Pallesen & Pallesen
[2021] FedCFamC2F 174
•13 October 2021
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Pallesen & Pallesen [2021] FedCFamC2F 174
File number(s): PAC 25 of 2020 Judgment of: JUDGE NEWBRUN Date of judgment: 13 October 2021 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – interim parenting – best interests of children – orders made Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 69ZL, 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 62G(2) Cases cited: Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346; (2006) FLC 93-286
Marvel & Marvel(No 2) [2010] FamCAFC 101
Eaby & Speelman [2015] FamCAFC 104
Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 55 Date of last submission/s: 18 August 2021 Date of hearing: 18 August 2021 Place: Parramatta Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms Lukic The Respondent Mother appeared in person Solicitor for the Independent Childrens Lawyer: Mr Fermanis ORDERS
PAC 25 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR PALLESEN
ApplicantAND: MS PALLESEN
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE NEWBRUN
DATE OF ORDER:
13 OCTOBER 2021
PENDING FURTHER ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
1.The proceedings are adjourned for mention to a date after 31 March 2022, with the specific date to be advised shortly.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Pallesen & Pallesen has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE NEWBRUN:
These are short form reasons pursuant to section 69ZL of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”).
This interim hearing relates to the twin children W and X born in 2014.
The Father seeks interim parenting orders, inter alia, on a without admissions basis, to spend time with the children one occasion per month, from 10 AM until 2 PM on Saturday or Sunday on a supervised basis through an independent contact service, such as Phoenix Rising at Region B, with the Father to be solely responsible for the costs of his supervised contact with the children. The Mother and ICL oppose such proposed order and seek an interim Order that the children spend no time with the Father.
It is common ground that the Father has not spent time with the children since about 7 October 2018.
The Father relied upon his Case Outline filed 17 August 2021 and the documents referred to in that Case Outline including his Affidavit filed 25 March 2020 and his tender bundle of documents containing 12 pages.
The Mother relied upon her Affidavit filed 2 October 2020 and her Response filed 2 October 2020.
The ICL relied upon her counsel’s Case Outline filed 16 August 2021, her tender bundle of documents containing 40 pages, and the Child Dispute Conference Memorandum dated 8 February 2021: Exhibit A.
The Mother is aged 38 years. The Father is aged 38 years.
The parties were married in 2012.
The Father alleges that the parties separated in 2017. The Father alleges that he moved out to live with his Father and brother. He alleges that he would visit the home several afternoons each week and spend time with the children whilst the Mother went out in accordance with the parties’ agreement. On the other hand, the Mother alleges that the Father had agreed to supervised visits with the children at the home.
An incident occurred between the parties at the home in 2017, and the parties are in disagreement as to exactly what occurred on this occasion. The Father alleges that the parties got into an argument. The Father alleges the Mother grabbed him by the throat which is denied by the Mother. The Father alleges that the Mother tried to take one of the children off him and that the Mother tried to grab the child and lunge at the Father and the child. The Father alleges that he then slapped the Mother’s hand away. The police attended but no action was taken.
The Father alleges that the Mother moved with the children to the Region B in 2018 after the sale of the former matrimonial home. The parties agreed that the children could spend alternate weekends with the Father. The Father alleges that changeover under this agreement was at Suburb C McDonald’s which is about halfway between the parties’ residences. The Father alleges that he spent time with the children under this agreement between the June 2018 and early October 2018.
The Father alleges in 2018 he was driving to the changeover and had an argument with the Mother over the telephone. The Father alleges he expressed to the Mother that he shouldn’t have to drive to Suburb C each time for changeover when it was the Mother who decided to move away with the children. The Father alleges that both parties used inappropriate language during this phone conversation. The Father alleges that he decided to take the children back to his Father’s house and that the Mother could collect them from there. He sent a text message to the Mother stating, “don’t want to answer fuck you. You want em pick up from my house.” Later that day, the Father refers to himself using unsavoury language in a few telephone conversations with the Mother. The Father refers to speaking with a police officer who was with the Mother at the time. He recalled that he was yelling into the phone as he was very angry at the Mother for calling the police. The Father refers to being issued with an interim ADVO applied for privately by the Mother in 2018. The Father refers to the Mother withdrawing her private AVO application in 2019 at the Local Court on the basis of the parties entering into written undertakings.
The Father attaches to his Affidavit a copy of the undertakings provided to the Local Court on in 2019, without admissions in relation to the Mother’s allegations, and referring to undertakings not to, inter alia, assault or threaten the Mother and children or approach or contact them in any way unless contacted through, inter alia, a lawyer.
The Father states that he resides in a two-bedroom unit in city D. He alleges that he is not aware of where the children are living.
The relevant principles in relation to parenting proceedings, including interim proceedings, are well settled: see Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346; (2006) FLC 93-286.
In Marvel & Marvel(No 2) [2010] FamCAFC 101, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia discussed the problems associated with making findings on disputed evidence as follows:
[120] As has frequently been emphasised interim parenting proceedings, and orders made as a consequence, are a necessary but temporary measure until all the evidence can be tested, evaluated and weighed at a final hearing by the making of final parenting orders. Decisions judicial officers have to make in interim proceedings are difficult and, often for very good reason, a conservative approach, or one which is likely to avoid harm to a child is adopted. This is often to the understandable distress of a party who may not achieve the outcome he or she desires, or thinks to be in the best interests of their child or children. Interim parenting orders are frequently modified or changed after a final hearing, and any allocation of parental responsibility made at an interim hearing is disregarded at the final hearing (s 61DB).
…
[122] In SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13 the majority (Boland and Thackray JJ) discussed at paragraph 88 of their reasons the care necessary to be exercised in making findings in interim parenting proceedings. Their Honours said:
In our view, findings made at an interim hearing should be couched with great circumspection, no matter how firmly a judge’s intuition may suggest that the finding will be borne out after a full testing of the evidence.
[123] Later, at paragraph 100 their Honours amplified their comments and said:
The intuition involved in decision-making concerning children is arguably of even greater importance when a judge is obliged to make interim decisions following a hearing at which time constraints prevent the evidence being tested. Apart from relying upon the uncontroversial or agreed facts, a judge will sometimes have little alternative than to weigh the probabilities of competing claims and the likely impact on children in the event that a controversial assertion is acted upon or rejected. It is not always feasible when dealing with the immediate welfare of children simply to ignore an assertion because its accuracy has been put in issue.
Of this, the Full Court in Eaby & Speelman [2015] FamCAFC 104 said at [19]:
As would be immediately apparent, this approach enables the Court to appropriately and carefully deal with contentious issues relevant to the welfare of the child, and for those issues to not be ignored.
The Court also refers to the decision of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36, especially at paragraphs 46 to 52. In that decision, the Full Court stated, inter alia, that (at paragraph 49), “It is also important to stress here that the requirement to “consider” each factor (under s60CC of the Act) does not mean each must be discussed, especially where the evidence leads inexorably to a particular conclusion: SCVG & KLD (2014) FLC 93-582”. Further, it stated, at paragraph 50, “When it is obvious that the findings made as to some of the s 60CC factors will be determinative of the child’s best interests on an interim basis, it is a sterile and unnecessary exercise to address other factors”.
Section 60B of the Act sets out the objects of Part VII of the Act relating to children that inform the making of parenting orders.
In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration: section 60CA of the Act.
Section 60CC of the Act provides that in determining what is in the child’s best interests, the Court must consider the matters set out in subsections (2) and (3). In this context the Court refers to its discussion above in relation to Banks & Banks.
Under s 60CC(2A) of the Act, when the Court is applying the considerations under ss(2) of s60CC (being the meaningful relationship primary consideration and the need to protect primary consideration), the Court is to give greater weight to the need to protect primary consideration.
The children have a meaningful relationship with the Mother and will benefit from a continuance of those relationships.
It is possible that the children may benefit from the re-establishment of their former meaningful relationship with the Father provided it is safe, both physically and psychologically, for them to do so. Presently they have no meaningful relationship with the Father not having spent time with him since about October 2018.
The Mother alleges that the Father consumed illicit drugs during their relationship. The Father admitted to the family consultant previously using “ice”. He presented as evasive about his more recent drug use to the family consultant, admitting to using ice on two occasions, with last use being approximately two years ago and using cannabis approximately one and a half months prior to interview. The Father produced a negative hair follicle test completed in 2021. The Court is of the view, for the purposes of the Father’s proposal to spend supervised time with the children, that his proposed restraining order in relation to the Father consuming alcohol or illicit drugs prior to spending time with the children, attending for chain of custody urinalysis screening, and being subject to the ICL’s request for further testing, should minimise the risk of the children being exposed to physical harm at the instance of the Father by reason of possible illicit drug consumption.
However, the Court nevertheless has a significant concern, at this interim stage, with the children spending even supervised time with the Father as proposed by him. There is a significant risk, based on the material before the Court, that the children will experience psychological harm if they are reintroduced to the Father through supervised time as proposed by him. This is because there is material before the Court that significantly suggests that the children have been traumatised by having been previously exposed to family violence allegedly perpetrated against the Mother and the children by the Father and that they remain fearful of him. In the view of the Court, there is an unacceptable risk of psychological harm posed to the children in spending supervised time with the Father at this interim stage; there is a significant suggestion, on the material before the Court, that a real risk exists that they will experience emotional re-traumatisation if reintroduced to the Father through even supervised time with him.
The Court should state that the Father denies ever having perpetrated family violence against the Mother in the presence of the children. He denies having perpetrated family violence directly against the children. The Father does admit to having slapped the Mother’s hand away during an incident with the Mother but alleges that he did this immediately following the Mother trying to grab one of the children from the Father after the Mother lunged at him and the child.
However, pursuant to relevant legal principle, discussed above, the Court cannot ignore an allegation made by a parent merely because it has been put in dispute by the other parent. The Court is obliged to consider the parties’ respective allegations against each other when assessing risk of harm to children under section 60CC of the Act.
In the Mother’s Affidavit, she makes very serious and detailed family violence allegations against the Father both during the parties’ relationship and post separation.
Inter alia, she refers to physical abuse by the Father against herself and the children during the parties’ relationship, including verbal abuse. She alleges acts of intimidation by the Father towards her. She alleges she would be in tears over the Father’s aggression and fearful for herself and the children and which would enrage the Father more and which led to further verbal abuse by him. The Mother alleges the children showed signs of distress or being scared by the Father’s behaviour which led to the Father verbally abusing them. The Mother alleges significant instances of anger exhibited by the Father towards her during their relationship.
The Mother alleges serious incidents of family violence by the Father towards her in the near presence of the children in 2017. The Mother alleges the Father was verbally abusive towards her and that she broke down, became upset, and that she was terrified. She alleges the Father turned his anger towards the children at that time and screamed at them. The Mother alleges that she was physically assaulted at this time by the Father in the presence of the children. She alleges that the Father made very serious threats of physical harm towards her.
Again, the Mother’s allegations of family violence against the Father are very detailed and significantly particularised. In this regard the Court refers to Annexure A to the Mother’s Affidavit being a statement of the Mother given to the Local Court in relation to her application for an ADVO, annexure B to her Affidavit being a diary entry of the Mother for 19 September 2017, annexure C to the Mother’s Affidavit being a lengthy diary entry of the Mother dated 20 September 2017, and annexure D to her Affidavit being another lengthy typed diary entry of the Mother following an incident between the parties in 2018.
Again the Court refers to the Mother’s application for a private ADVO against the Father and the Father’s resulting written undertakings for the protection of the Mother and children made at this time, albeit on a without admissions basis.
The Court refers to the COPS entries relating to allegations of verbal abuse made by the Mother to the police in respect to the Father in 2017, and in 2018.
The Court further refers to the ICL and Father’s tender bundle of documents relating to the children’s psychological treatment with a psychologist at the Clinic E from August 2018 up to at least November 2020.
In a letter from a psychologist from this clinic dated 21 August 2020, the psychologist refers to the children’s psychological support since August 2018 and treatment thereafter. She refers to “currently working with the boys”. She states that in 2019 the children began seeing herself due to (alleged) family violence incidents and that she has treated the children when needed since 2019. She states:
History taking and therapy with the boys reveal that they have been struggling with trauma related symptoms due to the violence, aggression, and inappropriate behaviour they have been exposed to from contact with their Father. Even as recently as last week the boys discussed anxieties and memories about their Father that are still occurring despite over 18 months since the last contact. It would be my opinion that at this time, a relationship with their Father would be detrimental to their emotional well-being and safety.
The Court takes into account the content of the letter from the psychologist dated 21 August 2020 whilst acknowledging that this letter remains untested at this interim stage.
The Mother states in paragraph 70 of her Affidavit that since the date of no contact (with the Father) she has done everything that she can to help the children with the trauma they have suffered from the Father’s (alleged) actions. She stated that this includes all forms of behavioural and emotional courses for herself and the children through community supports, the children’s schools and the children’s psychologist.
Further, the Court takes into account the clinical note entries relating to alleged statements by the children to the psychologist during their treatment consultations. For example, on 28 August 2020, the child X had a consultation and is referred to have reported “still some nightmares about “angry daddy”. The child W referred to a toy lion being his “angry daddy”. This child referred to the Father being naughty and mean to the Mother and himself. This child referred to the Father becoming angry at him and X.
Another example is a consultation between the children and the psychologist on 22 October 2020 when the child W referred to the Father as “angry Mr Pallesen”, and “not helping him with his feelings when he was little.
Another example, on 11 November 2020 is a consultation when a child referred to having a nightmare involving “angry Mr Pallesen came to get me”. The notes for this consultation refer to the child, “Talked about scared and angry dad/Mr Pallesen. Scared he will come – explored. Just scared. Strategies for scared – and breaths and grounding – drew picture.”
The Court refers to a letter from Clinic E dated 2 November 2018 referring to the child W currently receiving treatment at the clinic. Inter alia, the letter refers to the Mother and the children presenting this day at the clinic with the Mother reporting a disturbing alleged incident which occurred during an access visit to Sydney to the children’s Father. The Mother reported that the children allegedly witnessed extreme verbal aggression and actual threats of violence made against the Mother. The Mother alleges that this incident involved the local police assisting her to collect the children, in order to ensure their safety. The author of the letter states that as a result, the children have experienced some sleep disturbance, separation anxiety from the Mother, and some acting out presentation; all of which are appropriately reactive behaviours in the face of very difficult circumstances. She refers to the child W being at times fearful of leaving the Mother’s side and he requires a lot of support in the way of reassurance. She states her strong recommendation that W’s well-being and mental health has been further eroded by “this recent traumatic incident that has impacted the whole family. As a four-year-old, he needs a sense of safety and security in his environment; and his Mother is working hard to provide such an environment for him and X, as well as for herself.”
Numerous of the Mother’s above allegations of family violence were repeated by the Mother to the family consultant at the Child Dispute Conference in 2020. The family consultant, whose comments in her Child Dispute Conference Memorandum the Court takes into account, whilst acknowledging that that Memorandum is untested at this interim stage, states in paragraph 34 of the Memorandum, that the Mother had made serious allegations about the Father perpetrating coercive controlling family violence towards herself and the children and this may require determination by the Court prior to the children commencing spending time with him. She had stated that if the Court was minded for the children to spend time with the Father in the interim, it was recommended that this occur at a children’s contact Centre. Again, the Court is of the view that there is an unacceptable risk of psychological harm to the children in even spending supervised time with the Father at this interim stage.
The Court is concerned that the above material from Clinic E, relating to the children’s psychological treatment, suggests that the children may have been traumatised by exposure to family violence perpetrated by the Father, and that they have expressed fearfulness of the Father. This material is consistent with the Mother’s allegations that the children have been adversely affected by their exposure to family violence at the instance of the Father and are fearful of the Father. Again, taking into account these matters, the Court has a significant concern that the children, if reintroduced to the Father even through supervised time, may expose them to a real risk of psychological harm.
The Court is also concerned that if it was to order the children to spend supervised time with the Father, that there is a real risk that the Mother will experience significant anxiety having to facilitate the children spending time with the Father, taking into account her own alleged significant fears of the Father and her allegations that the children remain fearful of the Father. Should the Mother experience such anxiety, there is a concomitant risk that her parenting capacity for the children will be adversely compromised. The Mother expressed her alleged fearfulness of the Father, inter alia, to the family consultant, and in Clinic E material, and there is a suggestion that the Mother experienced panic attacks on attempted service upon her of the Father’s Court documents.
In the Father’s solicitor’s Case Outline filed 17 August 2021, it is asserted that the Father is on a waiting list with Relationships Australia in order to participate in the course “Taking Responsibility”. It is unclear from the Father’s Affidavit as to why he is prepared to do such a course in view of his denials of family violence. It is stated in the Case Outline that he has not been in a position to commence the course due to delays caused by Covid-19.
Even if the Court is incorrect as to its views, referred to above, that there is a significant risk that the children may experience emotional harm in spending supervised time with the Father and that the Mother may experience significant anxiety having to facilitate the children spending such time with the Father, the Court would nevertheless have a significant concern with ordering supervised time between the children and the Father in circumstances where the Father has not completed a course such as the Taking Responsibility course; in this regard, the Court takes into account the very serious and detailed allegations of family violence made by the Mother against the Father. The completion of such a course by the Father would demonstrate that the Father has insight into the suggested adverse effects upon the Mother and children relating to the Mother’s aforesaid allegations of family violence. It will be in the best interests of the children to order the Father to complete the Taking Responsibility course.
The Court should state that it has not overlooked the Father’s allegations and contentions in relation to the Mother having facilitated time between the children and himself post separation in 2017 for various periods up 2018. The Court observes that there is some dispute between the parties in relation to the regularity of such post separation time, with the Mother alleging that the Father, in relation to alternative weekend time, “did cancel these visits most time due to having holidays booked or parties to attend.” In this context, the Court has taken into account the Mother’s allegations that she was scared to stop visitation for the Father and the children “as he had made comments of how much family money he had access to, that he had a legal team and I would be parental kidnapping the children. I was very unaware of the rights of my children in this situation and was doing all I could through support systems in place to gain this knowledge”. Despite the children’s time spent with the Father post-separation, the Court’s above significant concerns, in relation to the children spending supervised time with the Father, remain.
The Father has contended that there is a suggestion, on the material before the Court, that the Mother has influenced the children to negatively view the Father. In the view of the Court, the significant suggestion, on the material before the Court, is that the children appear to be fearful of the Father by reason of having been exposed to family violence at the instance of the Father, as alleged by the Mother, whilst the Court recognises that it is possible that the Mother’s experience of anxiety by reason of alleged family violence at the instance of the Father has been observed by the children.
The Father seeks an order that he be permitted to liaise with the children’s psychologist at Clinic E in relation to their progress and treatment. The Court has a concern that the alleged progress the children have made in their psychological treatment may be adversely affected by making such an order. It will be open to the Father to subpoena the records of such clinic, including issuing a subpoena to one or both psychologists to attend and give evidence at the final hearing, if he is so advised.
The Father contends that his unsupervised time spent with the children post separation until October 2018 is inconsistent with the Mothers allegations of family violence. However there is a significant suggestion, on the material before the Court that the Mother facilitated such time because she was scared to cease visitation in the circumstances alleged by her.
The Father contends that the Mother has failed to facilitate the children spending time with him post separation through her unilateral relocation and in turn alleged alienation of the children. Again, there is a significant suggestion, on the material before the Court, that the Mother has not facilitated the children spending time with the Father because she is concerned that the children will experience harm if spending time with the Father.
The Court refers to its previous discussion as to the Father’s alleged and admitted illicit drug use. It will be in the best interests of the child for the Court to make the ICL’s proposed illicit drug test Orders (propose hair testing), but applicable only to the Father.
The Court will now order a family report to be released by 31 March 2022; on provision of such family report, the Court can consider making trial directions.
Evaluating the above discussed relevant matters under section 60CC it will be in the best interests of the children to make the following interim parenting Orders:
1.The Father’s application for proposed interim Orders sought in his Case Outline filed 17 August 2021 is dismissed.
2.That W and X both born in 2014 (“the children”) live with the Mother.
3.The children spend no time and have no communication with the Father.
4.That the Father shall within 14 days of the date of this Order and thereafter on no more than one occasion in each three calendar month period when requested by the ICL and of a period of six months, shall submit himself for hair testing, and provide such hair samples as directed by The Drug Detection Agency for the purposes of analysis of drug use in relation to non-prescription drugs including but not limited to:
(a)Methadone Metabolite;
(b)Opiates;
(c)Amphetamine type substances;
(d)Benzodiazepines;
(e)Cannabinoids;
(f)Cocaine Metabolite;
(g)Crystal Methamphetamines;
(h)Barbiturates;
(i)Buprenorphine; and
(j)Tetrahydrocannabinol
5.That the Father be restrained from taking any steps to interfere with the provision of any hair samples, or to interfere with the test results including cutting his hair shorter than 4 centimetres.
6.That the Father shall do things necessary and sign all necessary authority and documents to authorise the Drug Detection Agency to provide the test results to his legal representatives with copies of all results forthwith upon those results becoming available and thereafter upon receipt of such results his legal representatives shall provide a copy to the ICL forthwith.
7.That the Father shall be responsible for meeting his own costs of such hair testing.
8.Should the Father require a report from the Drug Detection Agency regarding the test results then he shall bear the costs of such report.
9.That, unless already done so, within 14 days the Father shall take all necessary steps to enrol in the Taking Responsibility course and thereafter complete it as soon as practicable.
10.Upon completion of the Taking Responsibility course, the Father is to:
(a)Provide the ICL with a certificate of completion;
(b)File and serve an Affidavit setting out his learnings from the course.
11.Pursuant to section 62G(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 the parties and the children of the relationship shall attend upon a family consultant nominated by the Dispute Resolution Coordinator of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on a date and at time/s to be advised for the purposes of the preparation of a family report, such report to be released by 31 March 2022.
12.The Family Report shall deal with the following matters:
(a)Any views expressed by the child(ren) the subject of parenting orders sought in this case, provided that the child/ren shall not be required to express a view in relation to any matter.
(b)The nature of the relationships of the child(ren) with each of the child(ren)’s parents and with significant other persons;
(c)The willingness and ability of each of the child(ren)’s parents to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child(ren) and the other parent;
(d)The likely effect of any changes in the child(ren)’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child(ren) of any separation from:
(i)either of the parents: or
(ii)any other child, or significant person, with whom the child(ren) has/have been living.
(e)The practical difficulty and expense of the child(ren) spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child(ren)’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis;
(f)The capacity of each parent, or another person, to provide for the needs of the child(ren), including emotional and intellectual needs;
(g)The maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) other child(ren) and of either of the child(ren)’s parents and any other characteristics of the child(ren) that the reporter thinks are relevant;
(h)Each parent’s attitude to the child(ren) and to the responsibilities of parenthood;
(i)Any family violence involving the child(ren) or a member of the child(ren)’s family.
13.The parties shall attend all appointments with the Family Consultant and shall ensure the subject child/ren attend all appointments with the Family Consultant, as requested by the Family Consultant.
14.The Family Consultant may inspect the Court file, and any documents produced on subpoena access to which has been granted to a party or the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
15.The proceedings are adjourned for mention to a date after 31 March 2022, with the specific date to be advised shortly.
I certify that the preceding fifty-five (55) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Newbrun. Associate:
Dated: 13 October 2021
0
5
1