Sheafer and Mellis

[2019] FamCA 965

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SHEAFER & MELLIS [2019] FamCA 965

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child spends time – Where the child lives with the mother and has not spent time with the father since June 2019 – Where the mother promotes that the child is too anxious to spend time with the father – gradual reintroduction of time – Orders

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC

Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101

APPLICANT: Ms Sheafer

RESPONDENT: Mr Mellis

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Services Commission of South Australia

FILE NUMBER: ADC 560 of 2018

DATE DELIVERED: 16 December 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

PLACE HEARD: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Berman J

HEARING DATE: 26 November 2019

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Childs

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Andrew & Dale Barristers & Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Lewis

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Barnes Brinsley Shaw Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Hemsley

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Services Commission of South Australia

Orders

1. That the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for X born … 2007 (“the child”).

2. That the child live with the mother.

3. That the child spend time with the father as follows:-

   (a)       On 25 December 2019 from 11.00 am to 1.00 pm;

   (b)       On 29 December 2019 from 10.00 am to 2.00 pm;

   (c)       On 5 January 2020 from 10.00 am to 4.00 pm;

   (d)       On 12 January 2020 from 10.00 am to 4.00 pm;

   (e)       On 26 January 2020 from 10.00 am to 6.00 pm;

   (f)From the conclusion of school on 7 February 2020 to 4.00 pm on 8 February 2020;

   (g)From the conclusion of school on 21 February 2020 to 6.00 pm on 22 February 2020;

   (h)From the conclusion of school on 6 March 2020 to 4.00 pm on 8 March 2020 and each alternate weekend thereafter;

   (i)For one (1) week in each of the April and July 2020 school holidays to be agreed between the parties and in default of agreement for the first week of each of the said holiday periods;

   (j)On the child’s birthday for two (2) hours from the cessation of school if the birthday falls on a school day or between the hours of 10.00 am and 1.00 pm on a non-school day;

   (k)For such other times and periods as the parties may agree.

4. That the parties and the child attend upon a family consultant as shall be nominated by the Director of Child Dispute Services for the preparation of a report pursuant to s 62G(2) of the Family Law Act 1975.

5. That the parties do all things necessary and sign all documents as may be required to complete the child’s enrolment at the C High School commencing in 2020.

6. That each party be at liberty to receive reports, notices, and any other information that is usually provided to parents by any school, educational institution, sporting body or extra-curricular organisation which the child may from time to time attend or be enrolled.

7. That each party be at liberty to attend all school functions, school sports and related extra-curricular activities and events to which parents are ordinarily invited to participate in.

8. That each party immediately inform the other of any serious illness, injury or accident involving the child with each party to be at liberty to visit the child during regular visiting hours in the event that the child is admitted to hospital.

9. That each of the parties shall be entitled to seek medical or other information from the child’s treating medical or allied health professional in relation to the child and each party will do all things necessary, sign all documents and provide such authorities as may be required to give effect hereto.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym  Sheafer & Mellis has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADC 560 of 2018

Ms Sheafer

Applicant

And

Mr Mellis

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. By Amended Response Filed 9 August 2018 Mr Mellis (“the father”) seeks parenting orders in respect of X born in 2007 (“the child”). The father seeks that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility and that the child live with the mother and spend significant and substantial time with him comprising four nights a fortnight and extended periods during school holidays.

2. Ms Sheafer (“the mother”) filed a Reply to the Amended Response on 16 August 2018 proposing that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the child who shall live with the mother and spend each alternate weekend, on special occasions including Easter, Father’s Day and Christmas Day and such other times as may be agreed between the parties.

3. The father contends that he has not spent time with the child since June 2019. He filed an Application in a Case on 7 August 2019 seeking the following orders:-

   1.        That [the child] spend time with the father:

   1.1In week 1 from the conclusion of school on Thursday or 5.00pm if Thursday is a non-school day to the commencement of school on the following Monday or 9.00am if Monday is a non-school day.

   1.2In week 2 from the conclusion of school on Thursday to the commencement of school the following day or 9.00am if Friday is a non-school day.

   1.3For 2 weeks during the April school holidays and one week in the July school holidays each year.

   1.4For 2 weeks during the December/January school holidays each year at times to be agreed and in default of agreement for the first week of the school holidays and the first week of January.

   1.5On Christmas Day from 11.00am to 5.00pm.

   1.6On Father’s Day from 9.00am to the commencement of school the following Monday.

   1.7On [the child’s] birthday and on the father’s birthday for 2 hours from the cessation of school if it falls on a school day and for 6 hours from 10.00am to 4.00pm on a non-school day.

4. On 14 August 2019 the father filed a further Application in a Case seeking orders that the mother be restrained from removing the child from the B Primary School.

5. The mother filed three Responses on 7 September 2019 seeking the following:-

   (1)That the father’s application for time with [the child] be dismissed.

   (2)That the child spend time with the father as may be agreed between the parties subject to the wishes of [the child].

   (3)That the parties and [the child] attend upon a child inclusive conference pursuant to s 11F of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”).

   (4)That the mother have leave to enrol [the child] with the Open Access College to complete Year 7; and

   (5)That the application for the proceedings be transferred to the Family Court of Australia be dismissed. The order for transfer was made on 10 September 2019.

6. The proceedings have been referred to the list of matters awaiting a trial allocation and trial directions.

7. Each of the parties has filed a Notice of Risk.

8. The mother alleges family violence in that:-

   When the child was younger and prior to separation the father has physically thrown the child across the floor.

9. The father denies the allegation.

10. The father does not contend that there are any relevant allegations in respect of the mother’s conduct.

Background

1. The parties separated on 30 December 2016. It appears that upon separation the parties were not easily able to reconcile their differences.

2. The father concedes that he did not readily accept the separation and tried to effect a reconciliation. For her part, the mother considered that the father’s conduct was obsessive and he would not accept that there was no prospect of reconciliation.

3. To some degree the dysfunctional relationship between the parties provides a background to their inability to reach agreement in respect of the time that the child should spend with the father.

4. Following separation the child spent each alternate weekend with the father from Friday after school until Sunday afternoon. The father sought more time and he contends that the mother was not supportive of the child’s relationship with him and would allow the child to spend time with him on an arbitrary basis.

5. The father contends that prior to separation he had a close and supportive relationship with the child and was actively involved both in the child’s curricular but also extra-curricular activities. He considered that the child wanted to spend more time with him but was prevented from doing so by the mother. It was in an attempt to disrupt the father’s relationship with the child that he considers the mother promoted the false allegation that his attempts at exploring a reconciliation constituted harassing behaviour with the threat that if he continued to contact the mother she would engage the police.

6. The mother refers to the interim parenting orders made on 18 January 2019 which provide for the child to live with her and spend time with the father as may be agreed between the parties. The difficulty is that the child now refuses to spend time with the father and in any event, not for the extended periods that the father seeks.

7. She denies that she is unsupportive of the child’s relationship with the father and refers to certain aspects of the father’s behaviour that she considers constitutes harassment. She contends that the father would send numerous text messages and letters and when she did not respond, he would write to her parents.

8. She annexes a copy of communication sent by him on 15 April 2019 in support of her contention that the father is not able to accept that the mother does not seek or contemplate reconciliation.

9. It is difficult to ascertain an accurate picture of the arrangements for the child to spend time with the father prior to the most recent round of interim proceedings.

10. The mother estimates that in 2017 the child stayed with him for no more than 10 nights and did not ever request to spend more time with the father.

11. The mother sets out her efforts to encourage the child to speak to the father. However, on most occasions she was unsuccessful.

12. In 2018 the child did spend Friday and Saturday nights with the father and following an incident in the lead up to Easter 2019 when the child indicated that he did not wish to stay overnight, the mother alleges the father swore at her and the child and threatened to hang himself in the shed.

13. Since that time the child has not wanted to spend time with the father notwithstanding the mother’s encouragement.

14. The father concedes that there was an argument, but considers it was not in the presence of the child and did not involve abusive or threatening language or a threat of suicide.

15. An issue between the parties has involved the father’s concern that the mother has not encouraged or facilitated the child attending school.

16. The poor attendance record is the subject of strong criticism by the father, whereas the mother argues that such is the child’s anxiety that he has become highly resistant to returning to school and that it was her preference that the child be home-schooled.

17. To some extent events have overtaken the parties in that the mother does not pursue her application for home schooling and now proposes that the child be enrolled in C High School enabling him to attend secondary school education in 2020.

18. The father highlights his concern that the child’s entry into secondary school is premature and should be delayed by a further year with the child returning to repeat Year 7 at B Primary School.

19. The child’s education was accelerated by a year in recognition of his academic comprehension and proficiency. The father considers that he is still too young to transition to secondary school and remains concerned that his substantial absence from formal school education in Year 6 and Year 7 will represent a further impediment to the child’s progress. It may well be that the father’s fears have some foundation. However, during the course of the interim proceedings inquiries were made to ensure that those who have an interest in the child’s education and his academic advancement were satisfied that his enrolment in C High School should continue.

20. The Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) supported the child’s transition to secondary school and notwithstanding the father’s misgivings I propose to make orders that will bring certainty to the child’s education in 2020 and beyond.

21. A concern of the ICL was the extent to which the child’s anxiety and history of opposition to attending school may be exacerbated by him repeating Year 7 and not having the advantage of transitioning to high school with some of his peers.

Interim parenting considerations

1. In Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101 the Full Court considered the approach to be adopted when presented with contested evidence on an interim hearing:-

   120.As has frequently been emphasised interim parenting proceedings, and orders made as a consequence, are a necessary but temporary measure until all the evidence can be tested, evaluated and weighed at a final hearing by the making of final parenting orders. Decisions judicial officers have to make in interim proceedings are difficult and, often for very good reason, a conservative approach, or one which is likely to avoid harm to a child is adopted. This is often to the understandable distress of a party who may not achieve the outcome he or she desires, or thinks to be in the best interests of their child or children. Interim parenting orders are frequently modified or changed after a final hearing, and any allocation of parental responsibility made at an interim hearing is disregarded at the final hearing (section 61DB).

2. I consider that a cautious approach should always be adopted in circumstances where the evidence has not been tested. That does not mean that the Court is not able to make an appropriate interim order and whilst a Court should generally be risk-averse and cautious, that does not mean that I am obliged to only make orders consistent with the current practice of the parties.

3. The competing applications of the parties must be considered pursuant to s 60B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) which outlines the objects and principles underlying pt VII of the Act.

4. Section 60CA of the Act requires that in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration. In order to determine what is in the best interests, the Court must consider the provisions of s 60CC as to the primary considerations contained in s 60CC(2) and the additional considerations in s 60CC(3).

5. I am obliged to adopt a practical approach in respect to the application of the factors as set out in s 60CC. Not all of the primary and additional considerations will apply. It may well be an unnecessary distraction to consider those factors which have little or no practical relevance, thereby giving inadequate weight to the factors that need more detailed consideration.

6. The parties agree that there should be equal shared parental responsibility on an interim basis. I am therefore obliged to consider whether the interests of the child would be best served by an order for equal time or if not, then for significant and substantial time.

7. Neither party seeks that the child’s time be shared equally between the parties and at this stage focus is very much on whether the mother accurately represents the child’s position namely, that he does not wish to spend time with the father, or whether the child’s presentation and expressed wishes should be given less weight by reason of the father’s assertion that the child’s views have been adversely affected by the mother’s failure or refusal to promote the child’s relationship with the father.

Child inclusive memorandum

1. The Child Inclusive Conference took place on 23 October 2018 with the child aged 11 years and 5 months.

2. The family consultant recorded the mother’s allegation that the father was “physically violent”, “aggressive” and “verbally abusive and controlling” although he had never physically assaulted her. The father denied the allegations.

3. The mother further alleged that the child was becoming resistant to spending time with the father and recounted an incident some years in the past where the father pulled the child’s hair causing his scalp to bleed and then threw the child across the floor.

4. The father denied that there had been any such alleged altercation.

5. For his part, the father expressed concern that the mother had kept information from him concerning the child’s school attendance. He asserted that the child had experienced an excessive amount of time off school and that there was no reasonable excuse or explanation to justify his non-school attendance.

6. The mother did not agree that the child’s non-school attendance was excessive but attributed some of the child’s non-attendance to his high level of anxiety being a consequence of not just her view that the child may suffer from Autism Spectrum Disorder (“ASD”) but also that it was an adverse reaction consequent upon the father’s ASD presentation.

7. The evidence does not support the mother’s view that the child is on the Autism Spectrum. The child has been assessed and the diagnosis did not support ASD.

8. The family consultant recognised that the relationship between the parties was highly conflicted and that there was no ability to consider the other parties’ view, compromise or negotiate a resolution to the conflict.

9. The mother conceded that it was in the child’s interests to maintain a relationship with the father. She proposed that consequent upon the child living in her primary care, he should spend time with the father each alternate weekend from Friday until Sunday afternoon. She contemplated that time could be extended to enable the father to attend with the child for extra-curricular activities.

10. She remained resistant to the child spending block time with the father during school holidays.

11. Contrary to the conflicted presentation of the parties, the child presented as pleasant and cooperative. He was excelling at school and enjoyed both the academic and sporting components of his school life. He had friends and at the time held the position of SRC Member.

12. The child described the mother as a person who cared for him and gave him “lots of hugs”. There were no negative aspects to her presentation.

13. He also shared a “pretty good” relationship with his father and enjoyed his father’s involvement with his extra-curricular sporting activities such as tennis, football and bowling.

14. He was concerned that his father was quick to anger but that of late and perhaps as a consequence of the child spending less time with the father, he was no longer as “angry”.

15. Generally the child expressed feeling happy and was keen to remain in his mother’s primary care but did not display any resistance to spending time with the father.

16. The family consultant observed that whilst the child seemed unaffected by his parent’s separation, it was likely that he was masking his distress and upset at the high level of conflict displayed by the parties.

17. The family consultant recommended that the child should continue spending each alternate weekend with the father with some consideration to be given to an occasion in the intervening week to comprise a week night dinner or the father’s attendance at an extra-curricular activity.

18. The memorandum is important in that it provides a reasonable summary of the child’s presentation in late 2018.

19. The extent to which the mother now considers that the child is highly resistant to seeing his father requires explanation as to what has happened between the date of the observations of the family consultant in 2018 and the total cessation of time with the father in June 2019.

1. The only purported incident was the argument between the parties resulting in the mother’s allegation that the father had threatened suicide. This was also exacerbated by the father’s attendance at the child’s classroom to discuss his change of school from D Primary School to B Primary School.

2. It is difficult to reconcile the matters raised by the mother as an adequate explanation for the child now not spending any time with the father in circumstances where a few months prior to cessation of time the relationship with the father was beneficial and sought after by the child.

3. The father disputes the mother’s explanation and considers that his involvement with the child has been minimal and it is unlikely that his behaviour could have impacted his relationship with the child.

4. He reinforces his view that the mother has embarked upon a strategy to disrupt and ultimately sever his relationship with the child.

The child’s attendance at school

1. The father’s application is that the child attend B Primary School to effectively repeat Year 7 in 2020 and then commence high school in 2021. The mother promotes the child’s transition to the C High School in 2020.

2. The father’s concern is that the child is not ready for high school given that he has missed the equivalent of a full school year over the past three years.

3. The father contends that the child has gone from being a happy, confident and academically bright student to a child who is now anxious, has been separated not just from the father but the paternal family and if it has not already happened, is at risk of becoming reclusive. The father recognises that some of the mother’s assertions are self-evident in the child’s presentation and even that his problems are becoming progressively worse. The cause of the child’s worsening anxiety is the conduct of the mother.

4. The ICL did not support the mother’s application that the child be home-schooled.

5. By reference to the notes of a meeting with Education Department staff forming part of Exhibit “2”, the ICL highlights the reference to the child being keen to learn, having lots of friends, a desire to help his friends with learning and a keenness to attend school.

6. The child attended for ASD assessment in August 2017 and did not meet the criteria.

7. Whilst there may be some benefit to the child of maintaining a routine and a level of predictability he had clearly been able to navigate his involvement with school at a high level.

8. The exchange between the mother and the school principal of the B Primary School on 11 September 2019 confirms that the school expressed concern at the mother’s intention to home-school. The principal did not consider that home schooling was a good fit for the child.

9. The mother expressed to the principal that the child did not want to spend time with his father.

10. The child was referred for an assessment by the mother to gain an understanding of his cognitive abilities and learning needs in respect of the purported struggle that the child was experiencing with the school curriculum.

11. The psychologist noted that the child had a history of strong academic performance. At the time of assessment the child was 11 years and 11 months.

12. It was noted that the child did not meet the diagnostic criteria for ASD.

13. The psychologist assessed the child to be in at least the average range for the following:-

    ·Verbal Comprehension

    ·Visual Spatial

    ·Fluid Reasoning

    ·Working Memory

    ·Processing Speed

    ·Full Scale Intelligence Quotient

14. The summary was that the child’s academic skills “demonstrates strong ability in all areas…”.

15. In response to the application of standardised psychological testing, the child demonstrated positive competency, good social and community involvement and strong school performance.

16. The mother raised issues in respect of anxiety and difficulty in sleeping.

17. Of particular concern to the ICL was the contents of a medical note recorded by the child’s general practitioner of 9 August 2019 following an email from the mother on the same date. I set out the narrative as follows:-[1]

    [1]Exhibit “3”, document 20.

    Dear E Medical Centre,

    I wish to update my son’s medical information.

    My ex-husband and I have been separated for almost 3 years and have now finalised our divorce settlement.

    I have full custody of [the child] and I DO NOT give permission for [the father] to access or be given any copies of [the child’s] medical records. [The father] is a Narcissist with Asperger’s and is currently undergoing counselling in Adelaide. He has both verbally and physically abused my son and this is the reason for our divorce.

    [The father’s] actions have given [the child] very bad anxiety (which he is getting help for) and he no longer wishes to see his father and is scared of him.

    Could you please remove [the father] from [the child’s] records asap.

    Thanks for your co-operation/understanding.

18. The mother’s counsel recognised that the contents of the email was likely to be inaccurate and inappropriate. The mother now resiles from her direction to the child’s general practitioner and there is a broad concession that no good reason exists for the father not to be able to seek and be updated on information affecting the child, in particular from health professionals.

19. The father also subpoenaed documents from the Department of Education which form Exhibit “2”. The issue of the child’s non-attendance at school was a matter of concern not just to the father but also the school principal and other school officers.

20. The tenor of the problem is exemplified by the content of a purported telephone call between the mother and a school officer on 13 August 2019:-

    [The mother] rang this morning at approx., 10:30, explaining that she is unable to get [the child] to school again today. As soon as she mentioned school he started to get teary. He is really struggling with the fact of entering the school. [The mother] stated that she has been in contact with CAMHS and that they approved of open access for [the child’s] anxiety. I explained to [the mother] that she would need to speak to [the school principal] about this. I said to [the mother] that we can work out of the classroom until he is comfortable in the classroom amongst his peers. [The mother] sounded frustrated. I explained the longer [the child] closes himself off to the world the harder it will be for him to connect with his peers, particularly going off to high school next year. [The mother] agreed and said she would continue to encourage him. We talked about some hands on activities, projects and work that he can do whilst at school.

21. The telephone conversation should be seen against the background of the following concerns raised by the school officer following a discussion with the mother with respect to the child seeking to utilise Open Access College (“OAC”) on 5 August 2019:-

    After phone call reflection. I have serious concerns about [the child’s] welfare and he has not been sighted for 2 weeks – if he does not attend the meeting on 7/8/19 I will contact the police for a welfare check.

    6/8/19 Discussed situation with [a truancy officer] – Suggestion to develop attendance plan.

    7/8/19

    Met with [the mother] and [the child]

    [The mother] put forward her desire for [the child] to do OAC with a number of reasons. I Discussed that OAC is not an option at this stage as he does not meet the criteria (as stated by the DP of OAC – no involved with support services/strategies alternate strategies not yet tried). [The mother] however kept pushing for OAC claiming that [the child] has anxiety. I stated that while [the child] is at school that the teacher and I have not seen any behavioural symptoms of anxiety (no avoidance of work or situations, appears happy and relaxed on all occasions)

    [The child] appeared very tired during the meeting and he was slumped on the table. He stated that he would like to do OAC. I reiterated that OAC is not a choice at this stage and he is still expected to attend school…

22. The child attended school on 8 and 9 August 2019 and worked with a school services officer (“SSO”). The earlier observations of the child’s tired presentation were further reinforced by a note from a school officer on 12 August 2019 as follows:-

    An SSO reported that [X] (Yr 7 child) had bags under his eyes and no energy. I asked [X] why he was so tired. He said that he had been up all night playing Fornite. He then told me that he’d been playing with [the child] all night and that everyone else had left to go to bed except for him and [the child].

23. The school advised the mother that they would not support OAC because the mother had not abided by the attendance agreement and that there was a monetary cost to the school to employ the services of an SSO which was wasted if the child did not attend.

24. A social worker attached to the Department for Education expressed concern at the mother’s motivation for maintaining what she considered to be a fiction of the child’s anxiety being an insurmountable barrier to his attendance at school.

25. Whilst it is obvious that the mother does not pursue her application for home schooling given the child’s enrolment in the C High School, the underlying alleged anxiety for the child’s non-attendance at school in 2018 and 2019 is also the basis for the apparent reluctance of the child to re-engage with the father.

26. I have given careful consideration to the primary and additional considerations pursuant to s 60CC. I find on the evidence presented that there is significant benefit to the child of maintaining a relationship with his father.

27. The history prior to separation supports the existence of a close relationship between the father and the child and the observations of the family consultant in late 2018 provide evidentiary support for that proposition.

28. Nothing has been presented by the mother which would in and of itself provide an explanation either for the child’s anxiety or in particular that if the child is anxious there is a causal connection with the father’s conduct.

29. The evidence presented by the ICL is that teachers and school officers did not observe anxiety in the child when he attended.

30. It is conceded that the child presented as being reluctant to attend school but there is no suggestion that the child’s reluctance is born of mature reflection and considered reasoning.

31. Indeed, given the considerable psychological assessment of the child both in 2017 and then of more recent date in 2019, there is no evidence which would support an outcome that the child should have no time with the father and therefore effectively sever his relationship with him.

32. The mother does not promote a future pathway nor does she acknowledge that there is any significant or other benefit to the child spending time with the father.

33. The risk to the child is that he will believe that his relationship with the father has ended for good reason. It may impact upon his ability to conduct future relationships. It may also be an indicator of the extent to which the dispute between the parties has adversely affected the child to the point where he considers that the path of least resistance is to accede to the mother’s position with the consequence that he will not see or spend time with his father.

34. The mother’s counsel submitted that the Court should give significant and in this case determinative weight to the child’s wishes. There is nothing of recent date that suggests the child has any preparedness to see his father.

35. Whilst the observation may be correct, in circumstances where the family consultant considered that there was a strong and intact relationship, it would seem to be the very antithesis of the Court’s obligation to promote and maintain a meaningful relationship to accede to its termination without there being any evidence to justify that approach.

36. The child is currently aged 12 years. It is reasonable to bring to account that the child has a present reluctance even though it is difficult to find any justification for the child’s presentation. The time sought by the father is likely to be problematic in circumstances where the child will continue to be in the primary care of the mother for the foreseeable future.

37. The child has not spent time with the father since June 2019 and the orders must be framed such that the mother recognises that she must promote the child’s relationship with the father and for the child to be able to cope with a gradual reintroduction of time.

Conclusion

1. I propose to put in place orders that would see the child’s time with the father gradually increase over the school holidays, would then resume as and from the commencement of the first school term to a return to alternate weekend time.

2. The Court may well benefit from a s 62G(2) family assessment report given the child’s age and what will by then be an appropriate resumption of the child’s relationship with his father.

3. Orders should also be made, although not now controversial, to ensure that the parties have open and ready access to the child’s academic involvement and any health or medical considerations that are likely to impact him.

4. I make orders as appear at the commencement of these reasons.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and two (102) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Berman delivered on 16 December 2019.

Associate:

Date: 16 December 2019