ODEMUT & AKBAR

[2015] FamCA 389

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ODEMUT & AKBAR [2015] FamCA 389

FAMILY LAW – Where neither the parents nor the children live in Australia – Where the mother and the children are Australian citizens - Where the father seeks that proceedings in this court be dismissed or stayed pending judgment as to jurisdiction in a Singaporean Court – Where the mother seeks an anti-suit injunction to restrain the father from pursuing proceedings in that Singaporean Court - Where the mother and children reside in Singapore – Where the father resides in China  –Where the mother is opposed to the father spending any supervised time with the children in Singapore or knowing where they live – Where the father seeks to have the children placed on the Australia Airport Watch List – Where the mother opposes the children being placed on the Watch List – Where the father is a Turkish citizen – Where there are allegations of sexual abuse and family violence - Where the court has determined Australia is not a wholly inappropriate venue for the litigation and restrained the father continuing in the Singapore court (see Watts J determination delivered 25 March 2015.)

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Odemut

RESPONDENT: Ms Akbar

FILE NUMBER: SYC 606 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: 22 May 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Le Poer Trench J

HEARING DATE: 5 May 2015

REPRESENTATION

ADVOCATE FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Nicholls

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Blanchfield Nicholls Partners

ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Reid

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Reid Family Lawyers

Orders

1. That each of the parties enquire into the qualifications of and the cost of the preparation of a report addressing the matters which have been highlighted in the mother’s minute Exhibit “W1”. 

2. That each of the parties provide to my Associate at … within 21 days from the date hereof, the names and curriculum vitae of two experts carrying conducting practice in Singapore, who have qualifications sufficient to be able to prepare a report, which this Court could accept as an expert’s report, in relation to the children and which addresses the matters sought to be addressed in an expert’s report as specified in Exhibit “W1”. 

3. The matter is to be listed before me for hearing, on a date to be set by me in consultation with the parties’ legal representatives, as soon as time permits following the receipt of the information required by these orders.

4. Each party has liberty to restore on seven days’ notice before me.

5. Should either party seek to press for a change of venue for the proceedings, or alternatively for a restraint upon this court further hearing the parenting matters then a written minute of any such order sought is to be served upon the other as soon as can reasonably be achieved.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 606 of 2013

Mr Odemut

Applicant

and

Ms Akbar

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. Before the Court is an application filed by Mr Odemut (“the father”) on

   
   

   23 April 2015.  In support of his application the father relies on an affidavit sworn by him on 23 April 2015 together with paragraph 188 of an affidavit filed by Ms Akbar (“the mother”) on 6 May 2013.

2. The mother relies on a response to an application in a case e-filed on 30 April 2015, a notice of child abuse filed 7 May 2013, particular numbered paragraphs of her affidavit filed 6 May 2013, an affidavit filed by her on 30 April 2015, a financial statement filed by her on 4 May 2015, an affidavit of Ms K filed 6 May 2013 and an affidavit of Mr J filed 30 April 2015.

3. The dispute between the parties relates to the parenting of two children, B born in 2010 (now 5 years of age) and C born in 2012 (currently 2 and a half years of age).  Before dealing with the competing positions of each of the parties I recite the following history of particular relevance.

4. The father is 34 years of age, the mother 33 years of age.  The father is a citizen of Turkey.  The parties met in Turkey while the mother was holidaying there.  At the time she was living in Singapore.  Approximately twelve months after the parties met and in April 2008 the father moved to live with the mother in Singapore.  Shortly thereafter the parties relocate to Shanghai in China where the mother had gained employment. 

5. In 2008 the parties were married.

6. The mother and the children are Australian citizens and reside in Singapore. The father is a Turkish citizen and resides in China. On 6 December 2012 the mother travelled to Australia with the children with the father’s consent.  The father remained living in China. 

7. On 8 February 2013 the mother filed an initiating application in this Court.  In May 2013 the mother’s visa to live and work in China expired. On 11 December 2013 a divorce was granted. On 4 April 2014 consent orders were made by the Court.  On 4 May 2014 the mother and children relocated to Singapore.  On 14 October 2014 the father commenced parenting proceedings in the Singaporean Court. In November 2014 the mother moved the Singaporean Court to stay those proceedings given the proceedings in the Australian Court.  In February 2015 the proceedings in Singapore were listed for interim hearing to be heard on 8 April 2015. 

8. On 25 March 2015 Watts J made an order restraining the father from continuing to pursue any parenting orders in the Singaporean Court except for the purpose of seeking orders in similar terms to those made in this court (mirror orders) in order that they may be enforced in that overseas jurisdiction.  The father was also ordered to discontinue and have dismissed the proceedings in the Singaporean Court.  The matter was adjourned to my list on 31 March 2015 and Watts J noted “I note the mother’s lawyer should be prepared to discuss with Justice Le Poer Trench on 31 March 2015 any interim proposal that she would make for the children to spend time with their father in Singapore.”

9. On 25 March 2015 Watts J made orders as set out earlier in these reasons and provided reasons.  The following matters are of particular note in those reasons.  His Honour noted that the mother had agreed only to the children having supervised time with the father in Australia.  In the final paragraph of the judgment Watts J said as follows:

   I note that the mother’s Amended Initiating Application filed 13 March 2015 repeats a previous application setting out the arrangements the mother would agree to for the father to spend time with the children when they are in Australia. The children and the mother of course currently live in Singapore. The mother’s lawyer should be prepared to discuss with Justice Le Poer Trench on 31 March 2015 any interim proposal that the mother would make for the children to spend time with their father in Singapore.

10. On 22 April 2015 the father pursued in the Singaporean Court the making of mirror orders to those made in Australia on 4 April 2014.  That application is listed for hearing on 10 June 2015 in Singapore.  The matter was in my list for determination on 5 May 2015.

11. I note that the mother in the proceedings before me is implacably imposed to the father having supervised time with the children in Singapore as he proposes. Without having had the benefit of any argument, I note that had the mother made it clear in her application pursued before Watts J he may have taken a different view about appropriate forum. I record that here only because the matter may require further consideration with the mother’s current position of “no time to the father in Singapore”.  In her response to an application in a case which was filed on 30 April 2014 the mother seeks orders inter alia that orders 1 to 3 made by this court on 4 April 2014 be discharged.  She seeks an open order to be able to relocate the children’s primary place of residence at any time upon giving thirty days’ notice to the father.  She seeks that orders 12, 13 and 14 of 4 April 2014 be suspended.  She seeks an order for child maintenance against the father.  She seeks the appointment of Dr L as a court expert and for Dr L to prepare a report to assist the court.  If Dr L within ten days of meeting with the parties and the children recommends the children spend time with the father then, without being specific, there is an inference in the framework of the orders sought by the mother that she may consent to such a recommended proposal.  In paragraph 26 of her response the mother seeks “that there be no face to face time between the children and the father unless as ordered by the Family Court of Australia”.

12. The mother relied on a notice of child abuse filed by her on 7 May 2013.  The abuse alleged consisted of the father touching B’s genitals and masturbating him to erection.  Incidents of the father biting and smacking the child.  An incident of the father yelling at the child when the child refused to take medication.  The notice also alleges “numerous incidences of family violence perpetrated by the father towards the mother in the presence of the child.” 

13. The mother relied on an affidavit by her mother filed on 6 May 2013.  The deponent describes observing when the father changed B’s nappy he would touch the child’s genitals.  It was a fleeting touch.  The deponent was not overly concerned at the time.  Between February 2011 and May 2011 the deponent was present in Singapore staying with the mother.  The parties had separated at that time although the father attended the home to visit the child.  During this time she observed an angry verbal exchange between the mother and father.

14. The deponent was in Shanghai visiting the mother between 28 March 2012 and 24 April 2012.  She observed that the father would attend the mother’s home and take B out.  During that visit she remembers an altercation between the parents when the father was “very aggressive towards” the mother. 

15. The deponent visited the mother again in Shanghai between 14 September 2012 and 6 December 2012.  At that time the father was also living in the same house.  On that trip the deponent observed that when the father changed B’s clothes he would play with the child’s genitals.  She told him “don’t do that”. The father responded “It’s ok.  B likes it.”  At one point when the father insisted on putting the child to bed the deponent said to him “don’t you touch his genitals”.  The father became very angry and yelled at the deponent.  There was then an altercation between the mother and father which consisted of yelling.  Following that argument the father moved out of the house.

16. The mother relied on particular numbered paragraphs of her affidavit filed

    
    

    6 May 2013.  These were described as “setting out incidents of violence”.  She describes in June 2010 observing the father fondling B’s genitals in the bath.  She observes seeing the father bite B.  She observed the father smack B on the hand.  There was an occasion in September 2012 when the father told the mother that he became so angry with B for not taking his medicine that he had torn his own tee shirt off his chest. 

17. The mother describes the continued behaviour of the father in touching, fondling and masturbating the child’s penis.  She also observed that the father masturbated himself in the shower twice a day.  He professed this to be part of a religious ritual.  The mother and father had a number of verbal altercations about the behaviour of the father towards the child.

18. The mother relied on her affidavit filed 30 April 2015.

19. The mother addresses attendance at court in Singapore in April 2015.  She says on 22 April 2014 in the Singapore court the father sought mirror orders with those made in the Family Court of Australia on 4 April 2014.  The matter is before the Singaporean Court again on 10 June 2015.  The mother has indicated a disinclination to support mirror orders being made until the outstanding issues in the Family Court of Australia are determined.  The mother for that reason seeks order 20 of 4 April 2014 be suspended pending the resolution of the outstanding proceedings.  That order requires the parties upon request being received from the other to have the orders recognised in the jurisdiction where the children live.

20. The mother opposes any restraint against her relocating the children’s residence from Singapore.  She is currently seeking a job offer in a country other than Singapore.  However, she does not say where that is.  She does for that purpose seek to relocate the children’s residence generally. 

21. The mother seeks orders to avoid a mischief on the part of the father. She says this has the potential to arise through the father causing the children’s names to be placed on the Australian Airport Watch List thereby preventing her leaving Australia after a visit here with the children.  She says the father has threatened to do this.  She said the father has done this in the past.  He frustrated her endeavour to leave Australia for Singapore with the children on 2 May 2014. 

22. The mother explains the impact of orders 9 and 10 made on 4 April 2014 upon her current circumstance.  That is frequently travelling in and out of Australia and the need to deal with the Australian Federal Police in relation to the removal of the children’s names on the Watch List.

23. The mother pursues a restraint order against the father removing either of the children from her care.  She relies on a statement made by the father to her in August 2011 where he threatened her that he might take a child away and she would never see him again.  In October 2014 the father wrote on B’s Facebook account “I wish my sons could be with me:  I just want to travel with them:  show them the world: with me:  I am not asking a lot.” 

24. The mother refers to the provisions in the order for the father to spend time with the children while they are in Australia supervised by I Org.  The mother concedes the father has had no time with the children since the orders were made on 4 April 2014.  Prior to those orders he had not seen the children since 6 December 2012.  The mother now is convinced the children will see the father as a stranger.  Accordingly she seeks a report from an expert to ascertain if it is in the children’s best interests to be reintroduced to the father.  She proposes that the expert be Dr L.  She says the father can obtain a tourist visa to visit Australia for the purpose of meeting with Dr L.  She describes acts of violence against her by the father during the relationship and prior to the orders being made in April 2014.  She reiterated her evidence about the way in which the father fondled the child’s genitals.  She describes other violent behaviour by the father towards her and his verbal attacks on her mothering capacity. She described his verbal abuse of her including threats of personal harm to her.   

25. The mother opposes the father’s case that he exercises supervised time in Singapore.  He proposed that would happen at the M Centre.  The mother made contact with the centre.  She sets out the information she obtained about how the supervision occurs.  She was told there would be one counsellor observing the father and the children and the doors would be locked.  There is no CCTV monitor.  In April 2015 she sought permission to view the centre prior to agreeing to the children being able to meet with their father there.  She was not permitted to do so.  She considered the children may be at risk of the father abducting them in that circumstance.  She reports that there is no equivalent of “the airport watch list” in Singapore.

26. In relation to Skype and telephone communications she accused the father of being abusive and threatening during telephone and Skype communications with her since separation.  She refers to order 15 of the Australian Orders restraining the father from denigrating her in the presence or hearing of the children or from abusing assaulting or intimidating her by means of communication.  She accuses the father of having engaged in abusive and intimidating conduct towards her during Skype communication with the children following the orders.  She says the father has sent videos of himself through Facebook and Skype.  On 3 October 2014 the father sent a Skype message which consisted of a prayer to God to bring all kinds of misery upon the mother. 

27. The mother says that on 30 April 2014 the father sent an email advising he would be in Singapore when she arrived there with the children.  Further, between 5 May 2014 and 16 May 2014 the mother received nineteen emails from the father seeking time with the children while he was in Singapore.  The mother says she does not wish to disclose the children’s residential address as she fears the father may attempt to remove the children from her.

28. In relation to child support the mother says the father has not provided any financial support for the children since separation. 

29. The mother says that she earns $207,000 per annum and alleges the father earns $47,000 per annum.  She seeks interim child maintenance.  The mother also filed a financial statement.  That was filed on 4 May 2015. 

30. The father relies upon his affidavits filed on 23 April 2015.  In that affidavit he set out the history of the parties’ relationship and proceedings in both this court and the Singaporean Court.  He identified that he had not been able to spend any time with his children since the orders were made in this court on 4 April 2014.  This was despite a notation at the conclusion of Watts J’s orders that the mother should be prepared to discuss her proposal for interim parenting arrangements when the matter was before the court on 31 March 2015.

31. The father then set out evidence in relation to the role he played in the care of the children up to the point of separation.  He then addressed the allegations of abuse made against him by the mother and her mother in the evidence filed in this court. 

32. The father alleges that during the cohabitation he and the mother had many loud verbal arguments.  He acknowledges that B witnessed some of those arguments.  He alleges that the mother physically attacked him including punching him, kicking him, scratching him and hitting him on more than one occasion during the course of the cohabitation.  He denies he ever physically assaulted the mother.  He alleges that he had restrained her in an endeavour to supress her physical attack upon him.  He denies any threat to the mother to kill or dispose of her in any way.  He denies forcing himself on the mother in a sexual manner.  He denies he watched “a huge amount of pornography or that he masturbated frequently”.  He denies that he called the mother a “bitch” or told the children “this is your mother’s fault”.  He denies any violence towards B.  He denies that he “tore off his shirt” in frustration whilst trying to administer medication to B.  The father denies he inappropriately fondled B’s genitals.  The only time he touched B’s penis was for the purpose of cleaning it after the child had dirtied a nappy.  On other occasions following his circumcision the father applied cream.  The father asserted that he played a significant role in the care of B following his birth including occasions when the mother travelled which was approximately two to three times per month for a few days on each occasion.

33. The father denied all allegations of inappropriate touching or behaviour by himself towards B.

34. The father has not seen the children on Skype since April 2014. 

35. The father says he has not heard from the mother since she moved to Singapore following the orders of the court.

36. The father says the mother has provided no information to him in relation to the children since she moved to Singapore.  He does not know what school the children go to.  He does not know the status of their health or indeed what they look like now.  The father does not know the address at which the children are residing.  The father says the mother has failed to obtain mirror orders in Singapore to those made by the court in Australia on 4 April 2014. 

1. The father said he had sent a message to the mother that next time she travels to Australia he would take legal steps to prevent her leaving.  In those circumstances he would seek orders which enabled him to see the children in Australia.  This may include enforcing the current Australian Orders. 

2. The father sets out his proposal to spend time with the children in Singapore at the TKH Centre for Family Harmony.  He sets out details about that centre.  He will be able to travel to Singapore every four weeks for five to six days on each visit.  Return flights from Shanghai to Singapore are between $400 and $600.  The father is able to enter Singapore and stay there for up to ninety days without a visa on each occasion.  The father believes the mother employs a nanny.

3. The father has concerns that he will not be allowed into Australia.  He said that he was denied a visa when he applied in late 2013.  He says the mother caused this to occur.  In April 2014 he applied for another visa to enter Australia and he was granted a visa however, the mother and children only remained in Australia for a further three days after the father received his visa.  In those circumstances he did not travel to Australia. 

4. The father says it is very expensive for him to travel to Australia.  He has no accommodation available in Sydney and will have to pay for same. 

5. The father raises as a concern the mother’s statement that she may take up a job in a country other than Singapore.  He believes there are indications that she is proposing to do this.

6. The father filed a case outline document in which he specified the orders sought and provided written submission.  He firstly sought that orders 1 to 3 made by the court on 4 April 2014 be discharged and orders 5, 12 and 16 made that day be suspended.  Thereafter he sought that he have supervised time with the children in Singapore, supervised by M Centre.  He sought further orders including that the mother pay the fees charged by M Centre and pay one half of his airline fees to travel to Singapore to spend time with the children.  He sought other orders in relation to Skype contact with the children and requiring the mother to provide details of where the children reside and how they can be contacted electronically.  In support of those orders he submitted there are orders of this court which provide for the father to have supervised time with the children in Australia.  The father has not seen the children for 2 ½ years.  This has largely arisen because the mother moved from Australia to Singapore shortly after the orders were made. 

7. The mother objects to the father exercising supervised time with the children in Singapore as he proposes and she seeks a report be undertaken by an expert to consider whether the children should spend any time with the father.

8. The father submits that his income is low compared to that of the mother and as a result of that he submits if he were able to spend time with the children in Singapore it is a cheaper exercise for him and consequently he would be able to meet with the children more frequently than if required to travel to Australia to see them.

9. The father then addresses the matters specified in s 60CC which the court is required to consider. 

10. In further oral submissions made to the court the father submits that the nature of the orders made on 4 April 2014 were interim.  In October 2014 the father applied to the court for a variation of those orders and in November 2014 the mother filed an amended application seeking supervised time for the father in Singapore.  The orders of this Court have not been duplicated as mirror orders in the Singapore equivalent of the Family Court.

11. The father opposes the preparation of a report as he submits it will not assist the court and will only cause delay.  He is also concerned about the cost of the preparation of a report.  The father has an income of equivalent to AU$48,000 per annum and the mother’s income is somewhere in the order of $200,000 to $235,000 per annum. 

12. The mother provided written submissions which included her chronology of relevant events.  She submits that the children do not currently have a meaningful relationship with the father.  The mother seeks an order for the appointment of Dr L to prepare a single experts report.  Until that report is available the court should not make orders which would immediately require the children to spend time with the father.

13. The mother repeats in her submissions the evidence of alleged abuse by the father against the children and against herself.

14. The mother addressed the need for an injunction restraining the father from causing the children’s names to be placed on the Airport Watch List in Australia as this will require her making application to the court to remove the children’s names each time she returns to Australia for a holiday.

15. The mother also seeks to be able to relocate the children’s residence if she needs to in order to obtain or pursue other employment opportunities.

16. In her oral submissions the mother submitted the orders made by the court on 4 April 2014 were final orders insofar as they provided for aspects of the care of the children.  However, the parties reserved as interim provisions the orders which related to parental responsibility and the amount of time the children were to spend with the father. 

17. The mother is opposed to the children spending supervised time with the father in Singapore because she is not satisfied with the security surrounding that proposal.  The mother relied on paragraphs 127 to 135 of the affidavit of Mr J sworn 30 April 2015.  Mr J in his affidavit of 30 April 2015 informs the court that to his knowledge there is no equivalent in Singapore of a Watch List at points of departure from the state of Singapore.  He further says that the Singaporean Court may not make identical mirror orders because the orders of the Family Court of Australia are not final parenting orders but in fact interim parenting orders. This is yet another fact not brought to the attention of Watts J before the making of the determination he did on 25 March 2015. That information, if it had been available, may have led to a different determination.

18. Further, Mr J says that Family Courts in Singapore very often appoint professionals/experts/counsellors to interview relevant parties and children and prepare a report to be submitted to the court.  Such reports can be custody evaluation reports or access evaluation reports.  The point is that there appears to be a body of experts in Singapore who may be able to provide an appropriate report for the Family Court of Australia in the same areas as the mother seeks Dr L provide a report.

19. The mother says given the father has not seen the children for two years and in the face of serious allegations of sexual abuse and family violence it is appropriate for the court to order an expert’s report.

20. The mother drew the court’s attention to paragraph 146 of her recent affidavit in which she sets out what the father had said about her during a Skype communication.  The mother says there is a real concern that the father will remove the children from Singapore if the is given an opportunity to do so.

21. Whilst acknowledging that the allegations of sexual abuse made against the father by the mother predate the orders of 4 April 2014 she says the Skype communication between the father and the children has ceased since the making of those orders.  The mother has thought more about the aspects of alleged abuse and has sought expert opinion and is now concerned about the impact on the children of re-establishing time with the father, even in a supervised form.

22. The orders sought by the mother are contained in Exhibit “W1”.  She seeks the father’s application in a case filed 23 April 2015 be dismissed.  She further seeks that interim orders 1 to 3 of the orders of 4 April 2014 be discharged.  Those orders provided for the father to spend time with the children.  She seeks a variation of order 9 of the orders dated 4 April 2014.  Order 9 restrained the father from removing the children from Australia and requiring the Australian Federal Police to include the children’s name on the Airport Watch List in force at points of departure from Australia.  The amendment sought by the mother would remove the requirement for the children’s names to be placed on the Airport Watch List in Australia.  She seeks orders in the nature of a restraint against the Australian Federal Police placing the children’s names on the Family Law Watch List unless they are specifically ordered to do so by the court.  She seeks an injunction that the father be restrained from removing or attempting to remove the children from her care whether that be in Australia or elsewhere in the world.

23. The mother seeks to vary order 10 of 4 April 2014 so as to provide that the children are permitted to depart from the Commonwealth of Australia with the mother or her nominee at any time.  She seeks that orders 12, 13 and 14, which provided for the father to have other types of contact with the children other than face to face, be suspended.

24. The mother seeks that Dr L be appointed as a single expert to prepare a report for the court.  To enable that to happen she seeks that each of the parties provide a payment of $6,000 towards the cost of the expert’s report.  The mother seeks other financial orders.  However, it is agreed that those matters should be adjourned to a Registrar’s list. 

25. She then sought an order for no face to face time between the children and the father and an injunction restraining the father from making any enquiries as to the children’s and mother’s residential address and from otherwise approaching the children at any time.

26. In Exhibit “H2” the father set out the orders he was seeking.  He also seeks that orders 1 to 3 made on 4 April 2014 be discharged.  He seeks that order 5 and orders 12 and 16 be suspended.  He then seeks other orders which are in the nature of supervised time that he might spend with the children on a once a month basis.  He seeks that the Australian Family Court Orders be registered in the Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore.  He also seeks orders for other types of communication with the children in the nature of video calls, Skype and the like on a regular weekly basis.  He seeks a restraint against the mother from removing or attempting to remove the children from the Republic of Singapore.  He also seeks an order that the mother forthwith provide details of the residential address and contact details for the children. 

Determination

1. This is an extraordinary case where neither the children nor either of the children’s parents live in Australia.  The father lives in China however he is a Turkish citizen.  He does not have Australian residence or citizenship status.  The mother is an Australian citizen, however, she lives and works in Singapore and by her most recent evidence filed in the court it seems that she is contemplating a move to another country, other than Australia, for the purposes of pursuing her career and/or employment.

2. For so long as the mother resides in Singapore it is convenient and financially expedient for the father to spend time with the children in that country.  The Australian courts do not control the circumstances in which time between the father and the children might take place in that country.  It appears on its face that relevant evidence for this court to consider in relation to ongoing orders will need to come from persons currently residing in Singapore.  Again, in a practical sense, provided there is appropriate expertise and provided that cost to the parties is reasonable, an expert’s report should be prepared in Singapore. 

3. Each of the parties now seeks significant changes to the Australian Court’s orders in relation to the children.  The father’s ability to travel to Australia for the purpose of seeing the children is limited by the fact that his income is relatively modest.  The mother’s income is at least four times the father’s income and her ability to be able to afford travel for the children and herself to Australia is significantly greater.

4. The court needs to progress this matter quickly.  The father has not seen the children for a lengthy period of time and consequently is not able to have a meaningful and significant relationship with them.  He clearly pursues that relationship in circumstances where there are very significant issues of fact between him and the mother arising from their cohabitation which ceased well before the orders made in 2014.

5. I consider the wife’s application for the appointment of an expert to assist the court in this matter by addressing the matters outlined by her in exhibit W1 has merit and the court should so order when it is in a position to determine whether that expert should be an Australian expert or one available in Singapore.

6. In order to progress this matter expeditiously I propose to order the parties to enquire into the qualifications of and the cost of the preparation of a report addressing the matters which have been highlighted in the mother’s minute Exhibit “W1”.  To that end I propose to make an order that each of the parties provide to my Associate, within twenty one days from the date hereof, the names of two experts (together with curriculum vitae) who have qualifications sufficient to be able to prepare a report which this court could accept as an expert’s report in relation to the children and which addresses the matters sought to be addressed in an expert’s report as specified in Exhibit “W1”.  I then propose to list the matter again for hearing before myself as soon as time permits thereafter. At that hearing I will determine any further application as to appropriate venue should either party seek such a determination based on the changed circumstances which have occurred following the determination of Watts J on 25 March 2015.

7. I do not propose to make any further orders as sought by either party in this matter until I have some objective expert evidence to assist in informing whether it is appropriate to consider making orders sought by each of the parties relevant to their children.

I certify that the preceding sixty-nine (69) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Le Poer Trench delivered on 22 May 2015.

Associate: 

Date:  22 May 2015