PARISH & PARISH

[2012] FamCA 688

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PARISH & PARISH [2012] FamCA 688

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child lives – With whom a child spends time – With whom a child communicates – Allegations of Violence – Final Order that children live with the mother – Final Order that mother have sole parental responsibility for the children – Interim Order that father spend supervised time with the children gradually progressing to unsupervised time

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CC, 61DA and 61D(2)A

APPLICANT: Ms Parish

RESPONDENT: Mr Parish

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Newman Family Law

FILE NUMBER: CSC 101 of 2011

DATE DELIVERED: 6 July 2012

PLACE DELIVERED: Cairns

PLACE HEARD: Cairns

JUDGMENT OF: Benjamin J

HEARING DATE: 6 July 2012

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Middleton

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Stevenson & Associates

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

In person

COUNSEL FOR THE

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

Mr Victoire

SOLICITOR FOR THE

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

Newman Family Law

Orders

1. BY WAY OF FINAL ORDER the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children of the relationship R born … August 1999, B born … January 2004 and J born … January 2007 and that the mother keep the father informed of any significant exercise of that parental responsibility.

2. BY WAY OF FINAL ORDER the children live with the mother.

3. The father forthwith re-do the Parenting Orders Program and engage in personal counselling through Queensland Health or Community Health together with providing reports to them. 

4. BY WAY OF INTERIM ORDER the father is to spend time with the children as follows:

   (a)    for two (2) hours per week on a Saturday or Sunday or a Wednesday or Thursday nominated by the supervisor, such weeks to be once every four (4) weeks commencing 4 August 2012, 1 September 2012 and 29 September 2012, such time to be at the father’s home or some other place as arranged by and supervised by Ms W (or supervised by some other person reasonably nominated by Ms W).  The Father to meet the cost of such supervisor for supervised time.

   (b)    On Father’s Day on 8 September 2012 from 10.00 am until 1.00 pm.

   (c)    As and from 27 October 2012, for two (2) days per week for three (3) hours on a Saturday with the father to collect and return the children to the mother at a location nominated by the mother in the Main Street of M; and

   (d)    on a Wednesday from after school to 6.30 pm, the father to collect the younger children from school on Wednesday and return them to the mother’s home, with the father not to enter the mother’s property;

5. After the expiration of the period outlined above, from after school until 6.30 pm each alternate Wednesday and if the father is not in town each fourth Wednesday and each fourth weekend from 9.00 am Saturday until 6.00 pm Sunday with the father to collect and return the children to the mother at a location nominated by the mother in the main street of M.

6. From the first school holiday in 2013 and the first half of school holidays in even numbered years and the second half of all school holidays in odd numbered years.

7. On Father’s Day from 9.00 am until 6.00 pm excluding the Mother’s Day weekend.

8. On the father’s birthday for two (2) hours.

9. Each of the children’s birthdays for two (2) hours.

10. For four (4) hours on Christmas Day as agreed.

11. Such alternate time as are agreed in writing between the parties.

12. BY WAY OF FINAL ORDER the father shall communicate with the children by telephone or if available by Skype or similar each Monday and Friday at 6.30 pm or such alternate times as are agreed in writing.

13. BY WAY OF FINAL ORDER the mother is to encourage time for the children to communicate with the father provided it is safe to do so.

14. BY WAY OF FINAL ORDER the parties may notify each other by email, in writing or text within forty eight (48) hours of any change of residential address, landline or telephone number.

15. BY WAY OF FINAL ORDER the parties shall communicate in a polite and respectful way with each other and shall be preferably by email or text message.

16. BY WAY OF FINAL ORDER the father be permitted to attend school and extra curricular activities provided he notifies the mother at least twenty four (24) hours in advance and is polite and respectful in attending such activities.

17. BY WAY OF FINAL ORDER the father is prohibited from abusing, demeaning, belittling the mother or the children.

18. BY WAY OF FINAL ORDER these orders shall, without more, act as authority to the child’s schools to provide each parent (at that parent’s expense) with information about the child’s education’s progress, school related activities, copies of school reports, photographs, photograph order forms, certificates, awards obtained by the child and other school communications ordinarily provided to parents.

19. BY WAY OF FINAL ORDER these Orders shall, without more, act as authority to each of the child’s medical practitioners (including counsellors and psychologists) to provide to each parent (at that parent’s expense) information about the child’s medical condition, treatment and copies of medical records and reports.

20. BY WAY OF FINAL ORDER each parent will ensure that the schools attended by the child, and the child’s usual treating medical practitioners (including counselors and psychologists) are provided with a copy of these Orders.

21. Pursuant to s.65DA(2) and s.62B, 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 DIRECTED

22. Apart from the issues as to time the children spend with the father all other applications are dismissed.

23. The issue of such time be listed for mention by telephone at 9.30 am on Thursday 13 September 2012 at Cairns.

24. A copy of the reasons for these orders be taken out and placed on the court file.

    IT IS CERTIFIED

25. Pursuant to Rule 19.50 of the Family Law Rules 2004 it was reasonable to engage counsel to attend.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Parish & Parish 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 CAIRNS

FILE NUMBER: CSC 101 of 2011

Ms Parish

Applicant

And

Mr Parish

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These are proceedings between Ms Parish (“the mother”) and Mr Parish (“the father”) in relation to the parenting arrangements of their children, R, aged 12, almost 13, B, who is aged 8 and J, who is aged 5.

2. The parties have been in dispute in respect of their children in the Family Law Courts since about March 2011.  The issues fall into a number of areas, firstly, who should have parental responsibility for these children, and in terms of that the question is whether the mother ought to have sole parental responsibility for the children, or have equal shared parental responsibility with the father.  The second issue is where the children live.

3. It is the father’s hope, although not his realistic expectation at the present time, that the children spend half of the time with him and half of the time with their mother.  At present, the father is working in a job which he clearly enjoys, although he’s not particularly well-paid, about three weeks on and one week off.  The question is, on the father’s week off, what time should the children spend with the father, and whether that time should, at least initially, be supervised. 

4. There is also a question about the level of communication between the parties.  To understand the context of this dispute, one needs to look no further to the affidavits of the parties and the experts.

5. The mother asserts that the father has been over-bearing and difficult for her throughout the whole of the course of her relationship, and that his anger is such that she fears for the emotional wellbeing of the children when the father loses his temper.

6. The father, on the other hand, says, “Yes, he is direct, and sometimes speaks his mind and sometimes engages his mouth before his mind was in gear”, but asserts that underneath it all the mother is doing, in almost a passive aggressive way, whatever she can to prevent the children from having a relationship with him.

7. This matter came before a Federal Magistrate, and an independent children’s lawyer was appointed.  The Federal Magistrate made orders that the father see the children, noting that he had not seen them since early February 2011 in any meaningful way, through the C Contact Centre.

8. It is clear that both the mother and father did all that they possibly could to comply with the requirements of that organisation, and yet some 13 months almost 14 months later no arrangements have been put into place, through no fault of the parties nor the Independent Children's Lawyer.  That has left the father, perhaps at some levels, justifiably angry and upset by those circumstances.  He has not seen his children in a meaningful way for about 18 months, except when the Family Consultant arranged for them to see him when she prepared her report.

9. The father is aged 52.  The mother is aged 38.  The parties married in 1997, and Ricki was born in 1999, RebeccaB was born in 2004 and J wasordan born in 2007.  There was an incident, asserted by the mother, that the father retained the elder child in February 2010.  In August 2010 there was an incident which occurred at the matrimonial home to which I will refer later on, in which the father asserted the mother was violent and abusive to him, and the mother asserted that the father was violent and abusive to her.

10. The parties separated about a month later in September 2010, and then there was an incident at the Centrelink office on 20 September 2010.  On 23 September 2010 the mother moved to an address at W Street, M, which is a town in Far North Queensland, some distance from Cairns.

11. On 28 October 2010 a temporary domestic violence order was made, and the father asserts there was an incident on 7 November 2010 where she said the father, I think the term she used, “chested her” down the driveway.  On 24 November 2010 a domestic violence order was made against the father in favour of the mother, which is effective until 18 November 2012. 

12. I have had regard to that order, as I am obliged to do so under the legislation, and I note the findings contained in that order.  The parties had a Legal Aid Conference on 24 November 2010 and reached some form of agreement.  In October 2010 the father moved residence to an address adjacent to the children’s school in M, where he has lived since that time.  On 4 February 2010 there was an incident at the father’s home, to which I will refer later in these reasons, and which is the subject of an issue of fact.

13. These proceedings were commenced in the Federal Magistrates Court and interim orders were made on 30 May 2011.  The proceedings came before me and were listed for hearing in these sittings.

14. In these reasons, any statement of fact is to be regarded as a finding of fact unless the contrary is clear in the reasons. 

THE RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES TO BE APPLIED

1. The provisions in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) relating to children rest on the importance of a child having a meaningful relationship with his/her parents and the need to protect children from harm. These objects are contained in s 60B(1) of the Act, which provides:-

   (1) The objects of this Part are to ensure that the best interests of children are met by:

   (a)ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child; and

   (b)protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and

   (c)ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and

   (d)ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.

   (2)The principles underlying these objects are that (except when it is or would be contrary to a child’s best interests):

   (a)children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together; and

   (b)children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development (such as grandparents and other relatives); and

   (c)parents jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and

   (d)parents should agree about the future parenting of their children; and

   (e)children have a right to enjoy their culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture).

2. When determining parenting orders a court must put in place orders which will endeavour to be in the child’s best interests, as the paramount but not sole consideration. In undertaking this exercise the Court must consider the primary and additional considerations set out in s 60CC of the Act.

3. There is a rebuttable presumption that it is in a child’s best interests for his or her parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.  If there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent has engaged in abuse of the child or family violence the presumption does not apply.  

4. If there is an order for equal shared parental responsibility (by application of the presumption or otherwise), a court must consider whether equal time with each parent would be both in the child’s best interests and reasonably practicable.  Further, if an order for no equal time is made, a court must consider whether an order should be made providing that a child spends substantial and significant time with each parent if that is in the child’s best interests and is reasonably practicable.

5. I have had regard to the principles set out in ss 60B, 60CC, 61DA, 61D(2)A and the other relevant sections.

6. The first witness to be called in these proceedings was Dr K.  He and the father got on very poorly, partly because, I suspect, the father did not know what to anticipate at a psychiatric assessment, and secondly, I am satisfied, as a result of the father’s somewhat robust approach to expressing himself.  Dr K examined both the mother and father to determine whether either one or other of them suffered from any psychiatric disease or affliction.  He found neither parent suffered from such a disease or affliction.  Dr K did not see the father as having any formal psychiatric disturbance, but observed him as being a very difficult person because of his aggressive, intolerant, controlling and, not the least, introspective, righteous and indignant nature.  The father cross-examined Dr K and challenged those views.  The qualifications of Dr K were not an issue.  I generally accept the evidence of Dr K.

7. The other witness to which the Independent Children's Lawyer relied was Ms W.

8. The father had seen a Ms E of this Court, who had prepared a report, and he had not interacted well with her, and she formed a similar adverse view of him as did Dr K.

9. Ms W prepared her report,[1] which was read into evidence without controversy.  She was a psychologist who practices in the R area of Far North Queensland.  She has a background as a kindergarten and pre-school teacher, of which I have had significant regard.  Her report was dated 14 November 2011, and she recommended that the children reside with their mother and continue to work towards spending fortnightly weekends with the father.  Ms W recommended that should the Family Court come to the conclusion that the father is a threat to the children’s safety, there needs to be some professional supervision.[2]  She also recommended that should the Family Court conclude that the father is not a threat, that time should be considered on an increasing basis, and she then made out a set of suggestion.[3]

   [1] Dated 14 November 2011.

   [2] Ibid at paragraph 106.

   [3] Ibid at paragraph 107.

10. It is apposite at this stage to note what the various proposal are.

11. The Independent Children's Lawyer submits, and the mother supports, that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children, that the children live with the mother, and that the father spend time with the children gradually building up to time with the children each alternate weekend and half-school holiday, Father’s Day, Christmas, and other significant occasions.

12. The Independent Children's Lawyer seeks orders that the father redoes a parenting program and undertakes some further treatment in relation to anger management.  I note the father has already undertaken a one-day course.

13. The only difference between this and the mother’s proposal is that the mother says that the father should be required to provide affidavits from those who provide that training to show that the father knew and understood that.  I can indicate that I do not intend to make that order, as it would impose a significant hardship upon the father, and probably more importantly, it may not be available to the father to get those affidavits, and it would present an insoluble problem for him, as he is stuck with the lack of resources in the Cairns area for contact with his children.

14. What was one of the outstanding parts of Ms W’s report was her ability to arrange for the children to see the father, and the reaction the children had with the father.  They were clearly pleased to see him, and he was pleased to see them.  Ms W observed, at paragraph 99 of her report:-

    …that the Children do enjoy their time with their father, and each was observed to engage positively with the [father], and to state they were not “scared”.  However, the presence of another adult may have been a mediating factor in both the children’s feelings, and the [father’s] actions. 

15. It is significant to note Ms W’s other observations.  Firstly, the mother’s contribution to the present dysfunctional relationship, and let me make it clear, this is a dysfunctional relationship.  There was evidence to suggest that the mother may have issues of a lack of assertiveness, co-dependence, and not being able to stand up to, or find methods of speaking frankly, or listening to the father.  There is evidence to suggest that the father has taken seriously the recommendation that counselling would be useful to him, although on his evidence I am not quite sure that it is as useful as Ms W [sic] considered.  There is some evidence, she says, that suggests that the father has not moved on from his relationship with the mother.  On observing the demeanour of the father, there may be something to that, but I am not sure.

16. The father is capable of providing activities and interacting with the children.  His descriptions of the cooking and other interactions that he has with them are quite effective.  However, he does have some distance to go, in the words of Ms W in terms of protecting the children from his anger, and his aggression.  I accept her evidence as being accurate, and I accept her qualifications.

17. The mother gave evidence in accordance with her affidavits, and some oral evidence before being cross-examined.  The Independent Children's Lawyer said that I should accept her as being a witness of credit, and that she was impressive, and child-focused.  I generally accept that the mother’s evidence is correct, although it is from her own subjective point of view.  She endeavoured to be frank where she could, and was able to move where sensible propositions were put to her, such as the children attending the father’s home. 

1. I was somewhat concerned that the mother does not actively promote the relationship between the children and the father, and may present some passive opposition to the father in the presence the children, in terms of spending time with him, and at times does not encourage the children to spend time with the father, and either explicitly or implicitly offers discouragement to them.  I raised with counsel for the mother the question of whether I ought to make an order requiring the mother to encourage the relationship between the children and the father, provided it was safe to do so.  Counsel for the mother said that this was not necessary, but offered no opposition to an order being made to that end, and I intend to make that order.  The mother was nervous and agitated from time to time, when giving evidence. 

2. The father gave evidence in accordance with his affidavit filed on 8 April 2011.  He also provided additional oral evidence, as his affidavit was somewhat out of date.  Throughout the course of his evidence in chief and cross-examination, the father continued to give evidence of his views of the evidence, and the past.  He denied he was abusive, and gave different accounts of what happened, particularly in August of 2010, and January of 2011, and the events of the so-called chest punch.  From time to time when I spoke, and when counsel spoke, the father was so determined to get his message across; he talked over me, and counsel.  The father is, to say the least, a very forceful and direct person.  He is, from time to time, aggressive, and I am conscious that in this Court he endeavoured to be on his best behaviour because it was a court determining what was going to happen with his children, and with him, and even then parts of his character showed over.

3. In some regards, he lacks insight.  He saw no reason to attend the anger management course, but when one hears the recording of the conversation in February 2011, it was very angry.  Now, whether the father was right, or whether he was wrong, the children were involved in that engagement and were subjected to enormous trauma, and it needed both parents to take a step back, and remove the children from that event, not to pursue it.  I am not going to be as scathing of the father’s credit as was the Independent Children's Lawyer.  I think the father endeavours to tell the truth, but from his own perspective, as best he can.  But sometimes I am confident he sees things through a very narrow prism of that experience, and when he loses his temper as we heard in that tape, it is confronting, and I am satisfied that for the children it would be terrifying.

4. The father occasionally swears, and I make no criticism of people for swearing.  It happens, but those words are sometimes laced in his vocabulary, and he probably does not even know it.  The father has a loud voice.  He is, from time to time, dismissive of the mother.  He was asked a question by the Independent Children's Lawyer as to her (the mother’s) strengths as a mother, and he offered no strengths at all.  In fact, he offered only complaint, and in response to one question, when asked of the mother, he said:  “Poor [Ms Parish], boo hoo.”  He is overpowering in his views, and is determined to get those views across. 

5. I had the advantage of an exhibit being placed before me, to which I have had regard.  I do not intend to touch upon every fact in this case.  I am satisfied that in August 2008, there was confrontation between the father and the mother which, from the mother’s perspective, would have been frightening, and from her perspective abusive and violence.  I am satisfied the father endeavoured to dominate the mother in November 2011, and I am also satisfied that the father lost his temper in an inappropriate way in April 2011. 

6. However, my task is not to determine which parent was right, and which parent was wrong. My task is to put in place arrangements so that children can have a meaningful relationship with both parents, if that is in their best interests. The mother, the Independent Children's Lawyer, and the father all submit that these children should have a meaningful relationship with the father. I accept that submission. There is a benefit for these children to know their father, to love him, and be loved by him. The real issue in this case is the s 60CC(2)(b) factor, that is, to protect the children from violence and abuse.

7. I am satisfied that the father means no harm to the children, and does not intend to cause them harm or damage.  Unfortunately, the father’s temper when it explodes does precisely that.  Now, it may well be the interaction of the mother assists with that, but when the father’s temper explodes, these children are exposed to enormous risk of upset and distress.  It is the task of this Court to protect the children from that, and the Court intends to do that in a number of ways, which I will address now. 

8. The father has difficulty controlling his aggression and anger, and has little insight as to the impact of this on the children.  As observed by the Family Consultant, he needs to change that attitude.  I note and endorse the submission of the Independent Children’s Lawyer that if the father can control his anger and form an alliance with the mother, she will be his greatest ally.  Because as the father rightly observes, he has the capacity to encourage the relationship or undo the relationship, and there needs to be a change in the way that he speaks to the mother, and of her.  To that end, I will accept the submissions of the Independent Children’s Lawyer that the father should undertake psychological assistance, in respect of his anger, and undertake another endeavour at the parenting program.  There needs to be a change.

9. In terms of the views of the children, it is clear that the children want to have a relationship with their father, provided there is no anger.  The children each have a good relationship with the mother and a continuing connection with the father as is set out in the expert’s report. 

10. The mother expresses concerns as to the behaviour of the father, but says she is willing to facilitate that relationship.  I have some concerns as to whether that is a real facilitation or something that is said to be real, but is not substantive. 

11. It is interesting, in listening to the evidence, where the father was constantly and overtly critical of the mother, and yet when things went wrong with the child – the elder child, R, in February 2011, he looked to the mother to assist in that relationship.  I am not sure that he encourages the relationship with the mother, but he is dependent upon that relationship to ensure that this continues. 

12. I am concerned that if the children do not know their father, and are separated from him, that this could have a significant adverse effect upon them.  I am equally concerned that if the father exposes the children to ongoing anger that could likewise have a significant impact on the children. 

13. There are practical difficulties in this matter, in terms of putting in place supervised arrangements.  We have seen part of those, in terms of the arrangements that were put in place last year.  Into the future, there is practical difficulty:  The father does not earn a huge income; he earns a very modest income working long hours, and is away for a long time.  But the only effective way that I can ensure that these children see their father is to have some supervision, at least for the start, so these children can relax and know that their father’s place is a safe place. 

14. The supervision provided by Ms W, which I propose to put in place, or her nominee, will cost the father something, and he may not be able to spend time with the children as regularly as I would want.  But at least it will open the door for the father to see the children and the children to see the father. 

15. The mother has a capacity to provide for the emotional and intellectual needs of the children.  The father has that capacity but currently, in my view, lacks the skills to provide for those emotional and intellectual needs, as was submitted by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, and as displayed by the father when being cross-examined. 

16. In terms of R, it is important that the relationship be restored now, because she is entering into puberty, and is going into that time when some children become rebellious.  The father has, as indicated by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, shown the children the need to stand up for themselves and express themselves, except as it seems, to him.  I have had regard to the age of R, and the other children, in terms of these orders. 

17. The attitude to the children and the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the children’s parents is effectively and eloquently set out by Ms W in her report. 

18. In terms of family violence, the children have been exposed to anger, aggression, as displayed by the father, to which I have alluded to earlier.  There is a current domestic violence order in place which is based upon a finding of domestic violence. 

19. I will make some final orders and some interim orders.  I want this arrangement to work.  As a result, I raised with counsel and with the father during the course of these proceedings, a course whereby the father’s time with the children commence and the matter come back before me for mention.  I had hoped to make that date much later this year but unfortunately at this stage, there are no dates allocated as it is likely that by the end of the year there will be another judicial officer, hopefully, appointed to this area, and my visits will be less regular, if at all. 

20. Accordingly, I will list the matter for mention at the end of my sittings in September, but I will give the parties leave to attend by telephone.  I have considered the factors and the approach of both parents since separation.  I have had regard to the lack of child support paid by the father in recent times, although that will be well and truly taken up, it seems to me, by the orders I propose to make. 

21. The first issue I have to consider is in terms of equal shared parental responsibility.  There is a presumption, under the legislation, that there be equal shared parental responsibility.  That is rebutted by virtue of the finding of domestic violence in the order made by the learned Magistrate.  That does not, of course, prevent me from considering whether there ought to be, in the circumstances, equal shared parental responsibility.  However, the communication between these parents is such that equal shared parental responsibility would mean that there was no effective way of decision-making, in respect of these children.  I am not satisfied that there ought to be, in these circumstances, having regard to the evidence, an order for equal shared parental responsibility, and I intend to make an final order for sole parental responsibility in favour of the mother.

22. However, I will be ordering that the mother keep the father informed, and I note that in the past she has done so.  The father was somewhat critical of the mother in two respects:  Firstly, in respect of the dog bite, and she was not asked questions in regard to that, but I make no significant criticisms of the father in respect of not asking the mother questions about this, because he did not understand the process of courts, and it is a hard task to appear for yourself.  Secondly the father was critical about the mother in respect of R’s broken arm, and the mother, in fact, did two things: she notified him promptly after R’s arm was broken, by letter, and notified him the following week as to what had happened.  So the father’s criticism of the mother was, in the circumstances, somewhat hollow. 

23. I will be making an order that the children continue to live with the mother, in whose primary care they have resided since at least September 2010.  

24. I will order that the father redo the parenting orders program, and undertake the counselling, as submitted by the Independent Children’s Lawyer. 

25. I will order that the father be able to communicate with the children by telephone, or if available, Skype or similar, each Monday and Friday at 6.30 pm, or such other alternate times as are agreed in writing.  That will be a final order. 

26. I will order that the mother encourage the children to spend time with and communicate with the father, provided it is safe to do so. 

27. I will order that the parties keep each other informed as to their email, writing, or text addresses, within a reasonable time, and that the parties communicate, preferably by text or email, in respectful and polite way. 

28. I will order that the father be permitted to attend the children’s school and extra curricular activities, provided he notifies the mother at least 24 hours in advance, and is polite and respectful when attending such activities. 

29. I will make an order restraining the father from abusing, demeaning or belittling the mother or the children. 

30. I will make an order that each parent is entitled to information about the children’s progress at school without consent of the other parent. 

31. Finally I will also make an order that party shall be entitled to the medical information in respect of the children and that each parent will ensure that schools and medical practitioners are provided with copies of these orders.

32. The question is then what to do with the time that the children spend with the father.  I intend to follow something along the lines that the Independent Children’s Lawyer suggested, subject to the working arrangements of the father.  I intend to make this an interim order, and if the matter resolves and calms down, then it would lead to a final order. 

I certify that the preceding sixty three (63) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Benjamin delivered on 6 July 2012.

Associate:     

Date:              6 July 2012