Paddon & Anor and Harrelson & Anor

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PADDON AND ANOR & HARRELSON AND ANOR

[2013] FamCA 764

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best interests – parental responsibility -with whom the child shall live and spend time or communicate – child to live with the maternal grandparents – maternal grandparents to have sole parental responsibility - child to spend time and communicate with the mother, father and siblings in accordance with the child’s wishes – where the child does not have a meaningful relationship with either parent - where the child ran away from the parents’ home and has resided with the maternal grandparents for almost two years - where there is high conflict between the child’s parents and maternal grandparents – where the child has alleged harsh physical punishment by the father
FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTIONS – mother and father restrained from contacting or approaching the child – maternal grandparents restrained from using corporal punishment on the child

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC, 64B

APPLICANTS:

Mr Paddon and Ms Paddon

RESPONDENTS:

Mr Harrelson and Ms Harrelson

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Aid NSW

FILE NUMBER:

(P)NCC

440

2012

DATE DELIVERED:

20 September 2013

PLACE DELIVERED:

Newcastle

PLACE HEARD:

Newcastle

JUDGMENT OF:

Cleary J

HEARING DATES:

27, 28, 29 and 30 August 2013

REPRESENTATION

APPLICANTS:

Both in person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

Family Law Firm
(Mr Coyle)

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Karagiannis

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Aid NSW
(Mr Squires)

Orders

That all previous orders relating to B born … 1998 (the child) be and are hereby discharged.
That Mr Harrelson and Ms Harrelson (the Maternal Grandparents) shall together have sole parental responsibility for the child.
That the child shall live with the Maternal Grandparents.
In the event that the child expresses a wish to communicate with or spend time with his parents and/or his two brothers, the Maternal Grandparents shall do all that they can to facilitate such communication and time.
That the Maternal Grandparents are restrained from using corporal punishment on the child and shall use their best endeavours to ensure that third parties are similarly restrained NOTING that no allegation has been made in these proceedings of corporal punishment having been used by the Maternal Grandparents on the child.
That Mr Paddon and Ms Paddon (the parents) are restrained as follows:
(a)from contacting or approaching the child;
(b)approaching any place where the child lives, attends school or works (other than for the purposes of planned communication and periods of spending time facilitated in advance by the Maternal Grandparents with the parents)
PROVISO to this order being that in the event of accidental meetings between the child and his parents if the parent/s wave and move straight on such accidental contact shall not constitute a breach of this Order.
The Maternal Grandparents shall ensure that the child continues to attend for counselling at T Mental Health for as long as his counsellor recommends he do so.
That the Maternal Grandparents shall arrange referrals as necessary for the child to undergo the following:
(a) a full paediatric assessment;
(b) an assessment by a Child Psychiatrist
AND in the event that the doctor/s so recommends shall ensure the child’s attending for ongoing consultation with that doctor or both doctors.
That the Independent Children’s Lawyer have leave to provide a copy of these Orders to the following:
(a)       the Principal of Suburb C High School;
(b)       T Mental Health;
(c)       Department of Family and Community Services; and
(d)       The Paediatrician and Child Psychiatrist conducting assessments.
The Maternal Grandparents and the parents shall comply with any reasonable request by the medical practitioner/s referred to in Order 8 herein to:
(a) provide information about the child;
(b) attend for consultations themselves.
That the Maternal Grandparents and the parents are hereby restrained from the following:
(a)discussing these proceedings with the child directly, or within his hearing;
(b)showing the child any document relating to these proceedings;
(c)allowing any third party to discuss the proceedings and show related documents to the child.
The Maternal Grandparents shall arrange for the child to have these Orders explained to him by the Independent Children’s Lawyer in the presence of and with the assistance if necessary, of the Senior Family Consultant.
Pursuant to s 65DA(2) and s 62B of the Act, 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 adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT NEWCASTLE

FILE NUMBER: (P)NCC440 of 2012

Mr Paddon And Ms Paddon

Applicants

And

Mr Harrelson And Ms Harrelson

Respondents

And

INDEPENDENT CHLDREN’S LAWYER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

These are competing applications for parenting orders in respect of one child, B aged 15 years. The applicants are the parents Mr and Ms Paddon. The respondents are the maternal grandparents, Mr and Ms Harrelson.
The child came into the care of his grandparents on the evening of Sunday

11 December 2011 and has lived with them since. He has had minimal contact with his parents and brothers since that day and has consistently expressed a wish to remain living with his grandparents.

Short history

The parents have been married for 17 years and have never separated. They have two other children besides the child, D aged 16 and E aged

12 years. Both parents have an extremely poor and hostile relationship with the Harrelsons. The mother makes bitter allegations of harsh punishment of herself as a child by her parents. The relationship deteriorated further when the parties’ first child D was born and the maternal grandparents made an application to the Court for contact with him.
The extended families are deeply divided and have aligned in this dispute. The child is caught in that divide.

Issues for determination

The issues for determination are:
·Should the child continue to live with the maternal grandparents, or should he return to live with his parents and his brothers?
·Wherever he lives, should sole parental responsibility flow, either to his parents or maternal grandparents?
·Should the child remain at his current high school?
·Irrespective of where the child lives, what steps should be taken to address his anti-social behaviours and emotional distress?
·Was the child subjected to harsh physical punishment by either of his parents and in particular his father, as he alleged.

Competing applications

The documents relied upon are as follows:
(a)Initiating Application of Mr Paddon and Ms Paddon (“the parents”) filed 23 February 2012;
(b)Affidavit of Mr Paddon (father) filed 26 August 2013;
(c)Affidavit of Ms Paddon (mother) filed 26 August 2013;
(d)Affidavit of Ms F (maternal aunt) filed 26 August 2013;
(e)Response of Mr Harrelson and Ms Harrelson (“the maternal grandparents”) filed 29 February 2012;
(f)Affidavit of Ms Harrelson (maternal grandmother) filed 8 July 2013;
(g)Affidavit of Mr Harrelson (maternal grandfather) filed 5 July 2013;
(h)Affidavit of Ms G (maternal aunt) filed 5 July 2013;
(i)Affidavit of Ms H (paternal grandmother) filed 5 July 2013;
(j)Affidavit of Mr I filed in Court 27 August 2013;
(k)Affidavit of Mr J filed 27 August 2013;
(l)Updated family report of Senior Family Consultant, Ms K, released 7 January 2013;
(m)Limited issues report of Senior Family Consultant, Ms K released 4 May 2012;
(n)Limited issues report of Senior Family Consultant, Ms K, released 26 March 2012;
(o)Memorandum of Ms K dated 9 March 2012;

Discussion

This matter has a long history, reaching back into the lives of the parents themselves.
In July 1993 the mother’s brother, Mr L, then aged nine and a half, was admitted to the M Child and Adolescent Unit. He remained there for about five months and was discharged prematurely against the advice of the Unit. There are comments in the discharge summary which suggests that the Harrelsons had extreme difficulty coping with their son Mr L. The following comments were made in that discharge summary:
Parental disagreement on management of [Mr L] with mother notably overwhelmed and father resorting more to harsh physical punishment.
[Mr Harrelson] (the maternal grandfather) unable to commit to any part of the therapeutic program remaining disengaged and evasive.
[Mr Harrelson] continue to trouble us with his lack of demonstrable track record as available and adequate parent.
[Mr Harrelson] was overtly rejecting of [Mr L) and extremely punitive in his management and finally.
Both [Mr Harrelson] and [Ms Harrelson’s] impoverished background, upbringing and current relationships with their own families was apparent.
At the time when Mr L was in the M Child and Adolescent Unit the mother in these proceedings was about 13. She was the oldest child in the family and distressed by Mr M’s situation. It is apparent from these proceedings that she continues to be distressed about what happened in her family growing up, both to herself and to her younger brother Mr M. That anger and distress flows into her attitude to her parents now having the fulltime care of her middle child, D.
The relationship between herself and her parents was put under strain from the time she formed a relationship with the father in these proceedings. The relationship was not one the Harrelsons were pleased with and the mother was defensive and protective of her family. By age 21 she had three children, aged three, two and a new baby.
There has been a very poor relationship between the father and his parents-in-law for the last 17 years, as he regularly stated through these proceedings. However there was contact and the children were in the habit of spending time with their grandparents. The oldest boy D in particular often stayed overnight and kept clothes in his grandparent’s home. The younger boys the child and E were regular visitors at their paternal grandparent’s home.
Since December 2011 the underlying tensions between the parents and the maternal grandparents have erupted. This unleashed anger has in my view, clouded their judgment about what was happening for all of their children, but particularly the child. They have underestimated the impact of their reaction as an ongoing cause of the problems the child now finds himself immersed in.
The year 2011 was clearly a very difficult one for the child. He was in his first year at high school at Suburb N School and was struggling. He had as a child been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and there is a suggestion that he was successfully medicated for a period of time, but this has now ceased. In the second half of 2011, the child was suspended from high school for fighting and reported that his father was angry with him for various reasons.
On 8 November 2011 there is a note in the school records[1] that says this about the child:
Things aren’t great at home, dad angry with him, mum’s okay, fights with brother [D].
[1]Exhibit 14
Also in this time and specifically between 23 and 25 November 2011, the youngest child E, then aged 10, was suspended from school for aggressive behaviour. He threw a stone at another student and made his head bleed. A letter was sent out to the parents. At almost exactly the same time,

22 November 2011[2], there was a report on the child at school which included these comments:
He is working much less hard, behaving much less appropriately, learning much less, he is much less happy compared to typical students of the same age.
[2]Exhibit 13
It is apparent that there were numerous suspensions for fighting for the child, that he was being teased for being “dumb” because he had been placed in an IM Special Unit at school. There was discussion at the end of 2011 of transferring the child to another high school, namely Suburb O High School and into a mainstream class. The child was rather anxious about his situation.
On 6 December 2011 the child was referred to T Mental Health for counselling by his school counsellor[3]. There is a letter from T Mental Health to the child himself noting that he had an appointment on 14 December 2011, unless he needed one earlier than that. At that time the parents and especially the father, was supportive of the referral to T Mental Health, since the child’s behaviour at home and at school was something of a problem to them.
[3]Exhibit 15
Before he could attend that appointment and on Sunday 11 December 2011, the child left his parent’s home at about 9.00 pm and by arrangement went to stay with his maternal grandparents, with whom he has remained. The child contacted his maternal grandmother by phone and asked her to come and get him.
The oral evidence of the maternal grandfather was that he and his wife were at bowls on that evening when the child’s call came and they arranged to meet him at Suburb O where he was waiting for them at the bus stop. The child’s aunt Ms G saw the child on that night and observed a lump the size of a 10 cent piece on the side of his head. The child has always alleged that his father hit him, either in the face or the side of the head. He has given many different versions of events. One of them is that the three brothers had been in the swimming pool on the weekend in question. He and D had been hitting their younger brother and the father chose to punish at least the child by hitting him in a similar way. However the child has told so many variations on the theme of corporal punishment, it would be quite impossible to identify any particular incident immediately before he left home. It is clear that it was a very difficult weekend, that the child was poised to go to counselling because of behavioural problems which were escalating at school and something triggered the child’s desire to leave home.
On 12 December 2011, that is the day after he left, the police spoke to the child who said he had fears about going home, that his father had punched him in the face and his cheek was still hurting. The police observed “no viable injuries re the allegation”, which may be a reference to visible injuries. That was the second occasion that the child had been to the police station within 24 hours.
When his maternal grandparents’ first collected him his grandmother took him into the police station to report that he was with her. Unfortunately, neither the police nor the maternal grandparents contacted the parents to tell them the child had left home and was safely with them. The maternal grandfather conceded that that was probably the wrong thing to have done. It is certainly an omission that has had consequences.
However I also accept the evidence of the maternal grandfather that given the poisonous relationship between himself and his son-in-law he wanted to avoid an argument, which I take to mean he could not contemplate what was likely to follow if he rang to let the father know. The following morning the mother rang her parents to be told that the child was there. The father then promptly contacted Suburb P police and asked for his mother-in-law to be charged with taking his child[4].
[4]Exhibit 21
On 13 December 2011 the child went to school, but absconded on the same day[5]. The Department of Family and Community Services (DoCS) became promptly involved.
[5]Exhibit 13
On 14 December 2011 a safety assessment report by DoCS of the maternal grandparents’ home was done and the child was assessed as safe with no dangers in the home. On that day there was an interview by DoCS with the child and the maternal grandmother. It was at that time that the child described to the officer:
He had been in the swimming pool at the weekend and had hit his brother [E]. [E] had hit him back harder and their father had then hit the child. [The child] complained about this that ‘we hardly hit him’ (referring [E]).
It is a description of violence between the brothers which got out of hand and the father using as a discipline technique, hitting the child as he had hit his brother. On balance I think it is likely that there was some physical punishment of the child by the father on that weekend but I do not consider that that was the sole reason for the child running away from home.
On the afternoon of 14 December 2011, the child had an interview at T Mental Health, as had been previously planned.[6] Unfortunately his maternal aunt Ms F attended, which prompted the child to run away. Ms Harrelson gave evidence in the proceedings, she received a phone call from DoCS on that day asking if she would pick the child up from his appointment at T Mental Health and have him to stay at her house for a couple of days so that he could settle down. She said that she was told by DoCS that the maternal grandmother would drop the child to his appointment and leave. She observed the maternal grandmother present waiting outside the building and also the fact that when she arrived, the child ran away.
[6]Exhibit 15
The child made his way to his maternal grandmother after running from T Mental Health. She immediately contacted the police who had already reported him as a “missing person”[7].
[7]Exhibit 22
On 21 December 2011, the mother presented at Suburb P Hospital[8]. She was described as “violent, upset, anxious, aggressive and threatened ingestions of unknown medications.” The parents were both interviewed and reported that everything had been good in their lives until the mother’s parents “kidnapped their 13 year old son.” When they were told by DoCS that the Department was confirming the maternal grandparents as having parental responsibility, the mother became hysterical.
[8]Exhibit 23
On that day the police had attended the office of DoCS[9], where the parents were claiming kidnapping. The parents are reported by the police as refusing to listen. The maternal grandmother had brought the child to the DoCS office to a case worker to encourage him to go home. Most unfortunately the father is reported to have yelled at the child to come home and he again ran away. The maternal grandmother tried to leave the DoCS office and was obstructed by the parents who would not allow her to physically get in her car. The parents then resisted the police, who tried to move them away, and are reported as having shouted out, “Arrest me, arrest me, if you’re not going to fucking help me, take us away.” The police responded to that by handcuffing both parents, moving them away from the grandmother’s car so she could leave and then releasing them.
[9]Exhibit 24
This appears to be the explanation for why the mother had reached such a state that she later presented at hospital in the way described.
To date, the parents seem to have no understanding at all of the impact on the child of their own aggressive, insensitive and anti-social behaviour. Nor the fact that it was their own behaviour, particularly the father on this occasion, that made the child take fright and disappear from another opportunity where he may have been encouraged and supported to go home.

On 27 December 2011, the child made a police statement where he detailed extensive complaints about his father and told a story as follows:
That seven weeks previously, that is in early November, he had been assaulted by his father, that there had been an AVO put in place for his protection and that he had gone to stay for three or four weeks with [Ms Q] in [Suburb R].
He said that his father scared him and that he had bashed him. There is no evidence to suggest that the child was absent from his parent’s home staying with Ms Q at that time or at any other time. Indeed, there was evidence from Ms Q to say it did not happen. It seems likely that the tumultuous events after the child left home and the repeated number of interviews and enquiries encouraged the child to exaggerate his situation and perhaps to bolster his position.
On 18 January 2012, an interim AVO was made against the father for the protection of the maternal grandmother. There was also a complaint in relation to alleged damage by the father of the maternal grandmother’s car. Ultimately, the malicious damage charge was not sustained due to lack of evidence. However the consequences of the interim AVO were quite significant for both the child and the parents. The T Mental Health organisation was clearly advised of events involving the parents and the maternal grandmother and were probably provided with a copy of the interim AVO.
On 23 January 2012, the father rang T Mental Health as he had done many times previously, but on this occasion was told that he would be given no further information[10]. The father was clearly affronted by this situation which is somewhat understandable, given that he had supported the referral in the first place and was supporting it through Medicare as the child’s parent.
[10]Exhibit 15
About an hour after the first phone call, the father rang again to advise T Mental Health that the maternal grandmother had “abducted the child in his sleep” and further “that his wife had been bashed when she tried to retrieve him.” I consider this was a deliberate attempt to persuade T Mental Health to sympathise for the parent’s situation, it also showed the growing focus on the anger directed at the maternal grandparents rather than on the child’s welfare.
In February 2012 and again in May 2012, the child told the Family Consultant that his father had in the past punched him and hit him in the head. He became increasingly resolute about remaining in the home of his maternal grandparents.
On 17 February 2012, an AVO was applied for and granted against the child’s mother, for the protection of the child.
In March 2012 he told the Senior Family Consultant in an interview that he had been “punched by his father all over his body nearly every day.” There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that that is true and in circumstances where teachers were very regularly in contact with the child, it seems likely that he would have complained if this were really the case.
On 3 June 2012 the child was at home in his grandparent’s home and his younger brother E rang him. E was apparently distressed after this phone call where the child had asked E to help him get his personal possessions back. The mother then rang the child and to use the child’s words, “started to yell at him about what he had said to E.” The mother then rang three or four more times and yelled when the child picked up the phone.
On 1 August 2012 the police spoke to the mother who made full admissions about her breaches of the AVO. Unfortunately this too, was an incident that reflects much more a focus on the dispute and anger with the child for persisting in staying with the maternal grandparents, rather than a mature consideration of the child’s needs.
On 4 September 2012 the child spoke to a social worker arranged by the Legal Aid Commission as to his wishes. The child was clear to say that he wished to remain where he was.
In December 2012, the maternal grandparents told the Family Consultant in the interviews for the family report, that they had never seen the father hit the child. The parents themselves denied ever physically abusing the boy, although the mother conceded that she had smacked all three children with an egg flip. The father denied hitting the child or throwing him.
On 15 February 2013 the father told his psychologist that he was going on his motor bike with a handmade weapon, namely a metal pipe with bolts, to inflict injury on the maternal grandfather[11]. Quite properly, the psychologist reported the matter to police. The father took no such step and his reporting of the matter to the psychologist seems to me to be a display of his anger and displeasure about his failure to have his son returned to his care and not an intention to commit assault.
[11]Exhibit 7
On 5 March 2013 E is reported to have said to a teacher at school, “I don’t want to live any more.”[12] He then took the cord off a hat, wrapped it around his neck and squeezed it whilst running away. The parents had been unaware of this incident involving E. It appears to be a reflection of how much pressure the children have been under since the child left home.
[12]Exhibit 6
Soon after, there was a meeting of the brothers at which there was a physical fight between the child and D and on the 3 April 2013 an AVO was put in place against the child for the protection of E and another person[13].
[13]Exhibit 18
The child is presently experiencing nightmares about his parents reclaiming him without notice. He has a medical certificate for time off school because he is unable to concentrate and is anxious about his future. I accept the evidence of the maternal grandfather that his expectation was that the child would stay with them for a week or so until he calmed down and would then find a way home. Unfortunately the extreme reactions and actions of the parents and the child himself, have led to this current position where the child has an AVO against him and is more adamant than ever that he wants no contact with any member of his family.
Aged 15 years and three months, the child has less than three years before adulthood. He does not function at his stated age. Nevertheless, legally he will be an adult. He has certainly been consistent in his wish to remain living with his maternal grandparents.
There is evidence that the child suffered from significant behavioural problems as a young child aged about five, setting fire to his bedroom and hearing voices. More recently, it has been noted by his T Mental Health counsellor, Mr J, that the child has again reported hearing voices. It is impossible to know the significance of that, but I note the evidence of the Senior Family Consultant that rather than the paediatric assessment that is contemplated by T Mental Health, an assessment by a child psychiatrist would seem to be more appropriate. An order has been made accordingly.
I also accept the advice of the Senior Family Consultant that the crucial thing for the child is certainty and stability, more than just where he lives. The child needs to be reassured that there is an end to court cases about him and at least to some extent, an end to assessment, interview and interrogation, which he has found immensely unsettling and frightening, quite understandably.

Evidence of the parties

The mother, Ms Paddon

The mother represented herself and filed an affidavit the day before the commencement of the hearing. She had been ambivalent about participating and was undoubtedly in distress at every Court event. She revealed frustration with the situation of her middle child having been in her view, removed from the family by her parents. She showed a deep hostility towards them, which is most unlikely to resolve, whatever the outcome of the proceedings.
With one exception the mother remained fairly steady in giving her evidence and answered in a candid and straight forward way. She was particularly distressed that her attempts to see the child, after he left her home, were frustrated by an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) having come into existence quite quickly for the child’s protection. She was especially antagonised by the fact that the child left the family home and was collected by his grandparents by arrangement and that the grandparents did not then contact the parents to let them know that the child was with them and he was safe.
Neither of the parents was aware of the statements that the child was making about abuse at his father’s hands for days and in some cases, weeks, until after the event. The mother learned through these proceedings much more of what had happened to the child.
The mother was asked about her oldest son D, who at 16, appears to have taken on responsibility for managing the family crisis and has become overwhelmed and stressed in the process. His parents have arranged counselling for him.
The mother said that she did not try to persuade her son D to do anything in particular. She had not talked to him about the case and denied having coached him. However it is clear that D was exposed to his parents’ anger and distress long before the child left the family. Indeed it was conceded by his father that D had been hearing about family enmities for years, certainly from before he turned 10 years.
The mother denied that her parents had been a part of D’s life, although she conceded that he had regularly stayed overnight with them and had kept clothes in their home. She has, on her own evidence, been unwilling to rein in D’s statements about her parents, such as, “They are scums of people.” Her only comment was, “That’s his decision”.
The relationship between the child and his older brother D has not only broken down, but was violent when the two were brought into contact with each other. There was a physical fight. The mother readily conceded that if the child came home to live, there would be problems and that D who locks up his possessions now, would go further in that direction because “he won’t trust the child”.
The mother and indeed both parents, regularly made remarks such as:
That’s just how [D] is.
That’s [D].
[D] is a 44 year old in a 16 year olds body.
The mother apparently has two very different attitudes toward her two older children. D is an adult entitled to his own views and in a sense to determine his own destiny, whereas the child, one year younger, is a confused child who needs to be told what to do. This attitude provides some insight into some of the difficulties in the home prior to the child leaving.
I accept the evidence of the mother that if the child were to come home to live with them his parents would get him help and that they are sincere in their intention to involve him in a program for troubled boys in Queensland called “Hard Yakka.” However it seems almost inevitable that there would be enormous conflict and reproach directed by the parents and D towards the child for being the cause of all the anger, distress and disruption in the Paddon family over the last two years.
It is understandable that the mother simply wants to have her son come home and for the family to work it out from there. However there is a very high risk in my view of the child running away again and/or engaging in physical conflict with his older brother, and possibly both his parents.
The mother, and the father, were quick and candid to say that in their view the child is a “liar” and cannot be believed on important matters. No such view was expressed about D or E. It is certainly the case that in a police statement on 27 December 2011, the child told the story about staying with a family friend, which is unsupported by the evidence.
The mother held to her view that the child would be better off in foster care than with her parents, in the event that he did not come home to them. She considers that he has deteriorated in their care and hold them not entirely, but somewhat responsible for it.
The mother remains hopeful that if she could just get the child home, arrangements would be able to be made to get him some therapeutic help and that somehow the family would resume as they had before December 2011. The evidence does not support that being the case.
I accept that the mother loves the child and has grieved for his loss and that even if against her strenuous wish he continued to live with her parents, she would arrange to see him and to have his brothers see him, provided there was no direct contact between herself and her parents.
In the event that the child did return to live with them, the mother’s view was that there should be a restraining order keeping the maternal grandparents away. The child would have no contact with them as a condition of him living with his parents. This position is not child focused and insensitive to the child’s needs.

Mr Paddon, the father

The father is aged 43, he is presently unemployed, although he has been a hard working person over the years of the relationship. The father was quick to describe his son B as a liar, quick to describe his parents-in-law as liars and in response to the proposition that he “put his pride in his pocket and do something to repair his relationship with the child,” the father’s response was, “dealing with them pair naah.” This was a reference to the Harrelsons and again, was not focused on the child’s needs to restore his relationship with his parents.
Until 2009 the father was a miner but with a downturn in mining has been unemployed, or on compensation since that time.[14]
[14]Exhibit 26
D was interviewed at the S Region Health Service and commented on the change in the family arrangements when his father stopped going to work, “There’s been a big turn around because we were used to having mum around and now dad’s there while mum works as a cleaner.” D also described a constantly strained relationship between his parents and the maternal grandparents, which had quite understandably, been difficult for D, especially as he described himself as always the favourite grandchild who enjoyed working with his grandfather in the vineyard. D’s explanation for the strained relationship was that his grandparents did not like his father having more money than them. This is undoubtedly a reflection of D having adult information about the family finances and perhaps being provided with that explanation by his parents.
I am confident that the father was untruthful at times. He regularly said that he could not remember anything when the answer was unlikely to help him, especially in relation to repeated phone calls to the maternal grandparents of an abusive nature. I have no doubt that he did make some such phone calls. One phone call was played in Court and it was undoubtedly abusive. Having heard that call and two other more innocuous calls played in Court, the father then said he could then remember making three phone calls. The strong inference from his response was “If you can’t prove it I won’t admit it”.
I had the impression that the father loves all his children very much and has been genuinely hurt and upset by the loss of this son from the family. However his reaction to the circumstances has been extremely unhelpful to his son. He has consistently refused to allow the child access to his possessions such as a bicycle, his scooters and a laptop, on the basis that if the child wanted them, he should come home and get them.
There is no evidence of an attempt by the father to express to his son some understanding that he recognised that the child may have needed time out, a break and that there was a way to come home. Accepting that the maternal grandparents made an error of judgment in not advising the parents immediately that the child was safe in their care, the father made an error of judgment in going to the police and attempting to have his mother-in-law arrested for abduction. He knew that his son was safe in the care of his grandparents and must have known that it would be inflammatory to make such a report.
As a consequence police and DoCS quickly became involved. Positions hardened, anger flared and the consequences are on display.
Both parents, but more particularly his mother, refer to the child as a “confused little boy.” Unfortunately as observed by the Family Consultant, D has become parentified and to my observation, the child has become withdrawn from his parents self protectively.
The father and indeed both of the parents have not been supportive of attempts to have the three boys spend peaceful time together in the absence of their parents and have certainly not allowed any separation of the brothers. The father has not stopped at any time and wondered to himself the impact on his children of his daily phone calls to DoCS over many months, his repeated phone calls to the police (until he was banned from further calling). Even D expressed the view that he was sick of his father ringing DoCS every morning.
The father stated and I accept, that he did not know how he would get the child to comply with an order for his return home, if such an order was made. His answers to questions such as how he could be forced to come, what the father would do if he ran away again, and whether or not the child would be in danger in those circumstances, were all that “he did not know”.
In effect, the father refused to engage with the practicalities of the child’s problem, that he wishes to stay where he is, that he may well have a wish to come home but does not know how to do it, that if he is forced to return to his parents against his will he could arc up and rebel. It appeared to me that what he wanted to do was to display his opposition to the maternal grandparents and his determination and intention to prevail over them in the proceedings.
The parents and particularly the father have focused on the possibility of the child participating in a Boot Camp style program for two weeks in Queensland. I did have the impression that the father was genuinely convinced that the program would be beneficial for the child and it could well be. However I note the evidence of the Family Consultant, with which I agree, that the only way the child would engage in such a program was if all parties, that is his parents and maternal grandparents, supported his participation in that program and he himself could be engaged by its potential benefits.
In the event an order was made for the child to come back to live with his parents, it would be the father’s proposal that he have no contact with his maternal grandparents at all. A quote from the father, “With the history of the [Harrelsons] and the evidence I’ve seen and how they dealt with their child in mental health issues, I wouldn’t consent to the child having any time.” The father denied there could be any benefit to the child of continuing the relationship that he has enjoyed over almost the last two years at all. At best the father was being untruthful; at worst he cannot understand the emotional needs of the child at all.
Unfortunately the father took a rather self-righteous position that everything had been happy at home before the child left. Photographs were tendered to that end and a video of family activity shown. It is not an accurate depiction of the situation, although there were likely happy family events.
The child was in emotional turmoil in 2011, regularly in trouble at school, failing to learn in a way that he had previously been able to, coping with bullying and bullying himself, or at least fighting. The father was not willing to acknowledge any deficiencies in the child’s situation, which makes it very difficult to feel confident that he would allow the child to come back into the home without angry reproach for the “trouble he has caused”. He would also expect the child to adopt the family position and have nothing further to do with the Harrelsons. It is completely unrealistic. The child feels loved by his grandparents and loves them in return. I consider that it would be a risky thing for the child to do, to express that love and affection and gratitude he feels towards his maternal grandparents. His parents are highly likely to consider the child disloyal.

The father is aware that the child has been picked on at school because other children had heard that the maternal grandfather was being accused by the father of being a paedophile. It seems to me the father has taken some satisfaction in spreading that rumour, with no thought to the impact on the child who lives in the Harrelson home. I accept the evidence of the maternal grandmother that the father repeated that insulting accusation during the course of these proceedings.

Maternal grandmother, Ms Harrelson

Both the maternal grandparents gave evidence that on the third day of this hearing the father, as he left the Court, had walked behind them and made the comments, “fucking paedophile.” This is entirely consistent with the evidence that the father has referred to his father-in-law in that way many times. That he could not restrain himself in Court is significant for how likely it is that the child would continue to be exposed to adult conflict if an order was made for him to return to his parent’s home.
Likewise I accept the evidence of Mrs Harrelson that they received three to four calls a week from the father for quite a few months in 2012. She conceded that she had also received polite reasonable requests from the child’s parents to talk to the child, but that the child himself had refused. Unfortunately the fact that the mother had made many angry phone calls in the early weeks after the child went to stay with his grandparents; probably frightened or deterred the child and he has been unable to recover from that attitude.
Ms Harrelson found out through pictures and information put forward by the mother in her affidavit, that the child had been drinking beer and putting up graffiti in the Suburb C area. She spoke to him about it sternly and would have had him scrub off the graffiti if it had not faded away and the chalk washed away. It is likely the maternal grandparents will have a difficult management task with the child, particularly in relation to alcohol, if he has begun to use it.
I accept that the maternal grandmother has said to the child from time to time, “There’s always a way home” and has encouraged him to think about returning to his parents, or at least talking to them, “They love you mate, if they didn’t love you they wouldn’t be fighting in Court for you”.
I also accept that the Harrelsons love their grandson in the same way. They would hardly have wished to take on the situation they have lived with unless they were motivated by concern for their grandson.
Mrs Harrelson outlined appropriate punishments for the child when he misbehaved and the way she managed his episodes of anger. She had stayed calm and non-responsive in the face of the child’s behaviour referring to his parents as, “Mr and Mrs P, mother and father or drowned rats.” She has not encouraged disrespect.
Ms Harrelson also conceded that she should have let the parents know when the child came into her care, “It was stupid of me; I should have rung one of them. It was late when he went to sleep.” I accept that she was focused on the child. However, there is no explanation for why neither grandparent rang the following morning. It was undoubtedly a mistake.
Ms Harrelson was clear to say that she had never seen the father hit the child and I regard her as a candid and straight forward witness.

Maternal grandfather, Mr Harrelson

The maternal grandfather seemed overwhelmed by the complexity of what I accept he thought would be simple. He thought that when he and his wife picked the child up on the evening of 11 December 2012, they were helping out a grandson who had run into difficulty with his parents and would soon return home. Since then and almost over two years, he and his wife have been embroiled in Court proceedings, police attendances, Family Court attendances; they have taken on responsibility for the child’s education and for managing his behaviour. They have been the recipients of an enormous number of abusive calls from their son-in-law, the father in these proceedings. There have been disruptions to relationships between themselves and their adult children and other members of the extended family on both sides.
Mr Harrelson has had the idea that if the two families could just engage in something that the three boys enjoyed such as fishing, there might be a natural opportunity for relationships to begin to mend. I do not share that view. The risk of angry, hostile complaint and even physical fights is very high and would be greatly to the child’s detriment. I accept the evidence of Mr Harrelson that if the child expresses a wish to have contact with his family, he would do his best to make that happen.
I note his comments in relation to promoting a good relationship between the child and his parents that it would be hard and “they have to come a bit his way, give him some encouragement; give him his bike.” Mr Harrelson denied allegations made by the mother of harsh treatment of her by her father. He dismissed it as “all lies.” For the purposes of these proceedings, I do not need to make any findings about those matters, but it is undoubtedly the case that the mother harbours enormous resentment towards both her parents, but particularly her father, over issues in her childhood. It may assist her relationship with the child when he seeks her out again, to have used the opportunity to get therapeutic assistance with those matters so she can focus on the child and not on her parents.
Mr Harrelson conceded that he or his wife should have let the parents know as soon as the child came into their care. I have no doubt Mr Harrelson has been greatly hurt by the allegations made against him and the many occasions on which the father has described him publicly as a paedophile. There were a couple of occasions when he reacted to the father, but he otherwise remained restrained in trying circumstances.
Mr Harrelson gave thoughtful evidence when asked about one of his other grandsons, D. His daughter, the mother in these proceedings, asked him whether he had tried to repair his relationship with D. Mr Harrelson said he would not put D in a position of choosing between he and his wife and his parents. He also said and I agree, that D at 16 “is still only a kid and shouldn’t be exposed to these proceedings.” I had the strong impression that Mr Harrelson was intensely distressed at the loss of his relationship with D and also his grandson E and his daughter Ms F, who had put forward an affidavit in support of the parent’s case.

Mr J, Counsellor T Mental Health

Mr J is a counsellor with T Mental Health who has been regularly seeing the child. He has not had any direct conversation with either of the child’s parents. He does not have a comprehensive history of the child’s physical and mental health. He has referred the child for paediatric assessment, having identified the child’s present presenting problems as mixed anxiety and depression and adjustment disorder. He also noted that the child “hears voices.” Mr J was unaware that the child is reported to have heard voices when he was about five years old.
It appears that the therapeutic relationship between Mr J and the child is good and that the child trusts him. However the therapy appears to have focused almost exclusively on the child’s wishes. He has apparently repeatedly expressed his wish to remain with his maternal grandparents and his resistance to his returning home. There has been no discussion between Mr J and the child about what will happen when an order is made. I am not satisfied that the child understands that there is a possibility of orders for contact with those he is not living with. More significantly, I am not confident that the child is aware of his parent’s wish and willingness for him to return home and that he is still welcome there.
Mr J’s view was that any contact between the child and either his parents or maternal grandparents, should be in accordance with his wishes. Mr J reported that he is aware that the child had a lot of problems at school and that he was struggling with that. He knew of postings on Facebook by the child suggesting self-harm, particularly this one, “How fucked is it when you want to kill yourself.” It appears that those postings had been sent to him by the Independent Children’s Lawyer. Mr J says he completed a risk assessment at every session with the child and seemed confident that there was no identifiable risk of self-harm.
Mr J was unaware as to whether the allegation that the child had been drinking beer was when the child was in the care of his grandparents. He did not know about the allegation that the child had been applying graffiti in public spaces around the local township. Significantly, Mr J said the reason he had not spoken to the child’s parents, or even to a great extent, the child’s grandparents, was based on the child’s wishes. He has seen the child about 20 times, nine of them this year.
Mr J indicated a willingness to talk to the parents and maternal grandparents after the case, if to do so would not impact the child’s risk level or put the therapeutic relationship at risk. I am uncertain as to how the child would accept a change of position by his counsellor, particularly if it is the case that the child has felt confident that the only version of events that Mr J was ever going to receive was his. However, I am certain that the child would benefit from Mr J being more broadly informed by the family.
The child is presently not attending school. Mr J said the reasons for that were:
·The child was having difficulty sleeping, the Court case was impacting on his sleep and he was becoming irritable and unable to concentrate;
·That he was being bullied;
·That he found the school work hard and that there was a letter from his general practitioner, supported by Mr J, saying that he should have time off. It seems to me that there will be a real risk to get the child to return to school, if he does not want to go.
The parent’s frustration over the child’s counselling at T Mental Health is understandable. The referral was originally from the child’s school, actively supported by his parents, particularly his father. Within a few days the position had entirely changed so that they were excluded from any input or knowledge of the child’s situation. The counselling continued through their Medicare card, but they were told they were not entitled to any information. This is probably because of the AVO against the child’s mother. I do not consider that the counselling for the child has been as helpful for him as it could have been.
Had there been a history taken from the parents, an assessment could have taken place earlier to rule out the possibility that the child has mental health issues or psychological difficulties which specifically needed to be addressed. There would also have been the benefit of being able to assess the child’s allegations in the context of all adult statements. I am concerned that the child feels that he has painted himself into a corner by telling different stories to different people and that there is no way back for him into a relationship with his parents. He may be right about that.
Mr J appeared to be somewhat surprised that the father asked him his opinion of the boot style camp program which the parents were looking at, the “Hard Yakka” program run by Oz Adventures. He commented enthusiastically that he thought it was great that the parents were looking at such programs and that he would look at their suggestion after the court case. It is a matter for regret that the parents have not been included, or at least had the opportunity to provide information to the counsellor in their son’s therapy to any extent to date.

Evidence of Mr I, School Principal

Mr I is the relieving Principal at Suburb C High School. He gave evidence by telephone and even under those circumstances, impressed as an experienced and compassionate Principal who had a good understanding of the child. He was well aware of some misbehaviour by the child, for instance making threatening remarks on Facebook to harm friends and colleagues from his class. He knew what the consequences had been, including police involvement.
Mr I has been putting in place for when the child returns to school, a work focused program for him. He noted that the child’s teacher liked the child and was keen to have him back in the class. That the child had expressed an interest in metals and welding and was keen to head towards some workplace training. The child has expressed to the Principal that he was tired of medical appointments and seeing professional people, “I just wish it was all over, sick of medical appointments, wish the Court was over”.
Mr I noted that the child’s present residence with his grandparents, being a country location, meant that he was out of reach of a group of young people in town whose behaviour was anti-social.
Mr I described the child as a “likeable rogue, with at times bad language, abrupt behaviour, stubbornness, but with a positive side of being helpful to other students as an advocate when they were in trouble.” The child is in the habit of going to the Principal’s office effectively as a safe place, where he can cool down when he finds something upsetting.
There is significant benefit in my view, not just from continuity for the child remaining at Suburb C High School, but from the protective and supportive relationship that he has with his School Principal.
Mr I was cross-examined by the father on the basis of his perceived unfairness at being excluded from his parental role. He was told something of the obligation on schools to be in liaison with the Department of Family and Community Services and all affected adults in situations such as the child’s. I thought that the father felt considerable respect for Mr I and has certainly been treated respectfully by him.
Mr I described certain gains by the child, that he had made good friends, that his behaviour had improved, that over the almost two years in the school he had what Mr I described as “spiking moments” around the time of Court proceedings, complicated by his own journey through adolescence.
I am quite satisfied that the Principal and members of staff have given careful thought to the child’s placement and progress in their school, that when he moves to the TAFE program he will have some days in the curriculum doing English and Numeracy and will continue to be an enrolled student at the school, but he will also have a work placement moving towards the workforce. There is also provision for him to continue in special education to the conclusion of years 11 and 12, if that is what the child wants.
Mr I described the child as not really keen to leave the school, and in his view is frightened of change generally. I accept and endorse the opinion of Mr I that for the child to have this Court case concluded so he can concentrate on his own future is most significant.
The usual Principal of Suburb C High School, Anthony Jarrett, also gave evidence, but it is clear that the greater knowledge of the child was contained in the evidence of Mr I.

Ms K, Senior Family Consultant

Ms K expressed the view, with which I agree, that the levels of conflict between the adults in the child’s family are toxic; that the child had been stressed by knowledge that he could not understand and did not have the emotional capacity to deal with, in the way that young people cannot when exposed to adult conflict. Ms K was clearly including D in this and rejected the notion that he was an adult with adult capacities. I also agree with that assessment.
Ms K raised the need for a child psychiatrist to assess the child in view of material that suggests that the child has had quite serious problems as a very young child, together with his current troubled state, seemed most appropriate.
Ms K was firm in her recommendation that the child continue to live with his maternal grandparents. She agreed that the child is still very young, even though he is 15. Indeed, her assessment of his level of function was at about aged 11 or 12. Nevertheless she thought his strongly expressed views over almost two years should be given weight. I endorse that opinion.
Ms K addressed in her full family report, the concern of the parents that the maternal grandparents lack parenting capacity to deal with the child. She appeared to take the view, and I agree, that the parents were understandably concerned about the handling of the treatment of Mr L as a nine year old by his parents. However I do not consider that this is the same situation. The Harrelsons have now raised all their children. The child is a different child, although some of his behaviours were similar to his uncles, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the child has been treated in any way other than helpfully since he came into their care.
The evidence of Ms K was interrupted by an application by the parents to introduce fresh evidence, which was rejected. There did appear to be a sense of hopefulness at that point by the parents, to introduce more matters related to the mother’s childhood and alleged misconduct by her father, and to have a further family report. Just as the school Principal Mr I had, Ms K stressed the child needed stability and certainty with his living arrangements and that certainty was most valuable to him, “This matter needs to be finalised for the child’s sake”.
I have been greatly assisted by the reports prepared by Ms K between March 2012 and January 2013 and note that her recommendations are entirely child focussed and not at all directed to the issues arising from the feud between the generations.

Ms H, paternal grandmother

Ms H is the father’s mother. She put forward an affidavit in support of the maternal grandparents’ case. There is a hostile relationship between Ms H and her son and daughter-in-law.
I have no reason to doubt her description of the child ringing her in May 2013 to say he had fallen off his bike and broken his mobile phone, asking her if she had a spare phone that she could give him. She said no on the basis of his misbehaviour at an earlier time and he became quite abusive.
Ms H expressed the same view as the maternal grandparents, that her son and daughter-in-law should “stop pushing and let him make up his mind.” Sadly she also expressed the view that they should try and give him love, “There’s no love in that house”.
Ms H readily conceded that relationships between herself and most of her children and almost all of her grandchildren had broken down. On the one occasion she stayed with her son and his family, she described fighting in the house all the time.
Ms H in her affidavit, had referred to the parents having told her that they had given the child a hiding, although she did not see it and left immediately. The parents denied it. I am unable to determine whether there was physical punishment of the child on that occasion, or even whether the parents told Ms H that there had been. It is not impossible that they lied about that in order to discourage her from remaining in their home; such is the obvious state of the relationship between them.

Ms G, maternal aunt

Ms G is the mother’s sister. She put forward an affidavit in support of her parents. She was in an emotionally heightened state, but quite an impressive witness. She seemed to be observant and knowledgeable about the children.
She described D and the child as “jealous of each other and arguing to get their mother’s attention, competing for it.” She thought that the child as the middle child was forgotten about. I do not accept that he was forgotten about, but the child does seem to have been overshadowed in the parent’s estimation by his brother D.
Ms G was also able to describe the child coming to primary school to see his brother and that he waited in the playground on four or five occasions and that they had been able to have little enjoyable casual meetings. The child apparently enjoys a good relationship with his aunt Ms G and it is easy to see why. She displayed warmth affection and an understanding of the child’s perspective.

Unfortunately, because she has been supportive of the child remaining with her parents, her relationship with her sister and brother-in-law has broken down. They regard her as disloyal to them.

The law

Orders in respect of children are regulated under Part VII of the Family Law Act (“the Act”). The Act defines the meaning of a “parenting order” (s 64B).
Both parties are seeking parenting orders. This is a joint application by parents effectively for confirmation of their parental responsibility.
The maternal grandparents seek orders for parental responsibility to be conferred on them. In those circumstances the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility does not arise.

Best interests of the children

Section 60CC(2)(a) – the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of his parents.

The child does not presently have a meaningful relationship with either of his parents. In my view, his best chance of reviving those relationships which have been meaningful and loving is if he lives with his grandparents and is able to take steps in his own time towards his parents.

Section 60CC(2)(b) - the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm and family violence

The child is a 15 years old boy suffering anxiety. His education is at risk if his life is not stabilised. Best interests of the children – additional considerations

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

The Court must take the following matters into account.
The child has consistently expressed a wish to remain living with his grandparents. He is immature for his age and probably functions intellectually at age 11 or 12. However his wishes are strongly held and based on experience since he left home. I give considerable weight to his wishes.

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

The child loves his family – his parents, brothers, grandparents and other extended family members. He feels loved, understood and protected by his maternal grandparents and his aunt at this particular stage of his life.

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

The parents are unwilling and probably unable to encourage the relationship between the child and his grandparents. He would be deliberately cut off from them if he returned to live with his parents.

Section 60CC(3)(d) - the likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the children of any separation from:

either of their parents; or

any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom they have been living.

The child has been adversely affected by having contact with his parents and brothers. He would suffer further loss if he was restored to his family of origin because of the likelihood of being blamed for causing trouble and punished for disloyalty if he sought out his grandparents and other maternal family members.

Section 60CC(3)(e) - the practical difficulty and expense of the child spending time and communicating with a parent on a regular basis.

When the child feels safe and ready to do so, he will ask to spend time with his parents. Arrangements could easily be made without expense if all adults agreed on a plan.

Section 60CC(3)(f) - the capacity of the child’s parents and any other person to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs

The maternal grandparents have supported the child, met his needs for understanding and accepted his feelings about his family. The parents have lacked capacity to separate their angry feelings from the child’s very difficult emotional needs.

Section 60CC(3)(g) - the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background of the child and the parents that the court thinks are relevant.

The child is a 15 year old boy who has difficulties attending school, learning, regulating his emotions and controlling his behaviour. He stands up for other students in trouble.

Section 60CC(3)(i) - the attitude to the child and to the responsibility demonstrated by each of the parents.

The parents have not protected the child from the hostility they feel about the maternal grandparents. They have not provided for him financially or acknowledged his right to personal possessions.

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

Several family violence orders have been made; one against the child for the protection of his brothers, one against the mother for protection of the child and one against the parents for the protection of the maternal grandmother.

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

An order for the child to stay living where he is, is most likely to put an end to proceedings. An order for residence with his parents would most probably lead to applications for enforcement and contraventions.

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

The child took a step at a time of crisis in his own life. He had trouble at school and at home. He feared changing schools and was resentful and prickly about his role in the family. He was 13 years old and in the early stages of adolescence. He probably did not imagine that he would remain living permanently with his grandparents, but his position now is deeply held resulting to a significant extent from the extreme reactions of his parents.
If the child does not continue with the education thoughtfully planned for him at his current high school, he will not have a good future. His stability is at stake.

Parental responsibility

A parenting order confers parental responsibility to the extent ordered. Such an order does not take away or diminish any aspect of parental responsibility held by others unless expressly provided.
In this matter there is no prospect of the parents and grandparents consulting and compromising on the long term issues for the child. It would be a positive disadvantage for the child if they were compelled to share parental responsibility by Court order.
For the reasons previously stated an order is made for the child to remain living with his maternal grandparents.
In those circumstances, it is most appropriate for them to jointly have parental responsibility for the child.
They are committed to his remaining at his current high school; they are open to restoration of relationships with his parents and brothers and they are willing to cooperate in medical and psychological assessment for the child and to support ongoing counselling at T Mental Health.
For that reason the maternal grandparents should have sole parental responsibility. This is to the exclusion not because his parents do not love him, or do not wish to guide him to adulthood. Rather it is to ensure that the child knows who has authority and that those who do will exercise it in the manner outlined above to his benefit.
Orders are made accordingly.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and fifty-three (153) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cleary delivered on 20 September 2013

Associate: Ms K Clarke

Date: 20 September 2013

[2013] FamCA 764

20 September 2013

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Equity & Trusts

Legal Concepts

Injunction

Remedies

Procedural Fairness