Samson and Ackerland - [2010] FMCAfam 419

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SAMSON & ACKERLAND

[2010] FMCAfam 419

FAMILY LAW – Child aged 4 years – matter set for final hearing – final hearing – final hearing cannot proceed due to mother’s recent hospitalisation following consumption of alcohol – interim arrangement pending investigation of incident – evidence of family assessor – best interests – assessment of risk.

Applicant:

MS SAMSON

Respondent:

MR ACKERLAND

File Number:

ADC 2205 of 2009

Judgment of:

Brown FM

Hearing date:

9 March 2010

Date of Last Submission:

9 March 2010

Delivered at:

Adelaide

Delivered on:

9 March 2010

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Ms Dickson

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Polly Dixon & Co

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms Lee

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Armour & Allen

Counsel for the ICL:

Ms Tinning

Solicitors for the ICL:

Mr A Kent

ORDERS

The proceedings be adjourned to 12 April 2010 at 10.00 am to enable the Independent Children’s Lawyer to issue any subpoena material as may be appropriate to this matter.
During the period of adjournment the child [X] born [in] 2005 live with the parents as follows:
(a)with the mother from 8.45 am on Tuesday 16 March 2010 until 3.00 pm on Thursday 18 March 2010 and between the same period each week thereafter subject to the following conditions:
(i)the mother not consume alcohol or any illicit drug during such periods or for a period of twenty four (24) hours prior to the child coming into her care;
(ii)
the child attend the [H] Kindergarten between the hours

8.45 am and 2.00 pm on each Tuesday and 8.45 am and

3.00 pm each Thursday during the aforesaid period;
(iii)Ms W, the child’s great maternal aunt be present between the hours of 9.00 am until 5.00 pm on the Wednesday of each period; and
(iv)the child have telephone communication with the father at 5.30 pm each Tuesday and Wednesday when the child is in the mother’s care.
(b)with the father at all other times.
The mother have telephone communication with the child each Monday, Friday and Sunday at 5.00 pm when the child is in the father’s care.
The father or his partner or Mr and Mrs Ackerland (Senior) deliver and collect the child at the [H] Kindergarten at the beginning and end of each period as set out in order 2(a) hereof.

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT ADELAIDE

ADC 2205 of 2009

MS SAMSON

Applicant

And

MR ACKERLAND

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These reasons were delivered orally immediately following the interim hearing, which involved the taking of oral evidence from an expert witness. Given that the case is on going, it is appropriate the reasons be transcribed and released to the par. These are those reasons.
This afternoon, I have to deal once again with interim arrangements for the care of a young child. He is [X], who was born [in] 2005. [X] is approaching his fifth birthday, when he will most probably start primary school.
The parties to the proceedings are [X]’s parents - his mother,

Ms Samson, and his father, Mr Ackerland. Also involved in the proceedings is Ms W.
Ms W is Ms Samson’s aunt. So, as I recall, she is [X]’s great-aunt. I may be wrong about the term. She is a person who is greatly interested in [X]’s care and she has been joined as a party to the proceedings.
There is another significant party involved in these proceedings and that is Mr Kent, who is the independent children’s lawyer. At an earlier stage, because of issues that have arisen in the case, it was thought expedient that [X] be independently represented and that representative is Mr Kent, who is an experienced solicitor. He has briefed a barrister, Ms Tinning, to appear on his behalf today.
This is not the first time I have had to make some orders in respect of [X]’s care. The case is a complicated one and, because of that complexity, not only have arrangements been made for [X] to be represented but also, Mr Kent has arranged for Ms L, who is a psychologist, to write a report in the case. I will come back to Ms L’s report in a moment.
The parents, I think, met in 2004. They have never been married to one another. They were involved in a relationship with one another between the middle of 2004 until the latter part of 2008. I think both Ms Samson and Mr Ackerland acknowledge that their relationship was not without its issues.
Particularly, the relationship was one characterised by violence but the parties are in disagreement about who was the major protagonist of that violence. At this stage I am not in a position to conclude one way or the other who was more to blame and what specifically caused the violence. But I suspect that the parties’ mutual consumption of alcohol did not help it.
Family violence is significant in cases like this because of what it does to children. It is harmful for children to be exposed to any kind of violence, particularly young children, because they do not understand the reasons why violence occurs. They can not rationalise why there is violence surrounding them. It makes them fearful. It makes them apprehensive.
There are some psychologists who say that with young children, if they are exposed to violent relationships, it makes them stressed, which makes them excrete adrenalin - which is a hormone which you probably know about - into their system and that can have consequences for how they develop psychologically.
So it is as crucial as that, in terms of the consequences, for a child of being exposed to violence. It can affect how a child develops and it is one of the significant factors a decision-maker such as myself has to take into account in determining what is the best outcome for a child.
Having said that, and as Ms L said earlier today, family violence is not a homogenous concept. People can behave inappropriately for all sorts of reasons. They can react in the heat of the moment and regret what they do and they can apologise.
Of course, when people are in the process of separating, that does not usually assist them to behave as well as they might otherwise. So there is what is called situational violence at one end of the axis but, on the other hand, there are other relationships where one person is bigger and stronger and uses his or her power to abuse and dominate the other parent and that, of course, is very serious behaviour indeed. For obvious reasons it is very significantly, in an emotional sense, for a child of [X]’s age to witness a person he loves being physically assaulted.
As I say, I do not know precisely what happened between you in your relationship and it may, indeed, be simplistic for me to think that I will ever be able to analyse what happened between you and reach some sort of concluded account of what happened.
But what is known is that, in the latter part of 2008, the police and Families SA “the Department” became involved in your lives and in the life of [X] because they were concerned that the care arrangements in your household were not appropriate for [X].
That is significant because, for Families SA to be involved, they must have been satisfied that [X] was in need of protection because his parents could not protect him themselves, as their ability to parent him to an appropriate standard was compromised. So that was significant. As is frequently the case once the authorities became involved, there were all sorts of unintended consequences.
I am not here to be critical of anyone, myself included, but the department became involved because there was a crisis, which required urgent attention. As such, I suspect they had not thought out in any great detail what would be the outcome of their intervention. Rather, they were of the view that they needed to do something urgently, which involved the removal of [X] from the care of his parents.
The Department needed to be involved and they were. However, what would be the extent of their involvement was unclear. Clearly it is a very significant thing for a child to be taken from his parents. Such action can have unforseen consequences. Ms Samson knows about this herself, from her own experience as a child, which was not the easiest of experiences as I understand it.
As I say, it is a very significant thing for the Government, in the guise of Welfare, to say the parents of a child that they will not be allowed to parent their child, either temporarily or permanently. Such a decision has obvious implications. The child becomes a ward of the state or is fostered or cared for by others.
Ordinarily, in this day and age, that is an outcome which should be avoided, as far as possible. Accordingly, the Department intervenes, no doubt they want to support parents and return the child, wherever possible, to the care of those who should be most concerned and involved in their child – the parents concerned.
Anyway, once the Department became involved, there followed a succession of placements for [X]. [X] spent some time with his paternal grandparents. Then, in the early part of October 2008, he was placed into the care of Ms W.
Ms W - and I mean her no disrespect - is not in the first flush of youth. I mean no disrespect. She is a person who wishes, for understandable reasons, to enjoy the fruit, no doubt, of a long and interesting life. The impression I get is that Ms W likes to travel and that, of course, is a pleasant thing to do. Anyway, she wanted to go to New Zealand in February 2009 and so she did.
Accordingly, the Department, who had placed [X] with Ms W in the first place convened another meeting and I think, as a consequence, [X] went to his paternal grandparents.
The Department, during this period were thinking about what should happen to [X] and there were all sorts of informal agreements reached. When I say informal agreements, as I understand it, the Department did not see fit to go and get a formal order from the Youth Court. I may be wrong about that, but that is my recollection. Anyway, rightly or wrongly, the Department decided that they would work towards a process of reuniting [X] in his mother’s predominant care. No doubt that was controversial as far as Mr Ackerland was concerned and remans so. The workers, at the time, wanted each of the parties to do a number of things, particularly seeking some professional assistance to address the causes of why their relationship had been a violent one.
There was some controversy about whether Mr Ackerland did what the Department wanted, namely seek some professional guidance.

Ms Samson said that she certainly did what the Department wanted her to do.
Anyway, the Department formulated what is commonly called a reunification plan, pursuant to which [X] was to be returned to the care of his mother. It did not work out because Mr and Mrs Ackerland, for understandable reasons - being highly supportive of their son whom they undoubtedly love and being also, I’ve no doubt, concerned about [X] - arranged for [X] to come into the care of his father. Obviously, that was controversial so far as Ms Samson was concerned.
It was also somewhat controversial so far as the Department was concerned because, as I say, they were of the view that [X] should be reunited in his mother’s predominant care. That had been their plan. This is when this court became involved, because Ms Samson brought her application to it.
The Department were not inclined to do anything further about this case, notwithstanding their plan had been disregarded. Their view was that the crisis had passed as far as [X] was concerned. As far as their statutory criteria to be involved was concerned, they were of the view that [X] was no longer in need of protection. Accordingly, they were not inclined to go off to the Youth Court to get an order in respect of [X].
There is some controversy between the parties as to what the Department told each of them. Mr Ackerland, I think, has said that he understood that, as there was no formal order and he was [X]’s father, he could resume [X]’s care. The mother had a different view.
That was the background to the matter coming into my court for the first time and, as you will recall, I made a number of emergency orders if you like, so that Ms Samson could spend some time with [X]. But I also wanted to hear from the Department itself because Ms Samson’s perspective was that the Department had told her they were very uncomfortable with [X] living with his father and they had told her, in essence, to come to this court as quickly as possible.
Anyway, I took the unusual step of issuing a subpoena, of my own initiative, to the Department worker concerned and she came along and gave some evidence. At that stage, to be perfectly frank, I had grave concerns about each of the parties because it is a significant thing that the welfare authorities had been involved with [X] to such an extent that he had been removed from his parents’ care and that was something that I could not overlook.
For the reasons I have already given to the parties, I was concerned about the fact that [X] had almost certainly been exposed to quite serious violence and I did not know, as I say, who was the main protagonist for that or, indeed, whether both of the parties were involved in that. I think Ms Samson concedes that she had not always had the easiest of lives.
It was at that stage that Ms W reappeared on the scene and she put herself forward, which was a very decent thing for her to do and I am grateful that she did. She put herself forward as an honest broker. She had no criticisms against her in terms of her background and her previous involvement with [X]. From Mr Ackerland’s point of view, no doubt, he was concerned that Ms W was closely involved and aligned with Ms Samson and that is clearly the case. No doubt he was fearful that he would be frozen out from [X]’s life.
Anyway, for better or worse, I decided that [X] should go and live with Ms W, until the thing could be sorted out and in that context, the order was made for [X] to be independently represented. I anticipated that steps would be taken to have some sort of independent and expert assessment of [X]’s needs undertaken. And later at an appropriate stage, in the context of the courtroom here, I would make my own assessment of each of the parties and decide who of them was more likely to be telling the truth or otherwise about what had happened in the past.
Since that time, the orders have been changed from time to time.

Ms Samson has spent time with [X] and Mr Ackerland has spent time with [X] and so has Ms W.
Mr Ackerland has formed another relationship. His current partner has two children. I may be mistaken but I think they are aged about ten and two, somewhere in that age group. His partner is a person by the name of Ms J. She has also been involved in arrangements for exchanging [X] and the arrangements have necessarily been fairly complicated.
Mr Ackerland has employment. He is working as [omitted], I think. He has attended some counselling, which he has deposed as being successful for him. It is his case that he has long had concerns about Ms Samson, whom he regards as being volatile by temperament and prone to lapse into excessive alcohol use and possibly use of drugs. I should say that during the parties’ relationship, they are critical of each other for both using quite serious drugs – amphetamines and things of that nature.
The matter was fixed for hearing today and in preparation for that report, Ms L, who is a psychologist, has prepared her report. It is a lengthy report but in the lead up to the hearing, some significant things have occurred.
Most recently, in the past month or so, Ms W has arranged for [X] to live predominantly with his mother. This has not been in keeping with the strict application of the orders which have been made. But Ms W’s position - and it’s an understandable position - is that she has always been a stop gap, so as [X]’s care is concerned. She, to use her own words, wants her life back.
She was also very concerned with how [X] was presenting to her. It was her apprehension that he was a distressed child who was pining for his mother and she was very concerned about how he was presenting. So the arrangement came about whereby he reverted to his mother’s care and, of course, Ms Samson was pleased about that.
What Mr Ackerland knew of it is unclear to me, but I suspect he did not know very much, if anything at all, about it. Ms Samson has some children from an earlier relationship. They are adult children, I think. I have met the two gentlemen concerned because they were opposed to documents relating to their background being subpoenaed and read in connection with these proceedings.
Anyway, last Thursday, I am told – although precisely what occurred has not been put into an affidavit by any of the parties concerned in it – that last Thursday there was an incident when the mother’s son, [Y], who is 22, called the police. He was concerned that the mother had been drinking and was intoxicated. The police apparently removed [X] from the mother’s care.
Ms W became involved again and [X] came back into her care. The same evening the mother became upset. It is said that she expressed some suicidal intentions. How serious they were is unknown to me, but they were taken seriously enough that an ambulance was called and the mother was hospitalised.
She was not hospitalised for very long obviously, because she is here at court today. But her hospitalisation has been a complicating factor and it was a factor about which Ms L was rightly informed. In those circumstances, it was important for me to take some evidence from

Ms L and determine what were views about the significance of the event. In her report which is dated – I’m not sure if it is dated, but it was released to the parties fairly recently – I got it, I think, on Friday. I may have got it on Thursday, I’m not sure, of last week, but it was released fairly recently.
Accordingly, in her report, Ms L interviewed each of the parties at some length. She visited their homes. She got long histories from each of the parties about their relationship with one another. Ms L was concerned about [X]’s very unstable history since October 2008. She was also concerned that both Mr Ackerland and Ms Samson had, what Ms L described as, significant self-management problems and Ms L was also concerned about the multiplicity of individuals who had been involved in providing for [X]’s care.
In her recommendations, Ms L was somewhat guarded as to who of the parties, that is Ms Samson or Mr Ackerland, presented as the more favourable primary parent. She sees the case as being difficult and problematic.
Ms L was also concerned about the practical implications of where the parties currently live. Regrettably, they presently live on opposite sides of Adelaide, in [omitted] and [H] respectively. [X] is going to kindy at [H] Kindergarten at present.
In that context, Ms L thought that the best option, at this stage, would be for [X], if the parties could find a way to live closer to each other so they could establish a pattern in which [X] could spend equal or close to equal periods of time with each parent.
I think it is fair to say that Ms L was impressed with Mr Ackerland and also Ms J and she said that the court should not discard Mr Ackerland as being a candidate for [X]’s primary care. But on the other hand,

Ms L also thought that there were good indicators that Ms Samson could be the primary parent because Ms L was impressed on what information she had when she wrote her report, particularly what she had learned from Ms W, that Ms Samson was doing well.
Ms L recommended that the parties move closer to each other in order to establish a week about regime for [X], but otherwise, if that was not possible, Mr Ackerland maintain a significant parental role in [X]’s life, seeing [X] at least four days per fortnight as well as half the school holidays.

Without meaning any disrespect to Ms L, it is sometimes easier to make a recommendation and much harder to put it into practice. Anyway, Ms L’s recommendations have been overtaken by what occurred last Thursday, which caused Ms L a great deal of concern, as it does me. I hasten to add that I do not know precisely what happened on Thursday nor does Mr Kent or Ms Tinning.
As one would imagine, Mr Ackerland is very worried. It is essentially his position that this incident confirms what he has said all along – that there are deep flaws in Ms Samson’s household and in her capacity to parent a vulnerable child of [X]’s age.
From Ms Samson’s point of view, she sees the matter as an isolated lapse and it would be her case that it has assumed too much significance and Ms Dickson, I think, told me that the police are somewhat annoyed that [Y] involved them at all. Whether that is true or not, I do not know.
Anyway, given the parties’ history with one another, as I have outlined it - which is a history where both assert that the other has significant issues to do with alcohol abuse - I am duty-bound, I think, to take the incident very seriously indeed.
In her evidence to me Ms L indicated she was concerned that, given that [X] had been living predominantly with his mother, albeit unofficially for about four weeks, the incident of Thursday might be indicative that Ms Samson was not in a position to cope with caring for [X] because she had not made the necessary changes in her life which she needs to make if she is to be significantly involved in [X]’s life.
As I have said, Ms L’s view is that what [X] needs more than anything else is stability. That is, he needs to know what his arrangements will be long-term and settle in to them so he can just be a little boy, I suppose, and not subject to having his world turned upside down without any reference to him.
Anyway, Ms L was concerned that the mother’s recent conduct constituted a risk to [X]’s wellbeing. Ms L was also concerned, I think, when she wrote her report, that it was really too early to say who of the parties was the better primary parent candidate and - although she conceded that with [X] starting primary school in July of this year, it would be a good thing if a decision could be made - she, I think, was not averse to the prospect of there being some sort of further interim arrangement to see how it all worked out.
Anyway, Ms Tinning, for obvious reasons, wants to investigate what happened on Thursday. She wants Mr Kent to issue a subpoena to the police and to the hospital so that independent documents may reveal what did or did not happen. For that reason it is not possible for the proceedings to be finalised.
That leaves the issue of what should occur in the short-term and when I say short-term, I mean the next four or five weeks. Ms L said that it was difficult to know at this stage whether Ms Samson was a viable parent and that would be a view taken up by the independent children’s lawyer.
In terms of returning [X] to Ms W’s care, Ms L was not in favour of that even if it is available, which I do not think it is. Anyway ultimately the court has to grasp the nettle and decide whether [X] should live with his parents in some form or other, either predominantly with one or in some sort of shared or substantial time arrangement. So, at this stage, Ms W doesn’t seem to be a practical option and even if she was, her involvement would only delay the inevitable. At this stage, I have to determine where [X] should live.
It would be Ms L’s view that, as a result of what happened on Thursday, it would be unacceptable for [X] to live predominantly with his mother and this must mean that he should live predominantly with Mr Ackerland, a state of affairs that Ms Samson, I think, no doubt with reluctance, accepts. So the question arises, what time [X] should spend with his mother.
Ms L’s view, after observing [X] with each of his parents and, indeed, with his father and Ms J and Ms J’s children, is that [X] has a close and loving relationship with his mother and Ms W. He was observed to be comfortable and relaxed with his mother and, indeed, he was observed to be comfortable and relaxed with his father. So there are significant relations there.
Ms L was concerned that, although the care considerations about [X] needed to be to the forefront of any decision-maker’s mind, the decision-maker needed to bear in mind that [X] did have a significant relationship with his mum and he would be distressed if she disappeared as a substantial presence in his life.
It is in that context that the present dispute between the parties comes into relief. Mr Ackerland’s point of view is that the court ought to be extremely cautious. It is his view that any time between the mother and [X] should be supervised. He can not suggest anyone apart from Ms W, I suppose.
Ms Samson’s point of view is that the court should make orders that would allow [X] to spend a significant block of overnight time with her. She proposes from Monday to Thursday. That is in marked contrast to what Mr Ackerland proposes - which is supervised time only with no overnights.
Unfortunately, proceedings such as this one encourage parties, I think, to put ambit claims. Ms Tinning urges caution. Ms W remains, I think, aligned with Ms Samson. Ms L does not think that she (Ms W) is blind to Ms Samson’s failings.
Ms L was impressed that Ms W was frank about what had happened on Thursday and, as such, was of the view that Ms W was somebody in whom the court could continue to trust as someone who was objectively sensible and an honest broker, who was focussed on [X]’s best interests rather than on any other ulterior agenda.
I share Ms L’s assessment at this stage because, at the end of the day, Ms W does not want to play any significant over-arching role in [X]’s life. She loves [X]. She wants to maintain her relationship with [X]. She wants [X] to be safe. But, at her age, which I think, from memory, is 69, she does not want to be engaged to be [X]’s guardian for the next 10 plus years. In holding that view she is obviously very sensible.
So Ms W’s position is that she would be, in the short-term, available to Ms Samson to be an honest broker, to be someone who will be – and this is her expression – an eye in the sky for [X] and on this basis she proposes an arrangement which would dovetail between [X]’s kindergarten commitments. I should say that [X] goes to kindy on Tuesday and Thursday. He starts at 8.45 am each morning. On Tuesday he finishes at 2.00 pm and on Thursday he finishes at 3.00 pm.
Ms L wants [X] to finish his kindergarten before he goes into primary school in July because she thinks it would be unsettling for him if there is another change. What Ms W proposes is that nominally [X] would be in Ms Samson’s care from Tuesday morning until Thursday afternoon at 3.00 pm. He would attend kindergarten on Tuesday and Thursday. She would be available to visit him and Ms Samson on Wednesday. So there would be two overnight periods but there would be the safeguard of kindergarten at each end, which would mean that [X] would be with other children and with professional carers and she (Ms W) would be there on Wednesday.
Ms Tinning is not in favour of that. She is in favour of some time to coincide with kindergarten on Tuesday’s and Thursday’s but she is concerned that the overnight involved would be imprudent at this stage, particularly for the next four weeks or so whilst investigations are being done. Ms L, although aware of the risk – and she, I think, can not be accused of downplaying the potential risk – was also concerned about harm being done to [X] if he did not see his mother regularly.
Mr Ackerland, to his credit, although it is difficult for him, is willing to continue with the [H] School. It probably will fall more to Ms J to deal with the inconvenience, but Ms J, from what I know of her and I have read what Ms L says about her, seems to be a decent person, although, as Ms W points out, she and Mr Ackerland have only been involved with one another for a period of months rather than years. Ms W also reminds me that Mr Ackerland has been dealt with by a Magistrate’s Court in respect of an assault matter.
So those are the competing proposals. The provisions of the Family Law Act dealing with children essentially rest on twin pillars. The first of which is that I am to protect a child from neglect or abuse and family violence and the psychological and physical consequences that can come from that. Secondly, I am to ensure that a child, as far as possible, commensurate with any issues to do with the child’s neglect or abuse, maintains a meaningful or beneficial relationship with both parents.
Accordingly, in the context of this interim hearing, I have to make some sort of assessment of the risk which will arise to [X] if he spends overnight time in the care of his mother.
His mother is significant to him. Ms L’s report makes that clear. [X] is comfortable in his mother’s care. At one stage, and of course I bear in mind how old [X] is, he expressed to Ms L that he wanted to live with mummy. That may mean nothing. It may mean something. But it is, I think, indicative of a significant relationship.
What, precisely, occurred on Thursday I do not know, but it is concerning. I accept people get worried and upset when court proceedings come along but the best interests of the child remain paramount of course. Anxiety about this court can be part of the reason why Ms Samson chose to drink, but it is also, perhaps, indicative that there are many issues as yet unresolved in her life, despite her efforts to address them. Ms Lee, who appears for Mr Ackerland, has suggested that there may be other incidents involving Ms Samson and that what happened on Thursday is the tip of a bigger iceberg. Whether that is so or not, I am not sure.
So, as is invariably the case with cases like this, there is a risk in allowing a child to spend time with a parent but there is also a risk in saying that the child can not spend time with a parent. In this case, the risk is that [X] - a child who has already been much disturbed and who is going to be disturbed yet again because he will move into yet another arrangement for his care when he goes, as he will shortly, into

Mr Ackerland’s predominant care - there are risks if his mother is removed as an effective component of his life.
I have to balance those risks and I have come to the view that it would not be unacceptable for [X] to spend time with his mother to coincide with the hours of kindergarten on Tuesday and Thursday, provided there are injunctions regarding her alcohol use and also provided that Ms W is involved as a monitor for a significant portion of the time.
I appreciate that if someone is an alcoholic or has a weakness for alcohol, an injunction is not likely to be the most effective instrument in preventing a person from drinking. Ms Samson has said she is going to seek some medical treatment. I do not know what that medical treatment will be. I also do not know whether it may involve the prescription of some other drug to deal with other emotional or psychological issues.
But I am concerned, I think, that it would not be in [X]’s best interests for him to go from an arrangement whereby he was spending most of his time with his mother to a situation where he spends very little time with his mother.
I do not think that would either enhance his maternal relationship or encourage [X] to have a sense of stability. I appreciate there is a risk but it is not, in my view, a risk so great that it would be unconscionable for the court to take it.
For those reasons I am going to make these orders (as set out at commencement) subject to anything any of the parties want to say about the practicality or workability of what is proposed.

I certify that the preceding eighty-two (82) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Brown FM

Date: 9 March 2010