Price and Lord and Ors

[2010] FamCA 803

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PRICE & LORD AND ORS [2010] FamCA 803

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting Orders – Application by the mother that the children live with her – Where children currently reside with the first respondent, the deceased paternal grandfather’s de facto partner – Where the mother served seven months in gaol for rape of the eldest child and was later acquitted on Appeal – Where circumstances caused a severe rift in her relationship with children – Finding that the mother’s behaviour is not in the best interests of the children – Finding that there is unacceptable risk in the mother’s care – Orders made that the children live with the second respondent

APPLICANT: Ms Price

FIRST RESPONDENT: Ms Lord

SECOND RESPONDENT: Ms Benson

THIRD RESPONDENT: Mr Laur

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms McDiarmid

FILE NUMBER: BRC 10169 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 9 August 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J

HEARING DATE: 4, 5 & 6 August 2010

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms N.A. Martin

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Brook of Hayley Ritchie Solicitors Pty Ltd

COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT: Ms J. Farr

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Highland Ferguson Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT: Mr C.W. Heaton

SOLICITOR FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT: Charlton Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms McDiarmid

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Suthers Lawyers

Orders

LIVE WITH

1. That the children, Y (born … April 1997), R (born … January 1999), E (born … October 2000) and A (born … July 2002) (“the children”) live with the First Respondent.

2. That when the children are spending time with the Second Respondent the children be at liberty to telephone the First Respondent at all reasonable times and during any school holiday periods the children telephone the First Respondent between 6 and 6.30pm each Tuesday.

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

1. That each of the parties have the parental responsibility for the day to day care, welfare and development of the children whilst they are in their respective care.

2. That the First Respondent have the sole parental responsibility for the major long term issues involving the children.

TIME AND/OR COMMUNICATION WITH THE APPLICANT MOTHER

1. The children R, E and A spend time and communicate with the Applicant Mother a period of up to 4 hours (as may be available at S Contact Centre) each calendar month supervised at the S Contact Centre at S with the Applicant Mother and the First Respondent to share the costs of the Contact Centre equally.

2. By telephone with each of R, E and A each Wednesday evening between 5.30 and 6.30pm.

3. That the child Y spend time with and communicate with the Applicant Mother at the child’s election.

4. That the Applicant Mother be at liberty to forward cards and letters to the children R, E and A through the Second Respondent .

TIME AND/OR COMMUNICATION WITH THE SECOND RESPONDENT

1. The children shall spend time with and communicate with the Second Respondent as agreed between the First and Second Respondents but failing agreement as follows:

   (a)The children, Y and A shall spend time with the Second Respondent on the last weekend of each alternate month and the children, R and E shall spend time with the Second Respondent on the last weekend of each alternate month.

   (b)Upon notice in writing given to the First Respondent at least 28 days in advance, for half of all Queensland gazetted school holidays being the first half in even numbered years and the second half in odd numbered years.

   (c)For special occasions and special days, including the children’s birthdays, with the child whose birthday it is to spend time with the Second Respondent either the weekend prior to or the weekend after the child’s birthday for a minimum of four hours.

   (d)At Easter time on either Easter Saturday or Easter Sunday for a minimum of four hours.

   (e)At Christmas time from 2pm until 5pm on Boxing Day.

   (f)For special occasions such as family reunions and/or functions including weddings or other events, with the Second Respondent to provide 14 days prior notice in writing to the First Respondent.

   (g)The children shall have telephone communication with the Second Respondent at all reasonable times but including Tuesday of each week between 6 and 6.30pm with the Second Respondent to initiate the call and the children to be afforded privacy during any calls.

CHANGEOVERS

1. That changeovers between the First Respondent and the Second Respondent shall take place at the Z Park at a time to be agreed upon by those parties.

SPECIFIC ISSUES

1. All parties shall:

   (a)Keep the other parties informed at all times of their residential address and landline/mobile contact telephone number;

   (b)Keep the other parties informed of the names and addresses of any treating medical or other health practitioners who treat the children and authorise those practitioners to provide the other parties with information (at the other parties’ expense if any) that they are lawfully able to provide about the children;

   (c)Inform the other parties as soon as reasonably practicable of any medical condition, health issues or illness of a serious nature suffered by the children and this Order authorises any medical practitioner to release the children’s medical information to the other parties (at the other parties’ expense if any);

   (d)Not consume alcohol to excess or to take illegal or illicit substances or to expose the children to such environment when the children are in their respective care.

   (e)Not denigrate the other parties in the presence or hearing of the children or allow the children to remain in the presence of any other person doing so.

   (f)Provide to the other parties any/all prescribed medication required by each child upon changeovers and details of the administration of such medication.

   (g)Provide all other parties 28 days notice in writing of an intention to change any of the children’s school.

2. The parties authorise, by this order, the schools attended by the children to give all other parties information about the children’s educational progress and other school related activities and supply them with copies of school reports, photographs, certificates and awards obtained by the children (at the other parties’ expense, if any).

3. That the First Respondent shall facilitate the children contacting any of the parties by telephone whenever they shall express a desire to do so.

4. That the Independent Children’s Lawyer arrange for the Applicant and the First Respondent to attend a Parenting Orders Program.

5. That a short report be prepared by a Family Consultant in relation to the contact order between the mother and the children and that such report be prepared no later than six months from today’s date.

6. That pursuant to s.65DA(2) and s.62B, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Price & Benson and Ors is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 10169 of 2008

MS PRICE

Applicant

And

MS LORD

First Respondent

MS BENSON

Second Respondent

MR LAUR

Third Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application on the part of Ms Price, for parenting orders in relation to four children of her relationship with the third respondent, Mr Laur, the father.  The children are Y, born in April 1997;  R, born in January 1999;  E, born in October 2000;  and A, born in July 2002. At this stage, may I indicate that notwithstanding I am giving my reasons verbally, I will be incorporating in my reasons, when they come out of the type, a reference to a case of Cowley & Mendoza, which is unreported – it is written by Murphy J and delivered on 16 July 2010, and it is basically with reference to the matters that I have to consider;  the general statements of law.

2. I’ve already indicated the birth of the children.  Since about January 2003, the Department of Children’s Services have been involved with these children.  Initially, it was brought into the children’s affairs, as I understand, because of allegations of violence between the applicant, the mother, and the third respondent, the father, Mr Laur.  However, I make it quite clear at this stage, that the mother did have difficulty – and she does not refute such allegations – managing the children, and in particular, N, who is a child not of the relationship between herself and the third respondent;  he being a child of another relationship.

3. N appears, I think, to be suffering from ADHD, and in all probability, either Asperger’s or Autism.  He is a difficult boy, and has been in the care of DOCS on occasions, but was reunited with his mother in 2008, and since that time, he has been living with her.  In 2004/5, the mother indicated that she was finding extreme difficulty in looking after the children.  She was not well.  She alleged that the relationship between herself and the father was very poor, and this was causing her an enormous amount of angst.  And as a result thereof, she says they separated in 2004, but also I should say, N was being violent to the other children.

4. All these matters acted most heavily upon her, and as a result thereof, she sought the assistance of the Department of Children’s Services, and the children were put into temporary care at that time.  There was, in existence, the paternal grandfather, a Mr Laur Senior, who at or about this time, had entered into a relationship with the first respondent, Ms Lord.  And he appears to have had some close relationship with the children, and the children eventually came into his care – by the children, I am not referring to N – came into his care, and thereafter, shall we say that the contact between the mother and the children was problematic in the extreme.  And, in fact, since about 2006, she has had no contact with Y at all.

5. Regrettably, the paternal grandfather died in early 2007. Since that time, the children have resided with, if I may refer to as the paternal grand-step-mother, that being, Ms Lord.  As I have said, she is not the biological grandparent of any of the children, but she was, I think, in a de facto relationship with the paternal grandfather, and from about 2005/6, has had a considerable amount of time to spend with the children.  In fact, the children have been living with her, excluding N, since that time.  I think the children came to live in dribs and drabs.  Two of the children came first, and that was E and A – that was in about March 2005 – and then in or about April, R commenced living with them.

6. I must say in passing, R also appears to have either ADD or Asperger’s, and that is referred to in some of the medical reports that I’ve had before me.  He, whilst might be slightly difficult, is nowhere near as difficult as N.  In August 2005, the mother made, perhaps, a cry for help, in that she overdosed on Codeine tablets which she had been being prescribed, and was admitted to the Hospital for a period.  She had contact with A and Y for a period, and refused to return them to the first respondent, but subsequently, the children were returned. But she then removed R and E, it is alleged, forcibly.

7. She herself concedes that she went into the house in which the first respondent was residing and removed the children, without the consent or permission of either the first respondent, or the paternal grandfather.  Orders were made by Slack FM, for the return of the children.  They were returned.  As I have said, since then, the children have had problematic contact with the mother.  In fact, they had problematic contact up until then, and it got worse, subsequent thereto.  Supervision, or supervised orders for contact were made in the Magistrates Court for the mother to spend supervised time with the children.  These orders – that was in May 2006, and these orders were subsequently suspended.  In late 2006, the mother was charged with rape of the child, Y.  This looms particularly large in this case.  Up until that time, notwithstanding the contact between the mother and the children was problematic, it was taking place, to a greater or lesser extent – more lesser than greater.  But in March of 2006, Y made certain disclosures to the step-grandmother, which are set out in the material.  And I will not dignify them by repeating them in full in my reasons for judgment.

8. This caused the first respondent a deal of concern.  Not only did Y disclose certain things, but A, at or about the same time, who was aged something like about three years of age at the time, made certain disclosures as well.  I must say in passing, before I go any further into this, that the first respondent gave me the impression of being a pretty strong woman.  She listened.  She was highly intelligent, as far as I was concerned.  She listened clearly to the questions, and answered them – was not, in any way, overborne by the position in which she found herself, nor in the witness box, which is not a very salubrious place for anybody to be.

9. But at this stage, particularly when she gave evidence to this court, of the disclosure by A, she became, obviously, quite disturbed and upset.  This tends to reinforce my view that, in fact, the allegations and the disclosures made by Y were, in fact, made, as well as those by A.  It was faintly suggested on the part of the mother that, in fact, this was not the case; that it had been put into the children’s mind by Ms Lord, for her own purposes, because as was emphasised by counsel for the mother, she had, in fact, looked upon the children as her children.  I do not accept that.  I am more than satisfied that these disclosures were made, and it will be incumbent upon me to determine whether, in fact, the mother had, in fact, perpetrated these sexual assaults upon Y and A.

10. It is also alleged by the other two – by E – not so much E, but R, that the mother had, in fact, interfered with them as well.  This is critical in this case – not whether, in fact, she carried out these acts, but whether I’m satisfied;  (1) whether she did or not;  or (2) whether, in fact, it is an unacceptable risk to allow the children to have unsupervised – or contact at all, with the mother, or at the best, supervised contact.  The mother was charged with rape.  The mother was found guilty of criminal charge.  I have already commented upon the transcript of the trial in argument which took place ….  And it staggered me that a matter as serious as rape could have been dealt with as economically, if I can put as neutral a word, as it had.

11. But I am assured by Mr Heaton, who practices at the Criminal Bar, that this is not unusual nowadays. I was staggered. The evidence from the first respondent was, I think, of about a large paragraph and a half.  She suffered little or no cross-examination.  The prime evidence was a recording made by Y.  The jury, as I have said, found her guilty.  She appealed.  She was sent to gaol for three and a half years.  She appealed, and the Court of Criminal Appeal considered that the jury had not directed their minds sufficiently to the evidence, in particular, a variation in the evidence of Y, insofar as identification was concerned.

12. Y being in a dream-like state on one occasion, I think she said she didn’t know who it was who assaulted her, and then later on, she said that it was the mother.  The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the jury did not direct their minds sufficiently to it, and they should have found a reasonable doubt.  And as a result thereof, the appeal was successful, and she was acquitted.  But, however, she had spent a period of approximately – correct me if I’m wrong – seven months in prison, which is an inordinately long time for a person who subsequently was found not to be innocent, as she said, but to be not guilty.  It is tragic, because it appears this is a catalyst of the relationship between the mother and Y, which is non-existent.

13. Since her release, she has initiated the application for the children to live with her.  The various parties have appeared before me.  Mr Laur, the father – biological father of the children – who, seen fit to appear here today, did not consider it necessary to put before the court any evidence at all, notwithstanding he was directed to do so.  He appeared on the first day of the hearing, and manifested, what I consider to be a total lack of interest in the proceedings, save that he thought he was being railroaded by everybody except himself.  I was not impressed with Mr Laur, and with great respect to him, I take little notice of his appearance here, and it may be that some people will consider the children would be better off without him.

14. That’s not for me to determine, because he has not put sufficient evidence before me.  But he did not impress me at all.  Ms Benson, the second respondent is, in fact, the grandmother of the children.  She had a relationship with Mr Laur Senior, and subsequent, after Mr Laur Senior died, she married Mr Benson, and is living with him, and as it appears to be quite happy.  She does have some relationship with the children.  She initially sought an order – I think, if my memory serves me correctly – that the children live with her, but she has resiled from that, and notwithstanding she was opposing the children residing with Ms Lord, the first respondent – or continue to reside with them, she has now withdrawn her objection to that, saying that they have, in effect, buried their differences.

15. She was rather strong, in her affidavit of last year.  But they’ve buried their differences, and she thinks that in all the circumstances, it would be preferable for the children to reside with Ms Lord, so long as she can have some contact with the children.  Therefore, it appears to me that there’s a consensual order being made between Ms Lord and Mrs Benson.  She, as I said, has had contact with the children.  I think it’s worked out at about two of them, alternately, at the end of each month.  And that is the order that was sought by herself, as well as a general order in relation to extended periods of block contact, if and when she can financially afford the expense of having the children with her.  And I will be making an order to that effect.

16. The children have been examined, if I may put it that way – have been interviewed by two family consultants.  Well, in effect, three, and there have been four reports;  two by Ms D, and two by Ms B.  I will be referring, basically, to Ms B’s report, because I consider it is more current, and is more support for my decision than, perhaps, Ms D’s, which was much earlier in the piece.  In her first report, which is dated 27 April 2009, after, as is usual with Ms B, an extensive and in-depth consideration of the proposals of the parties, which are still before the court in a similar form, she refers to at page 3 of her report of that date.  She recommends, at page 19, paragraphs 78 to 82, included certain matters.

17. Subsequently to that date, she saw the children again.  I think she did prepare an assessment, but she saw them again in – the report is dated 20 April – and she saw them on 25 March 2010.  I must say in passing that there were complaints of the children, in relation to their mother, in the previous report, where there were allegations of sexual assaults upon their persons; of difficult behaviour on the part of the mother.  And they expressed fairly strong wishes that they wished to remain with Ms Lord, with whom they’ve been since 2005.  Ms B, at that stage, indicated that:

    It is essential for children’s welfare that they become aware of their parents, and that every attempt should be made to ensure that the parents and the children have a warm, loving and beneficial relationship.

1. The children were, at that stage, I am quite satisfied, somewhat frightened of their mother, notwithstanding Ms B points out that, in fact, the children were very relaxed.  I say, “the children”;  I’m referring now only to the younger three, or the youngest three, not Y.  And that they were quite happy in her presence, and it was somewhat of a concern – well, not a concern, but Y was surprised and overwhelmed – see paragraph 15.  She was overwhelmed by the relationship between the children and the mother.  I see at page 53 of that report, Ms B says:

   All children appeared happy and relaxed.

2. Paragraph 57:

   [Y] had a surprised, almost mystified, look on her face.  She informed me that she was very surprised and shocked at her siblings’ reaction.  [Y] stated, “They don’t act like this with me.  If I was in that room now, they would be negative and stuff.”

   And she goes on to report various statements made, not only by Y, by the other children.  But unfortunately, it appears that Y’s distress at her mother has become more ingrained.  And at page 5, paragraph 18, of the report filed 23 April 2010, Ms B sets out statements made by Y.  Not only does it appear in paragraph 18, it goes on to paragraph 19.

3. These statements are possibly the most vituperative I have ever seen in my 34 years of experience on this bench.  This child, when she made the statements, was just 13 years of age.  They’re quite shocking, just to start.

   I hate [the mother].  She is a fucking bitch.

   That, in itself, is absolutely tragic;  that this child has got to the stage where, in fact, she regards her mother in that form.  She goes on:

   She is a retard.  I hate her guts.

4. Obviously, Y has suffered something which has caused her to despise, if I may use that word, her mother.  Therefore, as a result of that, I intend to have a look at if, in fact, rape took place.  I’m satisfied on the evidence before me that I could not be satisfied that the rape, if I might use that word, as alleged took place on the child.  Why?  Because of similar matters to which I’ve referred in the Criminal Court, and that is the confusion of an eight-year-old child as to who may have done it.  And the fact that there is evidence before me of N’s proclivity to sexual investigations between himself, Y, and I think A.

5. Whilst I’m not saying for one moment that N did it – I am satisfied that there is an alternative explanation for what could have happened. But whilst I’m satisfied that no sexual abuse in the form of a rape took place, I am satisfied that the mother has, by her general conduct, failed to adequately protect the children from any form of sexual abuse; that her conduct generally, is not in the best interests of the children; and that having come to the conclusion that something took place whilst in her care, I am satisfied that there is that risk, which is required to make me very careful of ordering any form of contact with the mother, unless the children are safe.

6. That is what the children want.  Y, unfortunately, is looking for one thing, and that is, closure for her, in that she wishes the mother to apologise for what the mother did to her.  The mother, perhaps, has exacerbated this difficulty by, it might be said, putting N, whom lives with her now, before the welfare of the other children.  After her sojourn, she was entitled to have contact which, I think, was to commence at about the end of April.  She insisted that N come along as well. There was no order that N should attend upon supervised contact.

7. And the first respondent, who was, at that time, the carer of the children by order, as well refused, indicating, as I understand, that if she was going to have contact, should be contact between her and the children.  And she’s not had much contact – had none, for a period of at least eight months – and for Y, even much longer.  The mother refused, but eventually the first respondent, Ms Lord, consented to N attending.  That in itself was also a worry for me;  that if, in fact, it was N who carried out these acts upon Y, A, and perhaps the other children, that that in itself would be a slap in the face for Y, because N was considered by the mother to be of such importance that he should come along to see her children, which she had not seen for a considerable period.

8. Obviously, what I’ve found is that there is an unacceptable risk to the children, if they were in the possession of their mother.  The mother is still seeking a full time order and that there be some form of contact to the other parties.  I must say, quite clearly now, that I could not make that order at all.  The children are established in an environment at which they have been for five years.  They have expressed some concerns about the mother, and the relationship between themselves and the mother.  Y is adamant – in fact, it’s the worst, as I said, I’ve ever seen.  She is very cranky at her mother.  And it would not be productive, either for the children or the relationship that the children might be able to develop – and by children, once again, I refer to the younger three – might be able to develop between themselves and their mother.

9. Putting them in the possession of the mother full-time, would be a disaster.  Ms B has indicated that. Insofar as supervision was concerned, Ms B initially thought that Mr H, who had a relationship with the mother for a period from about, I think, the end of last year to earlier this year – appeared to be a stabilising influence.  He appeared to be able to handle R quite well, and I refer to what took place in the interview with the children and Mr H.  And Ms B was quite impressed with Mr H, and indicated that she thought that perhaps with Mr H around, unsupervised contact could be considered.

10. However, Mr H is no longer on the scene.  The relationship broke down because of his extreme history of criminal activities.  I have before me, his criminal history.  I note that, of course, he has not, according to that, been convicted of any offence since 2007.  But the mother says that he was very keen on drugs, and used them excessively.  It is a shame he has gone. Two things happened;  one, that stabilising influence has left;  and secondly, she has no transport, as I understand, at this stage – he having a car, and was capable of driving her to any place within a reasonable distance for the purpose of supervised contact. 

11. Ms B changed her evidence - she had not known before coming to court that Mr H was no longer there, and does not consider that unsupervised contact would be to the advantage of the other children or the mother, at this stage.  Section 60CC;  I think I touched upon many of the factors which are set out therein, but as I understand, it is essential that I particularise them for the benefit of another place, if it goes there.  There is a need in this case for me to protect the children from physical or psychological harm; from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.

12. I have touched upon that.  I am quite satisfied that the household of the mother was not conducive to a well-ordered raising of these children.  There are episodes of violence.  I believe there was some violence towards the children.  There were episodes of violence between the mother and the father, the third respondent.  There is the evidence of a sexual abuse which, whilst I have not accepted is proved, I am concerned that there is an unacceptable risk.  Y has expressed clear views.  The children, unfortunately, now seem to have fallen in line with Y in that up until, I think, the last two visits to the contact centre, there was some contact between the youngest children and the mother.

13. And the last two visits, the children have categorically refused to have anything to do with the mother, and Ms Lord has had to return and pick the children up.  That is of a concern, and it may be, as has been submitted, that there has been an endeavour on the part of Ms Lord to alienate the children from the mother.  I don’t see it.  I don’t see it.  I think, perhaps, there is a great deal of anger in Y.  It might be Y’s anger, which is projected against the mother, is now spilling over to the children, which, as I said, is quite tragic, but it is understandable.  All Y wants is an apology.

14. If, in fact, she got the apology, it may be that the relationship between herself and her mother would improve.  As Ms B said:

    Children who suffer any form of abuse only want one thing, and that is for the abuse to cease.

    The abuse has ceased, in this case, because they’re in the possession of Ms Lord.  But she has not had the acknowledgement by the mother that something went wrong.  And she, I think, is entitled to such apology if, in fact, the mother is capable of giving it.  It is, of course, extremely difficult for a person who pleads their innocence to say, “Look, I don’t care.  I didn’t do it, but I’m sorry.”  I know it’s exceptionally difficult, but that is what she’s looking for, and if she gets it, and it’s genuine, and with feeling, it may start to repair the shattered fabric of the relationship between herself and the mother, and I think, which is extending into the children, possibly by Y herself, who is very bitter.

15. And as I’ve said, I only have to refer to those statements in paragraphs 18 and 19 of Ms B’s report to emphasise that.  The children have a very fragile relationship with the mother.  Once again, I’m referring to the youngest three;  Y has no relationship with their mother.  I am hoping that the orders that I make will now allow the children, other than for Y, to have a meaningful relationship with the mother.  There is no way, at this stage, that Y can have a meaningful relationship with her mother.  If I may go so far as to say that on the evidence before me, she hates her mother.  And she, I think, genuinely believes, for good reason, which is very tragic.

16. There will be difficulty in the mother having contact with the children because of the tyranny of costs and distance.  They are quite a difference;  one and a half hours, I think it was, driving, each way.  It has been recommended by Ms B that the mother should move closer in an endeavour to maximise the time that she may have with the children, if I so order it, and she has not done so, notwithstanding it was recommended some little time ago.  She’s residing with N now, on her own, in a four or five bedroom house, and as I said, the distance is about one and a half hours from her residence to the contact centre at S, wasn’t it?  Yes.

17. Insofar as my considering whether the child’s parents have fulfilled, or failed to fulfil their responsibilities, I think the mother has and has not.  It’s regrettable that in the initial stages, the mother found it just all too much to handle these children.  I have great sadness for her, because I think it would have been exceptionally difficult.  But that’s what’s happened, and she has been unable to fulfil extremely difficult duties – and she has duties, not rights;  she has duties to parent the children properly.  But consequently, she’s failed, in my view, to take those necessary steps to adequately promote the interests of the children above her own.

18. I need not say anything further.  I don’t think it’s necessary for me to go through section 60CC seriatim.  I think I’ve sufficiently covered it, and the only matter now is for me to make the orders.  I have had placed before me, orders from each of the parties, save for the father.  In particular, I consider the orders of the independent children’s lawyer, which has put before me some orders.

ORDERS DELIVERED

1. There is a suggestion on the part of Ms B that Ms Lord, who may be looking upon these children totally as her own, and in a way, I cannot criticise her, because she’s had them for five years – should attend some form of counselling.  I understand that through her counsel, she has consented to seek such counselling.  It is not the type of thing, as Ms B said, I can order.  I should not order it, and I don’t.  I leave it to her.

ORDERS DELIVERED

I certify that the preceding thirty-six (36) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Bell

Associate: 

Date:  10 September 2010