Rowe and Helbig

[2013] FCCA 319

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ROWE & HELBIG [2013] FCCA 319

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – primary issues resolved by consent – court required to determine discrete issues – significant conflictual relationship between parents – no question of principle.

Legislation:  
Family Law Act 1975, ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA and Part VII

Goode and Goode [2006] FamCA 1346
MRR v. GRR [2010] HCA 4
Collu & Rinaldo [2010] FamCAFC 53
Mazorski v Albright[2007] FamCA 520
McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92

Applicant: MR ROWE

Respondent: MS HELBIG

File Number: PAC 5421 of 2010

Judgment of: Judge Foster

Hearing dates: 13, 14 & 15 May 2013

Date of Last Submission: 15 May 2013

Delivered at: Wollongong

Delivered on: 21 May 2013

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Barnett

Solicitors for the Applicant: Pryor Tzannes & Wallis

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Petrie

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ian Harper & Co

Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Legal Aid NSW Newcastle

ORDERS

1. That all previous orders in relation to parenting be discharged.

2. That the mother and father have equal shared parental responsibility for the children [X] born [in] 2005 and [Y] born [in] 2008.

3. That the children live with the mother.

4. That the children spend time with the father as agreed between the mother and father and in default of agreement as follows:

   (a)During school term:

   (i)Until the commencement of school term 2014 in a two-week cycle:

   A.In week one from after-school Wednesday (or 3:30 PM if not a school day) until 7:00 PM provided that the children shall have their evening meal with the father before they are returned to the mother and thereafter from after-school Friday (or 3:30 PM if not a school day) until Sunday at 5:00 PM; and

   B.In week two from after-school Wednesday (or 3:30 PM if not a school day) until 7:00 PM provided that the children shall have their evening meal with the father before they are returned to the mother.

   (ii)From the commencement of school term 2014 in a two-week cycle:

   A.In week one from after-school Friday (or 3:30 PM if not a school day) until before school Monday (or 9:00 AM if not a school day); and

   B.In week two from after-school Thursday (or 3:30 PM if not a school day) until Friday before school (or 9:00 AM if not a school day).

   (b)During school holidays:

   (i)In 2013:

   A.During the Term 2 and Term 3 school holiday periods for a period of four consecutive nights starting from the last day of school term from the conclusion of school until the fifth day at 4:30 PM; and

   B.During the Christmas school holiday periods for three separate blocks of four consecutive nights on dates to be agreed between the mother and father and if there is no agreement starting on the last day of school from after-school until the fifth day at 4:30 PM, then starting on 2 January at 10:00 AM until 6 January at 4:30 PM and then for four consecutive nights preceding the first day of term one from 10:00 AM on the commencing day until before school on the first day of school term.

   (ii)In 2014:

   A.During the Term 1, 2 and 3 school holiday periods for a period of five consecutive nights, starting from the last day of school term from the conclusion of school  until the sixth day at 4:30 PM; and

   B.During the Christmas school holiday periods for three separate blocks of five consecutive nights on dates to be agreed between the mother and father and, if there is no agreement, starting on the last day of school from after-school until the sixth day at 4:30 PM, then starting on 2 January at 10:00 AM until 7 January at 4:30 PM and then for five consecutive nights preceding the first day of term one from 10:00 AM on the commencing day until before school on the first day of school term.

   (iii)Thereafter from the commencement of school term in 2015:

   A.During the term 1, 2 and 3 school holiday periods for half of all of the school holiday periods as agreed between the mother and father and if there is no agreement for the first half in odd numbered years starting on the last day of school from after-school and ending at 4:30 PM on the midpoint of the school holiday period and for the second half in even numbered years starting at 10:00 AM on the midpoint day of the school holiday period and ending before school on the first day of the next school term; and

   B.During the Christmas school holiday periods for half of all of the school holiday period as agreed between the mother and father and if there is no agreement for the first week and every alternate week thereafter starting from after-school and ending at 4:30 PM one week later in odd-numbered years and for the second week and every alternate week thereafter starting at 10:00 AM in week one and ending at 4:30 PM one week later in the even numbered years.

   (c)On the Father’s Day weekend from after-school Friday (or 3:30 PM if not a school day) until Monday before school provided always that the father’s time pursuant to this order shall otherwise be suspended on the Mother’s Day weekend from after-school Friday until before school Monday.

5. That in the event that the children are living with the mother for the last weekend of the school holiday period, then the children are to spend time with their father for the first weekend of school term and accordingly the first week of the school term is “week one” pursuant to orders made above.

6. That in the event that the children are spending time with their father during the last weekend of the school holiday period, then the children are to be living with their mother for the first weekend of the school term and accordingly the first week of the school term is “week two” pursuant to orders made above.

7. That at Christmas, the arrangements for the children pursuant to these orders are suspended so as to provide that the children spend time with the parents as follows:

   (a)With the father from Christmas Eve at 9:00 AM until Boxing Day at 6:00 PM in even numbered years; and

   (b)

   With the mother from Christmas Eve at 9:00 AM until Boxing Day at 6:00 PM in odd numbered years.

   
   
   

8. That on each of the children’s birthday’s, the mother and the father are each to spend four hours time with the children, as agreed between the mother and father and, in default of agreement, the children are to spend time with the parent who the child is not already with from after-school (or 3:30 PM if not a school day) until 7:30 PM.

9. That in the event that the Easter Holiday period falls wholly outside school holiday periods then the children shall spend time with the mother and father as follows:

   (a)With the father from after-school on the last day prior to the Easter break until before school on the day immediately following the Easter break in odd-numbered years; and

   (b)With the mother from after-school on the last day prior to the Easter break until before school on the day immediately following the Easter break in even numbered years.

10. That the children’s time with the father, starting or ending on school days, is to be facilitated by the father, or his agent known to the children, collecting the children from their school at the start of that time and the father, or his agent known to the children, delivering the children to their school at the end of that time.

11. That the children’s time with the father, starting or ending on non-school days, is to be facilitated by the mother, or her agent known to the children, delivering the children to the father or, his agent known to the children, at [omitted], or such other location as agreed between the mother and father in writing,  at the start of the children’s time with the father and the father or his agent known to the children delivering the children to the mother or her agent known to the children at that same place or such other location as agreed between the mother and father in writing at the end of the children’s time with the father.

12. That the mother be restrained by injunction from permitting the maternal grandparents from attending or being in the near vicinity of changeovers or attending at the child [X]’s specialist medical appointments in respect of which the father is to attend.

13. That in the event that the father is unable to spend time with the children, the father is to notify the mother at least 48 hours it advance of such time, or as soon as practicable in the event of ill-health or emergency, with such notification where practicable to be by an SMS or e-mail communication.

14. That the mother and father are each restrained by injunction from discussing these court proceedings or the arrangements for the children’s time with the other parent during the changeovers in relation to the children provided always that the mother and father are permitted to discuss management of [X]’s diabetes.

15. That the mother and father each purchase at least one school and sports uniform for each of the children, and such uniforms shall not be regarded as the property of either parent but for the use of the children.

16. That the children are to communicate with the father by telephone on Tuesdays, during the time the children are with the mother, between 6:00 PM and 7:00 PM, with such telephone communication to be facilitated by the father calling the mother’s mobile telephone number, and with the mother to facilitate the children speaking on the telephone to the father, provided always that the mother is to provide the children with privacy during their conversation with the father and use her best endeavours to ensure that any other person in a household does the same.

17. That the children are to communicate with the mother by telephone on the Saturdays, during the time the children are with the father, between 5 PM and 6 PM with such telephone communication to be facilitated by the mother calling the father’s mobile telephone number, and with the father to facilitate the children speaking on the telephone to the mother, provided always that the father is to provide to the children privacy during such telephone conversations and use his best endeavours to ensure that any other person in the household does the same.

18. That, without admission, the mother and father are to use their best endeavours to ensure that the children are not exposed to the parents naked genitalia.

19. That, without admission, the mother and father are restrained from giving the children alcohol and they are to use their best endeavours to ensure that the children are not given alcohol by any other person.

20. That, without admission, the mother and father are to use their best endeavours to ensure that the children are not exposed to pornography, and they are to use their best endeavours to ensure that there is no pornography on computers or other electronic devices to which the children could have access to within each of their households, and they are to activate child lock anti-porn software on such devices when the children are in their respective care.

21. That the mother and father shall use their best endeavours not to leave the child [X] in the care of another person for any period of time, unless that person has been trained by the child’s general practitioner, or either parent, in relation to the management of the child’s diabetes.

22. That the mother and father shall, within 48 hours from the date of these orders, inform each other in writing, including SMS or email communication, of their residential address, if applicable landline phone number and mobile telephone numbers and e-mail address and advise the other within 24-hours of any change to those details.

23. That the mother and father are each entitled to attend any school, sport, extra curricular or other public event involving either or both of the children.

24. That the mother and father are each to inform the other in writing, as soon as practicable, and in any event not less than 48 hours of any specialist or medical or other health professional appointments, in relation to either of the children, with such writing to include SMS or e-mail communication.

25. That the mother and father shall each do all acts and things necessary to ensure that the other parent is authorised to be provided with all reports by any specialist or other medical or health practitioner attended by either of the children.

26. That in relation to specialist appointments relating to the child [X]’s diabetes, that unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing, they shall attend each of those consultations on an alternate basis with the child, with the first of such consultations following the making of these orders to be attended by the father:

    (a)Provided always that the father shall be responsible for payment of costs of such consultations that he attends with the child; and

    (b)Provided always that the non-attending parent shall be at liberty to obtain such information from the medical specialist as may be reasonably required, and be at liberty to make their own appointment to attend alone on that specialist at their own expense should they wish; and

    (c)Provided that the mother and father shall keep each other informed in a timely fashion, and in any event not less than 48 hours of each, and every appointment made for the child [X] to attend upon his medical specialist.

27. That the mother and father are each authorised to receive copies of all of the children’s school reports and merit cards, any written material pertaining to each of the child academic and extracurricular activities.

28. That in the event that either of the children are hospitalised or receive medical attention from a medical or other health practitioner the parent with whom the child is with at that time is to notify the other parent as soon as practicable after the first contact with the medical or health practitioner, medical centre or hospital

29. That the mother and father are restrained by injunction from denigrating the other parent, or any member of the other parent’s family, in the presence or hearing of either of the children and from questioning the children about the time spent in the other parent’s household for the purposes of establishing non-compliance with that parent with orders 18 to 21 inclusive or from allowing any member of their family or other person from so doing.

30. That the mother and father are restrained by injunction from allowing either of the children to remain in the presence or hearing of any person denigrating the other parent or any member of the other parent’s family.

31. That within 14 days from the date of these orders the mother and father are to contact clinical psychologist Ms P, family therapist, [mobile phone number omitted] to make an appointment for the purposes of family therapy and to assist the mother and father with any anxieties and with each of the mother and father’s first appointments to be scheduled in August 2013 on the first dates available to the family therapist and:

    (a)That the parents are to facilitate each of the children attending upon the family therapist for family therapy as directed by the family therapist and are to pay equally for the costs of such children’s therapy;

    (b)That the mother and father are to attend at appointments and to facilitate the children’s attendance at appointments with the family therapist as directed by the family therapist for at least six months from the date of these orders unless the family therapist directs either of the parents that appointments are no longer required before that date; and

    (c)That leave is granted to the Independent Children’s Lawyer to provide copies of the expert reports of Dr R dated 9 June 2011 and 1 May 2013 to the family therapist.

32. That within 14 days from the date of these orders, the mother and father do all acts and things necessary including the signing of any documents to change the children’s surname from “Rowe” to “Helbig-Rowe” on their birth certificates and any legal documents.

33. That within 14 days from the date of these orders the mother and father do all things necessary to enrol in a Parenting after Separation course and attend the first available course.

34. That the mother and father be restrained from enrolling either child in any after-school or weekend activities which impose on the other parent’s time with the children, without the written consent of the other parent, and shall ensure that each child attends the agreed activities during the period the children are in their respective care.

35. That the parties shall adhere to and follow [X]’s diabetes Care Plan as formulated by the child’s general practitioner or medical specialist, and shall:

    (a)Ensure that test and hypo kit and medications are with the child at all times;

    (b)Monitor the child for symptoms of hyper or hypoglycaemia;

    (c)Regularly test the child for blood glucose levels and ketones;

    (d)Take prompt corrective action in accordance with the care plan, providing food and/or insulin as required;

    (e)Record and provide written handover notes to the other party directly or via school at changeover covering at least the last 48-hour is in which the child has been in that parent’s care  including details of:

    (i)Any insulin given to the child including amount, type of insulin and timing;

    (ii)All food and drink consumed and activity levels; and

    (iii)Notes as to any illness, upset or injury which may impact on the child’s well-being or the child glucose levels.

    (f)When the children are to spend time with the father, the mother will provide the father, either directly or via the school for occasions when the father collect the children from school with the necessary medication, test monitor and hypo kit required for [X]’s diabetes management;

    (g)In the event that either the mother or father wishes to vary or depart from [X]’s core insulin regime, they shall first consult with the child’s general practitioner or treating specialist and discuss same with the other parent; and

    (h)Use their best endeavours to implement an electronic record of information referred to in (e) above and other information relevant to the child [X] that can readily be accessed by both of them and if possible by the child’s medical practitioners.

It Is Noted By The Court:

1. That the mother and father intend to request individual sessions with the family therapist referred to above.

2. That the mother and father intend, that before the Christmas school holidays in 2016, to contemplate an arrangement whereby the children are to spend the first or second half of the Christmas school holidays with each of the parents with consideration of the child [Y]’s developmental needs and her progress in spending block periods of time with the father as well as to the advantage that this would allow the children to holiday with each of the parents.

3. That the mother and father acknowledge that despite the mother flagging a possible future intention to relocate to Canberra, this agreement has been reached on the basis that the parents will both be living in the [P] area.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT NEWCASTLE

PAC 5421 of 2010

MR ROWE

Applicant

And

MS HELBIG

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Proceedings

1. These are proceedings in relation to parenting arrangements for two children, [X], born [in] 2005, and [Y], born [in] 2008. 

2. The final hearing of the proceedings initially commenced on 21 November 2011. However it became readily apparent during the course of the hearing that the matter would not be completed in the time allocated and the matter was adjourned on a part heard basis to dates reserved in May 2012.

1. As a consequence of the protracted period of the adjournment the Court was invited to consider appropriate interim orders in relation to the children during the period of the adjournment.

2. On 29 November 2011, the Court made orders and delivered reasons for judgement in relation to those interim orders: Rowe & Helbig [2011] FMCAfam 1532.

3. During the period of the adjournment, the matter was considered by the Full Court of the Family Court on two occasions, thus delaying the resumption of final hearing.  Further, during the period of the adjournment the parties consolidated outstanding property issues for consideration by the Court at final hearing.

4. The matter came before the Court on a resumed final hearing basis on 13 May 2013.  Both parties were represented by counsel.

5. At the commencement of the proceedings all parties, including the Independent Children’s Lawyer, consented to both parenting and property proceedings being dealt with under Division 12A pursuant to section 69ZM of the Act.

6. As to property, the parties requested that proceedings be stood down in order to pursue settlement negotiations.  Subsequently, and later in that day, the Court, by consent, made final orders as to property and proceedings were adjourned to 14 May 2013 as to parenting.

7. On 14 May 2013 the parties continued discussions as to parenting, informing the Court later in the day that significant agreement had been reached but that there were discrete issues outstanding that may require judicial determination.

8. The proceedings resumed on 15 May 2013 and, by late morning, the parties had been unable to resolve all of the discrete issues outstanding between them and it was agreed by all parties, including the Independent Children’s Lawyer, that the Single Expert, Dr R, would be cross-examined by phone and that subsequent to her oral evidence the outstanding issues which would be the subject of submissions. Thereafter, the Court would reserve and deliver short reasons for judgement in relation to those discrete issues.

Background

1. The short background of the matter was set out in the Court’s reasons for judgement (at [6]–[20]) delivered on 29 November 2011 and to facilitate and understanding of that background the Court sets out hereunder that background:

   The background to this matter is that the father was [in] 1959.  The mother was born [in] 1969.  The parties commenced cohabitation in 1994 and married [in] 1996 and separated on 19 January 2009.  The two children, [X] is now just over six years of age and [Y] is now three years of age.  The father has two children from his previous marriage, [A], now aged 26, and [B], now aged 25.  Both of those children had some interaction with the subject children during the period of the parties’ cohabitation.

   After the birth of the child [X] in 2005, the mother took some six months maternity leave, and at that time the father was working from home.  Both parties appeared to be involved in the children’s day-to-day activities when they were young.  The child [X] was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes in 2007 and the mother and the father attended doctors together in the [omitted] Hospital for training and dealing with and treating his condition.  The father also attended a recommended training course run by the specialist children’s diabetes unit at [omitted] Children’s Hospital, which was an intensive training course run over several days.

   Between 2007 and separation, the father and the mother were able to monitor [X]’s condition, and during some periods the father had sole responsibility for this during periods that the mother was at work.  The mother returned to work when [X] was six months of age and she continued working until 2008, shortly before the birth of the child [Y].  In 2008 the mother received a redundancy payout from work and she was more often at home, and both parties were significantly and actively involved in the care of firstly [X] and then the younger child when she was born for a short period.

   Both parties, it appears, historically have been heavily involved in church activities, and in their respective material describe themselves as evangelical Christians. 

   The child [Y] was two months old when the parties separated and the father did not have significant opportunity to care for [Y] as a young baby.  After separation, the father returned to live in the former matrimonial home at [D] before relocating to Western Australia.  The mother lived in [N] with both children.  Subsequent to separation, the mother occasionally visited the father with both children in the [D] property, and on occasion she was accompanied by her father, Mr H.

   The child [X] was born in 2005.  At that time the father’s son [A] was aged 20 and his daughter [B] was aged 19 years of age.  Those children both lived with the parties to these proceedings for a period of more than five years.  The children – that is, [A] and [B] – had significant interaction, particularly with the child [X].  The child [A] moved out of the home prior to separation to live elsewhere and [B] moved out of the parties’ home a few months prior to separation to live with her fiancée.  [B] continued to spend time with and visit [X] on most weekdays and many weeknights. 

   Both parties concede that by the time the child [Y] was born that they were in significant conflict.  The paternal grandparents, who live at [T] saw the child [X] four or five times a year, and of course, prior to separation had little opportunity to interact with the child [Y].

   Interim orders were made in the proceedings in December 2010 and those orders were made as between the parties on an without admission basis. 

   The interim orders made in December 2010 provided as follows in terms of the parenting arrangements for the children:  (1) that until further order the children live with the mother;  (2) that until further order the father spend time with the children on a supervised basis (a) for two to three hours on one or two consecutive days, being a Saturday or Sunday between the hours of 9 am and 2 pm on dates to be nominated by the father on at least eight weeks’ written notice to the mother by letter or email;  (b) that the visits in (a) above take place no less than four weeks apart, no more than 10 visits a year, not on Mother’s Day or mother’s birthday with supervision arrangements, unless otherwise agreed, to be at the [omitted] contact centre at Newcastle, and if the [omitted] Centre was not available, then by up to two supervisors nominated by the mother which may include the mother, and that as to the cost of such supervision, each party was to pay half of those costs.  The father was at liberty to telephone the children between the hours of 8 am and 8.30 am on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays for no longer than 10 minutes, and if the children were to be unavailable the mother was to notify the father on 24 hours’ notice of an alternate day in the week the children would be available for his call.

   For the purposes of the father’s time with the children during December 2010, the arrangements were that the father would see the children from 1 pm to 3 pm on 21 December and from 2 pm to 3 pm on 22 December, that during those times, the mother and Mr N be present and take place at [address omitted].  And until further order, the mother was to have sole parental responsibility in relation to decisions relating to the management and treating of [X]’s type 1 diabetes.  On making of the orders of 20 December 2010, the Court noted that the orders providing for supervised time and restricted telephone time in the consent orders were made on a without admissions basis by the father.

   The circumstances subsequent to separation were that between separation and August 2009 the father travelled most weekends and sometimes midweek from Sydney to [N] to spend time with the children.  During those periods he stayed with the mother in the basement of her home.  The mother and sometimes her father were present in the home.  The father was able to take the children swimming and to the beach without either the mother or her father accompanying him. 

   After 21 August 2009 on which date the father travelled to Western Australia for work reasons, he was able to travel back to [N] from Western Australia in October 2009 and spent time with both children for intervals of four hours on four consecutive days, that time being monitored by the mother and/or her father.  During the time he stayed with his daughter in Sydney, and on the second to fourth nights stayed with his parents at [T] and drove to see the children at [N].

   The father travelled from Western Australia to [N] to see the children in February 2010 where he spent four hours each day over three or four consecutive days with the children, supervised by the mother, her father or childcare workers.  He similarly travelled to [N] in May 2010, September 2010, December 2010, April/May 2011 and July 2011.

   There have been AVO proceedings between the parties in circumstances where the father informed the mother in late 2009 he was planning to visit the children in February 2010.  At that time, the mother made application for an apprehended violence order against the father.  That order was made on a interim basis and subsequently heard at [omitted] Local Court on 2 November 2011 with normal statutory orders being made after a defended hearing.  The terms of the AVO order do not impact upon this Court’s ability to make orders in relation to the father’s time with the children.

   During the course of these proceedings and in her affidavit evidence, the mother makes complaint of certain actions by the father.  She alleges that on several occasions about 12 months apart she observed the father in the bath with the child [X], she asserts with an erection.  The circumstances of that incident are strenuously denied by the applicant father.  She also gives evidence of a conversation with [X] subsequent to separation, a conversation that is uncorroborated, and also makes an assertion that [X] was conscious of the practice of masturbation by reason of something he had been taught by his father.  The father also strenuously denies that assertion.

1. It is to be noted that the background circumstances set out above were the background circumstances as best as it could be determined by the Court in the context of the matter being only part heard matter in November 2011 and in circumstances where the father’s cross-examination was incomplete and that the mother had given no evidence at all. However, that background is set out to provide a general understanding of the history of the relationship.

2. It was a matter of great credit to the parties that at final hearing in the context of the negotiations over an extended period of time they were able to resolve significantly the parenting issues between them.

3. In general terms, agreement was reached as to equal shared parental responsibility, that the children would live primarily with the mother, that the children would spend time with the father as agreed between the parties and if no agreement then for proposed periods during school term on alternate weekends and in the off week together with school holiday periods and special days.

4. The parties also reached significant agreement as to various specific issues orders that reflected some of the issues referred to above in the background of the matter.

5. The Court proposes to deal with each of the discrete matters in turn, considering the evidence of the Single Expert where relevant, and the submissions made by each of the parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

The Law

1. The relevant principles in relation to parenting proceedings are well settled Goode and Goode [2006] FamCA 1346.

2. Section 60B of the Act outlines the objects and principles underlying Part VII of the Act.

   (1) The objects of this Part are to ensure that the best interests of children are met by:

   (a) ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child; and

   (b) protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and

   (c) ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and

   (d) ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.

   (2) The principles underlying these objects are that (except when it is or would be contrary to a child's best interests):

   (a) children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together; and

   (b) children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development (such as grandparents and other relatives); and

   (c) parents jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and

   (d) parents should agree about the future parenting of their children; and

   (e) children have a right to enjoy their culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture).

3. Section 60CA provides that in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order, the Court is to regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.

4. Section 60CC then outlines the primary (sub-s.(2) and additional (sub-s.(3)) considerations that the Court is to take into account in determining what is in the best interests of the child.

5. Section 61DA of the Act provides that when making a parenting order, 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. The presumption does not apply where:

   (a) there are reasonable grounds to believe a parent has engaged in abuse of the child or family violence [s61DA(2)].

   (b) in interim proceedings where the court considers that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for the presumption to be applied when making that order [s61DA(3)].

   (c) if the court is satisfied that an order for equal shared parental responsibility would not be in the child’s best interests [s61DA(4)].

6. If the presumption in s.61DA is to apply and the Court makes an order for equal shared parental responsibility, this “triggers” the operation of s.65DAA which requires the court to consider whether equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent is in the child’s best interests and reasonably practicable.

7. The Full Court in Goode and Goode provided a “framework” as to how applications for parenting orders are to be determined. The High Court in MRR v. GRR [2010] HCA 4 affirmed the legislative pathway.

The Presumption and s.65DAA

1. In the present proceedings, the parties have agreed appropriately that there should be an order for equal shared parental responsibility and they have further agreed as to the general structure of the children’s time with the father in circumstances where they are to live primarily with the mother.

2. Accordingly, it is not necessary for the Court, in the circumstances of this particular matter, to consider the application of the presumption nor the considerations in section 65DAA.

3. In that circumstance, the orders to be made by the Court, as to the discrete issues, fall to be determined by reason of a consideration of the best interest considerations set out in section 60CC of the Act. The Court proposes to consider each of the best interest considerations briefly so as to set the context for the Court’s determination as to the various discrete issues.

Best Interests

1. As the Full Court preferred in Collu & Rinaldo [2010] FamCAFC 53, as the Court turns to look at the best interests considerations set out in s60CC it should firstly consider the additional considerations:

The Additional Considerations

Any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child's maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child's views.

1. Any views that may be expressed by either of the children whilst in the presence of the mother or father would be treated with significant circumspection by the Court, by reason of the ongoing significant conflict between the parties and the significant enmeshment of the children in that conflict, particularly by the mother.

2. It is of note that when interviewed by the single expert Dr R, in company with the mother and the maternal grandparents, and when constructing a genogram of the family, the children reported on various members of the extended maternal family and included no one else. One would have expected children of this age to have included their father in such a genogram.  However, when pressed by the single expert as to whether there was anybody else in the family they both denied having anyone else and in this context the elder child [X] was noted to look at his mother. 

3. Yet, upon coming into the company of the father, and whilst in the presence of the mother, the children were basically unresponsive to his greeting towards them. Yet when the mother absented herself the children warmly engaged with the father.

4. In individual assessment, both of the children quite openly reflected the conflict between the parents and to some extent the mother’s less than favourable view of the father.

5. In all circumstances a consideration of this factor is of little utility to the Court.

The nature of the relationship of the child with:

(i) Each of the child's parents; and

(ii) Other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child).

1. The mother presented to the single expert as a dedicated but anxious and perfectionist parent, whose attention to detail could well be experienced as controlling. She had firmly fixed, negative views of the children’s father. Her views were shared and no doubt reinforced by her parents.

2. The children’s relationship with the mother has been overshadowed by the above circumstances. However, there is no doubt that the children are warmly attached to the mother as the primary caregiver, but are at risk of the mother undermining their relationship with the father, if she is unable to properly function in circumstances as foreshadowed by the parties in the orders propounded by them.

3. The children’s relationships with the father are still developing.

4. Considering his absences from the children’s lives post separation, it is of note that the single expert recommends that the children need a predictable regime of time with the father at a frequency which supports and facilitates growth in the relationship but does not undermine their overall development.

5. The frequency, says the single expert, should accord with the need of the younger child [Y] not to have too extensive a separation from her primary caregiver, her mother.

6. Otherwise, it is to be noted that the children have a significant relationship with the extended maternal family and with the extended paternal family.

7. It is to be noted that, as a consequence of conflict between the maternal grandparents and the father, it is recommended that at changeovers there be no contact between the maternal grandparents and the father.  Regrettably, the children’s relationship with the maternal grandparents must be seen in the context of their engagement in the issues between the parents.

The extent to which each of the child's parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity:

(i)   to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and

(ii)  to spend time with the child; and

(iii) to communicate with the child.

1. The background of the matter, referred to above, should be noted in the context of this consideration.

2. There is no doubt that the father absented himself from the children’s lives significantly post separation and that it is only just before the resumption of the matter for final hearing that he settled himself in what appears to be regular employment and appropriate accommodation for his time with the children.  The Court is hopeful that the father will undertake his future obligations in this regard appropriately.

1. The mother has remained at all times the primary carer for the children in what for her has been difficult circumstances overshadowed by the personal conflict between herself and the father. 

The extent to which each of the child's parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent's obligations to maintain the child.

1. Subsequent to separation, the mother has undertaken the primary obligation in this regard with in reality little assistance from the father, who has been out of employment for significant periods following separation.

The likely effect of any changes in the child's circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:

(i) either of his or her parents; or

(ii) any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living.

1. Whilst this factor is of relevance, the parties themselves have addressed this issue in the substantive agreement reached between them as to future parenting orders.  The significance of change for the children will be that the father’s time with them will no longer be required to be supervised and he will be able to develop a much more normalised relationship with his children.

2. Whilst the parties have substantially agreed as to the children’s time with the father it is hoped that the children’s time will, as the proposed arrangements settle in, be expanded by the parties by agreement.

The practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child's right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis.

1. This is not a relevant consideration.

The capacity of:

(i) each of the child's parents; and

(ii) 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.

1. Both parties are subject to some criticism in the context of considering this factor.

2. The comments of the single expert, in relation to the mother, had been set out above and there is no doubt that a continuation of her parenting style as described by the single expert will to continue to compromise her capacity in this regard.

3. The Court is hopeful that ongoing therapeutic intervention as agreed to by the parties with clinical psychologist Ms P will assist in resolving some of the issues in terms of the parties’ individual behaviour and their behaviour in relation to each other. However, the Court has no reservations as to it being appropriate for the mother to continue her role as primary carer for the children.

4. The father needs to be alert as to his personal behaviour in the context of the conflictual relationship he has with the mother. The single expert observes that the father is blunt in his opinions and speaks his mind plainly, at times with too few socially appropriate inhibitions. The single expert notes “he referred to not being able to help himself when he makes negative, immature responses to the maternal grandfather’s perceived negative barbs, clearly these two men should not be coming contact, particularly in the presence of the children. His crude gesture and swearing at Mrs Helbig was clearly unacceptable and childish.”

5. There is no doubt that the father’s behaviour, as described, has revealed itself in the presence of the children and in the context of changeovers or other contact between the father and mother. The father needs to understand that a continuation of such behaviour in the presence of the children undermines his capacity to appropriately provide for the emotional needs of the children.

6. As to the father, the single expert again observes “while I have no significant concerns about Mr Rowe’s capacity to engage and attend to the children’s daily needs, I do have concerns for his psychosocial adjustment as he has yet to establish himself in stable housing, work and a community, which are needed to support the children’s development, as well as his mental health.”

7. Whilst the father has more recently appeared to obtain some stability in this regard he needs to be mindful of the single expert’s concerns in this regard.

The maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child's parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant.

1. The relevance of this consideration touches upon the age of the youngest child, who is yet to commence school, and the circumstances of the eldest child suffering from diabetes.  The single expert notes that the children’s time with the father should accord with the needs of the younger child, [Y], not to have too extensive a separation from her primary caregiver, the mother. The parties have otherwise considered the issues touching upon the eldest child’s diabetes in the specific issues orders  propounded by each of them.

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

(i) the child's right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture); and

(ii) the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right.

1. This is not a relevant consideration.

The attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents.

1. Many of the factors referred to above touch upon this consideration. There are significant faults on either side in relation to each of the parent’s attitudes to the children and their responsibilities of parenthood. It is hopeful that a continuing therapeutic intervention will assist the mother in what the single expert perceives to be an anxious but perfectionist parenting style in which attention to detail could well be experienced as a controlling.

2. The father, historically, has certainly fallen well short of the mark in relation to this consideration. Time will tell whether he is able to demonstrate an appropriate attitude to the children and his responsibilities of parenthood in the context of the orders to be made.

3. However, of significance is the primary criticism to be made of each of the parties that they have continued to conduct their personal relationship without any regard to the interests of the children and the impact that the open conflict has on the children’s emotional and intellectual development.

4. There is no doubt that the clinical psychologist Ms P has a task ahead of her.

Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family.

1. There are historical allegations in this regard, but by reason of the incomplete evidence in the matter, the Court is unable to make findings one way or the other. Accordingly this consideration is of little utility to the Court.

If a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child's family--any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following:

(i) the nature of the order;

(ii) the circumstances in which the order was made;

(iii) any evidence admitted in proceedings for the order;

(iv) any findings made by the court in, or in proceedings for, the order; and

(v) any other relevant matter.

1. There is no current order that applies as between the parties and it is of little utility to the Court to consider the historical circumstances of any such order.

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.

1. The Court is hopeful that the parties having reached significant agreement with the Court to determine discrete issues will lead to final orders that will avoid the institution of further proceedings in relation to the children.

Any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant.

1. There is no other relevant fact or circumstance.

The Primary Considerations: s.60CC(2)

1. The primary considerations are:

   (a)    the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents; and

   (b)    the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.

2. In applying the considerations set out in subsection (2), the Court is to give greater weight to the consideration set out in paragraph (b).

Section 60CC(2)(a) – “meaningful” relationship

1. In Mazorski v Albright[2007] FamCA 520; Brown J considered ordinary definitions of the term “meaningful” and observed:

   [26] What these definitions convey is that “meaningful”, when used in the context of “meaningful relationship”, is synonymous with “significant” which, in turn, is generally used as a synonym for “important” or “of consequence”. I proceed on the basis that when considering the primary considerations and the application of the object and principles, a meaningful relationship or a meaningful involvement is one which is important, significant and valuable to the child. It is a qualitative adjective, not a strictly quantitive one. Quantitive concepts may be addressed as part of the process of considering the consequences of the application of the presumption of equally shared parental responsibility and the requirement for time with children to be, where possible and in their best interests, substantial and significant.

2. In McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92 the Full Court at 83,476 accepted as appropriate this interpretation by Brown J of “meaningful relationship”.

3. The Court has considered the nature of the children’s relationship with each of the parties above. Certainly the substantive orders proposed by the parties that see the children remain in the primary care of the mother and spend appropriate time with the father will ensure that the children continue to have a relationship with each of the parties.

4. However, in the event that the parties continue the conflictual relationship, without due regard for the interests of the children, then notwithstanding the children’s residential circumstances, it would be difficult to see that their relationship with each of the parents that is overshadowed by conflict, abuse, bitterness, criticism and controlling behaviour from both or one or other of the parties can be valuable to the children.

5. Indeed, should the parties continue their personal conflict the inevitable result will be psychological damage and harm to the children that may adversely affect the children’s ability into the future of forming appropriate interpersonal relationships with others as they grow older. The children will come to accept that appropriate interpersonal relationships are those unfortunately evidenced by the behavioural manifestations of their own parents.

Section 60CC(2)(b) - protective considerations

1. The need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence has been given greater primacy by reason of recent amendments to the Act.

2. The Court’s concerns in this regard had been set out with particularity above and need not be repeated here. Both parties are hopefully now clearly alert to the harm that the past and ongoing behaviour may well perpetrate on the children.

3. It is hoped that the intervention of the chosen therapist will assist the parties in this regard.

The Discrete Issues

1. The Court will now turn to look at the discrete issues that remain to be determined.

Midweek Time

1. The Independent Children’s Lawyer and the father propose that until the start of 2015, the father’s school term time with the children will be alternate weekends from Friday after school until Sunday at 5:00 PM and in the other week an overnight from after-school to school the next morning.  From the start of 2015, they proposed that the children’s time with the father be each alternate weekend from after-school Friday to before school Monday and in the other week from after-school Thursday until Friday before school.

2. The mother proposes that until the start of 2014, that is for about the next six months, the father’s time will be alternate weekends and each Wednesday from after-school until 6:00 PM. The mother then proposes that the father’s time during school term from 2014 be alternate weekends from after-school Friday to before school Monday and in the other week from after-school Thursday until before school Friday.

3. The mother’s proposal, as evidenced by Exhibit X, commences the father’s time as sought by the father from the start of 2015, 12 months earlier. A proposal that the Court considers to be entirely appropriate.

4. In reality the dispute centres upon the next six months as to whether there should be simply midweek afternoons each week or a discrete overnight each fortnight.

5. The Court is mindful of the evidence of the single expert as to the need to have regard to the age of the youngest child and her ability to appropriately separate from the mother as the primary carer. Whilst the Court is conscious of the underlying conflictual relationship between the parties, it is the Court’s view that the conflict is overshadowed by the need to deal with the circumstances of the youngest child appropriately.

6. Accordingly, orders will be made as sought by the mother in relation to this discrete issue noting of course that the extension of the father’s weekend time to the Monday before school will commence 12 months earlier than the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the father propose.

School Holidays

1. Both parties foreshadow a graduated approach to school holidays.  The Independent Children’s Lawyer and the father propose that in the 2013 mid year holidays the father will have a block of four nights and in the Christmas holidays three separate blocks of four nights with such blocks expanding to 5 nights in 2014 and commencing in 2015 the usual arrangement for half holidays.

2. The mother proposes to that in 2013 and 2014 such blocks be four nights, that in 2015 they be five nights and in 2016 that the usual arrangement for half holidays commence.

3. In circumstances from the commencement of 2014, the children will be spending three nights alternate weekends during school term and the mother herself proposes that they commenced spending four night blocks during school holidays in 2013, it appears developmentally appropriate that the block periods commenced to expand from the beginning of 2014 as proposed by the father to 5 nights and in 2015 to an equal sharing of school holiday periods.

4. The Court will make orders accordingly.

The Commencement of School Holiday Time

1. The Independent Children’s Lawyer and the father seek that the father’s school holiday time, where appropriate, commence at the conclusion of school before the first day of the holidays. The mother seeks an arrangement whereby the father’s school holiday time will commence at 9:00 AM Saturday after the last day of school term.

2. In the event that there was no conflict between the parties, either proposal would be perfectly acceptable. However, having regard to the view of the single expert that face-to-face changeovers should be limited to as little as possible, it is appropriate that the father’s school holiday time, where applicable, commence after-school on the Friday or such other day that represents the last day of school term.

3. The Court will make orders accordingly.

Easter

1. The parties had reached agreement that the Easter period, where such period does not coincide with school holidays, would be shared alternately between them.  The Independent Children’s Lawyer and the father sought orders that provided for the father, when the children were to be with him over that period, to collect the children from school at the commencement of the Easter period and to return them to school at the conclusion of the Easter period. Thus avoiding face-to-face contact between the parties.

2. The mother, if the children were to be with the father, sought an order that the children be returned to her at midday on Easter Monday.  Such an arrangement would have necessitated a face-to-face changeover and for reasons referred to above, the Court is of the view that such an arrangement is not in the interests of the children.

3. Accordingly orders as sought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the father on this issue will be made this.

Changeovers

1. The Independent Children’s Lawyer and the father sought in order that the father or his agent be permitted to collect the children from school or deliver the children to school on school days and that on non-school days the father or his agent be permitted to collect the children from the mother or her nominee and on return of the children the father or his agent be permitted to return the children to the mother or her nominee.

2. The mother sought a restriction that any person, other than the father, to facilitate such changeovers be agreed to by the mother and father in writing.

3. The practical exigencies of day-to-day life mean that, from time to time and for whatever reason, either or both of the parties will not be able to be personally present for the purposes of facilitating changeovers.

4. As a consequence of orders to be made in relation to leaving the child [X] in the care of others, by reason of his medical condition, it appears readily apparent that the ability for the mother or father to have a nominee or agent undertake changeovers is limited to that very purpose, that is, for the purposes of changeovers only.

5. Having regard to the history of this matter, the prospect of the parties being unable to reasonably agree in writing as to a person nominated by either of them is extraordinarily remote.

6. The Court is satisfied that it is appropriate in the circumstances that both parties be able to have a nominee or agent attend on their behalf provided that that nominee or agent is known to the children.

7. The Court will make orders accordingly.

Maternal Grandparents at Changeovers

1. The Independent Children’s Lawyer and the father seek an order that the mother be restrained from permitting the maternal grandparents from attending changeovers in relation to the child or specialist medical appointments for the child [X] at which the father is to attend.

2. The single expert describes the relationship between the maternal grandparents and the father as toxic and clearly recommends, in her report and in the oral evidence, that there been no contact between the maternal grandparents and the father.

3. If the mother has concerns, she is able to nominate her nominee or agent pursuant to the order previously discussed.

4. The Court will order accordingly.

School Uniforms

1. Perhaps symbolic of the ongoing conflict in the relationship between the parties, they were unable to agree as to the property rights in relation to school uniforms worn by the children.

2. The Independent Children’s Lawyer and father sought an order that school uniforms be not the property of either parent but for the use of the children.

3. The mother simply sought an order that each parent was to purchase a school uniform for the children, presumably with the intent that that parents would have proprietorship over that uniform.

4. It is appropriate that each parent have school and sports uniforms available for the children when they are to go to school from their household. Whether that be a school uniform that was purchased by the mother or father is neither here nor there. It is appropriate that the parents be ordered, by injunction, to facilitate at all times school and sports uniforms being available to the children for their attendance at school on occasions when the children are to commence school from their respective care. 

5. In that circumstance, it appears appropriate that the order sought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the father be made.

Telephone Contact

1. The parties were in agreement substantially as to the question of telephone contact with the children when the children were in the care of the other parent.

1. The Independent Children’s Lawyer and the father sought that such telephone contact be in the evening between 6:00 PM and 7:00 PM when the children were with the mother and in the evening between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM when the children were with the father.

2. The mother sought an order that the father be permitted telephone contact with the children in the mornings between 7:45 AM and 8:45 AM when they were in her care.

3. The single expert had reservations that such a morning arrangement was appropriate and in circumstances where the mother herself seeks to telephone the children when they are in the father’s care in the evening the Court is of the view that is appropriate for the father to do so when they are in the mother’s care.

4. Accordingly the order sought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the father will be made.

Supervision of Children

1. The Independent Children’s Lawyer and the father sought an order, in submissions, to the effect that either party shall use their best endeavours not to leave the children in the care of another party for any significant period of time, unless that party has been trained by [X]’s general practitioner or either parent in relation to the management of [X]’s diabetes.

2. The mother sought an order that provided that the father shall not leave the children in the care of another party for any period of time, unless that person has met with [X]’s general practitioner or has been trained by either parent in relation to the management of [X]’s diabetes.

3. This issue focuses upon the child [X], who suffers from diabetes.  Accordingly, any such restriction should relate to that child only.  The provisions sought by the mother would enliven itself no matter how long the period of time in question whereas the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the father seeks the period to be qualified as “significant”.

4. In all the circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the order should relate to the child [X] only, that the word “significant” be omitted and that each party should be required to use their best endeavours to so comply with their obligation.

5. The Court will make an order accordingly.

Attendance at Specialist Appointments

1. The Independent Children’s Lawyer and the father sought orders that each parent do all things necessary to ensure that the other is authorised to be provided with all reports by any medical specialist treating the children and an order that each of the parents be permitted to attend any such specialist appointment, with the mother to notify the father by text message, not less than 48 hours before such appointment, with the father to notify the mother of his intention to attend.

2. The mother sought no such provisions notwithstanding that such information or the ability to attend such appointments would accrue as a consequence of equal shared parental responsibility.

3. It was canvassed with the single expert that perhaps the parties could attend alternately the child [X]’s specialist appointments.

4. This issue is symptomatic of the ongoing conflict between the parties and is reflective of the observations by the single expert as to the mother’s attention to detail that could be experienced as controlling.

5. It is certainly inappropriate that both parties attend such appointments because of the conflict that may arise.

6. The child [X] is required to see his specialist for review it appears each three or four months, be only on three or four occasions each year.

7. It was contended during submissions that perhaps it was appropriate that each of the parties attend those specialist appointments on an alternate basis, with the other party being at liberty to obtain such information from the specialist as may be required or indeed make a separate appointment without the child to speak to the specialist at their own expense.

8. The mother raise the issue of the cost of these consultations and it is the Court’s view that the father should pay for each alternate consultation that he will attend as a condition of being able to do so.

9. The Court will accordingly order that the parties appropriately authorise any medical practitioner, health practitioner or specialist that see the children to provide such information as may be requested by the other parent and that the parents be permitted to attend alternatively specialist appointments in relation to the child [X] provided that in relation to appointments attended by the father he meet the cost of such consultation.

10. Otherwise, it is appropriate that each parent provide to the other parent  notification of any medical appointment to be attended by the children with any medical practitioner, health practitioner or medical specialist in a timely fashion and in any event not less than 48 hours before such appointment in order that the other parent may obtain from such medical practitioner, health practitioner or medical specialist such information as may be reasonably requested.

Notifications and Information as to [X]

1. The Independent Children’s Lawyer and the father, in the context of the management of the child [X]’s diabetes, sought an order that required each party to record and provide written handover notes to the other party, directly or via school at changeover, covering the entire time in which the said child has been with the parent as to any insulin given to the child, all things consumed and activity levels and notes as to any illness upset or injury that may impact on the child’s well-being or the child’s blood glucose levels.

2. The mother sought to have such information limited to the last 48 hours in respect of which the child has been with each parent.

3. It is the Court’s understanding that the child’s circumstances in terms of his diabetes can change dramatically in a short period of time. To require each of the parties to keep extensive notes for the whole period that the child may be in their care, particularly for extended stays such as holidays, would be onerous and not relevant to an illness where change can happen quickly.

4. The Court is satisfied that the limitation sought by the mother in all circumstances is appropriate. However, during submissions it was contemplated that the parties might well be able to implement an electronic record in relation to the child management that both parties could access and that would represent a permanent record of the information required to be exchanged pursuant to this order. The Court will require the parties to consider the implementation of such arrangement.

Personal Protection Injunction

1. The mother seeks an order that the father be restrained from approaching or telephoning the mother, except for the purpose of discussing children’s matters and shall not attend the mother’s residence except by agreement for the purpose of collecting or returning the children.

2. The Independent Children’s Lawyer and the father oppose such an order, even if it was to be made on a mutual basis, submitting that there is no evidence before the Court to substantiate such relief being granted and that in any event the existence of such an injunction would only facilitate the enlivenment of further conflict between the parties and represent a tool to be used one against the other.  It was contended that, if appropriate, the parties could have recourse to relevant state legislation.

3. The single expert, in oral evidence, was most concerned as to the existence of such injunctive relief, seeing it as a possible tool particularly in the hands of the mother against the father.

4. There is a paucity of evidence before the Court to enliven such relief and accordingly, in all the circumstances, the Court proposes to make no such order.

Orders

1. Having determined the discrete issues between the parties as set out above and otherwise having before it orders that the parties seek by consent, the Court is satisfied that it is in the best interests of the children to make orders as set out at the commencement of this judgement.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and thirty-five (135) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Foster

Date:  21 May 2013