PATAU & DALLON

[2016] FamCA 1039

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PATAU & DALLON [2016] FamCA 1039

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Undefended hearing – Where mother has filed a notice of discontinuance – Where no appearance by the mother – Where appropriate to proceed on an undefended basis – Where there are accusations of abuse against the mother – Where the child refuses to spend time with the mother – Where the father seeks sole parental responsibility – Best interests of the child – The child live with the father – The child spend time with the mother as agreed between the mother and the father

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60CC(2), 60CC(3), 61DA, 61DA(2), 61DA(3), 61DA(4), 65DAA, 65DAA(6)

Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346
Mazorski & Albright [2007] FamCA 520
McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92
MRR v GRR [2010] HCA 4

APPLICANT: Ms Patau

RESPONDENT: Mr Dallon

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Macdiarmid

FILE NUMBER: SYC 2652 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 2 December 2016

PLACE DELIVERED: Parramatta

PLACE HEARD: Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF: Justice Foster

HEARING DATE: 15 November 2016

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: No appearance

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Gillard

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Gillard Consulting Lawyers

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Coady as agent for Mark Macdiarmid Family Law Specialist

Orders

1. That all previous parenting orders are discharged.

2. That the father have sole parental responsibility for the child B born … 2003.

3. That the child live with the father.

4. That the child spend time with the mother as agreed between the father and the mother.

5. Pursuant to Section 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a party contravenes these Orders are included in these Orders, annexed hereto.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: SYC 2652 of 2007

Ms Patau

Applicant

And

Mr Dallon

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These are parenting proceedings commenced by the applicant mother by application filed on 19 March 2015 in the Federal Circuit Court.

2. The matter was transferred to the Family Court of Australia on 25 June 2015.

3. The application concerns the child B born in 2003 now 13.

Context

1. The applicant mother is aged 39. The respondent father is aged 55.

2. Final parenting Orders were made on 16 September 2008 providing for the child to live with the mother and spend alternate weekends with the father.  

3. Subsequent to events detailed later in these reasons, the mother filed an Initiating Application on 19 March 2015 seeking shared parental responsibility with the father, that the child live with the father and that the mother have telephone contact with the child on Wednesdays between 6.00 pm and 7.00 pm.

4. On 7 May 2015 orders were made by Judge Harmon in the Federal Circuit Court for the respondent to file a Response, the appointment of an Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) and for the parties to attend a suitability assessment for the provision of counselling services.

5. In the father’s Response to an Initiating Application filed 29 May 2015 he sought orders for shared parental responsibility except for schooling decisions for which he sought sole parental responsibility, that the child live with him and that the mother have telephone contact with the child on Wednesdays between 6.00 pm and 7.00 pm.

6. An Amended Initiating Application was filed by the mother on 15 June 2015 seeking substantially the same orders as sought in her original Initiating Application with the exception of the location of the Contact Centre sought to be utilised.

7. On 25 June 2015 Judge Harman in the Federal Circuit Court made the following Orders:

   (1)The child [B] born … 2003 (‘the child’) live with the father.

   (2)The child spend time with the mother as agreed between the parents and failing agreement:

   (a)Commencing on Friday 3 July 2015, each alternate Friday from 3.20 pm until 5.20 pm;

   (b)Commencing on Tuesday 7 July 2015, each alternate Tuesday from 3.20 pm until 5.20 pm.

   (3)For the purposes of the preceding Order changeover shall occur as follows:

   (a)On school days the mother shall collect the child from the school office of the child’s school ([C School]) (‘the school’) at the commencement of time and the mother shall deliver the child to the father at the front gates of the school at the conclusion of such time;

   (b)On non-school days the mother shall collect the child from the father outside the IGA at [Suburb D] Shopping Centre at the commencement of time and the mother shall deliver the child to the father at the same place at the conclusion of such time;

   (c)Upon changeover being effected the parent with whom the child is not spending time with will immediately remove themselves from the vicinity of the child and the other parent.

   (4)A supervisor from [E Contact Centre] at [Suburb F] (telephone…) (‘[E Contact Centre]’) shall be present during the mother’s time with the child pursuant to Order 2(a) and 2(b) above, and:

   (a)Such time is to be reportable by the supervisor;

   (b)Each parent will forthwith complete and return to [E Contact Centre] any necessary intake form and thereafter comply with any applicable policies of and directions from [E Contact Centre];

   (c)The parents are to be equally responsible for any fee payable to [E Contact Centre] for the supervision provided for pursuant to this Order and the Court notes that the cost per visit will be $121.00 in total.

8. On 25 June 2015 the matter was transferred to the Family Court of Australia.

9. On 18 August 2015 a Registrar made orders by consent that the parties attend Unifam’s Keeping Contact – Parenting Orders Program.

10. On 22 March 2016 Child and Parenting Issues Assessment interviews were conducted. The mother, the father and the child all participated.

11. An Amended Initiating Application was filed by the mother 7 June 2016 seeking orders that she have sole parental responsibility and child spend no time with the father. 

12. On 10 June 2016 orders were made for the parties to attend Unifam’s Keeping Contact – Parenting Orders Program and the matter was adjourned to 10 October 2016 before a Registrar.  

Procedural fairness

1. A Notice of Discontinuance was filed by the mother on 15 July 2016.

2. There was no appearance by the mother before the Registrar on 10 October 2016. It was ordered that the father file and serve an Amended Response and Affidavit within 28 days.  The matter was adjourned to 4 November 2016 for undefended hearing.

3. An Amended Response was filed by the father on 4 November 2016 seeking sole parental responsibility, that the child live with the father and that the child spend time with the mother as agreed between the mother and the father.

4. There was no appearance by the mother on 15 November 2016.

5. The Court was satisfied on 15 November 2016 that all appropriate attempts had been made to notify the mother and that in the circumstances it was appropriate for the matter to proceed on an undefended basis the mother having been afforded ample opportunity to engage in the proceedings. Judgment was reserved to a date to be fixed.

The father’s documents

1. The father relied on:

   a)His Amended Response to an Initiating Application filed 4 November 2016.

   b)His affidavit filed 4 November 2016.

The Father’s Evidence

1. Parenting Orders made 16 September 2008 provided for the child to live with the mother and for the father to spend time with the child on alternate weekends.

2. On 6 June 2014 the father received a call from the child requesting that the father pick the child up from the McDonalds at Suburb G. He met the mother and the child at that McDonalds and the child, then aged 11, stated she wanted to leave with the father. The mother agreed.  

3. On 10 June 2014 the father attended at the child’s school to speak to the mother and child . The child indicated that she wanted to leave with her father and not her mother. The parents spoke to the Principal of the school and the Principal called the Department of Family and Community Services.  The Department provided advice that the child should leave with the father and the mother should seek legal advice.

4. The child remained living with the father until 15 July 2014. On that date the father dropped the child off at the school in the morning and returned to the school that afternoon to pick the child up. The father saw the mother go into the child’s classroom and then come out swearing. The child came out of the classroom and told him that she had refused to leave with her mother. Both parents and the child went to the Principal’s Office and the police were called . The child became distressed and again refused to leave with the mother. The police indicated that the child should leave with the father but that the father should refrain from picking the child up the next day from school.

5. The following day on 16 July 2014 the father did not attend the school and the child left the school with her mother.

6. On Friday 18 July 2014 the father attended the school to collect the child in accordance with the Court Orders of 16 September 2008. The father asserts that the mother also attended the school believing it was her weekend to spend time with the child. The Principal checked the Court Orders and confirmed it was the father’s weekend to spend time with the child . The child left the school with the father. The father asserts he has not spoken to the mother since this date.

7. On the recommendation of a doctor from the Suburb H Medical Centre the father took the child to a psychotherapist at J Psychology Services on 22 July 2014.

8. On 24 July 2014 the father asserts that the child told him in the car that “Mum hit me, she didn’t prepare lunch for me or give me breakfast” . The child saw the psychotherapist for the second time on that date . The child continues to see the psychotherapist.  

9. Following the Orders made on 25 June 2015 providing that the  mother have unsupervised time with the child for two hours per week, the mother declined to spend time with the child. The father asserts that the mother has not sought to spend time with the child under these Orders.

10. As required by the 18 August 2015 Orders the father has attended the Keeping Contact – Parenting Orders Program with Unifam in November 2015. Unifam declined to continue to see the family as a result of the mother’s non-attendance.  

11. Further orders were made on 10 June 2016 ordering the parties to attend the Unifam Keeping Contact - Parenting Orders Program. The father attended the program on four occasions between September and November 2016 and the child attended with him on one of those occasions.  

12. The father has observed that there have been improvements in the child’s behaviour and performance at school since she came to live with him in July 2014.  

13. The child currently lives with the father and does not spend time with the mother.

Children and Parents Issues Assessment

1. A Children and Parents Issues Assessment was conducted on 22 March 2016.

2. The Family Consultant opined that the child:

   …presented as a somewhat immature child, who impressed as having some form of developmental delay, the nature of which could not be determined in this assessment . [The child] appeared, however, to understand all of the questions put to her.

3. The Family Consultant relevantly reported the following after her interview with the child:

   10. When asked about her relationship with her mother, [the child] was observed to pause and admitted that it was hard talking about [Ms Patau]. When asked why this was the case, [the child] stated, “Every time, she would hit me, screaming at me. Every time.” [The child] claimed that [Ms Patau] had hit her with her shoe and she went on to state, “One day she let me stay hungry for two days and I had to make myself lunch. She would leave me hungry. She didn’t care.” [The child] then went on to state, unprompted, “One of her relatives used to be on drugs.” When asked if she had spoken about this matter with her father, [the child] stated that she had. She denied, however, that [Mr Dallon] had instructed her about what to say to the family consultant during the interview.

   11. [The child] said that, when she had been living with [Ms Patau], she would report back to her father what her mother had done to her when she spent time with him. She denied that [Mr Dallon] would ask her about this, claiming that she had volunteered the information. [The child] went on to state, unprompted, “Me and my Dad have a lot of really, really good relationship.”

   12. In exploring the degree to which [the child] was open to potential relationship change with [Ms Patau], the family consultant asked [the child] what [Ms Patau] could ‘change’ in order for her to want to spend time with her and she stated that, even if [Ms Patau] changed, she would not want to see her again. [The child] declined to consider the possibility of meeting her mother for lunch once a fortnight. She said that even if [Ms Patau] agreed to her living with [Mr Dallon], she would still not want to see her. [The child] denied that her refusal to spend time with [Ms Patau] was a strategic move on her part, in order to influence her mother to agree to allow her to live with [Mr Dallon]. [The child] defended her position, relating several incidences where [Ms Patau] had allegedly refused to allow her telephone contact with [Mr Dallon]. She claimed that [Ms Patau] had taken her mobile phone so she could not call [Mr Dallon] and had lied to her about still having it in her possession, allegedly stating to her, “I already sold it to a person.” [The child] went on to state, “My Dad used to ring up the police and she [Ms Patau] threatened to me, saying, ‘Don’t tell anything she did to me.”

   13. [The child] said there is nothing she likes about [Ms Patau]. She said she does not believe that [Ms Patau] loves her, stating, “She says that she does, but I don’t see it.” When asked if she is scared of [Ms Patau], [the child] was observed to pause for a while, turning her head to the side, and she then stated, “The way she screams at me. Whenever she screams at me, I feel like I’m depressed. And I don’t feel like I’m somewhere safe with her.” 

4. The father made a number of allegations about the mother to the Family Consultant. The father alleged that the mother was repeatedly violent towards the child when the child was young and that he tried to protect the child before separation, that the child told him that the mother had failed to feed her and that the mother is mentally ill, having been diagnosed with depression with psychotic elements.

5. The mother asserted to the Family Consultant  that the father is campaigning to influence the child against her and that the child had contacted her through one of the child’s friend’s phone saying “I love you mum but please don’t tell my dad”.  

6. The mother stated to the Family Consultant that she had declined to spend two hours at a shopping centre with the child each week saying it was not enough time and that the paternal family was still in the area during this time causing the child to reject her.   

7. The Family Consultant came to the following conclusions:

   26. This assessment provides initial expert advice to the family and to the Court about the issues and the child’s needs. [Ms Patau] and [Mr Dallon] appear to have maintained an acrimonious parenting relationship since separation. Neither appears to trust or respect the other. [Mr Dallon] claimed that this is because [Ms Patau] is physically and verbally abusive towards [the child]. [Ms Patau] claimed that this is because [Mr Dallon] had maintained a long running campaign of allegations of physical and emotional abuse towards [the child], and that she [Ms Patau] suffers with a mental illness, in order to alienate [the child] from her. It appears that [the child] has been living amidst a toxic parental relationship, which has included multiple contacts with the police regarding her welfare. Living amidst entrenched parental conflict can cause mental health difficulties for children. [Mr Dallon] claimed that [the child] has bene (sic) diagnosed with anxiety and depression.”

   27. Both parties agree that, at present, [the child] has rejected a relationship with her mother, although, [Ms Patau] claimed that [the child] has sought to communicate that she loves her and misses her, via a third-party. The Court would need to determine the claims and counter claims of each party to determine the nature of [the child’s] alignment with [Mr Dallon]. Given that allegations of physical abuse have been made, consideration could be given for this matter to be referred to the Magellan Program. Given that [Mr Dallon] said that [the child] has been diagnosed with depression and anxiety, it is recommended that, should the Court require a further assessment, this be completed by a Child and Family Psychiatrist.”

   28. Given [Mr Dallon’s] apparent willingness to attend the Keeping Contact programme, and [Ms Patau’s] claim that she had been unaware of the program but is willing to attend, it is recommended that it be Ordered, in the interim, that the parents and the child complete the Keeping Contact programme.

8. The Family Consultant recommended inclusion of the matter in the Magellan program, that the parents and child complete the Keeping Contact – Parenting Orders Program, and that a Chapter 15 Child and Family Psychiatric Report may assist the Court.      

Parenting

1. The relevant principles in relation to parenting and interim proceedings are well settled in Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346. The High Court in MRR v GRR [2010] HCA 4 affirmed those principles.

2. Section 60B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) outlines the objects and principles underlying Part VII of the Act.

   (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).

1. Section 60CA provides that in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order, the Court is to regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.

2. Section 60CC then outlines the primary (sub-s (2)) and additional (sub-s (3)) considerations that the Court is to take into account in determining what is in the best interests of the child.

Parental Responsibility

1. Section 61DA of the Act provides that when making a parenting order, the Court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility. The presumption does not apply where:

   a)There are reasonable grounds to believe a parent has engaged in abuse of the child or family violence [s 61DA(2)];

   b)In interim proceedings where the Court considers that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for the presumption to be applied when making that order [s 61DA(3)]; and

   c)If the Court is satisfied that an order for equal shared parental responsibility would not be in the child’s best interests [s 61DA(4)].

2. If the presumption in s 61DA is to apply and the Court makes an order for equal shared parental responsibility, this “triggers” the operation of s 65DAA which requires the Court to consider whether equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent is in the child’s best interests and reasonably practicable. If an order for equal shared parental responsibility is made by consent the Court may but is not required to consider equal or substantial and significant time (s 65DAA(6)). There is no such consent in this matter.

3. Given the mother has withdrawn her application having filed a Notice of Discontinuance and has failed to engage with the child it is clear in this matter that upon a consideration of the best interest considerations (s 60CC) it is in the best interests of the child that the presumption not apply.

4. Accordingly, there is no need to consider equal or substantial and significant time. Appropriate time will be determined according to the best interest considerations. 

Best Interests

The Primary Considerations: s 60CC(2)

1. The primary considerations are:

   a)The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents; and

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

2. In applying the considerations set out in subsection (2), the Court is to give greater weight to the consideration set out in paragraph (b).

Section 60CC(2)(a) – “meaningful” relationship

1. In Mazorski & Albright [2007] FamCA 520, Brown J considered ordinary definitions of the term “meaningful” and observed:

   [26] What these definitions convey is that “meaningful”, when used in the context of “meaningful relationship”, is synonymous with “significant” which, in turn, is generally used as a synonym for “important” or “of consequence”. I proceed on the basis that when considering the primary considerations and the application of the object and principles, a meaningful relationship or a meaningful involvement is one which is important, significant and valuable to the child. It is a qualitative adjective, not a strictly quantitive one. Quantitive concepts may be addressed as part of the process of considering the consequences of the application of the presumption of equally shared parental responsibility and the requirement for time with children to be, where possible and in their best interests, substantial and significant.

2. In McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92, the Full Court at [118] accepted as appropriate this interpretation by Brown J of “meaningful relationship” and said:

   … the court should consider and weigh the evidence at the date of the hearing and determine how, if it is in a child’s best interests, orders can be framed to ensure the particular child has a meaningful relationship with both parents…

3. It is clear that the child has a very poor relationship with her mother . The child has indicated that she does not wish to see her mother and would not wish to see her mother even if her mother changed. There appears to be no meaningful relationship at this stage between mother and daughter and limited prospects for one in the future. These limited prospects are seemingly acknowledged by the mother given her filing of a Notice of Discontinuance.  

4. The child has a primary relationship with the father who has been her primary carer for over two years now since June 2014.  It is important for this relationship to continue.

Section 60CC(2)(b) – need to protect

1. This is an overwhelming consideration and must be given priority over issues as to relationship. In the light of the accusations of abuse against the mother and the refusal of the child to see the mother, there are significant risk factors involved in the child spending time with the mother except with the father’s consent.  

2. This consideration, which is given primacy, is supportive of the orders sought by the father.

The additional consideration: s 60CC(3)

1. Section 60CC(3) sets out the 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;

   b)        The nature of the relationship of the child with:

   i)        Each of the child's parents; and

   ii)Other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);

   c)The extent to which each of the child's parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity:

   i)To participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and

   ii)       To spend time with the child; and

   iii)      To communicate with the child;

   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;

   d)The likely effect of any changes in the child's circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:

   i)        Either of his or her parents; or

   ii)Any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);

   with whom he or she has been living;

   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;

   f)        The capacity of:

   i)        Each of the child's parents; and

   ii)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;

   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;

   h)        If the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child:

   i)The child's right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture); and

   ii)The likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right;

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

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

   k)If a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child's family--any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following:

   i)        The nature of the order;

   ii)       The circumstances in which the order was made;

   iii)      Any evidence admitted in proceedings for the order;

   iv)Any findings made by the court in, or in proceedings for, the order;

   v)         Any other relevant matter;

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

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

2. Many of the considerations above are relevant in the context of the background matters discussed.

3. The child has expressed a strong view to live with her father and spend no time with her mother . The child is now 13 years of age, however, according to the Family Consultant the child is immature and may have a developmental delay . The child’s views will be given some weight, however, her views will be considered in the context of the maturity level of the child and the fact that the child has consistently discussed parenting issues and allegations of abuse with her father.  

4. It is not disputed that the child has a hostile relationship with the mother and has a strong relationship with the father. There are indications that the child has a strong relationship with the paternal family, particularly her paternal uncles who live with the child in the same household.

5. Since June 2014 the father has been the primary carer for the child and appears to have made the significant decisions in the child’s life. The mother has not seen the child since June 2014 and has declined the opportunity to spend time with the child as per Court Orders from 25 June 2015. In discontinuing her application, the mother appears to be declining the opportunity to participate in long term decisions for the child.  

6. Since the child has been living with the father there is no indication that the father has failed to maintain the child.

7. The orders the father seeks will not result in any change in the child’s current circumstances. It seems unlikely that the mother and father will be able to agree on the time the mother should spend with the child, as suggested in the orders sought by the father, given the distrust between the parties. It also seems unlikely that the child will actually spend any time with the mother regardless of agreement between the parents given her constant refusal to do so up until this point.  

8. There is no practical difficulty that exists in the child spending time with the mother.  The stumbling block is the child’s strongly expressed wishes.  

9. As per the recommendations of the Family Consultant and the 18 August 2015 Orders and the 10 June 2016 Orders the father has been completing the Unifam Keeping Contact – Parenting Orders Program. The mother has failed to comply with the Orders to complete the program.

10. Allegations made by the father and the child of violence by the mother have been detailed earlier in these reasons. In the context of the child living with the father there is no immediate risk . The child is getting to an age where she can self-protect should time with the mother recommence by agreement.

11. Each of the above considerations supports the orders as sought by the father that are clearly in the best interests of the child.

Orders

1. Orders will be made as set out at the forefront of these reasons for judgment.

I certify that the preceding seventy (70) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Foster delivered on 2 December 2016.

Associate: 

Date:  2 December 2016