Ogilvy and Sassall (No.2)

[2013] FCCA 2226

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

OGILVY & SASSALL (No.2) [2013] FCCA 2226

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW − Whether mother’s mental state and potential abuse of prescribed medication a risk to the children  ̶  whether father will promote children’s relationship with mother.

Legislation:  

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 65DAA

Ogilvy & Sassall [2013] FCCA 835
Starr & Duggan [2009] FamCAFC 115

Applicant: MR OGILVY

Respondent: MS SASSALL

File Number: MLC 3364 of 2011

Judgment of: Judge Phipps

Hearing date: 19 November 2013

Date of Last Submission: 19 November 2013

Delivered at: Dandenong

Delivered on: 19 December 2013

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Glass

Solicitors for the Applicant: Victoria Legal Aid

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Williams

Solicitors for the Respondent: Pearsons Lawyers

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Ms McCreadie

Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Bowlen Dunstan & Associates

ORDERS

1. All previous orders be discharged.

2. The parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children [X] born [in] 2008 and [Y] born [in] 2009 except that the father has sole responsibility for making the decision about which school or schools the children attend.

3. The children live with the Father.

4. The children spend time with and communicate with the mother as follows:

   (a)For the first three weekends in each four week period commencing 21 December 2013 from 10.00am Saturday to 4.00pm Sunday;

   (b)On Christmas Day from 4.00pm to 8.00pm;

   (c)On Mother’s Day from 10.00am to 4.00pm;

   (d)On each child’s birthday if not a spend time day for two hours as agreed;

   (e)by telephone, unless otherwise agreed, between 5.00pm and 5.30pm each Wednesday;

   (f)Otherwise as agreed between the parents.

5. If Father’s Day is a spend time day the children’s time with the mother is suspended from 10.00am

6. Each parent shall ensure the other is kept informed as soon as is reasonably practical for:

   (a)Any medical problems or illnesses suffered by the children whilst in their care including the names and contact details of any treating medical professional;

   (b)Any medication that is being prescribed for the children;

   (c)Any specialist medical appointments with any doctor, psychologist, psychiatrist, counsellor or therapist regarding the children;

   (d)Any social, school or religious functions which the children are to attend;

   (e)The residential address of each parent;

   (f)The details of any person with whom each parent may be residing (including full name and date of birth);

   (g)The telephone contact number of each parent and current email addresses;

   (h)Any other matter relevant to the welfare of the children.

7. Each parent be entitled to attend all events involving the children including but not limited to sporting functions, extracurricular activities that allow for parental attendance or participation and the parent who has the children in their care on the day of such activity will be responsible for the day to day care of the child at such event including the children’s transportation to and from the event unless otherwise agreed between the parents in writing.

8. That the mother undertake a random supervised drug screen within 24 hours of the receipt of a request for same from the father, such request to be made no more than once a month, and provide the result to the father.

9. In order to facilitate changeover the mother shall collect the children from the [D] Police Station at the commencement of time and the father shall collect the children from the [P] Police Station at the conclusion of time unless otherwise agreed in writing.

10. Unless for a medical emergency the mother attend only one medical practice for treatment (currently the [C] medical practice), and in the event that she changes the medical practice upon which she is attending notify the father in writing not later than seven days prior to her attendance upon the new medical practice.

11. The mother comply with the directions of the medical practice which she is attending as to the use of prescription medication and over the counter pharmaceuticals in respect to dosage, frequency of use and script renewal.

12. The mother attend upon a psychologist nominated by the medical practice which she is attending for treatment in respect of her anxiety, depression and vulnerability to excessive consumption of prescribed medication and over the counter pharmaceuticals and continue attending for so long as the psychologist recommends.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Ogilvy & Sassall (No.2) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT DANDENONG

MLC 3364 of 2011

MR OGILVY

Applicant

And

MS SASSALL

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The parties have two children [X] born [in] 2008 and [Y] born [in] 2009.  The final hearing of the application commenced in March 2013 and proceeded for several days.  I then made interim orders and adjourned the final hearing to 19 November 2013.  I gave reasons for the making of interim orders and adjourning of the final hearing in Ogilvy & Sassall [2013] FCCA 835. These reasons are to be read with the reasons in that judgement.

2. The children had been living with the father for approximately two years before that time and having time with their mother supervised or with another adult in substantial attendance.  A significant issue about the father’s attitude to the mother and the father’s attitude to the mother’s relationship with the children emerged during the hearing.  The three family reports all recommended that the children remain living with the father. The Independent Children’s Lawyers’ submission to the court was that while at the commencement of the hearing the Independent Children’s Lawyer had been inclined to recommend that the children continue living with their father, the father’s attitude towards the mother and the mother’s relationship with the children that the evidence disclosed might lead to a change of recommendation.  The change of recommendation would depend upon the mother being able to demonstrate that her drug use was appropriate.

3. The interim orders provided for the parties to have equal shared parental responsibility for the children and for the children to live with the father.  They provided that for a period of four months the children would spend time with their mother from 10.00am Saturday to 4.00pm Sunday with the maternal grandmother or maternal aunt in substantial attendance.

4. The order provided for the mother to attend upon her treating medical practitioners and for her to obtain a report on her compliance with the requirements set out in the order, and if that occurred the time would extend from 10am Friday to 4pm Sunday, again with the maternal grandmother or maternal aunt in substantial attendance.  The father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer did not consider that she had produced satisfactory reports and so the time was not extended to include the Friday night.

5. The order provided for random drug screens in the GCMS format and the following paragraphs regarding the wife’s treatment:

   Unless for a medical emergency and written confirmation of the same from the treating medical practitioner the mother attend upon the [C] medical practice for treatment (the clinic) ( address [omitted]).

   The mother comply with the clinic as to the use of prescription medication and over-the-counter pharmaceuticals in respect dosage, frequency of use and prescription renewal.

   The mother attend upon a psychologist nominated by the clinic for treatment in respect of her anxiety, depression and vulnerability to excessive consumption of prescribed medication and over-the-counter pharmaceuticals.

   The mother comply with the directions of the psychologist as to treatment.

   The mother also attend upon a psychiatrist nominated by the clinic and attend upon such psychiatrist as required and comply with this novel instructions as to treatment.

6. Other paragraphs provided for reports to be provided to the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the father’s solicitors and for giving of copies of documents to the various treating professionals.

7. The mother has provided drug screens as required and attended upon a psychologist and a psychiatrist.  The witnesses at the adjourned hearing were the mother and father the mother’s mother and the mother’s sister, the report writer Ms M and Associate Professor S.

Proposals

1. The father’s proposal is that the children continue living with him and have time with the mother with the maternal grandmother or maternal aunt in substantial attendance.  The Independent Children’s Lawyer has the same proposal.  The mother’s proposal is that the children live with her and spend alternate weekends with the father.

Background

1. The background is given in the earlier reasons.  Briefly the parties commenced living together in April 2008 and separated in July 2010.  The Department of Human Services Child Protection Service became involved with the family in 2010 and on 15 July 2010 the police applied for an intervention order against the father naming the mother and the two children as protected persons.

2. The children went into the care of the father in April 2011 as a result of Child Protection intervention.  The first orders were made in this court on 20 April 2011 and the subsequent history is set out in the earlier reasons.  The last orders are those made on 15 March 2013.  From April 2011 until now the children have lived with the father and spent time with the mother with their maternal grandmother or maternal aunt in substantial attendance.

Children’s provisions

1. Provisions concerning children are contained in Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The objects of Part VII and the principles underlying it are contained in s.60B. The objects are ensuring that the best interests of children are met by ensuring they have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, protecting children from harm, ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting and ensuring that parents fulfil their duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.

2. Section 60CA provides that the child’s best interests is the paramount consideration in making parenting orders. Considerations for determining a child's best interests are contained in s.60CC.

3. Section 61DA requires the court to apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the children for parents to have equal shared parental responsibility.  The presumption is rebutted if there are reasonable grounds to believe there has been abuse of the child or another child a member of the family, family violence, or if it is not in the best interests of the child.

4. If the court makes or intends to make an order for equal shared parental responsibility, s.65DAA provides that the court must consider whether equal time with each parent would be in the child's best interests and reasonably practicable, and if equal time is not appropriate, the court must consider whether substantial and significant time would be in the child's best interests and reasonably practical. Considerations for determining what is reasonably practical are in s.65DAA(5).

5. By s.65DAA(3):

   “a child will be taken to spend substantial and significant time with a parent only if:

   (a)  the time the child spends with the parent includes both:

   (i)days that fall on weekends and holidays; and

   (ii) days that do not fall on weekends or holidays;

   (b)  the time the child spends with the parent allows the parent to be involved in:

   (i)  the child's daily routine; and

   (ii) occasions and events that are of particular significance to the child; and

   (c)  the time the child spends with the parent allows the child to be involved in occasions and events that are of special significance to the parent.”

6. The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia said in Starr & Duggan [2009] FamCAFC 115 at [38] and [39]:

   “38.…a logical approach is to:

   first make findings concerning the relevant s 60CC factors;

   then consider (based on the s 60CC findings) whether equal time or substantial and significant time is in the child’s best interests; and

   then consider whether such arrangements are reasonably practicable by addressing the matters referred to in s 65DAA(5) – which may be done by referring back to the earlier s 60CC findings.

   39.   Section 65DAA will provide a useful framework to consider the advantages and disadvantages, not only of the equal time and substantial and significant time scenarios, but also other outcomes which may be in the child’s best interests, including the proposal to relocate.”

7. The interim order of 15 March 2013 provides for the parties to have equal shared parental responsibility for the children.  The parents have a dispute about which school the children should attend, but the evidence of each party shows that this is no more that each party want the children to attend a school near that party’s home rather than issues about the individual schools, one being a Catholic school and the other a government school.  Nothing which has happened since March 2013 suggests that there should be a change from the parental responsibility order except for the school issue.  I do not need to reconsider it.

8. The father commenced the application in April 2011 and so the provisions of part VII of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) as it was on that date applies.

Primary considerations

The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents.

1. The children have a good relationship with each party Ms M has seen the children on four occasions, the last on 11 November 2013.  She prepared a fourth report dated 14 November 2013 she describes the children as cheerful, healthy and physically stronger.  She describes then as well-behaved, organised in their play, well aware of their surroundings and the expected behaviour from them, giving the impression that their basic needs were being met by their caregivers.  She describes the mother as loving and affectionate and Ms M says the father seemed much attached to both children.

2. The past history is that in 2011 the child protection authorities decided that the mother was incapable of caring for the children and keeping them safe. Since then they have been cared for by their father and seeing their mother for a substantial amount of time but supervised or with another family member in substantial attendance. The children’s meaningful relationship with each party now suggest that the living arrangements have provided the benefit described in this consideration and the corresponding object in s.60B.

The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm or from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.

1. This is a significant consideration in this case.  The mother suffers from anxiety and depression.  She has been treated over time with various antidepressant and antianxiety medications and has seen psychiatrists and psychologists on a regular basis.  Child Protection intervention in April 2011 was because the mother was abusing her medication.  The Child Protection reasons for so concluding are referred to in the earlier reasons for judgement.

2. The evidence of Associate Professor S in the March hearing showed that the mother’s recent drug tests at that time showed a level of opiates inconsistent with the prescribed medication and non-prescription medication that the mother said she was taking.  Associate Professor S evidence in the November hearing about the mother drug tests is puzzling.  Reassuringly, they do not show any of the usual illicit substances, although some of the tests do not show chemicals which should be present if the mother was taking her prescription medication.

3. Reports from the mother’s psychiatrist and general practitioners who have seen her are part of the evidence.  Each of the professionals concludes that the mother is taking her medication.

4. Currently there is no evidence that the mother is abusing prescription or legal non-prescription medication, nor is there evidence that she is using illegal drugs.  The drug abuse risk factor is that the mother may relapse and then revert to past behaviour.  The medical evidence does not suggest she is at immediate risk of doing so, that given the past history the risk must exist and must be taken into account.

5. The other risk factor is the mother’s ability to cope with the children and with life generally.  She suffers from panic attacks.  Particular occasions she refers to are in crowded areas such as a shopping centre.  She takes Xanax to cope with the panic attacks.  The psychiatrist Dr K in the March 2013 hearing described Xanax as highly addictive.  The mother’s panic attacks may affect her ability to care for the children and there is a risk in her use of Xanax.

6. The March orders require the mother to attend a psychologist.  She was referred to Ms S.  Ms S’s report describes the mother as initially difficult to engage in therapy.  She says this was compounded by the irregularity of her attendance.  She missed four appointments entirely and was significantly late for a further three.  Ms S comments that irregular attendance has affected the amount of progress in therapy somewhat.

7. The mother gives explanations for some of the missed appointments and said to Ms M “whether I attended or not I paid $200 to her.  It is not as if she missed out on receiving the fees.  Therefore I don’t understand why she wrote a bad report.”  The mother told Ms M that she was finding a different psychologist.

8. Ms M says that during the report interviews, it came across that the mother did not like receiving negative feedback or did not even understand the reasons for the negative feedback received from her treating psychologist. Ms M concluded that the mother, being intelligent, may understand her functioning on an intellectual level, however when it comes to practical issues she does seem to have limited insight and has poor application of her insight.

9. This evidence shows that the mother continues to have difficulty in coping with the requirements of life.  Her evidence and statements to Ms M and the various medical and other professionals show the importance to her of having the children live with her.  Attendance on a psychologist was one of Dr K’s recommendations and for that reason incorporated into the March 2013 orders.  Punctual and regular attendance on and engagement with the psychologist was important for the mother to achieve her aim of having the children live with her.  The mother’s failure in this regard demonstrates Ms M’s conclusion about the mother’s functioning on an intellectual level but with limited insight and poor application.

10. What has happened in the past, particularly the immediate past, is good evidence of what is likely to happen in the future.  The mother’s inability to cope with such an important requirement as regular and punctual attendance on a psychologist suggests that she will struggle to cope with the multiple tasks of caring for young children on a day-to-day basis.

11. The mother’s long-term depression and anxiety, her panic attacks, evidence of her inability to cope with important issues in her life together with the risk that she might again lapse into abuse of prescription medication and legal non-prescription medication are powerful indicators that the children would be at risk if she was their principal carer.

12. The father’s criminal, prison and mental health history are described in the reasons for the earlier judgement.  In the past he has been diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia but his treating psychiatrist disagrees.  He continues to see his treating psychiatrist.  The father’s care of the children since April 2011 shows that whatever problems he may have had in the past, the children are not now at risk in his care.  As Ms M says, the children are cheerful and healthy.

Additional considerations.

Any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child's maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child's views.

1. The children are too young to express any views.

The nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child's parents; and other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child)

1. The history of the care of the children and their relationship with each parent is discussed above under the first of the primary considerations.  The father has cared for the children for the last 2½ years, since [X] was two and a half and [Y] 18 months.  The mother has seen the children on a regular basis but always under supervision or with a close relative in substantial attendance, and overnight time has only taken place in the last six months.  The father is their principal carer and their primary attachment must be to their father.  Ms M’s observations confirm this.

2. The children have a good relationship with their mother and obviously see either the maternal grandmother or maternal aunt when with their mother.  They have substantial involvement with the father’s family.

The willingness and ability of each of the child's parents to facilitate, and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent.

1. This is the consideration which led to the making of interim orders only in March 2013.  The father’s attitude to the mother, as expressed by him in the witness box, is set out in the earlier reasons and need not be repeated.  He demonstrated an attitude towards the mother which suggested that he might do nothing in the future to encourage the children’s relationship with the mother and indeed, might actively work against them having the relationship they deserve to have with their mother.

2. Ms M conducted interviews and observations on 11 November 2013.  Ms M read the earlier reasons for judgement.  She asked the father about his two different presentations with the writer during assessment and whilst giving evidence at Court.  The father told her that during his previous Children’s Court of Victoria proceedings he was advised strongly by his lawyers “to fight for what I wanted and I thought that is what I was supposed to do”.

3. The father told Ms M that in recent times he had tried to involve the mother and communicate positively with her.  After the last court case he had tried to be as friendly as possible with the mother.  He had agreed to drop the children at her home: he had given her information about children’s kinder and swimming lessons.  On one occasion when the mother had attended the kinder at closing time he had allowed her to spend time with the children in a park and invited her to attend his home to show his lifestyle with the children.

4. Two matters were canvassed in the evidence in the later hearing which show the father’s willingness to involve the mother.

5. In March 2013 [X] had what the father considered was some form of seizure.  The father took him to hospital and notified the mother.  [X] was kept in the hospital for observation but otherwise found to be well.  However the hospital notes query whether there was an epileptic seizure.  The father took him to the appropriate medical practitioners and for the appropriate testing which found no evidence of epilepsy.

6. The mother did not attend the hospital.  She said she spoke to the doctor who told her that [X] was all right and so did not come.  The father’s case criticises the mother for not attending the hospital.  I consider this criticism is unfair.  The mother assured herself by speaking to the doctor that her son was well and so nothing could be achieved by her attending at the hospital.  Significant to this consideration is the fact that the father informed the mother of what was happening which meant that the mother was herself able to obtain advice directly from the doctor treating [X].

7. The kindergarten teacher told the father that [X] appeared to have problems with fine motor skills and speech difficulties.  The father obtained a referral to a paediatrician and an occupational therapist.  The paediatrician assessed [X] as appropriate for his age.  The father’s case is critical of the mother because she queried the need for referral to a paediatrician.  I see this of little consequence, but what is significant is that the father consulted the mother and she attended the consultation.

8. I accept that the father now understands that the attitude he expressed towards the mother in his evidence in March 2013 was misguided.  I accept that he has attempted to communicate better and involve the mother more and his actions with [X] when he was taken to hospital and seeing a paediatrician demonstrate this.

9. The mother raises one matter which she claims shows that the father was trying to keep her away from the children.  She says that the father gave a copy of court orders to the kindergarten and that led to the kindergarten refusing to permit her to attend.  The father says that he gave the kindergarten court orders because the kindergarten required them.  He says that the decision to stop the mother from coming to the kindergarten was nothing to do with him.  He told Ms M that the kindergarten teacher told him that it was the mother’s behaviour that led to her being stopped from attending the kindergarten.  I accept that the father was not involved in the mother being excluded from the kindergarten.

The likely effect of any changes in the child's circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either of his or her parents or any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living.

1. The children have been cared for by their father since April 2011, more than two and a half years.  Ms M’s observation of them show that they are healthy, happy and that they behave appropriately.  Both parents clearly regard them as delightful children as do the maternal grandmother and maternal aunt.

2. While the mother clearly loves the children and they enjoy their time with her, the mother’s problems with anxiety and depression mean that if she was caring for them and had difficulty in coping with normal day-to-day tasks in caring for the children their current happy stability could be endangered.  There is a significant risk of this happening.

The practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child's right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis.

1. The difficulty and expense involved currently is the need for the maternal grandmother or the maternal aunt to be present when the children are spending time with their mother.  The difficulty and expense is particularly pronounced with the maternal aunt because she lives in Sydney.  Therefore, she has the expense and inconvenience of travelling to Melbourne to undertake the task of being present while the children are with the mother.

The capacity of each of the child's parents and any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child) to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs.

1. The children have been well cared for by their father.  They are happy and healthy and behave appropriately.  What has already been said about the mother under the second of the primary considerations shows the problems with her capacity to provide for the children’s needs.

The maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child's parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant.

1. Other than the age and sex of the children there is nothing relevant under this heading.

If the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child, the child's right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture) and the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right.

1. The children are not aboriginal or Torrens Strait Islander.

The attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents

1. The evidence of the father’s care for the children shows his attitude to the responsibilities of parenthood.

2. The mother’s opposition to [X] being taken to a paediatrician shows the mother with a less than satisfactory attitude.  Possible problems with [X]’s development were raised with the father by the kindergarten teacher.  Examination by a paediatric specialist is an obvious check.  The father had first to obtain a referral from a general practitioner who would not have made the referral if the father had not given sound reasons for needing it.  The mother’s opposition is difficult to understand.

Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family

1. That there are allegations of family violence while the parties were together but they are no longer of relevance.

Any family violence order that applies to the child or a member of the child's family, if the order is a final order or the making of the order was contested by a person.

1. There is no relevant evidence under this heading.

Whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child.

1. Both the father and the Independent’s Children’s Lawyer propose that the requirement for substantial attendance by another adult when the children are with the mother should continue.  Ms M recommends it.

2. Continuing the requirement means that if the requirement for a substantial attendance is to be removed it would need either the fathers agreement or a further court application.  The latter is more likely.

3. If the substantial attendance requirement is removed and the father is concerned about the mother’s behaviour that would require another application by him.

4. The likelihood of further proceedings exists.

Any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant.

1. There are no other relevant matters.

Reasonably practicable

1. The party’s residences are reasonably close.  Their ability to communicate and solve problems is limited.  Neither party proposes equal time or time with the other party beyond weekend time.  The children living substantially with one parent is all that is reasonably practical.

Conclusion

1. The children are doing well in their father’s care.  There are significant doubts about the mother’s ability to care for the children.  The medical reports show that her mental state is reasonably stable at the moment but she still has some difficulties in coping with the normal demands of life, for instance she has anxiety attacks.  Her past history, and the drug tests undertaken both earlier this year and recently raise some doubt about her adherence to only prescription medication and legal non-prescription medication, and her proper use of both.

2. Ms M gives her conclusion that the children should continue living with the father as follows:

   The children are settled well and are thriving.  There is little benefit to them to be disrupted totally from being settled in the care of a parent when it is not certain the other parent is capable of running with the responsibilities that comes with caring for two young vulnerable children.

3. Moving the children from their current stable environment with the father to an uncertain environment with their mother is not in their best interests.  They should remain living with their father.

4. How much time the children should spend with their mother and whether there should be a requirement for substantial attendance by another adult is a difficult issue.  The attendance every weekend by either the maternal grandmother or the maternal aunt cannot continue indefinitely.  The maternal aunt cannot be expected to travel from Sydney for an indefinite period and probably will have to stop doing so.  The burden on the maternal grandmother is similar.

5. Should the requirement for substantial attendance be continued and the maternal grandmother and maternal aunt cannot continue to provide that attendance then the children will not see their mother.  They will lose the obvious benefit to them of their relationship with their mother.  The benefit to the children of their relationship with their mother has to be weighed against any risk to the children in the mother having their sole care even for short periods and the risk that the maternal grandmother or maternal aunt cannot continue to help.

6. The maternal grandmother and maternal aunt are obviously committed to their daughter and sister and to the children.  If the requirement for substantial attendance is removed they will not cease to be involved.  Obviously they know of the mother’s mental health difficulties and will be careful to monitor what is happening.  The father, too, will be in a position to do this.  Requirements for the mother to continue involvement with treating professionals should be continued.

7. Ms M recommends that the children spend time with the mother each weekend as per the current arrangement, that is 10.00am Saturday to 4.00pm Sunday.  She then says that if the arrangement proceeds well in six month’s time the children could spend increased time with their mother in an arrangement that allows the father to spend some weekend time with the children.

8. To balance the need for the children to spend time with the mother against the risks of her difficulty in coping, the current arrangement, one night at a time should continue.  To give the father weekend time with the children, particularly when [X] commences school next year, this time should take place on three weekends out of four.  It may be that in the future, say in six months’ time as Ms M suggests, the amount of time could be increased.  That depends on how well the time goes, the mother’s proper use of prescription and non-prescription medication and her demonstrating her ability to care for the children and keep them safe.  The likelihood or otherwise of these things occur cannot be assessed now.  Only orders which reflect the current situation can be made.

9. The children should attend school near the father’s home and to ensure that this happens he should be given sole responsibility for making that decision.

I certify that the preceding sixty-nine (69) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Phipps

Date:  19 December 2013