RITCHIE & FEAKS
[2014] FamCA 644
•12 August 2014
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| RITCHIE & FEAKS | [2014] FamCA 644 |
| FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best interests – where the child has her most meaningful relationship with the mother – where the child suffers from severe autism and a myriad of other medical issues – where the mother is the primary carer and understands the child’s needs – where there would be an adverse effect both on the child being separated from the mother and of not maintaining a relationship with the father – child to live with the mother – child to spend supervised time with the father once a month, with time to be extended after a twelve month period – time to be initially supervised by a professional supervisor but then by the paternal grandmother FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parental Responsibility – where the ability of the mother to consult with the father about long term issues for the child compels an order for sole parental responsibility – mother to have parental responsibility for all long term issues for the child – Where consultation with the father only required when the mother wishes to make a change to the child’s school or current medical practitioners |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC, 64B | |
| APPLICANT: | Mr Ritchie |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Feaks |
| FILE NUMBER: | (P)SYC | 5143 | of | 2008 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 12 August 2014 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Cleary J |
| HEARING DATES: | 2, 3 & 4 April 2014 |
REPRESENTATION
| APPLICANT: | In person |
| RESPONDENT: | In person |
| COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Ms Falloon |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Ms M |
Orders
All prior parenting orders in relation to B (“the child”) born … 2006 are discharged NOTING that the order for the appointment of the Independent Children’s Lawyer is extended for 14 days after the date of these Orders and is thereafter discharged.
Residence
The child shall live with the mother.
Spend time with
For a period of 12 months from the date of these Orders, the child shall spend supervised time with the father and the mother shall make the child available for that time on one Sunday of each calendar month as follows:
3.1For two hours, being the first Sunday of each month unless the parties agree otherwise in advance, commencing Sunday 8 September 2014 NOTING that this is the second Sunday of the month to provide for the child being with the father on Father’s Day.
3.1.1In the event that the child is sick and too unwell to be provided for a particular period of time then the time will be spent on the next Sunday of that calendar month on each such occasion of illness.
3.2Supervision for the first six periods that the child spends with the father pursuant to Order 3 shall be by a professional supervisor whose fees shall be paid by the father and the father shall advise the mother of the name and contact details of the professional supervision service which will provide the supervisor.
3.3The time shall commence at 10.00 am unless the mother has advised the father by 8.00 am on that day that the child will require a later starting time and shall nominate that time being up to a midday start.
3.4The father shall use his best efforts to ensure the attendance of his mother, Ms C (“the paternal grandmother”), during the periods of time spent with the child pursuant to Order 3.
3.5The venue for the first six times the child spends with the father and a professional supervisor shall be the Suburb D Library and any outdoor facilities adjacent to the Suburb D Library.
3.6Provided the paternal grandmother attends on no fewer than four occasions when the child spends time with the father, supervised by a professional supervisor, THEN the seventh time and all subsequent times thereafter that the child spends with the father pursuant to Order 3, shall be supervised by the paternal grandmother.
3.7The paternal grandmother shall collect the child from and return the child to the home of the mother.
3.8The venue and times that the child spends with the father, supervised by the paternal grandmother, shall be chosen by the father and the paternal grandmother and either the father or the paternal grandmother shall telephone the mother to advise her of the venue and arrange times for those visits.
3.9The father shall not select a venue for the child’s time with him pursuant to Order 3.8 that is more than 10 kilometres from the mother’s residence.
Thereafter, from the expiry of the 12 month period in Order 3, the time provided in Order 3.1 shall extend from 10.00 am to 6.00 pm supervised by the paternal grandmother and Orders 3.3, 3.7 and 3.8 shall apply.
Parental responsibility
The mother shall have parental responsibility for all long term issues for the child other than as specifically provided for in these orders.
Health and medical treatment
NOTING that the current treating practitioners for the child are:
(a) Dr E, Paediatrician;
(b) Dr F, General Practitioner.
Each party is restrained from causing the child to consult a different paediatrician and general practitioner without prior written consent of the other parent AND FURTHER the party proposing the change must notify the relevant practitioner of the proposed change to enable that practitioner, if he or she wishes, to speak to each party and express a view about the proposed change.
The father may contact and consult with the child’s treating practitioners and obtain, at his own cost, copies of any reports in relation to the child’s health and referral to other medical, dental or therapeutic practitioners.
Education
NOTING that the child attends G School, each party is restrained from changing the enrolment of the child away from that school without prior written consent of the other party AND FURTHER the party proposing the change must notify the Principal of the proposed change to enable the Principal if he or she wishes to speak to each party and express a view about the proposed change.
That the father may consult with the Principal of G School and whichever other teacher at the school may be nominated by the Principal, and if considered appropriate by the Principal and in the best interests of the child, be permitted to attend at school to observe the child in the classroom with a view to understanding how the child is managed at school.
The father and the paternal grandmother may attend at the child’s school for events to which parents are invited and shall advise the mother of his intention to attend in advance of the event.
The father is entitled to request that the child’s school provide him with copies of all documents relating to her welfare and progress at school (including but not limited to school reports, newsletters and applications for school photographs).
Financial support for special needs
That the mother shall open an account in the joint names of the parties as trustees for the child and shall notify the father by email of the BSB and account details.
Within 7 days of the receipt by the father of the account details the father shall pay into the account the sum of $300 to be repeated on a monthly basis until one of the following events occurs:
(a)the mother applies and is granted Special Needs payments through the Child Support Agency or the relevant Tribunal so that the Child Support Assessment of the father is varied accordingly; or
(b)the mother advises the father that she no longer requires the payment.
Within 14 days of the date of these Orders the Independent Children’s Lawyer shall provide a copy of these Orders to:
(a) the Principal of G School;
(b) Dr E, Paediatrician;
(c) Dr F, General Practitioner.
Each party shall immediately advise the other of the following events for the child:
(a) admission to hospital;
(b) serious injury and/or illness
AND in the event that the child is admitted to hospital, each party shall supply the other party with the name of the hospital, the telephone number of the treating practitioner and do nothing to prevent the other parent from visiting the child at the hospital subject to the advice of the treating practitioner.
The father’s consent shall be required for the issue of a passport for the child; and
(a)the mother shall seek that consent by providing to the father a passport application completed by her;
(b)the father’s consent shall not be unreasonably withheld NOTING that it would not be unreasonable for the father to withhold his consent if there has not been compliance with Orders 3 and 4;
(c)upon the issue of a passport, the mother shall provide a certified copy to the father.
Each party shall keep the other advised of their current residential address and telephone number.
For the purpose of communication in compliance with these Orders, each party shall refrain from the use of insulting derogatory language and keep communications short and to the point.
Each party may nominate a third party to communicate on his or her behalf, information in compliance with these Orders.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Ritchie & Feaks has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
FILE NUMBER: (P)SYC5143 of 2008
| Mr Ritchie |
Applicant
And
| Ms Feaks |
Respondent
And
| INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
These are competing applications in respect of one child, B born in 2006 (“the child”). The child is now eight and a half years of age. The applicant is the father, Mr Ritchie, aged 40 and the respondent is the mother, Ms Feaks, aged 42.
The initial application of the father was filed on 21 August 2012 in the Federal Circuit Court (formerly the Federal Magistrates Court). The orders sought by the father all related to his being able to spend time with his daughter and to which school she should attend. The child has been diagnosed as having an Autism Spectrum disorder.
The application of the mother in her Amended Response filed on 23 May 2013 was that:
·she have sole parental responsibility for the child;
·that the child live with her;
·specific orders in relation to obtaining a passport and travel; and
·a proposal for supervised time for the father once per month for one hour.
The matter came before me for hearing for three days commencing 2 April 2014. By that time, the proceedings had developed a tortuous history. Both parties were self–representing, their positions had changed and in the case of the mother, hardened to no contact between the child and the father. The parties had been given leave to produce handwritten documents setting out their orders sought and to give oral evidence. It was on that basis that the proceedings were conducted.
There was an Independent Children’s Lawyer for the child and counsel was instructed. In the circumstances, the cross-examination of all witnesses, including medical witnesses, and the formulation of submissions fell mostly on the Independent Children’s Lawyer and her counsel. I was greatly assisted by their work.
Background
The statement of agreed facts which was handed up[1] is a snapshot of the family and is as follows:
[The child] born … 2006 is the daughter of [Ms Feaks] born … 1971 and [Mr Ritchie] born … 1973. [The parties] had a brief relationship that lasted approximately five months and the parties separated on a final basis before [the child] was born.
When [the child] was approximately three years of age she was diagnosed with autism and as a result of this she suffers from a myriad of medical issues, including but not limited to, sleep disorders, gastro-intestinal, significantly delayed speech, significantly compromised comprehension and social interaction.
[1]Exhibit 1
Orders were previously made by Judge Sexton on 4 May 2010 allowing the father to spend three hours with the child each alternate Monday, with the time to be supervised by the mother. These orders were complied with until the mother filed an Apprehended Personal Violence Order (AVO) against the father.
Since the commencement of these proceedings on 21 August 2012, the father has seen the child on eight occasions. Each time the father’s time was supervised by an appropriate supervisor.
The mother alleges that she has mental health issues, being depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation and due to this, she is unable to provide for the child to spend time with the father. Although there were other issues, the significant dispute was over time to be spent by the father with the child, with particular reference to the capacity of the mother to cope with the child spending time with the father and also from the mother’s perspective, financial matters of contribution to the child expenses.
Proceedings in this Court
On 10 December 2013 the parties’ applications were transferred to this Court by a Judge of the Federal Circuit Court, the Court noting that the matter would require in excess of four days hearing and that evidence from the child’s treating medical health expert would be required, in addition to the evidence of both parties. Orders proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer were annexed to that order.
On 25 February 2014 in this Court, the following orders were made:
1.I direct that on 24 March 2014 the father is to send an email to the Independent Children’s Lawyer and my associate confirming he will be proceeding with the hearing listed for 2 to 4 April 2014;
2.I note that the father will be relying on evidence from himself and two further witnesses. The mother will be relying on evidence from herself, her husband and two medical practitioners, [Dr H] and [Dr F]. It is agreed that [Dr F] will be giving evidence by telephone. The Independent Children’s Lawyer will be calling evidence form [Dr I] and [Dr J], two of [the child’s] medical practitioners, and they will give their evidence orally and by telephone.
3.I note that both the mother and father may wish to ask questions of [Ms K], the family consultant who has prepared the family report.
4.For the purpose of the hearing I direct that the father and mother give their evidence orally and that the evidence of the mother’s husband and the father’s two witnesses be given orally.
5.I direct that the mother provide any further written material she will be relying on from [Dr H] and [Dr F] to the Court by 24 March 2014. I direct that she provide a copy to the Independent Children’s Lawyer and to the father.
The evidence
The documents relied on were as follows:
Father:
a)Document titled “Orders sought [Mr Ritchie]” (handwritten);
b)Initiating Application filed by the father on 21 August 2012;
c)Parenting Questionnaire filed by the father on 21 February 2014;
d)Affidavit of the father filed 6 February 2014;
e)Affidavit of the father filed 19 August 2013.
Mother:
f)Document titled ”Orders I am seeking” (handwritten);
g)Amended Response to Initiating Application filed by the mother on 23 May 2013;
h)Parenting Questionnaire filed by the mother on 25 February 2014;
i)Affidavit of the mother filed 13 June 2013;
j)Affidavit of the mother filed 7 September 2012;
k)Affidavit of Mr L (estranged husband of the mother) filed 13 February 2014.
Independent Children’s Lawyer:
l)Affidavit of Ms M filed 12 June 2013;
m)Family report of Ms K, Family Consultant dated 7 August 2013 relating back to family report of Ms N, Family Consultant dated 12 February 2010;
n)Memorandum to Court of Ms O, Family Consultant dated 18 September 2012.
o)An aide memoir was handed up by counsel during submissions marked as MFI 1.
Mr Ritchie, applicant father
The father lives in P Town and works fulltime. I am quite satisfied that he is a loving and devoted father to the child. He has provided for her financially, for her medical expenses and for her extra-curricular activities such as swimming and tennis. He has paid for speech therapy and school fees. He has experienced enormous frustration in not being able to spend as much time with his daughter as he would have liked. In his questionnaire, he says this:
Whatever my child is doing I’d like to be involved in and support her in whatever way I can.[2]
[2]Father’s Parenting Questionnaire filed 21/02/2014, par 58
I accept that is so. Orders have been made for time between the child and the father which on many occasions, have not been complied with by the mother. He has persisted in the face of the mother’s unrelenting opposition to greater involvement by him in the life of the child and more recently, the support of the mother’s husband, Mr L, in resisting that involvement.
Annexed to the father’s affidavit are coloured photographs of him with the child, sometimes in the company of Ms C Ritchie, the paternal grandmother; the child is smiling, engaged and clearly happy in the company of the father and paternal grandmother.
The father expressed his frustration to the family consultant about the irregular time he has spent with the child and the fact that he has never been allowed to have the care of the child overnight. He is critical of the mother for excluding him and suspicious of her use of the money he has provided.[3]
[3]Family Report dated 07/08/2013, par 17
He expressed his disgust at an application by the mother for an AVO against him after she alleged that he had hit the child and pulled her pants down inappropriately in a park during a contact visit. The father suggested to the family consultant that the mother plays on the difficulty of being the parent of an autistic child. He described the mother as a “con artist” to the family consultant.
My impression is that because the father has spent so little time with the child, he is unable to appreciate the constant level of attention, supervision and care which she requires. Because the mother has been hostile towards the father, perhaps because their relationship was such a brief one, she has not helped him to understand the true extent of the difficulties the child has and the consequent obligations that she has had.
The family consultant recommended that the father “seek information about appropriate courses for him to attend in relation to caring for a child and adolescent with autism.”[4] During his oral evidence the father referred to the child’s ability to “throw a good tantrum to get her way.” He had seen that behaviour during a visit at a shopping centre.
[4]Family Report dated 07/08/2013, par 74
The father gave an example of how he had dealt with what he described as the child’s tantrums. He said that in late 2011 when the mother was in hospital, he picked the child up from school. They went to a play centre where the child took her dress off. The father took a position. He said that the child couldn’t go on the play equipment until she put her dress back on. There was a standoff between them and as the father expressed the outcome, “I won.” The child was at that time described by the father as very limited in terms of her verbal abilities. On occasions when he has been with the child in a shop, he distracts her if she is misbehaving, or carries her away. He said, “I’ve learned as I go. I get better as I go”.
I accept that the father was, to use his own words, “thrown into the deep end”, in terms of learning the child’s behaviours and how to manage them and that he did so in a straightforward way, probably based on the way he was raised himself. It is important in my view that the father continues to learn, despite the limited time with the child, so that any opportunity can be the most productive and least stressful that it can be for both the child and himself.
The father said he had become a bit disheartened and may have done less to learn than what he could have. Whilst understandable, every successful visit between the child and the father is more likely to lead to the mother cooperating with the orders for the benefit of the child.
The father would also like to involve members of his extended family and allow friends to be present when the child is with him. The child clearly had a close relationship with the paternal grandfather before he died and the father is understandably concerned that she is missing out on “a whole half of her family”.
Unfortunately, although the child has visited her grandparents in Q Town, she is unlikely to be able to cope with such visits again, unless the mother travelled with her. The evidence of the paternal grandmother strongly that the mother and her parents would be welcome to do so. There is undoubtedly a benefit to the child in participating in family life with the father, as she has done in the past. The father would also like to observe the child at school, hear about her progress, obtain school photographs and generally participate in the ordinary way in the child’s life.
The father spoke in a positive way about Mr L, the mother’s husband. At that point he was unaware the mother and Mr L had separated. He was hopeful that they would be able to cooperate for changeovers. The father referred to an amicable relationship between him and Mr L where they had been able to shake hands and speak civilly.
I formed the impression that the father also wanted to provide for all of the child’s legitimate needs, in the least stressful way that could be set up. Having heard and read his evidence, I do not doubt either his capacity to meet the child’s immediate short term needs when he is with her, nor his capacity and willingness to meet her long term needs, especially financially and educationally. In terms of understanding her hourly needs, the father himself conceded that he has more to learn about the child’s condition and how to manage it.
The father has a partner with whom he is not yet living. She has no children and they are hopeful of a future together. If it were the case that that relationship developed, it would be important for the mother to have the opportunity to meet and speak to the father’s partner for the benefit of the child, before she became involved in the father’s time with the child.
Ms R, father’s partner
Ms R has been involved in an intimate relationship with the father for about five years, although they do not live together. Ms R has not yet met the child.
She is hopeful that the relationship between herself and the father will develop to the point where they live together, probably in a property purchased in 2013 in S Town. She is also hopeful that she and the father will have children and “it would be good if [the child] could be part of that”.
Ms C Ritchie, paternal grandmother
Ms C Ritchie lives and works in Q Town. She last saw the child in April 2013. Ms C Ritchie was a most impressive witness, focused in a loving way on the child and not on the poor relationship between the father and the mother. She described her relationship with the child as follows:
We get on and have fun together. She is able to say grandma; she enjoys what she calls ‘red chips’ when she comes to visit.[5]
[5]Reference to a food from McDonald’s Restaurant
Ms C Ritchie has maintained a civil relationship with the mother, “Never had a falling out ever. Never no talkies.”
The child is Ms C Ritchie’s only grandchild and she has clearly been closely attentive to the child as an individual and a personality. She said that she was not distressed in a big family group, a little bit coy at first, “then okay.” She described the special bond between the child and her late husband who she called “Grandad Blue.” After he died there was the description of a poignant moment where the child was calling out “Bluie Bluie” around the corner to where she thought her grandfather would be, whilst looking for him.
The child and the mother attended Mr Ritchie senior’s funeral and the child is described by Ms C Ritchie as dancing and singing songs on the stage with a microphone. Ms C Ritchie was affectionate and respectful in relation to the mother and her parents, “They’re lovely people; there are no problems between us”.
Ms C Ritchie had been in the habit of coming to Sydney three or four times a year, with particular reference to seeing the child. She ceased her trips once the mother said that the father was not allowed to see the child any more. I am quite satisfied that Ms C Ritchie would arrange to come down to Sydney on every occasion that she could to see the child with the father; she said she would drive down or get the XPT train, “My word I would, not a problem”.
Ms C Ritchie described being able to simply be present with the child and for them to enjoy each other’s company without conversation. She said that the child was able to make her needs known and that she had never seen the child in what the mother has described as a “melt down or temper tantrum”.
My impression of Ms C Ritchie is that she is a strong, family minded person and that she loves the child and would very much enjoy being able to not only spend time with her, but to bring her back into family events, particularly in Q Town where she lives. Having seen the child’s obvious enjoyment of that space and freedom in the past, I also have no doubt that Ms C Ritchie would be a thoughtful and sensitive supervisor for when the father is spending time with the child. Ms C Ritchie would be able to communicate any particular important information to the mother in order to allay any fears she might have about events which had occurred, particularly given that the child is unable to communicate in that way with the mother, despite their closeness.
Mr T
Mr T is a friend of the father. He lives in a suburb of Sydney and is a Manager. He is a close friend of the father but has not yet met the child. Mr T described his seven year old nephew who is autistic and the conversations he has had with the father “all the time about what we could do.” Mr T has helped and supported the father.
Mr T was quite comfortable to confront the mother during her cross-examination of him with what he thought of the allegations that she had made about the father. He was not aggressive, but he was extremely candid. In responding to the mother’s question, “What is your understanding of why he doesn’t see his daughter?” Mr T said to the mother:
He just wants to see his daughter. The allegations you’ve made about him are shocking. You’ve accused him of abuse and terrible things.
Despite those answers, I accept Mr T’s evidence, “I could deal with the mother no problem.” The mother however is unlikely to be willing to deal with him.
Ms Feaks, respondent mother
The mother appeared to be unwilling to engage with the Court process at first. She had reached her limit.
The mother regarded the father as having disqualified himself from spending time with the child. She did not hide her opinion that the Court proceedings were an intrusion and a waste of her time. In April 2014, she texted this message:
You are a disgusting person, a useless parent, a deadbeat tight arse and you have no shame. No wonder you’re still alone and no one wants you. Ungrateful pigs like you end up in their own filth. Your unhappiness and loneliness is your own payback for being a low life.
And
I don’t know if maybe you are autistic, narcissistic or just a traditional run of the mill deadbeat dad … It’s like you’re not human.
Whilst no other message was as blatantly insulting, messages from the mother to the father were boldly rude; “pull your head in idiot” and did not appear to suggest any fear by the mother in respect of the father, and:
Fuck off with your accusations and don’t contact me unless it is necessary. Don’t threaten me either, otherwise I will be serving you with an AVO and you will have to see your daughter in a contact centre supervised like a criminal, so watch your step.
Ultimately I formed the impression that the mother has gone beyond caring about what people think in relation to what she says and does. She described herself as overwhelmed. She gave the appearance of being overwhelmed and the recent separation from her husband, Mr L, was probably an aggravating factor to her state of distress. She had been very reluctant to call him as a witness and was not as certain as he was that their separation would be permanent.
The mother was particularly focused on the fact that the child has difficulty sleeping and that referrals had been made by Dr I for psychiatric attention for sleep disorders. If the child does not sleep the mother does not sleep.
Unsurprisingly, the mother appeared hugely protective of the child. She acted as an advocate for the child in every respect and was willing to confront third parties, especially teachers and school principals, not just the father and other family members, if she thought there was a benefit to the child in doing so.
In relation to her allegation that she had seen the father pull the child’s pants down in a park, she said that she had observed him carrying the child carelessly “over his shoulder, pants down to her ankles genitals on display.” I was taken to an earlier affidavit of the mother[6] where that statement was made. In par 59 of that earlier affidavit, she said this:
[B] was crying and her pants had come down to her knees. He wasn’t adjusting her clothes but continued to carry her in the cold wind with her lower back and tummy exposed to the cold air, her bottom was showing and so was her vagina.
[6]Affidavit of mother filed 07/09/2012, Annexure B
I formed the impression that the mother, who was present at this time, was anxious and over-protective and critical of the father for not accommodating the child in a different way. In the witness box, in answer to a question as to whether the child had a habit of taking her clothes off, the mother said:
Yes, it was probably her that pulled her own pants down; it happens when she is insecure and in new and stressful situation[s]. I don’t know why she does it, she just does it.
During the course of the evidence, the mother explained that her method of dealing with the child was to anticipate her needs and adjust the circumstances so that she would not become distressed. She is no doubt a loving, sensitive and caring mother; however she is incensed by the father’s different approach, which is not to anticipate the child’s needs, but to deal with her behaviour head on and set some limits.
It is clear that the parties would have had their disagreements as parents, even if the child had not suffered from autism. Their approach to parenting is philosophically very different. Whilst it is true that the father has some learning to do as recommended by the family consultant, the mother does not accept to any extent that her own approach towards the child could be modified.
Throughout her evidence, the mother was concerned to let the child know that she was opposed to there being any more time between the child and the father. The mother could see no value in it and could no longer cope with it.
Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer asked the mother why she sought an AVO for the protection of the child from the father. Her answer was instructive:
I don’t trust him. He has no empathy for [the child]. He uses her as a pawn in his conflict with me.
The mother did not appear to have any insight at all into her own contribution to the conflict between the parties, nor did she see that comparing the father to Arthur Freeman, who murdered his young daughter, would be an inflammatory thing to do. Her focus was that nobody could understand or see the size of her task in providing adequate care for the child.
Supervision by Ms U
Ms U had been a supervisor for contact. Her report dated 3 June 2013 was annexed to the affidavit of the Independent Children’s Lawyer. She made this observation of the child during supervised periods of time with the father:
(a)[The child] never appeared to be tired or lethargic. She would run after [the] father on the oval, go from activity to activity at the park and appeared to be energetic and joyful at all times.
(b)[The child’s] wellbeing is a priority for [the father]. He is naturally concerned for her health and all her needs.
The mother took the view that Ms U had become unprofessional. She complained to the Court about Ms U and in oral evidence said, “I discount anything that woman says.” The father had annexed observations by Ms U to his affidavit.[7]
[7] Affidavit of father filed 19/08/2013, p 4 (p 1 of 3)
The 57 observations of time between the child and the father, gave rise to a comment from the Occupational Therapist, Ms V:
I am not of the opinion that supervision is required for interaction between [the child] and [the] father as play was considered to be safe and appropriate.
The mother rejected the report by Ms U as out of hand. It may be that the mother is unable to believe that the child can be as “relaxed calm and without anxiety” as reported.
The child’s relationship with the paternal grandmother, Ms C Ritchie
The mother conceded that Ms C Ritchie had missed out on seeing the child. She said she had never denied Ms C Ritchie contact but that she had not had contact with the child because of the problems between the parties.
The mother conceded that she had not believed the father when he told her that the paternal grandfather had cancer. She had instructed her solicitors to write and request evidence. It appears that the mother simply rejects anything that the father tells her.
The mother attended the funeral of the paternal grandfather with the child and the maternal grandparents.
Mr L, the mother’s estranged husband
Mr L was married to the mother and supported her and the child. He became a champion for the mother in her opposition to ongoing time between the child and the father, as is evidenced by his two letters to the Independent Children’s Lawyer, attached to the mother’s parenting questionnaire.
Mr L said that the child had got along well with his two sons and had wanted their friendship and love. He expressed the view that the conflict between the parties had affected the child, whilst fairly conceding that there are always two people involved in conflict.
I have no reason not to accept Mr L’s evidence that he had paid in the order of $500 to $700 per month for expenses for the child, including food supplements, attendance on psychiatrist and other biomedical treatments. Mr L said that the household would be awake all night, with the child waking up at 1.00 am or 2.00 am. Sometimes she was awake all night watching television, playing, wanting to cook in the kitchen; she was given medicine to go to sleep and supplementation to get her to wake up.
Mr L appeared to be at the limit of his ability to cope with the problems arising from his marriage to the mother. They had met in April 2012, separating after two years of marriage or less.
During the course of questioning by the father, it appears that Mr L came to understand for the first time that the father had been making a significant financial contribution, more than he had realised. Mr L confirmed his knowledge that the maternal grandparents had sought an AVO for protection against the mother, but maintained a close relationship with the child. He certainly painted a picture of a highly stressful home environment for the child.
Dr H
Dr H is a practising Consultant Psychiatrist. She had not met the child, nor had she met the father. Her evidence was surprising.
The report dated 11 June 2013, which was forwarded by the mother to the Federal Circuit Court, contained some strong statements:
It is apparent to me from [the mother’s] description that [the child] has inherited an Autism Spectrum Disorder from her father.
[The father] was and is extremely angry about having to pay maintenance for the child I am told and will do anything to evade his responsibilities, including non-disclosure of income. This is also in keeping with the emotional deficits of Asperger’s Syndrome. I consider it imperative that in the light of her disclosures to me about him that [the father] should have an assessment and diagnoses, only by a psychiatrist or psychologist highly experienced in the area of the Autism Spectrum Disorders so that the diagnoses can be taken into account in the future management of the child.
Dr H made a recommendation that the mother be given sole parental responsibility for the child’s education, amongst other recommendations.
It emerged that the mother was not Dr H’s patient and the mother had consulted Dr H for the sole purpose of obtaining the report.
Dr H described it this way:
The mother came in, asked for a report, gave some information and returned for the report.
Those are the only two attendances in her rooms.
She read it, approved it went on her way. She was very happy with it.
Dr H then went on to consult with Mr L as a patient.
I asked Dr H whether she thought she had been used by the mother to obtain a report for use in the Court. She answered frankly, “Now yes I do.”
Under cross-examination by counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer, Dr H also said that she might have been wrong about matters contained in her report; that the mother “might have worked hard to create a compelling story; she might have.” She also said, “I was inclined to believe the overall story”.
Dr H was also questioned by the father who was understandably offended that reference had been made to him hiding income and failing to meet his obligations. He was also offended by the final statement by Dr H in her report:
Everything possible should be done to remove any obstacles to [the mother] being able to carry out her role as primary carer to [the child], particularly without any interference with this from [the father].
The father asked Dr H whether she considered he was an obstacle. The doctor defended herself in this way:
My report is only to be put before the Court the Court makes the decision obviously it will be decided quite differently from what I’ve recommended.
Having heard Dr H’s evidence, I give no weight at all to the report dated 11 June 2013 provided to the mother and used in the course of these proceedings.
Ms K, family consultant
Ms K was called on the first day of the hearing. Having been brought up to date, her strong recommendation was that there should be an order for sole parental responsibility in favour of the mother. The basis for that recommendation was that the parties should avoid direct communication with each other for the sake of the child. That accords with my own view of the parties’ hostile relationship.
Ms K recommended that the father have the authority to consult any school the child attended and other professionals by whom she was treated. She described the basis for her recommendation as the need to release the parties from their obligation to each other.
Ms K expressed her concern that the focus of decisions for the child needed to be made by the mother as primary caregiver, who is expert in the particular care that the child needs.
Ms K considered that the mental health of the mother could make it impossible for her to tolerate time between the child and the father. Whilst acknowledging that respite care by a loving parent would be ideal, I share the concern of Ms K about the vulnerability of the mother and the difficulties that she might experience in preparing and coping with changeovers. However I also consider, and the mother herself acknowledged, that it would be precarious for the child to only have one person who was able to understand her and meet her needs.
Ms K was clear to say that there must be supervision of time between the child and the father and I understand her evidence to be that unless the mother was confident that the child’s needs were being met by the presence of a supervisor, then the arrangement would break down. She said, and I accept, that from the child’s point of view, there needed to be an effective changeover, understanding and respect.
Ms K was asked about an order that the mother sought, “That the father be assessed for a disability.” This almost certainly arose from the recommendations contained in the report prepared by Dr H. Ms K said that in her assessment, there was no need for further psychological assessment of the father. Given the circumstances of the preparation of the report by Dr H, to which I have given no weight, the best evidence is that of Ms K, who was not alerted through her observations and interviews of the father any need for further assessment.
Ms K spoke positively about the relationship between the child and the father, describing the detriment to the child of losing that relationship. This is certainly reflected in her report.[8] Ms K described the father responding to the child’s request for music on his telephone, “[the child] immediately started dancing in obvious enjoyment.” This seemed to be a familiar activity between them and at one point the father started dancing with the child, copying her moves.
[8]Family Report dated 07/08/2013, par 57
Ms K noted that the child seemed very stimulated by the father’s energy at many times during their time together. She also commented on his habit of picking the child up quite often, but noted that it was probably a habit from the past and would not have been noticeable but for the fact that the child is quite a large, tall child for her age. The child readily responded to the father’s request for a kiss and cuddle at the conclusion of the observation and the child was observed to hug him in an affectionate manner. At that time she had not seen him for two months.
However Ms K also noted that after a while the child’s behaviour became somewhat agitated and uncomfortable and although the father was able to reach her and engage her, Ms K noted in her oral evidence that the father would benefit from one on one time with one of the child’s teachers at school, in order to see how her behaviour was managed in that setting.
Ms K considered that regular short periods of supervised time with the father and the paternal grandmother would be ideal, so that the child would not be overwhelmed. Ms K said, and I agree, that it is important for the child to know, and she is well capable of knowing, that “there’s a whole family who loves her and that she is a part of them”.
Ms U, supervisor
Ms U supervised time between the child and the father on six occasions, between 13 November 2012 and 15 January 2013. Ms U is an experienced supervisor; she has supervised on behalf of the Department of Family and Community Services and has had experience with special needs children. She has supervised more than 1,000 hours of time as a sole trader conducting supervisions as a business.
The mother was clearly angry with Ms U, who had taken a position that the child needed to be woken to spend time with the father. The mother thought Ms U was unprofessional and unkind, because Ms U had said “I understand that [the child] has a need for sleep, but she needs to spend time with her father”.
I accept the evidence of Ms U that she had spoken to the Independent Children’s Lawyer who told her there were orders in place that she needed to comply with. The mother was unable to accept the position of Ms U. However I accept that Ms U was ensuring compliance with the Court order that the child meet with the father and I also accept her evidence, that had she felt that the child was too tired, she would have stopped the visit and returned her.
In her evidence, Ms U said that the child had always appeared to be full of energy and she had seen nothing inappropriate in any of the visits that she had supervised.
Ms U continues to provide supervision services and I am satisfied that she was an experienced attentive and appropriate supervisor. From the child’s point of view, there is no reason why Ms U could not be involved again. However it appeared to me that the mother had a fixed view that Ms U was indifferent, both to the child’s needs and her own state of fragile health arising from broken sleep over a long period of time. For that reason only, if the father was able to find an alternative supervisor, implementation of the orders may be easier. There have been other supervisors.[9] An order which provides for variable start times may assist.
[9]Affidavit of Ms M (ICL) filed 12/06/2013, Annexures A & B
Dr I
Dr I was the child’s paediatrician between April 2012 and February 2013. He confirmed a confident diagnosis of Autism for the child. He described her as having major problems with communication and social interaction and that she met the DSM criteria for intellectual delay. Mr I had consulted with the child and the mother for insomnia. He used the phrase “very significant Autism”.
Dr I had met the mother on a number of occasions and the father once or twice. He was in a position to greatly assist the Court with information about the child and autistic children more generally. He gave his professional opinion that autistic children settle down better with consistent care, the same medical practitioners and the same school: “If their social life, their family, their education and the pattern of their day is consistent, they are more settled”.
Dr I was asked what he thought about the proposition put forward by the mother that the child should have no relationship with the father. He said this:
I think [the child] is always and will become more and more a higher maintenance child. A number of carers will need to be involved in her care. The family circle is the best source of those who can offer support over time.
Most significantly he made this statement:
One sole carer will fall over to the detriment of that person and also to [the child].
I accept without reservation this evidence; given the mother’s evidence about her own feelings of being overwhelmed and chronically tired. When Dr I was advised that the mother had ceased living with Mr L in March 2014, he commented that it would be extremely difficult for the mother and the child herself to cope, respite would be needed and families, friends, community and Government agencies should be that source of that respite, in that particular order.
Dr I was advised that there were two respite carers who were coming to the house to give the mother a break in the care of the child and that she had also enjoyed time with extended paternal family in Q Town up until about 2011. Dr I expressed the opinion that a supervisor for time between the child and her father could be a family member and that Ms C Ritchie was a reasonable proposition for that role, on the basis that she was a loving grandmother with an historical relationship with the child. He said the criterion for a good supervisor for the child would not so much be an expert knowledge of autism, but a good knowledge of the child’s problems and how to address them.
He also expressed the view that supervision would represent reassurance for the mother, but that professional supervision need not be a permanent thing. Dr I considered that it would assist the child if the father and Ms C Ritchie could obtain information through the child’s school, her current paediatrician and the community in contact with her, in the event that the mother was unable or unwilling to provide that information directly to the father. He recommended that the father and Ms C Ritchie, if it were possible, observe the child for a number of hours at school and in extra-curricular activities watching, especially in relation to the way she is managed. That resonates with the recommendation of Ms K.
Dr I, when hearing that the mother’s case was that only she could properly care for the child, gave illuminating evidence. He said:
I doubt that. She may be the most appropriate and best carer for [the child] but to be the only carer is to put the long term care of [the child] at risk. She may be the best carer but there will come a time when less proficient people can do a bit of the caring.
Dr I also thought that overnight time between the child and the father would be a reasonable supposition if there was appropriate accommodation for her.
The mother asked Dr I a couple of questions which reflected her position. Her view is that only people who know how to manage the child should be allowed to provide care for her. The doctor restated his position that he firmly believed that there was a need for ongoing regular respite and that if there was appropriate care from the paternal family, their care should be increased.
I take the firmness of his position to be based in his earlier evidence that it is family that goes on being available into the future and if done well, out of love, is more reliable and consistent than that provided by organisations in the community, no matter how skilful people provided by those services might be. I have given considerable weight to Dr I’s evidence, particularly with reference to the need for ongoing respite provided by the paternal family.
Dr E
Dr J is the child’s treating paediatrician. He had apparently taken over from Dr I in about March 2013, on a referral from Dr F, the mother and the child’s general practitioner. As had Dr I, Dr J explained the child’s condition as severe Autism, with intellectual impairment, a sleep disorder and digestive difficulties including constipation. He said the child was likely to go into early puberty and menstruate at a young age, which would be difficult for herself and her carers.
Dr J had met the father once, the father having booked in to see him. He confirmed that the father was interested in the medical aspects of the child’s treatment and her growth development and the medical investigations proposed. Dr J said there was no reason, from his point of view, why there could not be ongoing consultations between himself and the father.
Dr J was asked about the biomedical supplements which the mother has been buying and administering to the child. He answered in a compassionate way that since they were apparently doing no harm, there was no reason not to try them, but he had not prescribed those supplements for the child.
Dr J was asked whether the child would do best by being “cocooned,” He said this:
She’s non-verbal it takes time and understanding to understand her needs and when she is tired her difficulties are more pronounced.
In that regard the doctor said he saw no inherent difficulty in the child spending time with her father, but that consistency as to the time of day when the time took place, would assist her. In the same way as Dr I, Dr J stressed that familiar times, places and activities would be most helpful for the child, with not a lot of unfamiliar people.
Dr J was clear to say that the child could hold memories and that contact between the father and the paternal family could build over time.
The law
The objects of the Act in relation to parenting Orders are to ensure that:
a) Children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives to the maximum extent consistent with their best interests;
b) To protect children from physical and psychological harm;
c) To ensure that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential;
d) To ensure that parents fulfil their duties and meet their responsibilities concerning the care welfare and development of their children.
These are applications for parenting orders pursuant to s 64B(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a Court must have regard to the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. The way a Court determines what is in a child’s best interests is by considering the matters set out in s 60CC(2) and (3) of the Act.
There is also a presumption when making a parenting order that it is in the best interests of the child for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that equal sharing of parental responsibility would not be in the best interests of the child in question.
I have contemplated the issues of parental responsibility, residence, time to be spent and communication between child and parent as well as any other specific issues.
I have considered the mandatory factors and conclude that the following matters are relevant to the best interests of the child.
Each of the parents of a child, who is not 18, has parental responsibility for the child. When making a parenting order in relation to a child, the Court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.
The presumption does not apply in certain circumstances and also may be rebutted by evidence that satisfies the Court that it would not be in the best interests of the child for the presumption to apply. In this case, the mother seeks sole parental responsibility and that is supported by the family consultant and the Independent Children’s Lawyer.[10]
[10]Exhibit 12
I consider that the evidence about the unwillingness and inability of the mother to consult with the father about long term issues for the child compels an order for sole parental responsibility, in circumstances where both parents agree that the child should continue to live with the mother. The mother is critical, even vitriolic about the father at times. She is dismissive of his significance in the child’s life and his ability to understand her needs. In addition, she describes herself as overwhelmed and exhausted by the fulltime care of the child. She has recently separated from her husband after a relatively short marriage.
However politely, the mother took a defiant stance in these proceedings about her willingness to comply with orders. I accept that she believes that nobody has any true understanding of the demands of her job of providing fulltime care for the child. The mother does not communicate civilly with the father and does not see why she should be expected to do so. She regards orders as guidelines and takes the view that strict compliance is cruel, both to her and the child, particularly in relation to disrupting her sleep in order for her to spend time with the father. The mother has made many decisions alone, particularly about which school the child will attend.
The child has the support of her maternal grandparents, although the mother and her parents have had their interpersonal difficulties and the mother considers that that is enough. She accepts theoretically the need for respite carers from the family who are familiar with the child, in case she becomes ill or, in the worst case dies, leaving the child without the loving support of a knowledgeable family member. Despite that, the mother is opposed to the father spending any more time with the child. It is in her view, too great an imposition.
Whilst not accepting the mother’s view that the child would not benefit from time with the father, I do accept that the mother lacks the capacity to cooperate and consult with the father and that she should have unfettered responsibility for decisions that are not already subject to orders. I take the view that the best course is for the present arrangements to be confirmed in the orders, with consultation only required when the mother wishes to make a change, particularly to the current school and to current treating practitioners, general practitioners and paediatricians.
For those reasons, orders are made for the mother to have sole parental responsibility for all those decisions which are not already the subject of an order.
Residence
The parties agree that the child should continue to live with the mother. I am satisfied that the father would take on the fulltime care of the child, if the mother was unavailable to do so, but that he currently believes that all of the child’s needs are being met, other than in respect of support for the relationship with him by the mother.
Primary considerations
The primary considerations (s 60CC(2)) the Court must take into account are as follows.
In applying the primary considerations, the Court must give greater weight to s 60CC(2)(b), that is, protection of the child.
Section 60CC(2)(a) – the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents
The child has her most meaningful relationship with the mother and probably, although I did not hear from them, the maternal grandparents.
Section 60CC(2)(b) - the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected or exposed to abuse or family violence
Recently, the child is likely to have been exposed to violent arguments and hostility between the mother and her now estranged husband, Mr L. Mr L expressed the view that this was not in the child’s interests and I had the impression that to some extent, that was the reason why he chose to leave the home. Otherwise the child has not been exposed to physical or psychological harm.
Additional considerations
The additional considerations are set out in s 60CC(3) of the Act. These are:
Section 60CC(3)(a) – any views expressed by the child and any factors that the court thinks are relevant
The child is an eight year old girl with severe Autism and some other medical complications. She is intellectually delayed. She is a tall, well-nourished child, who is easily agitated if there is too much change in her circumstances. She is not a particularly verbal child, although she can make her needs understood with those who know her.
Section 60CC(3)(b) – the nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child’s parents and other persons
The child expresses her feelings through her behaviour and she showed the family consultant the pleasure she took in the relationship between each of the parties and all her grandparents. I have heard evidence which suggests that she had a special bond with her paternal grandfather, searching for him in the house after his death, calling out his name and being unable to understand where he was.
The evidence supports the child having significant emotional attachments to family members on both sides of her extended family, although the deepest attachment is to the mother.
Section 60CC(3)(c) – the extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken or failed to take the opportunity to participate in making decisions, to spend time with the child and to communicate with the child
The mother has made most of the major long term decisions without reference to the father. The father has at all times been committed to the child, interested in her health, welfare and future development. He has at all times wished to spend time and communicate with her. The father has not always been permitted to do so and there have been frustrating periods of time when he has not seen her at all.
Section 60CC(3)(ca) - the extent to which each of the child’s parents has fulfilled or failed to fulfil the parent’s obligations to maintain the child
I am satisfied that the father has not only paid child support, but has made additional contributions. Money has been a rich course of disagreement and hostility between the parties. One thing that did emerge during the course of the hearing was a formula for contributions to be made by the father to known causes and an order has been made to that effect.
Section 60CC(3)(d) - the likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either parents
I have heard and accepted the evidence of two paediatricians who have treated the child. They both suggest that consistency of familiar people and circumstances is most settling for the child.
The child has experienced spending time with the father for short periods, supervised, on and off over her lifetime. The observations of her by the family consultant suggest that she fell back easily into enjoyable patterns of playing games with the father, listening to music, dancing to music and dancing with the father. The child also enjoys taking photographs, which is known to the father, who bought a camera for her to the interview.
There would be an adverse effect on the child of being separated from the mother for longer than she could cope with. There would be an adverse effect on the child of not maintaining a relationship with the father and through him, the paternal family.
Section 60CC(3)(e) the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent
The father is in a position to pay for a supervisor, but I accept the evidence of the doctors that professional supervision will not be necessary if there is appropriate familiar supervision; Ms C Ritchie being especially suitable.
Accordingly the father will be able to pay for a supervisor and will also be able to transport the child, the supervisor and Ms C Ritchie easily to venues that are known well to the child and where she is likely to be settled with a gradual increase of time to whole days, which might take place in the father’s home.
Section 60CC(3)(f) – the capacity of each of the child’s parents and any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child) to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs
The mother has the capacity to provide for the needs of the child, including her emotional and intellectual needs, but she has a restricted capacity either to understand or to accommodate the need for the child to develop and keep trusting relationships with family members on the paternal side, foremost the father.
The mother does not understand the child’s perspective in this way, that in future, particularly after the child is adolescent and perhaps quite challenging, that respite will be even more significant than it is now and that the people best able to be with the child are family.
The father has the capacity to meet the needs of the child, including her emotional and intellectual needs. He has a restriction on that capacity through lack of knowledge in a detailed way of the child’s needs and how to manage them. That is not through wanting to learn, it is through the limited amount of time he has spent with her. An order is made for both the father and Ms C Ritchie to have the opportunity to attend at the child’s school to see how professional people manage the child’s behaviour.
The father has a negative and critical view of the mother for excluding him and being overly critical and offensive about him. However there is no evidence to suggest that the father would allow the child to be exposed to those negative feelings.
Section 60CC(3)(g) – the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background of the child and of either of the child’s parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant
The child does not function at the level of an eight and a half year old girl, which is her chronological age. She enjoys some experiences, particularly music and dancing. She attends school and sometimes struggles. She receives appropriate medical and psychological assistance.
Section 60CC(3)(i) – the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents
The parents are both focused on the child who was born months after their brief relationship had ended. They are very different people as parents, although both loving and committed.
The mother is committed philosophically to an approach to parenthood of understanding the child, foreshadowing difficulties and adjusting circumstances to head off distress. The father takes an entirely different view; that a child’s behaviour should be confronted, consequences made clear and the child learning from those consequences how to behave differently. They are never likely to agree that there is any merit in the approach of the other, although the father concedes that the child is well cared for in the mother’s household.
Section 60CC(3)(j) – any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family
The mother did seek a family violence order for the protection of herself and the child, but in circumstances where she was protecting the child from what she perceived as the father’s inappropriate parenting. There is no evidence whatsoever before me to suggest that the child is at unacceptable risk, or risk at all, in the father’s care.
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
The parties have been before the Court for several years. It has been expensive and frustrating for both of them.
The orders proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer are for one period of supervised contact each calendar month without progression, the first six of those periods to be supervised by a professional supervisor. The proposal for professional supervision to stop after six visits, provided that Ms C Ritchie has participated during those early sessions, is consistent with the evidence that the child will do well to progress into supervision by appropriate family members.
However I do consider that two hours once per month is insufficient and that the father and Ms C Ritchie should have the opportunity to spend time with the child through an ordinary day, where she eats, feels tired, sleeps, engages in activities she likes and reveals her attitude to activities which she does not like. That progress needs to be measured and although I note the evidence of Dr I that the proposition for overnight time would be acceptable if there was appropriate accommodation, I do not consider the mother would be able to support overnight time or even the idea of overnight time right now.
Accordingly it may be that a further application needs to be made when the child is older and more obviously ready to spend overnight time with the father and other family members, in the absence of the mother. However, if the parties were able to agree to overnight time with the assistance of Ms C Ritchie , I am satisfied that the child would benefit.
Section 60CC(3)(m) – any other fact or circumstance that the Court thinks is relevant
Both parents represented themselves. The mother has taken on the task of being an advocate for the child at school, with doctors and in this Court. She made this statement in submissions, “My daughter’s needs come above anyone else’s needs.” I accept that she has put the child’s needs first and that accounts for why the child is a healthy well-nourished child, who is capable of enjoying a range of pleasurable activities and is settled at school.
The mother told me that she would try to comply with the orders and I accept the sincerity of that statement. Accordingly, I have made orders that require the least amount of time where the mother and father would be in contact with each other and for the father to obtain information from experts and to observe management of the child without the mother having to be involved, or to take any step or give any authority.
Even though respite carers come to the household, in a sense, there is no respite for the mother in her ceaseless concern for the child, who can become ill, over tired and fractious without much notice.
The child has the love and commitment of the father, Ms C Ritchie and probably other friends and family. In the event that the orders are complied with in a regular way, it is possible that the mother will develop confidence that the father and the Ms C Ritchie could be her allies and supporters in providing the best possible care for the child.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and fifty (150) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cleary delivered on 12 August 2014.
Associate:
Date: 12 August 2014
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Consent
-
Remedies
-
Procedural Fairness
0
0
3