PARTINGTON & LANG

[2016] FCCA 2423

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PARTINGTON & LANG [2016] FCCA 2423

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Interim parenting hearing – Whether mother should be able to spend time with the child in the presence of her new partner – best interests of child that mother be so permitted.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61BA, 61DA(3), 65D, 65DAA(3)

Cases cited:

Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36

Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286

Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101; (2010) 43 Fam LR 348

Applicant: MS PARTINGTON

Respondent: MR LANG

File Number: PAC 3176 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Newbrun

Hearing date: 13 September 2016

Date of Last Submission: 13 September 2016

Delivered at: Parramatta

Delivered on: 16 September 2016

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Rebehy

Solicitors for the Applicant: Lamrocks Solicitors

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Weaver

Solicitors for the Respondent: Higgins Lawyers

ORDERS, PENDING FURTHER ORDER

1. The child shall spend time with the mother from after school on Friday to 5:00pm on Sunday each alternate weekend, commencing the first weekend following the date of these Orders.

2. The interim order sought by the father that the mother be restrained from bringing the child into contact with Mr V is dismissed.

3. The proceedings are stood over for mention to 2 November 2016 at 9:30am. At this mention the father can indicate to the Court whether or not he has lodged an appeal against the interim parenting orders made today.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Partington & Lang is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

PAC 3176 of 2015

MS PARTINGTON

Applicant

And

MR LANG

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This interim hearing related to a single issue, namely, whether the mother’s time spent with the child, X, date of birth, (omitted) 2009, should be able to occur in the presence of her new partner, Mr V. 

2. The mother’s proposed interim orders (Exhibit A), relevantly in relation to the child X, sought orders that he live with the father and spend time with the mother, inter-alia, from after school on Friday to 5:00pm on Sunday each alternate weekend.

3. In his Response filed 25 August 2015, the father sought an interim order that the mother be restrained from bringing the child into contact with Mr V.

4. Mr V has a criminal record for drug supply and firearms offences.  He spent time in jail for those offences and was released in January 2014. He served his parole period thereafter, which expired in April 2016.

5. The father’s Notice of Risk filed 25 August 2015 states, inter-alia, that the mother’s “current partner, Mr V, has a criminal record for serious drug and firearms offences.”

6. The Court inquired of Counsel for the father at the interim hearing whether, in the event that the Court was not to make the interim restraining order sought by the father, thereby allowing the child to spend time with the mother in the presence of Mr V, the father had any alternative interim order proposals, including any proposed protective orders relating to Mr V. Counsel for the father indicated that he did not have any such alternative interim order proposals, nor any proposed protective orders relating to Mr V.

Material Relied Upon

1. The father relied upon the list of documents set out on page one (1) of his Case Outline dated 13 September 2016. 

2. The mother relied upon the list of documents set out on page two (2) of her case outline dated 5 February 2016, together with her updating affidavit filed 8 September 2016 and the affidavit of Mr V filed 2 May 2016.

3. Further, each party relied upon various documents referred to in Exhibit B, being sleeve one (1) from the Department of Corrective Services, New South Wales.

Chronology

1. 1972 – mother and father born. 

2. 1974 – Mr V born.

3. (omitted) 1999 – the marriage.

4. (omitted) 2000 – child Y born.

5. (omitted) 2009 – child X born.

6. July 2013 – date of separation; mother moves out of matrimonial home. Parties agree on children spending time with the mother every Thursday evening and each alternate weekend between Friday and Sunday.

7. Late 2014 - mother commences relationship with Mr V. The mother moves into an apartment at (omitted).

8. March 2015 – mother moves to (omitted) and begins living with Mr V.

9. 30 June 2015 – mother files Initiating Application.

10. June 2015 to January 2016 – mother continues to spend time with the child X on alternate weekends.

Submissions of Parties

1. The father submits, inter-alia, that there is an unacceptable risk of harm to the child should he spend time with the mother in the presence of Mr V. He further submits that there is a need to protect the child from the risk of physical or psychological harm in spending time with the mother in the presence of Mr V. 

2. The father submitted that the Court should take a cautious approach at this interim hearing and not permit the child to spend time with the mother in the presence of Mr V; this issue should be tested at trial, including following any cross-examination of Mr V.

3. The mother submitted that the evidence before the Court does not demonstrate that there is any relevant risk of harm to the child in spending time with the mother in the presence of Mr V. 

Agreed or Undisputed Relevant Facts

1. The mother also has a daughter, Ms E, born (omitted) 1994. She stopped living with the parties in 2008. She went to live with her father and now lives with her paternal grandmother.

2. Since the parties separated in July 2013, the children have been living with the father.

3. The mother asserts that from the time the father knew that her new partner had been in jail, the father began refusing her time with the children. She asserts that the father limited her time with the children so that she was unable to spend time with them in her own residence.  The mother states that she noticed that her relationship with the children had started to change. 

4. After the mother moved to (omitted) to live with Mr V, the father required the children to spend time with the mother at the maternal grandmother’s home. The mother asserts that this resulted in much disruption and worse living conditions for the children, the maternal grandmother and herself, particularly as the mother had to sleep on the couch during these visits. The mother spends time with the children, on alternate weekends, from Friday afternoon until 1:00pm on Sunday.

5. The mother’s affidavit filed 30 June 2015 under the heading “Family Violence and Child Abuse” asserts that during her relationship with the father, there were many incidents of controlling behaviour by him; the mother asserts that, for example, she was excluded from decision-making in relation to the home and in 2013, the father smashed her pottery off a display unit and into a bin in front of her. The father denies these assertions.

6. The mother asserts that she has concerns that the father has been undermining her relationship with the children. 

7. The mother works on a permanent part-time basis during school hours.

8. The mother lives in a house in (omitted), being a three (3) bedroom house. Mr V has two (2) daughters and a son who live in this home.

9. Mr V has the full-time care of three (3) of his four (4) children;  the three (3) children who live with him are aged 13 years, a daughter, 11 years, another daughter and nine years, a son. He works full-time as a (occupation omitted) for a (employer omitted) company in the (omitted) area.

10. Mr V denies ever having used heroin. He was previously a regular cannabis user. In December 2009, he was taken into custody and later pleaded guilty to various drug supply charges. He did not plead guilty to certain weapons charges. He stated that he pleaded guilty to a charge in relation to possession of an illicit substance, being heroin belonging to a woman, Ms M, with whom he was previously in a relationship; he states that he lied to the police that he was a heroin user to protect Ms M. He was also convicted of supplying certain firearms. He was sentenced to six (6) years and five (5) months imprisonment, with the earliest possible release date of 31 January 2014. His criminal record is attached to his affidavit.

11. Mr V refers to seeing a psychologist whilst incarcerated to discuss his anxiety. He was prescribed medication. He stopped taking this medication about 18 months before his release from jail. He states that he has not used cannabis since beginning his jail term. 

12. Whilst incarcerated, he completed the Getting SMART program in relation to prisoners who have had drug and alcohol problems. He also did a course called Managing Emotions. In 2012/2013, he was moved to a correctional section at (omitted). He met the mother whilst working on job placement in (omitted) 2013 at a (employer omitted).

13. Mr V was released from jail in January 2014. At that time, his children were returned to his care. In March 2015, the mother moved into his Department of Housing premises in (omitted).

14. Following his release from jail, he arranged to see a counsellor. He saw her six (6) times. 

15. On his release from jail, he began working as a (occupation omitted) for a (employer omitted) company. He has been promoted to (occupation omitted). He has been given a lot of responsibility at work.

16. Mr V proposes that the child, X, will share a bedroom with his youngest child, A, at his home. 

17. The mother states that her relationship with the child, Y, since her first affidavit filed 30 June 2015, has continued to deteriorate. She has not spent a meaningful time with this child since about September 2015. 

18. The father states that he did instruct his solicitor not to allow the child, X, to spend time with the mother in the presence of Mr V.  The father states that he maintained this position “as X’s safety is my primary concern.” The father states that he does not want his children having a relationship with someone with the criminal background of Mr V. The father states that he fears that Mr V is not a good role model for his sons. He states that he is genuinely concerned that Mr V has associates who could present a risk to the children as well as Mr V presenting a risk.

19. The mother’s daughter, Ms E, who has sworn an affidavit filed 29 July 2016, is disparaging of Mr V in certain respects, for example, she refers to his raising his voice and being argumentative on a certain occasion. She alleges that he yelled at the mother on one (1) occasion. She refers to her difficult relationship with the mother. The mother responded to this affidavit with an updating affidavit filed 8 September 2016. She refers to a falling out in her relationship with Ms E in about late 2014. The mother denies her allegations in relation to excessive alcohol drinking, or that Mr V was argumentative or got up too close to her face. She denies that he yelled at her. The mother denies the historical allegations in relation to drug use.

20. At the Child Inclusive Conference of 15 March 2016, the mother told the Family Consultant that she denied that Mr V had any links with organised crime.

21. The mother queried the Family Consultant as to why the father was raising concerns regarding Mr V’s criminal history, given that the child, X, had contact with the father’s brothers and a friend of the father’s, who reportedly have criminal histories themselves. The mother stated the father’s brother, Mr P had been in and of jail since the age of 18 due to drug offences.

22. The father told the Family Consultant, without providing the source of his alleged information, that Mr V was, inter-alia, at risk for retaliatory attacks in relation to having previously been the “ringleader for the biggest drug and gun bust” in the (omitted) area. The father made other accusations against Mr V, again, without providing the sources of his alleged information underlying these accusations.

23. The mother alleged to the Family Consultant that the father had been controlling towards her during the relationship; she gave as an example that he did not allow her to choose items for the house. The father denied any family violence.

24. The mother told the Family Consultant that there were some difficulties in her relationship with the material grandmother and stated that the maternal grandmother was “very picky with me and X as well.” She provided the example that the maternal grandmother tells X, “Don’t talk such a lot of rubbish” when he is talking. The father told the Family Consultant that he thought that the maternal grandmother was very manipulative. He gave the example that the child, X’s hair had been cut while in the mother’s care due to pressure placed on the child by the mother and the maternal grandmother.

Subpoenaed Documents from the Department of Corrective Services, New South Wales

1. The Court has considered all the tendered subpoenaed documents from the Department of Corrective Services, New South Wales.

2. The Court notes the letter from Community Corrections to the case worker of Housing New South Wales, dated 12 June 2014, stating, inter-alia, that Mr V is currently supervised by way of a parole order. It states that Mr V used his time in custody in a positive way and he engaged well with rehabilitative and work release programs. Since his release, Mr V has continued to work constructively with Corrections and there have no adverse issues to date. The letter states that Mr V has often expressed the need to be a positive father to his children as a prime motivation for his rehabilitation.

3. The Court notes, at Tab F7, the history taken from the father that he had never used heroin but he had admitted at Court to using it and being in possession of it so as to help his girlfriend.

4. The Court notes the pre-release report dated 4 November 2013, which states, inter-alia, that Mr V reported that his current offending was related to his relationship with the co-offender; he said that troubled relationship was marred by drug use leading to offences. He said he has learnt his lesson and he had been dealing in drugs to finance his cannabis drug habit.

5. On 5 March 2014, Mr V was assessed as having no current substance abuse issue and no intervention was currently required.

6. The Court notes the sentencing remarks of the District Court Judge, 10 March 2011. The relevant criminal offences of Mr V occurred in late 2009. Mr V did give evidence during the sentencing hearing.  Inter-alia, he gave evidence that he had met the girlfriend co-offender and was introduced to heroin. In this context, the Court notes paragraph 9 of his affidavit where he states that he had lied to the police that he was a user of this drug to protect the girlfriend, Ms M. It is noted that the sentencing Judge rejected certain evidence of Mr V as being unreliable and untruthful.

7. At Tabs M5, M6 and M9, there are positive comments about Mr V in relation to his work inside jail. On 17 April 2013 Mr V was successful in gaining employment at a (employer omitted) while still serving his sentence. 

8. On 15 January 2016 it was noted that Mr V got a promotion and a pay rise at work.

Relevant Legal Principles

1. The relevant principles in relation to parenting proceedings, including interim proceedings, are well-settled: see Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286.

2. In Marvel & Marvel (2010) 43 Fam LR 348, 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.

3. The Court also refers to the recent decision of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Banks & Banks (2015) FamCAFC 36, especially at paragraphs 46 to 52.

   Consideration of the s 60CC factors that are relevant

   [46] In order to determine whether it is in the child’s best interests to remain in Thailand pending trial, we must consider matters arising under s 60CC.

   [47] As the Full Court pointed out in Goode, the fact there will often be little uncontested evidence in interim proceedings means that only limited consideration may be able to be given to the relevant s 60CC factors.

   [48] It should also be said that in parenting proceedings, as in all civil litigation, it will be the issues that are joined that will dictate which s 60CC factors are relevant. By their nature, interim parenting proceedings should be confined to those issues which, in the best interests of the child, require determination prior to a proper determination at a trial. The fact such disputes are commonly dealt with in overcrowded court lists makes it even more desirable to identify with precision those issues which can, or should, be resolved on an interim basis.

   [49] Although the primary judge discussed all the potentially relevant factors in her ex tempore reasons, that luxury will not always be available. Furthermore, there is a risk that in discussing every s 60CC factor, the judicial officer may lose sight of the forest for the trees. It is also important to stress here that the requirement to “consider” each factor does not mean each must be discussed, especially where the evidence leads inexorably to a particular conclusion: SCVG & KLD (2014) FLC 93-582.

   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. Moreover, it will be a sterile exercise to determine whether or not particular facts are disputed if they are relevant only to one of the non-determinative s 60CC considerations. Properly understood, we do not interpret what was said in Goode as meaning that in an interim case, each and every fact must be characterised as disputed or not; and that each s 60CC factor must be traversed where it is obvious on the facts and issues joined that there are only one or two decisive factors.

   [51] In our view, the undisputed facts here lead inexorably to the conclusion that it would not be in the child’s interests to be required to move to Australia pending the trial. In arriving at this conclusion we ought to record, without condescending to particulars, that it is arguable the primary judge was led into error in coming to a different conclusion by the way in which the case was presented to her.

   [52] In the following discussion, we will detail the most significant s 60CC factors we have taken into account in reaching our decision. The absence of discussion of any particular s 60CC factor does not reflect any failure to consider it. Rather, it reflects our assessment that such factor has no sufficient relevance in the circumstances of this case to displace the determinative significance of those factors we specifically address.

1. Section 60B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) sets out the objects of Part VII of the Act relating to children that inform the making of parenting orders.

2. 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.

3. 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).

The Best Interests of the Children

Section 60CC Considerations

(2)(a) - The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the parents:  a primary consideration.

1. The child has a meaningful relationship with both parents and would benefit from a continuance of those relationships.

2. Since about March 2015 the mother has been required by the father to spend time with the child at the maternal grandmother’s home. There is evidence from both the mother and the child that this arrangement has its limitations. Obviously, the child, under this arrangement, is unable to spend time with the mother in her usual home in (omitted) with Mr V and his children. As discussed below, the child’s views expressed to the Family Consultant at the Child Inclusive Conference clearly indicate that he wishes to spend more time with the mother.

3. Should this arrangement continue and the child not be permitted to spend time with the mother in her usual home with her new partner and his children, there is a real risk that the child’s relationship with the mother will not be enhanced and maintained. In this context, the Court notes, for example, the child’s comments to the Family Consultant at the Child Inclusive Conference that he would feel “weird” if he continued to spend time with the mother at the maternal grandmother’s home because he does not get to see the mother’s real house and what it looks like.

4. The Court gives significant weight to this meaningful relationship primary consideration. 

5. The Court is of the view, at this interim stage, that should the child spend time with the mother in the presence of Mr V, the child’s meaningful relationship with the father should not be detrimentally affected.

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

1. The Court has considered carefully the evidence relating to Mr V.  True it is that Mr V committed very serious criminal offences, however, he served his jail time, he sought to rehabilitate himself in jail, there was evidence of negative drug testing within jail, he was successful in obtaining employment whilst still serving his sentence, he served his parole time apparently without incident. He is now caring for his three (3) younger children in the (omitted) area. He has full-time employment. Mr V provided a sworn affidavit to the Court in these proceedings. He made frank admissions in that affidavit relating to his previously lying about his own use of heroin to protect his former girlfriend, Ms M. His affidavit includes evidence relating to his psychological issues and his past treatment in relation thereto.

2. Whilst the father understandably has developed his own concerns about the child spending time with the mother in the presence of Mr V, who has a serious criminal record, his concerns, as previously discussed in these reasons, including concerns expressed in his affidavits and statements to the Family Consultant at the Child Inclusive Conference, are not supported by any relevant objective evidence relating to Mr V’s present life and existence outside jail.

3. The Court notes the matters raised in the affidavit of Ms E. The Court notes that the allegations against Mr V in that affidavit are disputed by the mother but in any event, the Court would place little weight on her affidavit by reason of her apparent present unsatisfactory relationship with the mother. 

4. The Court has considered the subpoenaed material from the Department of Corrective Services, New South Wales, including the criticisms of the sentencing Judge of Mr V. However, the Court refers to the significant positive material relating to Mr V referred to in that material and again, the Court notes the frank admissions made by Mr V in his affidavit, referred to above. 

5. At this interim stage, based on the evidence before the Court, the Court is of the view that there is no unacceptable risk to the child in spending time with the mother in the presence of Mr V. The Court is of the view that there is no need to protect the child from the risk of abuse, neglect or family violence when spending time with the mother in Mr V’s presence. 

6. The Court gives significant weight to this need to protect primary consideration.

Section 60CC(3) - Additional Considerations

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

1. According to the mother, the child X is always enthusiastic about spending time with her. The mother asserts that this child often says to her that he wishes he could see her more and he wishes that he could go to her house. 

2. The mother states that the child X is aware that she is in a relationship with Mr V. She states that the child often asks her about Mr V. 

3. The father, in his affidavit evidence, states that the child has often said to him that he does not want to spend time with the mother because she just spends a lot of time on the phone or smoking. The father asserts that the child does not receive much of the mother’s attention while she is busy doing other things.

4. However, at the Child Inclusive Conference on 15 March 2016, the father stated that the child X looks forward to spending time with the mother. 

5. The child told the Family Consultant at the Child Inclusive conference that he hardly got to see the mother because of the existing alternate weekend arrangement. The child spoke positively about the mother and reiterated that he wanted to spend more time with her than alternate weekends. He stated that the maternal grandmother gets a bit bossy. The child stated that he wanted to spend more time with the mother. The child suggested, when asked, that he spend time with the mother in (omitted) so that his parents “don’t have to go to Court and have this big argument.” The child subsequently stated that he would feel “weird” if he continued to spend time with the mother at the maternal grandmother’s home because he does not get to see the mother’s real house and what it looks like. He also said that if he was able to spend time with the mother at her home in (omitted) that he would be able to see her dog that she had previously brought to the maternal grandmother’s home.

6. Whilst noting the age of the child X and also taking into account the mother’s assessment of this child that he is outgoing and mature, the Court nevertheless gives significant weight to his views.

(b) Nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child’s parents; and other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child)

1. The father asserts that the child has never met Mr V. He asserts that the child is upset about the mother’s relationship with him. The mother’s daughter, Ms E, with whom the mother has been experiencing a deteriorating relationship, states in her affidavit that she spoke to her stepmother who told her that she had met the mother and the child X and the child X “was bragging how he goes to see Mr V and his dad doesn’t know” (the mother denies this meeting). When the child X was confronted by Ms E in relation to this matter, the child denied ever having met Mr V.

2. At the Child Inclusive Conference, the mother told the Family Consultant that the child X and Mr V have a rapport. When the child was interviewed by the Family Consultant, the child denied that he had met or spoken with Mr V. However, the Family Consultant stated, in this context, that the child “appeared wary and to withdraw somewhat when asked about Mr [Mr V].”   

3. The Court is unable to resolve this factual dispute at this interim hearing and the Court refers to its discussion above under the “need to protect” primary consideration. 

(c) The extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and to spend time with the child; and to communicate with the child

1. At this interim stage, it would appear that both parents have taken such opportunities.

3(ca) The extent to which each of the child’s parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent’s obligations to maintain the child

1. There is evidence from the mother that while she does not pay regular child support to the father, she does pay for certain ancillary expenses relating to the child.

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

1. The mother told the Family Consultant at the Child Inclusive Conference that she thought the child would adjust to spending time with her at the residence of Mr V, because the child was outgoing and mature.

2. At this interim stage, the Court is of the view that the child’s meaningful relationship with the father should not be detrimentally affected should the child be permitted to spend time with the mother in the presence of Mr V at his home in (omitted). 

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

1. Not applicable.

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

1. At this interim stage, both parents would appear to have such capacity.

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

1. The Court refers to the “views of the child” additional consideration discussed above.

3(i) The attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents

1. Both parents would appear to have such appropriate attitudes.

3(j) Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family

1. There is disputed evidence at this interim hearing relating to what the mother alleges was controlling behaviour by the father during the relationship. There is other disputed evidence of family violence allegedly committed by the father.

Summary

1. Evaluating the above considerations under section 60CC of the Act, the Court is of the view that it would be in the best interests of the child that he spend time with the mother from after school on Friday to 5:00pm on Sunday each alternate weekend, commencing the first weekend following the date of these orders. It will be in the best interests of the child that the interim order sought by the father that the mother be restrained from bringing the child into contact with Mr V be dismissed.

2. The Court will now invite the parties to endeavour to reach agreement on any further interim parenting orders, consistent with the above interim orders of the Court.

I certify that the preceding ninety-one (91) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Newbrun

Date:         30 September 2016