Robb & Harper (No 3)
[2024] FedCFamC2F 1662
•22 November 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Robb & Harper (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC2F 1662
File number(s): MLC 1668 of 2024 Judgment of: JUDGE GLASS Date of judgment: 22 November 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – where the Mother failed to file material or attend the final hearing – where the Mother has repeatedly failed to return the child to the Father pursuant to Orders, encouraged her to abscond from the Father, and arranged for her abduction from school – where police have repeatedly executed Recovery Orders to return the child to her Father – where it remains in the child’s best interests to remain living with the Father despite her expressed views Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 65DAAA, 67W, 68LA, 69ZN, 95.
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 r 10.27.
Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic) s 162.
Cases cited: Blesing & Blesing [2021] FedCFamC1F 230
Bondelmonte & Bondelmonte (2017) 259 CLR 662
Doyle & Doyle (1992) FLC 92-286
Gabbey & Cadriel (2024) FLC 94-184
H v W (1995) FLC 92-598
Keskin & Keskin & Anor (2019) FLC 93-932
Raymond & Raymond (2024) FLC 94-180
U & U (2002) 211 CLR 238
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 133 Date of last submission/s: 11 November 2024 Date of hearing: 11 November 2024 Place: Melbourne Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Agresta Solicitor for the Applicant: Leslie Family Law The Respondent: No appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Dr Alexander Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: MacGregor Barristers and Solicitors ORDERS
MLC 1668 of 2024 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR ROBB
Applicant
AND: MS HARPER
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE GLASS
DATE OF ORDER:
22 NOVEMBER 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Recovery Order dated 29 April 2024 remain in full force and effect.
2.Save as set out in paragraph 1 herein, all previous parenting Orders be discharged.
3.The Father have sole parental responsibility for long-term decisions in relation to the care, welfare and development of for the child X born in 2010 (“X”).
4.X live with the Father.
5.X communicate with the Mother via Zoom:
(a)each Sunday from 4.30 pm until 5.30 pm; and
(b)at such further and other times as agreed between the parties in writing.
6.During all time that X spends with the Mother in accordance with paragraphs 8-11 herein, the Mother, her servants and agents be and are hereby restrained from removing X from City G at any time.
7.In the event the Mother fails to return X to the Father at the conclusion of any occasion of spend-time pursuant to these Orders:
(a)all subsequent spend-time between X and the Mother pursuant to these Orders will be discharged;
(b)the Father may do all things necessary to obtain police assistance to facilitate X’s return to his household and may provide the police with a copy of these Orders if necessary; and
(c)the Father shall be at liberty to contact the Chambers of Judge Glass without notice to the Mother for the purposes of an urgent listing of an application for a Recovery Order.
8.X spend time with the Mother during the 2024/2025 long summer holiday period, in City G, at the following days and times:
(a)from 10.00 am until 4.00 pm on 21 December 2024;
(b)from 10.00 am until 4.00 pm on 26 December 2024;
(c)from 10.00 am until 4.00 pm on 30 December 2024; and
(d)from 10.00 am until 4.00 pm on 7 January 2025.
9.X spend time with the Mother during the 2025 term 1 school holiday period, in City G:
(a)from 10.00 am until 4.00 pm on the first Saturday of the holiday period;
(b)from 10.00 am until 4.00 pm on the following Wednesday of the holiday period.
10.X spend time with the Mother during the 2025 term 2 school holiday period, in City G:
(a)from 10.00 am until 4.00 pm on the first Saturday of the holiday period;
(b)from 10.00 am until 4.00 pm on the following Wednesday of the holiday period.
11.X spend time with the Mother during the 2025 term 3 school holiday period, in City G:
(a)from 10.00 am until 4.00 pm on the first Saturday of the holiday period;
(b)from 10.00 am until 4.00 pm on the following Wednesday of the holiday period.
12.X spend time with the Mother during the 2025/2026 long summer holiday period, from 10.00 am on the first Saturday of the holiday period until 4.00 pm on the Saturday three weeks later, with such time able to occur outside of City G.
13.X spend time with the Mother during each 2026 term school holiday period from 10.00 am on the first Saturday of the holiday period until 4.00 pm on the middle Saturday of the holiday period, with such time able to occur outside of City G.
14.X thereafter spend time with the Mother:
(a)from 10.00 am on the first Saturday of each long summer holiday period until 4.00 pm on the Saturday three weeks later;
(b)from 10.00 am on the first Saturday of each term school holiday period until 4.00 pm on the middle Saturday of that holiday period;
with such time able to occur outside of City G.
15.The Mother, her servants and/or agents be and are hereby restrained from spending time with or communicating or attempting to communicate with X by any means, including but not limited to telephone, text message, email, Snapchat, via social media “applications”, online forums and the like, save as explicitly provided for in these Orders or agreed to by the Father.
16.Changeover occur inside the McDonald’s Family Restaurant at H Street, City G.
17.All communication between the parties, their servants and agents in relation to parenting arrangements be via email, save in the event of an emergency relating to X whereby they shall communicate via telephone and/or text message.
18.The parties be and are hereby restrained by injunction from:
(a)abusing, insulting, belittling, rebuking or otherwise denigrating the other to or in the presence or hearing of X and from permitting any other person so to do;
(b)discussing these Orders and/or any aspect of these proceedings with X or in her presence or within her hearing; and
(c)showing X any documents produced for the purposes of these proceedings, or leaving such documents in a place where X might reasonably come into contact with them.
19.Each party shall advise the other of any serious illness or injury suffered by X as soon as practicable following the onset of the illness or occurrence of the injury and shall provide sufficiently detailed information and any necessary authorities to allow the other parent to obtain information directly from any treating medical practitioners.
20.The Father do all things necessary to maintain X’s engagement with Ms AP of AQ Psychology for the purposes of therapeutic support and will follow all reasonable recommendations of Ms AP including but not limited to attendance and treatment.
21.All extant applications be dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE GLASS:
Mr Robb and Ms Harper are the parents of X, born in 2010. X is now 14 years old.
Mr Robb lives in City G. Ms Harper lives in Town O. It is approximately four hours’ drive between their residences.
Mr Robb has two children from a subsequent relationship, R and S. They are 11 and nine years old respectively. They live with Mr Robb approximately half of each fortnight.
Pursuant to final Orders made 11 August 2022 (“the Final Orders”), X lives with Mr Robb and was to spend time with Ms Harper on alternate weekends and for half school holidays. The Final Orders providing for X to spend time with Ms Harper were suspended pursuant to interim Orders made 3 June 2024.
Mr Robb now proposes that X continue to live with him, that he have sole parental responsibility for long-term decisions relating to X, that she communicate with Ms Harper via Zoom at least once per week, and spend increasing amounts of time with Ms Harper during school holiday periods. In the event Ms Harper fails to return X to Mr Robb at the conclusion of specified time, he proposes that the orders providing for X to thereafter spend time with her mother be discharged. The particulars of the relief sought are contained in Exhibit A1.
Mr Robb’s application is supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
Mr Robb and the Independent Children’s Lawyer rely on the following evidence:
·Affidavit of Mr Robb filed 14 October 2024 and the annexures thereto;
·Affidavit of Ms AR filed 16 October 2024;
·Family Report of Consultant Ms F dated 20 September 2024;
·The oral evidence of X’s school deputy principal, Ms AS; and
·Documents tendered into evidence during the hearing.
Ms Harper did not participate in the hearing. She failed to file documents as ordered prior to the final hearing. She was present in Court on 29 April 2024 when the matter was fixed for trial and trial directions were made. She was also present in Court on 3 June 2024 when oral reasons were delivered referring to the final hearing date.
Ms Harper is in default of her obligations to file documents pursuant to the directions made on 29 April 2024. I accordingly have a discretion to proceed on Mr Robb’s evidence.0F[1] I am required to exercise the power to do so in a way that facilitates the just resolution of disputes as quickly, inexpensively, and efficiently as possible.1F[2] I must also give effect to the principles of considering the impact of the conduct of the proceedings on X and proceeding without undue delay.2F[3] I am satisfied it is appropriate to proceed on Mr Robb’s and the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s evidence.
[1] Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 r 10.27.
[2] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 95.
[3] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 69ZN.
By failing to attend the hearing, Ms Harper did not avail herself of the opportunity to seek leave to rely on earlier material she had filed, cross-examine Mr Robb or his witnesses, or make submissions.
The evidence relied on was not the subject of any challenge by way of cross-examination. It is uncontradicted. Although I am not compelled to accept unchallenged or uncontradicted evidence, I am at liberty to accept all, some, or none of that evidence.3F[4] Mr Robb was cross-examined at length by the Independent Children’s Lawyer in August 2022, and I then found no reason to conclude that his evidence lacked reliability or credibility. No reason is now advanced why I should reject some or all of Mr Robb’s evidence. I accept the unchallenged and uncontradicted evidence he now adduces.
[4] Raymond & Raymond (2024) FLC 94-180 at [25] and the cases there cited.
The application falls to be determined by reference to Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). I am guided by the objects of that Part.4F[5] X’s best interests are the paramount consideration.5F[6] I am prohibited from reconsidering the Final Orders unless certain conditions are met.6F[7] In determining X’s best interests, I am to consider the matters prescribed by section 60CC of the Act.
[5] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 60B.
[6] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 60CA
[7] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 65DAAA.
Before turning to address those specific legislative considerations, it is convenient to chronologically consider the events that have transpired since the making of the Final Orders in August 2022.
Final Orders of 11 August 2022
After a five-day trial that commenced on 1 August 2022, I made final parenting Orders that provided for X to move from Ms Harper’s care to Mr Robb’s care. It was ordered that X spend no time with her mother for 10 weeks, before spending alternate weekend time for one night for a period of three months, then for two nights for a period of three months, with the addition thereafter of half of the school holiday periods. Ms Harper was specifically restrained from communicating with X unless explicitly provided for in the Orders.
In summary, I then made the following undisturbed findings:
·I rejected Ms Harper’s allegations of family violence during X’s lifetime, as well as her allegations of sexual abuse. I found there to be no unacceptable risk of harm attendant upon X spending time, or living with, her father.
·I found there to be no prospect of X having a meaningful relationship with both of her parents were she to continue to live primarily with her mother, in circumstances where Ms Harper had repeatedly failed to comply with Orders for X to spend time with her father since March 2012.
·I declined to place significant weight on X’s expressed desire to remain living with Ms Harper given she had previously reported positive experiences of her time with her father, the alignment of her views with her mother’s, and her prioritisation of her mother’s emotional wellbeing ahead of her own. I found their relationship to be likely enmeshed.
·I found Ms Harper’s capacity to provide for her daughter’s emotional needs to be very limited, and significantly exceeded by Mr Robb’s capacity to do so.
·I found X’s then trajectory of living with her mother to jeopardise her social and identity development, leaving her at risk of long-term mental health issues.
I will not here recite the detail underpinning those findings, which are explained in my reasons for judgment published on 11 August 2022. I will also not now repeat the history of the extensive failures in Ms Harper facilitating X’s relationship with her father, which are also set out in those reasons.
August 2022 to January 2024
Although X had lived with Ms Harper throughout her life and spent only very limited time with Mr Robb, she adapted well to the very significant change associated with commencing to live with her father. After the contact moratorium period, she moved between her mother’s and father’s residences without resistance or distress.
X grew increasingly open and comfortable with Mr Robb over time. Despite the paucity of time they had previously spent with each other, Mr Robb considers they now share “a normal father / daughter relationship”.7F[8] Whilst X was sad and worried at times, Mr Robb supported and cared for her, and she overall appeared happy and settled living with him. Mr Robb took X and her half-siblings to City AT during the school holidays. X enjoyed her time away. X was healthy and thriving in Mr Robb’s care.
[8] Affidavit of Mr Robb filed 14 October 2024, paragraph 46.
X’s school performance in 2023 was exemplary. She is reported to have been giving “maximum effort into all aspects of her learning and has demonstrated at or above the expected level in all subjects.”8F[9] She received academic awards for six subjects in semester one and for three subjects in semester two. She received six commendations throughout the year.
[9] Affidavit of Mr Robb filed 14 October 2024, page 55.
Ms AS otherwise reported that:
Upon her commencement at [AU School], [City G] in February 2023, [X] settled into secondary school routines quickly and established a strong friendship group. [AU School] staff find [X] to be a polite and friendly student who is eager to learn and to engage in class and school activities and events. She participates in a range of extracurricular activities and is demonstrating a strong passion and talent for music and the arts. [X] is a valued member of the [AU School City G] community.9F[10]
[10] Affidavit of Mr Robb filed 14 October 2024, page 56.
X was participating in extra-curricular activities. She was undertaking babysitting work with the family of a local community member.
Whilst there was some dispute between the parties about the interpretation of the Final Orders relating to the summer holiday time commencing in December 2022, X continued to thereafter spend time with Ms Harper as ordered.
In November 2023, Ms Harper’s sister attended X’s school and asked to pass a lunchbox to X with some food in it. School staff noted the lunchbox contained a hidden note from Ms Harper to X expressing concern for her welfare and imploring her to remain strong. A bundle of gifts containing similar notes were left on Mr Robb’s doorstep the day prior. Ms Harper’s attempts to communicate with X in that way were in breach of the Final Orders.
X’s school subsequently blocked Ms Harper and her family members from using the school’s Facebook page due to their misuse of that platform.
From 9 until 25 December 2023, X spent time with Ms Harper pursuant to the Final Orders. She thereafter returned to Mr Robb’s care. She was then her “normal, happy self” and her disposition was “unremarkable”.10F[11]
January to June 2024
[11] Affidavit of Mr Robb filed 14 October 2024, paragraph 52.
First Recovery Order
X spent time with Ms Harper pursuant to the Final Orders from 2 January 2024. She was due to be returned to her father on 16 January 2024. Ms Harper then failed to return X to her father’s care, thereby failing to comply with the Final Orders.
On 23 January 2024, an Order was made requiring Ms Harper to return X to Mr Robb at 12.00 pm on 24 January 2024.
Ms Harper arrived at Mr Robb’s home with X at 4.46 pm on 24 January 2024. X thereafter refused to leave the vehicle. Mr Robb was unable to persuade her to do so. Sometime after 11.30 pm that night, Ms Harper drove away with X still in her vehicle.
On 25 January 2024, a Recovery Order issued. Police executed that Order on 27 January 2024. X was returned to Mr Robb at 8.15 pm that day. X told Mr Robb she had been staying at a motel in City G with Ms Harper and her maternal aunt since 24 January 2024.
In the evening of 27 January 2024, in breach of Orders prohibiting communication with X, Ms Harper sent the following text messages to X:
Darling I want to and it is so distressing for me also not to be able to but if we do when you just got there it could make it worse. We need a little time to organise things for the next step. And the police are trying to help too. I do not even want to say that darling - that I can't come get you in this moment - I know it must feel unbearable because it is unbearable for me too and I feel sick and so angry to think that you are there feeling like this and I can't help you straight away.
Go to the police darling they want to help I feel so bad in my heart to not be able to get you darling
Darling you know in your heart that I want but if I do they will say I made you do it and if (sic) will go against us.11F[12]
[12] Affidavit of Mr Robb filed 14 October 2024, pages 111-112.
X thereafter absconded from Mr Robb’s residence. Ms Harper thereafter told police that X was in her vehicle. Despite further police involvement, Ms Harper failed to facilitate X’s return to Mr Robb. Police were thereafter again required to convey X to her father’s care, which ultimately occurred at approximately 10.50 am the following day.
Despite the events of the preceding days, X’s behaviour returned to normal, playing around, calling Mr Robb ‘Dad’, and spending time with her extended paternal family. She settled back into his care, was happy and healthy, and participated at school and in her extra-curricular activities. Ms AS observed her to appear “happy, smiling, laughing and enjoying the company of friends”.12F[13]
[13] Exhibit A2, page 4.
Second Recovery Order
X spent time with Ms Harper in April 2024. She was due to be returned on 21 April 2024 pursuant to the Final Orders. Ms Harper did not return X as ordered.
On 29 April 2024, the Court made a further Recovery Order.
In mid-2024, at the request of Victoria Police, Mr Robb attended the Town AL Police Station to collect X. Ms Harper failed to deliver X to the station as had been arranged. Police subsequently attended Ms Harper’s home and reported that X had run away into bushland. X was ultimately brought to the Town AV Police Station by police at approximately 6.50 pm. After an extended delay, during which time X was given cushions on which to lie in a room at the Station, she was finally released into Mr Robb’s custody at 2.50 am the following morning.
X missed nine days of school during the period she was overheld by Ms Harper. She missed a school workshop and the first day of her school camp.
Ms Harper’s sister requested the police conduct a welfare check on X at home the following day. Ms Harper requested the police conduct a welfare check on X at school in mid-2024.
In mid-2024, again in breach of the Final Orders, Ms Harper communicated with X via social media. She “told [X] on multiple occasions that she would call the police for her, discussed the Court proceedings and Court Orders with [X], and promised [X] that she would not disclose to anybody that they had been messaging.”13F[14]
[14] Affidavit of Mr Robb filed 14 October 2024, paragraph 105.
Police again attended Mr Robb’s home for a welfare check at 5.30 pm the following day. They subsequently attended again at 8.15 pm that evening and did not leave until 9.45 pm.
In the evening, Ms Harper’s niece Ms AW messaged X encouraging her to go the police and make a report about Mr Robb so that she could transition to Ms Harper’s care. When X told Ms AW that she would not be going to the police, X was encouraged to “make a run for it”, leave Mr Robb’s home and meet them at a park.14F[15] X did not do so, and stayed with her father that evening.
[15] Affidavit of Mr Robb filed 14 October 2024, paragraph 108.
In mid-2024, Ms Harper’s sister messaged X on multiple occasions asking her to leave Mr Robb’s home and meet them down a laneway. X did not do so.
Despite the disruptions over the preceding days, X engaged in typical activities with her extended paternal family members, including clothes shopping, playing games and going out with her cousins, affectionately interacting with her father, and sports activities. X was happy and settled in her father’s care over the following two weeks.
In mid-2024, police again undertook a welfare check on X at Mr Robb’s home. This was the fifth or sixth welfare check that had been requested. Later that day, Ms Harper requested yet another welfare check to be conducted on X. That request was refused. I accept Consultant Ms F’s opinion that her actions “could be considered systems abuse”.15F[16]
[16] Family Report, paragraph 46.
X’s abduction from school
In mid-2024, Mr Robb delivered X to school at 8.40 am. A male thereafter entered the school premises, intercepted X on her way to class, handed her a note, and encouraged her to make her way to a back entrance of the school, where she got into his vehicle and was driven away.
At 10.52 am, the school reported to Mr Robb that X was absent. Mr Robb thereafter tried to contact X without success. Location services on her mobile phone appeared to have been disabled.
Ms AS, spoke to Child Protection who advised that Ms Harper had contacted the authorities to advise that X was with her. At 11.48 am, Child Protection authorities called Mr Robb to advise that Ms Harper claimed to have X.
At around 2.00 pm, Mr Robb attended X’s school and watched the CCTV footage of the incident, along with members of Victoria Police.
That evening, police re-executed the Recovery Order made 29 April 2024. Ms Harper delivered X to the Town AV Police Station. She was then driven in a police car for approximately four hours, before being returned to Mr Robb at 12.45 am the following morning.
X thereafter settled back into life in Mr Robb’s home. She engaged in typical activities with her father and half-siblings and spent time with a friend.
Ms Harper encouraging X to abscond
On 3 June 2024, interim Orders were made suspending the Final Orders that provided for X to spend time with Ms Harper. Ms Harper was also, again, restrained from contacting X.
In June 2024, X spoke to Ms Harper for her weekly Zoom contact. She was thereafter tired and distressed.
The following day, Ms Harper sent X several messages encouraging her to abscond from her father’s care. She also sent her a train timetable.
At 3.50 pm, X asked Mr Robb to go for a walk with a friend, which consent was forthcoming. She did not return home at 5.00 pm as was agreed. She was not contactable on her mobile phone. Mr Robb thereafter established that X had not spent time with that friend that afternoon.
At 6.00 pm, Mr Robb made a report to police who informed him they would assist to try to locate X.
The following morning, no information had been provided by Ms Harper to Child Protection authorities or the Independent Children’s Lawyer as to X’s whereabouts.
At 2.31 pm, an email was sent by a person purporting to be an “advocate” for Ms Harper to police, the Court, and the Independent Children’s Lawyer. It claimed that the “advocate” had been informed by Ms Harper that X was safe.
At 7.00 pm, police reported to Mr Robb they had been unsuccessful in contacting Ms Harper, that they hadn’t been able to get any sense out of the “advocate”, and Ms Harper’s sister had denied knowing X’s whereabouts.
At 7.30 pm, police reported to Mr Robb that they had X in their custody and would be taking her to the Town AV Police Station. Police again executed the Recovery Order and returned X to her father’s care in City G at 4.15 am two days later.
Despite X’s school attendance for Semester One being only 80.86 per cent, primarily due to periods when Ms Harper retained X in her care contrary to the Final Orders, X nevertheless received several school commendations during the semester. Her behaviour was described by her homeroom mentor as “consistently outstanding”.16F[17]
[17] Affidavit of Mr Robb filed 14 October 2024, page 58.
Mid to late 2024
In mid-2024, Mr Robb applied for an Intervention Order for himself and X. Three days later, an interim Intervention Order was made protecting X and Mr Robb. Its conditions included restraints on Ms Harper contacting or communicating with them, approaching or remaining within five metres of them, going to, or remaining within 200 metres of Mr Robb’s residence, or getting another person to do so.
Since the making of the interim Intervention Order, there have been no further incidents or attempts to remove X from Mr Robb’s care. X’s life has calmed down in her father’s household. Despite regular police welfare checks requested by Ms Harper, X is settled, happy, well cared for, and doing well in Mr Robb’s care.
X is busy in her father’s household, and has participated in the following particular activities in his care:
·X made cookies and did some arts and crafts.
·X, R and S went to the movies. They played cards with their father that evening. The next morning, X made breakfast before the family went to a lake. They played games that afternoon.
·X attended a disco.
·In mid-2024, X accompanied her father, paternal uncle, and his family to Queensland where they went to theme parks and spent time at the beach, ate meals together and rode bikes.
·X spent time with her friend AY. The next day she and her cousins attended a two-hour art class.
·In mid-2024, Mr Robb took X and her cousins ten pin bowling. The next day X went to her friend’s house and accompanied her friend’s family to the movies.
·Around this time, X commenced a paid job feeding a neighbour’s pet.
·X spent time practicing magic tricks, watched a movie with her father, made biscuits, and showed her father dances she had learned.
·X and S put on a dance show in the lounge room before the children had a movie night and slept in that room. The next morning, the children made pancakes for breakfast.
·Mr Robb assisted X to prepare a video for a school sports competition.
·X made breakfast before going bowling with a friend.
·Mr Robb and X went to the beach together, before stopping at a shop on the way home. X cooked dinner that evening.
·X and a friend went shopping together.
·X showed Mr Robb some dance routines she had created.
·Mr Robb and X went op shopping to buy sports clothes for her training later that day.
·X spoke with a on the phone and did some baking.
·X spoke with her father about her worries for her sports event the following day.
·X, S and R had a movie night and slept in the lounge room.
·X and her half-siblings made individual cards and hand-made gifts for Mr Robb for Father’s Day. X picked flowers to put on the table for dinner.
·In late 2024, X spent time with a friend after school, before showing Mr Robb a dance performance.
·X and R went to a disco . They joined a friend there.
·X and her half-siblings created their own board games with Mr Robb.
·Mr Robb, X and her cousins went out for dinner.
·Mr Robb took X, her half siblings, and a cousin, to the zoo for X’s birthday.
·X had a sleep over with her cousins. They went to the pool and did some shopping together. The next day, Mr Robb took X and a cousin to the beach.
·X spent time with a friend shopping. The next day, she went to another friend’s house before playing a game together.
·Mr Robb and X caught up with extended family .
·Mr Robb and X bought pets.
·Mr Robb regularly takes X to a local restaurant after her counselling sessions with Ms AP.
·X has babysat on several occasions.
In the period since mid-2024, X has again excelled at school. She was selected by her classroom teacher to put a story she had written forward in an oratory competition. Her English teacher reports that X is exceptional and should consider studying literature in Year 12. X’s school reported to Child Protection authorities that she engages “fine at school, and is happy, social and engaged with learning”.17F[18] Ms AS reports that X’s mentor and year level coordinator have advised that “[X] is doing well” and “they have no concerns to report”.18F[19] She continues to do well academically, with her learning tasks being marked “with maximum effort”.19F[20]
[18] Affidavit of Mr Robb filed 14 October 2024, page 165.
[19] Exhibit A2, paragraph 20.
[20] Exhibit A2, paragraph 20.
In the same period, X has participated in her extra-curricular activities. She has travelled with her school. She was pleased with her school performance in mid-2024. She has received commendations for her participation and her confidence in public speaking has improved.
Ms AS gives evidence that X “seems happy and engaged with the [school] community”,20F[21] smiling and enjoying the company of peers during break times. She also gives evidence that X’s teachers “all report that she models excellent behaviour in class, gets on well with her peers, and is engaged in her learning. This is especially so in performing arts classes and activities.”21F[22]
[21] Exhibit A2, paragraph 23.
[22] Exhibit A2, paragraph 23.
Reconsideration of final parenting orders
Pursuant to subsection 65DAAA(1) of the Act, I must not reconsider a final parenting order unless I have considered whether there has been a significant change of circumstances since the making of the Final Orders, and I am satisfied that, in all the circumstances (and taking into account whether there has been a significant change of circumstances since the final parenting order was made), it is in the best interests of X for the Final Orders to be reconsidered. Subsection 65DAAA(2) of the Act prescribes a number of matters to which I may have regard.
Subsection 65DAAA(3) of the Act provides that I may reconsider a final parenting order with the agreement or consent of all the parties to that order. In my reasons for the interim determination on 3 June 2024, I noted the parties’ agreement that the Court should reconsider the final parenting Orders. At that time, all parties prosecuted applications for new parenting Orders to be made. I am not satisfied that Ms Harper’s failure to prosecute her application at final hearing amounts to her resiling from that agreement. She told Consultant Ms F on 29 August 2024 that she proposed X live with her in Town O and spend time with Mr Robb according to her wishes, contrary to the Final Orders.
If I am wrong in the conclusion expressed in the previous paragraph, I am satisfied that there has been a significant change in circumstances since the Final Orders. Ms Harper has, since January 2024, demonstrated a repeated inability to comply with those Orders. Police have been required to convey X from one side of the State to the other on several occasions in the middle of the night to return to her father. Ms Harper has facilitated X’s abduction from her father’s care by a third party. Ms Harper has encouraged X to run away from her father’s residence.
I accept Consultant Ms F’s evidence and opinion that:
At present, the only successful method of returning [X] to [Mr Robb] following any spend time with [Ms Harper] requires the assistance of Police which is problematic for a range of reasons. This approach is an impractical and unsustainable long-term solution for [X] and could create negative associations with authority figures, creating vulnerabilities for [X] in the future.22F[23]
[23] Family Report, paragraph 50.
It is in X’s best interests for the Final Orders to be reconsidered to minimise the risk of her further exposure to such incidents.
What arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of X and each person who has the care of her (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for her)
From May to July 2024, Child Protection conducted an investigation, interviewing X and her parents and gathering information from a variety of professionals. The Department concluded:
As a result of this investigation, Child Protection made the decision to substantiate harm on [X] pursuant to Section 162 (1) (e) of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005. This means that Child Protection have assessed [X] to be at risk of significant emotional harm due to the mother's behaviour.23F[24]
[24] Affidavit of Mr Robb filed 14 October 2024, page 165.
Concerns identified by the Department included Ms Harper’s role in encouraging X to leave her father’s care and orchestrating X to be collected from his care.
As the Independent Children’s Lawyer identified, the relevant section under which significant emotional harm was assessed by the authority is in the following terms:
(1) For the purposes of this Act a child is in need of protection if any of the following grounds exist –
…
(e) the child has suffered, or is likely to suffer, emotional or psychological harm of such a kind that the child's emotional or intellectual development is, or is likely to be, significantly damaged and the child's parents have not protected, or are unlikely to protect, the child from harm of that type;24F[25]
[25] Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic), s 162.
It is thereby the assessment of the Department that Ms Harper’s conduct in encouraging X to abscond from her father’s care and orchestrating her collection from his care leaves X at risk of significant emotional harm, such that her emotional or intellectual development is, or is likely to be, significantly damaged, and Ms Harper has not protected, or is unlikely to protect her, from harm of that type.
Child Protection made the following recommendations:
In the interest of addressing the protective concerns, it is recommended [Ms Harper] engage with mental health services for the purpose of a mental health assessment and follow recommendations made, abide by conditions of the current Family Violence Intervention Order and Family Law Court Order. The mother and father to engage in family violence services, for assessment and develop insight into their own individual behaviour impacting [X] and [X] must be supported to continue engage in therapeutic intervention due to her experience of harm.25F[26]
[26] Affidavit of Mr Robb filed 14 October 2024, page 165.
There is no evidence of Ms Harper engaging in any recommended mental health assessment, treatment, or family violence service. I have previously made undisturbed findings about Ms Harper’s lack of capacity to provide for X’s emotional needs. There is no evidence to suggest she has developed any insight into her behaviour.
Conversely, Child Protection assessed “there are no identified protective concerns for [X] in her father’s care that she has raised that would warrant further Child Protection Intervention”. 26F[27] When X met with Consultant Ms F, she provided “no indication that she felt unsafe in her father’s care”,27F[28] nor did she report anything which indicated risk factors in their relationship.
[27] Affidavit of Mr Robb filed 14 October 2024, page 165.
[28] Family Report, paragraph 34.
Child Protection’s Case Plan of mid-2024 identified that X will live with Mr Robb and have contact with Ms Harper with supervision once per week.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer’s enquiries with relevant authorities and X’s counsellor revealed no suggestion that X is at risk in Mr Robb’s care. They also revealed that X is thriving in her father’s care. Through her Counsel, the Independent Children’s Lawyer appropriately commended Mr Robb for his commitment and continued dedication to ensure that X is cared for.
Any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving X or a person caring for her (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for X)
I have previously made undisturbed findings rejecting Ms Harper’s allegations of family violence and abuse during X’s life.
Neglect is not a term defined by the Act. The Macquarie Dictionary relevantly defines it to mean “to pay no attention to; disregard”, or “to be remiss in the care for or treatment of”.28F[29] Ms Harper’s actions in repeatedly failing to return X to Mr Robb’s care, encouraging her to abscond from his care, and arranging for her abduction from school, resulting in X being repeatedly conveyed by police across the State, is emotionally neglectful of her daughter in the relevant sense. As Consultant Ms F opines, the abduction “raises serious concerns for [Ms Harper] (sic) ability to consider [X]’s wellbeing.”29F[30] More generally, Ms Harper’s behaviour over the last 12 months “has been highly destabilising for [X]”.30F[31]
[29] Macquarie Dictionary (online at 14 November 2024) ‘neglect’ (def 1,2).
[30] Family Report, paragraph 55.
[31] Family Report, paragraph 59.
I find Ms Harper to have emotionally neglected X by her actions between January and June 2024.
Any family violence order that applies or has applied to X or a member of her family
In my reasons delivered on 11 August 2022, I set out a history of Intervention Orders prior to that time. I will not here repeat that history.
In mid-2024, Victoria Police made an application for an Intervention Order on behalf of X against Mr Robb based on false allegations. In mid-2024, an ex parte interim Order was made, protecting X, restraining Mr Robb from committing family violence against her, or intentionally damaging any of her property or threatening to do so. A notation to that Order is in the following terms:
I have refused to make any order pursuant to s68r Family Law Act there being insufficient evidence warranting the making of such an order. I refuse to make any order affecting the Recovery Order granted by the Federal Circuit Court (sic) on 29 April 2024.31F[32]
[32] Affidavit of Mr Robb filed 14 October 2024, page 50.
It was an agreed fact in these proceedings that the police application for X’s protection from Mr Robb has been withdrawn.
I have referred already to Mr Robb’s application made 14 June 2024 for an Intervention Order protecting himself and X from Ms Harper, and the ex parte interim Order made on 17 June 2024. The application is listed for contested hearing on 12 December 2024.
Any views expressed by X
Child Protection report that X was “clear in advising she wishes to reside in the primary care of her mother”.32F[33] It was nevertheless not their recommendation that X live with Ms Harper. On the contrary, they record that “[X] will live in parental care, with [Mr Robb]” and have weekly supervised contact with Ms Harper.33F[34]
[33] Affidavit of Mr Robb filed 14 October 2024, page 164.
[34] Affidavit of Mr Robb filed 14 October 2024, page 164.
X met with Consultant Ms F on 22 August 2024. She emotively and resolutely stated that she “doesn’t want to live with her father and wants to return to living with her mother in [Town O].”34F[35] She claimed to have been under the impression that she would be returning to her mother’s care at some stage.
[35] Family Report, paragraph 36.
Despite the adamance of X’s views expressed to Consultant Ms F, there were curiosities about the way in which she expressed those views. She “became upset when explanations for her opinion were sought”, before that distress resolving “quickly and readily when the discussion was redirected to benign topics”.35F[36] X was unable to explain or detail her statement that the best thing about her mother was “everything”.36F[37]
[36] Family Report, paragraph 6.
[37] Family Report, paragraph 39.
X’s views were expressed in the context of her narrative not being aligned “with actual events”.37F[38] Consultant Ms F reports that:
[X] only provided negative commentary when discussing her relationship with her younger half siblings, [R] and [S], stating that they argue all the time. She stated that the boys play together sometimes but she doesn’t join them, and she tells them to go away.38F[39]
That commentary is inconsistent with X’s behaviour with her half siblings in Mr Robb’s care, involving them in her activities, and enjoying cordial and warm sibling relationships.
[38] Family Report, paragraph 6.
[39] Family Report, paragraph 38.
Also inconsistent with actual events, was X telling Consultant Ms F that she had “a few close friends but stated that they don’t connect together outside of school.”39F[40] X regularly spends time outside of school with her friends, particular examples of which have already been discussed.
[40] Family Report, paragraph 38.
Consultant Ms F asked X to describe the best thing about her father, to which she responded “nothing”, before ultimately conceding he “buys [supermarket] meals”.40F[41] Her reports in that respect are also divorced from the reality of her enjoying her time with her father, including holidaying with him, undertaking particular activities with him, baking, preparing Father’s Day gifts, seeking his assistance in preparing videos, and seeking his support when she was nervous about an upcoming performance.
[41] Family Report, paragraph 40.
X’s views were also expressed in the context of her purporting to be “unable to recall things”.41F[42] She professed to have no recollection of the Court facilities that were used to facilitate the change in her primary residence from her mother’s to her father’s care in August 2022. She claimed to have no recollection of the circumstances of her last spending time with her mother, which had occurred only two months’ prior, in June 2024. Consultant Ms F made several attempts to “ascertain her perspective of most recent interactions she has had with her mother, however [X] maintained that she was unable to recall any recent time.”42F[43]
[42] Family Report, paragraph 6.
[43] Family Report, paragraph 39.
Consultant Ms F opined that one possible reason for X failing to recall recent events was her “trying to protect her mother”, realising that some her mother’s recent actions “could be perceived in a negative light”.43F[44]
[44] Family Report, paragraph 52.
Consultant Ms F ultimately reported that:
At the conclusion of the interview, [X] summarised a strong wish to live with her mother but exploring why was too difficult because she reported that her “feelings get in the way”.44F[45]
[45] Family Report, paragraph 41.
It is thereby clear that X was essentially unable to articulate the reasons why she expressed the preference that she did to live with her mother. I am accordingly unable to assess whether her views are “soundly based and founded upon proper considerations”.45F[46]
[46] Doyle & Doyle (1992) FLC 92-286 at 79,128 and the cases there cited, quoted with approval in H v W (1995) FLC 92-598 at 81,946-7 per Fogarty & Kay JJ.
X refused to meet with the Independent Children’s Lawyer. The Independent Children’s Lawyer was not required to meet with X in those circumstances.46F[47] X nevertheless had a brief interaction with the Independent Children’s Lawyer after her meeting with Consultant Ms F.
[47] Family Law Act 1975, s 68LA(5B)(b).
It is to be recalled that I determined in August 2022 to place limited weight on X’s views. Although X is now two years’ older, and her developmental needs have changed, I now reach the same conclusion.
Consultant Ms F observes, and I accept, that against the previously identified background of X’s relationship with mother being likely enmeshed, which in and of itself is detrimental to her emotional and psychological development, X continues not to be protected from her mother’s views about her father.
I also accept Consultant Ms F’s opinion that:
[X] has made statements that would suggest she may be purposely providing her mother with information that she knows will elicit an emotional response from her. This aligns with previous findings that [X] and her mother have an enmeshed relationship.47F[48]
It is also possible that the views expressed by X about her living arrangements are a product of her providing information she knows will elicit an emotional responsible from her mother. So much is consistent with Consultant Ms F’s opinion that X “seemed to be attuned to what others think and expect from her and she behaved accordingly”.48F[49]
[48] Family Report, paragraph 56.
[49] Family Report, paragraph 7.
Whilst X’s views have been decisively expressed, she has not unilaterally acted upon them. Her previous refusal to return to her father and her absconding from his care were all precipitated by communication with Ms Harper. With the minimisation of that communication, the absconding behaviour has ceased. However firmly X expresses her views, she has not acted upon them of her own volition despite having the facility, at the age of 14 years, to do so. She has refused to attend upon police at her mother’s suggestion to seek to return to Ms Harper’s care.
Consultant Ms F did not ultimately recommend that X’s views be decisive. She recommended that X live with one of her parents and spend half the school holidays with the other.
The developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of X
Ms Harper’s neglect of her daughter’s emotional needs is deleteriously impacting upon X’s development, and her psychological, emotional and cultural needs.
Consultant Ms F opines that, given the findings I have made, Ms Harper’s behaviour in orchestrating X’s abduction and absconding behaviour “suggests a very concerning escalation of risky parenting choices that will likely have deleterious impacts on [X] as she acquires moral and ethical reasoning skills during this important developmental stage.”49F[50]
[50] Family Report, paragraph 59.
I also accept Consultant Ms F’s opinion that:
It is generally the role of parents to support children to understand the importance of honesty and integrity however when children get caught in the middle of their parent’s dispute, mistruths told by children to their parents about the other parent can have dire consequences, especially if one or both parents are unable to consider their child may require additional parenting support to adjust this behaviour. [Mr Robb] appears aware that this is a possibility and is reportedly seeking support in this regard however [Ms Harper] is reluctant to consider this. Not addressing this behavioural issue could result in negative outcomes with peers and could create vulnerabilities for [X] in the future.50F[51]
[51] Family Report, paragraph 52.
Mr Robb is accordingly the only parent who is able to address the issue identified by Consultant Ms F. As she opines, failure to do so will result in negative outcomes with peers and could create vulnerabilities for X.
I also accept Ms AP’s opinion expressed on 20 May 2024, that:
… the inconsistencies in the current plans regarding [X]’s living arrangements has seen a high-level anxiety in [X]. Any ongoing level of uncertainty, inconsistency, and lack of routine may see [X] develop an anxiety disorder.51F[52]
[52] Affidavit of Mr Robb filed 14 October 2024, page 64.
It is Ms Harper who has created the uncertainty, inconsistency and lack of routine that may result in X developing an anxiety order. Despite the issue of that report, Ms Harper subsequently arranged for X to be abducted from school and encouraged her to abscond from her father’s care.
The capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for X to provide for her developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs
Ms Harper lacks the capacity to provide for her daughter’s emotional and psychological needs. Indeed, she has neglected those needs by her conduct.
Conversely, Mr Robb has provided X an environment where she is happy and busy. She performs well at school and is keenly engaged in extra-curricular activities.
Mr Robb has provided for X’s psychological needs. He facilitated her attendance upon a counsellor, Ms AX, until August 2023, as well as family therapist, Ms B. Since October 2023, Mr Robb has facilitated X’s attendance upon Ms AP. X has reported that Ms AP is her favourite counsellor. In her father’s care, X has also been assisted by her school psychologist and the student wellbeing services worker.
Mr Robb has appropriately encouraged X to go to the dentist, by suggesting that he would get something for her if she did so.
I accept Consultant Ms F’s opinion that X has “seemingly experienced a safe, supportive and relatively uneventful life whilst in [Mr Robb]’s care”.52F[53] I also accept her opinion that his “ability to commit to [X] is commendable under circumstances where his parenting has been seemingly scrutinised, criticised and undermined.”53F[54]
The benefit to X of being able to have a relationship with her parents, and other people who are significant to her, where it is safe to do so
[53] Family Report, paragraph 54.
[54] Family Report, paragraph 57.
In August 2022, I concluded that, whilst untested, Mr Robb very likely had the capacity to facilitate X having a meaningful relationship with both of her parents. That confidence was well-placed. Mr Robb has facilitated X spending time with Ms Harper pursuant to Orders. He has also promoted X’s relationship with her mother beyond what is required by the Orders. Mr Robb helped X wrap a present for Ms Harper’s birthday and send it to her. He suggested X give her mother a call for her birthday, which she did. On X’s birthday, Mr Robb facilitated X speaking to Ms Harper while she opened gifts received from her mother.
In August 2022, I also concluded that there was no prospect of X having a relationship with Mr Robb were she to live primarily with Ms Harper. Subsequent events fortify that conclusion. Ms Harper has continued to repeatedly demonstrate her inability to comply with the Court’s Orders, both in terms of X’s living arrangements, and her communication with her. I have no confidence that she would facilitate X spending time with Mr Robb were X to live with her. Indeed, she makes no proposal for that to occur.
Anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of X
Consultant Ms F opines that if “[X] remains living with her father, it is likely that litigation will continue, resulting in ongoing involvement from the authorities.”54F[55] I am not so satisfied. Since the making of the interim Intervention Order on 14 June 2024, there has been an abatement in the involvement of the authorities whilst X has continued to live with Mr Robb. Whilst police have been enlisted to undertake welfare checks, they have not again been required to execute the Court’s Recovery Orders. Child Protection were expecting to close their case prior to 4 September 2024.
[55] Family Report, paragraph 65.
Without Ms Harper encouraging X to abscond, failing to return her at the conclusion of scheduled time, or orchestrating her abduction, X has been settled into the care of Mr Robb without the need for the intervention of authorities.
There is certainly a relatively high risk that any further time between X and her mother will lead to further episodes of X needing to be recovered by police. However, the proposal by Mr Robb and the Independent Children’s Lawyer for the discharge of any orders providing for such time to occur after such an eventuality, in my determination, adequately addresses that risk.
X is not an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child.
CONCLUSIONS
Because Ms Harper has not prosecuted her application for X to live with her, what arises for determination is the joint proposal advanced by Mr Robb and the Independent Children’s Lawyer. It is nevertheless well-established that I am not bound by that proposal.55F[56] Indeed, I am obliged to consider making orders that fall outside those parameters where the proposal does not meet X’s best interests.56F[57] The question accordingly arising is whether Mr Robb’s proposal is in X’s best interests. I am satisfied that it is.
[56] U & U (2002) 211 CLR 238 at [80] per Gummow and Callinan JJ.
[57] Gabbey & Cadriel (2024) FLC 94-184 at [74] and the cases there cited.
Were X to live with Ms Harper in Town O, I accept Consultant Ms F’s opinion that “it is highly unlikely that [Ms Harper] would promote a relationship with [Mr Robb], [S], [R], or any of the friends she has made in [City G], and she would likely lose the support of the psychologist she has worked with for some time.”57F[58] I also accept her opinion that in that event, “there seems to be no avenue available for [X] to have a relationship with her father, aside from some peripheral communication.”58F[59] There is no basis in the evidence upon which to conclude otherwise. Ms Harper’s repeated non-compliance with the Court’s Orders, undermining of those Orders, along with orchestrating X’s abduction and absconding behaviour amply support the conclusion.
[58] Family Report, paragraph 62.
[59] Family Report, paragraph 63.
Given all the present indications of a continued enmeshed relationship between X and Ms Harper despite her having lived with Mr Robb for more than two years, I also accept Consultant Ms F’s prognostication that “[i]f [X] lived with her mother in [Town O], the enmeshed relationship between them would likely continue,”59F[60] which “may be detrimental to her emotional and psychological development.”60F[61]
[60] Family Report, paragraph 62.
[61] Family Report, paragraph 54.
X’s needs are being met by Mr Robb. He is attending to her education, extra-curricular activities, social needs, and psychological and emotional development. X’s emotional needs have been neglected by her mother. Ms Harper’s capacity to provide for X’s emotional development is substantially compromised.
X’s expressed view is but one consideration to be taken into account in the overall assessment of her best interests.61F[62] I am not satisfied it should be elevated to a decisive status contrary to the other findings I have made.
[62] Bondelmonte & Bondelmonte (2017) 259 CLR 662 at [34] per Kiefel, Bell, Keane, Nettle and Gordon JJ.
X’s best interests remain served by living with Mr Robb.
It is proposed that X continue to communicate with Ms Harper each Sunday and at other times as may be agreed. So much is consistent with extant arrangements. The evidence satisfies me they continue to be in X’s best interests.
Mr Robb and the Independent Children’s Lawyer propose that X spend time with Ms Harper during school holiday periods, initially for day periods in City G, increasing gradually to half school holiday periods from the summer holidays commencing at the conclusion of 2025. The proposal for holiday time is broadly consistent with Consultant Ms F’s recommendation. I am satisfied it is in X’s best interests. I reach the same conclusion with respect to the injunctive relief supporting the location of the first series of visits.
It is nevertheless not in X’s best interests to continue to be exposed to recovery by police in the event Ms Harper fails to return X to her father’s care. In the event she again does so, it is proposed that orders for all subsequent time between X and her mother be discharged. I am satisfied that the undesirability of X continuing to be exposed to police recovery outweighs what would otherwise be the benefit to her of spending ordered time with Ms Harper. I accordingly conclude the proposal to be in X’s best interests. It will be a matter for Ms Harper whether she is able to prioritise compliance with the Orders so as to ensure X can continue to spend time with her.
I continue to be satisfied that it is in X’s best interests for her father to have sole parental responsibility for her. So much is also consistent with Consultant Ms F’s recommendation.
Mr Robb and the Independent Children’s Lawyer seek to restrain Ms Harper from spending time, communicating, or attempting to communicate with X other than provided for in the orders sought. That order was proposed in Mr Robb’s Amended Initiating Application filed on 27 May 2024. Although Mr Robb thereafter successfully applied for an Intervention Order with respect to the same matter, because the proceedings had previously been instituted in this Court, he is not precluded from prosecuting his application here, by virtue of section 114AB of the Act.62F[63] Despite my reservations about the efficacy of the relief sought, given Ms Harper’s repeated failure to comply with it, I am tolerably satisfied it is in X’s best interests for the injunction to be made.
[63] Blesing & Blesing [2021] FedCFamC1F 230 at [58].
Absent any contrary submissions, I am satisfied that the other relief sought by Mr Robb and the Independent Children’s Lawyer providing for a changeover location, party communication, restraints on denigration, exposure of X to the proceedings, the exchange of information about any illness suffered by X, and her continued attendance upon Ms AP, are all in her best interests.
To avoid any uncertainty arising from the discharge of interim Orders upon the making of final orders,63F[64] I will specifically provide for the Recovery Order made 29 April 2024 to continue in full force and effect, noting that it is extant for a period of 12 months from the date it came into effect.64F[65]
[64] Keskin & Keskin & Anor (2019) FLC 93-932 at[31] and the cases there cited.
[65] Family Law Act 1975, s 67W.
I will otherwise dismiss all extant proceedings, noting that does preclude any application for costs being pursued.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and thirty-three (133) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Glass. Associate:
Dated: 22 November 2024
0
3
3