Paul and West

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PAUL & WEST

[2009] FamCA 1015

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN - Equal time – when additional days are not in the child’s best interest

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Rice v Asplund [1978] 6 Fam LR 570
Lake & Karter [2009] FamCA 682

APPLICANT:

Mr Paul

RESPONDENT:

Ms West

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Cope Family Law

FILE NUMBER:

CSC

529

2008

DATE DELIVERED:

28 October 2009

PLACE DELIVERED:

Hobart

PLACE HEARD:

Cairns

JUDGMENT OF:

Benjamin J

HEARING DATE:

7 & 8 October 2009

REPRESENTATION

FOR THE APPLICANT:

Applicant in person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Bentley

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Leahmann Featherstone

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Mayes

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Cope Family Law

Orders

All previous parenting orders regarding C born … April 1999 (“the child”) be discharged.
The mother have sole parental responsibility for the child but will keep the father informed in a timely way of any major exercise of such parental responsibility power by her.
The child live with the mother.
The child spend time with the father as agreed in writing between the parties and, failing such agreement as follows:-
(a)during school term - each second weekend from after school Friday until the commencement of school on Tuesday with such time to commence on the first weekend after the commencement of school term if the child spent the second last weekend before the preceding school holiday with the father AND shall start on the second weekend after commencement of school term if the child spent the weekend immediately before the preceding school holiday with the father;
(b)in 2010 for the first half of the Queensland gazetted Easter, June/July and September school holidays and each alternate year thereafter, with such time to commence on the Friday after school on the last day of term and to end on the following Friday at 4.30pm;
(c)in 2011 for the second half of the Queensland gazetted Easter, June/July and September school holidays and each alternate year thereafter with such time to commence on the first Friday after the commencement of those holidays at 4.30pm and to end on the following Friday at 4.30pm.
(d)Subject to Christmas Day arrangements for three weeks during the Queensland gazetted school holidays, to be taken as follows:-
(i)In December 2010/January 2011 for the first, third and fifth week of such school holiday period and each alternate year thereafter;
(ii)In December 2009/January 2010 the second, forth and sixth week of such school holiday period, and each alternate each year thereafter;
(iii)If the child is to be with the father on the first week of such holidays then such time to commence from after school Friday of the last day of school term. If the child is to be with the father the second week of such holiday then 4.30pm on the first Friday after the start of such Christmas/New Year holiday period. The changeovers shall be at 4.30 pm of each week and the child must at the latest be returned to the mother from the last Friday of that holiday period until the commencement of term one in each year.
(e)in 2010 - from 2.30pm Christmas Day until 2.30pm Boxing Day and each alternate year thereafter; and in 2009 - from 2.30pm on Christmas Eve until 2.30pm Christmas Day and each alternate year thereafter; this order to ensure that in even numbered years the child lives with the mother from 2.30pm on Christmas Eve until 2.30pm on Christmas Day and in odd numbered years the child lives with the mother from 2.30pm on Christmas Day until 2.30pm on Boxing Day;
(f)on Father’s Day from 10.00am until 4.00pm in the event that it does not fall on a weekend where the child would otherwise spend time with the father;
(g)on the child’s birthday for a period of two hours from 3.00pm until 5.00pm AND in the event the child’s birthday falls on a day when the child would otherwise spend time with the father, the mother is to spend time with the child on his birthday for two hours from 3.00pm until 5.00pm.
The child live with the mother during Queensland gazetted school holidays as follows:-
(a)in 2010 - from 2.30pm on Christmas Eve until 2.30pm on Christmas Day and in each alternate year thereafter - 2009 from 2.30pm on Christmas Day until 2.30pm on Boxing Day and in each alternate year thereafter
(b)the remaining times during school holiday periods.
In the event that Mother’s Day falls on a weekend when the child otherwise spends time with the father – such time with the child will be suspended between 10.00am and 4pm on Mother’s Day and the child will be returned to the mother during that time.
If the father is unable to care for the child during his holiday period pursuant to these orders the father will arrange for the child to be placed in K Vacation Care (or such other place agreed in writing between the parties), and in addition to any of the father’s child support obligations, the father will be responsible for such vacation care cost.
Each party will inform and keep the other party informed of details of their current residential address, land base and mobile telephone numbers and will advise the other by email within forty eight (48) hours of any change of same.
The mother will authorise the child’s day care centres, schools or medical practitioners to speak to the father regarding the child’s welfare and development and will provide the father with any relevant reports or documents relating to the child.
Each party will advise the other, as soon as possible, should the child become seriously ill, injured or requires hospitalisation.
Each party, whilst the child is not in their care, will have reasonable telephone contact with the child with such contact to be initiated by the parent who does not have the child in their care.
Whilst the child is in the respective parties care, they will allow the child to telephone the other party at reasonable times if the child requests to do so.
The child be known by the name C Paul and the parties be and the parties are each restrained enrolling the child in any organisation, school or group by any other name.
Neither party will denigrate the other party, their partner or family members in the presence or hearing of the child.
Both parties will communicate by way of a communication book and email.
Both parties be restrained from discussing these court proceedings with the child or making available to the child information about these proceedings either directly or indirectly.
In relation to any exercise of the mother’s parental responsibility the mother will inform the father of any significant use of the question of parental responsibility.
BY CONSENT the parties agree to the child being enrolled in S High School for his education from year 8 onwards and the mother is not empowered under these orders to change that proposed enrolment without the father’s written consent or order of a court exercising jurisdiction under the Family law Act 1975 (Cth).
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.
All subpoenaed documents be returned to the persons or institutions from which they emanated and all exhibits are returned to the person or persons who tendered the same.
This matter be removed from the list of cases requiring determination.
The appointment of the Independent Children’s Lawyer be discharged as and from the date of these orders.
IT IS CERTIFIED
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 under the pseudonym Paul & West is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT HOBART

FILE NUMBER: CSC 529 of 2008

Mr Paul

Applicant

And

Ms West

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

This is a parenting case about entrenched and at times blind conflict which is likely to be causing significant emotional damage to this child.
C is 10 years old. His parents separated in April 2002 soon after his third birthday. His parents have been in conflict ever since and have been engaged in court proceedings since shortly before the child’s fifth birthday. More than half the child’s life has been taken up in observing and managing the conflict between his parents.
In April 2006 (shortly after the child’s seventh birthday) final consent orders were made that the child live with his mother and that the parents have joint parental responsibility. The parents agreed that the child spend four nights per week during school term and half the school holidays with his father.
Those consent orders did not resolve the conflict, which continued. In August 2008 the father filed a fresh application seeking that the child spend half of his time with him and half of his time with the mother.
In 2009 the father indicated he was seeking an additional one day per fortnight, that the child spend time with him and during the hearing the father said he would hope that this would develop from five days to six days and then seven days over the coming years.
The mother opposes the father’s application and seeks orders that the current arrangements of four days per fortnight remain in place and that she have sole parental responsibility.

THE ISSUES

The issues on the surface are relatively limited, they are:-
(a)whether the current arrangements should be altered from four days a week to five days a week;
(b)whether the current arrangements for equal shared parental responsibility should remain in force or whether the mother should have sole parental responsibility;
(c)whether the arrangements with regard to time the child spends with the father on weekends should continue over the school holiday periods, thus having a start date in 2009 with a strict regime thereafter. I will deal with this interaction between school holiday weeks and school weeks early in these reasons.
In these reasons any statement of fact is to be regarded as a finding of fact unless the contrary intention occurs.

The interaction between school holidays and fortnightly time

The father sought an order that the weekends that the child spend with him roll through into the school holiday periods. This in the context that the child spends a week with him in each of the mid term school holiday periods and week about over the Christmas/New year school holiday periods.
What the father was suggesting was that if the child was to be otherwise with him in accordance with the rhythm during school term, the last weekend before the school holidays started, then the mother would have the child for the first week of the school holidays and the father would have the child for the second week of the school holidays, thus ensuring regularity of this.
I invited the counsel for the mother and counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer to reflect on this suggestion. The concerns of the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the mother were that this could interfere with the arrangements at Easter and Christmas and could lead to confusion bearing in mind the availability to increase time over the Christmas/New Year period and that calculations in years to come may have to come back some considerable period of time, thus causing argument and confusion.
The father, to his credit, did not argue that these problems could not occur but said that he would, if pressed, adopt the fall back position of the Independent Children’s Lawyer which was that if the child was in the father’s care for the weekend immediately before any particular school holidays then his fortnightly time would start the second weekend after the commencement of term.
The mirror image of that would occur, that is if the child was in the care of the mother for the last weekend before school holidays then the child would be with the father for the first weekend after the school holidays end.
That solution is sensible and addresses the concerns of the father in relation to a constant rhythm of time that the child spends with him. It avoids possible problems with regard to Easter and Christmas and the need to calculate back to some date in the distance or past.
The arrangement would also be for the time to go from Friday to Friday during school holidays (subject to Christmas Day).
The mother supported that view and I propose to make changes to the orders to reflect that sensible proposal.
The father was unrepresented and as a consequence his ability to present his case was not at the level available to the mother (who was represented) and the Independent Children’s Lawyer, although the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s task was, and the Independent Children’s Lawyer undertook that task well, in terms of putting forward a child focused approach. As such I took time to keep the father informed about the process and invited him to raise questions when in doubt. I ensured that he had appropriate materials, such as pens, paper and relevant documents.

Rice v Asplund

At the commencement of the hearing the mother’s lawyer sought to have the application struck out pursuant to the principle in the marriage of Rice v Asplund [1978] 6 Fam LR 570. I deferred that decision to later in the hearing when the evidence became clearer. As the hearing progressed it became clear that there would need to be a change to the orders and the mother abandoned that summary dismissal application and sought changes to the parenting orders.

High School

During the course of exchanges between the bench and the parties (either directly or through their counsel) an issue seemed to arise with regard to which high school the child should attend. After some enquiry it was clear that both parties agreed the child would commence Year 8 at S High School. I will make that order by consent. The order reflects something that will happen in about two and a half years time and the mother quite properly observed that if circumstances changed, such as the parties became far more financially viable, it may be that private schools might become available as an option for the child’s schooling. If that is the case then either party can make an application to the court showing any significant change in circumstances. But as it stands now the agreement is that the child would go to S High School commencing Year 8 in 2013.
As there were consent orders made in 2006 there seemed little value in argument and finding of events prior to that date and this proceeding was primarily concerned with events which had occurred subsequent to 2006.

BACKGROUND

Both parties are aged about 49. After separation the mother formed a relationship with her present husband, Mr West. Subsequent to that time she and Mr West married. Their household comprises the child, Mr West, his daughter and the mother. The father thinks well of Mr West and there are no significant concerns raised by the father in respect of the mother’s care of the child with the exception of his complaints about the conflict.
The father presently lives by himself and with the child from time to time. In March 2007 he married Ms A, a Chinese citizen who does not reside in this country. The father and Ms A are awaiting the outcome of Ms A’s Australian visa application.
The father anticipates that when Ms A comes to Australia she will live with him in his home. He has not thought through carefully, at this stage, how to gently and carefully introduce the child to Ms A. That, at some levels, reflects poorly on his insight into parenting.
These proceedings seem to have been precipitated after a relative lull in conflict in 2008. In that year Mr West endeavoured to act as a mediator between the mother and the father. They put together a number of limited proposals to try and diminish the conflict that exists between the parties.
One of those proposals was the rolling weekend type approach with regard to the school holidays which was sought by the father. The other was an arrangement for the father to collect the child from the mother’s home rather than from the school.

THE EVIDENCE

Mr West’s Evidence

Mr West impressed as a witness as being frank, trying to facilitate time but being frustrated by the father’s aggression. I accept Mr West to be a witness of honesty and to be acting in a way to promote the relationship between the child and the father and who has endeavoured to minimise the conflict between the parents.

The Father’s Evidence

The father was an angry man. He was not a convincing witness. Counsel for the mother submitted that his evidence was evasive and unreliable. I agree with that assessment. I do so because of a number of aspects to his evidence. The family consultant observed in her report of 23 January 2009 that:-[1]
he [the father] believed that his neighbour’s son [B] was a competent baby-sitter for [the child].
[1] At paragraph 72.
B was at the time aged about 14 and the child aged about 9. The association of two boys of those ages and with their differing maturity and development was not intrinsically wrong but certainly needed supervision. The father denied that he left the child alone with B but equivocated on that evidence. He became agitated when giving evidence when it was put to him that B might be “slow”.[2] When it was put to him that he had told that to the family consultant he equivocated and said words to the effect that ‘the child had ADHD and was slow’.[3] His evidence was unconvincing and had and air of reconstruction about it.
[2] At paragraph 14 of the Family Report dated 23 January 2009.
[3] Ibid.
The father obfuscated and prevaricated and the father was not a particularly impressive witness.

The Mother’s Evidence

The mother gave evidence in accordance with her affidavit. The mother was cross-examined first by the Independent Children’s Lawyer and then by the father. The mother gave direct evidence and clearly finds it difficult to communicate with the father. She has, this year, with the help of Mr West, moderated her language in emails but she avoids talking to the father. I accept the mother as generally a witness of honesty, albeit from her own subjective point of view.

THE FAMILY REPORT
The concerns about the child

A family report had been prepared by Mr P prior to the 2006 orders and an updated report was ordered for these proceedings in December 2008. A short form Family Report was prepared by family consultant, Ms M (“the family consultant”) in January 2009. In that report the family consultant observed[4]:-
[the child] described some significant symptoms of anxiety and sleep problems that are most likely related to the high conflict co-parenting relationship between the parents. These symptoms appear to have worsened over the last six months and I suspect may soon begin to interfere with [the child’s] day to day functioning.
Thus it is important that [the child] attends an appointment with a child psychologist for an assessment of his emotional difficulties and to commence a treatment program.[5]
[4] Ibid at paragraph 62.
[5] Ibid at paragraph 63.
The family consultant went on to say that a number of factors that “predict poor mental health outcomes for children in shared parenting arrangements”[6] which are indicated in this case.
[6] Ibid at paragraph 67.
The mother had been alert to the emotional and psychological struggles which this then 9 year old boy was facing. She had gone to see his General Practitioner who in turn referred the child to a mental health nurse. After seeing the child’s General Practitioner the mother informed the father of what was happening. The child saw the mental health nurse and an appointment was made for the child to see a psychologist, Ms F. The mother informed the father of the details of that appointment. The father contacted Ms F. She cancelled the appointment to see the child. The father said this cancellation occurred before he spoke with Ms F.

The father does not believe the child is suffering emotionally or psychologically in any way with regard to the conflict. His evidence was that he saw none of the symptoms observed by the mother and the family consultant.
However, the father’s assertion that the child was not suffering as a result of the parental conflict, became more difficult for the father when the family consultant recommended treatment (subsequent to the efforts by the mother for the child to see Ms F).
As a consequence of the family consultant’s recommendations an appointment was made for the child to see Mr T (“the psychologist”). The psychologist saw the child on two occasions and expressed a view that he could not assist more. When pressed he saw the child on another two or three occasions.
There was an issue between the parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer as to whether the counselling with the psychologist should continue. The psychologist had felt that the problems identified by the family consultant had been overcome by the time he saw the child. However, he agreed to continue spending some time with the child.
The psychologist emailed the Independent Children’s Lawyer on 30 April 2009 and said that the father came to see him unannounced and the father claimed that the mother was the difficult element. The psychologist said he felt the father was “attempting to subvert to his own ends, my involvement in the case”.[7]
[7] Exhibit ICL 1 page G61.
At the end of the treatment the psychologist opined there was not much more he could do with a child who was not particularly open with him and was clearly not prepared to engage in any meaningful way with that psychologist. I am satisfied on the evidence that the father undermined the child’s willingness to attend at the psychologist in view of the father’s concerns that the problem was not the child’s but the problem of the mother.
As this conflict continues it is having a significant detrimental effect on the mental health of this child.
If I leave the parental responsibility for treatment of this to the father nothing will happen. I am concerned that the father will meddle in treatment of this child in terms of the struggles he has with his parent’s conflict. There is no doubt that this child loves both parents and wants a relationship with both parents.
The child’s mother has been his primary carer and continues to be his primary carer. The father cares for the child but certainly not to the same level as the mother. When issues arise as to concerns about the child the father dismisses them and raises concerns about the mother. The father works full time in his own business. When the child is in the father’s care the child is often left to be supervised by the father’s flatmate or with B. The father wants to impose more of this upon the child by seeking to spend more time with him. I find this is not for the benefit of the child, but is simply the father endeavouring to implement his long held determination the child should spend half his time with him, because that is what the father wants.
This determination of the father is irrespective of any damage to the child. It is significant to note that the family consultant says of the child at present that:-[8]
82.[the child] is barely coping with four nights a fortnight and shared holiday time.
[8] Of the Family Report dated 23 January 2009.
The father has rejected the family consultant’s observations as it does not meet his views of the child. The child’s grades at school in English and Maths have fallen from “A” to “C”. The father rejects this as it does not fit within the paradigm that the father has created for himself.
The mother does not object to the child having a friendship with B. Like any sensible parent she believes that friendship needs to be monitored bearing in mind the age and maturity difference between the children. At the time of the Family Report the child was 9 and B was 14 or 15.
The comments made by the family consultant and the mother were that the father should just be careful and watch. That was not necessarily an attack on B but rather a cautious note of a sensible parent. However, the father took the mother’s caution as an attack on the child and enlisted B’s mother to his cause. B’s mother quite properly gave evidence defensive of her child and denied any risk. The father’s focus was on protecting his position and not on being a careful and prudent parent overseeing the care of a then 9 year old child.
The child is engaged in sport and plays soccer. Clearly the father was not enamoured by the child’s involvement in the sport, despite the child being good at it and enjoying his participation in that activity. There is some evidence that in the past the father did not take the child to a soccer match but that issue was not tested in these proceedings. What is clear is that from time to time the father gets the child to soccer late and/or immediately before the game commences which causes the child to be upset.
When this was raised with him the father again sprang into a defensive mode. He became aggressive and acknowledged that he sometimes made mistakes but that he had things to do. The father does not encourage the child’s engagement in this sport despite the child’s love of it.
I find that the father is more interested in his time with the child as a measurement rather than allowing the child to develop in a broader way.
When the father attends the child’s soccer games he generally stands close to the mother. The father said he does not attend many of the child’s games because he is afraid the mother might complain to the police. The father is a person who expresses himself forcefully and the father knows this impacts upon the mother (such as his attendance at the mother’s workplace in the past). His demeanour as an advocate and in the witness box gave ample example of an overbearing, angry and forceful type of person. There is no reason why the father could not attend the child’s soccer games but stand away from the mother. He gave no satisfactory explanation as to why he chose to stand close to the mother. This conflict would be apparent to the child and would interfere with his enjoyment of his sport.
The father complained about the mother pressuring him with regard to the child attending a representative game of soccer this year in Townsville. This is an example of the difficulties the mother and child cope with in terms of the father.
On about 4 April 2009 the child was selected in a representative team to travel to Townsville. The mother was given a letter setting out the details of this. The child rang the father on that day informing him that he had been selected in that team. The trip was to take place on a weekend in June/July 2009 when the child would otherwise spend time with the father. The mother prepared and sent an email to the father and in addition posted to the father the letter setting out the details of the game.
The email[9] sent on the 13 April 2009 was conciliatory. It set out that the soccer trip would impact on the father’s time with the child and the mother suggested that she could either take the child or the father could take the child. She observed that the trip was not funded and asked for a response. The father complained that the letter was sent far too late. That is nonsense. The letter was sent the following week and the email at a time the letter was to be received this being in early April in respect of a June/July activity.
[9] Exhibit F1.
One week after receiving the mother’s email the father wrote back and said:-
as the school holidays are three months away I still have plenty of time to make my decision and I will not be rushed. The decision will be made pending the outcome of the case in the Family Court on 22 May 2009 and how my work is going at the time. I ask that you respect my decision.[10]
[10] Exhibit F2.
The father prevaricated in terms of this evidence when presented to him and said the child knew he could go. I do not accept that evidence. The father was willing to have the child wait, which for this child would have been an extraordinary length of time, until May 2009 for a court to decide whether the child could go on his soccer trip and what the arrangements were.
There was no reason why a simple decision about this parenting issue could not have been made. The father did not adopt a co-operative approach but rather adopted an approach which had the possibility of causing distress to his son.
This is one of the factors I needed to give consideration to in terms of parental responsibility, as submitted by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, particularly including sport in relation to parent’s ability to negotiate. Unfortunately, having regard to the all of the facts including the circumstances of the child’s involvement in soccer, I am not satisfied that the father has the capacity to enter into meaningful negotiations with the mother to jointly make decisions regarding their child.
The father’s concern with regard to their negotiations was that the mother may impose upon him sports regimes and the like which would interfere with the time the child spends with him. Since 2006 there has been no example of this and the mother has generally been reasonable within her approach, despite her concerns of being intimidated and bullied by the father.
The father entered into negotiations with Mr West to put in place different arrangements. The father said that the “rolling weekend” type approach that he suggested with regard to school holidays was agreed in early 2008. He said it was a final agreement.
Mr West said that it was a temporary agreement to see how it would go and it had no end to it. On balance, having regard to comments made elsewhere in these reasons, I prefer the evidence of Mr West.
The event that undid this reduction of conflict between the parents took place in June or July 2008 and was a precursor to these proceedings.
An arrangement was made by the father and Mr West for the father to pick up the child from the mother’s home. The arrangement was for the child to be picked up at or after 5.00pm on a particular day.
The father objected to this arrangement on a particular day and unilaterally changed it. He went to the school to collect the child. The child was concerned about this and rang his mother. The mother (contrary to the approach suggested by the father) encouraged the child to go with the father. The father then took the child to the mother’s home to collect some items. The father said no-one was at home. In fact Mr West’s teenage daughter was at home but she had expressed to Mr West that she had concerns about the father. As a consequence she did not identify herself.
The father adopted this unilateral approach in breach of the agreement and then complained about the behaviour of the mother. The impact of this was that
Mr West felt he could no longer rely on the father and walked away from the negotiations. Mr West is prepared to step back into those negotiations albeit with some concern. Mr West was concerned that his daughter, who was only 16, ought not to be left to deal with the father. That is a child centred and sensible approach bearing in mind the father’s aggressive and demanding approach to parenting.

The child’s wishes

The mother says that the child is managing with the current arrangements. She says the child does not wish to spend more time with the father but that the emotional cost and energy involved in arguing with the father is such that the child just now agrees.
The mother says the father has demanded equal time for many years and has, on numerous occasions, raised this with the child who has in turn raised it with her. The child has raised it with her not in terms of wanting to do so but rather in terms of his father constantly pursuing this issue with him.
The father says that the question of equal time came from the child “out of the blue”. I do not believe the father. He has relentlessly pursued equal time over a long period.
The father says that he is pursuing this because of the wishes of the child. The family consultant has said the child will “agree with each parent when they suggest a living arrangement”[11] to keep the peace. Having regard to the report of the family consultant and her evidence and the evidence before me I am satisfied that the child is comfortable in the current arrangement and that any desire expressed by him, to the father, to spend equal time with the father is merely the child repeating that which the father says to him.
[11] Paragraph 59 of the Family Report dated the 23 January 2009.
One of the interesting aspects of the evidence was when the father expressed a view that when the child went to high school he could “make up his own mind”. I pointed out to the father that the power of a court was such that it could make orders for children beyond high school years. The father was clearly aghast at this proposition as he displayed a strong belief that once the child went to high school the child could make up his own mind.
I fear that this child will be the subject of enormous pressure placed on him by the father when he attends high school. The father has little insight into the damage his persistence in this regard is doing to the child. His persistence is not child focused it is self focused. The father wants the child to be at his home not because it is better or more comfortable or a calmer place for the child but so that the time he has with the child is “equal”. For the father it is about slicing up the pie and not about the best interests of the child.
A further example of the father’s approach, in a relatively simple way, is what the mother described as “trivial” things. The mother puts ice bricks in the child’s lunch box as there are no fridges at school for the children’s lunches. The father does not return these ice bricks. When the mother enquired about it she received a sarcastic reply but still the ice bricks were not returned. It is petty and serves no purpose but to increase the conflict.
In 2006, 2007 and 2008 the mother was working in a retail shop. The father said he attended that shop because it was cheap. However, he did not dispute, that he attempted to serve papers on the mother, that he wrote a letter of complaint when the mother refused to serve him. What he hoped to achieve by such a letter, was that perhaps the mother would lose her job and the attendant income, which in turn would have an effect on the child’s standard of living! The father was behaving in a spiteful manner and if the child was hurt by the complaint he at best had no insight into it and at worst he did not care. The mother sets out a litany of the father’s behaviour at her place of employment.
The mother gave evidence that she feels intimidated and bullied by the father, I accept that evidence. The father cross-examined her on this point and his cross-examination was carried out with his face flushed and his voice raised and his manner was intimidatory. I raised this with him but he could or would not acknowledge it. I am satisfied that the father is from time to time intimidatory and bullying of the mother when he communicates with her.
The mother no longer works at the retail business and now works part time. Her evidence, which I accept, is that she is now at home to care for the child. Even when she was working in retail she only worked 32 hours per week and adjusted her hours to meet the need of the child.

Evidence of Mr T

Evidence was given by Mr T the psychologist. His qualifications were not in issue and he gave evidence in accordance with his affidavit filed 1 October 2009. Whilst he saw the child on five occasions, and having regard to the evidence of the family consultant, I am concerned that the child’s emotional health issues have not been dealt with. This is not a reflection on
Mr T but reflection on the difficulties this child has endured as a result of the conflict between his parents.

Evidence of the Family Consultant

The family consultant gave evidence in accordance with her report. She expressed the view that this is not a matter where there can be joint parenting. Of that I agree.
The family consultant, having regard to the pressure that was put on the child by at least one, possibly two of his parents, did not ask for his views. He was informed by the family consultant that he did not have to express his views if he did not want to and he kept quiet on that aspect. The family consultant expressed the view that the child felt he did not have a voice. She said, and I accept, that the child still feels frightened when his father yells at him although his father “no longer snaps and yells at him as much”.
This is significant evidence which I accept and which predicates against any additional time being spent between the child and the father.
The child’s symptoms which concerned the family consultant were the high conflict and anxiety, lack of sleep and his pre-disposition to this.
The father suggested that the family consultant’s view had been swayed by a telephone call from the mother in coming to her conclusions about the risk to the child. The family consultant made it clear that this was her independent view. I accept and prefer her evidence in that regard.
The family consultant is not satisfied that the psychologist has solved the child’s underlying problems but hopes that he has given the child strategies to manage the conflict.
It is not difficult to find in this matter that there is high conflict between the parents and that it is not likely to diminish.
The mother complained about the father’s supervision of the child particularly with his friend B. This is not an attack on B. The father could not and would not acknowledge any concerns with regard to this including during his discussions with the family consultant. The family consultant expressed concern about the father’s lack of child focus and set out some examples. The father challenged those examples and some questions of lack of supervision. The father said these did not occur.
However the father acknowledged that from time to time he did not supervise the child. I accept the evidence of the family consultant that the father demonstrates a lack of child focus. This is not to be taken as a lack of love by the father of the child
The family consultant strongly recommends against the father’s request for more time with the child. I share the underlying concerns that gave rise to that recommendation. This is not a case for equal time. If the conflict continues it may be a matter where, in the future the time needs to be reduced further rather than increased. The father claims the mother wishes to drive a wedge between himself and the child. I do not accept that submission. The evidence is that the father does not recognise the conflict or understand its impact on his son.
That is not to say the conflict is all one sided. The mother has in the past from time to time reacted strongly to the father’s behaviour. That has placed more pressure on the child.
The father does not presently pay child support and has recently been in arrears. This makes his attacks on the mother’s former employment perverse. The father’s approach to child support demonstrates a lack of a serious approach towards his responsibilities of parenting. The father previously worked as a driver three days per week. He now works 9.00am until 5.00pm Monday to Friday and 9.00am until 1.00pm Saturdays. When he is at work his flat mate looks after the child, although the child has complained to the mother (and I accept that evidence) that the flat mate is not always present. There seems no reason why the child ought not to be at the mother’s home during some of that time.
The extra day that the father seeks is not for any special purpose but to leave the child primarily in the care of the father’s flat mate.

The father’s application in a way is quite peculiar in that he says he wants the child to spend more time with him but then goes from a three day a week job to a five and a half day a week job.
Much seemed to be made by the father of his marriage. He has married and his wife has not as yet arrived in Australia. I raised with him whether he had put in place some sort of plan for introducing the child to his new wife (bearing in mind that she is not able to speak English particularly well at this stage) but the father had not done so. There is no problem with the father’s new marriage or introducing the child to the wife although some thought needs to be put into place as to how this can be done in a sensible and child focused way.
I am satisfied the mother will encourage the relationship between the child and the father. Her evidence is that she has from time to time allowed special occasions. She agrees with the family consultant that if there is a special event or holiday she will try and accommodate that change.
Although this finding is not without some reservations. The father went to visit his family in Adelaide for a particular family function and the mother would not re-organise her weekend. That seemed to me to be adding to the conflict of the child not being able to go with the father. However the evidence of Mr West is that the mother is learning to better deal with the father and whilst her reaction from time to time in the past has not been as one would hope I am satisfied that she has the capacity to adjust. The mother sought counselling and is in her tenth session.
The father on the other hand, despite attending a parenting course, and a Lifeline Counsellor Course, according to the family consultant “still demonstrates a lack of child focus”.
Another example of the father’s approach was when the child in recent times was sick at school. The evidence of the father was that he took the child to school on a particular Tuesday, the child was sick; the school rang the mother who took the child home. The father says that the child had a severe asthma attack and that the father was not told for seven days. He complained that this was an example of the mother not keeping him informed.
The evidence of the mother was that the child had been in the care of the father on the Monday and the child had been sent to school when he was unwell. The child was given a note that day saying that he should not be sent to school until the Tuesday. The father did not go through the child’s school bag and as such did not see the note. The child went to school the following day, the mother was contacted and took the child home and she took the child to a doctor and informed the father on the following Wednesday. The mother says the child does not suffer from asthma but has asthma like symptoms when he gets chest complaints.
The father could not acknowledge that it was possible that a note was sent home from the child’s school and he did not read it. That was a simple enough acknowledgement but it became a matter of significance for him to say that it either was not sent or was not there. He endeavoured to blame the mother. This is an example of the poor communication that cannot be allowed to continue.
On balance I prefer the evidence of the mother.

THE RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES TO BE APPLIED

In exercising its jurisdiction in relation to children, the Family Court is bound by the provisions of the Act. This is a proceeding to which the provisions of Division 12A of Part VII of the Act applies.
The object of the Act relating to children is to ensure that the best interests of the children are met. Section 60B(1) of the Act provides that this can be done 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.
The principles set out in s60B(2) that underlie those objects are that, except when it 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).
Each of the parents of a child has complete but several parental responsibility for their child pursuant to s 61C of the Act. This is subject to any court order and must be considered in the light of the so called presumption arising out of the operation of s 61DA of the Act. Section 61DA is part of the amendments and became operative on 1 July 2006. The section provides that a Court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of a child for that child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility[12] for the child. The section provides as follows:-
[12] Parental responsibility is defined by s61B to mean “all the duties, powers, and responsibilities and authority which, by law, parents have in relation to children.”
(1)When making a parenting order in relation to a child, 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 for the child.
Note: The presumption provided for in this subsection is a presumption that relates solely to the allocation of parental responsibility for a child as defined in s61B. It does not provide for a presumption about the amount of time the child spends with each of the parents (this issue is dealt with in s65DAA).
(2)The presumption does not apply if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent of the child (or a person who lives with a parent of the child) has engaged in:
(a)abuse of the child or another child who, at the time, was a member of the parent’s family (or that other person’s family); or
(b)family violence.
(3)When the court is making an interim order, the presumption applies unless the court considers that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for the presumption to be applied when making that order.
(4)The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that satisfies the court that it would not be in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.
If the presumption is found to apply and is not rebutted as not in the best interests of the child, an order must be made in accordance with s 61DA for equal shared parental responsibility. If not, the Court must make a declaration that the presumption does not apply and for reasons pursuant to subsections within s 61DA.
The effect of an order which provides for shared parental responsibility, whether equal or not, is set out in s 65DAC. That section provides as follows:-
(1)This section applies if, under a parenting order:
(a)2 or more persons are to share parental responsibility for a child; and
(b)the exercise of that parental responsibility involves making a decision about a major long term issue in relation to the child.
(2)The order is taken to require the decision to be made jointly by those persons.
Note: Subject to any court orders, decisions about issues that are not major long term issues are made by the person with whom the child is spending time without a need to consult the other person (see section 65DAE).
(3)The order is taken to require each of those persons:
(a)to consult the other person in relation to the decision to be made about that issue; and
(b) to make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision about that issue.
(4)To avoid doubt, this section does not require any other person to establish, before acting on a decision about the child communicated by one of those persons, that the decision has been made jointly.
The question of the allocation of parental responsibility needs to be determined before the question of with whom the child lives and/or spends time with, and the degree of communication a child is to have with another person is determined (see s 64B(2)). This is because where the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applies, the Court must consider whether it is in the best interests of the child to order equal, or substantial and significant time pursuant to s 65DAA. In circumstances where s 65DAA does not apply because the presumption does not apply, there still should be consideration of whether in the factual circumstances, an order for equal, or substantial and significant time is appropriate.
Should parties be unable to agree about the living arrangements of a child, a Court must, in determining whether it should make orders or in determining what orders should be made, have regard to the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. Section 60CA the Act provides:-
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.
How a Court determines what is in the best interests of a child is set out under s 60CC of the Act. From 1 July 2006, those best interests are determined under a two tiered approach pursuant to s 60CC, that lists “primary considerations” and “additional considerations”. A Court must consider the matters set out in s 60CC unless considering a consent order, in which case the Court may, but is not required to, have regard to the matters set out in ss60CC(2) and (3) of the Act. Part of s60CC reads as follows:-
Primary considerations
(2) 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.
Note: Making these considerations the primary ones is consistence with the objects of this Part set out in paragraphs 60B(1)(a) and (b).
Additional considerations
(3) Additional considerations are:
(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 willingness and ability of each of the child’s parents to facilitate, and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent;
(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);
(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)any family violence order that applies to the child or a member of the child’s family, if:
(i)the order is a final order; or
(ii)the making of the order was contested by a person;
(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;
(m)any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant.
A Court must consider the s 60CC(2) considerations as “primary considerations”. This does not mean that they inevitably outweigh the “additional considerations”, but some weight must be attached to the term “primary”. A Court must consider each of the additional considerations separately. A Court should have regard to all of the matters set out in s 60CC to consider how, together, they should give effect to either or both of the primary considerations in determining the child’s best interests.
In this case the primary considerations set out in s 60CC(2) go to the core of the decision, although they must be taken into account with the additional considerations under s 60CC(3).

DISCUSSION

The first issue for me to determine is the question of equal shared parental responsibility. Then the question of time.
The mother is the primary carer of the child and provides a safe and loving environment for him. She is sensitive to his needs and, albeit with some difficulty, manages an ongoing relationship between the child and his father.
The father does not propose that the mother should not be a carer of the child although he says that she should care for the child for half the time and that he should care for the child for the other half of the time. The father clearly loves the child and wants a relationship with him. But this must be seen in the context of the father’s determination to push for equal time irrespective of the damage caused to the child. That must reflect on his ability as a carer and as a parent. I have also had regard to the father’s continuation of conflict.
There are difficulties in terms of the father’s care of the child in terms of supervision, his failure to understand the impact of his behaviour on the child, his approach to the child’s sport and his approach to the child’s education.

Section 60CC (3) Factors

(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;

I have given consideration to the views of the child. They are ambivalent at best and contrary at worst. There is endemic and entrenched conflict between these parents. The effect of this has been to cause great anxiety and distress to this child.
The family consultant’s evidence is that the child will “agree with each parent when they suggest a living arrangement for him that the parent believes would be in his best interest”.[13] She reports this is common for younger children in his situation.
[13] Paragraph 59 of the Family Report dated the 23 of January 2009.

(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);

The child is primarily attached to the mother and has a good relationship with both Mr West and his step-sister. This is supported by the observations of the family consultant.
The evidence of the family consultant is that the child enjoys spending time with the father but says “there have been difficulties in the past,………..for example [the child] being frightened of his father “yelling” at him or becoming angry at other people when [the child] was present”.[14]
[14] Paragraph 61 of the Family Report dated 23 January 2009.
Further she goes onto say:-
[the child] has experienced anxiety during the incidents in which he was left unsupervised by his father. He has also become anxious and sad when his father has made him late for his soccer games.
The child has a loving relationship with the father and the father is able to care for the child. However, the father is an angry and volatile person who has continued to fuel the conflict between this child’s parents. His relationship with the child is marked by the father’s aggression, dominance and volatility.

(c)the willingness and ability of each of the child’s parents to facilitate, and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent including the father’s views as to the mother’s involvement with the child

Neither parent trusts each other. They reflect poorly on any suggested changes in arrangements by the other parent. The father in particular is aggressive, intimidatory and I accept that the father endeavours to bully the mother. He has little insight into the damage he is causing the child.
The father’s dislike of the mother is shown in a number of areas in terms of his attendance and standing close to the mother at soccer matches, attending her place of work and refusal to make a prompt decision for the child in relation to his sporting activities. Whilst the mother does not trust (nor like) the father she has enabled the child to have a close relationship with the father. She can act appropriately as shown with her approach when the child was selected for a representative team at Easter 2009.

(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;

If the joint parenting orders are left in place and if there is an increase in time this will have a significant detrimental effect on the child. The child will spend more time in the care of the father which will mean from time to time the child will be essentially in the care of the father’s flat mate. The concerns of the family consultant are that the child is barely coping with the time he is spending with the father at the moment. To have more time or to even contemplate more time would not be in the best interests of this child.
Similarly to leave in place the existing order for equal shared parental responsibility will mean that there is no decision making or decision making through the courts.
There is also the practical difficulty in the child spending more time with one parent or the other, although if the child does spend more time with the father he will be isolated from his friends at school with whom the mother says, and I accept, the child spends significant time.

The child’s older friend B who lived near the father’s home has moved to another address and the father says there are presently no other children in the street. I accept the evidence of the family consultant that as the child gets older it will become more important for him to undertake independent activities which will evolve around his friends.

(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;

I make no criticisms of the mother’s capacity to parent with the exception of the continuation of conflict which, I find the mother can take further steps to reduce.
My concerns are with the father for those matters that I have detailed and articulated throughout these reasons.

(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;

The child is 10 and has lived in conflict for a large part if his life. He is a sensitive and intelligent child who has difficulty coping with the conflict that goes on around him. Both parents to different degrees are insensitive to what damage their conflict is doing to the child.

(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;

This is not a relevant consideration in these proceedings.

the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents;

Each parent believes they are doing the right thing by the child and each looks to the other as a source of the conflict and hostility. I am particularly concerned with the matters raised with the father’s approach to parenting which I have discussed in these reasons.

(j) any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family;

There were issues of family violence raised prior to 2006. As this matter solely related to what has happened since 2006 I find that there are no issues of family violence for me to determine and bearing in mind the nature of the conflict.

(k)any family violence order that applies to the child or a member of the child’s family, if:
(i) the order is a final order; or
(ii) the making of the order was contested by a person;

This is not a relevant consideration in these proceedings.

(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;

One day a fortnight seems a short period of time. However if I adopt a middle ground and put in place that day there would inevitably be an application for a second day and then a third day until such time as the father saw that it was equal time, irrespective of the impact on the child.
I do not know whether these reasons will impact upon the father although I do not wish to give him encouragement to come back and claim further days. However, it is more likely that if the proceedings came back before the court there may be less days.

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

I have considered all of the relevant evidence before me.

Section 60CC(4) of the Act

(a)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; and

(b)has facilitated, or failed to facilitate, the other parent:
(i)participating in making decisions about major long‑term issues in relation to the child; and

(ii) spending time with the child; and
(iii) communicating with the child; and

(c)has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent's obligation to maintain the child.

Each parent has invested time with the child since separation and each communicates with the child. I have some concerns about the father’s communication particularly in respect of the yelling, lateness to the child’s soccer games, his failure to engage in communication about the representative game of soccer in June/July 2009 and a somewhat lax attitude to the child’s supervision. I reiterate all of the previous comments made by me.
The father has not fulfilled his obligations to maintain the child.

DISCUSSSION AND CONCLUSION

If the parties are unable to agree they will inevitably come back before the court. If the father is unhappy with a determination made by the mother (I will make orders requiring the mother to keep the father informed) he will come back to court. There is little I can do to avoid further litigation but that is the right of the parties. However it seems to me that sole parental responsibility may be a way to reduce some of these issues.
The parents each have significant involvement with the child since separation but in a high conflict way. The father does not take his responsibilities for payment of child support seriously and leaves the effective financial support to the mother.
There is a benefit in the child having a continuing relationship with both parents. It does not need to be equal time or more time to make that work.
The child is at risk of emotional abuse at the hands of the parents in terms of the continuing conflict.
The father seeks a continuation of the equal shared parental responsibility. He is unable to promptly make decisions for the child and is unable to communicate with the mother. He lacks insight into the parenting of the child and insight into his behaviour with regard to the mother. I have considered all of the evidence before me and all of the factors under s60CC.
The conflict is such that to put in place equal shared parental responsibility, even in the narrow way as proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, would mean that this child could not be properly parented at this significant time in his life.
I am not satisfied that the father is able to jointly parent with the mother. I am satisfied that the mother will continue to make decisions in the best interests of the child and to ensure the child have a relationship with the father.
Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of this case I determine that it is not appropriate for equal shared parental responsibility.
The next issue is that of the additional day. The additional day from the evidence of the father would be, in many ways, damaging for the child. It would expose the child to further pressure and is contrary to the considered and thoughtful views of the family consultant.
Having regard to all of the facts and circumstances of this case and particularly all of the factors under s60CC (2), (3), (4) and (4) (a) I am not satisfied that there is any value that it would be in the best interests of the child for there to be an additional day. As I said in a recent decision of Lake & Karter [2009] FamCA 682:-
89.The concept of equal time is often raised by parents as being a ‘fair’ solution. No doubt from some parent’s point of view equal time is ‘fair’. But is it fair to that parent or the child. Often children are taught that it is fair that this occur and those words are reproduced to family consultants. I do not know and make no such finding in this case.
90.Children are being committed to childhoods moving from one home to another without a primary place to regard as theirs, a week here a week there. I often wonder how parents would cope with moving home week about.
91.Children are not loaves of bread to be divided and sliced to meet adult concepts of what is or is not fair. Courts are constantly being asked to make equal time orders despite high conflict and continuing animosity. Courts exercising jurisdiction under the Family law Act 1975 (Cth) have the difficult task of putting in place arrangements when parents are unable or unwilling to do so. The task of a court in those circumstances is to put in place arrangements which are in the best interests of a child and not necessarily the parents. Children need and are entitled to stability and certainty in their lives. Success in parenting after separation is not a measure of time it is determined by the absence of conflict between parents and the effective use of the time children have with each parent and other members of their families.
This child is entitled to respite from conflict.
I have not made an order sought by the father for make up time if the child is sick. There was no recent evidence that such an order is needed.
Accordingly I will be making orders as set out in these reasons.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and forty nine (149) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Benjamin

Associate:

Date: 28 October 2009

[2009] FamCA 1015

28 October 2009

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Legal Concepts

Jurisdiction

Consent

Remedies