017 after he ceased swimming lessons in early February 2017.
The father, in about 2016, entered into a relationship with a woman called Ms A. The father did not give the mother any information about her. The mother was informed by the child. Then in about mid-2017, as a result of a conversation with the child, the mother understood that that the father had entered into a new relationship with a woman by the name of Ms L, but whose identity the mother did not otherwise know.
The child has, on many days, when spending time with the father, played on the computer from about 6 AM to at least 8 PM. During the parties’ relationship, the father was a “homebody”, and did not like leaving the property.
Since separation, the child has repetitively expressed to the mother a view that he wishes to spend more time with her. After receipt of an email from the father on 1 July 2017 requesting a week about arrangement, the mother had a conversation with the child shortly thereafter, and the child told the mother, inter alia, that he wanted to spend more time with the mother but that he did not want the father to know.
The child, when playing the computer, refuses to stop, answer telephone calls, speak to people, or interact with people. When the child is with the mother, the child is aware that that is unacceptable behaviour, and that communication with people comes first. The father does not impose that rule on the child.
The mother often has to remind the father to make arrangements for the child at the last moment, which upsets the child, or the mother has to make the arrangement herself. An example was in August 2016 when the father did not buy, in a timely fashion, an appropriate T-shirt for the child for a school musical.
The father is rarely prepared to change arrangements for the child’s care to suit either the child’s needs or the mother’s convenience, and if he does change those arrangements, it is often at a significant emotional cost to the mother, as a result of the father’s argumentative and unresponsive attitude to those matters.
In late May 2017, the mother requested the father to change an arrangement for time to enable the child to attend his uncle’s birthday party. The father’s response to the mother, by email, was “Ask Mr D (the uncle) to reschedule the party so [X] can go if you wish.”
During 2016, the mother requested the father on numerous occasions to assist the child to learn to ride a bike. In early 2016 the mother ascertained that a required activity for the child’s end of year school camp would be bike riding, and a request was made that all students learn to ride a bike before the camp. The child has poor gross motor skills, and he was anxious about being required to participate in the bike activity at the camp. Throughout the year, the father refused to teach the child to ride a bike. The mother took the child to bike lessons. When the child attended the camp, he was anxious and distressed, and began vomiting. As a result, the mother had to bring the child home, although she did return the child the following day. During a conversation that the mother had with the child after he stayed with the father following the camp, the child told the mother that the father had become really angry with him because he was sick at camp, and because he was worried about the bike riding.
During the parties’ relationship, the father perpetrated family violence towards the mother, on numerous occasions in the presence of the child.
For example, about two months after the child’s birth, and following an argument with the father, whilst the mother was holding the child in her arms, the father slapped her hard on the right side of her face.
A further example occurred when the child was about two years of age. During an argument in the kitchen at home, the father spat in the mother’s face.
Another example occurred in about late 2011. During an argument with the father, the mother became frightened of his aggressive behaviour, and started to leave with the child. The father ran out of the house, jumped onto the bonnet of the car, and stayed there in an effort to prevent the mother from leaving. The bonnet was dented. The child was present with the mother in the car at this time. (The Court observes that in cross-examination in relation to this incident, it was put to the father that his actions in jumping onto the bonnet of the car in an effort to stop the mother from leaving would have terrified the occupants of the car. The father’s response was merely that he could see that “it could be upsetting”.)
In the week leading up to 20 November 2015, the child had imposed upon him three detentions through school for misbehaviour. The mother told the father that she did not intend to impose any further punishments on the child. The father would not accept the mother’s decision. The father sent the mother an email on 20 November 2015, at 6:38 PM stating, inter alia,
He will no longer have PC at my house
He will do exactly as I ask and it will not be repeated
Use of naughty step is reintroduced
If he continues I will not buy him things he likes as presents
He will behave as an exemplary child with me – nothing else will be accepted …
My objective is to stamp out this behaviour for ever!
There were further emails between the parties on that date with ultimately the father accusing the mother of neglect of the child.
On 20 November 2015, the father became angry with the child while picking him up from school, and when the child got home to the property, the father started yelling at the child. The father slapped him multiple times, including on his left cheek.
The mother, following the Child Inclusive Conference in July 2015, immediately enrolled in and completed a Keeping Kids in Mind program, as suggested by the Family Report writer.
The father attended five sessions of the Keeping Kids in Mind parenting course, completing those sessions in early September 2015. He attended a Talking with Your Kids seminar in August 2017.
The child is now extremely sensitive to any display of anger by the father, and becomes distressed and agitated at the prospect of having done anything wrong in the father’s eyes. The child often says to the mother, when he has done something about which he believes the father will be angry, “Please don’t tell Dad”, or words to that effect. Often, when he says those words to the mother, he becomes distressed and teary.
The father received negative results for three chain of custody urine drug tests in December 2017, January 2018, and February 2018.
Following the recommendation of the Family Report writer on 7 July 2016 (see below) that the father engage with a therapeutic service with a view to reducing drug dependence and developing alternate stress management and emotion regulation strategies, the father attended upon a psychologist, Ms S, on three occasions, being 15 August 2017, 29 August 2017, and 5 December 2017.
The mother gave oral evidence.
The mother confirmed that she and the father rarely communicate. She stated that the reason for this is that father is quite aggressive to her and that if she does not say the right thing or do the right thing, she is immediately attacked. She has found that quite difficult over the years to cope with, so as a coping mechanism she has just withdrawn from communication. For example, if she does not agree with a discipline method, she will get a message back from the father stating that she is a bad mother and is making bad choices. The mother stated that it is always that she is putting the child at risk, so she feels like, “it’s negotiate on his terms or be accused of being a bad parent” for the child.
The Court enquired of the mother over what period of time this pattern of asserted aggressive communication had occurred. The mother stated that in the second half of 2017 she really tried to cut down the amount of communication that the parties had. The mother stated that the negative communication:
was making me feel like I was lowering myself to a standard that I didn’t want to be in, and I just tried to take the high road, and as a part of that it meant that I just limited communication to necessities regarding what [X] needed and had to have as opposed to nice to haves, and just tried to formalise the communication from that perspective.
The mother then stated that the stance that she had taken, to lessen her communication with the father, led to more work that she was required to do for the child. Explaining, the mother stated that she had decided that it was easier for her to do the extra work for the child than to have a debate or be attacked for doing something that the father might not agree with or did not like.
The mother stated that her quality of communication with the father caused her “personal angst” and it “absolutely” bothered her. She stated that when seeking to communicate with the father, “The issue at hand never becomes the issue about the communication. It usually becomes about individual.”
The mother stated that she thinks that the father does not have any respect for her as the mother of the child, “and his historical communication has clearly demonstrated that he does not think very highly of me at all.” The mother stated that she did not think very highly of the father.
It was put to the mother by the father’s Counsel that the parties had managed to work out the arrangements for the child without any Court Orders since July 2014. The mother responded by stating that:
but it’s on what [the father] has wanted and I have give[n] into. So, yes, we’ve managed to do it without Court Orders because I have felt intimidated by him.
The mother stated that almost always, in relation to parenting over the last almost four years, she has given in to everything that the father wanted. Explaining, the mother stated that:
a little is historical from our marriage where I have felt intimidated by [the father], but also because I’ve tried to put [the child] first, so I thought that if we are fighting or I don’t agree and [the father] becomes hostile, then [the child] pays the price.
As to the child’s relationship with the father, the mother stated that her views have changed since the Family Report. The mother stated that the child:
is very concerned about his dad’s reaction to things and quite often if he is in trouble or if something bad happens and I say to him, “I’m going to speak to your dad about it,”, he gets very distraught to the point where he becomes tearful. So from that I take away that their relationship cannot be good if he is so concerned of his dad’s reaction that causes him anxiety to the point of tears, then I would question.
The mother confirmed that she does not generally trust the father now in relation to the child. For example, the mother stated that there have been quite a few incidents where the father has been quick to tell the child that it was her fault that the incident had occurred. The mother related how, in relation to her father’s funeral, she had asked the father not to come because it was quite contentious. The father then told the child that the mother did not want the father to come to the funeral, which quite upset the child.
The mother’s younger sister, Ms A, aged 42 years, who was not cross-examined by the father, stated in her Affidavit, that she is the child’s godmother. She described the father as an introvert and, from her observations, having a very short fuse. She had, on numerous occasions, observed him to become angry and shout at the mother and the child over things that appeared to her to be of little consequence. She had always felt that she had to walk on eggshells around the father because she had frequently seen him lose his temper for little or no apparent reason. She had also, on numerous occasions, been present and observed the father speak in a derogatory fashion to the mother. Many of those incidents occurred in front of the child. She stated that whenever that occurred, the child appeared to become very quiet and withdrawn. She stated that on those occasions, the mother tried to avoid the situation, and appeared to try to minimise her distress.
The mother’s sister stated that in the past she had observed the father smoking marijuana at the parties’ family home on at least ten occasions. From her observations, when the father was not smoking marijuana or under the influence of marijuana, he was much more aggressive and short tempered.
The maternal grandmother made an Affidavit. She was not cross-examined.
The Court accepts the maternal grandmother’s evidence, including in relation to the father’s physical and verbal behaviour towards her in December 2016.
The father gave oral evidence.
The father stated that his relationship with Ms L was continuing to develop. He asserted that he had decided she was a partner in 2017.
The father confirmed that he had not made any further appointments with psychologist Ms S since his last appointment with her in December 2017. He stated that “perhaps” he might make future appointments with Ms S if he felt he had any relapse towards using marijuana again. He later stated that if he felt that he wanted marijuana again (if he had a craving) he would seek further treatments.
The father conceded that in about November 2015, in relation to an important parenting aspect pertaining to the child, being behavioural issues relating to him at school, he could not come to an agreed position with the mother as to how to deal with these behavioural issues including detentions.
The father agreed that he had sent a toxic and offensive email to the mother about the child’s weight on 7 October 2015. He agreed that the email did not show respect for the mother.
The father stated that communication between himself and the mother with respect to the child’s matters has become “less toxic”.
The father stated that there had been nothing preventing him from sending a text message or email to the mother advising her about his relationship with Ms L. There then followed this exchange between Counsel for the mother and the father:
MR SCHRODER (Counsel for the mother): And it would seem that you lack the degree of communication between yourself and the mother is so toxic that you can’t even bring yourself to let the mother know that you’re in a relationship with a person who is going to play a role, be it major or minor, but a role in [X]’s life; correct?
MR OAKLAND: Yes.
The father stated that no plans had been made in relation to the prospect of marriage with Ms L. (The Court observes that Ms L’s affidavit evidence included the statement that she and the father are in a serious relationship but “it is still new”.)
The father confirmed that, having first read the Family Report, he did not accept the contention of the Family Report writer that his marijuana use could impact upon the child.
The father confirmed that he had seen one Dr H in 2014, who had recommended that the father participate in a detox program. The father has not attended a detox program in relation to marijuana use.
The father engaged Ms S, psychologist, in relation to his marijuana use.
Ms S’s written report, attached to her Affidavit, was dated 6 February 2018.
The father reported to Ms S feeling irritable when he was directly intoxicated with marijuana. Ms S stated that it would not be surprising if marijuana affected the father’s moods and behaviours when he was directly under its influence.
Ms S confirmed that the father had informed her that he had not used marijuana when the child was in his care for the last three years. (The Court observes that this is inconsistent with the father’s statements to the Family Report writer, at paragraph 40 of the Family Report, that he occasionally used marijuana while the child was in his care, after the child had gone to bed.)
Ms S gave oral evidence.
Ms S stated that she had prepared her written report by reference to her notes (Exhibit C).
Ms S stated that she relied on the accuracy and truth of what she was told as part of preparing her treatment plan, diagnosis and prognosis.
Ms S confirmed that the negative interpersonal interactions experienced by the father with the mother related to text or email messages.
Ms S confirmed that the father had made no further appointments for consultations with her since the last consultation on 5 December 2017.
Ms S stated that the father did tell her that he had been using marijuana pretty regularly since he was aged 35.
Ms S stated that detoxification would involve the father being an inpatient at a hospital.
Ms S confirmed that her recommendation in her written report required the father to attend at least three to four additional treatment sessions with her. She stated that if the father was relapsing into marijuana use again, she would recommend that he attend even further treatment sessions.
Ms S confirmed that she did not have in her mind, at the time she wrote her report, that the father had acknowledged to the Family Report writer that he occasionally used marijuana while the child was in his care but after the child had gone to bed. Ms S stated that it would be a concern to her if the father was using marijuana when the child was under his care.
Ms L, with whom the father is in a relationship, made an Affidavit.
Ms L stated in oral evidence that she has still not had any formal introduction or meeting with the mother.
Ms L stated that since August 2017 she has stayed overnight at the father’s residence from time to time.
Ms L stated that on her second date with the father, the father mentioned that he smoked marijuana. The father told her that since separation, he only smoked when he did not have the child in his sole care.
Ms L stated that she could tell that at times the father was stressed from text messages exchanged between himself and the mother. She had drawn the conclusion that the father had proceeded to smoke marijuana to calm down.
Ms L stated that it would give her concern if the father, after separation, was using marijuana when caring for the child. She stated that the father had not told her that he had previously spat on the mother. She stated that the father had told her that he had slapped the child on the face which had left a mark on his face.
Ms L stated that when the parties’ former matrimonial home is sold and the father moves out, she and the father will move into her house in Suburb P. She stated that then she and the father will decide where they live “further down the track”.
Ms L stated that her son attends the School D. She works in Suburb Q. She earns $110,000 per annum. Her occupation is (occupation omitted). The child attends school in Suburb R.
Exhibits
Exhibit C included the clinical notes of Ms S’s consultations with the father on 15 August 2017, 29 August 2017, and 5 December 2017.
At the consultation on 15 August 2017, the father told the psychologist Ms S, inter alia, that marijuana use relaxes him. He stated that he was an intense person and marijuana use made him less intense. He stated that he had ceased using marijuana one week earlier. He stated that he had learned strategies to help him abstain from using marijuana. He reported that he was having about three shots of whiskey every night to calm and relax himself. The father asked for fortnightly appointments. He reported that he could not attend detox as he needed to attend work.
At the consultation with Ms S on 29 August 2017, the father reported that he had used marijuana only once since his last session. He reported that when he was under the influence of marijuana on this one occasion (on Saturday), he had noticed that he had become overly sensitive with his new partner about something. He reported that his partner had pointed out he was acting weird. He reported that he used to think that marijuana use chilled him out and made him less intense. He now advised that he in fact thought that marijuana made him even more of an intense person.He asserted he was less intense with the child when he was not “stoned”.
The psychologist asked the father to monitor his cravings, including triggers, what he was feeling, thinking and how he reacted. Another session was booked for 3 October 2017. (The Court observes that this consultation did not occur).
The father’s last consultation with Ms S was on 5 December 2017. The father reported that there had been about twelve occasions when he had experienced psychological urges to use marijuana. He reported that these were all triggered by interactions (via text message) with the mother. He reported that on each occasion he did not resort to using marijuana. The father reported that he did not believe marijuana was a bad substance, and that he believed alcohol was worse. He stated, however, that he could see that it had a negative impact on the way that he thinks and feels, and so he was motivated to not use it. He reported, for example, that the last time he used, he felt differently about his new partner and her son whilst he was intoxicated. He reported that this negatively impacted on the relationship and so he had no desire to use at all. The father reported that he had been consuming three alcohol beverages at night time, only when the child was not with him. He reported that he had started this after ceasing marijuana. He reported that he thought he did this as he had no hobbies. The psychologist noted that the issue of “cravings”, which tended to last fifteen minutes, was discussed with the father and that she stated to him that “if you can last 15 minutes, the urge will likely pass. Discuss strategies for coping with cravings.”
In relation to his communication with the mother, the father reported to the psychologist at this consultation that he used to react to things poorly. He reported that the mother would press buttons and he would send her lengthy texts that were often emotional. He reported that he has since changed his reactions. Sometimes he ignores her texts, and at other times, “his girlfriend (Ms L) will give him advice on the text” (e.g. she advises him to not send texts, or to reword things so that they do not seem aggressive).
Child Inclusive Conference
This conference was held on 27 July 2015.
The mother told the consultant that there were different routines for the child in each household. She stated that the child spent a lot of time playing on the computer at the father’s residence.
The mother told the consultant that during the parties’ relationship, the father had smoked marijuana on a daily basis. She stated that he started smoking from 5 PM when he got home from work. She said that he did this in the backyard, while she was inside caring for the child. The mother said that she had concerns, now she was not there, as to how the father would react in a crisis if he was under the influence of marijuana. She queried whether the father would drive, with the child in the car, while he was under the influence.
The mother told the consultant that the child had reported to her that the father was a “bit angry” at the start of his time with him. She said that this appeared to have settled in the last few weeks. The mother said that she did not think the child was at risk in the father’s care.
The father told the consultant that he smoked marijuana after the child went to bed. He stated that he smoked about one joint per day. He stated that if there was an emergency he would not drive with the child in the car. He reported that he would call a taxi or ambulance as needed. He stated that he did not believe he was significantly affected when under the influence of marijuana. He stated that he was confident that he could cease this use if required. He stated he had recently stopped using marijuana for a seven week period.
The father told the consultant that there had been verbal violence and arguments in the parties’ relationship pre-separation.
The mother told the consultant that the parties were communicating primarily via emails. Both parties stated to the consultant that the other parent had been hostile towards them in these emails.Both parents reported to the consultant some difficulties with agreeing on some parenting decisions, such as how to respond to the child’s night-time bedwetting. The father stated that he wanted to offer the child similar values and messages in each household. He stated that this would require more communication than the parties were currently managing.
The child told the consultant, inter alia, that he found the current ‘live with’ arrangement confusing.
The child stated that he would want the same amount of days with each parent. He stated that he wanted it to be even because this was “fair”. (The Court interpolates that the father himself asserts that the child has told him that he wants to spend his time with the parents equally, the child stating that he wants fairness.)
The child told the consultant that sometimes the father would get angry if the child forgot to Skype him. The child said that he would calm his father down by saying, “I love you.”
The consultant stated that it may be a benefit for the parents to engage in the Keeping Kids in Mind case management service. She stated that this service may assist the parties to improve their communication arrangements regarding the child.
Family Report
The Family Report writer interviewed the parties, the child, and the maternal grandmother, in May 2016.
The mother told the Family Report writer that her proposals would provide the child with more stability, with somewhere that is “a base”, and with routine regarding after school activities and homework. She said that she had an approximately forty minute negotiation with the child regarding after-school activities whenever he returned from spending time with the father, due to differences in routine in their households.
The mother told the Family Report writer that the child had recently been “working himself up” whenever he knew that she intended on telling the father about his misdemeanours. She clarified that the child screamed, cried and asked her to please not tell the father. The mother attributed this to the father yelling, and said that the child was sensitive to sounds and noise. However, the mother also reported that, in 2015, the father had slapped the child across the face due to the child being in trouble at school. The mother indicated that the parents had been in a dispute regarding the appropriate punishment for this, with the father wanting to take the child’s computer off him, and the mother being of the view that detention was punishment enough. The mother reported that the father had referred to her as a “crap mother” during the dispute regarding this issue.
The mother told the Family Report writer that the child has poor fine motor skills, such that he experiences difficulties with writing, tying shoelaces and opening packets, and that he takes things literally, selectively attends to arguments and information that support his viewpoints and is not sporty, with some gross motor deficits.
The mother identified to the Family Report writer that she held concerns about the father having an “addiction to marijuana”, and whether the father would be able to protect the child if something happened when he was under the influence. She reported that the father used marijuana each evening and spent a lot of money on marijuana.
The mother reported to the Family Report writer that the father had been “very, very moody” during their relationship, and that she would experience anxiety when the father returned home. She also reported instances of family violence perpetrated by the father towards her during the relationship, occasionally in the presence of the child.
The mother stated to the Family Report writer that the father was “very rigid”, and, if she did something the father did not agree with, it would become a slanderous attack on her.
The mother stated to the Family Report writer that communication between the parties occurred via email, and that communications started calmly but that, at times, the father would exacerbate the situation really quickly. She identified that, when the father “attacks” her in communications, she defends herself.
The father told the Family Report writer that his proposals (for equal time) were in the child’s best interests, “because it’s what (the child) wants”, because the child has “worked so well” in an equal time arrangement, and because, “I want it.” He went on to state, “I love my son”, and said that he feels that the child “helps me in my life as much as I help him.”
The father told the Family Report writer that there had previously been hostility between the parties, such that they could not agree on anything.
The father told the Family Report writer that the child had been in detention about six times in Term 3, 2015, due to his behaviour. He identified that the child had been trying to make friends with naughty kids and indicated that the child had been mimicking their behaviour with limited capacity to discern when to cease. The father stated that he had wanted to intervene in the situation, whilst the mother did not, and that he became angry and slapped the child on the face. He attributed this to frustration regarding an inability to agree with the mother. The father acknowledged that his behaviour had not been appropriate.
The father reported to the Family Report writer that he had used marijuana since the age of 25, stating that he used it to manage stress, and had last used about two weeks prior to interview. He stated that he used marijuana about six to seven times a month and would use “quite a lot” at times when the child was not in his care. The father acknowledged that he “occasionally” used marijuana while the child was in his care, after the child had gone to bed, and reported that the child had never been exposed to his drug use.
When asked by the Family Report writer if he would experience any difficulties in complying with an Order restraining him from using marijuana while the child was in his care, the father stated he would have “absolutely none”.
The father denied that family violence had been a feature of the parties’ relationship or any other intimate relationships. He subsequently stated that there had been pushing and shoving from the mother towards him at the time of separation, before commenting, “it was nothing”.
The father told the Family Report writer that the child associated him and the mother with “arguing all the time” and reported that the child had been distressed during parental disputes. He also said that the child had intervened in parental disputes on one or two occasions.
The father told the Family Report writer that he and the mother made decisions regarding the child via email and rarely talked.
The maternal grandmother reported to the Family Report writer that the child appeared very agitated when returning from spending time with the father, and that it took him a while to “get back into the run of things”.
The maternal grandmother told the Family Report writer that the father has no friends, adding that when someone does not agree with the father’s view, he will “cut [them] off”.
The child told the Family Report writer that he “kind of like[s]” the current arrangement, identifying a positive aspect as “it’s kind of fair” to the father, the mother and himself.
When asked by the Family Report writer if anything about the father scared him, the child stated that the father “shouts at me a lot” sometimes when he is “very angry”. He identified that this makes them feel “very sad”.
The child identified to the Family Report writer that the father disciplined him by shouting and getting angry.
The child identified to the Family Report writer that he would feel a bit sad if it was determined that he should spend the majority of his time with the father. He said he would feel “kind of happy a bit” if he spends the majority of his time with the mother, adding that he would feel “sad and happy”. The child stated that he would feel sad due to concerns that the father might shout at him if he were to accidentally do something wrong. When discussing more specific arrangements in which he would spend the majority of his time with the mother (from nine nights per fortnight to eleven nights per fortnight), the child identified a preference for spending alternate weekends with the father.
The child told the Family Report writer that this was because the father “kind of hurts me a bit” and reported that the father had slapped him multiple times on one occasion, causing him to sustain bruising to his face, neck and back, and then sent him to bed. The child stated that he was not aware why the father had been angry on this occasion and that the incident made him feel very sad. The child identified that this was the only time the father had hit him or physically chastised him, and confirmed that this incident had resulted in his views changing.
The child stated, when asked, that he would want the current arrangements to continue if there was a rule that the father was not allowed to hit him or physically chastise him, and that he would want to spend alternate weekends with the father if there was no such rule. The child stated that the father had apologised for the incident after the mother had contacted him, but had not said that he would not do it again. The child expressed concerns a number of times that the father could again harm him when angry.
The Family Report writer provided an Evaluation.
The Family Report writer stated that the child presented during observation as having established and generally positive relationships with the parents. She observed that the parties had demonstrated somewhat different parenting styles.
The Family Report writer stated that the child appeared to have an affinity with the father due to common interests. However, it appeared from the child’s account during the interview that the incident during which the father slapped him had contributed to a rupture in their relationship. It was reasonable, given the incident, according to the Family Report writer, that the child had reduced trust and feelings of safety in the father’s care and was hypersensitive to his moods as indicated by the child and the mother. The Family Report writer stated that the child’s stated views during the interview appeared to be based on the respective lived experiences of the mother and father, and therefore recommended that weight be given to these.
The Family Report writer stated that during the interview, neither parent appeared to have an understanding of the detrimental impact that the father slapping the child had had on the child and on the child’s relationship with the father. She observed that it was highly likely that this incident had been traumatic for the child and that he experienced the father as an unsafe and unpredictable carer. She further observed that although the father acknowledged that his behaviour on this occasion had been inappropriate, he appeared to accept limited responsibility for his actions, instead attributing responsibility to conflict between himself and the mother regarding discipline. The Family Report writer stated that this raised concerns regarding the father’s ability to consistently regulate and manage his emotions and protect the child from future harm.
The Family Report writer stated that the child was reliant on his carers to have his needs met, including his need for safety and security, and in order for the child’s time with the father to be beneficial, he would likely need to experience the father as a safe and predictable carer. If the child were to experience the father as unpredictable, unsafe or abusive in the future, even if this behaviour was not directed towards him, it would be likely to further undermine the child’s sense of trust and safety in the father and to lead to further ruptures in their relationship. It was also possible that this would have a detrimental impact on the child’s psychological wellbeing, and could ultimately result in him resisting or refusing to spend time with the father.
In relation to the father’s drug use, the Family Report writer stated that such use was also identified as a concern. She stated that parental substance misuse is known to have a detrimental impact on parenting capacity. She stated that parental substance misuse reduces the likelihood that a parent is able to consistently provide sensitive, attuned and child-focused care, and increases the risk of a child being abused or neglected. She stated that a parent’s availability to the child also decreases with substance use, and the child can experience the parent as inconsistent, confusing or frightening. The parent is also unlikely to recognise the child’s reaction to their behaviour and parenting deficits, and therefore fail to repair ruptures in the relationship, which can lead to distortions and disruptions of the parent-child relationship.
The Family Report writer stated that the father demonstrated no insight into the detrimental impact drug use might have on his parenting, which raised concerns regarding his ability to abstain and protect the child from associated parenting deficits. She stated it was possible that, as the child became older, he would become more aware of the father’s drug use, which would provide poor role modelling. The Family Report writer stated that while an Order restraining the father from using drugs whilst the child is in his care may be of assistance, this could not be monitored and would be less ideal than the father seeking treatment and ultimately abstaining from drug use.
Furthermore, the Family Report writer stated that information provided by the father regarding his motivation for drug use, combined with him having slapped the child due to “frustration” regarding conflict between himself and the mother, raised concerns regarding his ability to consistently and appropriately regulate his emotions, and revealed that he has few adaptive stress management strategies. It was therefore strongly recommended that the father attend upon a local drug counselling service or a suitably experienced private practitioner in order to engage with therapeutic intervention with a view to reducing drug dependence and developing alternate stress management and emotion regulation strategies.
The Family Report writer stated that the mother’s account of alleged family violence was most similar to conflict instigated violence, which is characterised by hostile verbal altercations that can escalate into physical altercations initiated by either party. Couples with this dynamic tend to have limited problem-solving skills and tend to respond to conflict with angry outbursts, arguments, insults and demands that, if not met, can escalate into physical violence. Within this typology of violence, both parties refuse to submit to the other, as is consistent with the mother’s account of defending herself, and there is likely to be ongoing difficulties with cooperation and co-parenting post-separation, with ongoing disputes and conflict.
The Family Report writer stated that irrespective of the nature of any family violence between the parties, it appeared that their parenting relationship was characterised by inconsistent communication, conflict regarding parenting and financial matters, and limited trust in, and respect for, the other as a parent. It further appeared that the child had been exposed to parental conflict and the poor parenting relationship and this had had a detrimental impact on him. It was highly likely that the child choosing to have no contact with one parent when in the care of the other was a maladaptive coping strategy to reduce his exposure to parental conflict; neither parent demonstrated an understanding of this.
The Family Report writer stated that, given that the parties’ proposals are for the child to spend, at the least, significant and substantial time with the other parent, and the importance of a cooperative parenting relationship to the efficacy of such arrangements, it was strongly recommended that the parents engage with a therapeutic service (such as the Keeping Contact Program run by Unifam or an experienced private practitioner) with a view to reducing parental conflict and developing a more effective and cooperative co-parenting relationship.
It was recommended that the parties have shared parental responsibility.
The Family Report writer stated that the child would most benefit from arrangements that provide a stable, safe and secure environment in which his needs are consistently and appropriately prioritised and met. The Family Report writer reiterated her concerns regarding the father’s ability to provide this, and therefore it was recommended that the child live with the mother. However, the Family Report writer stated that, despite her concerns raised regarding the father, the child presented as desirous of a relationship with both parents and as having an affinity with the father. As such, a change of arrangements whereby the child would experience a significant decrease in the amount of time he spent with the father was likely to be disruptive and could result in emotional and/or behavioural difficulties, including challenging behaviour. It would therefore be recommended, according to the Family Report writer, that the child spend time with the father on alternate weekends, from after school Friday to before school Monday, and that consideration be given to the child also spending mid-week time with the father one day each week.
However, the Family Report writer stated that if the Court was satisfied that the father had taken steps to address the concerns raised by the Family Report writer and repair the ruptures in the child’s relationship with him, consideration could be given to the child continuing to reside in an equal time arrangement. It would not, however, according to the Family Report writer, be recommended that the current arrangements continue, due to concerns regarding the number of changeovers, and the fact that these arrangements largely do not conform to a set pattern, thus likely requiring additional communication between the parties regarding the practical aspects of the child’s care.
The final formal recommendations of the Family Report writer were that the parties engage with a therapeutic service with a view to reducing parental conflict and developing a cooperative parenting relationship; that the father engage with a therapeutic service with a view to reducing drug dependence and developing alternate stress management and emotion regulation strategies; that the parents share parental responsibility; and that arrangements for the child be subject to judicial determination.
The Family Report writer gave oral evidence.
The Family Report writer stated that ideally, for an equal time arrangement, there would be cooperative, effective communication between the parties that as a general rule consistently prioritised the child’s needs over and above either their own or any ongoing disputes or issues between them.
The Family Report writer stated that if the mother’s account was found to be correct in terms of the nature of communication with the father then she would have some concerns about how the parties could reasonably exercise an equal time arrangement, given the nature of that communication.
The Family Report writer stated that in order to recommend an equal time arrangement, she would be looking at some form of consistency in terms of rules and boundaries, disciplines, methods, routines – those types of issues for the child that minimise inconsistency and disruption between the two households.
The Family Report writer stated that it would cause her concern, in relation to the father’s proposal for a week about arrangement, if the mother’s evidence was accepted as to the child’s apprehension of the father displaying anger towards him in certain circumstances.
The Family Report writer stated that she had concerns in relation to Annexure R to the mother’s Affidavit, being an email communication from the mother to the father of 13 February 2015 in which the mother asserted that the child was experiencing a great deal of anxiety and that the child had explained to the mother that the father was always angry with him on the first day of spending time with the father, including in relation to the child not calling the father, the child not remembering everything he did during the day, and the child not drinking all his water. The Family Report writer stated that such anxiety was more indicative of difficulties within the relationship of the child and the father.
The Family Report writer stated that if the Court found that there was a real chance that the father might relapse as far as marijuana smoking was concerned, she would have concerns generally in terms of the impact of marijuana use on parenting because it reduces effective parenting. Elaborating, she stated that she would be concerned that returning to marijuana may mean that there has been no change in the father in terms of adopting more prosocial and more adaptive stress management and emotion regulation techniques. It may also be indicative of other concerns that may then have an impact on the child, such as the risk of further physical abuse. This can potentially lead to conflict with the mother if the father is unable to resolve situations in a prosocial way.
It was suggested to the Family Report writer by Counsel for the father that the fact that the parents had managed to parent the child for some four years with no Court Orders indicated that there had been some functional communication between them. The Family Report writer responded by stating that the parties were not down the spectrum of being completely dysfunctional, “in that [the child’s] needs have been met to a minimum standard.”
As to the prospect of the parties participating in the Keeping Contact program, the Family Report writer stated that whilst it was a positive thing that the parties might say that they are willing to engage with the program, it was a different matter as to whether either or both of them are actually motivated to make any changes that would support an improvement in their parenting relationship.
The Family Report writer stated that a change from the child spending seven nights per fortnight to four nights per fortnight with the father could potentially be disruptive to the child and could result in emotional and/or behavioural difficulties, including challenging behaviour. She stated that the greater the decrease in the child’s time with the father, the greater the likelihood that there would be disruption to the child.
The Family Report writer stated, in relation to the prospect of the Keeping Contact program assisting the parties improve their communication, that it was her recommendation that the Court err on the side of caution with regard to making arrangements and make Orders that are based on the parties’ current abilities to communicate, with the hope that there could still be some improvement if the parties were to engage in such a program. The Family Report writer questioned the parties’ commitment and motivation in relation to such a program, noting the parties’ failure to take up the recommendation of the Family Report writer, in her Family Report dated 7 July 2016, that they engage with a therapeutic service with a view to reducing parental conflict and developing a cooperative preventing relationship.
The Court accepts the evidence of the Family Report writer.
Legal principles
Section 60B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) sets out the objects of Part VII of the Act relating to children that inform the making of parenting Orders.
In deciding whether to make a particular parenting Order in relation to a child, a Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration: section 60CA of the Act.
Section 60CC of the Act provides that in determining what is in the child’s best interests, the Court must consider the matters set out in subsections (2) and (3).
When making a parenting Order in relation to a child, the Court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child: section 61DA of the Act. When the Court is making an interim Order, the presumption applies unless the Court considers that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for the presumption to be applied when making that Order: section 61DA (3).
If the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in relation to the child applies, and is not rebutted, the Court must firstly consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child and reasonably practicable.
If equal time is found not to be in the child’s best interests, or impracticable, as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in section 60CC, the Court must consider making an Order that the child spends substantial and significant time (as defined in section 65 DAA (3)) with the parents, unless contrary to the child’s best interests as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in section 60CC, or impracticable.
If neither equal time nor substantial and significant time is considered to be in the best interests of the child, or impracticable, then the Court may make such Orders in the discretion of the Court that it thinks proper, being Orders that are in the best interests of the child, as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in section 60CC: sections 60CA, 60CC, 65D.
The best interests of the children
Section 60CC Considerations
Subsection (2a): the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents: a primary consideration
The child has a meaningful relationship with the mother and would benefit from a continuance of that relationship.
Up until the commencement of the parties’ equal time arrangement, the mother was the child’s primary carer. Up until this time, the father, when not working in employment, assisted with the care of the child.
The child has a positive relationship with the father and would benefit from that relationship continuing and being enhanced, subject to the child not being subjected to any significant risk of harm if spending time with him.
By February 2015, the child was experiencing significant anxiety because of his worry that the father would become angry with him. By this time the child had informed the mother that the father was always angry with him on the first day he was with the father. The father would become angry with the child if the child had not called the father, if the child had not remembered everything that he had done during the day, and if he was not drinking all his water. In this context, the Court notes that the child told the family consultant at the Child Inclusive Conference, in July 2015, that sometimes the father got angry if the child forgot to Skype him.
Property Adjustment
Evidence
The parties commenced cohabitation in about late 1998. At commencement of cohabitation, neither party had significant assets.
From the date of commencement of the relationship, the mother was primarily responsible for the domestic work in the family homes in which they lived, including cooking, cleaning, washing clothes, cleaning and shopping. The father provided some assistance with domestic tasks.
During the parties’ relationship, both parties worked in paid employment, apart from relatively brief periods of unemployment and maternity leave on the mother’s part. Whilst each party was unemployed, the parties appear to have supported each other financially.
The parties lived in (country omitted) for about three years from 1998 to 2001. The father, who was employed as an (occupation omitted), earnt a significant income, and he provided some financial assistance to the mother whilst the parties were in (country omitted), including assistance with a HECS debt. The mother had initially been unemployed. The mother was responsible for the day-to-day management of the parties’ finances. The father was able to accumulate significant savings during this period.
The parties purchased a home unit at Suburb O in 2001, utilising joint savings of about $37,000 and a loan. The parties lived in it until they sold it in about 2004.
In 2003 the parties purchased the block of land on which the former matrimonial home was built. They had utilised the net proceeds of sale from the home unit to purchase this property.
Between March 2004 and October 2005 the parties lived with the maternal grandparents, with the parties paying board of $50 per week, so that they could save for the construction of a home. The father assisted with household maintenance around this home.
The parties moved into the property following construction of the house upon that property, in about 2005. The father installed the light fittings in the home. He built a deck at the rear of the home. During the parties’ relationship he carried out maintenance for the home.
During the parties relationship from 1998 to about 2003, the maternal grandfather advanced in total sum of about $42,100 to the mother to mind for him. He had stated to the mother that she could have the interest on the monies advanced and that he only wanted the capital returned. The parties received the benefit of interest earned on the maternal grandfather’s monetary advances for a period, and then indirectly benefited when their mortgage loan was reduced by the advanced monies.
The parties separated in about June 2014. On separation, the mother moved from the property to live with her mother, and the father has continued to reside there since that time.
From the date of separation until 19 January 2015, the parties continued to make mortgage repayments on the same basis as had occurred prior to separation, that is, equally, whilst the father had sole occupation of the property.
After the mother ceased making mortgage repayments in January 2015, the father also ceased making mortgage repayments until about September 2015, when he recommenced making mortgage repayments at a reduced rate, essentially interest only, with the bank utilising available monies in a redraw facility (to which the parties had contributed) for the principal component of the mortgage repayment.
Following separation, the mother made payments for insurance, gas and rates in relation to the house, totalling $1,544. In about July 2017, the father paid $1,700 for air-conditioning repairs. The father has paid for all maintenance, rates and outgoings on the property post separation to date. He has had balcony doors replaced.
As at separation, the mortgage balance on the property was about $318,000. As at 2 December 2017, the mortgage balance was some $311,000. As at 24 April 2017 the mortgage balance was still about $311,000.
Since separation, the mother has retained the parties’ Motor Vehicle A and paid all outgoings in relation to that vehicle. The father’s oral evidence was that he was content for the registration and ownership of that vehicle, as part of the parties’ property settlement, to be transferred to the mother.
Legal principles
In Trebiano & Trebiano [2018] FamCA 344, Foster J stated:
17. The approach to the determination of an application under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) is set out in Stanford v Stanford [2012] HCA 52 and further considered by the Full Court in Bevan & Bevan [2014] FamCAFC 19, Chapman & Chapman [2014] FamCAFC 91 and Scott & Danton [2014] FamCAFC 203.
18. The Court must identify the existing legal and equitable interests of the parties in the property, the liabilities and financial resources of the parties at the time of the hearing and then whether it is just and equitable to make a property settlement order.
19. Such a consideration should not be guided by an assumption that the parties’ rights to or interests in property are or should be different from those that then exist. The question is whether those rights and interests should be altered.
20. There is no presumption that one or other party has the right to have the property of the parties divided between them or a right to an interest in marital property that is fixed by reference to the various matters in s 79(4).
21. The Court in the application of s 79(2) of the Act needs to conclude that it would be unjust or unfair to leave the parties’ property rights intact.
22. In Chancellor & McCoy [2016] FamCAFC 256 the Full Court said:
42. In adopting the approach she did, her Honour proceeded in accordance with what the Full Court said in both Bevan and Chapman, namely that it is open to a trial judge to take into account the matters stated in s 79(4) (or s 90SM) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) when determining whether it is “just and equitable” to adjust existing property interests. However, consistent with Stanford, her Honour also recognised that it was not open to her to decide that issue merely by reference to those matters.
23. In many cases this requirement is readily satisfied where the parties are no longer in a marital or de facto relationship and, thus, for example, the common ownership or use of property by husband and wife will no longer be possible or the express or implicit assumptions that underpinned existing property arrangements such as the accumulation of assets or financial resources by one for the benefit of both have been brought to an end with the relationship.
24. In particular, such a circumstance arises where both parties seek property adjustment orders but are unable to agree as to same. …
25. It would, in some circumstances, be unjust or unfair to leave property rights intact where there is common ownership and discrete assets are sought by each.
…
28. Section 79(4) requires a consideration of the contributions made by the parties as defined in s 79(4)(a) to (c). The Court must then consider s 79(4)(d) to (g), in particular, the subjective considerations as to the parties by having regard to the provisions of s 75(2) in so far as they are relevant: (s 79(4)(e)).
29. The Court can then consider the “justice and equity” of the actual orders to be made: Russell & Russell (1999) FLC 92-877; Teal & Teal [2010] FamCAFC 120, in the context of the Court’s obligation to make “appropriate orders” as provided for in s 79(1) of the Act.
Balance sheet
A joint balance sheet (Exhibit F) provided:
| Ownership | Description | Mother’s value | Father’s value | |
| ASSETS | ||||
| 1. | J | Property A | $ 1,050,000 | $ 1,050,000 |
| 2. | M | Motor Vehicle A | $ 4,300 | $ 4,300 |
| 3. | M | Bank 1 Account as at 23.01.2018 | $ 1,300 | $ 1,300 |
| 4. | M | Bank 1 Account as at 23.01.2018 | $ 32,500 | $ 32,500 |
| 5. | M | shares (1,200 x $6.69) as at 22.01.2018 | $ 8,030 | $ 8,030 |
| 6. | J | Household contents – retained in the former family home | $ 0 | $ 0 |
| 7. | F | Proceeds of sale of Motor Vehicle B (sold 22.04.2017) | $ 0 | $ 0 |
| 8. | F | Bank 1 Account | $ 4,200 | $ 4,200 |
| Total | $1,100,330 | $1,100,330 | ||
| LIABILITIES | ||||
| 10. | J | Bank 1 Home Loan Account as at 02.12.2017 | $ 311,210 | $ 311,210 |
| 11. | J | Debt to wife’s mother (from wife’s father’s estate) | $ 42,100 | $ 0 |
| Total | $ 353,310 | $ 311,210 | ||
| SUPERANNUATION | |||||
| Member | Name of fund | Type of interest | Mother’s value | Father’s value | |
| 12. | M | Super Fund as at 23.01.2018 | $ 269,390 | $ 269,390 | |
| 13. | F | Super Fund as at 24.04.2017 | $237,600 | $ 237,600 | |
| Total | $ 506,990 | $ 506,990 | |||
From the above balance sheet, there is only one item requiring a determination: the mother’s alleged indebtedness to her father’s estate (the maternal grandmother being the sole beneficiary) of $42,100.
The father disputes that there is such a debt. However, he acknowledges that $34,000 was paid by the mother’s late father. He would consent to an Order for $34,000 to be repaid to the mother’s mother, noting that the latter person is the beneficiary of the mother’s father’s estate.
The payments made by the mother’s late father to the mother were not stipulated to be repayable at any particular time; accordingly, at law they were repayable on demand.
The settled law is that a cause of action for a loan repayable on demand accrues from the time of receipt of the loan by the borrower; see Young v Queensland Trustees Ltd (1956) 99 CLR 560. Pursuant to section 14(1) of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) there is a six year limitation period relating to such loans, and such limitation period runs from the date on which the cause of action first accrues.
Accordingly, the payments having been made from 1998 to 2003, they are statute barred. However, the father has acknowledged that $34,000 should be paid back to the mother and, accordingly, that amount will go into the balance sheet.
At trial date, the Court finds that the parties had net assets, excluding superannuation, of $755,120, represented by the final balance sheet below:
| Ownership | Description | Value | |
| ASSETS | |||
| 1. | J | Property A | $ 1,050,000 |
| 2. | M | Motor Vehicle A | $ 4,300 |
| 3. | M | Bank 1 Account as at 23.01.2018 | $ 1,300 |
| 4. | M | Bank 1 Account as at 23.01.2018 | $ 32,500 |
| 5. | M | shares (1,200 x $6.69) as at 22.01.2018 | $ 8,030 |
| 6. | J | Household contents – retained in the former family home | $ 0 |
| 7. | F | Proceeds of sale of Motor Vehicle B (sold 22.04.2017) | $ 0 |
| 8. | F | Bank 1 Account | $ 4,200 |
| Total | $1,100,330 | ||
| LIABILITIES | |||
| 10. | J | Bank 1 Home Loan Account as at 02.12.2017 | $ 311,210 |
| 11. | J | Acknowledgment of liability to wife’s mother (relating to wife’s father’s estate) | $ 34,000 |
| Total | $345,210 | ||
| SUPERANNUATION | ||||
| Member | Name of fund | Type of interest | Value | |
| 12. | M | Super Fund as at 23.01.2018 | $ 269,390 | |
| 13. | F | Super Fund as at 24.04.2017 | $ 237,600 | |
| Total | $ 506,990 | |||
The parties’ superannuation assets are, at trial date: mother, $269,390, and father, $237,600.
Section 79(2) of the Act
The Court is satisfied that it is just and equitable in this case to alter the property interests of the parties in light of the breakdown of their relationship, the fact that they will no longer have the joint use and enjoyment of the property, and the fact that the continuance of the current legal ownership of the property would not afford them justice and equity. The parties join in seeking Orders for property adjustment.
Contributions
The Court refers to the case-law dicta below, relating to section 79 property proceedings.
In In the Marriage of Harris (1991) 104 FLR 458 the Full Court said in assessing contributions:
The task of the court in proceedings under section 79 is not akin to an accounting exercise. To borrow a phrase used by McClelland J in Davey v Lee (1990) DFC 95-084; (1990) 13 Fam LR 688 at 689 in relation to section 20 of the De Facto Relationships Act 1984 (NSW):
... the Court is required to make a holistic value judgment in the exercise of a discretionary power of a very general kind.
In Pierce & Pierce [1998] FamCA 74 the Full Court said:
28. In our opinion it is not so much a matter of erosion of contribution but a question of what weight is to be attached, in all the circumstances, to the initial contribution. It is necessary to weigh the initial contributions by a party with all other relevant contributions of both the husband and the wife.
More recently in Dickons & Dickons [2012] FamCAFC 154, the Full Court said:
23. We wish also to refer to the approach of the Federal Magistrate in attributing percentages to differing periods within the relationship, or types of contribution made. There is in our view little to be gained, and much to be said against, approaching the task of assessing contributions by attaching percentages to components of it. (The same, it might be said, applies to attributing a percentage to each of the relevant s 75(2) factors).
24. There can be little doubt that the classification of contributions by reference to terms such as “initial contributions”, “contributions during the relationship”, and “post-separation contributions”, can be helpful as a convenient means of giving coherent expression to the evidence in a s 79 case and to giving coherence to the nature, form and extent of the parties’ respective contributions. However, the task of assessing contributions is holistic and but part of a yet further holistic determination of what orders, if any, represent justice and equity in the particular circumstances of this particular relationship. So much is clear from the terms of s 79 itself and, in particular, s 79(2). The essential task is to assess the nature, form and extent of the contributions of all types made by each of the parties within the context of an analysis of their particular relationship.
25. Doing so is also consistent with the demands of authority that the ultimate assessment of contributions should be made without “...giving over-zealous attention to the ascertainment of the parties’ contributions...” (Norbis v Norbis [1986] HCA 17; (1986) 161 CLR 513 at 524) and the well-established recognition in the authorities (acknowledged specifically by her Honour in this case) that the process required of the Court by s 79 is the exercise of a wide discretion, not the performance of a mathematical or accounting exercise.
26. The necessarily imprecise “wide discretion” inherent in what is required by the section is made no more precise or coherent by attributing percentage figures to arbitrary time frames or categorisations of contributions within the relationship. Indeed, we consider that doing so is contrary to the holistic analysis required by the section and, in the usual course of events, should be avoided.”
The Court refers to its discussion earlier in these Reasons relating to the parties’ respective contributions during and after their relationship.
In closing submissions at the final hearing, the mother contended that a finding should be made that her contributions, under section 79 of the Act, as at trial date, should be assessed at 55% in her favour, and that a 10% adjustment under section 75(2) of the Act should be made in her favour, resulting in a final property adjustment Order in favour of the mother of 65%.
The father contended that a finding should be made that his contributions should be assessed at 50% to himself and 50% to the mother. He did not seek any adjustment under section 75(2) of the Act.
Neither party sought to include their respective superannuation entitlements in the property division. Both parties merely sought Orders that each party retain, for their own benefit, their respective superannuation entitlement.
At this contributions stage, the Court takes into account the following factors:
·The parties’ relationship spanned the years from late 1998 to June 2014.
·During the relationship, the mother made a superior contribution as homemaker as far as domestic work was concerned, and she was the child’s primary carer; the Court attaches significant weight to these contributions.
·During the relationship, the parties made direct financial contributions to the mortgage repayments on the former matrimonial home.
·Post-separation, the parties have cared for the child in an equal time arrangement.
·From the date of separation until 19 January 2015, the parties continued to make mortgage repayments equally, whilst the father lived in the property.
·From about February 2015 until about September 2015, the father lived in the property, making no contributions under the mortgage loan.
·From about September 2015, the father commenced making interest only repayments under the mortgage loan, with the bank resorting to available monies in a redraw facility (to which the parties had previously contributed equally) to pay the principal component of the mortgage loan, with the father continuing to reside in the property.
·The mother and father paid $1,544 and $1,700 for outgoings on the property and air conditioning respectively, post-separation. Otherwise, post-separation, the father has paid maintenance, rates and outgoings on the property, and had the balcony doors replaced.
·The parties received the benefit of interest earned on the mother’s father’s monetary advances for a period, and then indirectly benefited when their mortgage loan was reduced by the advanced monies.
In all the circumstances, the Court assesses the mother’s contributions at 52.5% and 47.5% to the father as at trial date. This creates a disparity of $37,756 between them, excluding superannuation assets.
Section 75(2)
The mother is aged 45 years and the father 57 years.
The parties are in relatively good health. The parties are both in gainful employment. The father’s gross salary is $102,359 per annum, and the mother’s is $140,244.
The mother will have the primary care for child, presently aged 11 years, by reference to the Court’s proposed parenting Orders. The mother, since separation, has been primarily responsible for the child’s financial support.
The mother pays formal child support to the father, but such support may be varied, following the Court’s proposed parenting Orders.
The father has superannuation entitlements of some $237,600, and the mother’s superannuation entitlement is $269,390. Again, the parties have not sought a splitting Order. The Court recognizes that the mother’s entitlement is presently slightly greater than the father’s, and, being younger, she will continue to make contributions to her superannuation.
The father has a car with attached debt. The father is content to transfer his interest in the Motor Vehicle A car to the mother.
The mother has cash assets of about $33,800 and shares of some $8,030. The father has cash assets of about $4,200.
The father contends that he has personal liabilities of some $90,392, which liabilities did not enter the balance sheet.
The father’s new partner Ms L earns about $110,000 per annum. The father stated that it would be likely that he and Ms L would share the expenses of moving in together. However, the Court observes that this relationship is in its infancy, and Ms L has a dependent child aged sixteen years.
The father received $5,600 post-separation relating to the trade-in of an Motor Vehicle B car, which had been purchased during the course of the parties’ relationship.
In the above circumstances, there should be an adjustment in favour of the mother of 2.5%.
Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that there should be an adjusted final contributions assessment of 55% in favour of the mother. By reference to the net non-superannuation assets, $755,120, this results in a disparity of $75,512.
Conclusion
The parties seek an Order that the property be sold.
Pursuant to the Court’s adjusted contribution assessment, the mother is entitled to $415,316 (55% of the net property pool, excluding superannuation).
Pursuant to the Court’s adjusted contribution assessment, the father is entitled to $339,804 (45% of the net property pool, excluding superannuation).
Neither party sought a superannuation splitting Order.
In the circumstances of this case, and for all the reasons set out above, the Court considers that the Orders proposed to be made will produce a just and equitable result as between the parties and are appropriate.
I certify that the preceding two hundred and ninety two (292) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Newbrun
Date: 28 June 2018
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Property Law
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Remedies
0
11
3