S and K
[2004] FMCAfam 353
•1 July 2004
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| S & K | [2004] FMCAfam 353 |
| FAMILY LAW – Children – interim residence – where mother takes child to Lae without father’s consent – mother unable to return to Australia for many months – young child – mother primary caregiver – interim residence order made in mother’s favour. |
Family Law Act 1975
Cowling and Cowling (1998) FLC 92-801
| Applicant: | G D S |
| Respondent: | T C K |
| File No: | PAM1814 of 2004 |
| Delivered on: | 1 July 2004 |
| Delivered at: | Parramatta |
| Hearing Date: | 30 June 2004 |
| Judgment of: | Ryan FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Ms L. Henderson |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Watts McCray |
| Solicitor Advocate for the Respondent: | Ms K. Wulf |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Lamrocks |
ORDERS PENDING FURTHER ORDER
“The child” Georgia born in 2001 live with the respondent mother.
All prior orders requiring the child’s return to Australia are discharged.
Until the child returns to Australia in accordance with these orders the father shall have contact to the child as follows:
(a)By telephone twice a week for up to fifteen minutes. The mother shall give the father a landline telephone number to which he can place a telephone call for the purpose of this order.
(b)In Lae at dates and times agreed between the parties.
The mother shall return the child to Sydney no later than eight weeks after the birth of the child the mother is currently carrying.
Upon the child’s return to Australia the father shall have contact as follows:
(a)On four consecutive Saturdays from 10 am until 5 pm;
(b)Thereafter, each fourth weekend from 10 am Saturday until 6 pm Sunday;
(c)Each fourth Saturday from 10 am until 6 pm; and
(d)From 12 noon Christmas Eve until 3 pm Christmas Day in 2004;
The mother shall notify the father’s solicitors of the date upon which the child is to return to Australia.
Upon the mother’s return to Australia the mother is to notify the father’s solicitor of her residential address and landline telephone number.
For the purpose of contact the father shall collect and return the child from the mother’s home.
THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS:
That the matter be listed for mention or further interim hearing before me at 10.30 am on 17 December 2004.
That both parties have liberty to apply on three days notice.
Pursuant to section 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in Annexure A and these particulars are included in these orders.
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES |
PAM1814 of 2004
| G D S |
Applicant
And
| T C K |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The application
This is an application by G D S (“the father”) for interim parenting orders. His application relates to the parties' daughter, Georgia (“the child”) born in 2001. Presently Georgia is in Lae, Papua with her mother T C K (“the mother”). Without the father's prior knowledge the mother travelled to Lae on 10 April 2004. The mother and child travelled with her then partner, D R, and their younger daughter, N M R.
On their way through immigration control, the mother and D R were informed that as N M R was travelling on a Papuan passport and she did not have a visa permitting re-entry to Australia, that she would be unable to return. Nonetheless, the mother, D R and the children continued and left. The mother, Georgia and N M R remained in Lae and D R returned to Australia on his scheduled flight about one week later. Immediately upon his return to Australia, he set about making necessary arrangements with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs for an Australian passport to issue in N M R's name. Because she could not bring N M R back into Australia, the mother did not use her return ticket and her and the two children's airline tickets have now expired.
The mother is expecting a baby by D R on 7 October 2004. In mid-June 2004 she started vaginal bleeding. Although N M R's Australian passport had issued, the mother says that she cannot return to Australia because of the threat that by flying she may miscarry. At the six-month stage of her pregnancy, unless she has a favourable medical certificate the mother will not be able to travel by air. She will reach that point very shortly.
The mother says that she intends to return to Australia with her three children as soon as she is medically cleared for air travel after the baby's birth. She expects that this will be about four weeks or thereabouts following her baby's birth. The mother opposes the father's application for interim residence and seeks a similar order.
Chronology
The father was born in 1967 in Sydney. He is 36 years old.
The mother was born in 1979 in Papua New Guinea. She is 24 years old.
The father went to Papua New Guinea in December 1999 to work on a mining venture. The parties met in January 2000 and dated for about three months. On 26 March 2000 the father was involved in a motor vehicle accident, and the passenger in the vehicle he was driving was killed. Shortly after the accident the father returned to Australia. He has not been charged with any offence arising from the accident.
The mother came to Australia in late April 2000. The parties resided together until the mother returned to Papua New Guinea in late 2000.
In about June 2000 the mother realised that she was pregnant with Georgia. She claims that the father sent her back to Papua New Guinea to have their baby because the confinement costs of about $7000 were more than he could afford. The father says he was willing to pay those costs, but as the parties were not getting along he did not resist the mother's decision to return to Papua New Guinea. However it came about it appears that the parties agreed that the mother should return to Papua New Guinea in order to have their baby. She returned there when she was approximately three to five months pregnant.
Georgia was born in 2001 in Papua New Guinea. The father was notified of her birth, by whom and in what circumstances is contentious and irrelevant so far as these interim proceedings are concerned.
Another major dispute that I cannot resolve concerns which parent demanded DNA parentage testing. The mother said the father was disinterested in Georgia initially and demanded DNA parentage testing before he would become involved with the child in any meaningful way. The father says that the mother insisted on it so that she could decide if he could have contact with their daughter. I cannot resolve the issue concerning DNA parentage testing, but as is apparent, immediately upon the mother's arrival in Australia she commenced contact between the child and the father, even though DNA parentage testing had not been completed.
Keen to return to Australia but without funds to do so, the mother contacted a former boyfriend, D R. He purchased airline tickets and the mother and Georgia arrived in Australia when Georgia was about six weeks old. Upon her arrival the mother stayed with friends and made contact with the father. Having made contact with him, she initiated contact between he and Georgia.
Not long afterwards, the mother moved in with D R, and with his help she took Natasha to see the father at his work site. He also visited Georgia at D R’s home. Given the child's age, the parties seem to have taken the sensible approach to keep the contact visits short, and all visits were facilitated by the mother's presence.
By July 2001 the parties were arguing about parentage testing and child support. Contact lessened and then fell away completely. The mother fell pregnant to D R, and returned to Papua New Guinea to have her baby, N M R. The effect of this is that the father did not have contact with Georgia from November 2001 to October 2002. The father says he did not know how to contact the mother during this period, yet using information that was available throughout the period he contacted D R, who immediately put him in contact with the mother.
Contact resumed when the mother returned to Australia and after October 2002 occurred for one to two hours each alternate weekend, supervised by the mother. Supervision does not appear to have been directed to any risk issues but reflected the fact that Georgia was a baby and the father virtually unknown to her. Its purpose appears to have been to facilitate a comfortable environment for the child. Step by step, contact increased so that by mid-June 2003 contact was lasting for a full day on an unsupervised basis. Tensions developed again concerning contact and also the level of child support provided by the father. Notwithstanding these tensions, the parties agreed that contact would occur each alternate weekend from 10.30 am Saturday until 6 pm Sunday, and from 10.30 Saturday to 6 pm Sunday each alternate weekend. The effect of this was that Georgia saw her father every weekend.
The father's counsel contended that the mother had been most reluctant to establish a relationship between Georgia and her father. However, the historical matters that I have recounted suggest that she established contact immediately with him upon her arrival in Australia when Georgia was a newborn baby, and then from October 2002 established an appropriate routine for the child to have contact with her father. He did not need to bring proceedings to achieve this result.
Usually, the father was responsible for collection and return for contact. The mother says that he was harassing her to take a greater role in contact changeover, and seemed to disregard the difficulties this created for her, given that she had another young child to manage. He denies these allegations. However, because she felt harassed, whether or not that was the case, the mother changed her telephone number so that the father could not contact her. Contact continued in the pattern that I have referred to.
The mother says that overnight contact started in late 2003, whereas the father says it started by the middle of 2003. The point of difference is insignificant. As Ms Wulf said yesterday, the difference is six single overnight visits. I cannot resolve precisely when overnight contact started. That will await for final hearing.
The mother says that Natasha was often unsettled before and after contact. The father says that during contact the child enjoys herself and is increasingly comfortable with him, his wife and extended family. These two pieces of evidence are not inconsistent. It may well be that prior to and after contact Georgia is unsettled. The fact that she is unsettled does not mean that she does not enjoy contact while she is there.
The mother's mother fell ill with malaria in March 2004, which prompted the mother to approach the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales for advice about her desire to travel to Papua New Guinea and parenting matters in general. Having decided that she would return to see her mother, the mother determined that she would leave Australia without telling the father. She set up an elaborate ruse agreeing to contact for Georgia's birthday weekend, even though she knew she and her family would already have departed for Papua New Guinea. Because the father is not on the child's birth certificate and there are no parenting orders, there was no impediment to her removal of the child from Australia. Her actions, however, warrant strong criticism for their total disregard of the father's role as a parent and the disruption to the child's relationship with him.
At the same time as the mother was departing Australia, the father commenced these proceedings. He was fearful that she may have been planning to leave with Georgia and attempted to prevent her doing so. Service of his application had not been effected before she departed Australia. Because service was not effected, it cannot be the case as appeared to be implied yesterday, that the mother left Australia in order to avoid participating in these proceedings. Simply put, she had no notice of them.
The father's application came before the court on 14 May 2004. His application proceeded on an undefended and ex parte basis. On that day I make the following orders:
1.The respondent mother do all acts and things necessary to return the child Georgia born in 2001 to Sydney, Australia by 9 am 14 June 2004.
2.For the purpose of implementing order 1 above the respondent mother is to care for the child in Sydney or the mother may elect to place the child in the applicant’s care in which case the mother is to telephone the father and make arrangements for the father to collect the child.
3.The applicant father effect substituted service of his application and affidavit in support filed 2 April 2004 and his interim application and affidavit in support dated and sworn 13 May 2004 together with a copy of these orders by personal service on D R at Emu Plains within seven days of the date of these orders.
4.The Commission of the Australian Federal Police or his delegate is authorised to inform the applicant father or his solicitors Willis & Bowring, 575 Kingsway, Miranda, New South Wales of the re-entry into Australia of the child and/or the respondent mother from Papua New Guinea in the event that either the child or the mother or both of them return to Australia within two (2) months of the date of these orders.
5.Until further order the applicant and the respondent, by themselves, their servants or their agents are hereby restrained from removing or attempting to remove the said child from the Commonwealth of Australia.
6.The Marshal of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia and all officers of the Australian Federal Police and of the police forces of the states and territories of the Commonwealth of Australia are requested to give effect to these orders and to take all necessary steps to restrain either party from removing or attempting to remove the said child from the Commonwealth of Australia.
7.Until further order the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and the Secretary of the Ministry of Immigration take all necessary steps to immediately place the said children’s names on the airport watch list, also known as the PACE Alert system, at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia.
8.The Australian Federal Police maintain an airport watch of the said children on all flights leaving any international airport in all states and territories of the Commonwealth of Australia.
9.The Australian Federal Police and the Police Forces of the States and Territories of the Commonwealth of Australia assist in the implementation of, and give effect to, these orders.
10.The matter be listed for mention before me at 10.00 am on 28 June 2004.
11.The parties have liberty to apply for further orders and directions in relation to the matter on 48 hours notice.
The proceedings were adjourned until 11 June 2004. My order for substituted service was complied with on 11 June 2004. Ms Wulf appeared for the mother. Contrary to my orders requiring the child's return to Australia by 14 June 2004, Ms Wulf advised that the child had not been returned to Australia and her client was resisting the child's return. The court was informed that the mother was experiencing serious difficulties with her pregnancy and at that time understood her medical advice was to the effect that she should not undertake air travel.
On 11 June 2004 I made the following orders:
1.That the matter be listed for further mention or interim hearing before me at 10.00 am on 30 June 2004.
2.The respondent mother do all acts and things necessary to return the child Georgia born in 2001 to Sydney, Australia by 9 am 10 July 2004.
3.I request that D R do all things necessary to have an Australian passport issue for the child N M R born in 2002.
4.I request the DIMIA process any application for the issue of an Australian passport in the name of N M R and/or a visitor’s visa as expeditiously as possible.
5.I note that the father offers to pay one half of the respondent’s air travel costs to Australia and all of Georgia’s air travel costs of Australia.
6.Both parties are directed to file and serve all affidavits in the interim issue by 4 pm 24 June 2004.
The proceedings were adjourned until yesterday, when the court conducted the interim hearing, the subject of this application. Yesterday the court received a report from a general medical practitioner practicing in Lae. His report dated 11 June 2004[1], is to the following effect:
T C K presented today complaining of lower back and supra-pubic pains associated with vaginal bleeding at 19 plus weeks gestation in her third pregnancy. On examination, the bleeding had stopped. She was tender in both sides of her lower abdomen. Abdominal scan confirmed a 19-week size live pregnancy, with a low-lying anterior placenta. Urine microscopic examination showed numerous puss cells. Our findings are consistent with urinary tract infection in pregnancy and a threatened miscarriage. She has been commenced on Anthracillan, 500 mg UID or UTI, and has been advised against travelling in view of vaginal bleeding in the presence of low-lying placenta.
[1] Exhibit A
The relevant law
Interim parenting proceedings do not determine the long term rights and obligations of the parties and their children. Accordingly, the court should not ordinarily be drawn into matters of contentious matters of fact, or matters relating to the substantive merits of each party’s case. The principles that determine the adjudication of interim parenting matters are reflected in a long line of authority; most recently stated in Cowling and Cowling (1998) FLC 92-801. The Full Court of the Family Court there identified a five-element process for the determination of interim proceedings for residence and contact.
Firstly, the overriding principle is that the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration.
Next, given the circumscribed nature of interim proceedings, the orders made should maintain and promote stability in the child’s life pending the final determination.
Next, where it is clear that the child is living in a well settled environment, the child’s stability will usually be promoted by continuing these current arrangements. If the evidence establishes there are strong or overriding reasons relevant to the child’s welfare whereby in that environment the child will be at risk, then the court should not make an order that leaves the child in a situation of serious risk. In deciding whether a child is living in a settled environment, the court should examine and assess,
a)the wishes, age and level of maturity of the child;
b)the current and proposed arrangements for the day to day care of the child;
c)the period during which the child has lived in the environment;
d)whether the child has any siblings and where they reside;
e)the nature of the relationship between the child, each parent, any other significant adult and his or her siblings; and
f)the educational needs of the child.
Next, the weight given to the importance of the current living arrangements is to be determined by reference to the interests of the particular child. In deciding what weight should be given to the current status quo, the court may examine the circumstances by which the current status quo has been attained, the duration of the current arrangements and delay. This list is not exhaustive.
The court will undertake a limited evaluation of the matters set out in section 68F(2) of the Family Law Act in circumstances where the evidence does not establish that the child is living in a settled environment.
Conclusion
The first matter I consider is whether Georgia is living in a settled environment. The gravamen of both parties submissions was to the effect that she is not, a position with which I agree. The mother's decision to unilaterally remove the child from Australia undermines any notion of settled environment in circumstances where the removal was as recent as April 2004. Thus the matter should be determined by reference to a limited evaluation of the relevant section 68F(2) factors.
There are no wishes expressed by the child to which the court must have regard. I agree that the relevant factors are as summarised yesterday by Ms Wulf. Namely, the child's relationships and changing her circumstances. I must also consider risk issues as a consequence of the travel advisory issued by the Australian government containing warnings in relation to travel to Papua New Guinea.
Georgia has lived all of her life with her mother. There is no doubt that her mother is the primary carer. From her mother it is highly likely that Georgia gains her sense of security and stability. Her relationship with her mother is probably fundamental to her sense of well being. This strong attachment, which was not challenged by the father, places the mother in the best position at this time to meet the child's emotional and psychological needs.
Georgia has never lived with her father. At most, the father says she has had 12 periods of one night overnight with him. Whilst the father and Georgia have been developing a relationship, which has probably achieved a warm and comfortable nexus between them, the relationship does not yet have the strength and centrality to Georgia's wellbeing that her relationship with her mother has. Georgia is confused to an extent about “Daddy”, and it is clearly an issue for the father that she refers to D R (her mother’s partner) as Daddy. This seems a likely consequence of the fact that until recently Georgia resided with D R and has thus spent far more time with him than she has with her father. Probably age and parental guidance will resolve any confusion.
The extensive contact that has been in place since about the middle of last year will have laid the basis for developing a relationship of increasing significance between Georgia and her father. Georgia has a companionable relationship with her stepmother, M S. M S’s affidavit makes it clear that for her part she feels strongly attached to Georgia and wishes to do the best by her that she can. They probably have a relationship as friends that is valuable to both of them.
Georgia has an apparently strong relationship with D R. He has been a significant figure in her life and she would probably find real comfort from him. She has a strong relationship with her sister, N M R. They have lived together all of their lives. The children are close in age and this relationship is probably also of profound importance to Georgia. Georgia's relationships with her mother and sister are likely to be fundamental to her emotional wellbeing. I attach significant weight to these relationships in this young child's life.
The next issue is changing the child's circumstances. The father proposes that his wife and brother collect Georgia in Papua New Guinea. Georgia knows them both and he says they are able to bring her back to Australia. Upon her return the father will remain in full time employment. He is self-employed working from 9 am until 5 pm. He makes monthly trips to Brisbane. His wife, M S, works part time at Sydney Airport. They live in a rented townhouse, in which they have set up a bedroom that Georgia identifies as hers. The accommodation is completely appropriate for the child's needs during the period of residence that the father proposes. He proposes that Georgia will attend preschool, and it appears that her care will be a combination of his step grandmother, preschool, and outside of his working hours a combination of the father and the step grandmother.
The mother proposes that she will remain in Papua New Guinea until after her baby is born. The evidence presented to me appears on the face of it cogent, and I accept for the purposes of these interim proceedings that the mother should not fly and that if she does so she is at risk of losing her baby. This means that if the child lives with her father, as he contends, Georgia would have telephone contact only to her mother and sister until the mother could arrive in Australia towards the end of this year.
In Lae, it appears that the mother is living with family and available full time to care for Georgia. This is Georgia's fourth trip to Papua New Guinea, and it is likely that she is familiar with the people with whom she and the mother are residing. Paragraphs 60 to 63 of the mother's affidavit sets out her proposals for return to Australia and the arrangements that she will make for Georgia's care upon her return. They are set out below:
60. When I return to Australia I will be at a caravan park at Emu Plains. This is only a temporary arrangement. Prior to travelling to Papua New Guinea I applied to the Department of Housing for accommodation. I have not received a response to the application, but am hopeful of accommodation being provided by them in the Penrith area. I am a social smoker and do not allow smoking inside the home.
61. Davis is the father of the child I am pregnant with. We are not in a relationship but he provides me with emotional and financial support for the children. I am also receiving a pension.
62. I propose that Georgia attend a public school in the area. At or around February 2004 at contact the father raised the issue of schooling with me. He said words to the effect, “I would like Georgia to attend a private Christian school”. I said, “I have no problem with that G D S, but I have not got the money. If you have the money do it because I don’t”. If the father is unable to pay for Georgia to attend a Christian school, I would like to enrol her at a local public school.
63. When I return to Australia I propose that the father have contact with Georgia, until she reaches five years of age once a fortnight for the day on Saturdays and then on the other alternate weekend from Saturday morning until Sunday afternoon. I consider that Georgia will not be able to cope with longer periods of contact at this stage.
The advantages of changing the child’s circumstances as the father contends would be to immediately re-establish his relationship with Georgia. Their relationship is presently in jeopardy because of the mother's decision to remove Georgia from Australia. The fact that she left Australia with return air tickets purchased suggests that her intention was to return to Australia with her partner, D R, and the two children. Events appear to have overtaken her and forced the delayed return. The longer the delay, the more damage that is done to Georgia's relationship with her father and members of his family.
The disadvantage to the child of the father's proposal is separation from her prime caregiver and a sister who was close in age to her. I accept Ms Wulf's submission this is likely to be distressing for Georgia in the short term, and also potentially damaging long term to the child's emotional and psychological wellbeing. Georgia is too young to have the capacity to understand the ramifications of what would be happening to her if she was separated from her mother and sister. As the weeks pass, the child's feelings of loss and abandonment would probably only become more profound. I cannot think of any explanation that the father could give Georgia that would enable her to understand periods of time as long as four or five months of no contact with her mother and her sister. She is too young to comprehend the prospects that after weeks and weeks of not having contact with her mother and sister, eventually they would be reunited. In my opinion the risk of harm to the child's emotional and psychological wellbeing as a consequence of separation from her prime caregiver at this age and for the length of time that it would endure, outweighs the harm to the child's relationship with the father. This is a matter to which I give significant weight.
I must consider the risk issues. The father contends that the child is at risk of harm by being in Papua New Guinea. Attached to his affidavit is a current travel advisory warning issued by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs warning Australians travelling to Papua New Guinea. Yesterday, the father's counsel emphasised the health risks required vaccination, and there was no evidence that Georgia has been vaccinated against the specific risks identified by the travel warning. Counsel identified the risks summarised in the travel warning and said that these all propose an immediate risk of harm to Georgia. This is a question of degree. I accept the submission made by Ms Wulf yesterday, that the primary purpose of the travel warning is to advise Australians travelling overseas of any precautions they need to take in order to be safe. Georgia is with her mother. Her mother is from Papua New Guinea. They are living with family, and as I have already found, this is Georgia's fourth trip to Papua New Guinea. Indeed, Georgia was born in Papua New Guinea with her father's consent and cooperation. There is no evidence before me that on any of the trips that Georgia has made to Papua New Guinea, she has been exposed to harm or harmed. Whilst I accept that there is a risk of harm to Georgia by being present in Papua New Guinea, that risk is moderated by the fact that she is in New Guinea with family. The risk of harm is not so great that she should immediately return to Australia, where I am satisfied there is no comparable risk.
Balancing all of these factors, I am satisfied that the father's application for interim residence should be dismissed. In the short term Georgia will remain in her mother's care in Papua New Guinea.
The mother has a strong connection to Australia and has been in the habit of returning to Papua New Guinea to have each of her children. There is evidence from D R, and clear evidence from the mother, that her expectation was to have returned to Australia before now. The evidence is sufficient to satisfy me at this time that the mother intends to return to Australia no later than December 2004. I will make orders that will require her to return Georgia to Australia at a reasonable time after the mother's baby is born. If she is not returned within that time, then unless there is compelling medical evidence, the father will be able to bring a further application for interim residence. I will list this matter for a possible interim hearing a few days after Georgia is due to return to Australia. The father will need to file and serve any further application for interim orders so that the mother has notice that he is again pursuing interim residence. At that time, if Georgia has not returned, it may be that I could be persuaded that the damage to the child's relationship with her father is becoming so severe that notwithstanding my concerns about separating her from her prime care giver, the mother will have forced the court's hand.
The father will have telephone contact to the child in Papua New Guinea, and should he wish to travel, he will be able to have contact with her there. Because of the motor vehicle accident that he was in which resulted in the death of a passenger, he does not wish to return to Papua New Guinea. It is entirely a matter for him whether or not he makes arrangements to travel there.
The orders will provide for contact upon Georgia's return to Australia. In the short term she will have day only contact to her father for the first four weeks, so that she can settle back into a pattern of seeing him before overnight contact resumes. That is not an arrangement ordered because I question the father's capacity to take care of Georgia, but more recognition that she will not have seen him for many months. She will need to settle back into Australia, as well as back into a routine with her father for contact. Thereafter, contact will resume essentially in accordance with the arrangements that existed prior to the mother's departure from Australia. The father contends that there should also be periods of block contact. That has never happened before. I am not satisfied that I should order its introduction at this interim hearing.
When the mother returns to Australia, she will have three small children and although he disagrees with the approach, the father, who has a car and is able to drive, as does his wife will need to do all of the travel associated with contact. The burden on the mother of trying to manage travel when she has a newborn baby, a toddler and Georgia is unreasonable compared to the convenience of the father having a car and no other children to manage.
The father seeks an order requiring the mother to submit to a medical examination in Papua New Guinea. I do not know where it is intended the mother would be examined, nor indeed the specific purpose of the examination. On the face of having an apparently authentic document from an appropriately qualified medical practitioner, I am not persuaded there is sufficient evidence before me to justify ordering the mother attending an unspecified medical practitioner for an unspecified purpose.
For these reasons, which I am satisfied are in the child's best interests, I make the orders as at the commencement of this judgment.
I certify that the preceding fifty (50) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Ryan FM
Associate: S. Mashman
Date: 31 August 2004
0
0