Radley and Simson - [2019] FamCA 808

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RADLEY & SIMSON

[2019] FamCA 808

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child lives – Where the mother seeks to relocate to the United Kingdom with the child – Where the father opposes – Where there are mutual allegations of family violence – Where the child has a strong relationship and attachment with both parents – Where it is unlikely that the child’s relationship with the father would be a meaningful relationship if relocation to the United Kingdom were permitted – Orders

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B(1), 60B(2), 60CC, 60CC(2), 60CC(2A), 60CC(3),
61DA

AMS v AIF (1999) 199 CLR 160
Beckham v Desprez [2015] FamCAFC 247
Blanding v Blanding [2016] FamCAFC 21
Mazorski & Albright [2007] FamCA 520
MRR v GR (2010) 240 CLR 461
Starr & Duggan [2009] FamCAFC 115
Zahawi & Rayne [2016] FamCAFC 90

APPLICANT:

Ms Radley

RESPONDENT:

Mr Simson

FILE NUMBER:

DNC

498

2016

DATE DELIVERED:

6 November 2019

PLACE DELIVERED:

Adelaide

PLACE HEARD:

Darwin

JUDGMENT OF:

Berman J

HEARING DATE:

12 to 14 August 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Ms Fraser

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Withnalls Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Tippett QC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Maley Barristers & Solicitors

Orders

That all current orders be discharged.
That the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for X born … 2014 (“the child”).
That the child live with the mother.
That the child spend time with the father:-
(a)Each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school on Thursday to the commencement of school on the following Tuesday commencing 7 November 2019.
(b)For one half of each of the short end of term and Christmas school holidays at times to be agreed between the parties but failing agreement for the first half of the school holiday period in 2019 and in each alternate year thereafter and for the second half of the school holiday period in 2020 and in each alternate year thereafter;
(c)For such other times as the parties may agree.
That the child spend time with the parties as follows:-
(a) On Mother’s Day and Father’s Day in each year:-
(i)Between 5.00 pm on the Saturday preceding Mother’s Day until 5.00 pm on Mother’s Day the child will spend time with the mother;
(ii)Between 5.00 pm on the Saturday preceding Father’s Day until 5.00 pm on Father’s Day the child will spend time with the father;
(b) On the child’s birthday each year:-
(i)If the child’s birthday falls on a day that is not a school day and the father would not otherwise be spending time with the child then the child will spend time with the father from 2.00 pm until 7.00 pm;
(ii)If the child’s birthday falls on a day that is not a school day and the mother would not otherwise be spending time with the child then the child will spend time with the mother from 2.00 pm until 7.00 pm;
(iii)If the child’s birthday falls on a school day and the father would not otherwise be spending time with the child then the child will spend time with the father from the conclusion of school until 6.30 pm;
(iv)If the child’s birthday falls on a school day and the mother would not otherwise be spending time with the child then the child will spend time with the mother from the conclusion of school until 6.30 pm.
(c)That for the Christmas period the child will spend time with the parties as follows:-
(i)With the father from 3.00 pm on 25 December 2019 to 3.00 pm on 26 December 2019 and each alternate year thereafter PROVIDED HOWEVER that the said child shall be with the mother from 3.00 pm on 24 December 2019 to 3.00 pm on 25 December 2019 and each alternate year thereafter;
(ii)With the mother from 3.00 pm on 25 December 2020 to 3.00 pm on 26 December 2020 and each alternate year thereafter PROVIDED HOWEVER that the child shall be with the father from 3.00 pm on 24 December 2020 to 3.00 pm on 25 December 2020 and each alternate year thereafter.
That the father’s time with the child as set out in Order 4(a) herein shall be suspended during all periods of school holidays.
That the parties be at liberty to attend the child’s kindergarten and/or school for parent/teacher meetings, concerts and all functions to which parents are usually invited.
That the parties shall be at liberty to receive copies of the child’s school reports, school photographs and other information usually provided to parents.
That the mother will provide to the father reports with respect to the health and special needs of the child as may be requested by the father and he shall be at liberty to contact the child’s therapists, general medical practitioner or specialist medical practitioners or allied health professionals PROVIDED that such contact and communication shall be at the father’s expense.
That each party shall be at liberty to take the child on an overseas holidays at least annually PROVIDED:-
(a)The party requesting the holiday time shall provide twenty eight (28) days written notice to other party;
(b)Both parties consent in writing to occur if some or all of the proposed periods do not coincide with school holidays;
(c)That in the Christmas school holiday period commencing 2019 and each alternate year thereafter the mother at her election can seek the child’s time with her to be extended to thirty (30) days;
(d)That in the Christmas school holiday period commencing 2020 and each alternate year thereafter the father at his election can seek the child’s time with him to be extended to thirty (30) days;
When giving notice of any intended holidays each party shall provide the other with the following information:-
(a)     An itinerary;
(b)     Flight and accommodation details;
(c)     Contact details for the duration of overseas travel.
That each party shall keep the other advised of their current residential address, email address and contact telephone number and advise the other of any changes within forty eight (48) hours of such change occurring.
That the parties shall sign all such documents as may be required by the Australian Federal Police to enable the child to travel outside the Commonwealth of Australia.
That the mother shall retain the child’s passport or passports in her possession.
That the parties will communicate by the online Family Wizard app or such other agreed social media technology or Outlook email to keep each party up to date with the child’s routine, sleep times, food issues (allergies) and other matters pertaining to the child’s welfare and development.

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

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

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT

FILE NUMBER: DNC 498 of 2016

Ms Radley

Applicant

And

Mr Simson

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

The proceedings between Ms Radley (“the mother”) and Mr Simson (“the father”) concern the future parenting arrangements for X born in 2014 (“the child”).
The matter was listed for trial on 12 August 2019 with judgment reserved on 14 August 2019.

Background

The parties commenced a de facto relationship in 2012 with a final separation in September 2016.
The father was in a relationship with Ms A from 1994 to 2002 and then from 2008 to 2012. P born in 2009 is a child of that relationship.
The parties have resolved property settlement by final orders made on 28 September 2017.
The mother was born in the United Kingdom (“the UK”) and following the completion of her high school education enjoyed secure employment. She holds a number of certificates.
The mother travelled to Australia in 2005 for a working holiday and following an extension of her working visa and a sponsorship, she obtained Australian residency in 2010.
The mother obtained employment in the Northern Territory and then in Darwin.
Following a period of maternity leave the mother obtained employment as a professional from 2015 until the project concluded and her position was made redundant in September 2018.
The mother has sought other employment and as at September 2018 she explored employment in City K. The mother’s parents are retired and reside in England. She has a younger sister with whom she has a close relationship. The mother does not now seek the opportunity to relocate the child to City K but instead now focusses on a relocation to the UK.
The father was born in Queensland to an indigenous father and a non-indigenous mother. Both he and his family have lived predominantly in Darwin except for a period between 2002 and 2005 when he lived in the United States of America.
The father has extended family both in Perth and Darwin.
He is currently completing a Degree in L and has had secure employment in both in the public and private sectors.
The parties have each made allegations against the other of domestic and family violence. The father denies that he has physically assaulted the mother but does admit that a Domestic Violence Order (“DVO”) naming the mother and the child as protected parties had been in place until 12 September 2016. Thereafter the father gave an undertaking without admission which has now expired. The father’s position is that there has not been any event or incident that is relevant to the current proceedings.
He does however allege that the mother has been violent towards him and in particular refers to an incident on 11 May 2018 which involved the mother attending the home of the father’s current partner in an intoxicated state. The mother admits that her behaviour was aggressive, confrontational and fuelled by alcohol.
The father applied for a DVO and on 21 May 2018 the mother entered into a six month undertaking which has now expired.
The father alleges that the mother has continued to harass him via social media.
The current parenting arrangements involve the child living with the mother and spending time with the father from 5.30 pm Friday to 4.30 pm Sunday each alternate weekend. The father’s time is usually spent with his partner and her two children.
It is not controversial that the parties have difficulty in communicating with each other. Their mutual mistrust is self-evident. They appear to struggle to be civil whether by direct communication or by their preferred method of communication being text messages.

Documents relied upon

The mother relies upon the following documents:-
(1)Amended Initiating Application filed 28 September 2018.
(2)Mother’s Trial Affidavit filed 28 September 2018.
(3)Mother’s Financial Statement filed 28 September 2018.
(4)Affidavit of Mr Q filed 28 September 2018.
(5)Mother’s Affidavit in Reply filed 14 December 2018.
The father relies upon the following documents:-
(1)Amended Response filed 30 November 2018.
(2)Father’s Trial Affidavit filed 30 November 2018.
(3)Affidavit of Ms R filed 30 November 2018.
(4)Affidavit of Mr E filed 30 November 2018.

Family reports

By order made 5 December 2016 Ms F (“the family consultant”) prepared a report dated 31 March 2017 (“the first report”) and later a further report dated 16 January 2018 (“the second report”).
At a case management hearing in preparation for the trial, the Court raised with counsel whether there should be an update report prepared. The family consultant interviewed the parties and made observations of each of them with the child in January 2018. More than 18 months elapsed.
At the time of the second report both parties continued to reside in Darwin. The mother was employed as a professional and the father as a professional.
Neither party had re-partnered. The mother was residing in the former matrimonial home.
The report had been prepared in anticipation of a trial in late January 2018. The trial date was vacated because the parties were not adequately prepared and had not complied with previous trial directions. Given that circumstance, the Court was not prepared to list the matter for trial until trial affidavits had been filed.
The proposals of the parties as presented to the family consultant were that parental responsibility be shared and the child spend time with the father each alternate weekend and for some hours on the intervening Tuesday afternoon.
The mother sought that the arrangement be reviewed periodically and that after 12 months she be permitted to relocate with the child to Queensland and when he attains six years of age then she be permitted to relocate with him to the UK.
The father resisted the mother’s application and seeks that a plan be implemented which would incrementally increase the father’s time with the child to shared care. The father resisted any relocation either interstate or overseas.
There is an obvious deficiency in that the second report is not predicated on the basis of the mother’s current proposal.
The assistance rendered by the family consultant is limited.

Orders sought

The orders sought by the mother are better reflected by reference to the Outline of Case filed 1 March 2019 summarised as follows:-
·That the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.
·That the child live with the mother.
·That the mother be permitted to relocate the residence of the child to the UK.
·That thereafter the child spend time with the father for up to 14 consecutive days on no more than two occasions per annum and in Australia or such other overseas venue:-
oFor a period of not less than five weeks during each European summer holiday;
oFor a period of not less than two weeks during each Christmas holidays provided that in odd numbered years, the period shall not include Christmas Day;
oSuch further and other time that the parties may agree.
·That the parties shall share the cost of the travel for the child and the accompanying parent between the UK and Australia.
·That the parties communicate by online communication app.
·That in the alternative to the child relocating to the UK:-
oThe child shall spend time with the father during school terms from 5.30 pm Thursday to 8.00 am Monday in each alternate week;
oDuring 2019, 2020 and 2021 school holidays:-
§For five consecutive nights in the first half of Term 1, Term 2 and Term 3 school holidays;
§For the first week in Term 4 school holidays in 2019 and 2020;
oCommencing in 2022:-
§For all of Term 1 and 3 school holidays in each year;
§For the first half of Term 2 school holidays in odd numbered years and for the second half of the Term 2 school holidays in even numbered years: and
§In odd numbered years for the last day of the school term to 12 pm on Boxing Day.

Evidence

The mother

The mother supplemented the evidence contained in her trial affidavits by her evidence in examination in chief that she had not been employed since 1 July 2019. She tendered the current Child Support Assessment for the period 2 July 2019 to 31 March 2020.[1] The monthly rate of Child Support for the child is $954 based on the father’s 2018 taxable income of $180,039 and the mother’s taxable income for the same period estimated in the sum of $73,808.
[1]Exhibit “1”.
As at 11 August 2019 the Child Support Payment Overview records an outstanding liability of $928.08.
The mother has made various job applications in the Darwin area but to date has been unsuccessful.
She agreed that she had considered employment in City K but that was very much a secondary consideration to her primary objective of relocation with the child to the UK. The mother no longer pursues a relocation other than to the UK.
The mother was shown an email dated 4 December 2017 that she sent to the father’s solicitors as part of attempts at negotiating a resolution to at least some of the issues in conflict.
No objection was taken to the tender of the document as Exhibit “2”.
The focus of the email confirms the mother’s position that it would be in the child’s interests for her to remain in Australia for a period of time to enable the relationship between the child and the father to develop. It is implicit in the email that the mother recognises the relationship that was developing was unlikely to flourish if the child is relocated to the UK.
She also confirms that she has a strong support network in Darwin, support interstate but with her main support network in the UK. She refers to the retirement of her parents in 2017 to assist the mother in caring for the child if relocation was permitted.
The mother also highlights her assertion that whilst the transition to the child spending overnight time with the father was progressing well, the process was complicated by the mother’s assertion that the child had been exposed to domestic violence perpetrated by the father.
The mother was asked to consider an email sent by her on 17 June 2014.[2]
[2] Exhibit “7”.
Whilst it is difficult to understand the purpose for which the email is relied upon by the father, it seems to acknowledge that at the time of its authorship the parties had a loving relationship with no allegation of family violence perpetrated by the father. If anything, the mother seems to acknowledge that she was “bullying” in her interaction with the father and explains her presentation on being “a total perfectionist”. The mother’s response to a request for an acknowledgment that domestic violence was not a feature of the relationship was met with a denial that it was her email. The mother’s evidence did not persuade me that the father or another person with malicious intent sent the email and impersonated the mother.
The mother agreed that she had investigated allegations of domestic violence against the father by contacting his previous partner. The mother did not disclose her true identity but rather called herself “Ms G”. The mother had obtained the name of the father’s former partner Ms H from another acquaintance. The father had lived in the United States between 2003 and 2007. She agreed that she had used a false name because she did not want the father to identify her.
The mother’s ruse was at best perfunctory. It was immediately apparent from the content of the SMS messages with Ms H that the inquiry concerned the father.
Eventually the mother conceded her true identity and when asked by Ms H to explain her interest the following response was sent:-
My name is Ms Radley. I was assaulted many times and eventually threatened with a 20 inch knife. I have survived enormous emotional, physical abuse. I left when my son very nearly for badly hurt. I am fighting for my survival.[3]
[3] Exhibit “5”.
Ms H’s response was not complimentary of the mother, likening her to “the abuser trying to dig up dirt”. Ms H apparently enjoyed a respectful relationship with the father.
The mother’s evidence in terms of the circumstance of the email exchange was unconvincing.
On 11 and 12 May 2018 the mother attended at the premises of the father’s current partner Ms R. The father had moved into Ms R’s premises earlier on 11 May 2018. Pursuant to the orders, the child was to spend time with the father that day.
The father notified the mother’s solicitor by email that the child would be spending time with him at an airport resort motel given the uncertainty of the move of his furniture (including the child’s bed) to his partner’s residence. The move was conducted with efficiency and accordingly the child stayed with the father in Ms R’s home.

The mother is recorded to have attended Ms R’s home with a friend. She was yelling, acting aggressively and was offensive in her use of language.
The mother’s conduct was such that the father considered the police should be called.
He was concerned that she would become violent. The mother now concedes that she was intoxicated and her conduct was inexcusable but explained by her intoxication.
The mother attempted to gain entry to Ms R’s home thwarted only by the father holding the front door closed.
The mother acknowledged that she gave little regard to the presence of both the child being in the home but also Ms R’s children.
The conflict persisted for more than an hour and initially she refused the reasonable direction of the attending police officers.
The exchange between the parties at the front door of the premises was recorded. It is demonstrable that the mother was very abusive in her language and offensive towards the father and Ms R. In contrast, the father was considerably more measured in his response. The mother also agreed that a text message had been sent to Ms R from the mother attempting to explain her conduct:-
I’m the evil one, hated [P], treated [the father] like shit, spent money, never looked after the kids, cared about work too much, could never get ahead !! He’s your soul mate, he never felt like this before, wants to build a family unit, start a business, have you stay at home with the kids and raise them.
It’s total bullshit - I hope you are never the mother outside knocking on a door fighting for your child. Call Ms M - ask questions, call Ms A ask questions. Call me ask questions. Your life depends on it. There are over 20 people trying to warn you. I don’t need your validation – I’m trying to protect your kids and you and [the child], [P] and I. Don’t end up like me with nothing.[4]
[4] Exhibit “14”.
The mother was challenged as to whether she had provided a history to the child’s general practitioner that the father “had been known to over-sedate children with pain killers”. She agreed that she had and her justification arose from allegations that he had over-medicated P even though she was not ill.
It was further alleged by the mother that one of Ms R’s children was aggressive and presented as a risk to the child.
On 1 July 2018 the child was referred to the emergency department of the Royal Darwin Hospital by a general practitioner. The reason for referral is relevant to the mother’s evidence:-[5]
[5] Exhibit “3”.
[The child] punched in face today by ex partner’s kids
now is drowsy
no h/o loc no vomiting
is alert when roused but drowsy PERLA
no obvious facila fractures
ENT normal
mouth some signs of contusion to upper gum area centrally consistent with a punch
no obv bruising on torso or abdomen
apparently his father had been known to over sedate children with pain stop in past
5yr old who punched him is autistic
imp needs full paediatric review for any signs trauma
needs kids team involved
needs a urine drug screen for sedating agents
refer to ED
mum happy and consents to this process
No evidence was presented that corroborated the mother’s allegation that the father had over-medicated the child.
The mother placed significant importance on her allegation that the father had a history of domestic violence towards his previous partners. She contends that her relationship with the father was “highly volatile” and that she feels frightened and intimidated by him.
The following is recorded by the family consultant in her second report:-
39.[The mother] maintains that [the father] behaved violently towards her during and post their relationship, when she claims to have gathered evidence to illustrate that [the father] has behaved in a similar manner towards many other individuals, including his ex-partners and work colleagues. [The father] denies all allegations made against him by [the mother], expressing the view that [the mother] is behaving highly maliciously against him, seeming intent on destroying his credibility in his personal and professional life.
The mother conceded that the premise upon which the remarks of the family consultant are based was without substance. The mother had received no support for the contention that the father had a history of family violence in previous relationships. The text message response from Ms H is complimentary of the father and disavows any assertion that the father was aggressive or perpetrated family violence.
The response of Ms H must be seen against the basis for the mother’s inquiry of Ms H, namely that the father had been physically aggressive towards her and the child and she had been threatened by him wielding a 20cm knife.
There does not appear to be any support for the mother’s allegations.
The mother did concede that the child and the father have a demonstrably close relationship. The mother raised a concern that the father, the child and Ms R were “co-sleeping”. The father had advised the mother that this was not the case and the mother confirmed she told the family consultant that the child was not at risk in the father’s care.
The mother admitted to an incident on 30 April 2015 wherein she accused the father of having an extra-marital relationship with a work colleague and when the father provided a denial, the mother pushed him backwards onto the bed and then struck him in the face and punched him in the groin. The father did not retaliate. The father took photographs of his scratched and bruised face and neck.
Whilst the mother agreed that she had assaulted the father, she denied that it was a course of conduct or that it had occurred again.
The mother accepted that the father had attempted to better communicate with her, but it was not at this stage reciprocated.
The mother alleged that on 14 September 2014 the parties engaged in an argument and the father left and returned a short time later brandishing a knife with a 20cm blade. He threatened to slit the mother’s throat and when she attempted to remove the child from the home she contends that he became angry and slapped her to the left cheek. The hunting knife was apparently a gift.
The mother was challenged as to the context in which she alleges she was threatened with the knife and the circumstances surrounding the argument. The Court was not assisted by the further exploration and whilst the mother continues to assert that the incident happened as described, the father’s position is that it did not.
I was not assisted by the evidence on the topic and not able to make a finding on the balance of probabilities.
The mother was not an impressive witness and I found her evidence to be generally unreliable.
I was not persuaded that the father had been the perpetrator of domestic violence either directed to the mother or, in particular, the child.
The mother agreed that she had misrepresented her identity in order to gain information about the father which would corroborate her assertion that he perpetrated family violence. In the absence of that evidence, the mother represented to the family consultant a positive assertion that the father had perpetrated family violence against previous partners and had threatened her with a knife.
The mother admitted that any alleged history of domestic violence with the father’s previous partners was without foundation.

Mr Q

Mr Q is the mother’s brother-in-law. He resides in the UK and provides support to the mother and the child should the Court permit the child’s relocation to the UK. He has accommodation that he would make available to the mother and given that his wife works part-time, she would be able to facilitate and assist the mother in terms of the supervision of the child and his attendance to and from school.
Mr Q also provides assistance as to the availability in his area for the child to attend an appropriate school.
Whilst I place little weight on his opinion, I accept that there is likely to be employment opportunities for the mother in the Suburb N area.
The Affidavit of Mr Q filed 28 September 2018 was read into evidence without any requirement that he be called for cross examination.

The father

The father relied upon his trial affidavits and in addition gave evidence in examination in chief that he currently owns a business which started in October 2018.
The father considered the mother’s email to him of 17 June 2014 and denied that he had authored the email and had a clear recollection of receiving the email in its current form.
The father agreed that there were periods that he had not paid Child Support but explained that between July and December 2018 he did not receive any income. Further questioning revealed that he did have an income for some periods between October and December 2018. The father acknowledged that there had been arrears which had previously been paid by a credit advance on his credit card but he conceded that he was now six weeks in arrears.
The father agreed that he had received non-reportable income from the Northern Territory Government of about $17,000. Despite receiving this sum he did not pay Child Support and instead took the child on an interstate holiday.
The father’s daughter P lives with her mother but spends time with the father in Darwin during school holidays. Recently P spent 19 days with the father and he reported that P and the child have a close relationship. If the child was living in the UK the father’s time would be significantly reduced and it is likely that there would be less physical contact with P.
The father was asked of his relationship with his family and he conceded that the paternal grandfather has never met the child. He has a sister who lives in Darwin. He did not agree that he was estranged from her, however it does not appear that the father enjoys a close relationship with his immediate family.
In the assessment for the first report the mother considered that the father was not fit to care for the child because of his “excessive physical discipline, neglect and exposure to violence”.
The father denied the allegations of domestic violence and countered with his own allegations that the mother was both emotionally and physically violent.
Each of the parties alleged family violence by the other and presented to the family consultant as credible in that “they emotionally and convincingly described their version of events”. It is likely that each of the parties have engaged in aggressive conduct and that hostility was a feature of their relationship both pre and post-separation.
The father was questioned as to his reaction in 2014 coinciding with the renovations of the former matrimonial home.
The father was asked whether he had called the mother a “cunt”, “fucking cunt” and “whore”. The father did not agree that he had used offensive language towards the mother but it was likely that he adopted a tactic whereby he would not speak to her for long periods of time.
The father accepted that he had received a hunting knife as a birthday gift but denied that he had ever used it in a threatening fashion towards the mother.
Exhibit “9” contains the DVO made on 7 November 2016.
The mother and the child were protected persons and without admission the father was restrained for a period of 12 months from:-
(1)Causing harm or attempting or threatening to cause harm to the protected person/s;
(2)Causing damage to property or attempting or threatening to cause damage to the property of the protected person/s;
(3)Intimidating or harassing or verbally abusing the protected person/s;
(4)Stalking the protected person/s;
(5)Exposing the child of the relationship to domestic violence;
(6)Living in the Suburb J NT property.
The DVO has now expired without breach or non-compliance by the father.
The father was asked to consider the context in which the mother attended at the home of Ms R on 11 May 2018. He agreed that the last communication between the father’s solicitors and the mother was that the child would be staying at the O Hotel and that he did not tell the mother that the child would be at Ms R’s home.
He agreed that after the incident the mother had forwarded flowers to Ms R and communicated her remorse for her conduct.
The father gave evidence as to the dynamics in Ms R’s home. Her children present with some behavioural difficulties. Ms R’s daughter suffers from an Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressive moods. Occasionally the daughter would wake at night frightened and anxious. Ms R’s son has Sensory Overload.
Ms R’s children see their father on a regular basis.
The father denies that the child is at risk from either of Ms R’s children. It has never been the practice that the child would co-sleep with Ms R and the father.
The father would like to communicate with the mother face to face but he concedes that the current level of hostility and mistrust does not promote confidence that the parties communication will improve.
Nonetheless, the father considers that he is prepared to communicate in a civil fashion with the mother but he doubts that she would be prepared to do so.
The father works interstate one week each month, but the week often changes depending upon his work commitments.
If the child relocated to the UK the father could travel to the UK but it would be difficult and he fears that his current close relationship with the child would suffer irreparable insult.
It should not be considered that the evidence presented only points to the mother as being difficult and unreasonable.
Of recent date the mother sought an extra weekend to go camping. The father initially refused the mother’s request and then asked for a welfare check. The father could not adequately explain why he took this action; exacerbated by a report to the police. He agreed that he had overreacted and at all material times his solicitor knew of the mother and the child’s whereabouts.
It appears that the parties now agree that the “Family Wizard” app is a functional communication tool and they should continue to utilise its features.
No evidence was presented in respect of the “Family Wizard” app. However, the Court is aware that it is a commercial product and whilst it may have features beneficial to parties enmeshed in high conflict, it would not be appropriate for the Court to be seen to require the parties to enter into a commercial relationship with the app promoter.
In the current circumstances, it appears that an order can be made with the effective consent of the parties.
The mother seeks that if she is not permitted to relocate the child to the UK then she be able to travel with the child overseas but in particular to the UK. The father is not opposed to overseas travel and as such I will make orders that will allow the parties to travel with the child overseas.

Ms R

Ms R relied on her Trial Affidavit filed 30 November 2018. The focus of her evidence was the attendance by the mother on her home on 11 and 12 May 2018.
The mother did not challenge Ms R’s evidence and to her credit she acknowledged that there was little excuse for her conduct other than to explain that it was likely fuelled by excess alcohol.
The unfortunate consequence does not so much centre upon the events of the evening but Ms R’s position that even though she has accepted the mother’s apology she does not wish to meet the mother or engage with her.
The child was shielded from the distressing events of that evening, but the future consequences is that a potentially beneficial relationship that could have developed between Ms R and the mother is now no longer available.
Ms R denied that she had ever slept in the same bed as the child and did not accept that her son had pushed, hit or was physically aggressive towards the child. She acknowledged that her son and the child play well together, but often for no reason accuse each other of hitting the other. The allegations are considered important by the father and Ms R and they investigate to ensure that there has not been any physical aggression between the boys. Ms R highlights a clear rule in their house that there is to be no hitting between the children.
Ms R was an impressive witness and is a person that the Court can be confident would both protect the child and ensure that he is properly cared for.

Family Consultant

Integral to the first report, the family consultant identified the following issues which underpinned the mother resisting the father from having unsupervised time with the child:-
·Allegations of domestic violence;
·Allegations of threats to kill with weapons;
·Allegations of drug use;
·Allegations that the father poses a safety risk to the child.
The family consultant noted that the father denied the allegations as being exaggerated, false and countered the mother’s allegations with his complaint that during the relationship the mother had been physically violent to him and had “emotionally abused him on a regular basis.”
The report contained information from the father’s former partner Ms A. Ms A confirmed that whilst there was not any physical violence in the relationship, nonetheless she felt that “she was emotionally and psychologically abused” by the father. On occasion he would intimidate her and on reflection she considered that his behaviour was at times “really horrible”.
Initially she held no concerns for P spending time with the father in Darwin but became alarmed following information from the mother regarding allegations of domestic violence and abuse of sleeping pills.
The family consultant observed the child with each of the parties. The clear impression created was of a positive and loving relationship between the child and each of the parties. In the mother’s care, the child appeared relaxed and confident. In the father’s care, he was positive and nurturing. The child was excited to see the father and emotionally attached to the mother.
The family consultant was unable to reconcile the child appearing to be well adjusted and demonstrably comfortable and delighted in the care and presence of each of the parties in circumstances where the allegations of family violence were expressed to be serious.
When the father left the premises at the conclusion of the assessment the child was observed to show distress and attempted to follow him out of the building.
The family consultant considered that if the mother gained sole parental responsibility and was able to relocate the child to the UK the father would be sidelined and his role as a parent substantially diminished.
The recommendations of the family consultant was to support the parties sharing parental responsibility, the child living primarily with the mother and having unsupervised time with the father on one day and one overnight per week.
Communication between the parties is problematic and should be only by email, text or social media.
The second report records that little seemed to have changed in the intervening 12 months. The family consultant records that “the parents seem to remain locked in an acrimonious impasse, with their accounts of events remaining highly incompatible”.
The mother considered that the relationship with the father remained “highly volatile” notwithstanding that there had been little or no communication between the parties and no current allegation of aggression or incident.
The family consultant summarised the position at [47] of the second report:-
47.If the Court determines that [the father] is not likely to pose a threat to the future safety of [the mother] and the child, the writer does not find any reason why it would not be in the child’s interest to continue to benefit from time spent with his father, and to incrementally increase their time spent together. [The mother] stated that [the child] enjoys time with his father, and she did not raise any new concerns regarding risk to the child since the last family report was authored. The writer observed the child to feel safe and at ease in the company of his father, and is of the opinion that it is important for the child to maintain and develop his relationship with his father. This opinion is contingent on the proviso that the child is shielded from any ongoing conflict between the parents, as it is commonly known that children’s psychological well-being is deeply compromised by exposure to ongoing acrimony between their parents.

Noting that the proposal of the mother at the time of the second report was to relocate to Queensland, the recommendation of the family consultant was for the child to spend time with the father for three weekends in each month, from Friday afternoon to Sunday afternoon with the intention that it increase to include Sunday night.
Any consideration of relocation should be revisited in six to eight months.
As discussed, the parties did not consider it necessary for the family consultant to update her report.
It is reasonable for the Court to find that there has not been any significant incident or issue that has arisen between the parties which would lessen the assistance provided by the second report other than the mother’s preferred position which is the early relocation of the child to the UK.

Principles applicable to relocation cases

In AMS v AIF (1999) 199 CLR 160 Hayne J highlighted that the focus of the court must be on how a child or children would be affected either to their detriment or their benefit by the separate proposals of the parties:-
216.An important, probably essential, step in the inquiry into who should have custody of, and access to, the child is to identify where the custodial parent intends to live, for that will determine where the child lives and affect what contact the non-custodial parent can be expected to maintain with the child. But that is not to say that it is for the Court to decide where the custodial parent may live: that decision is to be made by the parent.
…
218.To translate the question into this form – has the mother shown a good, or good enough, reason for wanting to move – focuses attention upon the reason and motives of the mother. But that is not the proper focus of inquiry. The proper focus is which is better for the child – to be in the custody of the father … or to be in the custody of the mother … That, of course, requires attention to what benefits will the child have, and what detriments will the child suffer, from being in the mother’s custody…
The Full Court in Starr & Duggan [2009] FamCAFC 115 gave clear direction as to the coexistent principle that the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration and the legislative framework will of necessity involve some overlap of a consideration of similar factors pursuant to s 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). The approach is not meant to be rigid such that:-
38.[I]t is important to emphasise (as was made clear in Taylor & Barker and Sealey & Archer [2008] FamCAFC 142) that the legislation does not mandate consideration of the relevant sections in any particular order, although a logical approach is to:
·first make findings concerning the relevant s 60CC factors;
·then consider (based on the s 60CC findings) whether equal time or substantial and significant time is in the child’s best interests; and
·then consider whether such arrangements are reasonably practicable by addressing the matters referred to in s 65DAA(5) – which may be done by referring back to the earlier s 60CC findings.
The relocating party is not required to justify why they seek to relocate. It is how well the best interests of the child will be served against the setting of each of the parties’ respective proposals, in this case the mother’s application for the children to relocate with her to the UK.
Whilst there is no specific principle or procedure that is required to be brought to account when relocation is either overseas or involves a substantial distance between the relocating parties, the child and the remaining parent, nonetheless a tyranny of distance is likely to reduce the options available to the parties.
In the decision of Zahawi & Rayne [2016] FamCAFC 90 the Full Court considered a number of authorities, both international and domestic, and summarised the position as follows:-
47.All applications for parenting orders before the court involve a situation that, axiomatically, is not in the children’s best interests. What is best for children is that their parents co-parent by agreement and without conflict and as selflessly as circumstances reasonably allow. When parents are unable to agree, the parents’ proposals embraced in competing applications involve, again axiomatically, advantages and disadvantages for the children, each and all of which have ramifications for the children’s best interests. Concomitantly, Gummow & Callinan JJ said in U v U:
…The reality is that maternity and paternity always have an impact upon the wishes and mobility of parents: obligations both legal and moral, the latter sometimes lasting a lifetime, restrictive of personal choice and movement have been incurred.
48.“Relocation cases” are no different from other applications for parenting orders in that respect. Like all applications for parenting orders, an application to have the children live with a parent significantly geographically remote from the other parent is to be determined by the children’s best interests. However, the issues in a “relocation case” are, by reason of the proposed geographical separation of parents from their children, often significantly more acute and all the more so in cases of proposed international relocation. And, of course, that same factor will usually render more acute the burden or burdens to be borne by one parent or the other, including restrictions on their freedoms.
(Footnotes omitted)

Parenting considerations

The parties each seek an order for equal shared parental responsibility for the child. Neither party assists the Court by giving evidence as to the basis for equal shared parental responsibility given that it is not recommended by the family consultant should the mother relocate the child’s residence to the UK and the father’s evidence of the poor level of communication between the parties, their mutual distrust for each other and the anxiety expressed by each of them concerning aggressive and unpredictable conduct.
Whatever misgivings may arise from the state of the evidence, ultimately the consent of the parties for equal shared parental responsibility is persuasive.
Following the remarks of Finn J in Blanding v Blanding [2016] FamCAFC 21 where her Honour considered the Full Court decision in Beckham v Desprez [2015] FamCAFC 247 there is now a focus on the practical reality of each party’s proposal and the consideration of the primary and additional factors in s 60CC of the Act that are applicable to the circumstances of each case.
Section 60CA of the Act requires that I have the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. The best interests test is to be considered by application of the objects of s 60B(1) and the underlying principles of s 60B(2).
I am cognisant of the primary considerations and additional considerations in respect of the matters as set out in s 60CC(2) and (3). I am mindful of the directions contained in s 60CC(2A).
I propose to adopt the following approach:-
(1)Give consideration to the separate proposals put by each of the parties as they were identified and presented to the Court;
(2)Have regard to the objects expressed in s 60B(1) and the underlying principles in s 60B(2);
(3)Have regard to the provisions of s 60CC in order to determine in each case what is in the child’s best interests;
(4)Have regard to the primary considerations under s 60CC(2) namely, the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents and the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm;
(5)Have regard to the additional considerations under s 60CC(3);
(6)The evidence adduced by each of the parties in respect of the particular considerations pursuant to s 60CC(2) and s 60CC(3) are to be considered and if more weight is to be given to one or more of the matters raised then it must be the subject of delineation and comment.
A determination of parental responsibility is informed by regard to the best interests of the child. Section 61DA of the Act provides that there is a presumption that it is in the best interests of a child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility.
Where the Court determines that there should be an order for equal shared parental responsibility and the presumption is not rebutted then s 65DAA requires a Court to consider whether there should be an order for equal time, if not, then substantial and significant time. The test is whether the orders would be in the best interests of the child and reasonably practicable. In MRR v GR (2010) 240 CLR 461 at [15] it was said that the consideration of whether equal time was feasible required a practical assessment.

Meaningful relationship

The best interests of the child is the paramount consideration. The aims and objects of the Act are to ensure that the best interests of a child are met by:-
a)Ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child; and
b)Protecting the children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and
c)Ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and
d)Ensuring that parents fulfil their duties and meet their responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.
In Mazorski & Albright [2007] FamCA 520 Brown J considered the definition of “meaningful” and observed at [26]:-
What these definitions convey is that “meaningful”, when used in the context of “meaningful relationship”, is synonymous with “significant” which, in turn, is generally used as a synonym for “important” or “of consequence”…
It is not controversial that the mother’s proposal for the child to live in her primary care with a change of residence to the UK will have a significant impact on the current relationship that the child has with the father.
The father intends to remain in Darwin. He has secure employment and is confident that his business will prosper. He has formed a relationship with Ms R who is also attached to Darwin given her children and their relationship with their father.
Whilst not proximate to each other, the father maintains a beneficial relationship with his daughter P. She spends extended time during school holidays with the father.
At present the mother does not have employment but her work history supports a finding that she has a considerable skillset and is competent and well regarded in her field of experience and expertise.
It is likely that her prospects of employment in the UK would be high.
I also accept the evidence of the mother’s brother that she has strong family support and secure accommodation at least in the short to mid-term.
I am not critical of the mother in respect of her intention to relocate the child to the UK, nor the father for his intention to remain in Darwin.
I bring to account the separate proposals of the parties in order to determine what is in the child’s best interests.
I do not ignore that each of the parties alleges family violence against the other. I do not minimise the adverse impact that family violence has on affected parties and by necessary implication, to adversely impact upon a child’s development.
The parties recognise that there is advantage to the child in maintaining a relationship with each of them. For her part, the mother contends that the child’s interests are best served by remaining in her primary care. However, she concedes that such other benefits that are likely to devolve to the child by a continuing relationship with the father. She therefore proposes that if relocation is permitted then the child should spend extended periods with the father of up to 14 days in the UK on no more than two occasions per annum and in Australia or any such other place as may be agreed for a period no less than five weeks during each European summer holiday period and for a period of no less than two weeks each Christmas holiday period. Additionally, communication is to occur between the remaining parent and the child.
If the mother is not permitted to relocate then she proposes significant and substantial time comprising 5.30 pm Thursday to 8.00 am Monday in each alternate week and extended periods during the school holidays such that in 2022 the child will spend all of Term 1 and 3 with the father and one half of the Term 2 school holidays.
For his part, whilst the father opposes the mother’s proposed relocation, he proposes that the parties share the child’s care both during school term time and during school holidays.
Implicit in the orders that each of the parties seek is a recognition that the relationship the child has with each of the parties will benefit the child and that whatever misgivings each of them have about the other, neither party considers that the child would be at risk in the other’s care.
The father’s proposal would invite a finding that would satisfy the requirement that the child be entitled to a meaningful relationship with the mother.
A consideration of the mother’s proposal may not immediately invite a finding that it would result in the child maintaining an important and significant relationship with the father.
To a significant degree, the mother’s proposal rests heavily on the father’s ability both physically and financially to travel to the UK on a regular basis. The mother promotes the child returning to Australia for no less than five weeks during each European summer holiday and for two weeks during each Christmas holiday. It is anticipated that the parties will share equally in the cost.
It is not suggested that for a meaningful relationship to be maintained, the involvement that the father has with the child should be similar to or not less than the current arrangements. It is not required to be optimal but rather, that it supports the maintenance of an ongoing and meaningful relationship.
There may well be issues as to whether what is proposed by the mother is practicable. That is a matter that needs to be given further consideration.
What is apparent though is that the father would not be able to engage with the child in the mundanities of life and the sometimes less than glamorous parenting obligations.
The father would struggle to assist the child in homework if the child lives in the UK. Attending upon the child’s curricular and extra-curricular activities would also be impossible.
A further consideration is whether the father would be able to take the time from his employment and business requirements to spend time with the child in the UK and for the extended periods proposed in Australia.
I accept that in this case the parties consider that any attendant risk to the child arising from the allegations of family violence have been ameliorated to the point where s 60CC(2A) does not need to be considered in that the parties do not assert that there is a need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, or that the child is exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.
That does not mean that family violence is not relevant to the Court’s consideration but it is a factor that needs to be brought to account rather than it presenting as an issue that determines that one or other of the parties present as an unacceptable risk to the child.

Wishes of the child

The child is aged five years.
As at the date of the second report, the child was aged three.
The family consultant did not seek to ascertain the views of the child but rather, considered the relationship of the child with each of the parties by observed interaction.
The family consultant observed that a strong bond existed between the father and the child and there was spontaneous and appropriate affection. There were no observations consistent with the child being fearful, apprehensive or ambivalent about the father.
Similarly, the child appeared safe and secure in the presence of the mother and there were no allegations or observations consistent with the child being fearful or apprehensive of the mother consistent with the child being at risk.

The nature of the relationship of the child with the parties and others

The parties have an acrimonious relationship.
That observation did not sit easily with the family consultant’s observation of the strong emotional and physical attachment that the child had with each of the parties. Whether it speaks to the parties’ ability to compartmentalise their dislike and mistrust of the other, or whether it is a reflection of the strength of their relationship with the child is not known. It may be an indication that the parties have exaggerated the alleged poor conduct of the other, but it is not reflected in the child’s presentation.
The family consultant found at [46] of the second report that:-
In this case it appears to the writer that there is no evidence that [the father] has acted in a dangerous or abusive manner towards [the mother] or the child since their separation in late 2016, when allegations were made by each party of abusive behaviours by the other.
The mother conceded that should a relocation have occurred in 2019 (noting that the date of interview with the mother was January 2018), she did “not oppose a slow and incremental increase of shared care over the next 12 months to enable [the child] to further consolidate his relationship with [the father]…”
The family consultant confirmed a consistent position that if the Court determines that the father did not pose a threat to the safety of the child and the mother then there was no reason why it would not be in the child’s interests to spend incrementally increasing time with the father.
Self-evidently, that could not occur if the child relocated his residence to the UK.

The extent to which each of the child’s parents have taken or failed to take parenting opportunities

Given the background of acrimony it is somewhat surprising that the parties have been able to navigate their mistrust of the other to promote the child’s relationship with each of them.
It may be a reflection of the child’s age but he does not appear to have been adversely affected by the at times poor conduct of each of the parties.
It cannot be said that the child’s primary emotional attachment is to the mother. It is obvious that the child is in the primary care of the mother but the family consultant did not consider that this had resulted in the child having a primary emotional attachment with the mother.
I find that the child has a strong emotional attachment to each of the parties and that they are able to appropriately foster and nurture the child.
Each of the parties are involved in the child’s activities and neither complains that there has been any non-compliance with Court orders.

The extent to which each of the child’s parents have fulfilled or failed to fulfil the parent’s obligations to maintain the child

The mother tendered into evidence the current Child Support Assessment. The monthly amount is not insignificant. Whilst there is an allegation that the father is in arrears, I do not consider that this derogates from a finding that he has and will continue to provide an appropriate level of financial support for the child.
The father provided an appropriate explanation for the accumulation of the arrears.
He has the prospects of earning a generous income from his business and although currently unemployed, the mother has always been able to maintain the child at the highest possible level. The evidence of the mother’s employment history and her own confidence in her abilities strongly suggest that the mother will find employment.
The mother’s ability to financially support herself and the child is an important consideration. I am satisfied that her prospects of finding employment both in the UK but also in Australia are equally high.

The likely effects of any changes in the child’s circumstances

The change in the child’s circumstances that would be brought about by the implementation of the mother’s proposals would be dramatic.
The child would not have the advantage of the father’s ongoing presence in his life and he would certainly not be able to maintain his current level of participation in both curricular and extra-curricular activities.
The child’s ability to spend time with the father would thereafter be dependent upon the father’s wherewithal financial and otherwise to be able to travel to the UK or for the circumstances of the parties to be such that the child could return to Australia for a five week period during the mid-year European holidays and a two week period during the Christmas holidays.
There has been little or no assessment as to the likely effect on the child if relocation were to occur. The best that can be gleaned is to assume that the positive relationship observed by the family consultant in January 2018 would not have diminished and may have strengthened by sheer dint of the lapse of a further year and a half which is likely to further cement the child’s relationship with each of the parties.
The advantage to the mother is that she would have the support of close and extended family in the UK, appropriate accommodation would be available and the likelihood that she would find timely and remunerative employment.
The disadvantage to the mother of remaining is that she would remain in close proximity to the father and it is likely that their relationship would not improve.
The obvious disadvantage to the father of the mother’s proposed relocation is that it would represent a qualitative diminution of his relationship with the child. From the child’s perspective this may likely be distressing at least in the short to medium term.
The child gains a positive benefit by the father being able to engage in the day to day parenting of the child and the general exigencies of life.
It is also likely that a relocation to the UK would make it difficult if not impossible for the child to spend any time with his older sister. Given that the current arrangements by necessity have limited P’s ability to travel to Darwin, I do not consider that the potential for the child to lose a relationship with P is a determining factor.
A significant issue is whether if the mother is permitted to relocate the child’s residence to the UK, she will be prepared to maintain support and promote an ongoing relationship between the child and the father.
The mother admits that she misrepresented a false history of family violence between the father and his former partners to the family consultant.
The mother behaved in a deceptive manner in contacting a previous partner of the father and misrepresenting her name.
Moreover, the response received by the mother was not supportive of the mother’s proposition namely, that the father had a history of family violence.
The mother’s conduct in attending at the home of Ms R was less than auspicious. The purpose albeit blurred by the mother being intoxicated, was intended to warn Ms R of the father’s shortcomings.
The mother’s contact to Ms A is also to be considered as mischievous. It had the consequence of Ms A reassessing the extent to which P should spend time with the father.
I do not consider that the child would be able to easily maintain a fulsome relationship with the father if living in the UK I am not persuaded that the mother sufficiently recognises the importance of the child’s relationship with the father and would not facilitate it to the same level.

If the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres-Strait Islander child

The child is of Indigenous heritage via the paternal family. The father has expressed an intention that the child will be better introduced and inculcated to his Indigenous heritage. At present this has not occurred and whilst I bring to account the potential for the child’s Indigenous heritage to assume a level of importance, I do not consider that it is a determining factor. I give it weight and I accept that if it is the father’s intention to promote the child’s Aboriginality, it is unlikely to occur if he lives in the UK.

Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family

The proceedings are replete with allegations by each of the parties in respect of family violence. The father entered into a DVO for a period of 12 months from 12 September 2016. That order has expired without incident.
The mother also faced allegations of family violence following the incident in May 2018. That DVO application was resolved by the mother entering a six month undertaking to be of good behaviour. That undertaking has now expired.
The relevance of the allegations of family violence underpins a finding that the parties, but in particular the mother arising out of her misrepresentation of aspects of the father’s history with former partners, is strongly suggestive of the mother not being prepared to support the father’s relationship with the child.
The concern is that the mother recognises that without an expansive proposal for the child to maintain a relationship with the father, relocation is problematic.
I am not satisfied that the mother would be supportive of the child’s relationship with the father if she lived in the UK.

Any other fact or circumstance that the Court thinks is relevant

At present the child appears well adjusted and is developing in an age appropriate fashion.
The child has a close and loving relationship with each of the parties notwithstanding that they are mistrustful and lack any ability to communicate at a civil level.
Whilst the Court may have been better assisted by a timely update assessment of the child’s current status, there is sufficient evidence to find that the child is achieving appropriate milestones. The child is happy and well adjusted. There is uncertainty as to whether that level of adjustment could be beneficially maintained if the child relocated to the UK.
It is reasonable to find that much of the child’s beneficial presentation is as a result of the maintenance of an ongoing relationship with each of the parties.
There is no evidence that would assist the Court in understand the risk to the child if a relocation were to take place.
There is no evidence of any diminution or detrimental consequence to the mother of her application being refused.
The mother does not currently have employment, but the evidence strongly points to the mother being resourceful and successful in obtaining employment. In any event, the mother’s circumstances in the UK would not be more enhanced than her prospects of employment in the Northern Territory. There was no specific evidence presented in respect of either employment proposition.
I have considered the prospects of the child’s spending equal time with the parties consequent upon their agreed position of equal shared parental responsibility.
The parties are to be congratulated for the manner in which they have been able to quarantine and protect the child from the potential adverse consequences of the inter-parental conflict. I am not satisfied that the child could be so protected if an order was made that the child spend equal time in the care of the parties.
I have given careful consideration to the factors in s 60CC both as to the primary and secondary considerations and find that whilst equal time would not be in the child’s best interests, significant and substantial time would be indicated.

Conclusion

I consider that the child should spend five nights with the father each alternate weekend and school holidays broadly in terms of the mother’s proposal noting that the parties each agree that the child should be permitted to travel overseas with each of the parties during the school holidays.
I make orders as appear at the commencement of these reasons.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and twenty-six (226) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Berman delivered on 6 November 2019.

Associate:

Date: 6 November 2019