SABLES & NEWMAN

[2017] FCCA 705

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SABLES & NEWMAN [2017] FCCA 705

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – interim – whether overnight time with the father should commence.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975

Applicant: MS SABLES

Respondent: MR NEWMAN

File Number: SYC 3874 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Henderson

Hearing date: 9 March 2017

Date of Last Submission: 9 March 2017

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 14 March 2017

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Batey

Solicitors for the Applicant: Niel Jamieson & Associates

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Lloyd SC

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mills Oakley Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The child X born (omitted) 2013 live with the mother when he is not otherwise spending time with the father.

2. The parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.

3. The child spend time with the father as follows:

   (a)Each Sunday from 9am until 5pm, commencing 19 March 2017;

   (b)On the third weekend of each month, commencing 18 March 2017, from 10am Saturday until 5pm Sunday;

   (c)After 3 overnight periods, each alternate weekend from 9am Saturday until 5pm Sunday for a period of 6 weeks; and

   (d)Thereafter, from 6pm Friday until 6pm Sunday.

4. Once Order 3.d. commences, the child’s time with the father on Thursday each week shall cease.

5. The father’s application to release Dr C’s report to the mother’s treating practitioners be stood over.

6. The matter is otherwise stood over to the final hearing.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYC 3874 of 2014

MS SABLES

Applicant

And

MR NEWMAN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Matter of Sables and Newman. This is an interim application by a father for increased time including overnight time to his son, X, who was born on (omitted) 2013, now aged four years and two months.

2. The mother resists this application vigorously – I think I could use those words. The matter is listed for final hearing on October and an updated response or report from Dr C has been ordered and that report includes recommendations in relation to the child spending overnight time with his father, for X has never enjoyed that option. Mr Batey acted for the father in the interim application and Mr Lloyd, Senior Counsel, for the mother.

3. The evidence for the parties was a set out in Mr Batey’s very helpful case outline.

   a)The father’s response, filed 29 July 2014;

   b)Amended application in a case of July 2015;

   c)Affidavit in support, 6 February 2017, and

   d)The minute of order as set out in his case outline, together with; exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4, which is subpoenaed material from various health professionals the parties have engaged in pre and post separation.

4. The mother’s material was:

   a)Initiating application filed 23 June 2014; a financial statement – I’m not sure what use that is – and

   b)The mother’s affidavit of 15 February 2017 in answer to the father’s affidavit in relation to these interim issues.

5. A very important part of the evidence I read was the report of Dr C, which report is dated, or the interviews were taken on 14 October 2015.

6. The short history and chronology again, helpfully set out by Mr Batey in his case outline.

7. Parties are a similar age, 43/44.

8. They married and commenced cohabitation in (omitted) 2011.

9. X was born on (omitted) 2013.

10. The father says the parties separated, at the latest, 14 March 2014 under the one roof.

11. It was a short and, can I say, unhappy marriage.

12. The father has completed a Kids In Focus Program.

13. The mother commenced proceedings in June 2014.

14. The father responded seeking parenting orders as well as property orders and the parties have resolved their property matter.

15. The issue before the court is X’s time with his father.

16. The mother has resisted an increase in time with the father. There was a hearing before Judge Scarlett on 6 July 2015 when His Honour appointed Dr C and made orders for her to prepare a family report. The judgment was not delivered until 18 April 2016 and those orders were by consent on appeal set aside.

17. Therefore, we are left with the orders that Registrar Campbell made in the Family Court on 19 September 2014. They are, effectively, the extant orders.

18. Those orders provide for very limited time for X and his father, which may well have been appropriate when he was two and a half or two years and two months, as he was at that time, being some short periods of time three times a week in the daytime. There are no full days.

19. The parties had an unhappy and unfulfilling marriage. The reason I say that is because I have had to read all the subpoenaed material which material tells me of this sad and unhappy marriage. It is quite sad to read.

20. The notes of Ms L and Ms K, in particular, two psychologists that the parties attended pre and post separation, clearly show that each had unmet expectations of each other and felt undervalued by each other during the marriage. Luckily, they have a beautiful healthy child, well meeting his milestones, attending preschool two days a week, well able to separate from his mother. The bone of contention is the father’s not unreasonable desire to spend overnight time with a child who’s now over four years of age and is, by all accounts, progressing well.

21. The parties’ unhappiness and distrustful marriage has been compounded by a very poor experience in the Federal Circuit Court. As I said, the matter was originally in the Family Court, Senior Registrar Campbell made appropriate orders, which is that the child spend time with his father 8.30 to 12.30 Tuesday and Thursday each week and 2 to 6 each Saturday. There were specific provisions for Easter, August and Christmas. One would have expected that as X was about 20 months at that stage that with the effluxion of time, X’s time with his father would have increased and the parties’ relationship would have improved. However, neither has occurred, in reality.

22. In 2017 when X is four years and two months he is still spending very limited daytime with his father. His mother now agrees that he should spend a full Sunday with his father each alternate Sunday, not each Sunday but each alternate Sunday.

23. The parties’ distrust of each other has increased, not decreased over time. This poor parental relationship was not assisted by a failure to have the orders and judgment issued from the Federal Circuit Court in a timely fashion. The appeal, apparently, was by consent and the parties were left in this lacuna. Thus the parties have had a poor experience in this court.

24. The mother’s resistance to overnight time, as best as I can see, is based on the following:

25. The father is a risk to X physically i.e. he is actually a risk to X if the child is in his care and the father may harm the child. This she says is because the father has behaved poorly in the past.

26. X is not ready for overnight time. The mother talks of his behaviour when he returns from time with his father. His not wanting to go on contact. That when he returns from spending time with this father he is unsettled and disruptive.

27. That the husband’s treatment and abuse of the mother during the relationship engenders in the mother significant anxiety for her safety and the safety of their child when he is spending unsupervised time or significant time with his father.

28. This is an interim hearing and I am unable to make findings, as was pointed out to me on several occasions during the proceedings. However, I can find or I can determine that one version of events is more supported on the agreed or clear facts than another due either to documentary evidence or lack of documentary evidence, conduct of parties or for any other cogent reason. I do not make these decisions in an absolute vacuum.

29. The mother makes a significant complaint that:

    a)The father was abusive during the relationship;

    b)That he imposed upon her to have sex when she did not want to have it, when she was not ready to have it;

    c)That he had no boundaries in relation to her personal space or her body and would grab her breasts or genital areas on occasions when she was not ready for this and did not agree to him doing this;

    d)That he yelled at her; that he yelled at her and the child;

    e)That he pushed her and he pushed the child;

    f)That he had expectations of the child that the child could not possibly meet, such as, yelling at the child when he was only a young child and he fell off a chair;

    g)That he was controlling of money in the relationship; worried about money she spent and would not give her sufficient money;

    h)That he only purchased what he wanted, for example, an inappropriate car, a (omitted), rather than a more family focused car for a young child;

    i)That he drank alcohol to excess;

    j)That he belittled her; demeaned her; was jealous of the time she wished to spend with her family;

    k)That he caused her anxiety; tried to isolate her, and

    l)That she has suffered significant emotional and other injury at his hands.

30. Apart from the mother’s graphic description of the husband’s poor and very concerning behaviour in her detailed affidavit, there is scant other information or objective documents pre-separation to support her claim when one may well have expected such information to have come out, such as, in doctor’s notes, psychologist notes, marriage guidance counsellor notes and the like all of which I have read.

31. Going to exhibit 4, which is the (omitted) Medical Practice where the mother has attended for some time. I went through those documents to find out, to determine complaints and allegations and concerns the mother raised about the father’s treatment of her pre-separation. That is important as this practice has been the family practice she has attended for some time and this is the outcome.

32. From those notes I find that in September 2014, post separation, the mother booked the child in with a child psychiatrist because she was concerned about his behaviours. It was clear on the material she did not want the father to be involved in that treatment or have knowledge of the report and she told the doctor that she was gathering evidence for her court case.

33. On 14 July 2014 she told her doctor that the child returned from a visit with his father screaming, he was very unsettled and that this was most unusual.

34. The mother fought hard to have material subpoenaed from the practice not produced and this appears in the notes.

35. On 29 September 2014 the mother describes the child banging his head when she left the room. That this was usually associated when he returned from time with his father. I note his very limited three or four hours of time with his father. The mother reported the child was much better behaved and much calmer when he was in (omitted) with her parents.

36. On 20 November the mother says that she was in despair over the abusive relationship with the husband. The question is what is the nature of the abusive relationship as she describes?

37. The mother’s description or the details of the abusive relationship are that the husband refused to go to the wife’s parents’ home at Christmas time; secondly, he was secretive about his finances; thirdly, he accused her of doing and saying things she did not. These are the examples of abuse the doctor noted in the notes.

38. Certainly in 11 November 2013, well before separation, the mother reported that that Mr Newman was abusive and nasty to her.

39. On 13 December 2013 that the husband was secretive about finances, that he will not have a joint account.

40. On 22 June 2013 the mother reports that she had had unhelpful counselling. The mother complained that Mr Newman had been verbally abusive, disrespectful, puts her down and is controlling of money.

41. Going now to husband’s exhibit 2, which are the notes of Ms K, psychologist, 20 November 2013. Ms K writes:

    Ms Sables is craving love and intimacy. No direct threats or intentional abuse. Father says to her she’s a bad mother, she’s lazy and gives him a bad diet. The mother was worried about how she was going to cope when she had the baby and the father wasn’t supportive of her. That the husband was saying to her she should be home with him and the baby not with her parents.

42. The notes report that Ms K asked Ms Sables was she overly attached to X because the parents’ relationship was so poor? The mother said X was clingy and the psychologist asked Ms Sables what message did she think she was sending to X to make him clingy.

43. There are reports of a significant dispute over X’s christening. This was a most destructive event for both of these parents rather than a joy. It was distressing to read how they each behaved and how many unmet expectations rose to the surface on that occasion. Each seemed to be jockeying for their own position about an event which should have been a happy one, but it was not.

44. In September 2013 the notes report that the mother has concerns over the husband’s alcohol collection, he has a large alcohol collection apparently, and that she believed this would be a very poor role model for their son. That Mr Newman was concerned only about himself.

45. Ms L noted that as the mother and the child and the father were coming into the rooms with her, the mother was unwilling to accept help from the father to bring in large parcels or boxes she had at the time. The mother complained Mr Newman had not listened to her as a husband and the husband said that Ms Sables was still very attached to her parents and he did not think that his wife appreciated him or had regard for his position in the marriage.

46. Their intimate sexual relationship was discussed on 17 September 2013 and none of the distressing allegations the mother raises about the father’s treatment of her during the marriage were raised at that time in those notes that I can see.

47. On 29 October 2013 it is reported that Ms Sables liked seeing Mr Newman with X, which is positive and Mr Newman said it was really good to be at the park together with his wife and his son. However, after this date the marriage takes – to use the vernacular – a nosedive. By 26 November 2013 the husband is saying he’s disheartened by the marriage because, as he sees it, it’s Ms Sables’ way or the highway.

48. On 10 November 2013, Ms Sables was questioned by Ms L whether she had been able to shift her primary connection from her parents to her husband and it is reported that Ms Sables’ response to that question was, “We need to see another counsellor who can help us communicate.”

49. It was noted in April 2014 by Ms K that X was well attached to Mr Newman, his father, and his father commented that from about the age of 16 months he noticed a significant increase in their attachment; it seemed to click and he and his son were getting on very well.

50. Dr W, psychiatrist who saw young X at the mother’s request, did not report any concerns that I could see reliant to this matter.

51. The report says X presents as a healthy, normal child, highly verbal and is a child progressing very well in his mother’s care. That is what I take from that report.

52. It is clear to me that the mother’s affidavit regarding the husband’s treatment of her during and post the marriage is far more expansive, distressing and concerning than that disclosed by her in the various medical reports and to various health professionals she has seen and as I have read.

53. When I go to the mother’s affidavit, for example at paragraph 35, she says:

    Once we returned to Australia Mr Newman’s attitude to me changed. The behaviour exhibited sexually aggressive, intimidating, threatening, coercive, disrespectful, condescending, alternating emotional abusive and distant, controlling, presumptuous, demeaning and strategic.

54. Paragraphs 40B through to J: the mother describes in graphic detail his poor behaviours towards her: aggressive sexual behaviour, forcibly inserting his fingers into her mouth, “making me suck them”, causing her to choke and gag. “Painfully forcing my mouth open saying, ‘I know what women like.’” He inserted his finger or penis into her anus on one occasion; she said she didn’t like it. He would grab her by the arms and walk her backwards to the bedroom, push her on the bed and despite the wife not wanting to have a sexual encounter he would force himself.

55. He would engage in rough behaviour, he would slap and hit her. That when she was recovering from a Caesarean section he grabbed her arms, walked her backwards the wife said, “I’ve got stitches; I’m in pain.” That she relented and performed manual stimulation on him although the wife went to see Ms L, none of these specific details were actually discussed that I could see in reports. The wife has made no such specific, concerning and graphic complaints to the various health professionals she has seen prior or post separation.

56. The complaints she made to these various health professionals are clear: the husband was financial controlling, as she saw it, and secretive about his finances; he was disrespectful of her; he ignored her at times; he caused her distress and anxiety by his ignoring her pleas or her views at times; he was struggling with her need to spend significant consecutive days at a time with her family in (omitted) and that there was a degree of what the father wanted he got, for example, not buying a family friendly car. Those matters come across clearly and it is clear that these expectations of the mother were not met in the marriage.

57. For the wife to assert in her affidavit, as she does at paragraph 38 and paragraph 97, that she is now seeing behaviours of her son that she was subjected to by the father during the marriage, such as, the child ignoring her, pushing past her, walking past her, putting his fingers up at her, is extraordinary in circumstances where this child has spent the most limited of times with his father and has, effectively, lived with his mother 24/7. Not only has he only spent very limited time with his father since separation which occurred when he was about 18 months of age some of the behaviours the mother describes are normal: children sometimes do ignore you when you speak to them; children sometimes do walk past you when you speak to them.

58. This is not something that you can only lay at the feet of the other parent with whom a child is spending very limited time.

59. At paragraph 99, 100 and 101 the mother complains about the child’s behaviour and blames the father yet the child has been, effectively, in his mother’s full-time care.

60. Now, the mother asserts the child is, himself, physically at risk in his father’s care. This was never raised or mentioned to any doctor, psychiatrist or psychologist the parties saw pre or post separation. It has only ever been mentioned in Dr C’s report, which is well post separation. At paragraph 82 of her affidavit the mother says:

    On Sunday, 5 February 2017 –

61. so only a month ago –

    the father was collecting X from McDonald’s. X smiled and waved to me over Mr Newman’s shoulder and said “Bye-bye, Mummy.”

62. That seems a happy event. I was pleased to read that. However, the paragraph continues:

    I saw Mr Newman say something to X, but did not hear what was said, but I observed X to frown and look down and his bottom lip came out the way he does when he thinks he is in trouble.

63. This is an extraordinary conclusion to draw when her child happily leaves her care, showing the excellent parenting he has had from his mother and his capacity to be away from her which is a tribute to her parenting of her son. Paragraph 83:

    Following time with Mr Newman X’s clingy behaviour included an increased demand for breast feeding.

64. At aged four years and three months I was not sure he was still being breastfed, but that seems to be how the paragraph is to be read.

    X consistently woke frequently during the night after he spent time with Mr Newman, coming to my bed asking for breastfed.

1. I am not quite sure whether the mother is describing events when the child was very young or now. Perhaps when he was very young that behaviour is not unusual. At four years and two months it may be. Paragraph 84:

   Heard him calling out at night, “No, Dada. No Dada.” He needs considerable comforting to go back to sleep in some way there’s something bad happened at the father’s.

2. The mother complains she cannot communicate with the father. That is true these parties cannot communicate. I accept that. However, what the mother is complaining of is that the father won’t speak to her at changeovers. The mother’s requirement for the father to speak to her at changeovers may well be improper in these circumstances, of very poor communication and her fear and may result in a fight or poor behaviours in front of X from both his parents; therefore I do not criticise the father for not communicating with the mother at changeover, that may be inappropriate.

3. Communication does not have to be oral, it can be by SMS or email and it should be always away from children when there is such a highly conflicted parental relationship as there is in this matter. I do accept the mother has difficulty speaking to the father and I do accept that he has been dismissive of her concerns at times and perhaps has treated her in a demeaning and belittling way in the past and perhaps post separation as well as pre separation. I accept the mother believes the father does not respect her as a parent and that the father may have to look to his attitude and conduct towards the mother for this reaction in his wife because the mother does feel belittled and not valued by him as a woman and as a parent of their son.

4. I accept the mother’s position that the father was, to use the vernacular, tight with money and controlling with money; that is a clear theme in this material. I do not accept that the father ever harmed the child or dealt with him in an aggressive or poor manner. The evidence from the notes is to the contrary The fact is he has not lived with his father since he was 16 to 18 months of age yet he has a good relationship with his father today and this is despite the fact he was separated from his father when he was young.

5. What we have is an anxious mother when the child is in the father’s care and a father who has spent very limited time with the child.

6. The father believes that the mother shows little respect for the father as a husband, yet despite all of this, X has a good relationship with his father. It was noted even as a young baby by the psychologist that the parents saw and that was also described as such by Dr C in her report.

7. Going to Dr C’s report and her recommendations, they are this:

   X lives with his mother –

8. There is no challenge to this at this stage.

   If no adverse findings are made, as discussed, X spends time with his father increasing to fortnightly overnight by mid-2016. Presence of another member of the extended paternal family will hopefully reassure the mother’s anxiety about overnight time. Two consecutive nights with his father should be in place before X has to manage the transition to big school in 2018. Shared parental responsibility. Parents consult with Dr G or some other child and family psychiatrist to ensure X receives consistency in how he’s parented to assist their capacities to think about X’s experiences and not theirs.

9. That is the key here. This is about X’s right; not the parents’ needs. The mother’s assertion at paragraph 99 of her affidavit, that the husband threatened her with a knife is not found in any notes of any psychologist, or medical practitioner either pre separation or post separation. It only appears in Dr C’s report

10. The knife was one the mother found in the father’s bedside table. The knife has taken on a life of its own. At paragraph 18 of Dr C’s report there are complaints of the father’s extensive alcohol consumption. This concern appears nowhere in the medical notes at all. When that very issue was raised by the psychologist in 2013, the mother’s concern was the extensive alcohol collection and role modelling not the father’s consumption of alcohol.

11. The serious domestic violence the mother alleges to Dr C of a sexual nature are most concerning to read. They do not appear anywhere in the subpoenaed material and notes I have read.

12. The notes I have read describe a woman well able to put her opinion forward, well able to put forward her feelings, her disappointment and hurt at her marriage. The notes clearly describe on many occasions, that the husband yelled at her, whether he thinks he did or not is irrelevant, that is what the wife heard, that he was financially controlling of her and that he did not support her as a mother. These concerns are consistently mentioned and raised in the reports.

13. Non-consensual sex is described Dr C at paragraph 6 of her report. This most concerning treatment and behaviour by the father is only raised with Dr C and in the mother’s affidavit filed post separation. The first time that non-consensual sex was raised was with Dr C and then it occurs in the affidavits.

14. The mother did not raise the child being shaken by the father, threatening her or the child with a knife with any health professional she saw pre or post separation until Dr C’s report. The knife incident has risen to a level that is a bit concerning at this stage.

15. I accept, as the husband has said to various health professionals that he became exasperated with the wife at times and that they argued. That behaviour is very different to the person that the wife now portrays him to be.

16. The husband said that if he was becoming upset and becoming exasperated with his wife he would go for a walk, go to the gym or take a drive to keep the peace. That comes out at paragraph 15 of Dr C’s report.

17. Dr C assesses some of the mother’s allegations at page 18, she says this:

    It was not apparent to me Ms Sables has fabricated her allegations; however, clearly the usual distortions in memory and cognitive biases apply to her as to everyone, thus, leaving the possibility of the reported offence, if taken at face value, are not factual.

18. This is an interim hearing; I cannot make findings.

19. I must go to the Act[1]. I will not rebut the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility at this time; I am not satisfied there are good reasons I should do so and X is entitled, at this stage, to have both his parents involved in the important decisions in his life. To rebut the presumption I would need to make findings which may occur at a final hearing.

    [1] Family Law Act 1975.

20. Therefore, I must consider whether there should be equal time or significant substantial time order. There is no application for equal time or significant and substantial time at this stage. Given that X has not had the benefit of even one night in his father’s care, such an order would not be in his best interests, and is neither practicable or reasonable and I will not make that order.

21. The child clearly benefits from the meaningful relationship with each of his parents. His mother is a competent, capable, caring and effective parent. She is parenting her child to her a high level. The mother is highly attuned to his needs and is very enmeshed and involved in his care. He is progressing extremely well and is well able to separate from her when he attends preschool two days a week. This is all to her credit because she has done this alone. Perhaps the mother may be over anxious or over attached to her son; however, he is progressing well in her care.

22. The plethora of concerning complaints the mother makes against the father and his treatment of her and X require testing.

23. They are pinching his child, unreal expectations of a young child in how they can act and behave, yelling at a child, pushing a child, saying a child is lazy, child running away from the father and from her, the child ignoring her, reluctant to spend time with his father as he grows older. All allegations are denied by the father.

24. The mother has 13 categories of poor behaviour she asserts were perpetrated upon her by the father in her affidavit and they are under headings such as: behaviour that was sexually aggressive; behaviour that was intimidating; behaviour that was threatening; behaviour that was coercive; behaviour that was disrespectful and condescending; behaviour that was emotional abuse and so on.

25. Very little of these categories are complained of by her to the two psychologists each of them saw prior to separation or in the doctors’ notes. None of the concerning and abusive sexual behaviour is mentioned. The concerns that are mentioned are disrespect, emotional and financial control, selfishness, yelling at her and her fulfilment in the marriage.

26. The area that the mother struggles with, and perhaps so does the father, is that each of them devalues the importance for X of each of them in his life. The mother has an almost absolute and total negative attitude to the father as being a positive influence in her son’s life.

27. I do not see such a clear negative attitude coming from the father as much however, he does perhaps devalue her as a parent and as a woman. Using Dr C’s words, and I say only perhaps the distortion in memory and cognitive biases applying to her are because of the effluxion of time may mean the possibility of her reported events are not to be taken at face value. I talk only of the reported events that she now describes in her affidavit and to Dr C that were not reported to other health professionals pre- and post-separation. These events may not be real as the father asserts, but perhaps now the mother thinks they are real. I do not know.

28. Again, this will be tested at a final hearing. Dr C did note the inconsistencies in the mother’s complaints to her and the subpoena material, which I hope I have highlighted thoroughly in this interim judgment.

29. Dr C clearly says there is a benefit at page 19 of her report for X in having a relationship with his father.

30. Going now to the benefit to X of a meaningful relationship with this father. More time including overnight time is rewarding as the experiences X can enjoy with his father are enriching. Night time is different time to daytime. Dr C observed that the father and X interact in a mutually satisfactory manner. X has the right to know both parents and be involved with both extended families to the extent it is in his best interest to do so.

31. Both parents have the capacity to parent their child to a high degree emotionally, psychologically and educationally. I do not see X is at any risk or an unacceptable risk in his father’s care. The greatest risk to X is the reaction of his mother to an order for overnight time or such other time that she does not think is in the child’s best interests and her resulting anxiety and perhaps impact upon her hitherto excellent parenting of this child.

32. If overnight time is ordered the mother’s anxiety is likely to increase. This, of itself, may be a negative for her otherwise excellent parenting of the child.

33. That is the only risk for X to the father’s application for overnight time. On balance – and that is what it is in an interim hearing – I find X’s right to a meaningful relationship with his father and an enriched relationship with his father outweighs any concerns that the mother’s heightened anxiety may have upon her parenting of the child. Given that there is a final hearing listed in in October 2017 if there are such issues that occur they will be well and truly dealt with at that final hearing.

34. I find X is well able to spend overnight time with his father, but that will be, initially, one night a month for a period of time, then his time will progress to fortnightly overnight time, pending the final hearing in October.

35. Dr C was clear in her view and I accept it was given with the rider “provided there’s no risk of harm to the child” which I have found there is not, that X would be having overnight time with his father in 2015/16 and he should be having two nights with his father before he attends school in 2018. It is 2017 and X has not spent any overnight time with his father. Therefore, it is time for X to commence his equally important relationship with his father as he has with his mother.

I certify that the preceding ninety-nine (99) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Henderson

Date: 11 April 2017