Santoro and Santoro
[2009] FamCA 812
•2 September 2009
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SANTORO & SANTORO | [2009] FamCA 812 |
| FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Competing interim applications in respect of the time the children spend with the parties – best interests of the children |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) |
| Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) |
| APPLICANT: | Ms Santoro |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Santoro |
| INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Mr Ross Clarke |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 1574 | of | 2008 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 2 September 2009 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Watts J |
| HEARING DATE: | 24 August 2009 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Mr Schonnel |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Karras Partners |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Richardson, SC |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | York Family Law |
| COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Mr Gardiner |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Ross A. Clarke & Associates |
Orders
PENDING FURTHER ORDERS BY CONSENT
The parties attend upon Ms B, clinical psychologist, Sydney so that she might attempt to assist the parties in developing strategies to deal with each other in a non-adversarial and cooperative way.
Each party will pay one half of Ms B’s fees.
X born … April 1999 and Y born … April 2001 (“the children”) spend time with their father on each Father’s Day from 9am to 5pm.
The mother and father both be restrained by injunction from initiating any discussions about the father or his family or the mother and her family respectively in the presence of or hearing of the children or any of them.
The mother and father be restrained by injunction from denigrating or disparaging the father or his family or the mother and her family respectively in the presence of or hearing of the children and that the mother and the father be restrained from allowing any third party to denigrate or disparage the father and his family members or the mother and her family members respectively in the presence of or hearing of the children.
Each of the parties keep the other informed as to:-
6.1.The children’s education and any homework that the children are required to undertake;
6.2.Any co-curricular activities that the children undertake from time to time which co-curricular activities are to be agreed upon in writing by the parties;
6.3.The children’s health and any special treatment that they require;
6.4.Any medication that the children might be prescribed from time to time.
The wife be restrained by injunction from:
7.1.Causing the children to be known by any surname other than “Santoro”;
7.2.Incorporation of the mother’s maiden name “Machione” with the children’s name or middle name or surname.
In the event that the birthday of the mother or the father falls on a weekend then the children spend from 10am to 7pm with the parent who is having that birthday.
The children spend time with their father during the period Christmas Eve to Boxing Day as follows:-
9.1.In odd numbered years from 12 noon Christmas Eve to 2pm Christmas Day;
9.2.In even numbered years from 2pm Christmas Day to 6pm Boxing Day;
The children spend time with their father during the period Good Friday to Easter Monday as follows:
10.1.In odd numbered years from 2pm Good Friday until 2pm Easter Saturday;
10.2.In even numbered years from 2pm Easter Saturday to 6pm Easter Monday.
The children spend time with their father from 12 noon New Years Eve to 2pm New Years Day in odd numbered years.
Unless specifically provided, changeover shall be as follows:
12.1.The mother to deliver the children to the father at the conclusion of the children’s time with the mother;
12.2.The father to deliver the children to the mother at the conclusion of the children’s time with the father.
On 25 September 2009 the mother pick up X from school; the father pick up Y from school; the parties are to meet with the children at V, a coffee shop known to both the parties at 5pm; X will then remain with his father until the commencement of school on Monday 28 September 2009 and Y will remain with her mother until the commencement of school on Monday 28 September 2009.
In the event that either party seeks an order under s 10 of the Federal Proceedings Costs Act, submissions in support of that application are to be filed and served by 30 September 2009.
PENDING FURTHER ORDER
Current orders whereby the children spend time with their parents are discharged.
The children live with their mother.
The children spend time with their father during school term in a four week cycle as follows:-
17.1.In the first three weeks of the four week cycle from Friday afternoon when the father collects them from Italian school until just before the commencement of school on Monday;
17.2.In the fourth week of a four week cycle from after school Tuesday until just before the commencement of school on Friday.
The children spend time with their father during one half of the 2009 third term school holidays and failing agreement to be the first half (from after school at the end of third school term until 12 noon on the following Saturday) and for the purpose of counting school term weekends, the weekend immediately after third school term and the weekend immediately before the fourth term commences will not be weekends which are counted as school term weekends.
The Independent Children's Lawyer shall ask A/Prof Q to provide a recommendation in her updated report as to what time the children should spend with their parents during the forthcoming December 2009/January 2010 school holidays and if her updated report is not available by the end of October, for her to provide a short supplementary report responding to that question.
The parties have liberty to relist the mater on 7 days notice before me in relation to the issue of Christmas school holidays.
The father facilitate the children receiving telephone calls from their mother between the hours of 7pm and 7.30pm each day they are with their father.
The father forthwith provide to the mother in writing a telephone number upon which the mother can ring the children pursuant to the preceding order.
The mother be restrained from attending either of the children’s schools at any time when the father is due to deliver the children to school or pick the children up from school or, at the children’s Italian school on a Friday afternoon when the father is collecting the children from Italian school.
The mother and father ensure that Y attend an eye test with Mr F and speech pathology with Ms SV (for as many attendances as recommended by each of those persons) and that for the purpose of arranging the said appointments:
24.1.The father is to contact Mr F and Ms SV to obtain three alternate appointment times with those persons and thereafter notify the mother by email of alternate appointment times.
24.2.The mother is to respond to the father by email within two working days nominating the appointment times to be attended by Y.
Each parent be at liberty to attend the eye tests and speech pathology appointments.
Neither parent make any appointment for Y for eye sight tests and/or speech therapy without the written consent of the other parent.
Leave be granted to the solicitors for the father to indicate to Ms BA, psychologist, that a report by A/Prof Q dated 12 December 2008 dealing with matters relating to Y and her family has been prepared and inviting her to request a copy of this report should she believe that was appropriate. In the event that a request is received by the solicitors for the father from Ms BA for a copy of A/Prof Q’s report, then leave is granted to the solicitors for the father to provide Ms BA with a copy of A/Prof Q’s report.
Within 14 days from the date of these orders, the mother provide to the father’s solicitor a schedule identifying all items removed by her from the former matrimonial home at C.
Within 7 days from the date of these orders, the mother will make a time with the father for her to attend at the C property within a period of 14 days from the date of these orders in the company of one adult person nominated by the mother for the purpose of compiling a list identifying those items situated at the C property which the mother will request be retained by her in the finalisation of the matter and the father shall be at liberty to be present with one other adult person during the period of time that the mother is at the property for the purposes of compiling that list.
In the event the mother wishes to press applications 7, 8, 9 or 10 in the Response filed 21 May 2009, then within 7 days the mother will apply to relist the matter for a further mention.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Santoro & Santoro is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
FILE NUMBER: SYC 1574 of 2008
| MS SANTORO |
Applicant
And
| MR SANTORO |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
In competing interim applications, the father relied upon an amended application, filed on 22 July 2009, and the mother relied upon a response, filed on 21 May 2009. Parts of those applications were not pressed.
The applications suggested possible changes in interim parenting orders relating to X, born in April 1999 (currently aged 10) and Y, born in April 2001 (currently aged 8).
Orders of Federal Magistrate Altobelli made on 2 April 2008 provided that the children spend each weekend with their father from after school Friday until the commencement of school Monday. The mother’s primary application was that the children spend one in every four weekends with her.
Neither party, nor the Independent Children’s Lawyer sought to make any submissions based upon the principles in Rice v Asplund and therefore the interim hearing proceeded before me on the basis that it was accepted that there had been significant changes since the Orders were made on 2 April 2008 which would enable me to re-entertain the matter on an interim basis.
There were some parts of the applications that were agreed to by consent and those matters have been recorded in the Orders which I make as interim consent orders.
Each party and the Independent Children’s Lawyer have provided helpful written submissions and I have read the material that each party has indicated that they wish to rely upon. The submissions of the mother contain a chronology which seems uncontroversial and it can be read as being incorporated into these reasons.
This matter, which is an interim hearing, is confined in compass. There has been no cross examination and I am unable to make any determination in relation to any disputed matters of fact.
I am required to make decisions about interim parenting orders which are in the best interests of X and Y. In doing so, I bear in mind the provisions of s 60CC(2), (3), (4) and (4A) of the Family Law Act 1975 (“FLA”) insofar as that is a meaningful exercise when the evidence is untested. None of the submissions refer to s 60CC FLA, although the Independent Children’s Lawyer helpfully says “the court will obviously follow ‘The Legislative Pathway’ (Gode’s case [sic])”.
The more important considerations are s 60CC(2)(a); s 60CC(3)(c) and (d) FLA.
Dr Q has produced a report dated 12 December 2008, based upon interviews in July 2008 (the mother had attended the interview with a security guard).
On 1 July 2009 I had ordered that the parties attend and cause the children to attend further interviews with Dr Q for the purposes of preparing an updated report with a view to moving this matter to a final hearing. I was informed that the appointments for those interviews are scheduled for early September.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer in written submissions indicated a belief that an order should be made for the parties to attend upon Ms B, a clinical psychologist in Sydney for the purposes of her attempting to assist the parties in developing strategies to deal with each other in a non-adversarial and cooperative way. The parties agreed to an order in those terms.
Variation in time spent
The father’s primary position was that there be no change to the Orders of Federal Magistrate Altobelli in relation to what was to happen during the school term.
The father’s alternate position was that he consented to the children being with their mother for one weekend in four, on the basis that that time be made up by the children coming to him in the fourth week from after school on Tuesday to before school on Friday morning (an alternate suggestion was that the children move to a week about arrangement to spend time with their father but that alternative was never seriously pressed at the interim hearing).
The mother’s second choice, if she was unsuccessful in obtaining one weekend in four, without any compensatory time being given to the father, was for the current arrangements to remain as they are. Counsel for the mother indicated that his instructions were that the mother would prefer that to be the arrangement rather than to move to a situation where the children spent some time with their father during the school week.
Counsel for the mother complained about the fact that the father in response to the mother’s application for weekend time had sought mid week time which counsel for the mother categorised as “wholesale changes in the children’s routine”.
Counsel for the mother sought to categorise a change whereby the children spend some time with their father mid week every four weeks during school term as radical or “drastic” but not categorise a change whereby the mother received weekend time in the same way. In support of that submission, counsel for the mother relied upon paragraphs (aaaa) and (cccc) on page 29 of the father’s affidavit filed 22 July 2009.
A closer reading of those paragraphs, however, would indicate that the “drastic” change the father refers to is his third alternative proposal on this interim hearing, namely that if either of his first two proposals are unsuccessful, the court might consider the “drastic” change of moving to immediate week about arrangements.
Counsel for the mother submitted that given that there were interviews scheduled in early September with A/Prof Q for the purpose of her updating her report, then it would be premature to make a variation order granting the children mid week time with their father.
The father, through his counsel, gave assurances that he would personally be able to pick both children up after school and drop them off each school day if he had them after school on Tuesday and overnight on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday in the one in four weeks that he proposes in his alternate application. Counsel for the father indicated that the father would make arrangements with his employer to be available. Y completes school at 3pm and X completes school at 3.15pm and the father has indicated that he will be able to pick both children up after they each get out of school.
Counsel for the mother referred to detailed evidence in the mother’s primary affidavit. Counsel for the mother submitted that the Independent Children’s Lawyer in supporting the father’s application was in no better position than anybody else to make a recommendation about changing the current arrangements.
Counsel for the mother sought some solace in A/Prof Q’s recommendation which was in the following terms:-
“I would recommend an arrangement that approximates shared parenting but with limitations according to what would make for the least interaction between the parents and their families and their agents. This might be alternate weeks with the father from Thursday after school to Monday morning back at school and one or two nights mid week in the second week, all changeovers being to and from school. They could spend half of the shorter school holidays with their father from 2009 but I would suggest less than half of the long summer holidays until the end of 2010.”
However, a closer consideration of that recommendation sees A/Prof Q recommending that in each fortnight period the children spend up to three school nights a fortnight with their father (Thursday in the first week and up to two nights in the second week).
It is difficult to see in those circumstances how A/Prof Q’s report would be able to support a contention that three nights once every four week cycle mid week was a radical proposal.
Counsel for the mother suggested that I wait for A/Prof Q’s updated report before ordering mid week time.
In my view it is not necessary in the short term to wait for A/Prof Q’s updated report. I do not consider the changes sought by either the mother in requesting one weekend in four or the father in requesting some mid week time as radical or drastic.
On 2 April 2008 at an interim hearing, FM Altobelli made an order that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility. Consideration of equal time is not something that the parties have asked me to consider within the confines of this hearing. In those circumstances, s 65DAA FLA requires me to consider whether the children spending substantial and significant time with each of their parents would be in their best interests and would be reasonably practicable, and if it is, then to make such an order.
The definition of substantial and significant time is contained in s 65DAA(3) FLA and includes days that do not fall on a weekend or holidays and time which would allow a parent to involve themselves in a child’s daily routine. I find, at least in the very short term, it is in both children’s best interests to spend some time with their father during the school week.
I note in passing that counsel for the mother has made similar submissions based on s 65DAA FLA in support of the proposition that the children should have some weekend time with their mother.
School holiday time
At the current time, during school holidays the father only has the children on weekends.
A/Prof Q at page 48 of her report suggests that the father should have half of the term school holidays and something less than half of the Christmas holidays up to the end of 2010 at which time it should be half.
The father made an application for one half of the school holidays with the wife to have the first half in even years and the second half in odd years. The mother opposed that application. Counsel for the mother submitted that there was no evidence before the court to indicate the father would be available to care for the children during that amount of time.
Counsel for the father indicated that at least for X, he currently has more than six weeks summer school holidays. The father indicated that he would undertake to be available during times that the children had with him on school holidays by taking unpaid leave or otherwise so that he would be available to be the primary carer of the children during these periods.
Counsel for the mother described the reference to the “school holiday” part of A/Prof Q’s recommendation as “cherry picking” and made the submission that there was no need to address Christmas holidays at this time and we could await A/Prof Q’s updated report before the decision was made.
Erring on the side of caution, I accept the submission that we can wait to make a determination about what is to happen in this forthcoming Christmas school holidays until after A/Prof Q has seen the parties again and produced a report. I, however, have to deal with the forthcoming third term school holidays.
The father’s proposal was supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer certainly insofar as it related to the third term school holidays. Counsel for the wife submitted that the Independent Children’s Lawyer was in no better position than anyone else to make such a recommendation. The mother asserts that there are major problems relating to Y dealing with being with her father for a week.
It was common ground that on 9 March 2009 the mother handed up to FM Altobelli an application for final orders which contained an application for the father to have one week of school holidays in each of terms 1, 2 and 3 and during December/January holidays on a week about basis.
If that was the mother’s position in March then it is difficult to see the logic in her opposition to school holiday contact. I conclude it cannot be genuinely the mother’s position for her to be asserting that it is not in the best interests of the children to spend any holiday time with their father when that is part of what she has been asking the court to do on a final basis since March 2009.
I take into account that the children are aged 10 and 8. They currently have no holiday contact with their father. A/Prof Q’s report indicates that, certainly as at June last year, they had a very good relationship with their father. I am prepared to order one week’s holiday time for the third term school holidays.
Restraint against the mother attending children’s schools
The father made an application that an order be made that the mother be restrained from attending either of the children’s schools on a Monday morning when the father is delivering the children to school, or at the children’s Italian school on a Friday afternoon when the father is collecting the children from Italian school. The Independent Children’s Lawyer supports that application by the father. Counsel for the father orally made a further application extending this order so that it would apply to any period of time when there was a pick up or drop off at school under any new orders that were made by the court (for example if an order was made for the father to have the children from after school on Tuesday to before school on Friday then the order would apply to those times as well). The mother opposes the application, and states her case is that she has always attended the children’s schools on Monday mornings. The mother asserts that there is an assembly at Y’s school on a Monday morning at which awards are sometimes given, and the father works on Monday mornings and only drops the children off. The mother submits that there is no justification for curtailing her behaviour in this regard.
The mother’s affidavit contains examples of interaction between her and the father at school on a Monday morning which must have been, at the very least, uncomfortable for Y.
Previously, as I have said, I am unable to resolve factual disputes between the parties; however, I have Dr Q’s report. She has made comments to the effect that the children are caught in the middle of these two families who are “intensely committed to sustaining, what almost amounts to warfare”. It is reasonably clear from the material filed from both sides that the ability of the parties to get along reasonably together when they are with one another and in the children’s presence has not improved. There is no indication that their level of communication has changed to the extent that they are able to communicate with one another in any constructive or meaningful fashion in respect of the children. There is no doubt that the children, particularly Y, have been affected by unacceptable acrimonious exchanges. It was Dr Q’s view that “whatever difficulties they (the children) have at present, are mostly related to the conflict, their being induced into it by the parents and extended family, and perhaps more particularly, by their mother.”
On three weekends out of four at least, Y will be going home to her mother on Monday evening and remain with her for the rest of the week. I have to weigh the advantage to Y of having her mother at assembly on Monday morning against the conflict that it must create in her knowing that her parents are in close proximity with one another in circumstances where Y would know the current state of their ability to communicate with one another. I pause to note that the parties have agreed to the suggestion made by the Independent Children’s Lawyer that they attend therapeutic counselling to attempt to improve this situation, but between now and the final hearing, I consider that it is in the best interests of the children to minimise the number of occasions on which the children witness contact between their parents. Accordingly, I find that it is in the best interests of the children to make an order in the terms of 1(a) of the amended application in a case filed on 22 July 2009 with the further amendment as sought orally by counsel for the father.
Extra circular activities
The father seeks an order that the mother be restrained from removing either of the children from any school or any extra circular activity in which they are currently engaged, or enrolling the children in any further schooling or any extra circular activity without the written consent of the father. The mother seeks to temporarily cease Y’s attendance at Italian school. This is opposed by the father. The mother relies upon evidence of the school teacher to the effect that Y is having some difficulties with other school work and more particularly with sounds. Speech therapy has been recommended and the mother’s case is that Y should cease Italian class so as not to confuse her with different sounds.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer supported the notion that Y’s attendance at Italian school might be stopped until better evidence can be put before the Court in relation to this aspect of the matter.
Annexure J to the father’s affidavit sworn on 8 May 2009 is an email sent by the mother to the father on 1 May 2009. The email announces the unilateral decision by the mother to withdraw Y from Italian classes. The reasons given by the mother are:
46.1.Y’s wishes; and
46.2.Learning difficulties in the English language which needed to be attended to.
Counsel for the father argues that a joint decision was made by the parties that Y learn Italian at school and there is no firm evidence that would point to it being appropriate to stop Italian classes for Y. Counsel for the father submits that it is the mother who has unilaterally changed the status quo, and until there is some clear evidence from the school that the status quo is not in Y’s interests, the court should not endorse the unilateral decision made by the mother. There is no current report from the speech pathologist, Ms SV in relation to this issue, although I was told that one is coming.
Counsel for the mother pointed out that annexure “P” to the father’s second affidavit filed 22 July 2009, which is an email from Ms SV to both parties dated 12 June 2009, says in part “If she [Y] is having language and learning difficulties, it may be more pressing to address these issues before extending to another language”.
This is an initial and tentative view but it does support the notion that the wiser course would be to temporarily suspend Italian lessons whilst Y’s language difficulties are being attended to.
It is common ground that Y has language and learning difficulties.
I agree with counsel for the mother’s submissions that it is not necessary at this time to overload Y.
Orders 3, 4 and 5 as sought in the Amended Application in a Case
There was a dispute between the parties as to what orders should be made, if any, to enable eye tests and speech pathology appointments to be organised for Y.
There was a dispute between the parties as to who had organised what and I was left in some confusion based on the oral submissions as to who had in fact organised appointments.
The mother, in her written submissions, says that it would be easier for her to get the children to appointments if it happened during school week and if she arranged the dates.
Two appointments were made for eye testing with Mr F, one on 25 July and a future one on 5 September. It appeared that the mother made the first appointment on a Saturday.
I propose to make an order in the terms sought by the father because it seems to me that that would maximise the chances of both parents being able to participate in the appointment if they desired to. The mother gave no indication that there were times when she would be unable to get to the appointments.
September school Camp
On this issue, rather than submissions, counsel for the parties, at times throughout the hearing, conducted a negotiation while I listened.
The mother applied for an order that Y spend time with her from after school on 25 September 2009 to 9am on 28 September 2009 inclusive. The father agreed for that to happen with some modification in relation to pick up and drop off arrangements.
Later in submissions, counsel for the mother indicated that the mother’s considered position was that she pick X up from school, the husband pick Y up from school and there then be a meeting at a coffee shop by the name of V Coffe Shop at 5pm and that thereafter each parent keep the respective children in their care until the start of school on Monday. This would avoid conflict on a Sunday evening arising out of a meeting of the parents (but of course it would mean that the mother would be able to go to Y’s school on that particular Monday morning).
The father ultimately accepted this position as put by the mother.
Telephone contact
The mother seeks an order that the father facilitate the children receiving a daily telephone call from the mother between the hours of 7pm and 7.30pm each day that the children do not spend with the mother and that the father forthwith provide in writing to the mother a landline telephone number. The father asserts that he does not have a landline telephone number. The father relies upon evidence of the mother’s disruptive behaviour to oppose any telephone contact. As I have indicated, I am unable to reach any concluded view about that behaviour, but in general terms A/Prof Q describes the conflict between the parents.
The order of 2 April 2008 gives the father a daily telephone contact order. The mother asserts that it was an oversight for the Magistrate in 2008 not to make a reciprocal order. The mother asserts that it is an obvious parental responsibility that each parent have a landline number for the place of residence of the children when they are in the other parent’s care. I find that the father at least has the responsibility of providing the mother with a telephone number that she can ring to contact the children on some occasions when the children are with him under the orders that I make.
One might wonder at the wisdom of the frequency of telephone contact between the children and their father whilst they are with their mother given the current difficulties between the parties, but that would be a matter for further exploration at final hearing. I have not been asked to interfere with the order that the father have daily telephone contact with the children whilst they are with their mother. Presumably the parties at the current time agree that it is in the children’s best interests for that daily telephone contact to continue. If that be so, then I see no good reason why it should not be a reciprocal arrangement. Counsel for the father advanced no cogent reason why the children should not enjoy the same telephone arrangement with their mother as they do with their father.
Release of A/Prof Q’s report to other professionals
The father seeks an order that psychologist Ms BA and speech pathologist Ms SV both receive a copy of A/Prof Q’s report dated 12 December 2008. Counsel for the father submitted that each of them would be assisted by having an understanding of A/Prof Q’s views. The Independent Children’s Lawyer indicated that he would support the release of A/Prof Q’s report to the psychologist.
There seemed to be some disagreement about the role Ms BA was playing in terms of assisting Y. It seemed agreed however that Ms BA was a psychologist employed by the school to assist Y.
At paragraph 17 of the father’s affidavit filed 22 July 2009, the father deposes:
“I understand from the conversation I had with [Ms BA], psychologist, on 5 April 2009 that she has been asked to make recommendations about counselling for [Y]. I do not know whether it is [the mother] or the school that have made this request”.
I am of the view that on balance it would be appropriate to make A/Prof Q’s report available to her should she wish to read it. I do not see any reason for the speech pathologist to have the report.
List of contents
The father seeks an order that within 14 days the mother provide to the father a schedule identifying all items removed from the C home at varying dates. The father contends that he has provided an inventory of what remains in the C property. He asks that the wife provide him with an inventory of what she has removed. The father’s position in respect of what remains in the home can be valued by a single expert and that expert report will contain an inventory of what is currently in the home.
Counsel for the mother indicated the mother would prepare a list of items removed by the mother from the home, but objected to doing it in the manner that the father suggests.
Counsel for the mother pressed order 11 as sought in the mother’s response, namely that the mother attend the C property in the company of one adult person nominated by the mother for the purposes of compiling a list identifying the items situated in the C property. It seems from the orders sought that the mother wants to be able to do this in order to identify those items that she wishes to take from the items still remaining in the C property. She would do this inspection on the basis that the father be there and that he have one other adult person present with him as well.
In my view the orders sought by the mother are appropriate orders.
Proceedings under Federal Proceedings Costs Act
Both parties intend to make an application under s 10 of the Federal Proceedings Costs Act (relating to when the matter was before FM Altobelli) and both parties will be directed to file written submissions in relation to any application they wish to make under that Act by 30 September 2009.
Financial Applications
The father did not seek to press applications 14 to 20.
The mother’s response contains an application for the husband to make various payments in relation to the C property and in the event that he does not consent to that order, an order for the sale of the property.
Counsel for the mother did not mention those applications in oral submissions, although both case outline documents contain written submissions in relation to those applications.
I have made the assumption that given that counsel for the mother mentioned none of those applications, they were not being pressed. If that assumption is incorrect, then the mother has liberty within 7 days to relist the matter to request that I deal with those applications.
The mother also made an application for an order in relation to firearms which is not pressed.
I certify that the preceding seventy-seven (77) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Watts
Associate:
Date: 2.9.2009
0
1