Reilly and Gates
[2008] FMCAfam 1133
•17 December 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| REILLY & GATES | [2008] FMCAfam 1133 |
| FAMILY LAW – Parenting – 4 year old child who has lived with mother since separation of the parents around the time of the birth of the child – allegations of alcohol abuse and family violence – supervised time – appropriateness of paternal grandmother as supervisor – appropriateness of long term supervision at a contact centre. |
| Family Law Act 1975, ss.60CA, 60CC, 65DAC |
| In the Marriage of M and J M Bieganski (1993) 16 Fam LR 353 Oscar & Traynor (2008) FamCAFC 158 Moose & Moose (2008) FamCAFC 108 TF & JF & Children’s Representative (2005) FLC 93-227 |
| Applicant: | MR REILLY |
| Respondent: | MS GATES |
| File Number: | SYC 8208 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Walker FM |
| Hearing dates: | 7 & 8 October 2008 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 8 October 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 17 December 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr. Thornburgh |
| Solicitor for the Applicant: | Mr. Whelan |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Ms. Hausman |
| Solicitor for the Respondent: | Ms. Scott |
| Independent Children’s Lawyer: | Ms. Weate |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The child, [X] (born in 2004) shall live with the mother.
The mother shall have sole parental responsibility for the long term care, welfare and development of the child, save that prior to making any decision with respect to:
(i) The school the child attends,
(ii) Any significant medical condition of the child or
(iii) A change in the child’s living arrangements that would make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with his father,
she will give the father not less than 28 days written notice of what she has decided.
The father shall spend supervised time with [X] as follows:
(i) Both parties are to attend the [C] Contact Service and complete the intake procedures to enable such time that the father spends with [X] to be supervised at the Centre.
(ii) If after assessment the parties are accepted by the [C] Contact Service as suitable for supervision the father is to spend time with the child at times nominated by the premises at [omitted].
(iii)
The Centre is to use its best endeavours to enable the father to have supervised time with [X] on at least 3 occasions each
4 weeks.
(iv) The father is to meet any costs or fees charged by the [C] Contact Service in relation to his supervised time with [X] at the Contact Service.
(v) The mother is to ensure that [X] is delivered and collected from the premises of the [C] Contact Service.
(vi)
Should the [C] Contact Service not be able to offer
3 occasions of time in each 4 weeks the mother must ensure that the father has time with [X] on at least 4 other occasions, supervised by her, such times are to be arranged at a time suitable by the mother.
Pending commencement of the father’s time with [X] at the [C] Contact Service the child is to spend time with the father each Monday between 10.00am and 2.00pm at the home of the paternal grandmother where the mother will also be present.
The mother shall ensure that the father spends supervised time with [X] on Fathers Day for a period of 2 hours and on Christmas Day for a period of 2 hours and on [X]’s birthday for a period of 2 hours.
Subject to the conditions set out below, at the conclusion of 12 months attendance at the contact centre, the father is to spend time with [X] from 10.00am to 4.00pm each second Saturday, with the mother to deliver [X] to the father and the father to collect [X], provided that at the conclusion of the 12 month period he can satisfy the following:
(a) He has attended at least 80 per cent of the occasions when arrangements have been made for him to spend time with [X] at the centre.
(b) The centre is able to confirm to the mother in writing that insofar as staff at the centre have been able to observe, the father’s presentation at the centre has not caused a concern that he may be under the influence of alcohol. Each of the mother and father shall sign any documents required by the centre to authorise such report.
(c) The father is to attend upon a psychologist or counsellor or other behavioural scientist for treatment and assistance as appropriate, in relation to his alcohol and related problems, and advise the Independent Children’s Lawyer within 4 weeks of the date of these Orders of the name and address of the psychologist, counsellor or behavioural scientist from whom he is obtaining assistance.
(d) The father is to provide to the mother his written authorisation to the psychologist, counsellor or behavioural scientist authorising that person to confirm with the mother his attendance for treatment and assistance. Such authority is to be provided no later than a month before the 12 month period at the contact centre expires.
(e) The father is to provide the Independent Children’s Lawyer with the name and address of the psychologist, counsellor or behavioural scientist whom he consults in accordance with Order 6(c) above within 4 weeks of the date of these orders. The Independent Children’s Lawyer is authorised to forward to that person copies of the Family Report and judgement in this matter.
(f)
The father has no police charges made against him in the
12 month period.
The father is to be restrained from approaching the mother at her place of employment, or while the mother is travelling to or from her place of employment, and is further restrained from telephoning or in any way communicating with the mother at her place of employment.
The father is permitted to liaise directly with [X]’s school or day care centre to obtain necessary information about [X]’s progress and the mother is to authorise the day care centre and the school, when [X] commences attendance, to facilitate this.
The father is permitted to attend any day care centre or school that [X] may attend from time to time for the purpose of involvement in orientation programs or other events organised by the day care centre or school to which parents are invited.
Should the contact service discontinue arrangements for the father’s time with the child prior to the conclusion of the 12 month period or in the event that the conditions set out in Order 6 have not been complied with, such further time that the father spends with the child will be as agreed, in writing, between himself and the mother.
The mother is to keep the father advised of a mobile telephone number at which she can be contacted.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Reilly & Gates is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYC 8208 of 2007
| MR REILLY |
Applicant
And
| MS GATES |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This is an application for parenting orders concerning the only child of the parties, [X], born in 2004.
The parties commenced a relationship in November 2001 and commenced cohabitation in mid 2003. The parties separated at the end of 2003 according to the mother and in April 2004 according to the father.
Following his birth, [X] has lived with the mother and spent short periods of time with the father.
On 27 February 2008 interim orders were made providing that [X] spend time with the father each Monday between 10.00am and 2.00pm at the home of the paternal grandparents at [W] in the presence of the mother.
The father seeks final orders that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for [X], that he live with the mother and over time spend increasing time with the father, initially supervised by the paternal grandmother but moving to unsupervised and overnight times.
The mother seeks orders that the time the father spends with [X] be supervised at a Contact Centre and that she have sole parental responsibility for [X].
Short history
The applicant father was born in 1970.
The mother was born in 1965 in Montevideo, Uruguay. She is the youngest of 8 children. Her father migrated to Australia when she was 2 years of age. She migrated to Australia with her own mother and other family members in October 1976.
The mother was previously married in 1991. There were no children of this marriage.
The mother completed the Higher School Certificate. She started working at [omitted], first as a casual employee, and later on a permanent basis. In 2000 she joined the [omitted].
The father left school at the beginning of year 10. He is currently employed casually two days per week at [omitted]. His evidence is that at a prior time he had been employed in the more senior position of [omitted].
The parties met when they were working in a [omitted] store in 2000.
They commenced a relationship on 9 November 2001. At that time the mother was living with her parents.
In mid 2003 the mother discovered that she was pregnant and the parties agreed that she should move into the premises in [W] where the father was living with his parents. The father’s brother also resided in the parents’ home.
The mother’s evidence in her affidavit, filed 22 February 2008, is that separation occurred on the occasion of an incident towards the end of 2003, when she alleges the father had been drinking and became aggressive towards her. She says that an argument ensued and the mother called a taxi and left the house at about 2.00am to go to her parent’s home, where she has resided since.
On 27 November 2007, the father filed an Initiating Application seeking interim and final orders which particularly related to the time [X] should spend with him.
On 27 February 2008, interim orders were made in the Federal Magistrates Court in Sydney which provided that:
“The child spend time with the father each Monday between 10.00am and 2.00 pm at the home of the paternal grandparents at [W] where the mother will be also be present”.
The Court had the benefit of a Family Report prepared by Dr Szyndler, clinical psychologist.
The father’s circumstances and proposals
At the hearing of the matter the father sought orders that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility of [X], that [X] live with the mother and that [X] spend time with the father, increasing in stages over time. The initial stage would be for time during the day only, from 10.00am to 6.00m on Saturdays and in the presence of the paternal grandmother. The father proposes that from the commencement of the school term in 2009, [X] spend time with him from the end of school each Friday until 6.00pm each Saturday and from the commencement of 2011, [X] spend time with him for half of the school holidays. The father also proposes arrangements for special days, a mutual restraint on the parties denigrating each other and an order for his attendance at drug and alcohol counselling for as long as is recommended by the counsellor.
The father, both prior to, and since separation has been living with his parents and brother, Mr R, in the family home, apart from two periods of time when he left the house and moved to a caravan park following incidents of family violence involving his parents.
The paternal grandfather who had been diagnosed with a brain tumour died in June 2008.
The father acknowledges that he has had a problem with alcohol. In his affidavit, filed 27 November 2007, the father says that in the past he has had a problem with the excessive drinking of alcohol, that he has been convicted of 3 Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol (PCA) charges over the last six years, and that, on occasion the drinking has led to some violent behaviour on his part of which he is not proud. The further acknowledges in this affidavit that he has been convicted of common assault and a breach of an Apprehended Violence Order “on about 3 occasions” and that these offences “related to arguments I had with my parents.”
The father alleges that following separation the mother refused to agree to a regular pattern of time for [X] to spend with him. The father states that he would phone the mother at her place of work requesting time with [X] and that on many occasions the mother did not agree to a date for a visit with [X] or, if she did agree, she arrived late. The father also complains that when the mother did agree for [X] to spend time with him she would bring [X] to the home of the paternal grandparents and insist herself on staying for the period of four to five hours which was the usual length of the visit to which she would agree.
The father states that the mother’s presence made it difficult for him to develop a relationship with [X] because the child would go to his mother for a cuddle or for any of his needs during the time spent with his father. The father acknowledges that he and the mother do not have a good relationship. He seeks to spend time with [X] without the presence of the mother.
[X] presently attends long day care at [S] Family Care while his mother is at work. The evidence is that he is progressing well at the day care centre. He is enrolled to commence school in 2009 at [M] Primary School.
The father has not paid child support for [X]. He states that the mother has declined to accept financial support from him. It is agreed that on one occasion he gave the sum of $3,000 to the mother. The mother says this was a loan which she is yet to repay. She agrees that the father offered her money “a long time ago” and that she responded “no thank you”.
The father says that while he and the mother have had “loud verbal arguments,” he has never physically harmed her.
An AVO for a period of two years issued for the protection of the mother from the father on 13 July 2005.
In his affidavit filed 27 November 2007, the father referred to some of the treatment he has had had over time and stated that “the treatment I have been having has helped me. I feel calmer and more in control. I have significantly reduced my alcohol consumption. So far I have been getting my life back together after the difficulties of the last few years.” The father’s case is that his history of alcohol abuse and violence is in the past.
The mother’s circumstances and proposals
The mother in her response filed on the 22 February 2008 sought orders that she have sole parental responsibility for [X], that [X] live with her, that he spend short periods of time with his father on nominated special days, at the father’s parents home supervised by the mother, and that otherwise time between the child and the father should be supervised by the [C] Contact Service at their premises in [omitted] on Saturdays or on a day and time suitable to the [C] Contact Service. She sought further that after [X] starts school in 2009 the time he spends with his father should be as recommended by the family consultant.
[X] has lived with the mother at the home of her parents since around the time of his birth. The maternal grandfather, Mr F, is aged 81 years. The maternal grandmother, Ms F, is aged 82 years. Also residing at the home are one of her younger brothers Mr T, aged 45 years and her nephew Mr J who is in his early 20s. The home has five bedrooms. [X] has his own room. There is a reasonably sized back and front yard. The mother proposes to continue residing with her family until she gets her finances in order.
The mother has a close family and child minding assistance is provided by her parents and siblings and in particular by her maternal Uncle and Aunt, Mr and Ms G whom the mother describes as [X]’s “God parents”.
The mother has been employed by [omitted] for 15 years and at [omitted] for the last 4 years where she currently works as a service supervisor. The mother took 12 months leave from her employment following [X]’s birth.
The mother usually works 38 hours per a week. Her rosters vary but often would be as set out below:
·Tuesday and Wednesday, 8.30am to 5.30pm
·Thursday, 9.00am to 7.00pm
·Friday, 5.30pm to 10.30pm
·Sunday, 12.00noon to 9.00pm
When she works late, [X] stays overnight at the home of his maternal uncle and aunt. The mother’s proposal is that when [X] starts school the god parents will collect [X] from school three days a week.
The mother’s case is that the father is at a high risk of relapsing into abuse of alcohol and that in the event of such a relapse he would not have the capacity to look after [X]. For this reason she says the father’s time with [X] needs to be supervised.
The orders, sought by the mother were different to those discussed with Dr Szyndler during interviews for the preparation of her report dated
1 September 2008. Dr Szyndler had thought that the mother’s position was that until [X] started school the mother was prepared to continue to stay at the home of the paternal grandmother during the time spent with the father. At hearing the mother indicated that this was not the case and that she sought, as set out in her response, that the father’s time with [X] be supervised at a contact centre rather than by the paternal grandmother. The mother’s case was put on the basis that if the father had been drinking the paternal grandmother would not be able to restrain him and that this could potentially place [X] at risk.
The mother’s evidence at hearing was that the father had attended her workplace on two occasions two weeks prior to the hearing and that this had strengthened her view that she did not wish to be involved in seeing the father in the context of arrangements for [X] spending time with him and preferred that the venue of a contact centre be used.
The relevant law
Section 60CA
Section 60CA provides that:
In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.
Section 60CC
Section 60CC sets out the matters which the Court must consider in determining what is in the child’s best interests.
Primary Considerations
Section 60CC(2)(a) requires consideration of the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents.
A number of matters need to be taken into account in considering the benefit to [X] of having a meaningful relationship with his father.
[X] has lived with his mother at the home of the maternal grandparents since his birth. His time with the father has been for relatively short periods at the paternal grandmother’s home with supervision provided by the mother on all but four occasions. Dr Szyndler’s evidence was that the father did have a commitment to his son and that if things went well it would be important to have a relationship between them.
As is set out below in more detail, the evidence is that the father has been involved during the past three and a half years in at least
7 incidents which have required the police to be called, most often to the home of the paternal grandmother. In most of these incidents it has been clear that the father has been under the influence of alcohol. The father has acknowledged that he has been convicted of common assault and breach of Apprehended Violence Orders on a number of occasions.
The evidence is that the most recent incident occurred in April 2008. Although police records for 2008 were not in evidence, I find that from the evidence of the mother, corroborated by the paternal grandmother that an incident occurred in April 2008 which required the attendance of the police at the paternal grandmother’s home. Shortly thereafter, from 1 May 2008 to 9 May 2008 the father was admitted to the [H] Clinic, Detoxification Unit, at [omitted] Hospital.
Dr Szyndler gave evidence that from her observations the father and [X] were still in an early stage of forming a relationship and that neither was totally at ease with the other. She noted the importance of considering the father’s past history of alcohol misuse when thinking about how to support [X]’s relationship with him.
In this matter, the benefit to [X] in developing a meaningful relationship with his father has to be balanced against considerations of ensuring [X]’s safety in his relationship with his father.
Section60CC(2)(b) requires consideration of the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
This consideration is of particular significance in this matter. Evidence before the court related to a number of incidents which resulted in the police being called to the paternal grandparents’ home or to the mother’s place of work.
9 April 2005
. While the mother’s affidavit evidence is that this incident occurred in approximately July/August 2004 after she had taken [X] to spend time with the father, in her oral evidence she agreed that her specific dates may have been wrong. In her affidavit of
22 February 2008the mother states that she took [X] to spend time at the paternal grandfather’s home, that a disagreement occurred and that the father became quite angry. She left the house carrying [X] and as she was about to get into the car, the father came out of the house screaming at her and then broke both side view mirrors. The mother returned to the house at the invitation of the father’s parents and the front door was locked to exclude the father. As the father continued to call out abuse and kick the door, the father’s brother called the police. The police facts which were tendered in evidence record an incident on Saturday 9 April 2005 and that the father had pushed the paternal grandfather in the chest causing him to fall over, and appeared to be affected by intoxicating liquor. The father in his affidavit filed
27 November 2007referred to an incident when he says he and the mother had an argument, “I pulled the wing mirrors off her car.” The father says that he subsequently gave the mother the money to replace the wing mirrors.
In cross-examination about this incident the father said that the mother was 4 hours late from the time she had agreed to bring [X]. The father was asked about whether he thought about the child when he behaved as he did and responded “no because I was intoxicated”. The father states that the mother applied for an Apprehended Violence Order which he did not contest. The evidence is that it was as a result of this incident that the Apprehended Violence Order protecting the mother for a period of 2 years was issued on 13 July 2005 at [R] Local Court.
On 24 May 2005 the police were called to the mother’s place of employment following a complaint by her that the father had been watching her as she was working. His attendance at her work place was in breach of the AVO at the time. Police documents tendered note that the police spoke to the father and observed that the father’s car was parked next to that of the mother in the car park. The police followed the mother as she drove home. Along the route the police observed the father’s car pull out from the kerb and stop alongside the mother’s car so that she then pulled to the side of the road beside the father’s car. The father returned a positive reading on a roadside breath test. The father acknowledges that he breached the AVO against the mother by attending her place of employment “to confront her about how she had not come to a scheduled visit and to ask her when she was going to allow a visit.”
On 3 February 2006 the police were called to an incident in the home of the paternal grandparent’s. Police documents record a report that the paternal grandfather attempted to stop the father starting his car when, he was disqualified from driving, and in the ensuing argument over the car keys, the father’s mother became involved in the incident and the father pushed her heavily with both hands to her upper chest. The police records state that the paternal grandfather attempted to call triple 0 and that the father put his foot on the phone. The paternal grandfather was able to speak to the operator. The paternal grandparents then left the house. The police facts also record that the paternal grandparents did not want the father to stay at their home. The father, under cross-examination stated that he did not recall pushing the paternal grandmother off balance, her crying, attempts to call triple 0 or putting his foot on the phone or of the arrival of the police. Police records show that the father was placed on a bond for 12 months following this incident.
The mother in her affidavit filed 1 October 2008 refers to an incident which she says occurred on Sunday 4 March 2008 at approximately 8.30pm after the [omitted] store at which she was working had closed. Clearly this date is an error. The police documents tendered in evidence record the incident described as occurring on Sunday 4 March 2007. The mother states that she was standing at the back door exit and could see the father standing at the back of the premises. She says she heard him demand to speak with her and as he saw her leaving the store via the back door he called out to her “you are a slut”, “you go to work to get laid”. She thought that he appeared to be intoxicated. A fellow employee escorted her back into the store and secured the rear exit door. She stated that as soon as the door was closed the father began kicking and banging at the exit door and that she telephoned the police while this was occurring. The mother states that the police searched the car park after they arrived. She says that the father was lying naked under her car and that police officers removed him placed him in the police vehicle. The father denies that he lay naked under the mother’s car. He admits that he visited her work place affected by alcohol and that the police attended. He states that he lay down in front of her car and said “Why don’t you just finish me off.”
The police facts record that on the above occasion the father was found by the police laying on the ground near the mother’s car wearing only shorts. His appearance was unkempt with dirt rubbed on his face, arms and legs. The father was arrested and charged with a breach of the Apprehended Violence Order. The police facts note that “while the accused was seated in the dock area, he has pulled his shorts down and commence to urinate onto the floor. The custody manager and other police have told the accused to stop urinating, but he has refused.” The father’s evidence is that he has no recall of the police attending or of urinating on the floor on this occasion. His evidence also is that at times he does not have a recollection of what occurred when he is intoxicated.
In cross-examination the father was asked about urinating in public at the mother’s house some time after the birth of [X]. The father acknowledges this and sought to explain this behaviour by saying “it was my quirky sense of humour. I was marking my territory”.
Police documents record an incident on 16 July 2007 where the police were called to the Reilly family home following an alleged assault by the father on his mother. Police documents report that the paternal grandmother ran from the house to a neighbour’s home where the police were contacted and that, at the time they were informed that the paternal grandfather was recovering from surgery undertaken to remove a brain tumour. The records indicate that the paternal grandmother attempted to intervene in an argument between the father and paternal grand father and was kicked on the leg by the father. The police facts note an observation of swelling to the front of the right shin area of the paternal grandmother just below the knee cap where previous surgical scarring was evident. The police documents note that on that occasion the father admitted having consumed at least two thirds of a cask of white wine and that the police held genuinely grave fears for the safety of the family particularly as both parents were in bad health and the paternal grandmother had suffered strokes and had a pacemaker to regulate her heart. When cross-examined about this incident, the father recollected that the paternal grandmother had intervened in an argument between himself and the paternal grandfather and that he recalled her “being bumped”. He recalled that the paternal grandmother had left the house and that he was intoxicated on this occasion but otherwise had limited recall of events put to him.
On 20 August 2007 the police records note that they were called to the Reilly house by the father’s older brother Mr R with a report of abusive behaviour by the father to his parents which caused them to leave the house. The police records note that the father was not interviewed because of his level of intoxication. In cross-examination the father admitted that he was intoxicated on that occasion. He had no recollection of words he used towards the paternal grandfather and when it was put to him that he was yelling and swearing at the paternal grandfather his response was that “he was trying to be assertive.”
The father was asked about an incident on 7 December 2007 where allegedly he and the paternal grandfather argued over the father’s request to borrow the paternal grandparent’s car. It was put to the father that he had asked for the keys to the car while he was intoxicated. The father’s explanation was that he did not intend to drive the car at that particular time but at a later date. As the argument developed the father, according to the police facts slammed a rolling pin onto the counter top in the kitchen on a number of occasions frightening the paternal grandmother and subsequently struck her over the head with a glass picture frame. Mr R called the police. The police attended and recorded that alcohol was smelt on the breath of the father and that he stated that he had consumed about a litre of wine. It was recorded that the police were unable to see any injuries on the victim although glass was observed in her hair and according to the police notes the paternal grandmother stated that she had taken two panamax tablets for a headache she received as a result of the blow. In evidence at the hearing the father stated that he had “tapped” his mother over the head with the picture frame and that the glass was very thin. When questioned about the incident, in cross examination the paternal grandmother recalled that she had been “tipped” on the head by the picture frame. Given the observations in the police report I find that the father hit the paternal grandmother on the head with the picture frame with force that amounted to more than “tapping” or “tipping”.
The mother’s evidence is that on 7 April 2008, at a date on which the father was to spend time with [X] pursuant to the court orders, the paternal grandmother telephoned her and said “Ms Gates, I am just calling to let you know you don’t have to worry about coming here today. Mr Reilly’s done it again. He is in gaol”. The mother‘s evidence in her affidavit filed 1 October 2008 is that she nevertheless took [X] to the paternal grandmother’s home and that the paternal grandmother said to her “On Saturday Mr Reilly was drinking from 2.00pm until midnight and he started to abuse me verbally. He called me names, he said I was a mole, bitch, like he used to do with you.” When asked about this incident in cross-examination, the paternal grandmother recalled telephoning the mother in relation to bringing [X] to see his father on Monday 7 April 2008 and saying that she did not need to come because “Mr Reilly’s done it again and he’s in gaol.” She could not recall saying that the father had been drinking from 2.00pm to midnight and that he verbally abused and swore at her. The father admits that there was an incident between himself and his mother on this occasion. His evidence is that this incident happened before he went into the detoxification program in May.
I find on the evidence of the mother, corroborated by the paternal grandmother, that the police were called to an incident at the home the father shares with the maternal grandmother on or about 7 April 2008 and that it is reasonable to accept the inference arising from the mother’s recall of the conversation with the paternal grandmother, and the father’s subsequent admission into the detoxification program, that he was under the influence of alcohol on this occasion.
On the evidence about this incident and his admission into the detoxification unit, the evidence of the father about the improvements he has made cannot be accepted.
The father told Dr Szyndler that he started drinking alcohol at the age of 13 and that by the age of 18 his use of alcohol had escalated. He described to her drinking about half a flagon of wine or sherry every night for a period of ten years. He also suffered from depression during this time but did not receive any treatment until the age of 26. He saw Dr K, psychiatrist, in 1997 and was prescribed anti-depressant medication. Dr K referred him to the [R] Drug and Alcohol team, where he saw Dr O, psychologist. The father told Dr Szyndler that he continued to see Dr O for about 7 years and that he found this relationship extremely beneficial. The police records tendered in the matter indicate that in March 2007 the father was placed on a bond for contravention of the Apprehended Violence Orders conditions and that these conditions included reporting to [R] Mental Health Service within 24 hours of release from custody.
There are obvious difficulties with the father’s evidence. On many occasions he cannot recall a particular incident because of the effects of intoxication. On other occasions his evidence lacked credibility in the light, for example, of what is contained in the police reports.
Some aspects of the father’s evidence appeared inexplicable. It was put to the father in cross-examination that his brother had called the police because he was concerned that the father was assaulting the paternal grandparents. The father’s response was that his brother had sought to have him removed from the premises “because there are two wills to be contested”
When the father was questioned about his part-time work he replied on one occasion that it was “because of his mother’s health, his father’s health and his need to be available to see his son.” Then later he gave as the explanation that he has a contract with Centrelink and he is only able to work 14 hours. When questioned further he said that it related to his application for Legal Aid. There often seemed to be a disconnect with reality in the evidence given by the father.
Dr Szyndler commented that the father sought to blame the mother for his alcohol abuse and related behaviour problems but that the father’s history of alcohol abuse was long and pre-dated the father’s relationship with the mother. This indicates a significant lack of insight by the father into his problems with alcohol and its impact on his behaviour.
Dr Szyndler’s evidence was that she would have concerns about the father’s ability to exercise judgment in relation to [X] should he be drinking as he has done in the past. She thought that there was a high risk of a relapse of alcohol abuse. I accept Dr Szyndler’s evidence in relation to this, particularly in view of the incidents referred to above. I find that there is a high risk of the father relapsing into the abuse of alcohol and that [X] needs to be protected from this risk.
Section 60CC(3)(a) requires consideration of the views of the child.
[X] is aged only four. This is not a matter where a child’s views would be a significant consideration.
Section 60CC(b) deals with the child’s relationship with their parents and, in this case with the paternal grandmother.
The father’s evidence is that [X] has enjoyed spending time with him and they have cooked, gardened together, played with frisbees and remote controlled cars. Dr Szyndler’s evidence is that [X] is still developing a relationship with his father and that it does not appear that either are totally at ease with each other yet. This is supported by the father’s own oral evidence where he said “the time I spend with [X], he’s always looking for his mother”. I find that [X]’s relationship with his father is not yet established but is developing.
The evidence is that [X] has a close relationship with the paternal grandmother. The mother stated in her evidence that she had every intention of taking [X] to visit the paternal grandmother when the father was not present. The evidence is that she has previously done this.
The father raises the issue of the amount of time [X] spends in child care or with his grandparents as a consequence of the mother’s working hours. Dr Szyndler stated that during her assessment [X] did not appear to be happy separating from his mother and appeared a little clingy and unsettled at the prospect of either going into another room when the Family Report writer spoke to the mother or going with his father. However she thought that while [X] may have some anxieties separating from his mother given the periods he spends away from her, there was no indication of any significant behavioural or emotional disturbances in [X]’s presentation.
[X] has lived with his mother since birth. It is not surprising that
Dr Szyndler found that his primary attachment is to her.
Section 60CC(3)(c) requires a consideration of the willingness and ability to facilitate a close and continuing relationship.
The father complains that the mother did not consult him before enrolling [X] to commence school in 2009 in kindergarten at
[M] Primary School and that she had not consulted him about [X]’s enrolment at his long day care centre, [S] Family Care. In his affidavit filed 2 October 2008, the father states that when he asked the mother where [X] went to pre-school and where he was going to school, she had replied “that’s none of your business”. He says that the mother did not consult him about having [X] christened and that she has not given him any information about who collects [X] from preschool or who looks after him when she is at work and he is not in day care.
The mother was asked in cross examination whether she spoke to [X] about his father. The mother said she did not. When questioned further about this, she said that she had enough to do when she got home from work, including bathing [X] and that it was not on her agenda to spend time discussing the father.
There was no doubt that the mother proposed a limited role for the father in [X]’s life. When asked about what role she anticipated that the father would play in [X]’s life, the mother responded that the father would still see [X]. She indicated that she did not foresee any other role. She agreed that the father had not been consulted when she decided to have [X] christened as a Catholic and that such a matter was her choice and reflected her upbringing.
The mother nevertheless took [X] to the paternal grandparents’ house for contact on occasions prior to the orders of February 2008 including on Christmas Day 2007. The father gave evidence that [X] was brought to the paternal grandparents’ home to spend time with him from Christmas morning until Christmas afternoon.
Dr Szyndler was asked whether she considered that the mother wanted to limit the father’s time with [X]. She expressed the opinion that such a view was not unreasonable in the circumstances. Her opinion was that if the mother thought [X] was safe with the father she would not be against [X] spending time with him.
I find that the mother is ambivalent, at the very least, about facilitating a relationship between [X] and his father. However, the evidence is that she had taken [X] to see his father prior to court orders being in place and I accept Dr Szyndler’s opinion that the mother would not oppose a relationship between [X] and his father if she considered that [X] would be safe with his father.
Considerations set out in s.60CC(3)(d) and s.60CC(3)(e) are not of great significance in this matter.
Section 60CC(3)(f) relates to the capacity of the children’s parents to provide for the needs of the child.
The mother has been [X]’s primary carer since birth. The evidence is that [X] is progressing well at pre-school. The mother works approximately 38 hours a week but has arranged consistent care for [X] through family members when he is not at preschool. Dr Szyndler observed some anxiety in [X] when separating from his mother but saw no indication of any significant behavioural or emotional disturbances. I find that the mother has the capacity to attend appropriately to [X]’s needs.
The father’s capacity to provide for [X]’s needs is a significant issue in the proceedings. Dr Szyndler gave evidence that her understanding was that prior to his admission into the detoxification unit, the father had been drinking quite heavily and not engaged with services and that it was only when he came out of the unit that he engaged with services. The father had reported to her that prior to his nine day detoxification program at the [H] Clinic he had been drinking between one and two litres of cask wine a night. He stated that he attended [R] Drug and Alcohol Service for counselling in 2006 and again following discharge from the detoxification clinic but stopped in June 2008. He also reported seeing Ms B, psychologist, for 5 sessions after discharge from the detox clinic.
The father was asked in cross-examination whether it was as a consequence of criminal proceedings against him that he had been referred to drug and alcohol rehabilitation. He denied this and said that he had referred himself. He was then asked more specifically whether in February 2006 on the second occasion he was convicted of common assault he had been referred to drug and alcohol rehabilitation. The father acknowledged that was the case.
On the evidence given in relation to the April 2008 incident it must be considered likely that it was as a consequence of further criminal proceedings earlier this year that the father was again referred for drug and alcohol rehabilitation.
While it appears that the father was referred to various medical services it is of concern that when asked at the hearing some 5 months after his discharge about his attendance at relevant services, he reported that he had attended Alcoholic Anonymous after discharge “at the beginning twice a week” but stopped within two or three weeks because he “didn’t find it helpful.” Report by Ms B, dated 23 April 2008, states that “Mr Reilly was referred by Dr J on 29 April 2008 for treatment of issues relating to alcohol dependence. I initially saw Mr Reilly post detox (Royal North Shore Hospital) on 21 May 2008 and have subsequent sessions with him on a weekly basis.” Because of an obvious error on the dates set out in the report it is not clear precisely when it was completed. However, the father’s evidence at the hearing was that he was no longer seeing Ms B. He gave evidence that he was not currently under the care of a psychologist although would be going back to a drug and alcohol counsellor “as of next week.”
The father also gave evidence that the most recent prescription for anti-depressant medication had been sometime in 2007 but that he had decided to stop taking it as ‘they only work for a short period of time.”
The father’s evidence was that the only medically trained person he was currently seeing was his general practitioner, Dr J, and that he was consulting him in relation to his blood pressure. The evidence gives rise to doubts about the father’s capacity to engage with and maintain regular contact with services which could be of assistance to him. It is possible to conclude that his engagement with services may well result from a referral/bond condition following police action and that subsequently, contact with the service will not be maintained. When asked about the importance to him of having assistance by attending a good quality drug and alcohol service and from a psychologist his response was, “yes, if I can get the right person”. This qualified response must raise doubts about his motivation to engage with the services he needs.
Dr Szyndler was an impressive witness in the matter. She clearly expressed the opinion that the father was at high risk of relapsing into abuse of alcohol, given the history of alcohol abuse and the relatively short period which had elapsed since his participation in the detoxification program in May 2008. She said that a good year or two was needed before it could be said with confidence that a person has addressed a long term history of alcohol abuse. She considered that there was a possibility that Mr Reilly might be a person who had a life long vulnerability towards alcohol. Dr Szyndler expressed doubts about the accuracy of the father’s reporting to her of his current alcohol consumption and expressed the opinion that even accepting what the father said about this, it indicated that the father was not likely to be abstinent.
According to Dr Szyndler there were indicators in the father’s presentation that alcohol abuse was only one of the factors relevant to the father’s functioning. She referred to the father’s history of depression noting that it was of sufficient severity that at times he was unable to leave his room, and that he reported having therapy for a number of years but still suffered a relapse. She also expressed the opinion that there was a possibility that the father has suffered neurological damage because of the quantities of alcohol consumed in the past. The fact that the father reported that he had no friends and appeared to be only able to work part time were, in her opinion, factors indicative of possible functioning problems and of problems in adapting to adult life.
Dr Szyndler acknowledged that in assessing the father’s presentation she did not take into account any medication he may have been taking. However, the father’s evidence at hearing was that the only medication he was currently taking, at least at the time of the hearing, was for blood pressure.
The evidence of Dr Szyndler was not challenged in any significant respect. While she expressed doubts about the father’s functioning, she conceded that she did not conduct a mental state examination and that psychiatric evidence would be needed to provide more details in relation to the father’s functioning. There was no evidence of any psychiatric assessment of the father presented at the hearing of the matter.
I find from the evidence that there must be significant doubts about the father’s capacity to provide for [X]’s needs, including his emotional and physical needs unless the father is able to undertake and continue consistently with appropriate treatment for his alcohol dependence and mental health and behavioural disorders.
Section 60CC(3)(j) relates to family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family.
Section 60CC(3)(k) relates to any family violence order that applies to the child or member of the child’s family.
The mother’s evidence is that the father kicked her in the stomach not long after she found out that she was pregnant. She states that this was on an occasion when she was at home and the father arrived intoxicated at about 11.00pm. The father denies that this incident occurred. The father’s recall of events when he was intoxicated on his own admission is poor or non-existent. However on the evidence it is difficult to make a clear finding about this incident.
The mother alleges that on another occasion following an argument the father pushed her and that she fell back and broke her arm. The father agreed that the mother fell back and broke her arm. His oral evidence was that “we were having a pushing argument.”
The mother’s evidence is that the father has attended her place of work and phoned her at her place of work on many occasions other than those on which the police were called. The father acknowledges that he has attended the mother’s place of work and been removed by the police and that he attended when the Apprehended Violence Order was in force. The father denies following her in his car although the police evidence indicates otherwise on at least one occasion. The father agreed that he had called the mother a slut and that, on the 4 March 2007 incident he was screaming out at the workplace that the mother only went there “to get laid”.
Details of instances of family violence relating to other family members have been set out earlier in this judgement. There have been Apprehended Violence Orders protecting Mr R, the grandparents and the mother from the father. The evidence is that the father has engaged in family violence in relation to the mother and to each of his parents.
Section 60CC(3)(l) whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child.
In this matter there is a high degree of risk that the father will relapse into abuse of alcohol. There is doubt about his capacity to engage consistently with the services he needs. [X] is very young and not yet at school. These are all factors which make it difficult to frame orders least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings. In some respects interim orders might address some of the issues in the short term, however they would undoubtedly lead to the institution of further proceedings and this is not in [X]’s best interests.
Section 60CC(4) requires consideration of the extent to which the child’s parents have taken the opportunity to participate in decisions about the major long term issues in relation to the child and the extent to which the parent has facilitated or failed to facilitate the other parent’s participation in making such decisions or in being able to spend time with the child or communicating with the child.
In this matter the relevant issues arising from this consideration are well covered under the headings of the considerations set out above.
Equal shared parental responsibility.
The father seeks an order for shared parental responsibility.
The evidence in this matter is that the father has engaged in family violence. I find that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility does not apply. This is also consistent with the recommendation of Dr Szyndler.
Further the mother has a reasonable basis for continuing concerns about coming into contact with the father particularly given his recent attendance at her place of employment. This is not a matter where she could reasonably be expected to communicate with him about major long term issues in relation to the child.
The child’s time with his father and supervision
It was not put to the court that [X] should not spend time with his father. The mother does not report any incidents of concern during the times while she has been involved in the supervision with the paternal grandmother. The expert’s evidence is that the father has a commitment to [X]. The issue is the time the father spends with [X], if supervision is required, and if so, by whom and for what period.
On the evidence there are a number of reasons why the father’s time with [X] should be supervised at this time. There is a risk of relapse by the father into abuse of alcohol. This occurred as recently as May 2008. The father’s behaviour when intoxicated would pose an unacceptable risk to [X] should such a relapse occur. Further the father’s relationship with [X] is still a developing relationship. Dr Szyndler’s opinion was that it might be difficult to know if the father slipped from his reported level of drinking, which, in any case is something that she had reservations about. She was accordingly of the view that an outside person should be present in the home to gage what was occurring.
Dr Szyndler recommended that until [X] started school in January 2009 [X] continue to see his father once a week for at least four hours and that this time continued to be at the father’s home. She recommended that if things proceeded well the mother did not need to be present throughout these visits and that the father could take [X] out on foot to the local area.
However the mother’s evidence at the hearing was that she was no longer prepared to be present at the paternal grandparents’ house to participate in the supervision and effectively monitor the time [X] spends with his father although she did concede that she was prepared to do this for special occasions. I have found that this view of the mother is reasonable in the circumstances.
When pressed on the length of time during which the father’s time with the child should be supervised, Dr Szyndler expressed the opinion that she would feel happier making a judgment about supervision if there was someone monitoring Mr Reilly’s mental health and use of alcohol and if it was the case that there were no further outbursts and the police were not coming to the home.
When asked about the father’s time with [X] taking place at a contact centre, Dr Szyndler gave evidence that she did not see a problem with this if the paternal grandmother was unable to supervise. The only concern she expressed was the possibility of a long waiting period during which [X] would not be able to spend time with his father.
Dr Szyndler was asked about more extended periods of time between the father and [X]. She said that eight hours of time was too long for the little boy at present and that there would need to be a lot more indication of stability on the father’s part before overnight contact could be considered. In her opinion it was too early for her to be able to say when the child at age five could have overnight contact given that at this time the father had not been stable long enough to show that he was able to take care of a young child safely. She considered that a longer rather than shorter period of stability would be required and that bearing in mind the father’s history it was difficult to be optimistic about his prognosis. Her evidence was that it was too early to support the father’s proposal for increased time with [X] when [X] started school and overnight contact when [X] turned five. Her opinion was that there would need to be a good year for the father to show that his drinking was under control and that he could behave in an appropriate manner. I accept this assessment.
Dr Szyndler did not see the paternal grandmother. The evidence given about this does not clearly explain why this did not occur. The father says that he received a telephone call the night before the appointments and that he was asked if the paternal grandmother could come on the next day, but this was not possible because she had a medical appointment on that next day relating to the treatment of her heart condition.
The paternal grandmother said that she did not recall a request to attend at the time or that she had a medical appointment. It cannot be certain if and how the request to attend the interview was conveyed to the paternal grandmother.
The mother’s evidence was that it was her suggestion that the father brought the paternal grandmother with him after it was suggested to her that she take someone with her to look after [X] during the interviews. Her recollection is that her request might have been the night before, or up to two days before. It appears that a request for the paternal grandmother to attend was made fairly shortly before the appointments were to take place.
It appears too that the paternal grandmother was not clear about what was being requested. It is not possible to draw an adverse inference about the paternal grandmother for her failure to attend the appointment. It is however, unfortunate in the context of the issue to be determined here that Dr Szyndler did not have the opportunity to make observations of the paternal grandmother and her capacity to supervise the father’s time with [X] over a possibly lengthy period of time without the presence of the mother.
The paternal grandmother was proposed as a supervisor by the father until the time [X] commenced school in 2009 from 10.00am to 6.00pm each Saturday. The father sought no further supervision of his time with [X] after January 2009.
The paternal grandmother in her oral evidence stated that she was aware of issues relating to the father’s alcohol consumption. She was asked what she would do if she was supervising [X]’s time with the father in circumstances when the father had been drinking. She said “I’d stop it. I’d ring Ms Gates.” She said that on about three or four occasions the mother had let her supervise [X]’s time with the father without the mother being present. The mother’s evidence is that on these occasions she was only a short distance away and contactable by phone.
The paternal grandmother presented as a very caring woman. She has a history of serious health problems including a stroke and a heart condition which requires a pacemaker. Further she had a suffered very significant personal loss following the death of her husband as a result of a brain tumour.
Under cross-examination, the paternal grandmother acknowledged that she sometimes gets confused. She said she did not always remember and that sometimes she could not remember saying some things because when she got angry she became upset.
There were also times when it appeared that the paternal grandmother’s evidence could have been affected by her perception of loyalty towards her son. For example, when questioned about the incident relating to the allegation of the father hitting her over the head with the picture frame, she recollected the event but asserted that the glass had just cracked rather than broke. She was pressed about the police record of glass in her hair and then acknowledged that there could have been a little bit of glass commenting that “he just tipped me and broke the glass”. When further pressed about occasions when the police were called because she and her husband had been unable to control the father, the paternal grandmother asserted that it was not she who had called the police. When asked by the Independent Children’s Lawyer whether she believed that the father’s time with the child should be supervised she responded “no”. When asked whether in the past it should have been supervised, she responded “no”. The reason she gave was that the father loved [X] and would not hurt him. She agreed, however, that in the past when the father had been drinking it had been impossible to control his behaviour.
The paternal grandmother’s evidence was that the father had not drunk while [X] was present. However, [X] has been with the father for relatively short times on each occasion and that, except for four occasions, the mother was nearby and contactable. Otherwise the mother was always present and able to monitor the situation.
Caution about supervision by friends and relatives in certain circumstances was expressed by the Family Court in the matter of Bieganski (1993) 16 Fam LR 353. In that matter the Court said:
It is generally inappropriate to have friends or relatives of the access parent as supervisors of access where any risk of harm to the children exists. Family and friends are not neutral but will usually…have an opinion as to whether any harm has occurred…They may therefore believe that close monitoring of the children is unnecessary…Supervisors must be available to the children for safety and support and be prepared to intervene on the children’s behalf if an issue of protection arises during the visit.
I find that while the paternal grandmother undoubtedly loves [X] dearly, she would find it difficult to control her son’s behaviour should he relapse and may also find it difficult to contact the police for assistance should that be required. Given the evidence of Dr Szyndler about the risk of the father relapsing and the evidence of his behaviour when he is intoxicated, I find that there would be a risk to [X]’s welfare should the father’s time with [X] be supervised by the paternal grandmother only without any independent monitoring of the father’s condition at the time.
It is in [X]’s interests for the father to continue to see him and build his relationship with him. This needs to take place in a safe environment until there has been adequate time for the father to show his condition and behaviour have stabilised.
The only alternative to supervision by the paternal grandmother that has been put before the court is that the father’s time with [X] takes place at a contact centre.
Given the evidence of the risk of the father relapsing and the difficulties that the paternal grandmother is likely to have in controlling his behaviour should this occur, supervision at a contact centre would be the only alternative to supervision by the paternal grandmother.
There are two particular areas of uncertainty. The most important one deals with the father’s prognosis, in particular whether he will be able to engage effectively with services which can help his condition and whether he will be able to show the stability over time which would indicate that it would be in [X]’s interests to spend time with him which was not supervised.
Another area of uncertainty is the length of time for which the services of a contact centre would be available. There was no evidence given about this at the hearing, nor was there evidence about when the services of a contact centre might be able to commence or the frequency of supervised time that could be offered. Unfortunately this lack of important information poses further difficulties to the framing of orders in this matter.
On balance it is in [X]’s best interests to provide for the father to spend time with [X] at a contact centre as proposed by the mother and supported by the submissions of the Independent Children’s Lawyer. Such arrangement would allow the father to continue to develop his relationship with [X]. It is generally not ideal, and also not likely to be the policy of a contact centre, for such arrangements to continue indefinitely.
The difficulty in this matter is what should follow the contact centre arrangements. The orders proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer envisage that the father spend time with [X] at the contact centre for as long as that facility is available and then thereafter at such locations and supervised by such persons as may be agreed between the parties. A proposal for indefinite supervised time with the father does not allow for the possibility of some monitoring of the father’s behaviour as recommended by the expert. The Full Court in Moose & Moose [2008] FamCAFC 108 referred to the ‘undesirability of, and the practical difficulties associated with long term supervision in a children’s contact centre as referred to in the Guideline for Family Law Courts and Children’s Contact Services, January 2007.’ Reference was also made to the case of TF & JF & Children’s Representative (2005) FLC 93-227 where:
May J, having found that the evidence in the case ‘objectively viewed revealed potential for an unacceptable risk to the children of contact with the father is not supervised…’, then referred to the difficultly associated with long term supervised contact and said “the necessity for contact to be supervised apparently indefinitely leads to the need to finely balance what is in the children’s best interests”. Her Honour then explained “[w]hilst supervised contact in this case will protect the children from any potential physical harm, the effect on their emotional well-being cannot be ignored”.
The submissions on behalf of the father were that the proposal by the Independent Children’s Lawyer left the father in “a holding pattern” with “no way to show when he’s made these steps forward”. There is some substance to this.
The father should be given the opportunity to develop his relationship with [X]. His time with [X] at the contact centre ideally should be on at least three occasions each four weeks. I note that while the mother reasonably no longer wishes to participate in supervision of the weekly time [X] spends with the father, she is prepared to supervise special days such as Christmas, Fathers Day and the father’s birthday. Should the contact centre offer less than three weeks out of four, the mother should allow for four other occasions of time, supervised by her, in the first six months of arrangements at the centre. Such times are to be arranged at a time suitable to her.
It is in [X]’s interests that current arrangements for him to spend time with his father should continue until supervised time can commence at the centre.
The contact centre should be requested to report to the mother on any observations by staff that the father’s presentation indicates he may be under the influence of alcohol. I note that in the matter of Oscar & Traynor (2008) FamCAFC 158 the Full Court considered it appropriate to enlist the assistance of staff at a contact centre in monitoring whether or not a parent was affected by alcohol.
The orders the Court will make will put an onus on the father if he wishes to move to spending time with [X] outside the contact centre, to engage with the services to which he has been referred and to ensure that his alcohol consumption and behaviour is under control.
If the father can establish this, by the conclusion of 12 months attended at the contact centre he should be able to move to contact with [X] from 10.00am to 4.00pm each second Saturday on condition that he can satisfy the following criteria:
·That he has attended at least 80 per cent of the occasions when arrangements have been made for him to spend time with [X] at the centre.
·That the centre is able to confirm to the mother in writing that insofar as staff at the centre have been able to observe, the father’s presentation at the centre has not caused a concern that he may be under the influence of alcohol. Each of the mother and father shall sign any documents required by the centre to authorise such report.
·The father is to attend upon a psychologist or counsellor or other behavioural scientist for treatment and assistance as appropriate, in relation to his alcohol and related problems, and advise the Independent Children’s Lawyer within 4 weeks of the date of these Orders of the name and address of the psychologist, counsellor or behavioural scientist from whom he is obtaining assistance.
·The father is to provide to the mother his written authorisation to the psychologist, counsellor or behavioural scientist authorising that person to confirm his attendance for treatment and assistance. Such authority is to be provided no later than a month before the 12 month period at the contact centre expires.
·The father is to provide the Independent Children’s Lawyer with the name and address of the psychologist, counsellor or behavioural scientist he consults. The Independent Children’s Lawyer is authorised to forward to that person copies of the Family Report and judgment in this matter.
·
The father has no police charges made against him in the
12 month period.
At the hearing the father did not oppose the restraint on him from approaching the mother’s place of work or communicating with her at work.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer seeks a contribution to her costs by the mother. The evidence before the Court is that the mother is of modest means and does not receive child support from the father. In these circumstances I decline to make such a costs order.
It is difficult in this matter to make orders which address long term arrangements for [X] to spend time with his father given the issues raised by the evidence in the matter. However there will be provision for the parties to agree to further arrangements for the father to spend time with [X]. If the father can show that he has persisted with the necessary treatment for his condition and that his behaviour has stabilised the orders will allow this relationship with [X] to move forward. The onus will be on the father to take such steps to ensure that [X] has the benefit of a relationship with him.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and thirty three (133) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Walker FM
Associate: J. Orton
Date: 17 December 2008
0