Oden and Remmy

[2014] FamCA 575

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ODEN & REMMY [2014] FamCA 575

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Undefended Hearing – Where the Mother has not actively participated in the proceedings – Where the Department of Child Safety assessed the children as being at an unacceptable risk of harm in the Mother’s care – Where the Father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer agree on final orders to be made

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172

APPLICANT: Mr Oden

RESPONDENT:	Ms Remmy
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:	Ms Leisa Toomey

FILE NUMBER: BRC 13219 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 11 July 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Kent J

HEARING DATE: 11 July 2014

REPRESENTATION

FOR THE APPLICANT:	In person
FOR THE RESPONDENT:	No appearance
COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:	Mr Middleton

Orders

It is ordered on an undefended basis

1. That all previous Orders be discharged.

Parental Responsibility

1. That except as otherwise stated, the Father and the Mother are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the major long term issues of the children B born …, 1998 and C born …, 2000 (“the children”).

2. That the parents are to consult with each other about decision to be made in the exercise of their equal shared parental responsibility as follows:    

3.1.they shall inform the other parent about the decision to be made;

3.2.they shall consult with each other on terms that they agree; and

3.3.they shall make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision.

1. That notwithstanding the provisions of Order 3:

   4.1.the Father shall be responsible for the daily care, welfare and development of the children when they are living with him; and

   4.2.the Mother shall be responsible for the daily care, welfare and development of the children when they are spending time with her.

Exchange of Information

1. That the Mother and Father shall:

   5.1.keep the other parent informed at all times of their residential address, mobile and landline contact telephone number and of any changes within forty-eight (48) hours of any change occurring;

   5.2.keep the other parent informed of the names and addresses of any treating medical or other health practitioners who treat the children and authorise those practitioners to provide the other parent with information that they are lawfully able to provide about the children; and

   5.3.inform the other parent as soon as reasonable practicable of any medical condition, significant health issue or illness suffered by the children.  This Order authorises any treating medical practitioner to release the children’s medical information to the other parent.

Parenting Arrangements

1. That the children are to live with the Father.

2. The children spend time and communicate with the Mother at all reasonable times as may be agreed to between the parents, but failing agreement and upon the Mother providing to the Father seven (7) days written notice of her intention to spend time with the children as follows:

7.1.on one weekend during August 2014 and for one weekend in each month thereafter from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm Saturday and from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm on Sunday with such visits to occur in the Suburb D area;

7.2.after three (3) successful visits have occurred in accordance with Order 7.1 herein, the children may spend time with their Mother overnight in the Suburb D area from 9:00 am Saturday to 5:00 pm Sunday for one weekend in each month with the Mother to provide seven (7) days written notice to the Father of her intention to move to overnight time with the children;

7.3.that the parties ensure the children’s monthly time with the Mother occur:

7.3.1.       on the first weekend in August 2014;

7.3.2.       on the weekend prior to or immediately following the Mother’s           birthday, that being … each year;

7.3.3.       on the weekend prior to or immediately following the children’s          birthdays each year;

7.3.4.       on the first available day after 25 December and Easter Sunday each year;

7.4.the maternal grandmother and the children’s half sibling, Ms E, shall be permitted to attend at the time between the Mother and the children.

1. That by this Order, and subject to any rules and regulations of the children’s schools, the Mother is at liberty to attend at any special school function including parent-teacher interviews, award ceremonies and sports carnivals.  The Father is to send all relevant information to the Mother about the scheduling of such events.

2. The Mother is not to allow the children to come into contact either in person or by telephone with either Mr F or Mr Remmy.

Communication with the Children

1. The Father will facilitate the children telephoning the Mother at all reasonable times requested by a child but otherwise between 6:00 pm and 6:30 pm each Tuesday and Thursday and in relation to such communication, the Father shall ensure that the children have privacy during the conversation.

Collection and Return

1. That for the visits in Suburb D, changeover will occur at Harmony House with the Father to pay all fees in relation to the changeover.

2. That for visits which may occur in Brisbane as agreed between the parties, provided E gives consent, the Father will deliver the children to Ms E at Suburb H at the commencement of time and Ms E shall return the children to the Father at the conclusion of time.

Conduct of the Parents

1. During the time the children are with either parent, the parent shall:

   13.1.respect the privacy of the other parent and not question the children about the personal life of the other parent;

   13.2.speak of the other parent respectfully;

   13.3.not denigrate or insult the other parent in the presence or hearing of the children and use their best endeavours to ensure that others do not denigrate or insult the other parent in the hearing or presence of the children;

   13.4.not attempt to discuss any issues in dispute between the parents with the children, or allow a third party to do so;

   13.5.speak of the other parent respectfully and refer to the other parent as “mum”, ”dad”, ”mummy” or “daddy” as the case may be;

   13.6.be of good behaviour to one another and not to commit an act which could be construed as an act of family or domestic violence as defined in any relevant State domestic violence legislation or under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth); and

   13.7.not to be under the influence of either alcohol or any illicit drugs when a child or children are in their care.

Travel

1. Neither parent will remove the children from Australia without first providing the other parent with at least six (6) weeks notice of their intention to travel outside of Australia.  In the event the other parent objects to the travel outside of Australia they must advise the other parent within seven (7) days of receiving notification of the intent to travel.  The other parent must not unreasonably withhold their consent; it is reasonable to withhold consent if there is a travel warning in existence for the place where the parent wishes to travel with the children.  If the other parent consents to the children leaving Australia then the parent travelling with the children must at least twenty-eight (28) days prior, provide to the other parent an itinerary which details the dates which the children will be out of Australia, the airline and flight details and the name, address and telephone number of the place where the children will be staying.

Communication

1. Each of the Father and the Mother communicate with each other by email once per month for the purposes of exchanging any information relevant to the children’s education, health or welfare and not by SMS message or telephone unless the situation is urgent concerning the children’s health.  The Mother is to initiate the email and the Father to respond within seven (7) days.

2. For the purposes of email communication the Father can email the Mother at … or such other email address nominated by the Mother in writing.  The Father must only communicate with the Mother by email in accordance with these Orders and shall not use the email address to send the Mother spam, electronic viruses or malware.

Authorities

1. This Order operates as an authority for the children’s school to release any information concerning the care, welfare and development of the children to the Mother.  Should the Mother seek any documentation in relation to the children (including but not limited to school notices, school reports, and school photograph order forms), the Mother shall be at liberty to do so.

2. That the Independent Children’s Lawyer be discharged.

3. Pursuant to s 62B and s 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders, and details of who can assist parties to adjust to and comply with an order, are set out in the document entitled “Parenting orders – obligations, consequences and who can help”, a copy of which is annexed to these Orders.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Oden & Remmy 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 BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 13219 of 2007

Mr Oden

Applicant

And

Ms Remmy

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These proceedings under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) concern the children B born in 1998 who is now 15 years of age, and C born in 2000 who is currently 13 years of age.

2. The parties to this application are the Applicant, Mr Oden, (“the father”) and the Respondent, Ms Remmy, (“the mother”); and the Independent Children’s Lawyer appointed pursuant to s 68L of the Act to independently represent the children’s interests in these proceedings, (“the ICL”).

3. Historically the parties entered into final parenting orders by consent in the then Federal Magistrates Court at Suburb D on 15 July 2009.  Those orders provided, inter alia, for the parties to have equal shared parental responsibility for the children and for the children to spend week about time with each parent as well as half of all school holidays.  However, following intervention by the Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services (“the Department”), on 9 September 2011 the father reinstituted these proceedings by way of his Initiating Application filed in this Court on 5 June 2012. 

4. The mother filed a Response to the father’s Initiating Application on 10 August 2012 which response was subsequently amended on 20 November 2012. 

5. The intervention referred to occurred in circumstances where following separation the mother remarried one Mr Remmy, who then resided with the mother and thus the children during their week about time with the mother.  In September 2011 Mr Remmy was charged with rape and two counts of indecent dealing of two step-daughters of a former relationship who were then apparently aged 11 and 7 years respectively.  In June 2012 Mr Remmy was found guilty of all charges and was sentenced to five years imprisonment.  Mr  Remmy is currently in prison in J Correctional Centre, and whilst he became eligible for parole in December 2013 it is clear, on the exhibit evidence tendered this morning, that parole was not granted and he remains incarcerated. 

6. In the family report which I will refer to further there is a note to the effect that the mother, upon finding out about the allegations, ended her relationship with Mr Remmy but for reasons discussed in the family report, there is doubt about that.  It would seem that the mother still visits Mr Remmy in prison and, in the exhibited material referred to, there are references to Mr Remmy himself making reference to the mother as one of his supporters.

7. It is necessary, given the mother’s non-attendance today, to set out something about the procedural history of this matter in circumstances where the matter is proceeding on an undefended basis.

8. From 12 November 2012 to 11 April 2013 the mother was represented in these proceedings, but when a Notice of Ceasing to Act was filed by the mother’s then solicitors the mother became self-representing, albeit that she has not filed, it seems, any further documents in the proceedings since then. 

9. Following the filing of a Notice of Ceasing to Act the mother intermittently attended Court hearings either in person or by telephone.  However, it is to be noted that the mother has some hearing difficulties which is reflected on the order of Registrar Stoneham of 13 August 2013 where it is noted that the mother was unable to be contacted due to hearing difficulties.  The mother has since been diagnosed as being deaf.  She does not sign and can only lip read.  It is noted on the Court record that for Court events the mother requires the assistance of an Auslan interpreter specialising in assisting the deaf who would sit next to her and repeat what is said. 

10. Attempts have been made to contact the mother to arrange for an Auslan interpreter from time to time to assist her in Court events, most recently by way of a letter on 2 June 2014; however those attempts have been unsuccessful as the mother has not responded to that correspondence. 

11. On 25 October 2013 when the matter came before Registrar Stoneham for the making of directions the mother attended in person.  Registrar Stoneham ordered that the father file any Amended Initiating Application by 15 November 2013 and for the mother to file any Amended Response to Final Orders by 29 November 2013.  Registrar Stoneham also made orders for each party to file other trial material and for the matter to be listed for further directions on 28 January 2014 by telephone link and ordered that the parties be excused from attending if legally represented at the hearing.

12. Pursuant to those orders on 28 January 2014 the matter came before Registrar Stoneham for further directions.  The mother did not appear on that occasion and orders were made in her absence including an order that within 14 days the mother file any documents upon which she sought to rely at trial and an order that the parties, including the ICL, personally attend the callover on 6 February 2014.  A notation appears on those orders that, should a party fail to file documents in accordance with the trial directions the other party or parties may seek orders by default at an undefended hearing. 

13. The mother failed to comply with the orders of Registrar Stoneham of 25 October 2013 and again of 28 January 2014 in relation to the filing of trial material.

14. Pursuant to the orders of 28 January 2014 the matter came before me on 6 February 2014 at a callover.  In the absence of any appearance by the mother or a representative on her behalf, orders were made that the proceedings be adjourned to be heard and determined on 11 July, today, and that the father have leave to have the matter proceed and the parenting orders he seeks heard and determined on 11 July 2014 on an undefended basis. 

15. On 25 February 2014 the matter was listed before Registrar Stoneham for a subpoena hearing.  On that occasion the Court was able to contact the mother by telephone but the line disconnected during the proceedings.  There is a notation to that effect on those orders.  Registrar Stoneham made orders in the absence of the mother that the subpoena be enlarged to 11 March 2014 however the mother did not appear on that occasion.

16. The matter came before me on 24 June 2014 for a pre-trial mention.  On that occasion the Court telephoned the mother who answered but then replied that she could not hear anything and disconnected the connection.  The Court officer attempted to telephone the mother again however the call went straight to the mother’s message bank.

17. Thus, in the absence of any appearance by the mother or a representative on her behalf orders were made on 24 June 2014 that the matter proceed to be heard and determined on an undefended basis at 9.00 am today and that the ICL cause a copy of the orders to be served upon the mother.  On that occasion I requested that the ICL provide an affidavit today evidencing these things at today’s hearing, although I made no order to that effect.

18. In the event leave has been given to the ICL to file and read an affidavit of Ms I today which confirms that the relevant steps were taken by the ICL. 

19. The rules of procedural fairness and natural justice need to be considered before determining a matter on an undefended basis.  Within the rule of procedural fairness lies the indispensable requirement of the Court system of justice that a party potentially affected by a decision have the opportunity to be heard.  As highlighted by Kirby J in Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172, where a person’s interest may be adversely affected by a Court’s decision, that person must be afforded an opportunity to place before the Court material information and submissions before a decision is made.

20. However, as was emphasised by Kirby J it is the opportunity to be heard which is essential to procedural fairness, not that the Court must receive evidence or submissions on behalf of that party before an order is made.  The principle does not require the decision maker to actually hear the party, as Kirby J put it in Allesch v Maunz at [38]:

    Sometimes through stubbornness, confusion, misunderstanding, fear or other emotions a party may not take advantage of the opportunity to be heard, although such opportunity is all that is provided.  Affording the opportunity is all that the law and principle require.

21. The mother has filed no material in these proceedings since her legal representative filed a Notice of Ceasing to Act as long ago as 11 April 2013.  As I have referred to, since that time the mother has intermittently attended some directions hearings before Registrar Stoneham in the context of it being

    
    

    self-evident that the father and the ICL were pursuing parenting orders being made pursuant to Part VII of the Act. The mother has not participated meaningfully in these proceedings since her attendance by telephone before Registrar Stoneham on 25 February 2014.

22. I am satisfied on the evidence before me that the mother was well aware of today’s hearing and the fact that leave had been given to the other parties to proceed on an undefended basis if she did not appear.  I am satisfied on the affidavit of Ms I that I have referred to that it is clear that the mother has had the opportunity to be heard but has elected not to take advantage of that opportunity. 

23. In the current application the father initially sought orders that the children reside with him and spend supervised time with the mother.  By way of his Amended Initiating Application filed 15 November 2013 the father sought orders that would provide, inter alia, for the parties to have equal shared parental responsibility for the children; for the children to reside with the father and spend time and communicate with the mother for one weekend each alternate month from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm on Saturday and from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm on Sunday with such time to occur in the Suburb D area; and after three successful occasions of such time in the Suburb D area, the mother’s time with the children graduate to overnight time from 9.00 am Saturday to 5.00 pm Sunday.  Further on that proposal it would see the children have telephone communication with the mother at all reasonable times as requested but otherwise each Tuesday and Thursday.  The father also then sought orders that the mother not allow the children to come into contact either in person or by telephone with either Mr Remmy, to whom I have referred, or with Mr F.  Mr F is the brother of the victims of the offences that Mr Remmy was convicted of and he apparently has been residing with the mother for a period.

1. The reason those orders are sought is obvious, in that Mr F apparently holds to the view that his siblings have made false allegations leading to the conviction of Mr Remmy. 

2. Initially in these proceedings, given the Departmental involvement, the mother sought orders that the children reside with the father and spend supervised time with her at a contact centre.  Pursuant to her Amended Response filed on 20 November 2012 the mother sought orders that the parties have equal shared responsibility; that the children live with the father and spend unsupervised time with the mother each alternate weekend; for half school holidays and special occasions. 

3. Part VII of the Act provides the statutory framework in which this Court exercises its power to make parenting orders. Most of the amendments to Part VII which took effect on 7 June 2012, do not apply to these proceedings given the date of their institution prior to the operative date of the amendments, thus the following discussion of Part VII is in its unamended form.

4. Section 60B of the Act sets out the objects of Part VII which are to ensure that the best interests of children are met and details how those objectives are achieved. Section 60B(2) details the principles which underlie those objects.

5. Section 60CA of the Act requires that in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, the Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.

6. Section 60CC of the Act identifies the primary considerations and the additional considerations the court must consider in determining what is in the child’s or the children’s best interests. That requirement is supplemented by the further requirement for the Court to consider the extent to which each parent has fulfilled or failed to fulfil responsibilities as a parent in the particular respects identified in section 60CC(4) (as it then existed).

7. Section 65D provides the source of the Court’s power to make a “parenting order” is defined. This section expressly provides that this power is subject to, inter alia, s 61DA of the Act, which requires the Court to apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared responsibility for the child. The presumption does not apply in circumstances of abuse or family violence of the kind referred to in subsection (2). Further, the presumption may be rebutted by evidence that satisfied the Court that it would not be in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility (see s 61DA(4)).

8. The effect of s 65DAA of the Act is that if the Court makes an order providing that a child’s parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, then the Court must go on to consider whether it is in the best interests of the child and reasonably practicable for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents, and if it is, to consider that order and, if not, the Court must consider an order for substantial and significant time with each of the parents.

9. Today the ICL has provided a minute of final orders sought by the ICL, which is in accordance with the orders sought by the father. Those proposed orders provide that except as otherwise stated, the parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for major long term issues. Whilst that order thus triggers s 65DAA, for reasons which follow I am satisfied that it would not be in the best interests of these children for there to be an equal time order, nor would such an order be reasonably practicable. Likewise, I would not be satisfied that beyond the extent to which these proposed orders provide for substantial and significant time, there would not be the reasonable practicability to extending the terms of those timeframes.

10. The parents of these children, commenced a relationship in 1990, married in 1996 and separated in 2007.  Their divorce was pronounced on 24 March 2010.  I have already referred to the dates of birth of each of the two children of the relationship.  Relevantly, the father also has three children from two previous relationships namely, Ms K, from his first relationship who is approximately 31 years of age, and Mr L and Mr M who are approximately 28 and 25 years respectively. 

11. The mother has a child from a previous relationship, namely, Ms E who is approximately 23 years of age. Ms E has spent time with the subject children, for example, the children stayed with Ms E for a week in the June 2013 school holidays and she has also visited the children in Suburb D.  The orders proposed by the ICL and the father contemplate Ms E’s continuing involvement with the children, and indeed the involvement of the maternal grandmother. 

12. I have earlier noted the father’s institution of these proceedings and in the circumstances in which that institution occurred.  The Department’s involvement included the identification of an unacceptable risk of emotional harm to the children and that the alleged abuser was the mother in circumstances where the Department had concerns of her unwillingness to provide protection to the children. That is, in circumstances where it would seem there is a body of evidence to support the proposition that the mother does not accept the conviction of Mr Remmy of the very serious offences, of which he has been convicted and thus, does not consequently have sufficient insight into the risk Mr Remmy would pose to the children the subject of these proceedings. 

13. The Department found the father would be willing and able to protect the children, and it was on that basis that the children came into his care.

14. On 22 November 2012, interim consent orders were made by the Principal Registrar which provided that all previous parenting orders be discharged; that the children live with the father; that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility; and that the children spend supervised time with the mother at N Contact Centre for a period of two hours each alternate Sunday and on other special occasions. Further orders were also made for a Child and Parents Issues Assessment to be prepared by a family consultant pursuant to s 11F of the Act.

15. On 10 January 2013 the parents and the children attended interviews with Mr O, family consultant, for the purpose of preparing a Child and Parent Issues Assessment.  A copy of that memorandum to the Court is Annexure “GO3” to the father’s affidavit filed 17 January 2014.

16. On 15 March 2013, Registrar Stoneham made orders appointing an ICL and on 28 May 2013, orders were made adjourning the matter to enable a family report to be prepared.

17. It was on 4 July 2013 that the parties and the children attended interviews with Mr P, family consultant for the purpose of compiling a family report, which report is attached to his affidavit filed by the ICL on 15 July 2013. 

18. At that stage, it is clear from Mr P’s report that he assessed the attachment of the girls with the father and commented favourably as to the progress that they were making in various respects, including their schooling.  As Mr P noted, the matter in issue revolves around the criminal offending of Mr Remmy.  At the time of the Department’s intervention, the girls were coming up to 13 and 11 years of age respectively.  Whilst there is no evidence of anything untoward happening to the girls the subject of these proceedings, there is evidence that, as Mr P describes it, they were being groomed to be victims of Mr Remmy’s predatory behaviour if it were accepted that he and the mother were showering with the girls. 

19. Mr P expressed the opinion that any Court order needed to be couched in terms of preventing contact between the girls and Mr Remmy.  At paragraph 28 of his report, Mr P observed, it being apparent from the mother’s version of events and her attitude, that she does not accept the sexual offending of Mr Remmy.  Mr P notes that this impression was reinforced by the fact that the brother of the victims, Mr F, whom I have referred to, had then been a resident in the mother’s home for more than 12 months and was espousing beliefs to the effect that his sisters were liars with respect to the offences Mr Remmy was convicted of. 

20. Mr P expressed the opinion that Mr F ought not to have contact with the subject children “…because he is tantamount to an agent for Mr Remmy, given his attitude towards his siblings’ situation.”.

21. Mr P noted at paragraph 29 of his report: 

    Beyond the considerations of the step-father’s influence, and the risk he poses, there is a happy situation of the girls progressing well in their father’s care and enjoying their school and social life.  The major gap in their current existence is the inconsistent and insufficient contact with their mother, which hopefully can be remedied, by the mother biting the bullet and making the trip to [Suburb D] on a bi-monthly basis, and via the father’s proposal to have bi-monthly contact at [Ms E’s] home.

22. Mr P expressed the opinion that it was vital that the mother collaborate with not trying to reintroduce Mr Remmy upon his release from imprisonment, and as he put it “…not trying to rewrite history.”.  As Mr P points out, Mr Remmy has been through a criminal trial and has been found guilty.  Mr P observed that the mother needs to appreciate that from a societal viewpoint, the line has been drawn, as he put it, with respect to the conviction of her husband. 

23. The conclusions reached by Mr P included that the girls ought continue living with the father.  Mr P recommended that they ought have monthly contact with their mother, alternating between Suburb D and Brisbane.  Mr P expressed the view that after three successful occasions of such time at Suburb D, that there be overnight time introduced if the mother sought that.  Mr P noted that there would be no prospect of the girls returning to the care of their mother, in light of the mother’s allegiances with Mr Remmy, and in light of the girls being well settled in the full time care of their father. 

24. Mr P expressed the opinion that the matter ought be finalised at the point of his report.  I note that the minutes of proposed orders sought by the ICL and by the father are consistent with the opinions and views of Mr P, which I accept.  I am satisfied that the orders are consistent with the views of the children, and it is clear that they have a strong attachment to the father and there is no issue raised on the evidence before me as to his continuing role as their primary carer and primary attachment figure. 

25. The orders that are sought are predicated upon affording the mother an opportunity to re-establish her time and communication with the children should she choose to do so.

26. On the current state of the evidence, I cannot be satisfied that currently the mother has a meaningful relationship with the children, as it would seem that for some time now, whilst the children have continued to reside with the father in Suburb D, they have spent minimal time with the mother.  Whilst interim consent orders made on 22 November 2012 carried the intention that the children spend time with the mother each alternate weekend at a contact centre in Suburb H, even at the stage of Mr P’s report, it was noted that the average time spent was about once per month since early 2013.  The time between the children and the mother has not occurred as frequently as provided for in the orders, mostly because, amongst other things, the difficulties the father has encountered in fitting those trips to Suburb H in with his work schedule. 

27. As at the pre-trial mention before me on 24 June 2014, the Court was informed that the last time the children had had contact with their mother was at a wedding in August 2013, and the children had also sent the mother a text message on Mother’s Day in 2014. 

28. I am satisfied on all the evidence, including the exhibited material received today, that there would be an unacceptable risk to these children if they were to be left in the unregulated care of the mother without the provisions for strictures upon her in terms of bringing the children into contact with Mr F or Mr Remmy. 

29. I note that if the mother does resume a relationship with the children and it progresses under the framework of the orders proposed now by the ICL and the father, it would be likely that they would spend time in the mother’s household. In those circumstances, it is legitimately in the children’s best interests that the orders, whilst on the one hand not prevent a relationship between the children and the mother, do not expose them to the risk inherent in them being allowed to come into contact either with Mr F or Mr Remmy. 

30. I note in passing that Mr F informed Mr P at the time of his family report that his siblings had made false allegations against Mr Remmy.  It is clear on the exhibited material tendered today, that as part of his parole application, Mr Remmy persists in maintaining his innocence and thus not recognising or accepting his offending.  That was part of the reasons, and indeed lay at the centre of the reasoning for the recommendation that he not be released on parole at this point. 

31. I am satisfied that the orders now proposed by the ICL and the father are less likely to lead to further proceedings because they provide a regime for the mother to resume her relationship with the children in circumstances where the children’s safety is protected, and indeed to increase the time the mother spends with them if she is minded to have a meaningful involvement in their lives.  It is clear that the orders are consistent with the views of these children who I note are now 15 and 13 years of age respectively. 

32. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the orders proposed by the ICL and the father meet the best interests of these children within the meaning of Part VII of the Act. For these reasons, I make the orders proposed as tendered to me today and now initialled by me and placed with the file.

I certify that the preceding fifty five (55) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Kent delivered on 11 July 2014.

Associate:  JT

Date:  11 July 2014