Perigord & Cosic
[2025] FedCFamC1F 138
•4 March 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Perigord & Cosic [2025] FedCFamC1F 138
File number: NCC 2180 of 2023 Judgment of: SCHONELL J Date of judgment: 4 March 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final orders – Where the mother and father agreed that the mother should have sole parental responsibility, the children live with her, and that the children be permitted to travel overseas with the mother – Issue remains as to what time the father should spend with the children and whether it should be supervised – Where the ICL and mother sought orders for the father’s time to be once a month for not less than three hours and supervised – Where the father sought orders for unsupervised time each alternate weekend and each alternate Wednesday overnight as well as time during half of each school holiday period – Where the Court is satisfied that the arrangements that promote the safety of the mother and children are ones that provide for the father’s time with the children to be limited and supervised – Orders made for supervised time to occur at the father’s cost once a month for no less than three hours. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VII, ss 60CA, 60CC(2), 60CC(2)(a), 60CC(2A), 60CG Cases cited: Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-09; [2022] FedCFamC1A 97 Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 68 Date of hearing: 17 February 2025 – 19 February 2025 Place: Heard in Newcastle, delivered in Melbourne Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Geraghty Solicitor for the Applicant: The Family Law Co Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Murray Solicitor for the Respondent: Ann Legal Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr Peterson Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Legal Aid NSW ORDERS
NCC 2180 of 2023 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS PERIGORD
Applicant
AND: MR COSIC
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
SCHONELL J
DATE OF ORDER:
4 MARCH 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.That Ms Perigord (“the mother”) have sole parental responsibility and decision making for the children, X, born 2019 (aged 5 years) and Y, born 2021 (aged 3 years) (collectively “the children”).
2.That the children live with the mother.
3.That the children spend supervised time with Mr Cosic (“the father”) for three (3) hours on the first Saturday of each month from 10.00 am to 1.00 pm (or at other such times as can be facilitated by the supervision service) with such time to occur in a public setting.
4.The father's time will be supervised by B Contact Service or any other contact supervision service as may be agreed to between the parties in writing, and to facilitate such time each party must;
(a)Contact B Contact Service within seven (7) days of the making of these orders to arrange an appointment for assessment for suitability for supervised contact;
(b)Attend the assessment;
(c)Comply with any appointment made by B Contact Service for supervised contact;
(d)Comply with all reasonable rules of B Contact Service; and
(e)Comply with all reasonable requests or directions of the staff of B Contact Service.
5.The father is to spend time with the children for not less than three (3) hours at such times and on such days, as B Contact Service can facilitate; and such time is to be implemented by the mother delivering the children to B Contact Service at the start of the father's time with the children and collecting the children from the same place at the end of the father's time.
6.The location of the supervision shall be a public location as agreed between B Contact Service and the father.
7.The father shall pay all the fees of B Contact Service for the provision of its service.
8.That pursuant to s 65Y of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the mother shall be permitted to travel with the children outside the Commonwealth of Australia.
9.That the mother have the sole responsibility for giving consent and making arrangements for the application and issue of a passport for the children
10.That pursuant to section 11(1)(b) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) the mother is permitted to apply for and obtain the issue and renewal of passports for the children without the father's knowledge or consent.
11.That the children's passports shall be held by the mother.
12.That pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the father is restrained from approaching within 50 metres of the mother.
13.The mother is restrained from bringing the children into contact with Mr C.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Perigord & Cosic has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SCHONELL J:
These are proceedings pursuant to Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) in relation to the parties’ two children who are aged respectively five and three.
By the time of submissions, the parties were agreed that there should be an order for the children to live with their mother, for her to have sole parental responsibility and that she be permitted to travel overseas with the children and be able to obtain a passport for the children. The parties remained apart as to whether the father’s time with the children should be supervised and its duration.
The mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“the ICL”) proposed orders for the father to spend time with the children supervised by a professional supervision service for a period of three hours on the first Saturday of each month with the father to meet the costs of the supervision. These time orders accord with the oral recommendations of the Regulation 7 Family Consultant (“the Family Consultant”). The mother, in addition, sought an order pursuant to s 68B of the Act restraining the father from approaching within 50 metres of her. The father through his counsel did not oppose the making of such an order. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make such an order.
The father for his part sought orders as contained in Exhibit 7 which in broad terms sought time with the children each alternate weekend and each alternate Wednesday overnight as well as time during half of each school holiday periods. During the course of submissions, counsel for the father submitted various alternate propositions including one that saw time with the father increase on a graduated but unsupervised basis. The fathers counsel advised that if the court made an order for supervised time the father agreed to meet the cost.
The father also sought an order that the mother be restrained from bringing the children into contact with a Mr C, the mother’s current partner’s stepfather, who is a “registered sex offender” (mother’s affidavit, paragraph 128). The mother through her counsel did not oppose the making of such an order. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make such an order.
Given the ambit of the respective positions of the parties, the issue became whether the children were at a risk of harm in the father’s care such that his time should be supervised.
I am satisfied for the reasons set out below that the orders proposed by the mother are in the best interest of the children and propose to make orders to that effect.
DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON
The mother relied upon the following documents:
(1)Amended Reply to Response to Final Orders filed 7 February 2025;
(2)Affidavit of mother filed 7 February 2025;
(3)Affidavit of Ms D filed 7 February 2025;
(4)Affidavit of Ms E filed 7 February 2025; and
(5)Affidavit of Mr F filed 7 February 2025.
The father for his part sought to rely upon:
(1)Response filed 16 August 2023; and
(2)Affidavit of father filed 5 February 2025.
The ICL sought to rely upon the Family Report of the Family Consultant dated 20 April 2024 (“the Report”).
Each of the parties tendered various documents in support of their case.
Each of the parties and the Family Consultant were cross-examined. The mother’s witnesses were not required for cross-examination.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE ICL
The ICL submitted that the Court would find that the father had perpetrated family violence against the mother including verbally abusing her, evicting her from her home, denigrating her through social media posts, as well as acts of physical violence, as contended by the mother in her affidavit. The ICL says that the mother’s allegations of family violence are supported by her complaints to the police, the issuing of an Apprehended Violence Order, as well as the affidavit evidence of some of her witnesses.
The ICL submitted that the father has a history of alcohol abuse characterised by periods of relapse and abstinence. He has been prescribed medication. The ICL submitted that the Court could not be confident that the father’s current asserted abstinence from alcohol will continue.
The ICL submitted that there are concerns in relation to the father’s mental health in that having initially attended upon G Health Service for assistance with his mental health he then disengaged from such program and whilst he thereafter engaged with a psychologist there is no current or up-to-date evidence as to how he is progressing with therapy. The ICL submitted that given that the father as late as January 2025 was posting on social media comments that are derogatory and denigrating of the mother, the benefit or insight he may have gained from therapy is questionable. The ICL further submitted that the father continues to resent the mother, is unable to reflect on his own behaviour, and lacks any insight as to how his behaviour has impacted upon those around him.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE MOTHER
Counsel for the mother supported the submissions of the ICL. She submitted that the father had been violent, threatening and coercive. Her counsel submitted the orders proposed by the father demonstrated his limited insight and if made would impact negatively on the mother’s parenting capacity. It was submitted that the father has denigrated the mother and described her as abusive, as weaponizing the children and having robbed them of their rights to see their father.
Counsel for the mother contended that the father has been and continues to be verbally and emotionally abusive of the mother and has demonstrated little insight or willingness to discontinue such abusive behaviour. The mother’s counsel submitted that the father continues to hold a resentment towards the mother and that his alcohol consumption by virtue of the inconsistency in the evidence raises a concern as to whether he really remains abstinent.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE FATHER
Counsel for the father conceded that the father has perpetrated family violence by verbally abusing the mother and given his past history of alcohol abuse it could not be confidently asserted that he does not remain at risk of relapse. He submitted, however, that the father accepted that his conduct during the relationship caused the mother distress but that his social media postings do not mean that he represents a danger to his children. His counsel submitted that any risk that does exist is managed by the orders the father proposes and is acceptable.
APPLICABLE LAW
Parenting proceedings are governed by Pt VII of the Act. In making a parenting order, s 60CA requires the Court to regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. In determining what is in the child’s best interests, s 60CC(2) sets out the matters that are required to be considered. No one matter takes priority over the other.
The matters to be considered are:
60CC How a court determines what is in a child’s best interests
…
General considerations
(2)For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the court must consider the following matters:
(a)what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of:
(i) the child; and
(ii)each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child);
(b) any views expressed by the child;
(c)the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child;
(d)the capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child’s developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs;
(e)the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child’s parents, and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so;
(f)anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child.
In considering the matters in s 60CC(2)(a), the Court must, pursuant to s 60CC(2A), consider any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child together with any family violence order that applies in relation to the child or a member of the child’s family.
Section 60CG of the Act requires the Court, when making a parenting order, to ensure the order does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence and is consistent with an existing family violence order.
Pursuant to s 60CC(2)(a), the Court must have regard to the arrangements which would promote the safety of a child and the person who has the care of the child. The word safety should, in my view, be given its ordinary meaning; that is, the orders should promote protection from the matters identified in the subsection to the extent relative to the evidence and the risk of harm and consistent with the best interests of the children.
In determining whether the father poses a risk of harm to the children such that his time is required to be supervised the Court is required to conduct an assessment of risk which involves the making of findings about the existence of certain facts and circumstances and against those findings undertake a prospective evaluation as to the risk of harm (Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-092). Those findings and that prospective evaluation will inform in many respects the arrangements that promote the safety of the child and any person with care of the child (s 60CC(2)(a) and s 60CC(2A)) and pay due regard to the considerations embodied in s 60CG.
ASSESSMENT AS TO RISK
The mother’s affidavit lists a long history of family violence perpetrated upon her by the father that included the father being verbally and emotionally abusive towards the mother (paragraphs 87, 89 and 90), the father criticising and belittling the mother in the presence of the children causing them to become upset and cry (paragraph 88), the father coming into the mother’s bedroom and trying to force himself on the mother (paragraph 94), the father standing over the mother and verbally abusing the mother while she was crying (paragraph 95) engaging in staking and surveillance behaviours (paragraphs 92 and 109), yelling, shouting, grabbing, and pushing the mother (paragraph 98), picking her up using both of his hands and slamming her into the kitchen bench (paragraph 104) and denigrating the mother through social media posts (paragraphs 114, 115 and 116).
For the purposes of the proceedings, the parties attended upon the Family Consultant on 14 March 2024. In the Report, she recorded the mother telling her that she had been verbally abused by the father, that he used using derogatory language towards her, that he was physically violent, and that he had threatening suicide on a weekly basis during the year they lived together post-separation.
It was not suggested to the mother at any time during her cross-examination that she had manufactured her complaints of family violence or that her evidence as to family violence was untruthful.
A witness in the mother’s case, Ms E, records observing the father in a jealous rage yelling and screaming at the mother, grabbing and shoving her. Ms E was not required for cross-examination. I accept her evidence.
In relation to the allegations of family violence recorded by the Family Consultant, the father’s responded to her as follows:
27.[Mr Cosic] denied any of the above family violence occurring. He denied having access to weapons and of threatening suicide. He advised that he believes the allegations of family violence has impacted on the children because “she is holding the girls from me, making false allegations towards me so I don’t get to see my girls and she gets 100% care and child support.”
I do not accept the father’s denial. I found the father to be an unreliable and unconvincing witness for the reasons set out below.
The father’s denials conflict with the mother’s evidence and that of her witness, whose evidence I accept. While the Family Consultant records the father denying any incident of family violence, during the mother’s cross-examination the father’s counsel put to the mother that the father had stood over the top of her yelling and intimidating her and that she was timid and fearful of him. Clearly such questioning could only have been put upon instructions.
During the course of his cross-examination, the father conceded that he had been verbally abusive to the mother and acknowledged that constituted family violence.
During his cross-examination, he denied having suicidal thoughts at the time he attended G Health Service in early 2023 and could not understand why it would be that he had been referred to a ‘fast response suicide and self-help program’. The records of H Health Service (Exhibit 2) record the father reporting “frequent and pervasive thoughts of ending his own life, with a plan […]”.
The letter to the father’s GP dated 13 February 2023 recorded that the father was in daily contact with his mother and that she was aware of his suicidal ideation. The father’s denials of suicidal thoughts stand starkly inconsistent with the records of the psychologist and render his previous answers in cross-examination misleading and implausible.
The father gave evidence that he had not consumed alcohol since late 2022. This evidence is starkly inconsistent with the objective documentary evidence. The psychology report prepared in early 2023 for the purposes of counselling with G Health Service records his then current alcohol use at around two standard drinks per week. The father’s contentions are inconsistent with a hair follicle test result collected on 11 September 2023 which records a range of low to moderate alcohol consumption (Exhibit 10).
The interviews for the purposes of the Report took place on 14 March 2024. At paragraph 41 of the Report, the Family Consultant records the father told her, “he stopped consuming alcohol nearly five months ago.” The GP’s health care plan forming part of Exhibit 4 prepared for the purposes of his attendance upon the father’s current psychologist records he is drinking seven to nine standard drinks two to three times a week. I do not accept the father’s evidence that he last consumed alcohol in late 2022 in light of the above evidence. His answers in cross‑examination cannot be accepted against the overall weight of the evidence on this issue.
The father has continued to denigrate the mother in the period subsequent to separation. Her affidavit attaches examples of him attempting to undermine her relationship with her new partner (mother’s affidavit, exhibit MSP-9) contains numerous examples of him denigrating her on social media, posting comments that she is alienating the children from him, making false allegations about him, accusing her of child abuse, describing her as a “deadbeat”, “a very heartless woman”, “using her kids as a weapon” and an “asshole” . The father sent the mother a text in which he advised that he would tell the children when they are older how heartless she had been (mother’s affidavit, exhibit MSP-22).
The father’s affidavit contained a series of criticisms of the mother and her parenting capacity. He describes her as being deceptive and a liar, albeit he did not establish in cross-examination a single instance of her lying. In his affidavit, for reasons that cannot be explained, he suggested she was mentally unstable including statements that he had serious concerns that she may have serious depression or another mental health condition that she is unaware of that may affect her “capability and ability to parent the children” (father’s affidavit, paragraph 76).
The Family Consultant records him identifying safety concerns for the children including “physical harm, emotional harm and concern that they will be abducted”. The father recited a litany of complaints about the mother’s parenting of the children to the Family Consultant as well as criticism of the mother’s partner. The Family Consultant recorded as follows:
35.[Mr Cosic] felt the impact of these child wellbeing concerns on the children is significant and is worried their safety would be at risk “if she ([Ms Perigord]) snaps under pressure and it happens again”. He shared concerns that [Ms Perigord] could physically abuse the children and “memories of that would be very bad” as they mature into adulthood. In response to extensive discussion about [Mr Cosic’s] proposal in light of the many child protection allegations he made, [Mr Cosic] advised that although he was extremely concerned about the children’s safety in [Ms Perigord’s] care, he was unable to apply to have the children more due to financial restrictions.
The Family Consultant further records in relation to the mother the father’s concern:
44.…that her poor mental health causes her behaviour to be more erratic and may lead to her being abusive or yelling at the children.
The father’s allegations about the mother are all the more remarkable in circumstances where his application has always been that she should be the children’s primary carer and that they should spend the majority of their time in her care. As the Family Consultant observed:
72.In contrast, equally of concern is that [Mr Cosic] maintains his proposal for the children to live with [Ms Perigord], despite having such a magnitude of concerns regarding their safety in her care. If these allegations are examined through a family violence lens, [Mr Cosic] has only attempted to protect the children by reporting his concerns to DCJ. Therefore, it could be questioned whether the ongoing reports to DCJ is a coercive control strategy aimed at damaging [Ms Perigord’s] reputation and minimising her ability to parent with governing bodies like DCJ. [Ms Perigord] has acknowledged how stressful the constant reports to DCJ by [Mr Cosic] about her have been. It is likely this additional stress would impact on her ability to parent the children in a carefree and natural way, exacerbate her mental health, and as [Ms Perigord] has commented, affect the children who would be unable to understand [Ms Perigord’s] emotional responses to these events...
I accept the observations and share the concerns of the Family Consultant.
I find the mother to be a truthful witness who gave her evidence in a calm and measured way. I accept the mother’s evidence that the father perpetrated family violence upon her as described in her affidavit and as reported to the Family Consultant. I am satisfied that she was and remains fearful of him. Her counselling notes reflect the ongoing consequence for her of the perpetration of family violence (Exhibit 9).
I am satisfied on the basis of his admissions that he knows she is fearful of him. I am satisfied in the knowledge that she is fearful of him he continues to perpetrate acts of family violence by denigrating her on social media. Knowing as he must that his conduct and behaviour would be scrutinized by the Court, he has persisted in his denigration of her and in the perpetration of family violence. I am satisfied that he is unable or unwilling (it matters little which) to desist from doing so and will continue to do so.
I accept the submission of the mother that he resents her. I am satisfied there is a risk that he will, as he stated in his text message to the mother, communicate to the children when they are older his views of the mother. I have little doubt in the event the father had unsupervised time with the children he would not be able to restrain himself from informing the children of his strongly held views of their mother.
The father has a history of suicidal ideation. He has been engaged with a psychologist for at least two years and during the course of his evidence indicated that he attended upon that psychologist at least monthly if not more frequently as the need arises. The only evidence of the consultations are five entries in July and August 2023.
The father has elected not to place before the Court any current evidence from the psychologist by way of a report as to the state of the father’s mental health, his degree of insight or any matters that would give the Court any comfort or assurance that the mental health problems that the father suffered from in the first half of 2023 do not remain an ongoing problem.
The absence of such evidence coupled with the fathers’ denials of the extent of his problems in early 2023 is such that the court is unable to conclude that the father’s mental health issues are a matter of simple history.
The father has had a longstanding problem with alcohol abuse. He has a history of alcohol abuse accompanied by periods of abstinence and relapse. His evidence is that he has not consumed alcohol since late 2022. As referred to above this is inconsistent with more contemporaneous reports by health professionals. As the Family Consultant opined:
73.However, there is collateral material suggesting that [Mr Cosic] has a long history of problematic alcohol use. The writer was unable to sight the results of the hair follicle testing that [Mr Cosic] reports he has completed which allegedly demonstrated a decrease of alcohol use in the results. To mitigate this risk to the children it would be essential that [Mr Cosic] continued to refrain from using alcohol when he was caring for the children. It would also be of use for the Courts to sight the hair follicle testing results that have been complete
I am not satisfied that I could safely conclude that the father’s long standing alcohol problem like his mental health issues are simply a matter of history.
The Family Consultant recorded the father telling her as follows:
57.[Mr Cosic] advised his situation would not change if he was successful or unsuccessful. [Mr Cosic] reported if he was unsuccessful “I would just have to keep on fighting”.
The Family Consultant records later in her Report as follows:
66.If a parent displays unhappiness at a situation in the court proceedings, or if [X] is exposed to conflict or the parties’ negativity towards each other, she may feel at fault for these situations or their poor relationship which would impact on her development and self-worth. Therefore parenting arrangements should minimise her exposure to further parenting conflict, maintain proximity to [Ms Perigord] as the primary carer and provide consistency and predictability.
I accept this evidence of the Family Consultant.
It is possible in light of this evidence that in the event the father had unsupervised time with the children that was less than that which he regarded as optimal or satisfactory, he would express to the children his dissatisfaction with the arrangements. In the event that he was to do so then, as the Family Consultant opines, one or both of the children may feel responsible for the outcome. The risk that is posed by such an arrangement is not mitigated by the father’s proposal for unsupervised time but is mitigated by the proposal for supervised time.
The Family Consultant also opined as follows:
80.…If the allegations are accepted regarding the family violence [Ms Perigord] experienced by [Mr Cosic], the children may feel unsafe if they have memories of this violence occurring, or be triggered by the interaction without being able to articulate why, or the children may be exposed to further family violence if [Mr Cosic] was to re-partner which would affect their sense of safety in his household. In turn, the children attending [Mr Cosic’s] house and staying with him so frequently may be anxiety-provoking for [Ms Perigord] or expose her to further coercive control strategies which in turn could have an impact on her parenting of the children and her own mental health.
I accept her evidence.
The Family Consultant in her Report initially opined as follows:
85.The children live with [Ms Perigord] and spend six hours a month with [Mr Cosic] in either a public setting or supervised by a family member who the Court deems as child focussed and aware of the dynamics of family violence.
However, when she came to give her evidence, she revised considerably that recommendation, saying that her preferred outcome was that the children spend supervised time with the father limited to three hours a month supervised by a professional supervision service.
SECTION 60CCC CONSIDERATIONS
Many of the s 60CC considerations have been addressed by the findings made above.
I am satisfied in light of the findings I have made that the orders proposed by the father, or any combination of unsupervised time, would not promote the safety of the mother or the children as it would expose them to the risk of family violence, denigration, and the possible risks of relapse in consumption of alcohol and mental health issues. The orders proposed by the mother are, I am satisfied, ones that promote the safety of the children and the mother.
The children are of an age where their views are of limited weight.
I accept that the supervision reports disclose that the children enjoy their time with the father and that no matters of concern are raised in the reports. In light of the matters of risk referred to above and the concerns for the safety of the mother and children and the findings made, the reports are supportive of a continuation of a supervised regime and not its extinguishment.
I am satisfied that the father has much to offer the children and there is a benefit to the children in having a relationship with both of their parents, provided that it is safe to do so. I am satisfied, given my findings, that the only arrangements that are safe and consequentially beneficial to the children’s relationship with both parents are those proposed by the mother.
I am satisfied, consistent with the findings referred to above and the provisions of s 60CG, that the orders proposed by the father or any combination of unsupervised time would be such as to expose the mother and the children to an unacceptable risk of family violence.
DISPOSITION
For the reasons given above, I am satisfied that the father has perpetrated acts of family violence and that the mother and children remain at future continuing risk of harm of further acts of family violence perpetrated by the father as well as the risk of harm posed by his possible relapse in the use of alcohol and mental health issues.
The Family Consultant said that if the mother’s narrative were accepted, which it is, “the most impactful way to reduce the risk on the children and [Ms Perigord] would be through minimizing the time that he spends with the children” (Report, paragraph 69).
I accept the recommendation of the Family Consultant as expressed in her oral evidence that the father’s time with the children needs to be limited and supervised. While long-term supervision may be an undesirable long-term option, given the risks in this case, the mother’s fear and the age of the children, the only way they can be safe, and the mother’s primary care supported, is through the making of orders as proposed by the mother and ICL.
I do not propose to make order 8 as proposed by the ICL. It is opposed by the mother. I am satisfied that the mother’s primary care needs supporting and any arrangement that has the possibility of undermining it is to be eschewed. No party submitted otherwise in so far as this order was proposed.
I certify that the preceding sixty-eight (68) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Schonell. Associate:
Dated: 4 March 2025
0