RAMSGATE & KNORR

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RAMSGATE & KNORR

[2015] FCCA 1648

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Final parenting proceedings – children aged 12, 10 & 8 – father has withdrawn from proceedings – should case be determined on a final basis – allocation of parental responsibility – coercive and controlling family violence – insight into parental obligations – educational needs of children – best interests.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.4AB, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA, 68B, 68C

MRR & MR [2010] HCA 4

Applicant:

MS RAMSGATE

Respondent:

MR KNORR

File Number:

CAC 850 of 2013

Judgment of:

Judge Brown

Hearing date:

20 May 2015

Date of Last Submission:

20 May 2015

Delivered at:

Darwin

Delivered on:

20 May 2015

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Norrington

Solicitors for the Applicant:

DS Family Law

Counsel for the Respondent:

In Person

ORDERS

That the Orders dated 13 December 2012 are discharged.
That the Orders dated 16 September 2013 are discharged.
That the parents have equal shared parental responsibility in respect of all major long term issues (as that expression is defined in the Family Law Act 1975 (as amended) (“the Act”)) in respect of the children, X born (omitted) 2002, Y born (omitted) 2004 and Z born (omitted) 2007 (“the children”), save that the mother shall have sole parental responsibility for all educational decisions provided that, prior to making the sole ultimate decision about educational matters, the mother shall:
(a)Advise the father in writing of the decision intended to be made;
(b)Seek the father’s written response in relation thereto;
(c)Consider, by reference to the best interests of the child, any such response prior to making any such decision;
(d)Advise the father in writing as soon as reasonably practicable of her ultimate decision.
That the children live with the Mother.
That during school holidays the father shall spend time with the children for one half of each school holiday period being the first half in odd numbered years and the second half in even numbered years;
That during school terms the father shall spend time with the children as follows:
(a)From after school on Wednesday until before school on the following Monday, commencing the first week of each school term and each alternate week thereafter;
(b)On further or other occasions as may be agreed to between the parties from time to time, for example on either parent’s or any child’s birthday.
That school holidays in accordance with paragraphs 5 are defined to commence when school finishes on the last day of school term and to conclude when school starts on the first day of school for the following school term.
That subject to paragraph’s 9 and 10, changeover of the children in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 shall occur at the children’s school where possible and where not possible the changeover shall occur at a changeover location agreed to between the parents but in default of an agreement at McDonald's (omitted).
That in accordance with paragraph 5, the changeover of the children at the midpoint of school holidays shall occur at 5pm on the day calculated to be the midpoint between the commencement of the school holiday and the conclusion of the school holiday, and that in the event that the mother is in (omitted) and the father is in (omitted), the changeover of the children shall occur at an agreed location in (omitted) at 12 noon.
That subject to paragraph 18, when the father is collecting or dropping off the children at the School, in accordance with paragraph 8, drop off and collection shall occur at the car park of the (omitted) School in (omitted).
That if either parent is unable to care for the children in accordance with paragraph 5 or 6, that parent shall be responsible for arranging and paying for vacation care or afterschool care as required.
That each parent will, insofar as it is necessary, sign all documents necessary to ensure that any school the children attend from time to time, or any health professional, medical professional they attend from time to time, will permit the other parent to contact those schools or health professionals to advise themselves of the prognosis and treatment of the children and this order operates as an authority for each parent to receive all information from any school or any medical or health professional in relation to the children, as requested by either parent.
That each parent will forthwith upon the children receiving medical assistance, of any nature whatsoever, which is not of a usual childhood ailment, including any therapeutic intervention, notify the other parent of the treating health professional and their contact number.
That both parties agree they will ensure that the children are not involved in Family Law proceedings and will use their best endeavours to prevent any third person from involving the children in Family Law proceedings.
That both parties are restrained and an injunction issue restraining each party from denigrating the other parent, speaking badly of the other parent or the other parents’ respective partners or extended family members on any occasion and will use their best endeavours to prevent the children from being exposed to any third parties doing the same.
That each parent shall be permitted to have telephone communication with the children at all reasonable times.
That pursuant to Section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 an injunction issue restraining the father from attending or approaching any place where the mother lives or works.
That pursuant to Section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 the father be restrained and an injunction issue restraining the father from:
(a)entering the grounds of any school the children attend without written consent from the Principal or delegate;
(b)contacting any employee, or board member of the children’s school either directly or indirectly, save and accept for the Principal or delegate; in writing, and for the purposes of section 68C of the Family Law Act 1975, such persons are deemed to be protected persons.
That each parent be permitted to take the children on an interstate or overseas holiday during their time with the children in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6, provided that written notice is provided to the other parent not less than 7 days prior to departure, together with a written itinerary containing the dates of departure and return, the mode of travel and the address and telephone number of the place(s) where the children shall be staying during the holiday.
That for the purposes of overseas travel in accordance with paragraph 19, each parent shall sign all documents and do all things necessary to ensure that the children maintain valid Australian Passports, with the child’s passports to be held by the Mother and to be handed over to the Father not less than 3 days prior to departure any holiday he is exercising pursuant to paragraph 19.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA

AT DARWIN

CAC 850 of 2013

MS RAMSGATE

Applicant

And

MR KNORR

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These reasons for judgment are being delivered orally, immediately following the hearing concerned. The reasons relate to a case in which Ms Ramsgate is the applicant and the respondent is Mr Knorr. I will refer to Ms Ramsgate as the mother and to Mr Knorr as the father in these reasons for judgment.
The parties are the parents of three children. They are X who was born on (omitted) 2002, Y who was born on (omitted) 2004 and Z, a little girl, who was born on (omitted) 2007.
The proceedings are unusual in a variety of ways. Although the father was present when the case was called on and took part in some confidential discussions with the mother’s counsel, he has since withdrawn from the courtroom.
Thereafter, the case proceeded on an undefended basis and I took evidence from the mother and Ms J, a teacher and educational administrator, who has been closely involved with the children for a number of years.
By way of background, the mother commenced the proceedings on 10 April 2014 or thereabouts. It is her position that the Court needs to make orders, which will confer upon her sole parental responsibility in respect of making decisions about the children’s education and further that the Court should make orders, which will clearly delineate the time which the children spend with their father.
Those proceedings were listed for trial today and it was anticipated that they would go on until tomorrow and quite possibly the day after that. The mother has been represented throughout these proceedings by her solicitor, Mr Norrington. The father has represented himself throughout the proceedings.
I need to correct myself. The proceedings were listed yesterday, however as the parties are aware, yesterday I suffered a mishap to my back. I am told that I have injured a disc in my lower back.
As a consequence of that, I could not sit yesterday and this morning I indicated to Mr Norrington and Mr Knorr that I would not be in a position to hear the case as a contested hearing, over the next two or three days, because I been advised that my back was not up to sitting for so long.
However, I indicated to the parties that their case would be listed, with some priority, in June before his Honour, Bauman J, and that the parties would get some priority because of the inconvenience accorded to them because of my injury.
However, before my mishap, I had had an opportunity to read the affidavit material in the case and particularly the family report which had been compiled by the family consultant, Ms G. On that basis, I determined that perhaps I should give some assessment of the case to the parties concerned.
I did that on the basis that, in accordance with the principles that are set out in Division 12A of the Family Law Act 1975, frequently referred to by lawyers, as the less adversarial principles, I should endeavour, if at all possible, to assist the parties to avoid a potentially stressful and emotionally draining court case, if at all possible.
It is recognised I think by Courts generally, and by the legislature in particular, that Court proceedings are not helpful to children because of the damage they can do to invariably already compromised parental relationships. Obviously parents rarely say complimentary things about one another in court cases, yet after the case concerned has concluded, they must work together as parents.
Accordingly, wherever possible, the Court ought to encourage parents to reach their own accommodation with one another and assist them to focus on their future parenting relationship together rather than concentrating how each of them perceive the other to have failed, as a parent, in the past.
With that in mind, I entered into a dialogue with Mr Knorr. I cannot remember precisely everything I said to him and what he said to me. No doubt, if necessary, a transcript can be obtained. However, I said to Mr Knorr in round terms, “look, I am not going to be hearing your case. I think it would be a good thing if you and Ms Ramsgate could reach agreement with one another. I am sorry I have hurt my back. I do not think it’s fair to you or Ms Ramsgate and indeed to myself that I hear the matter”.
Mr Knorr said – and I paraphrase him – “that he had had enough of the conflict, that he wanted to resolve the matter and he did not think it was helpful to the three children concerned that they had been subjected to what he regarded as five years of pretty constant litigation”.
As I recall, I said to him words to the effect of, “well, Mr Knorr, the proof is in the pudding. If you want to resolve it, it is open to you to think about how it can be resolved. If you want to stop the conflict in the children’s’ lives, it is up to you to stop it”.
Against that background, Mr Knorr said he was open to the invitation I put to him to think about the matter for an hour or so and talk to Mr Norrington about resolving it. That happened. Mr Norrington came back, Mr Knorr came back and they told me that no agreement had been reached and perhaps with some reluctance I came to the view that I had to adjourn the matter for another judge to hear.
After that Mr Knorr indicated that he had had enough and said words to the effect of, “well, Ms Ramsgate, you can have the children”. I tried, I think, to persuade him that that was not a mature or insightful attitude to have and I think I said to him – and not in a peremptory tone, or I hope a threatening tone – that he was grandstanding and if the matter had to be adjourned, so be it.
Mr Knorr was here in court with his father. His father said: “well, adjourn it, fix it for hearing”. Mr Knorr asked if he would be in contempt of Court if he left. I did not say that he would be and he left. Clearly this was unsatisfactory to me, as it was not what I had expected. I had told Mr Knorr, I did not want him to leave the court.
Prior to Mr Knorr leaving, he said on several occasions, “well, give her the kids”. I endeavoured to explain, not I hope in bullying or hectoring tones, but perhaps that the transcript will not reveal the emotional nuances of the situation, that it was not a question of him giving up the children, rather it was a question of him having the children five days a fortnight and fitting that in with his roster at the (employer omitted).
Anyway, Mr Knorr said he did not want the matter adjourned and he left and that was where we left off with one another. In my view, although I accept Mr Knorr was upset, he did not present as a person of emotional insight by leaving the court as he did.
On that basis, Mr Norrington invited me to deal with the proceedings on an undefended basis, the assumption being that Mr Knorr had said he had had enough, did not wish for the proceedings to be adjourned and had invited me to finalise the matter.
I think I indicated to Mr Knorr that if he left and he indicated that he would not be coming back, I would be finalising the matter on the basis of what Ms Ramsgate wanted, but again, the transcript will indicate that with more clarity.
It is the mother’s position that during the parties’ relationship she was subject to bullying and harassment by Mr Knorr and that this behaviour has persisted after the parties separated and has involved others who are significant to the care of these three children.
It is her case essentially that it is untenable and not in the best interests of the children concerned for her and Mr Knorr to be placed in a position where they have to make joint decisions about the children, particularly in respect of issues relating to their education.
Rather, she asserts that someone in authority, by necessary implication the Court, needs to step in and put orders in place which clearly delineate the authority of each of the parents and if that does not happen it will be adverse to the interests of the three children concerned.
It is her case that the children have a good relationship with their father whom they love. But, regrettably for many complex reasons, the relationship between the parents concerned is poisonous beyond repair. Essentially in these circumstances, it is her view that it must be the case that the children, in their best interests, are parented in parallel.
What this means, in effect, is that the mother’s parenting of the children and the father’s parenting of the children should be metaphorically quarantined by some form of airlock. This is because the parties, for all sorts of reasons, are incapable of making any decision or communicating anything about the children to the other parent concerned.
Ms Ramsgate by background is a (occupation omitted). In the past she has been involved in (occupation omitted). More recently again she has been involved in (occupation omitted).
Mr Knorr is a (occupation omitted). He is a member of the (employer omitted) and that is necessarily a position of some responsibility and some power.
It is, I think, Ms Ramsgate’s case that, from time to time, Mr Knorr has abused that power and trust. Whether that is so or not I am not in a position to say definitively, but it is my impression of Mr Knorr, which Ms Ramsgate endorses, that Mr Knorr is a person who is used to getting his own way and is not a person who will easily compromise. In short, Ms Ramsgate characterises Mr Knorr as a bully.
By way of background, the mother was born in (omitted) 1973 and the father was born in (omitted) 1973. The parties have known one another for a very long time. They met and began to live together some time in 2000 and were married in (omitted) 2001.
They came to the Northern Territory, initially to Darwin, in 2002. Mr Knorr joined the (employer omitted) and X was born in (omitted), after the parties had relocated there, I think, as a consequence of Mr Knorr’s employment.
The parties’ relationship with one another has not been an easy one and it is the mother’s evidence that they have frequently separated and reconciled. In the early years of the marriage they moved around the Territory as (occupation omitted) do, having lived in (omitted), (omitted) and Darwin.
It was in February of 2007 that the father joined the (employer omitted) and the mother at that stage moved to (omitted) in Queensland and Z was born in (omitted). The parties separated in May of 2007 but reconciled and returned to Darwin.
It has long been the father’s positon that he has, from his perspective I think, an entitlement to have equal time and equal care for the children concerned. Orders were made in April of 2011, on an interim basis that the father would spend seven nights or so with the children every four weeks. The parties it seems finally separated, initially under the one roof, in February of 2010. In October 2010 the mother left the former matrimonial home with the children.
In late 2012 orders were made which allowed the mother and the children to move to (omitted). In this context, orders were made for the father to spend time with the children during school holidays.
At that stage, it was the father’s position that he wished to pursue a relationship and employment opportunities in Canberra. On that basis, because both parties were leaving Darwin, it seems to be the case that the Court endorsed the mother’s application to leave Darwin with the children.
The mother has re-partnered. Her current partner is a gentleman called Mr B. Mr B has been present in court throughout the proceedings to support Ms Ramsgate.
The mother, I think, took a year in (omitted) to recuperate. It is her evidence, and I have heard oral evidence from her, that the process of separating from Mr Knorr and what happened afterwards was extremely arduous for her in an emotional sense and she wished to go back to (omitted) to regain her emotional equilibrium.
There have also been contravention proceedings which were ultimately brought by the father but dismissed by the Court in September of 2013.
The mother, Mr B and the children came back to Darwin in December 2013, or thereabouts. Proceedings, which the mother had begun in Brisbane to vary the earlier orders were transferred to this Court in Darwin and have been on foot ever since.
The mother wished to move back to Darwin for a number of reasons. Firstly and primarily, she thought she would be able to earn a better living for herself and the children, and it was her understanding that Mr Knorr was living in Canberra with his new partner.
So on that basis she was content to return to Darwin, where she had lived before and where the children concerned have a history of having friends and of attending school here – the (omitted) School – and I will come to (omitted) School in a moment in more detail.

At any event things stayed as they were until, without prior notice, the father returned to Darwin in July of 2014 and since that time, from the mother’s perspective, her life and the lives of the children have been difficult.
It is her case, I think, that she has been subject to a concerted campaign of harassment, of one form or another, from Mr Knorr to her. She categories Mr Knorr as a person with whom she finds it is impossible for her to deal.
Mr Knorr’s position, as I understand it, is that the parties should have a flexible and cooperative relationship for the parenting of the three children concerned, which effectively works around his roster with the (employer omitted).
From his perspective, if he is working a shift of whatever kind and the children cannot come to him, he should be able to rearrange things with Ms Ramsgate and she should take up the slack, as it were, but when he is free the children should come to him.
Having read Ms G’s family report, and Mr Knorr of course had read that as well, I indicated to him, before he left the Court precincts that roster cases, that is, cases where one parent has a particular roster which rolls and changes, from time to time, particularly people like (occupations omitted), are particularly difficult, because it is very difficult for Courts to make orders which direct that arrangements for the care of children should dovetail into a person’s ever changing roster commitments.
I indicated to Mr Knorr that the parties concerned, if there was a roster issue, needed to have a cooperative relationship with one another as parents and an ability to communicate readily with one another.
I also indicated that the evidence which was available to me and with which Mr Knorr agreed, because he said he found it impossible to communicate with Ms Ramsgate and as I say, she with him, that it seemed to me that the flexible arrangement to which Mr Knorr aspired was unobtainable.
On that basis, it seemed to me that there was some cogency to the mother’s position, supported by Ms G, the family consultant, that there needed to be fixed and specific times each fortnight and during school holidays for the children concerned to live with their father.
In this context, the mother proposed that the time be on a fortnightly basis, that the children spent with their father from after school on Wednesday until school commenced the following Monday, which on my calculations would be five nights per fortnight, and that the father should spend half of each school holiday with the children but it should be specific.
I indicated to Mr Knorr, albeit on the basis that I would have no further dealing with the matter, that this seemed to be, given what had been said by the High Court in the case of MMR & GR,[1] given the strictures of section 65DAA(5) and given the parties’ difficult parenting dynamic, not an unsatisfactory arrangement from both parties’ perspectives.
[1] See MMR & GR [2010] HCA 4
Anyway, as I say, Mr Knorr withdrew from the case. I determined that given that Mr Knorr had left and had not sought for me to refix the matter for final hearing that I was entitled to deal with the matter on an undefended basis. I am, I think, entitled to do so if I am satisfied that a person is not inclined to pursue his or her application with appropriate diligence. I am satisfied that Mr Knorr has said what he has said and does not want the proceedings adjourned, but is perhaps wanting to manipulate the Court or Ms Ramsgate, I am not sure.
On that basis, I elected to hear evidence directly from Ms Ramsgate. I asked her a number of questions and she answered them, and I was able to, I think, to form an impression of her. She seemed to me to be a reasonable and decent person. She did not seem to me to be vindictive or hysterical.
Rather, she presented as a person who was worn out and at the end of her tether. She also seemed to me to be a person who was insightful about the difficult dynamic of this case, because she conceded, without any, subterfuge or manipulation that the three children concerned love their father and are likely to benefit from knowing him.
However, she said, and I accept her evidence, that in terms of the parenting of these three children, it is she who does the metaphorical hard yards. She says, from her perspective, that she makes all the difficult decisions; she disciplines the children; she is there for them; she is reliable; she chastises them when necessary. Significantly, she has always managed her work around her responsibilities for the children.
On the other hand, it is her perspective that Mr Knorr is there to have fun with the children. If he has some other commitment, which he perceives is more important, he will go after that, including putting his work requirements before those of the children.
Significantly, and it is her case that dealing with Mr Knorr is a constant battle of wills and that Mr Knorr has to be the metaphorical top dog in the relationship and she must do his bidding, which is something with which she can no longer put up with. As I say, she finds him a gentleman to be practically impossible to deal with.
But, to her great credit, she concedes that the children love their father and he has much to offer them. However it is her position that of the two parents concerned, it is she who is the more mature and insightful one.
From my limited experience of both parties, Ms Ramsgate in the witness box, answering questions, pursuing her case with diligence, and Mr Knorr who has represented himself throughout and who withdrew from the proceedings, it is my finding and my view that it is Ms Ramsgate who is the more mature and insightful person, as she indeed categorised herself in the evidence.
From the mother’s perspective, there was also a pressing need for the proceedings to be finalised. That arises because of a letter which was written by Mr D, who is the principal and CEO of the (omitted) School, Darwin.
That is the school which the three children each attend and have attended for the vast majority of their education. The letter is dated 16 May 2015. It reads as follows:
I am writing to inform you that the (omitted) School, Darwin is unable to offer enrolment places to your children from the end of this term, Friday, 19 June 2915. Your fees for term 2 2015 will be refunded and any miscellaneous charges taken from this refund of term 2 fees. We understand that you may choose to enrol your children in another school before the end of this term to assist their transition into another school. Yours sincerely, Mr D, Principle/CEO.
So the import of the letter is that the children are being asked to leave the school. The letter, as I have outlined, is fairly brief and anodyne in its presentation. It is, however, Ms Ramsgate’s evidence that the letter is the tip of a very large iceberg and the end product of what she believes is a process of Mr Knorr having harassed and terrorised various teachers and other officials at the school, which has left them with no alternative but to withdraw the enrolments of the children at the school.
From the mother’s perspective this is unusual because, in the past, she has been offered significant support, from the school, for the three children to attend there. In particular the three children concerned receive reduced school fees, by 50 per cent, to support them remaining at the school.
It is also Ms Ramsgate’s evidence that the children enjoy the school very much and are doing well there. Each is regarded as a valued member of the school community, and is held in high esteem, as is she herself.
It is on the basis of this letter and her previous experience of Mr Knorr that she seeks an order that would see her having parental responsibility alone for making educational decisions about the children. It is her case that the only reason for the children’s education to have been jeopardised in this way is the bullying and intimidating conduct of Mr Knorr.
The family report in this matter was released to the parties in February of 2015. It is a detailed report of some 38 pages. It is based on interviews with each of the parties and the children concerned as well as Mr B. There was also an observed interaction between each of the children and their parents.
Ms G identified that one of the central issues in the case was high conflict between the parties, which had resulted in an ineffective co‑parenting relationship between them. Ms G also noted a significant dispute, regarding which school the children should attend.
(omitted) is a private non‑denominational school in Darwin. It caters for about thirteen hundred students, who attend the school from preschool up until year 12. From the mother’s perspective it is an excellent school.
As she is entitled to do, Ms Ramsgate has sought an administrative assessment of child support. Mr Knorr is liable to pay that child support. As Mr Knorr is a PAYG taxpayer, who is employed by a large (employer omitted), there is a limit to how he can arrange his affairs to escape his liability for child support.
In addition, as Ms Ramsgate is also entitled to do, she has sought an administrative departure from the applicable child support determination on the basis that prior to the parties’ separation they had agreed that the children concerned should have a private school education.
A decision has been made that it is both just and equitable and special circumstances exist which justify a departure from the administrative assessment of child support so that both parties pay and contribute towards the children’s private school expenses.
It is Ms Ramsgate’s perception that Mr Knorr bridles under that decision of the Child Support Agency, which has been reviewed within the agency itself and has gone on to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.
The order for the parties to contribute to the children’s school fees in equal proportion remains, although it is Ms Ramsgate’s understanding that there have been other accommodations in respect of the administrative assessment.
So Ms G identified the issue about (omitted) School and by implication its school fees, as being central to the issues in dispute in this case. Against that background, it is somewhat ironic that the school has taken the decision to take the issue away from the parties by withdrawing the children’s enrolment.
It is the mother’s case that the only reason that the school has withdrawn the children’s enrolment, at (omitted), is because, like she herself, the school authorities are tired of being harassed and bullied by Mr Knorr.
As a consequence of this behaviour, it is untenable for them to allow the children concerned to remain at the school, notwithstanding the fact that all three children are valued pupils and the school itself has gone to some pains to encourage them to remain.
I have also heard evidence from the Deputy Principal of the school, Ms J. I will come to that evidence in due course, but that evidence and the evidence of Ms Ramsgate and indeed of Ms G convinces me that this is a very unusual case and it is appropriate, from the perspective of the best interests of the children concerned, to bring these proceedings, if at all possible, to an end.
I am satisfied that to perpetuate the proceedings has the potential to do harm to the three children concerned. And, as I say, Mr Knorr, at least ostensibly, withdrew from them of his own volition and, having done that, I am not of a mind to try any more to mollify him or persuade him to come back. Rather, I am concerned that these proceedings have, of themselves, become an instrument to bludgeon and oppress Ms Ramsgate, and I do not think that that is an appropriate use of these proceedings.
Anyway, in the family report Ms G assessed the mother to be a thoughtful and reflective parent. Ms Ramsgate repeatedly stated to Ms G how important it was that the children spend time with the father and that they loved him very much. She said to Ms G that she had put her feelings regarding Mr Knorr to the side for the benefit of the children.
In contrast, Ms G found that Mr Knorr presented himself as being a victim and having something of a querulous or complaining nature. Mr Knorr said of the Judge, Harland J, who had previously been overseeing the proceedings, that he hated her.
He reiterated how irritated he was with Ms Ramsgate for commencing these proceedings. From Ms G’s point of view, Mr Knorr had little insight into how the acrimonious relationship between the parties was likely to impact upon the children.
To Ms G, Ms Ramsgate described a situation where she felt that she was coerced and manipulated by Mr Knorr during their relationship. She reiterated that evidence to me. In essence she said that Mr Knorr would invent complaints against her and would then berate her for them. Mr Knorr complained of having been assaulted by Ms Ramsgate in the past.
Mr Knorr denied that he had ever abused or assaulted Ms Ramsgate. But it was Ms G’s perception that, in contrast to Ms Ramsgate, Mr Knorr had nothing of a positive nature to say about Ms Ramsgate. Certainly, unlike the mother, who acknowledged the importance of the children’s relationship with their father, this was not a view that was reciprocated, so far as Mr Knorr’s view of the children’s relationship with their mother was concerned.
The children were interviewed at length by Ms G. It is clear to me, from this aspect of the report that the children love their father very much indeed – and Ms Ramsgate does not disagree with that at all. X said that he did heaps of fun stuff with his father. He also spoke highly of his mother.
Y said his relationship with his father was 10 out of 10, other than when his father hadn’t had enough sleep. Y reported a fun thing involving dad letting the kids drive, reverse and change gears on the car. X reported that he wanted his mother and father to stop fighting and get along with one another.
It is clear, I think, from what the children said – particularly the two older boys – to Ms G, that they are well aware of the poor relationship between their parents. Z, the youngest of the children, of course, who perhaps has very little memory of when the parties were living together, has a very high regard for her father, as one would hope that she would.
The observed interaction between the mother, Mr B and the children was unexceptional. Ms G thought that Ms Ramsgate managed the children well and was emotionally in tune with them. X and Y were impressed as having a good relationship with Mr B. Similarly, the children engaged happily and well with their father.
So this is a case where the three children concerned are well cared for and are healthy and happy. X, Y and Z are children who are developing well, and that is to the credit of both their parents.
However, it is clear also to Ms G that the children, particularly X and Y, have been exposed to family violence. It is Ms G’s view that the narrative presented by Ms Ramsgate is consistent with that of controlling and coercive family violence. Whereas Mr Knorr’s allegations of family violence were consistent with a person, in the form of Ms Ramsgate, who was reacting to the pressures of a particular situation.
Ms G assessed Ms Ramsgate as being anxious when she thought of Mr Knorr, which anxiety manifested in physical symptoms. Ms G’s view was that Ms Ramsgate was worn out by her perception that she was subject to constant criticism.
In her assessment Ms G said as follows:
The assessment identified that there is a very limited effective co‑parenting relationship between Ms Ramsgate and Mr Knorr. Mr Knorr appeared to hold very negative feelings towards Ms Ramsgate and focussed on his rights rather than the children’s best interests. Mr Knorr repeatedly highlighted Ms Ramsgate’s flaws and took little responsibility for his contributions to the dispute and never commented on her importance for the children. Comparatively, Ms Ramsgate came across as child centred by emphasising the importance of Mr Knorr in the children’s lives.
At interview Ms Ramsgate provided rich and reflective narratives regarding her parenting style and her relationship with each of the children. In comparison Mr Knorr did not impress as possessing a solid parenting philosophy and his description of his relationship with the children was shallow and superficial. The children have experienced a significant amount of instability in their lives through multiple relocations and more recently through their parents’ establishing new partnerships. This instability, along with the apparent evasive conflict between parties, is likely to have caused challenges for the children in forming a coherent sense of identity.
The writer did not consider that equal shared care of X, Y and Z would be in their best interests and assessed it was important to minimise disruption for them by promoting stability and preventing exposure to conflict. The writer recommends that this is likely to be best served by shifting the current arrangements to a position where the children have alternate weeks with Mr Knorr from Wednesday until Monday, with changeovers occurring at school, and the parents sharing an equal split of the school holidays. The writer recommends to promote stability that the children remain at the (omitted) School.
From what I have seen of Ms Ramsgate and from what I have seen of Mr Knorr, I have no reason to think anything other than that Ms G’s view of the case reflects the situation of the family concerned.
I am fortified in that view by the circumstances surrounding the decision of the school at (omitted) to stop the children’s enrolment there. In this context I have heard extensive evidence from Ms J, who is the Deputy Principal of (omitted) School.
Ms J was subpoenaed to give evidence in the anticipation that the matter would proceed as a trial. She gave evidence and I had an opportunity to see her and for her to explain the school’s position in regards to the family concerned.
Ms J has been involved with (omitted) School for about 20 years. She has been a teacher for 25 years. As the Deputy Principal she does less face‑to‑face teaching of children than she previously did but she has, in lieu thereof, become a significant administrator of the school.
In that role, she deals with discipline issues to do with students and, more significantly, interacts with parents. It is her case that in her extensive years of teaching, she has never come across a parent who is as disruptive and as difficult to deal with as Mr Knorr. In my view that is a significant thing indeed.
It is her evidence, in essence, that the school and its board and its staff are fed up to the back teeth with being harassed and bullied by Mr Knorr. The only solution to the problem, which Mr Knorr represents, is to dismiss the children from the school, because otherwise the school will be remiss in the duty of care it owes to other students and its staff by prolonging the relationship it has with Mr Knorr.
Ms J describes Mr Knorr as an extraordinary parent, who is almost if not impossible to deal with because of his bullying and terrorising personality. She says parents and other staff members are frightened of him because of his conduct.
This, in my view, dovetails with Ms Ramsgate’s evidence that Mr Knorr is a person who will do whatever he can to undermine the children’s enrolment at a school, which he does not approve of, although it must be the case that when the parties were in a functioning relationship he endorsed the school as the best one for the children concerned.
Ms J has given evidence that in order to manage Mr Knorr, because other members of staff find him impossible to deal with, that Mr D, the principal of the school, has nominated her as the go to person and the only person on staff with whom Mr Knorr is to deal.
She has got that job because, from her perspective, she has broad shoulders, she has considerable experience and she has the trust of the principal to deal with Mr Knorr. However, from her perspective she cannot deal with Mr Knorr any longer.

It is her case that Mr Knorr is insulting to her, demands to be dealt with or to confer with her without prior arrangements and is a person who bullies and terrorises her. Ms J gives one particular incident, which highlights her concerns about Mr Knorr.
Ms J, as everybody in this day and age does, has a mobile telephone number, which she uses for her own personal purposes. She did not give the telephone number to Mr Knorr but somehow, for reasons which she cannot explain and about which she is highly suspicious, Mr Knorr gained access to her mobile telephone number. It seems to be the case that Mr Knorr wanted to speak with her during the course of a particular day and Ms J was not available.
Mr Knorr telephoned her on this mobile telephone number at about 6 pm in the evening, after school had finished, and chose to berate her for not answering his calls and then hung up. From Ms J’s perspective this was concerning because she did not give Mr Knorr the telephone number – and when Mr Knorr had the telephone number he chose not to engage with her in a constructive way.
From Ms J’s perspective this is emblematic of how Mr Knorr operates. He bullies people but does not engage. It is her evidence, which I accept, that Mr Knorr is not interested in engaging with staff to discuss the needs of the children in a helpful way but is intent on undermining and harassing staff members.
A further incident also serves to indicate the difficulty. Y, in November of last year, fell in the playground and hit his head on some concrete. He had to be taken to the first aid centre, where he was attended to. An icepack was put on his head and he reported feeling nauseous.
The school regarded it as a significant incident. They were worried about him, particularly at the prospect of concussion. They felt that they were obliged to contact both Ms Ramsgate and Mr Knorr and, from my perspective, they were quite right in so doing.
Ms Ramsgate, when contacted, was reasonable and concerned about Y but Mr Knorr was difficult and abusive when contacted and hung up. From Ms J’s perspective this was very unusual behaviour. It was not child focussed, in her assessment.
Indeed, it is Ms J’s perspective that Mr Knorr is not child focussed – and in her 20 years or so of teaching experience she has never come across a person as difficult and querulous and complaining as Mr Knorr, and she and her staff members have had enough.
She is fearful that people who are less experienced than her on the staff will not have the capacity to deal with Mr Knorr. She reports administrative staff being in tears, because of their dealings with Mr Knorr, and being frightened. She herself is frightened of Mr Knorr – and she agreed with my assessment of her in her evidence – that she is no shrinking violet.
She is not, in my assessment, a person who is likely to be easily intimidated. By way of her own background, she is a community leader and she is a Justice of the Peace. So she is a person in whom the community has placed a significant level of trust.
It is her perspective, which I accept, that she does not take kindly to Mr Knorr saying that she is deceitful and dishonest, or things of that nature. It is against that background that the school, with extreme reluctance, has formed the decision that the children can no longer be enrolled.
This means, of course, that the children – if the Board of the school does not reconsider – that the children will have to go to another school. Given what Ms Ramsgate believes is the difficult and complaining personality of Mr Knorr, this will mean that there will be potentially a fresh field of disputation that will arise, if the parties are expected to reach a consensual agreement about the issue. It is on this basis that she contends that she must have sole parental responsibility for the children and make all decisions in respect of their education.
She is prepared to advise the father of the decision, seek his written response and then consider it before the making the decision. However, it is her perspective that she finds it impossible to engage with Mr Knorr in any meaningful way because he will bully her and he will not accept her view. My experience of Mr Knorr, by his withdrawal from these proceedings, albeit much more limited, is, in my view, congruent with how both Ms J and Ms Ramsgate have described Mr Knorr.
So the great difficulty in this case is easily expressed. The children need to spend time with their father, whom they love and know very well indeed, but any prospect of a co-parenting relationship existing between the mother and the father is negligible.
Important decisions may have to be made about the children in the short to medium term, particularly about their education, and the Court will have to make a decision as to how those decisions are made.
I turn now, in brief, to the legal principles which I must apply to this case. The best interests of the children concerned are the paramount or more important consideration. That follows as a consequence of section 60CA of the Family Law Act.
Because of the importance which the Act places on parents making consensual decisions and being equally involved in their children’s lives, there is a presumption which, unless displaced, that the parents of a child should have equal shared parental responsibility for the child or children concerned.
However, as a consequence of section 61DA, that presumption is displaced on a final basis, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent of a child has engaged in abuse of the child or family violence.
The presumption is also rebutted if the court is satisfied that it would not be in the best interests of the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child concerned.
The concept of family violence is defined in section 4AB of the Act:
...family violence means violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person’s family ... or causes the family member to be fearful.
Interestingly, the legislature has given examples in subsection (2) of behaviour that may constitute family violence. It includes such things as repeated derogatory taunts and things of that nature.
It is, essentially, the mother’s position that Mr Knorr is a bully. That is also Ms J’s view. I am satisfied that Mr Knorr has engaged in a regime of behaviour to coerce or control Ms Ramsgate or attempt to do so and this constitutes family violence for the purposes of the Act.
It is Ms Ramsgate’s evidence, which I accept, that she is now free of that control and coercion as best she can be and it is her position that, on that basis, at least so far as educational arrangements for the children are concerned, she should have sole responsibility for those matters.
I should also say that she has given evidence that it is not only staff, at the school who have been subjected to Mr Knorr’s behaviour. It is her evidence that board members of the school have also been subject to such harassment.
Ms J informed me that the chair of the board of the school, who is a person of some significance, as I understand it, in the Northern Territory community, has herself been subject to an unsolicited phone conversation with Mr Knorr, who, through means which are unclear to the person concerned, has got her number and used it to berate her.
In my view, what Ms J and Ms Ramsgate have described is a person, in the form of Mr Knorr, who, if he does not get his own way, if he is not immediately attended to in a way that he expects, will hector and bully and terrorise. In my view, this is behaviour which falls within the definition of “family violence” in that it threatens a person, coerces and controls that person or causes that person to be fearful.
I am conscious that the teachers and the board members are not members of the children’s family, although clearly Ms Ramsgate is, but it is not, I think, drawing too long a bow to say that the children are members of a school community, which is in some ways analogous to a family.
Mr Knorr, for complex reasons, which I can only conjecture about, does not accept that the children ought to be members of the (omitted) School family and, indeed, it seems that they are not to be members of that family for much longer. Mr Knorr, in my view, has indicated that he has a scant level of insight into the responsibilities of being a parent and I will return to that issue in a moment.
It is, I think, a common misconception that, because of insertion of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility into the legislation that this is in some way indicative that the legislature has the view that equal time is always the best outcome for children. I do not think that that is the case.
Equal shared parental responsibility deals with the allocation of parental responsibility, not the specific time a child spends with each of his or her parents.
If the presumption is applied – and for reasons which I have given I am satisfied that it in this case the presumption is rebutted to a significant degree – the court, pursuant to section 65DAA, is required to think of, firstly, equal time and then secondly substantial and significant time.
Ms G – and I agree with her assessment – did not think equal time would be in the best interests of these children. It also seems to be her position that it would not be reasonably practicable to put into place.
Ms Ramsgate is proposing that the children spend time with their father during school holidays and on weekends. I am satisfied that, to all intents and purposes, this amounts to significant and substantial time, although the orders that the mother proposes do not specifically deal with birthdays, Father’s Day or Mother’s Day and the like or, indeed, with Easter.
“Substantial and significant time” is defined in the Act. It means time that allows a parent to spend time with a child on weekdays, weekends and at times that are likely to be significant to parents and children. In my view, the regime that the mother proposes is substantial and significant time.
However, pursuant to section 65DAA, the court must also consider whether, in an objective sense, the orders for either equal time or substantial and significant time are reasonably practicable to put into effect, as well as in being in the children’s best interests.
The High Court in the case of MRR & MR has indicated that there must be an affirmative answer to both such questions and, in determining whether it is reasonably practicable for a child to spend equal time or substantial and significant time, the court has to have regard to such things as how far the parents live from each other, the parents’ current and future capacity to implement such an arrangement; how well they communicate; and what impact such a regime will have on the children concerned.
In this case, both parties agree that they cannot communicate with one another in any meaningful way. I am satisfied that it is impracticable in the extreme for there to be an equal time regime or for there to be a regime which works around Mr Knorr’s work roster. I accept that there has to be a regime for the care of these children, which delineates in specific terms when the children will spend time with their father.
How a child’s interests would be best served must be considered by reference to the matters set out in section 60CC. In that section are set out a number of considerations. There are two categories of considerations: primary considerations and additional considerations.
There are two primary considerations which are, firstly, the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both his or her parents and secondly, the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subject to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence. As a consequence of recent amendment to the Act, I am directed to give greater weight to protective concerns.
On the basis of the evidence from Ms Ramsgate and the evidence in the family report, I am satisfied these children have been exposed to family violence, since the parties separated, as a consequence of Mr Knorr’s behaviour. As I have said, I am satisfied that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility is rebutted, essentially, by these considerations.
The irony again of this case is that the three children concerned are doing well. I think in no small part that is due to Ms Ramsgate and her sensitivity to the needs of the children. She has not sought to exclude Mr Knorr from the children’s lives.
To the contrary, she wants him to remain a part of the children’s lives but she cannot be beholden to Mr Knorr and for the time which the children spend with their father to be only on Mr Knorr’s terms and as he dictates.
I am satisfied that the proposal Ms Ramsgate presents is of such a nature that the children will benefit from having a meaningful relationship with their father. They will see him often. They will be able to engage in all sorts of activities with him.
But I am also satisfied that it is Ms Ramsgate, who provides the bedrock of the children’s care, who goes the hard yards and makes the hard decisions in respect of these children, and she without doubt has always been there for them in terms of when she went to (omitted) and when she came back with them to Darwin.
It is, I think, emblematic of Mr Knorr’s insight and understanding that he turns up in Darwin without having discussed the matter with Ms Ramsgate at all and just asserts, “Let there be a parenting relationship between me and the children as I dictate, because I have turned up.” That, I think, is emblematic of how Mr Knorr treats Ms Ramsgate and, indeed, others in the children’s lives.
The children have expressed a view to continue to spend time with their father and their mother. They have also expressed a view that they want the conflict between their parents to stop. It seems to me of the two parents the person, who is most likely to be able to make this happen is not Ms Ramsgate, who has been, in my view, conciliatory to Mr Knorr throughout these proceedings, but it is Mr Knorr. He is the person who is driving the conflict.
It seems to me also that, for the reasons which I have given, Mr Knorr has a flawed insight into what it is to be a responsible parent and has demonstrated an impaired responsibility to how these children’s emotional and intellectual needs will best be met.
I heard from Ms J in respect of (omitted) School in some detail. As one would expect of the deputy principal of a school, she said it is the best school there is. I would expect that she would say such a thing, but she explained to me that the children who do the year 12 have done very well; the children who attend the school do better than the average in respect of their NAPLAN; and from Ms J’s perspective it is a very fine private, nondenominational, parent-controlled school and is unique in the Northern Territory context.
I accept that that is so. I accept that (omitted) School is a very fine school and it is the best school for these children at the present stage of their development and, accordingly, by destroying the possibility of the children continuing at that school, Mr Knorr has shown that he lacks insight as a parent, he lacks maturity as a person and has shown that he has a flawed capacity to provide for the emotional and intellectual needs of these children.
Accordingly, I have come to the conclusion that it is in the best interests of these children that I finalise these proceedings and it is for that reason that I have delivered these ex tempore reasons for judgment. Ms J has said that the school is not for turning. Whether that is so or not I do not know. I am told by Mr Norrington that the school has thought of what it can do.
It considered being joined as a party so that it could seek orders to protect its staff and other parents at the school. I should say, and I have omitted to say it thus far, Ms J has told me that Mr Knorr has berated the parent of another child at the school because of some contretemps in the playground and that has led to concern, by the school authorities, for obvious reasons.
All manner of people are entitled to go to (omitted) School and go about their business without fear of being berated by a person who has some axe to grind. I am not unsympathetic to the position of the school. How could I not be? These children – there are just three of them as opposed to approximately 1297 other children, at the school, who have mothers and fathers who want their children to attend (omitted) without being exposed to conflict. But it is a tragedy, in my view, and a travesty that a bully, essentially, gets what he wants and Ms J agreed with me that bullies should not get their own way.
I am satisfied from what I know of this case that Mr Knorr is a bully and, for that reason, I have decided to finalise these proceedings. It is not in the best interests that these proceedings go on and Ms Ramsgate is at her wits’ end. Mr Knorr, I accept, has walked away from them. This was not constructive or insightful behaviour.
Whether he did that as a tactical or manipulative gesture I do not know, but it was not a grown-up gesture to walk away saying, “I’ve had enough.” Well, if he has had enough, I am finalising these proceedings and I am finalising them in a way which I am satisfied is in the best interests of the children.
I am hopeful perhaps – perhaps naïvely hopeful – that the orders can be taken to the principal and the authorities at the (omitted) School and that they will reconsider, but I am not sanguine in that.
I have no doubt whatsoever that it is in the best interests of these children that their mother, who I have found to be a mature and insightful person who has the best interests of the children at heart – that she should make decisions about the children’s education because Mr Knorr cannot be trusted to make them in a proper way that is child-focused. Rather he will want to exercise any responsibility placed in him in a way to manipulate and control the situation to his liking.
I am gravely concerned at suggestions that Mr Knorr has obtained private contact details of individuals to which he is not entitled and has used that information to harass other individuals. It is only conjecture, of course, how he came by that information but, in this context, I note that he is a (occupation omitted).
When he became a (occupation omitted), no doubt he took an oath to uphold the law. I am not satisfied in respect of how I have heard he has dealt with members of the community that he has always deported himself as a person of whom the (employer omitted) would be proud. But that is a matter for the Commissioner.
The proceedings need to be finalised. I also appreciate from Mr Knorr’s perspective that these proceedings create extreme emotion. He struck me as an emotional person. He struck me as a sensitive person. I do not doubt his love for the three children concerned, but there is love and there is insight.
Children benefit from being loved. The relationship between a father and children is very important. But so is being isolated from conflict; so is being able to get a decent education.
For those reasons I am satisfied that the orders which Ms Ramsgate seeks, as amended, which at least give the possibility that she can go to the school at (omitted) and ask them to reconsider, because there are injunctions in place pursuant to section 68B of the Act, which prevent Mr Knorr coming onto the school premises, and which, at least in theoretical terms, are enforceable, are the best means of that.
For those reasons I will make orders in terms of the minute which discharges earlier orders made which confers responsibility for the children’s education on the mother and which provides for the children to spend what I regard as sufficient time and significant time to enable the children to maintain the relationship with their father.

That those orders should be made and injunctions made underline to both the father and the mother that all the issues between them over many years are their issues. They are not the children’s issues. There has to be an end to the perennial struggle, which seems to emanate from the father for advantage over the mother.
Mr Knorr said he had had enough. I take him at his word that he has had enough. He has walked away from these proceedings. He has left them with me to finalise. I have heard from Ms Ramsgate at some little length. I have heard from, significantly, the deputy principal of the children’s school.
I have some level of insight, I think, from Ms J’s evidence in particular, that Mr Knorr is a particularly difficult and querulous person. On that basis, these proceedings of themselves, if they go on and on, have the potential to be abusive. What Mr Knorr chooses to do about these orders is a matter for him but I am satisfied that this arrangement is the best outcome for the children at this time.
It, in some ways, is likely to represent unfinished business because the issue of (omitted) School is clouded and, ultimately, it is likely to be the case that the children, at some stage or other, will decide that they have to do something about it to isolate themselves from the endemic conflict which I am satisfied Mr Knorr is driving rather than Ms Ramsgate.
How they choose to deal with that can only be a matter of conjecture on my part, but the children, I think, need to live more with one parent than the other and, on my assessment and having considered the various section 60CC factors, I am satisfied that Ms Ramsgate has the better insight into what it is to be a parent and the needs of these three children.
I have no difficulty in reaching that view because Mr Knorr has demonstrated that he is unable to let go of the past and he is unable to focus on the interests of these children. So for those reasons, I will make the orders in terms of the minute.
I will direct that there be a transcript obtained of all the evidence that has been given in these proceedings, which, ironically, having said that I was not in a position to hear because of the pain in my back, I have heard and disposed of.
So, for those reasons, I will direct that there be a transcript of both the evidence of the mother, of the deputy principal and of my exchange with Mr Knorr at the beginning of the day.
It may be the case that others who are superior to me in the judicial hierarchy will be called upon to pass comment on what I have done today. That is another reason for a transcript to be obtained. But notwithstanding my own ill health, I feel duty bound to deal with the matter so that the mother may go to ask them to reconsider.
For all these reasons, the orders of the court will be as set out at the commencement of these reasons for judgment.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and seventy six (176) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Brown

Associate:

Date: 10 July 2015

[2015] FCCA 1648

20 May 2015

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Equity & Trusts

Legal Concepts

Injunction

Procedural Fairness

Remedies