PERRY & GLENN

[2017] FCCA 734

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PERRY & GLENN [2017] FCCA 734

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting dispute in which both parents seek primary residence – both parents having troubled history – extensive criminal records – children living with mother following separation for several years while father absent or in jail – children living with father since 2015 as result of mother’s drug use – mother seeking to relocate to Queensland – whether father enmeshed with the children – whether interim or final orders appropriate – interim orders made.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.11F, 60CC(2), 60CC(2A), 60CC(3), 65DAA(3)

Cases cited:
Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346

Applicant: MR PERRY

Respondent: MS GLENN

File Number: DGC 3337 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Burchardt

Hearing dates: 27 and 28 March 2017

Date of Last Submission: 28 March 2017

Delivered at: Dandenong

Delivered on: 21 April 2017

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Howe

Solicitors for the Applicant: JKB Lawyers Pty Ltd

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Roberts

Solicitors for the Respondent: Bayside Solicitors

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Ms O’Connell

Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Victoria Legal Aid

DRAFT ORDERS

1. All previous parenting orders be discharged.

2. The mother be permitted to relocate to Queensland with the children.

3. The mother continue to live with the maternal grandmother.

4. The children live with the mother.

5. The father spend time with the children by Skype or telephone on one occasion each week at a time agreed between the parties and failing agreement, 6.00 pm each Saturday.

6. The mother not bring, or permit any other person to bring, the children into contact with Mr T.

7. Each of the father and the mother undertake counselling as directed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

8. The father and mother undertake supervised drug screen test on request by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

9. Until further order, the father and mother, and his/her servants and agents, be and are hereby restrained by injunction from discussing the within proceedings with or in the presence or hearing of the children, and from permitting any other person so to do.

10. Until further order, the father and mother, and his/her servants and agents, be and are hereby restrained by injunction from abusing, insulting, belittling, rebuking or otherwise denigrating the other party to or in the presence or hearing of the said children or any of them, and from permitting any other person so to do. 

11. Both parties undertake liver function tests and provide the results of same to the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

12. There be an updated Family Report.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DANDENONG

DGC 3337 of 2015

MR PERRY

Applicant

And

MS GLENN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introductory

1. This is a parenting dispute about three children, X, born (omitted) 2006, Y, born (omitted) 2006, and Z, born (omitted) 2010.  The applicant father seeks that the children live with him in Victoria, where they have resided since late 2015, and spend time with the mother as agreed between the parties (see initiating application filed 27 October 2015).  The mother seeks that the children live with her in Queensland and that the father spend time with the children as determined by the Court (see further amended response filed 22 March 2017).

2. The Independent Children's Lawyer submits that on balance the children should live with the mother, but that she does need assistance.  The Independent Children's Lawyer submits that there should be interim orders made in the event that the mother relocates.

3. Notwithstanding the practical difficulties involved, it is my clear view that the children should live in the primary care of the mother in Queensland and spend time with the father consistently with the position put by the Independent Children's Lawyer.

Agreed or uncontroversial facts

1. The father was born on (omitted) 1987 and the mother on (omitted) 1988.  They both had troubled childhoods.  From material subpoenaed from the Queensland Police, it is apparent that the mother was in trouble with the law as early as 2003 and amassed a considerable criminal record by 2006.  Since then, she has been convicted in 2015 for being intoxicated in a public place, and in 2016 for contravening a direction or requirement.

2. The father's Queensland Police records show that he was before the Courts by 2002 and had a very extensive criminal record with numerous offences on a fairly regular basis through until 2012.  He has been convicted of multiple offences of dishonesty and fraud and has numerous counts of falsely representing who he was.  He has spent time in jail on a number of occasions.  He also has a criminal record in Victoria in 2016 as a result of family violence perpetrated against his brother.

3. The parents met when they were very young, when he was 17 and she was 16.  They cohabited intermittently (such intermissions in considerable part being occasioned by the father's periodic incarceration).  They moved here and there in Queensland before ultimately in 2011 the relationship appears to have come to an end and the mother moved in with a prior school friend, Mr T.  The father went to (omitted) and did not see the children for several years.

4. In 2013, the father served nine months in jail during which time he commenced treatment with Suboxone, a drug that appears to have helped him control his drug usage.  In 2014, he moved to Victoria and obtained work.

5. In October 2015, the mother gave the children to the father and they have lived with him in Victoria ever since.  At the time the mother was very much affected by her use of ice.  Her relationship with Mr T had finished in 2014 and that is what she attributes the usage to.

6. The mother was in Victoria at the time of a Court hearing in December 2015 and vividly complains that the father misled the Court by asserting that he could not find her to serve her with documentation at that time.

7. It should be noted that the mother has apparently been employed since 2013, and her affidavit filed 10 October 2016 deposes (and she was not cross-examined about this) that she has worked long hours to obtain the necessary funds to support her periodic visits to see the children in Victoria.

8. The parties' relationship while they lived together in Queensland was tumultuous, as is shown by the material subpoenaed from the authorities in Queensland showing a very extensive history of domestic violence orders and conditions.  I note that the final entry in January 2013 when the parties were apparently living in (omitted) shows the following concern:

   IT IS NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE TO PROTECT THE THREE CHILDREN OF THE AGGRIEVED. THE RESPONDENT MOTHER AND HER RESPONDENT SPOUSE HAVE COMMITTED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (INTIMIDATION, WILFUL DAMAGE) IN MY VIEW OF THE THREE CHILDREN. ALL THREE CHILDREN WERE EMOTIONALLY UPSET BY THE INCIDENT; THE ELDEST CHILD WAS SEEN TO BE CRYING BY HIMSELF IN A ROOM OF THE RESIDENCE. ALL THREE CHILDREN WERE TAKEN TO THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER’S RESIDENCE OVER NIGHT AS A RESULT OF THE INCIDENT. WITNESSES REPORTED THAT ARGUMENTS ARE HEARD RECENTLY IN FRINT OF THE CHILDREN, WITH NAME CALLING AND FOUL LANGUAGE. A WITNESS HAS ALSO HEARD ON A PREVIOUS OCCASION THE MALE RESPONDENT YELL AT THE AGGRIEVED’S SON WORDS OT THE EFFECT OF, “I’LL THRASH YOU WITHIN AN INCH OF YOUR LIFE IF YOU DON’T LEAVE THE BLOODY WATER ALONE!”. THE WITNESS STATED THAT THE ARGUMENTS SOUND AS THOUGH THEY ARE OVER THE CHILDREN WHEN THE CHILDREN DON’T DO WHAT THE MALE RESPONDENT WANTS THEM TO DO. 

The parties' affidavit material

1. The parties have filed very extensive affidavit material but in the particular circumstances of this case it is not appropriate to traverse it in any detail.  The parties' affidavits are replete with mutual accusations of violence and drug-taking and generally antisocial behaviour.  It is clear that at least to a degree both are correct.  Much of what they have to say is paraphrased in the uncontroversial material set out above.  It is more appropriate to concentrate on what the parties had to say when they were at Court.

The evidence of the father

1. The father adopted his affidavits as true and correct.  He is presently employed as a (occupation omitted).

2. Under cross-examination by counsel for the mother, the father admitted he had been dishonest in the past but said he had not been so in these proceedings.  He said that until four or five years ago he was a pretty horrible person.  He said he had lied but had not lied to the Court in this case.

3. The father was cross-examined about his affidavit sworn 26 October 2015, and in particular, paragraphs 4 and 5 thereof.  These paragraphs depose to the commencement of the relationship and the birth of X on 28 July 2006.  The father had to concede that he had not mentioned in his affidavit that he was in fact in prison between April and September 2006 and thus not been at X's birth.  The father also admitted breaching Intervention Orders made against him in the past but denied that he has necessarily kept things from the Court.

4. The father was cross-examined about his attendance at Court on 7 December 2015 and whether or not he then knew where the mother was.  The father's answers were palpably evasive.  He said he knew she was in Victoria but said that she had left her motel on the Sunday when the hearing was on the Monday.

5. The father conceded that he had committed domestic violence in the past.  He said he has arguments with his new partner but they are nothing serious.

6. The father was taken to the Victoria Police report of 7 October 2015 and conceded that this related to Ms T who is his current partner.  He admitted they had one big argument but said they do not argue on a regular basis.  He first said the police had not been to his home since but then admitted that they had been.  He admitted he had had an argument with his brother which had led to a fight.  He said that the children were with Ms T and he was with his brother and the brother's wife.  Nonetheless, he had to concede that it was possible his son may have seen the fight, even though he was in a different car.  The father should have volunteered the information about this incident, and in my view, his answers were incomplete and thereby dishonest, and knowingly so. 

7. The father was unable to explain why his child X says that he has a temper.  He has undertaken a Men's Behaviour Change program but he can get cranky.  He said the proceedings were stressful and emotionally draining.  He denied telling X to "man up" from time to time.  He admitted he talked differently to his girls than to the boy.  The father denied that his partner resents having his own children in her home.  He said she treats them as her own 100 per cent.  His children sleep in one room. A, his partner's son, is 11 (her daughter is two) and has his own room.  His girls want to sleep in the same room as X.  The two year old sleeps in the same room as the father and Ms T.

8. The father was strongly cross-examined about his consumption of alcohol. He said that he might on some nights drink one or two cans of beer. When taxed with Ms D (the writer of the section 11F report) recording him as telling her that he consumed a six-pack of beer approximately two times to three times per week, he said, "This depends".  He said he has to go to work at 4 am and cannot drink a six-pack of beer.  He conceded that he might have told Ms D he consumed a six-pack.  He conceded he might have had four to five beers after X's football.  He did not think he was a heavy drinker.  He said a heavy drinker would drink a six-pack per night.  I would interpolate again and say that the father's evidence on this aspect of the matter was palpably untrue.  He is obviously a much heavier drinker than he is prepared to concede.

9. The father was cross-examined about his hospitalisation in 2016 which he said was for pancreatitis.

10. The father conceded he was in prison for nine months in 2013 and moved to (omitted) in 2014.  He left Queensland illegally, something he had not seen fit to put into his affidavit material.

11. The father said it was a joint decision that he keep the children in late 2015 but the mother changed her mind.  He denied there had ever been agreement that it would be a change back at the end of term.  The mother had lost her house and lost her job and had a relationship breakdown.  She asked whether the children could be returned at the end of the year and he said no.

12. The father said he sought to see his children after he had separated from the mother but she blocked him.  He did not see the children for 13 months.  The mother was the primary carer of the children.  Most of the father's family live in Queensland but the mother never allows them to see the children.  The mother has no family in Victoria.  They all live in Queensland.

13. The father was unable to recall at all the incident on 19 January 2013, the extract of which I have set out above.  He said he has changed significantly, more than he thought he would be able to.  He said he had got treatment for everything he had a problem with and said he did not believe he had ever had a problem with alcohol.  When it was put to him that the mother had been consistent in wanting to see the children, he said, "Somewhat".  He denied keeping his address a secret and said that an occasion where this had been an issue was because he misspelled his address for the family report.

14. Under cross-examination by counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer, the father confirmed that he is a (occupation omitted).  He mainly works weekdays.  He works from 4 or 5 am to 2 pm or 8 am to 5 pm.  It depends on the roster.  Ms T is also employed at a (employer omitted) and works on Wednesday and Thursday from 6 am to 2 pm.  Ms T takes the children to school.  The father works the early shift on Monday and Tuesday and the late shift on Wednesday and Thursday, and Friday it varies.  He and Ms T share responsibilities for all their children.  He takes them to sport at the weekend.  The children are up at 7 and shower.  Cooking is shared and the children are put to bed by about 8 pm.  X is in year 4 and he has met his teacher.  He has met Y’s teacher but could not recall her name.  He knew Z’s teacher is Ms T this year.  The children have no mental health problems but X is a bit unsure about the matter coming up to Court.  The father said he tries to talk to X about it but X doesn't want to upset either him or his mother.  He sees Mr B, a psychologist at the school.  He has told X, "No matter what happens you will still see us".  X knows the case is about where he lives and the mother has had discussions with him about this.  The mother has told him about living with her.  He has told X he is trying to get a house.

15. The father is on eight milligrams of Suboxone in the morning and 100 milligrams of Largactil at night time.  He has been on Suboxone since he moved to Victoria in August 2004 after he got out of jail.  He started about one and a half months before he got out.  He is on a reducing dose which is monitored by his doctor and pharmacist.  Largactil is for sleep and mood stabilisation.  He stopped using drugs nine months before August 2014.  He did not recall telling Ms D he consumes a six-pack two to three times per week.  He does so when the children are not with him.  Some days he does not drink at all and on some days he drinks one to two beers.  He is not sure about the effects of mixing drink and Largactil.  He takes Largactil just before bed.  He does not know about Suboxone and alcohol and has never inquired.  He is not a pharmacist.  He could not say if this gave rise to risks with the children.  He was not unable to wake up if necessary for the children.  The doctor and pharmacist have never told him that there might be problems mixing alcohol and Suboxone and/or Largactil.

16. He usually drinks VB, although he drinks bourbon now and then.  He had pancreatitis mid-last year and that could be alcohol-related.  He had bacterial pancreatitis and this could have been because of alcohol the previous day.  A friend had bought a house and they christened the bar.  He drank rum, less than a bottle, but half a bottle or more.  The doctor had told him that he might have had pancreatitis from drinking a lot for a long time.  He continues to drink but drinks a lot less.  He was in hospital last year for three to four days.  He was told not to drink for a month.  He probably drinks three to four cans but maybe more, maybe less.  He chooses to drink now.  The doctor told him that pancreatitis was alcohol related .  Nonetheless, the father went on to say that alcohol does not really affect him.  He did not agree that he has anger issues.  There is no conflict in his house.  He and Ms T do not fight a lot at all.  Ms T would not call a child a bitch.

17. The father conceded that the mother was the primary carer before the children came to live with him in October 2015.  Every child needs both parents and there was no way he would cut the mother out.  Ms T looked after the children when he was in hospital.  Nearly all his family live around the (omitted) and his mother lives in (omitted).  The mother went to (omitted) but his family did not see the children.  There were no requests by his family to see the children, as far as he knew.

18. In re-examination, the father gave details of his time with the children following separation.  This did not, in my view, take the matter much further.

The evidence of the mother

1. The mother adopted her affidavits as true and correct. 

2. Under cross-examination by counsel for the father, the mother confirmed that she has a five-bedroom house leased by her own mother with whom she lives.  The lease is for 12 months and she has been living in this property for a week and a half.  The grandmother is bipolar but is fully medicated.  The medication does not make her drowsy.  The mother denied dealing with drugs.  Nonetheless, she admitted that she was using ice in 2015 but not marijuana.  She sought help from her parents who took her to hospital and then to a mental health program.  She was not given any diagnosis.  She had read Dr D's report.  She had noted the risk of relapse into drug use on her part and had seen a psychologist last year for five sessions in the middle of the year.  She now has family support.  She has used illegal drugs in 2016 when her father died around May.  She used cannabis on four occasions.  Her last use of cannabis was in December 2016 when she used four times.  This was related to stress and arising from this case and her father's death and supporting her mother.  She did not believe she was drug-dependent and had not used ice.  She said she had no idea the father had moved to Victoria.  He contacted her in December 2014, which is the first time she had heard from him for 12 months.  She offered him a visit.  He had come several times.  She drove down in September 2015 with her uncle for a week.  She had proposed holidays and weekend time in Queensland.  She has told the children they will be living with her and her mother.  She told them, "When you come home, you'll be living with us".  This was on the previous Wednesday.  She said X was ecstatic as he loves his grandmother.  The mother asserted candidly that the children need to know about the case.

3. The mother is only platonic friends with Mr T now.  He works with the mother's brother as a (occupation omitted).  She has a relationship with Mr T's family.

4. Under cross-examination by counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer, the mother confirmed that she will have support from her brother who is 26 and his wife.  Her other brother is 19.  Her sister is 17.  Her aunt lives 11 kilometres away.

1. She gave the children to the father in 2015.  She eventually realised that they were not coming home.  She had no concerns about the father's anger management.  From November 2014 onwards, he had seemed okay.  She did not know about his alcohol or drug problems at the time.

2. In 2015, her father was critically ill and her mother was nursing him.  The mother went on to say that the father never had any intention of sending the children back.  He had filed his application with the Court 15 days after the children were with him.  I would interpolate and say it is clear that the mother is still extremely annoyed with the father for this, as she sees it, deceptive conduct.  The mother said she was so unwell at the time she had to get the children out of her care.

3. The mother commenced a relationship with Mr T in 2013 and they separated in November 2014.  They reconciled in January 2016.  She did not agree that she had a volatile relationship with Mr T.  There were arguments towards the end of the relationship.  I would interpolate and say that this evidence is clearly untrue.  I do not believe what she said.

4. The mother conceded that Mr T smacked the children a couple of times and despite being evasive appeared to concede that it was inappropriate that the children have contact with Mr T.

5. The mother said she would seek help with drugs if it was a problem but she did not think it was a problem.  She would seek counselling.  The mother consumes alcohol every six weeks at a barbecue.  She does not drink heavily at any time.  The mother has concerns about the children being with the father.  The father tells the children not to talk to her.  She is also concerned about his use of alcohol.

The report of Dr D

1. Dr D was not required for cross-examination.  He interviewed both the parties in late 2016 and his reports are annexed to his affidavit.  The history of the relationship given by the father is consistent with the matters I have described as uncontroversial in the case.  I note that the father said that final separation took place in 2012 (clearly wrong from the Queensland documentation).  The father described the children coming into his care in October of 2015 by agreement and that they were happy and progressing well at school.  He told Dr D that he wanted the children to reside with him but the mother could have as much access as she wants.  I note that the father had fathered a child even before he met the mother in this case.  That child was born when he was 15.  It is surprising that information was not volunteered on affidavit.  He described his medication being Suboxone and Largactil.  Noteworthily, the father told Dr D (paragraph 58 of the report):

   With regard to alcohol, he told me that he drinks "not much".  He told me that he may drink now twice a week.  He told me that he has never had a problem with alcohol and there never have been any traffic offences, assaults, or faults related to excuses alcohol-intake.

2. Perhaps the gravamen of the report is at paragraph 95 and following, as follows:

   In my opinion, the father does not suffer from any major mental or psychiatric disorder.  The father does not have a psychiatric condition such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or major depressive disorder. 

   The father has a history of substance use, particularly amphetamines and marijuana.  There is no current use and there has not been so for some years.  There is thus no current diagnosis of substance use.  There appears to have been no drug-induced (amphetamine) psychosis in the father. 

   The father has some significant personality vulnerabilities.  These appear to have faded over time.  Evidence for that is that the father is in a currently stable social situation, employed and in a committed relationship.  It appears that the father has refocused his attention on parental responsibilities and prioritised appropriately the needs of the children.

   In my opinion, the father's decision to have the children to continue to reside with him and to take parental responsibility of the children is based on his opinion of the children's need for stability, and the risk of the mother's returning to illegal substance use. 

   In my opinion, the father's capacity to provide a structured, protective, consistent, adaptive and nurturing environment of the children is not currently impaired by any psychiatric cause.

   The report concluded at paragraph 103:

   I do not believe that there is a foreseeable risk of violence by the father towards the child or the mother in this Family Law matter.

3. The report in relation to the mother noted her very troubled upbringing.  It traversed her complaints about non-service of documentation in December 2015.  It noted her current employment as a (occupation omitted) full time in a (employer omitted).  I note that she was then in a current relationship with Mr T (the interview having been undertaken on 19 August 2016).  She has been seeing Dr G, a psychologist, in Queensland.  She went on an ice binge from November 2014 for one year.  Dr D did not think that the mother's judgment was impaired by any psychiatric condition.  Dr D concluded the mother did not have bipolar affective disorder, schizophrenia, a persistent drug-induced psychosis, ADHD or a major depressive disorder.  At paragraphs 88 and following, Dr D said:

   In my opinion, it would be appropriate for the mother, should she have unsupervised access to the children, be subject to random urine drug screens to monitor for a return to illegal substance use.  The mother is vulnerable, because of the psychologically deleterious upbringing and the previous resort to substances, to return to heavy substance misuse, in particular of amphetamines, with a consequential deleterious effect on her mental health, her reliability and her parenting ability.  In my opinion, the mother should continue in psychological counselling for the immediate future.

   In my opinion, based on the history obtained, findings on mental state examination, and review of supplied documents, the mother has previously had, due to consistent drug use and drug dependency, significantly impaired parental ability.

   In my opinion, there is a potential for ongoing interference with her parenting ability should she return to substance use.  In my opinion, because of the previous heavy drug use and in light of the current temporary strong supports, a cautious approach to increased access is recommended.

4. Dr D was clear that there was no risk of violence by the mother to the children or the father.

The report of Ms D

1. Ms D conducted a section 11F series of interviews in April 2016. I note that the mother was then in a relationship with Mr T.

2. X spoke positively about living with his father and Ms T. 

3. The report continued:

   He further advised his father has told him to "man up" if he gets sad or upset.  X described his father as having “anger issues” but denied being scared of him.

   X recalled several instances of conflict he has witnessed. He advised he has witnessed several fights in the home, between his parents, between his mother and his uncle, his father punching his uncle at a party recently and between his father and Ms T.  One of his wishes was for all the fighting in his family to stop.

   X became tearful and visibly upset when he discussed the possibility of not living with his father in the future.  He stated he would was worried about not spending time with his father if he lived with his mother because of the geographical distance.  X was less concerned about the possibility of not spending much time with his mother.

4. Y appeared to be positive about living with her father and Ms T.  Z stated that her father was often mean to her and that Ms T had called her a bitch.  They both advised that their father and Ms T fight a lot, something that did not scare Y but Z was frightened of often.

5. Y and Z said that their mother and Mr T used to fight all the time and that Mr T would smack them on a frequent basis if they misbehaved.  Z clearly missed her mother and kept asking if she could see her throughout the assessment.  I note that Ms D recorded:

   At interview, the mother presented in a very anxious and fragile state.  She has considerable personal difficulties to manage, including physical health concerns, mental health issues, substance misuse, obtaining stable accommodation and caring for her ailing father.  She has reunited with her ex-partner Mr T and there have been significant concerns raised in this assessment about violence within their relationship. The mother is very vulnerable at this time and requires further professional assistance prior to the children returning to her care.  Whilst it is commendable that the mother sought assistance from the father to care for the children, she appeared to lack considerable insight into the issue highlighted in this assessment and the potential impact on the children.

   The father has had significant difficulties throughout his life, including substance abuse, mental health issues and a significant criminal history.  However, at present, he appears to be a stable option for the children.  The mother has also considered the father to be a stable option for the children as she placed them with him whilst she was unable to care for the children.  However, there are concerns expressed by the children about the father's anger management and conflict in his relationship with Ms T which warrant further child protection investigation.

The family report of Ms C

1. Ms C conducted interviews with the parties on 7 September 2016.  She recorded the history given by the parties in terms which are consistent with their affidavit material.  I note that the mother was still at that point in a relationship with Mr T.

2. I note that there was an issue as to where the father lived and that the address that the father had provided to the Court was a caravan park.  At paragraph 13, Ms C recorded:

   A search on Google Maps of the address provided for in the referral for the Family Report resulted in no address found.

3. I note that at paragraph 21, Ms C recorded:

   Mr Perry was punctual to interview and arrived with the children.  He was casually dressed.  His hair appeared unwashed.  The children were also casually dressed and their clothing appeared somewhat unlaundered.  Mr Perry was emotionally labile during the interview, especially when exploring the children's best interests.

4. The father recorded his violent childhood, including assaults by his own father on his mother.  He described his relationship with the mother as very volatile and alleged that she left him for Mr T.  The mother said the relationship with Mr T started some months after separation.  The father asserted that the children were performing better at school in Victoria than they had been in Queensland.  At paragraph 29, Ms C recorded:

   When asked questions about the children's likely primary attachment to their mother and how he thought that might impact them not living with her, he was unable to say.  When asked how he would feel about a decision for the children to return to live with their mother, he said, "the kids are my life.. they always have been".  He cried and said, "it's so hard to go to Court and think about losing them".

5. The mother when interviewed described getting along well with her own mother and an agreement that the grandmother would assist if the children were to return to Queensland.  The mother said she had attended counselling as ordered and provided a psychologist report to this effect.

6. X appeared anxious and Ms C expressed strong concerns because he might be suffering victimisation in his environment.  The children reported having friends, although it appeared they had experienced more friendships in Queensland.  At paragraph 44, Ms C recorded:

   The children appeared concerned at interview and there was a strong sense that they did not feel free to disclose their thoughts and feelings after having done so at the s 11F interviews.  It appeared from the children's presentations that they were not free to speak their minds and were under at the very least emotional pressure.  This was consistent with Mr Perry's presentation at interview.  There were indicators Mr Perry had behaved negatively after the children expressed themselves freely and naturally at the previous interviews, and after Z had spontaneously called Mr T "daddy" when she saw him in the background when skyping with her mother.  The children described some similarities in the parties' discipline, that is, they use time out and loss of privileges, but also that Mr Perry yells.  They did not refer to physical punishment, though it may well be that preparation for interviews they experienced.  It was noted that two of the children had bruises.  One large bruise on X's arm was about 10 cms in diameter and he explained (unconvincingly) that he had knocked his arm on a wall.

7. Ms C recorded that the children were excited to see their mother and Ms C noted that the mother had brought a sketch book and pencils for X who had shown a significant interest and skill in sketching in the past but has stopped that since living with his father.  She brought items of clothing for the two girls.

8. The children played games with the father and Ms C recorded at paragraphs 49-50:

   There appeared to be a suggestion he is competitive with the children rather than having awareness of allowing a child, particularly the youngest, to win with effort at least some of the time.

   The girls seemed overly polite towards Mr Perry, frequently saying, "please and thank you Daddy," to the extent that it appeared unnatural and possibly rehearsed.

9. Ms C noted the documentation subpoenaed from Queensland and the extensive criminal records of both parents.  It is clear from the materials, and the paraphrase from Ms C, that the relationship involved significant family violence perpetrated on the mother by the father.

10. Under the heading Evaluation, Ms C recorded at paragraph 67:

    The parties displayed concerning self-interest rather than the interests of their children and minimised their verbally violent behaviours with each other and possibly other partners when the children were present.  There was a strong sense both were practised in impression management and that the children had been subjected to preparation for interviews.

    There were significant concerns for X who impressed as tired and vulnerable.  The two girls appeared overly compliant with their father, and unusually polite given the appearance of artificiality, akin to children from a television program like the Brady Bunch.

11. At paragraph 69, Ms C recorded of the mother:

    In relation to the impact of her substance use on their children she had some insight, but did not seem to have insight about the potential psychological effects on them of being put in the care of their father when she recovered from grief.  Her trust of Mr Perry in caring for the children seemed inconsistent with the allegations he was "very violent" towards her.  She had advised the violence was unrelated to substance use.

12. Ms C recorded at paragraph 70:

    Mr Perry impressed as enmeshed with the children and there are concerns he has little insight about them as separate individuals from him.  This is concerning because it is an indicator of potentially controlling and violent behaviour.  His recounting of the strategies he says he had learned at the “personal development course” he attends are not consistent with strategies that usually work to reduce anger and violence.  He may not have been able to articulate specific strategies well, but that is also a concern in relation to his capacity to learn.

13. At paragraph 72 and following, the report continued:

    The children have given mixed feedback at separate report interviews.  It is considered important they remain together and there seem to be strong indicators at these family report interviews that they need to be with their mother who is their primary attachment figure.  It appeared they had little contact with their father prior to his last release from jail in August 2014.

    There were also concerns about the veracity of the information provided by both parties, but in particular that Mr Perry's address provided on referral from the Court was found not to exist, and that Ms Glenn does not know where the children live.

    It is noted Mr Perry has practiced deceit in the past and that there were charges of deception and fraud amongst other violent crimes in his history provided by Queensland Police.

    It seemed confusing that Mr Perry had reported his major concern for the children, if in their mother's care, was that her use of marijuana was illegal, given he cannot return to Queensland for breach of parole conditions and had demonstrated past criminal behaviour which resulted in a number of incarcerations.

    Information in the s 11F memorandum suggested DHHS have not considered either party to have significant issues of risk for these children and there were no records of them before 2015.

    It is significant and most likely Ms Glenn was the children's primary carer and attachment until October 2015.  It is likely despite the separation that she remains so.  The parties disagreed about the reasons Mr Perry was not spending time with the children for at least two years after the separation in 2012, but it would seem his incarcerations would partially explain that and his breach of parole by moving to Melbourne also provides partial explanation.

    There are concerns that Mr Perry's alleged secretiveness about his address and his past criminal history may be an indicator he would not comply with orders to facilitate the children to have a meaningful relationship with their mother should they remain in his care.  There are also concerns that if he is not providing accurate information about the whereabouts of the children, he may overhold them and move to an unknown location if the children spent time with him in Victoria, should they return to live with their mother.  There are further concerns that the allegations of Mr Perry using alcohol heavily, to the extent of being hospitalised, have not been tested.  The combination of Suboxone and alcohol is a serious concern.  There were reports as late as 2015 that Ms Glenn also drinks alcohol heavily on occasions if not more frequently.

    Ms Glenn's account of her psychological therapy was consistent with supportive, emotion-focused therapy.

    There are concerns that Mr Perry was unaware of whether X had accessed psychological counselling at the school and this seemed to support that Ms T provides much of the day-to-day care.

14. The report went on to recommend interim orders, with the children living in the maternal grandmother's home in Queensland and that there would be at least six months when the children do not spend time with the father to make an adjustment.  It was also recommended that both parties undertake a liver function test, provided they were suitable candidates, and that the results be made available to the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the parties' lawyers.  The report went on at paragraph 85 to recommend that the children spend time in person with the father only when he has demonstrated no alcohol abuse, appropriate living arrangements for the children, such as a separate bedroom for X, and the girls sharing a bedroom, and evidence by way of lease agreement of such accommodation.

15. Once that had occurred, the children should spend time with their father on school holidays and by Skype or phone on one weekend night.  An updated family report was also recommended.

The report of Dr G

1. Dr G has put on affidavit a report dated 19 September 2016.  The mother was referred to him by her general practitioner, Dr F, in May 2016.  An initial assessment diagnosed mild bereavement and further stimulant use disorder.  The bereavement related to the death of the mother's father in May 2016.  She had attended five consultations through to 14 September 2016 and presented with a consistent, normal emotional state and euthymic mood.  The mother had reported her own mother's bipolar affective disorder.  Dr G estimated that the mother was of average to above average intelligence.  She, however, described a relationship in which the father denigrated her intelligence on a regular basis.  The mother described meeting Mr T about five years previously and a separation from late 2014 to 2016.  The mother used ice for approximately 12 months.

1. Dr G concluded:

   Based on discussions with MS GLENN regarding her interactions with the children and with regarding to how she manages her life now, I believe she has a strong capability to function as an appropriate and effective parent.  She takes an active interest in the socio-emotional and developmental wellbeing of the children, has obtained and maintained employment in a job well below her capabilities so she can regularly travel to see the children, has maintained abstinence from illicit drugs for nine (9)months, and has a strong self-respect and discerning mind when it comes to the appropriateness and conduct of other people.

2. Dr G was not required for cross-examination.

Ms C under cross-examination

1. Ms C's report was tendered as exhibit C1. 

2. Under cross-examination by counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer, Ms C confirmed that the father became tearful during the interview with her.  The father was somewhat enmeshed with the children.  It was not unusual for a person to cry, but it was the overall pattern of his presentation.  The father had difficulties distinguishing the children from himself and was competitive with them.  He was unable to separate other people from themselves.

3. Ms C confirmed that one child said they got into trouble after disclosing calling the mother’s partner daddy.  It was the way they said these sorts of things.  Ms C has asked X if he was worried whether the parents would know what he said, and he replied that he would.  He said, specifically, it was the father.  The children were under pressure from the father.  X looked tired.  He had rings under his eyes and was emotionally flat.  The bruise referred to in the family report was noticeable but not enough to alert the Department of Health and Human Services.  When it was put to her that the father might still be drinking to excess, Ms C says this heightened her concerns.  Suboxone is contraindicated with alcohol, although Ms C said she was not a doctor and offered no more detail than that. 

4. Ms C confirmed that attachment was formed by a child up to the age of five.  The strength of the attachment did not generally alter after that.  Ms C was most concerned as to what would happen if there was an adverse finding against the father.  She would prefer an immediate change of residence.  She recommended interim orders and that there be no contact with the father from six months after change of residence to take the pressure off.  Time could be considered thereafter.  There needs to be time to adjust to living with the mother without pressure from the father.  The children were less likely to be influenced by enmeshment with the father as a result.  Ms C expressed concerns about time with the father by Skype or phone because of what the father might say.

5. The mother had said she had attended a psychologist.  It would help to have a mental health care plan for the mother and the children.  They could work through the grief at the change of residence.  The mother would be eligible for 10 sessions in the year which was just about support.  The father said he was involved in a men’s program but should see a practitioner individually for support.  He could do the course again.  It might help to have a family report.

6. If the children were with the father, Ms C was concerned as to how the father might respond to the children.  She expressed concern at the extent to which the father had really changed.  It was possible the father had suffered trauma as a child and his brain might be different as a result.  He might have problems reflecting.

7. Under cross-examination by counsel for the father, Ms C confirmed that the children’s emotional state was a problem.  X said he was fearful.  Ms C was also concerned there might be something else he was not allowed to say.  Ms C was concerned that the mother was discussing the case with the children.  Nonetheless, this did not explain their presentation.  The children were over-compliant, and this was concerning.  X had said he recalled more friends when living with the mother and enjoyed living there but would be okay to live with the father.

8. Ms C had not read the section 11F report until after the interview and it did not change her views. The children were somewhat enmeshed with the father and that can end up in looking after the parent. Ms C was concerned that the mother might have taken illicit drugs in December 2016. She had told Ms C she had used none since December 2015. She would be concerned if there was a pattern of relapsing.

9. The father had taken the children at the mother’s request, and this was good.  The children were stable in their schools, although there was some question as to where the father was living. 

10. Z had told Ms C that she got into trouble for making disclosures, and X had expressed fears about the father knowing what he might say.  The clothes to which reference was made were given to the girls by the mother at the end of the observation.  The sketchpad was an activity for X.  When questioned about the question of a separate bedroom for X, Ms C said that X was 11 years old.  The girls were much younger.  A 12 year old should not be in the same room as his sisters.

11. Under cross-examination by counsel for the mother, Ms C confirmed that the father cannot separate himself from the children.  Problems of enmeshment are worse at adolescence.  It is possible arguments lead to the children shutting down and not developing their own individuality.  Telling X to man up would be a lack of empathy. 

12. It was notable that the girls were more natural and spontaneous with the mother than the father.  X was quiet with both but responded positively to the mother’s praise of his art.  He was reasonably relaxed with the father.  The father had said he knew the children best. 

Submissions of Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer

1. Counsel said that there were concerns with both parents.  Alcohol abuse was a serious concern.  The father had read the family report six months ago but taken no action.  He was on antidepressants as well.  The father had had six months to get evidence about his hospitalisation but it was still not available.  It was submitted that the pancreatitis was likely alcohol-caused. 

2. The children had said there were fights in both households and there was no affidavit from the father’s partner.  The family report and Ms C’s evidence showed that the children were fearful of the father and he was still angry in the household.  He had no insight despite education. 

3. Ms C was very concerned about the children’s presentation.  The father was enmeshed.  He was not able to foster their individuality.  It was submitted that the father needed more psychological assistance and this should be ordered.

4. The mother was very concerning also.  After the report of Dr G, the mother continued to use illicit drugs and had not sought further assistance.  Nonetheless, when using ice in 2015, she recognised she was unable to look after the children.  Her lack of insight was, however, demonstrated by her relationship with Mr T and the interrelated family violence.  Mr T was still a friend.  It was submitted the mother had something to hide.  The father was unconcerned about the mother’s marijuana use insofar as it related to her capacity to care for the children.

5. The mother had significantly discussed the proceedings with the children and this showed a lack of insight.  She had been the primary carer and attachment figure, and there was a greater potential that the children would thrive in her care.  The mother needed an order for ongoing psychiatric assistance.  On balance, the Independent Children’s Lawyer submitted it was appropriate that the children should live with the mother, but if there was a change of residence, there should be interim orders.  The Independent Children’s Lawyer was concerned that there might be no contact with the father and submitted that there should be Skype and telephone contact.  There was a possibility of holiday time later in the year. 

Submissions of Counsel for the Mother

1. Counsel submitted that the mother was the primary carer and had enough insight to give the children to the father in 2015 and following when she had obtained assistance.  The father had initially misled the court in 2015 when denying that he knew where the mother was.  Counsel referred to the evidence of Ms C and pointed to the significant concerns if there would an adverse decision to the father and this should be a matter to be given weight.

2. There were problems with the father’s alcohol abuse.  The mother had promoted a relationship with the father and would continue to do so.  It was submitted that the father’s extended family had made no approaches to seek time but that the mother would foster this.  It was submitted that although there were concerns about the mother’s illicit drug use, she now had her mother with her and a large and appropriate settled accommodation.

3. The mother did not oppose ongoing counselling nor an order that she live with her own mother.  She did not oppose supervised urine tests.  It was pointed out that the question of liver function testing had been overtaken by events. It was submitted there should be holidays and telephone times as agreed.

Submissions of Counsel for the Father

1. Counsel submitted that time in Queensland would still be a problem.  The father wants the children to live with him and spend holiday time and weekend time in Victoria.  If they were to live with the mother, a period of absence from the father of six months was far too long.  One term would be quite sufficient.  Ms D’s observations supported this, particularly in relation to X.  The problem was that the mother was still in Queensland and had difficulties with drugs.  Drug use was the major issue.  The mother lied to the family report writer about drug use and also to Dr G.

2. Ms C was concerned about the lies about drug uses.  There was a question mark over the mother’s relationship with Mr T.  The mother did not think she needed counselling.  She had been using cannabis since her teens and used ice since 2014.  She began cannabis again after the death of her father and used it till late 2016 and lied to Dr G and Ms C about this. There was a pattern of drug use relapse if she was stressed.

Some Observations about the Credit of the Witnesses

1. Neither of these witnesses were uniformly impressive.  I have already interpolated on various occasions as to aspects of their evidence.  The father was, at times, evasive. He gave incomplete and, in my view, dishonest answers at times.  Some of what he had to say, particularly, in relation to his consumption of alcohol, was plainly untrue.  He has been, at least, parsimonious with the truth in his description of his various incarcerations.  Likewise, his attempt, unsuccessful as I find, to minimise his alcohol use was deeply unimpressive.

2. Nonetheless, he was not alone.  The mother was by no means wholly satisfactory as a witness.  She was evasive in describing her relationship with Mr T, who is more on the scene, as I would find, than she is prepared to accept.  Her assertion that her relationship with Mr T was not volatile is plainly untrue.  Both these parties, as in part they would admit, have significant weaknesses.

3. Ms C was the only other witness cross-examined, and she was a professional witness giving evidence in her area of expertise.   She was not moved at all in cross-examination, and I accept her evidence.

The Statutory Pathway

1. Since for reasons to which I shall come, I think it is appropriate to make interim orders, the statutory pathway is as set out in Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346 (“Goode v Goode”) at paragraph 82.

2. The statutory pathway as set out in Goode v Goode is as follows:

   [82]   In an interim case that would involve the following:

   (a) identifying the competing proposals of the parties;

   (b) identifying the issues in dispute in the interim hearing;

   (c) identifying any agreed or uncontested relevant facts;

   (d) considering the matters in s 60CC that are relevant and, if possible, making findings about them (in interim proceedings there may be little uncontested evidence to enable more than a limited consideration of these matters to take place);

   (e) deciding whether the presumption in s 61DA that equal shared parental responsibility is in the best interests of the child applies or does not apply because there are reasonable grounds to believe there has been abuse of the child or family violence or, in an interim matter, the Court does not consider it appropriate to apply the presumption;

   (f) if the presumption does apply, deciding whether it is rebutted because application of it would not be in the child’s best interests;

   (g) if the presumption applies and is not rebutted, considering making an order that the child spend equal time with the parents unless it is contrary to the child’s best interests as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in s 60CC, or impracticable;

   (h) if equal time is found not to be in the child’s best interests, considering making an order that the child spend substantial and significant time as defined in s 65DAA(3) with the parents, unless contrary to the child’s best interests as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in s 60CC, or impracticable;

   (i) if neither equal time nor substantial and significant time is considered to be in the best interests of the child, then making such orders in the discretion of the Court that are in the best interests of the child, as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in s 60CC;

   (j) if the presumption is not applied or is rebutted, then making such order as is in the best interests of the child, as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in s 60CC; and

   (k) even then the Court may need to consider equal time or substantial and significant time, especially if one of the parties has sought it or, even if neither has sought it, if the Court considers after affording procedural fairness to the parties it to be in the best interests of the child.

3. In this interim hearing, as I find it should be, there has been family violence on any view of the matter, and it is not appropriate to apply the presumption as to equal parental responsibility.  This would be the case even if it were a final hearing.  The question of what should happen as to parental responsibility should, in my view, await final orders.

The Children’s Best Interests – the Primary Considerations

1. Pursuant to section 60CC(2), the court is required to consider the benefit to the children of a relationship with both parents and the need to protect them from family violence. The latter is required to be given greater emphasis pursuant to section 60CC(2A). In this case, everyone agrees in principle that the children should have a relationship with both parents, but the question is how it should occur. There is no doubt that there has been family violence, but, curiously, neither parent says that the other should be excised as a result.

The Additional Considerations - Section 60CC(3)(a)

1. The children have expressed some views, but it is important to remember that they are still relatively young.  X has expressed a relatively strong view about being separated from his father, but the difficulty is that it is clear that he has been coached by the father, as Ms C, in my view, accurately surmises.  The younger two children appear to have a closer relationship with their mother.

Section 60CC(3)(b)

1. As I find, the children have always regarded their mother as their primary carer.  They continue to do so.  The evidence from Ms C in this regard is compelling.  It is only natural.  When separation occurred, the father decamped for various reasons for a period of time.  They came back into his care and have remained in it, but he yells at them and they are, to an extent, scared of him as a result.

2. Ms C surmises that the children may have been scared to say what they really thought is one that I am entirely prepared to accept.  While the children love their father, their primary attachment is clearly to their mother.  They also appear to have a reasonably good relationship with the father’s partner, Ms T, who, as I find, spends a lot of the time providing their care, given the father’s work hours.

3. The relationship with Mr T is more complex.  He is on the scene more than the mother is prepared to admit.  He hits the children but, X, at least, seems to enjoy his relationship with him.  The children appear to have a quite excellent relationship with the maternal grandmother with whom they would be likely to live were they to be returned to Queensland.

Section 60CC(3)(c)

1. Both parents are subject to proper criticism under this subsection.  The father absented himself from the children’s lives following a separation for reasons that, in my view, are wholly unconvincing.  The mother has had to give the children to the father as a result of her drug abuse in 2015.  Nonetheless, there are two things to be said.  First, the mother has made every proper effort to include the father in the children’s lives following the separation.  Her evidence about driving down to Melbourne with her uncle was compelling.

2. She, indeed, has only lost the children as a result of her decision to give them to him.  In my view, she deserves a great deal of credit for this.  The father has, by no means, fully reciprocated.  He has not been so concerned to spend time with the children, although to his credit, he has prosecuted his case to trial.

Section 60CC(3)(ca)

1. Neither of these parents have been optimal in their behaviour.  Their violence-afflicted and drug-affected lives speak for themselves.  The father’s extensive criminal history speaks against him.  There is no suggestion that either of them have fulfilled any child support responsibilities.  The way in which the parents brought the children up while they were together leaves everything to be desired.  Regrettably, they are very challenged individuals.

Section 60CC(3)(d)

1. If the children go to live in Queensland with their mother, it will obviously be a big change for them.  Nonetheless, they love their grandmother.  The house available for them to live in Queensland, at least, in the short term, is eminently suitable.  It is where they had more friends when they were at school.  It is where their extended families live on both sides.  Nonetheless, there will be a grieving process, as Ms C pointed out, and this is something that needs to borne in mind.  They will also cease to live with the two children of the father’s partner.  Nonetheless, this latter relationship is not one which, on the material, seems to be at the forefront of their lives.

Section 60CC(3)(e)

1. There will be a considerable practical difficulty and expense in the children spending time with and communicating with the father in the event that they relocate to Queensland.  Nonetheless, that is part and parcel of the circumstances in which the parents find themselves and one which they will obtain whether they live with the father or the mother.  I note that the mother has gone to a lot of trouble to make money to see the children, and that is greatly to her credit.  Doubtless, she will be able, subject to work arrangements, to assist the father to see the children if that is the way things pan out.

Section 60CC(3)(f)

1. The reports of the DHHS and of the authorities in Queensland, taken globally, suggest that both of these parents are, at least, sufficiently capable to look after the children while in their care.  Experience also suggests that that is the case.  The mother had them from separation until 2015 and the father has had them since.  The father is significantly assisted by his partner.  Whether they are capable, however, to provide for their emotional and intellectual needs is open to question. 

2. Ms C is of the view, correctly, as I would find, that the father is enmeshed with the children.  He lacks insight and competes with them when he should not.  His capacity to cope with the emotional needs of the children is open to serious question.  The mother’s difficulties relate more to her drug use and fragility that is associated with it. 

Section 60CC(3)(g)

1. This aspect of the matter, while important, has perhaps already been addressed.  Both these parents have significant weaknesses.  The father impressed me as being a man enmeshed with his children, as Ms C described.  He struggles to see them as people separate from himself.  His sense of wellbeing is bound up in possession of them.  He lacks insight and has had a most unfortunate personal history.

2. The mother is little better.  She likewise lacks insight.  She has an ambivalent relationship with Mr T, whose name, unfortunately, has about it an element of actuality in that he has hit the children.  She does not appear to understand how important this is.  These are two seriously flawed individuals who deserve compassion rather than criticism, but the fact is that they both have significant weaknesses.

Section 60CC(3)(h)

1. This is irrelevant.

Section 60CC(3)(i)

1. This subsection is important but has already probably been dealt with above.  Both these parents have significant difficulties and have been irresponsible and inadequate as parents from time to time.

Section 60CC(3)(j)

1. There has been significant family violence by the father on the mother.  He says this has all now come to an end, but I note that he still has significant and violent arguments with his current partner, according to the children, disclosures that I accept.  While he may no longer be in the business of actually hitting people, he is not yet sufficiently mature to avoid significant emotional disturbance and this is deeply distressing to the children.  The report from 2013 is terribly concerning.

2. Likewise, the mother is little better.  She has arguments with Mr T, who hits the children.  The relationship with Mr T may be over but it could be on again readily.  He is not off the scene.  These are matters of significant concern. 

Section  60CC(3)(k)

1. This matter is not now relevant.

Section 60CC(3)(l)

1. I am disposed to order a change of residence because the mother is the primary attachment of the children.  In these circumstances, the submission of the Independent Children’s Lawyer that interim orders should be made is, in my view, irresistible.

Section 60CC(3)(m)

1. There are no additional matters that are directly relevant.

Conclusion

1. This case involves making a decision about primary residence involving two parents, both of whom have significant and unfortunate deficits.  I should make it clear that it is a matter of regret to me to have to make findings that they will doubtless find difficult and upsetting to read.  Nonetheless, the way they have run their cases means that the court cannot avoid making assessments and, in the circumstances, these assessments must, in part, be damaging.  Nonetheless, the overall picture is clear. 

2. The children have lived most of their lives in Queensland.  Most of their extended family is in Queensland.  If the mother lives in Queensland with her mother, as I accept she will (and I accept that the grandmother’s health is unexceptional, given the affidavit material filed) they will live in an altogether better space than the crowded and not entirely sympathetic space they are in in Victoria.

3. The father has not called his partner, and the children have disclosed that they feel that they are less preferentially treated than the partner’s children.  Given that the mother has been and remains the primary carer, as I find, it is appropriate that they live with her.

4. Nonetheless, I do not regard it as at all appropriate that the children be put into contact with the mother’s former partner, Mr T, if he is, indeed, the former partner.  He has hit the children, and the mother has not stopped him from doing so.  I will make an order that the children not be brought into contact with Mr T at all.

5. Otherwise, ancillary orders as to counselling and the like will be made as sought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.  The matter will be brought back to court in some six months or so time for further review.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and twenty (120) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Burchardt

Date:  21 April 2017