SLADE & MCINTOSH

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SLADE & MCINTOSH

[2009] FamCA 1187

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – 3 girls under 5 – Mother primary carer – Drug use – Mental Health – Children to live with father – Father sole parental responsibility – Time with mother initially supervised

APPLICANT:

Mr Slade

RESPONDENT:

Ms McIntosh

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Julie Ferguson

FILE NUMBER:

LEC

184

2008

DATE DELIVERED:

3 December 2009

PLACE DELIVERED:

Brisbane

PLACE HEARD:

Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF:

Jordan J

HEARING DATE:

23-27 November 2009

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Ms Cotter-Moroz

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Trenchs McKenzie Cox

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Ward

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Bolt Findlay

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT

CHILDREN’S LAWYER

Mr Gordon

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

GJ Legal Solicitors

Orders
IT IS ORDERED

That all previous Orders and Parenting Plans be discharged.
That except as otherwise stated, the Father have sole parental responsibility for the major long term issues of the children, F born … January 2005, M born … December 2005 and A born … March 2007.
That notwithstanding the provisions of Order 2:
(a)the Mother shall be responsible for the daily care, welfare and development of the children when they are living with or spending time with her;
(b)the Father shall be responsible for the daily care, welfare and development of the children when they are living with or spending time with him.
That the Mother and Father shall:
(a)keep the other parent informed at all times of their residential address and landline contact telephone number;
(b)keep the other parent informed of the names and addresses of any treating medical or other health practitioners who treat the children and authorise those practitioners to provide the other parent with information that they are lawfully able to provide about the children;
(c)inform the other parent as soon as reasonably practicable of any medical condition, significant health issue or illness suffered by the children. This order authorises any treating medical practitioner to release the children’s medical information to the other parent.
That the parents authorise, by this Order, the schools or day care centres attended by the children to give each parent information about the children’s educational progress and other school related activities and supply them with copies of school reports, photographs, certificates and awards obtained by the children (at the parent’s cost).
That during the time the children are with either parent, that parent shall:
(a)respect the privacy of the other parent and not question the children about the personal life of the other parent;
(b)speak of the other parent respectfully;
(c)not denigrate or insult the other parent in the presence or hearing of the children and use their best endeavours to ensure that others do not denigrate or insult the other parent in the hearing or presence of the children.
That the children shall live with the Father.
That the children spend time with and/or communicate with the Mother as agreed between the parents and if they fail to agree, then as follows:
(a)for the first 4 months on a supervised basis for two hours twice a week at the E Contact Centre (subject to availability);
(b)commencing at the conclusion of the period referred to in (a), for a period of a further 4 months from 10.00 am to 4.00 pm two days per week on either Fridays, Saturdays or Sundays and the Mother may attend any pre-school that the child/ren may attend;
(c)commencing at the conclusion of the period referred to in (b), for a further period of 4 months from 10.00 am Saturday to 4.00 pm Sunday and the Mother may attend any pre-school that the child/ren may attend;
(d)commencing at the conclusion of the period referred to in (c), for each alternate weekend from after school/pre-school on Friday to before school/pre-school on Monday during the school term and for half of the school holidays, for a maximum of one week blocks at a time.
That after the period of time as outlined in Order 8, the Father/Mother shall be at liberty to take the children on holiday of no more than 2 weeks at a time and no more than once a year, and in that event, the Father/Mother shall notify the Father/Mother at least 3 weeks beforehand, in which case Order 8 is suspended for the duration of the holiday and the Father/Mother is to have make-up time.
That upon the expiration of 12 months of the date hereof, the children spend time with the Mother and the Father as follows:
(a)Christmas Day from 10.00 am to 6.00 pm in even numbered years with the Father and in odd numbered years with the Mother;
(b)on the birthday of each child (with the parent they are not living with on the day) (including every child):
(i)if a school day, from after school until 7.00 pm;
(ii) if a non-school day, from 1.00 pm until 6.00 pm;
(iii)with the parent with whom the children are to spend time to be responsible to collect and return the children;
(c)with the Father on Father’s Day (if the children would otherwise be with the Mother) from 9.00 am until 5.00 pm, with the Father to be responsible to collect and return the children;
(d)with the Mother on Mother’s Day (if the children would otherwise be with the Father) from 9.00 am until 5.00 pm, with the Mother to be responsible to collect and return the children.
That after the expiration of 2 months from the date of this order, the children shall communicate with their non-resident parent on the telephone at such times as a child reasonably requests but otherwise between 5.00 pm and 5.30 pm on each Friday, Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday, and in relation to such communication, each parent shall:
(a)ensure that the children are available to receive the telephone call;
(b)arrange for the children to telephone the other parent on the following night if, for any unforeseen circumstance, the children miss the telephone call from the parent;
(c) ensure that the children have privacy during the conversation.
(a) That until the expiration of 12 months and unless otherwise agreed to between the parties, all handovers occur at the E Contact Centre, with the Father to deliver and collect the children.
(b)That after the expiration of 12 months, the children be delivered and collected at their school in accordance with these orders, or if there is to be a handover outside school times, it should occur at the E Contact Centre unless otherwise agreed to between the parties.
(a) That the children shall spend time/live with their parents for school holiday periods as follows:
(i)being the first half of the Autumn, Winter and Spring school holidays in even numbered years with the Father and in odd numbered years with the Mother; and
(ii)the second half of the Autumn, Winter and Spring school holidays in odd numbered years with the Father and in even numbered years with the Mother;
(iii)as to the Summer school holidays, the Mother shall spend alternate weeks from 10.00 am Sunday to 4.00 pm the following Saturday for half the school holiday period, commencing with the first Sunday of the Summer school holiday period.
(b)For the purpose of these Orders, the school holiday time shall commence:
(i)when a parent’s time falls in the first half of the holidays, from after school on the day the school term finishes and conclude at 4.00 pm on Sunday;
(ii)when a parent’s time falls in the second half of the holidays, from 4.00 pm on the second Sunday and contact shall end at 9.00 am on the day the school term commences.
(a) That an injunction issue and the Mother be restrained from using or attempting to use any surname for the child/ren other than the surname McIntosh-Slade either informally or formally for any purpose whatsoever.
(b)That the Father be authorised to sign all documents and do all things on behalf of the Mother to request that the Registrar or such other appropriate person pursuant to the provisions of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 1995 record the births of all the child/ren with the identity of the Mother and Father shown thereon and with the surname McIntosh-Slade.
That an injunction issue and that the Mother be restrained from:
(a)removing or preventing F born … January 2005, M born … December 2005 and A born … March 2007 from living with the Father or remaining in the care of the Father, other than in accordance with these Orders;
(b)removing or allowing F born … January 2005, M born … December 2005 and A born … March 2007 to be taken H Street, C, New South Wales or any other address where the Father may reside;
(c)facilitating or permitting F born … January 2005, M born … December 2005 and A born … March 2007 to be taken by any other person to live in or occupy any other residence other than the Father’s residence or remove the child/children from any school or pre-school, other than in accordance with these Orders.
That at 4.00 pm on the day of these Orders, the Mother deliver the children, F born … January 2005, M born … December 2005 and A born … March 2007, to a Family Consultant at the Family Court building in Lismore and the Father attend at the Court building to collect the said children.
That the appointment of the Independent Children’s Lawyer in this matter be extended for a further period of 12 months from today’s date.
That pursuant to Section 65L of the Family Law Act, the compliance of the parents with orders that the children spend time with a parent must, as far as practicable, be supervised by a Family Consultant and such supervisor is to provide each of the parents with such assistance as he or she reasonably requests in relation to complying with and carrying out these orders.
That there be liberty to apply.
That pursuant to s65DA(2) and s62B, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.

NOTATIONS

A.In the course of these proceedings, the Court has identified that the Mother has a history of drug dependency and serious mental health issues.
B.The Court’s concerns in that regard have resulted in 3 young children being removed from the Mother’s care and placed with the Father.
C.In the short term, the Court has put in place restrictive contact arrangements.
D.In the medium and longer term, both the Court and the Father wish to have the children’s contact extended to substantial unsupervised time. It is the Father’s ultimate objective to have the children the subject of a shared care and equal time arrangement.
E.It is the view of the Court that those objectives are only likely to be achieved if the Mother obtains proper medical treatment and therapy for her drug and health problems.
F.The Mother’s capacity and willingness to comply with recommended treatment programs is likely to have a direct bearing upon her capacity to enjoy a meaningful relationship and substantial time with her children in the future.
G.The Court has made a Section 65L order and has asked the Independent Children’s Lawyer to remain in the matter for a further 12 months. The Court has also made an order for liberty to apply and each of these provisions have been left in place to enable the progress of the Mother and the viability of the Orders made to be monitored.
H.It is to be hoped that the Mother fully understands that, to a large extent, the fate of her future relationship with her children is in her own hands and will be monitored by the Court, which might be asked by the Father or the Independent Children’s Lawyer to modify or suspend the operation of these Orders in the event that the Mother does not properly manage the progress of these Orders and/or does not seek appropriate help and treatment.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: LEC184/2008

MR SLADE

Applicant

And

MS MCINTOSH

Respondent

And

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This matter concerns the future welfare and parenting arrangements for three children, F born in January 2005, M born in December 2005 and A born in February 2007.
The parameters of this case, at least as defined by the parties in their respective applications, are stark indeed. Each party asks for orders for sole parental responsibility and each acknowledges that shared parental responsibility is not a viable option. Each party seeks an order that the three children reside exclusively with them and enjoy only very limited supervised contact with the other parent.

BACKGROUND

On all versions, it is entirely clear that the parties endured a troubled, dysfunctional relationship between January 2004 and December 2007. The parties pursued alternate lifestyles, with neither party engaged in any form of regular employment, leaving them dependent upon social security. Their lives included the regular use of drugs. Serious conflict was a constant ingredient and, on both versions, from time to time such conflict led to physical altercations. The extent to which either party could be identified as the perpetrator or victim is one of the central points in issue between the parties.
The mother has a daughter by an earlier relationship, Y, who is 15 years of age. She was nine years old at the commencement of the parties’ relationship. Y lived with the parties during the relationship and has continued to reside with her mother since separation.
The turmoil during the relationship has been replicated in the period since separation. The children originally remained with their mother and were to spend some time with their father in early January 2008. The father says that, at that time, he was contacted by members of the mother’s family and other mutual friends of the parties, all of whom expressed concern about the mother’s presentation and her capacity to care for the children. The father says that, as a consequence, he retained the children and they remained with him until 17 March 2008, when the mother responded in kind and, with the assistance of others, attended at the father’s home and removed the children from his care.
On 18 March 2008, the father filed an application in the Lismore Magistrates Court and on 1 April, interim orders were made directing that the children live with their mother and spend time with their father from 10.00 am Monday to 4.00 pm Tuesday. The matter was transferred to the Federal Magistrates Court and subsequently transferred to this Court on 30 October 2008.
The first day was convened before me on 29 June this year and the children’s time with their father was slightly extended to from 9.00 am Monday to 5.00 pm Tuesday and Friday mornings.
The father resides in C in premises he has rented for two years. He informs the Court that he has been assured that the property will remain available to him for as long as he chooses to stay. The father has not re-partnered.
The mother resides in R which, I gather, is some rural setting outside Lismore. The mother entered into a relationship with one Mr G, immediately after separating from the father. That relationship persisted until early October 2008, when, as a consequence of a physical altercation, the mother engaged the Police. Mr G was charged with common assault and placed on an apprehended violence order. The mother has subsequently sought variation of the terms of that order to enable contact between herself and Mr G. The Family Court made orders prohibiting contact between Mr G and the children pending this hearing.
Mr G gave evidence in these proceedings and it is clear that the mother and Mr G have resumed a relationship. They have been seen together regularly and, indeed, they travelled to Brisbane together for the purposes of the trial. They each confirmed to the Court their strong desire to renew their relationship and to facilitate Mr G’s full and active involvement in the children’s lives.

ALLEGATIONS AND ISSUES

Each of the parties identify a vast range of concerns and raise many serious allegations against one another. Perhaps the most appropriate approach to the matter is to limit myself to an identification of the major areas of concerns identified by the respective parties.

MOTHER’S ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE FATHER

The mother asserts that the father is unsuitable to provide care and/or represents a risk to the children for a wide range of reasons, including the following:-
(i) The father was the perpetrator of very serious domestic violence against the mother, which included extreme verbal and emotional abuse and regular episodes of physical abuse, including some serious assaults including an allegation of rape during the relationship.
(ii)The children have been victims of past physical violence and emotional abuse at the hands of the father.
(iii)During the relationship, the father behaved in sexually inappropriate ways by walking around the house naked in front of the children and by accessing pornography and masturbating in situations where the children could be exposed to such behaviour.
(iv)On the eve of this final hearing, the mother alleges that the child, M, made disclosures of inappropriate sexual touching by the father.

FATHER’S ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE MOTHER

The father asserts that the mother is unsuitable to provide care and/or represents a risk to the children for a wide range of reasons, including the following:-
(i)The father says that he has significant concerns about aspects of the mother’s intellectual, psychological and/or psychiatric presentation. He says that she regularly displays erratic, irrational characteristics with substantial mood swings which result in her becoming highly agitated for no apparent reason.
(ii)The father says that the mother was a very heavy user of marijuana during the relationship and that such use had an adverse impact upon both her parenting and general functioning. He is concerned about the reliability of the mother’s assertion that she no longer uses drugs.
(iii)The father raises serious concerns about the standard of day-to-day care provided by the mother and asserts that the children have suffered from time to time from neglect and inadequate supervision. He asserts that 15 year old Y has been required to undertake much of the parenting of her three young siblings.
(iv)The father raises a particular concern about the mother’s attitude to the health care of the children. He says that she rejects Western medicine and that this has left the children exposed to harm and without proper treatment from time to time. In particular, he points to the fact that the child, Y, has a very serious scoliosis condition and that the mother received strong recommendations from a specialist indicating that Y required urgent surgical intervention almost two years ago and that the mother has failed to follow up, to the serious detriment of her daughter.
(v)The father also raises concerns about the mother’s asserted lack of interest in formal education. He says that she has talked of home schooling for the children, which would be a significant concern to him, having regard to what he perceives to be the mother’s deficits in a number of areas. He also points to Y’s significant absenteeism, together with the irregular attendance of the younger children at pre-school and prep.

THE FATHER’S RESPONSE TO THE MOTHER’S ALLEGATIONS

The father admits many of the allegations raised against him. He acknowledges his past use of marijuana, but says that it was far less than that of the mother and that he has not used for the past two years. He acknowledges that, in the past, he has verbally and physically abused the mother, although he denies it was to the extent alleged by the mother. He says that there were regular arguments during the term of the relationship and that, from time to time, those disputes escalated and resulted in some physical struggles, where the parties would push and shove one another. He specifically denies any allegation of rape, or that he has ever physically abused Y, or any of his three children. In relation to Y, he does acknowledge that, on one occasion, he inappropriately manhandled Y in an effort to place her in her room by way of discipline. He denies the mother’s assertion that any significant force was applied during this incident or that it caused any injury to Y, much less that it caused her scoliosis.
The father acknowledges that, from time to time, he would walk around the house naked but says that this was the common practice of each of the parties, who followed a philosophy of nudism whilst they lived in the bush. He did acknowledge viewing pornography and that this would sometimes include masturbation, but he says that he always ensured that this did not occur in any situation which would result in the children witnessing such behaviour.
The father says he openly acknowledges his contribution to the violence and abuse during the relationship and that he is very remorseful in relation to such behaviour. He says he now recognises that he has deficits in his character and says he has sought professional help in an effort to better understand such matters and to avoid such behaviour in the future. He says he has attended several parenting and personal improvement courses since separation and that he has derived insight and great benefit from those courses.
The father maintains that he is now well placed to care for his children and he is convinced that he is much better able to provide for them in the future as a consequence of his greater understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood. He argues he has a greater capacity to provide the children with a stable and secure environment, where the children’s health, welfare, education and psychological well-being will be much better fostered.

THE MOTHER’S RESPONSE TO THE FATHER’S ALLEGATIONS

For her part, the mother largely disputes all of the matters raised by the father. She does acknowledge past heavy use of marijuana but says she has not used since January of this year. In terms of the altercations between the parties during the relationship, she does not acknowledge any contribution on her part and says that she was the victim of the father’s violence directed at her. She rejects any suggestions of shortcomings in her parenting and points to the fact that Y has attended at traditional schools and that the younger children have been enrolled at traditional pre-schools. She acknowledges that she has a preference for natural remedies, but points to the fact that she has sought medical treatment for herself and the children from time to time when it was necessary. She acknowledges she did not provide Y for surgery but argues that her approach was entirely justified because of the serious nature of the suggested surgery and the possible dangers attached to it. She says she has actively sought out other non-surgical options and more recently has engaged a physiotherapist and says that Y has derived benefit from that treatment. The mother rejects any notions of personal, intellectual, psychological or psychiatric deficits.
The mother maintains that the children have been very well cared for by her and that they are extremely closely attached to her. She says they are also very closely attached to their sister, Y. She suggests that the children would be gravely traumatised by a forced separation from her and, as I have identified earlier, she is concerned that the children would be at significant risk of psychological, physical and even sexual harm if they were placed in the father’s care.

THE EVIDENCE
The Presentation and Evidence of the Father

There was nothing remarkable about the father’s presentation and there were no concerning features about what the father had to say whilst he gave evidence. His testimony was delivered in a considered and consistent manner. When questioned about his contributions to past difficulties, he readily acknowledged his own wrongdoing. He displayed an appropriate level of insight into his own past and what might be necessary for the future. He dealt with the cross-examination process in an appropriate way and without his credit being in any way undermined.

Presentation and Evidence of the Mother

Assessment of the mother’s evidence and presentation is a much more difficult task. She exhibited a wide range of behaviours during her time in the witness box. It is clear that she found the exercise difficult and she displayed a level of anxiety. At various times, she appeared hesitant, non-responsive, vague, avoidant and, at other times, quite florid. She very frequently answered questions designed to explore aspects of her conduct by deflecting the focus on to the father and his failings. On those occasions, she was able to provide a great amount of detail, only to revert to vagueness and uncertainty when discussing issues relating to her own conduct. Some of her propositions appeared at face value to be inherently improbable. There were times when there were inconsistencies in her evidence and inconsistencies between her oral evidence and previous statements given by her.
The difficulties in placing reliance upon the mother’s evidence were further compounded by her own testimony to the effect that she has signed Police statements and affidavits in these proceedings either without reading the contents, or doing so knowing they contained falsehoods.
In order to properly evaluate and understand the mother’s testimony and presentation, it is necessary to take account of the assessment of others who have been engaged with the family.
Of course, a number of witnesses on the father’s side, including the father himself, reported observing the mother periodically displaying erratic, unpredictable and irrational behaviour and of exhibiting extreme mood swings.
The mother herself acknowledges that she is experiencing some personal difficulties, she says, as a consequence of what she describes as post-traumatic stress disorder, or battered women’s syndrome.
The Family Consultant, Mr S, has interviewed the parties on two occasions and provided two reports. In the earlier report of August 2008, he recorded the father’s observations as to the mother’s erratic behaviour and the mother’s own self-diagnosis.
In paragraph 73 of his second report of February 2009, Mr S made the following observations:
“I believe [the mother’s] repeated disoriented presentation at interviews, her fixation upon what appears to be conspiracy theories and her belief of what appears to clearly be delusions held by Mr [G] does indicate that her functioning is impaired in some manner most likely due to her long term cannabis consumption … I believe that this situation will continue or worsen without the assistance of a drug and alcohol service and ongoing either counselling, psychological or psychiatric care.”
An order was made in the Federal Magistrates Court in October 2008 requiring the mother to undergo psychiatric assessment. The mother’s solicitors referred her to Dr O for that purpose and his report is attached to the affidavit of Ms P filed on 19 January 2009. Included in his assessment were the following observations:
“The patient displayed no delusions but certainly had many over valued ideas … her short stature, her nervousness, her lack of sophistication, her strange naïve ideas supported the notion of an immature woman. [The mother] has been a marijuana smoker from an early age and it is well known that all maturation stops during the period when adolescents smoke marijuana. She therefore has not matured as one would expect. As a mother she would be sadly lacking in a crisis situation and would require considerable support and supervision even in normal situations.”
More recently, Dr U, Psychiatrist, was engaged to provide a further assessment. She said in her report attached to an affidavit filed on 9 November 2009 that, whilst it was not possible to diagnose a psychiatric illness, given the limitations of her assessment, there were some suggestions that she may suffer from a delusional disorder. Dr U referred to the mother’s conspiracy theories and other over valued ideas. In her oral evidence, Dr U suggested that, should the Court feel able to conclude that there was no truth in many of the mother’s stories, then a diagnosis of delusional disorder becomes more probable.
Finally, I refer to Exhibit 1, which is a report by a nurse, Ms B, a practitioner attached to the Community Care health service. This report was prepared at the request of the mother’s solicitors to provide an understanding of the assessments and support provided by Ms B. Of course, one must exercise caution in reviewing what might appear to be specialist or medical diagnoses, but nevertheless the report is useful to the extent it provides confirmation of other assessments. In that report, Ms B opined as follows:
“[The mother] is a woman with clear signs of ingrained and enduring patterns of behaviour manifested as maladaptive responses to a wide range of social and personal situations. These behaviours which are maladaptive responses to stressful situations have included impulsivity. She has a tendency to misperceive feelings as facts or realities and has some weak areas in her problem solving abilities. Her history displays dramatic emotional and sometimes erratic behaviours, as well as disturbances in mood. She further has a hypersensitivity to perceived put downs. Many of her maladaptive behavioural patterns can be traced back to her childhood/ adolescent experiences and behaviours that were modelled or her internal methods of coping that developed.”
Whilst there is no clear diagnosis available in this matter, there is a consistency in the observations of the experts. It would appear that, at the very least, the mother has personality traits which result in her exhibiting over valued ideas about events in her life. It is at least possible that she may suffer from some delusional disorder. As part of that, she refused to question any of Mr G’s inherently improbable propositions, including that every one of his four pages of criminal convictions are as a result of corruption and conspiracy in the Courts and Police services in New South Wales and Victoria and the fact that a prominent mobster was engaged by the Victorian Ombudsman to kill Mr G as a consequence of his being in possession of information which would prove widespread Police corruption in that State.
In the main, the mother appeared fixated and genuine in her stated beliefs, although I am entirely satisfied that she was being evasive and dishonest when being questioned about Mr G’s assault upon her. Of course, the mother herself greatly undermined the reliance that could be placed upon her testimony by her own explanations that she signed Police statements and affidavits without reading them, or knowing them to be false.
Sadly, the end result is that, as a consequence of the combination of her own testimony as to the unreliability of her own written evidence, her clear unreliability on some issues and the fact that her evidence includes at least over valued ideas and the very real prospect of some deluded notions, I am left unable to place any reliance upon the mother’s account of significant aspects of the history.
The father, on the other hand, has the advantage of being corroborated from a variety of sources. Of course, he is corroborated by his own witnesses. I found the paternal grandmother to present as a reliable witness, as she did not shy away from her own son’s past failings and appeared to provide a fair account of her dealings with the mother. Mr and Mrs N were past friends of the mother and Mr G and clearly had nothing to gain by giving evidence against the mother. They provided detailed accounts of the mother’s erratic behaviour and the Ns and Mr T gave graphic evidence of the mother’s chaotic lifestyle and parenting. I accept the important evidence of these key witnesses.
The vast material incorporated in the 30-odd exhibits from a variety of sources, including the Police authorities, Departmental officers, schools, hospitals and medical centres, provided an abundant source of evidence supporting the validity of many of the father’s stated concerns about the mother’s presentation, parenting and lifestyle.
At the end of the day, the evidence in this case is overwhelmingly in one direction. Unfortunately, that evidence paints a quite bleak picture for these children whilst they are in the care of the mother.
I do not want to labour the points relating to the mother’s difficulties and I take no pleasure in this task. However, the order I am being asked to make by the father is a drastic one in the context of the history of the matter and the ages of these children. I trust these Reasons will serve the dual purpose of not only explaining my decision, but also highlighting to the mother the extent of her problems and the need to seek appropriate qualified help for her sake and for the sake of her children.
The great sadness of this case is that it is entirely clear that the mother loves her children dearly, as they do her. These children desperately need a healthy and safe relationship with their mother and I have concluded that, unfortunately, she is not presently in a position to meet those needs of her children. It is to be hoped that the mother takes appropriate steps to place herself in a position to provide that relationship at some time in the future.

THE MOTHER’S MENTAL HEALTH

Of course, whilst an assessment of the mother’s presentation, personality and mental health was necessary as part of the process of evaluating her evidence, it is directly relevant to important considerations relating to her functioning and parenting capacity.
I have earlier referred to the assessments of the Family Consultant, Nurse B, Dr O and Dr U. They each gave further oral evidence. Again, as I indicated earlier, there has been no clear diagnosis, although a number of possible personality disorders or psychiatric conditions have been identified. They have included post-traumatic stress disorder, a delusional disorder and schizophrenia. All four agree that, at the very least, the mother is a person who presents with fixated, over valued ideas. At the end of the day, I have taken the view that little turns on the fact that no clear diagnosis has emerged. The history of the matter, the father’s testimony and the objective evidence and assessments of third parties all serve to confirm that the mother is a person with a number of characteristics which have defined her past and are likely to continue to define her future in the absence of any proper intervention.
I find that the mother indeed is a person whose life has remained chaotic. She has limited ability to manage and control her own life and a greatly impaired capacity to meet the responsibility of managing and controlling the lives of her children. She is burdened by a sometimes bizarre belief system, which includes a conviction that she and her family are being persecuted by a wide range of authorities, including those who are designed to serve her and her children. Her decision-making displays impulsivity and poor judgment. She appears entirely prone to lurch from one dysfunctional relationship to another.

DRUG USE

I take the view that her well-being has been greatly undermined by her long-standing heavy use of drugs and I have concluded that it is highly likely that she continues to be dependent upon the use of drugs to the detriment of her children. She has been using heavily since she was 15. She has explained that she used in the past for pain relief. Dr U expressed grave reservations about the capacity of somebody with that background to simply suddenly give up. Mr S said that the mother’s personality and history would suggest she would be unable to abstain without drug therapy. The mother has refused to provide urine samples, despite orders of this Court and requests from the Independent Children’s Lawyer pursuant to those orders. In the course of the proceedings before me, she informed the Court that she would refuse to provide urine tests in the future, even if she was ordered to do so. I am satisfied that the mother has, in the past, placed her needs for drugs as a higher priority than providing some of the essentials for her children and that that risk would continue into the future.

FINANCES

On a related issue, I have serious concerns about the mother’s capacity to consistently provide financial security for the children in the future. I gather from some of the evidence the mother gave that her social security allowances may have been subject to some reduction because of inappropriate claims in the past. The mother is heavily indebted to the children’s School for fees in the sum of $7,000.00 and has outstanding fines of $500.00. She has no car and no licence and appears to be in need of assistance for some basic requirements, such as furniture and school supplies. Again, I have little doubt that the cost of drug use contributes to this state of affairs.

ACCOMMODATION

On another related topic, the mother’s history suggests that she has not been able to provide the children stability with accommodation. She has been reliant upon friends from time to time and Mr S described her as bordering on homeless. I accept the evidence of Mr T that she effectively squatted in his home against his wishes for an extended period. The photos attached to Mr T’s affidavit and other evidence from the Department are indicative of the very poor quality of house care provided by the mother.

HEALTH

I have serious concerns about the mother’s attitude to management of the children’s health. Y is suffering a very serious and debilitating condition and the mother has seen fit to reject the firm recommendation of specialists in relation to the treatment of that condition. Rather, she has delayed for a critical two years and preferred her own counsel as educated by the internet. Y’s condition has deteriorated to an alarming degree since the time of the recommended surgery. Whilst I fully appreciate the seriousness of the recommended surgery, the mother’s lack of appropriate response to Y’s serious condition represents a dereliction of a parent’s duty of care in such matters. Given the depth of the mother’s conviction against Western medicine and in favour of natural remedies, I would hold a concern about the possible risks to the younger children in terms of their health care in the future.

EDUCATION

Similarly, I have serious concerns about the level of the mother’s commitment to the younger children’s education. Whilst Y has attended traditional schooling, it appears the mother’s commitment to those endeavours is highly questionable. She was entirely unconcerned about the prospect of taking Y out of school at what, I believe, is a critical time of the academic year, for the purposes of caring for the three younger children. It is clear that this would not have been an isolated incident. Equally, the evidence discloses a very casual attitude to F’s attendance at pre-school. She only attends one day per week and I am convinced that this is only because the child’s teacher has taken the unusual step of personally collecting and returning the child on that one day. The mother has no means of transporting the children to school. She has, in the past, talked of the prospect of home schooling the children and I remain very concerned about the children’s prospect of enjoying the benefits of regular attendance at school whilst in their mother’s care.

ISOLATION

It is also a very troubling aspect of this case that the mother and the children in her care appear to be largely isolated and unsupported. This prospect would be unfortunate at the best of times, but for a mother who has been medically assessed as a person likely to be “sadly lacking in a crisis situation and would require considerable support and supervision even in normal situations”, such isolation and lack of support creates, in my mind, a situation of risk for these children.
The mother physically resides in isolation in a remote rural area with limited facilities. When questioned about family and support, the mother was sadly unable to identify a single person she could turn to and rely upon. She is totally estranged from her own mother, who once supported her, but who subsequently felt duty bound to encourage the father to remove the children from her own daughter. The maternal grandmother now only maintains contact with her grandchildren through the goodwill of the father. The mother did not nominate her brothers as support people and I have little doubt that this is a result of one of them turning against the mother and to the father because of his concerns for the children in January 2008. Many of the deponents for the father were once the mother’s friends and supporters and they have also felt compelled to give evidence against the mother, with the consequential loss of relationships.
There is no doubt that this background contributes to the mother falling into inappropriate relationships with people like Mr G and her April boyfriend for some companionship.
The mother is left to rely upon the support available through the limited resources of Government agencies. I note and accept the evidence of the Family Consultant, to the effect that his involvement in the matter and his enquiries uncovered a pattern where the mother engages members of agencies from time to time, only to subsequently have a falling-out with them, sometimes to the end that the mother threatens litigation, believing them to be part of the father’s conspiracy. Mr S describes how, not surprisingly, given the mother’s plight and the vulnerabilities of three young children, people seem to bend over backwards for the mother, only to become frustrated by the mother’s inconsistency or unreliability. A classic example has recently emerged in relation to F’s pre-schooling. The mother enrols the child for two days per week, but only has her attend on one, and that attendance is only able to be facilitated by the generosity of F’s teacher, who has personally undertaken the responsibility of transporting the child to and from school every day.
I am well satisfied that the mother also has a heavy dependency upon the support of Y. She is now just 15 and I accept the body of evidence which suggests that Y has been required to undertake a substantial portion of the responsibility for the day-to-day care of these three young children for much of their lives.
When one adds to the mix the mother’s sense of paranoia and her belief that many of the very agencies the mother is left to rely upon are conspiring to do her harm, it paints a grim picture and suggests that such an environment is likely to result in the children developing unhealthy attitudes in a number of areas. It is an environment where these children are unlikely to develop a balanced view of life and an ability to engage with others and develop as normal, healthy children. It is an environment where these children are likely to become more isolated from, and distrustful of the world.

UNHEALTHY ATTACHMENT

The children are exhibiting signs of enmeshment and insecure attachment to their mother. No doubt, this is a by-product of many of the difficulties identified by me above. Y has completely embraced her mother’s cause and she not only echoes her mother’s complaints, she has been encouraged to sign statements and read affidavits. Apparently, Y was desperate to be directly involved in the trial and to be called to give evidence. The mother was entirely supportive of that prospect and unable to acknowledge any harm in such a prospect.
The Family Consultant was very concerned about the evidence recently emerging of F’s insecure attachment to her mother. She was displaying clear signs of separation anxiety and it is at a level that has the potential not only to interfere with her capacity to spend time with her father, but it may compromise F’s opportunity to regularly attend school and to engage with others. The Family Consultant suggested that it was almost inevitable that the two younger children would develop the same anxieties under the influence of their mother and their two older siblings.
THE FATHER AS THE ALTERNATE CARER
The nature of this case is such that the focus has been almost entirely upon the mother. That focus has uncovered many serious concerns about her capabilities as a parent. Those concerns, individually and certainly collectively, suggest that the children would be at risk of harm or neglect in a number of areas. In my view, those factors are of such gravity that this case must border upon one which might otherwise require the intervention of the Department and the removal of the children from that environment for their own safety. It may well be that the fact that there were proceedings pending before this Court that such action was not contemplated. Of course, in those circumstances, removed children are placed in the care of strangers.
In this Court, the contest is not between strangers, but between parents, and I am presented with the much more palatable option of placing the children in the care of their father. At one level, it could be concluded that such a decision could be justified by default by reference alone to my concerns about the deficits in the mother’s household.
Of course, however, I am obliged to be satisfied that such a placement is one which best meets the interests of these children. In this case, happily, I am satisfied that a placement with the father is not one by default only, but is a placement of these children which is likely to advance their welfare and give them better prospects for the future.
The father presents as a capable, stable, child-focussed young man. He clearly struggled within the relationship and as a young father of three young children. He was seen to be wanting in a number of areas. An important difference between the father and the mother in this case is that he clearly recognises those failings and has been entirely receptive to the prospect of gaining further insight and education into such matters. He has enthusiastically embraced a number of recommended parenting and personal improvement courses and he has impressed the Family Consultant, his own mother and this Court that he has derived great benefit from that education and training, with the consequence that he is now much better placed to meet the onerous task of caring for three young children.
Another important distinction between the parties is the fact that the father appears to have the support of a wide range of people and, most importantly, the support of his mother, the paternal grandmother. She was an impressive woman who has taken on the responsibilities not only of parenthood, but as a principal of a school, and she continued to provide her son and, indeed, the mother, with support even in the most trying circumstances prevailing during the relationship. She represents a substantial asset to the father and to her grandchildren in the, no doubt, difficult times ahead.
The father is in stable accommodation and well-placed to meet all of the children’s physical needs.
I am satisfied that he is entirely child-focussed and motivated to try to do the best by his children. Importantly, he has satisfied the Family Consultant that he fully appreciates the magnitude of the task ahead of him and that he will continue to seek out all avenues of support for himself and his children in the difficult times ahead.
The father places a much higher priority upon the importance of the proper management of the children’s health and education, and I am satisfied that those important aspects of the children’s upbringing will be handled much more appropriately in the father’s household.
Above all else, and in stark contrast to the mother, the father has convinced the Family Consultant and this Court that he has a proper attitude to the importance of the children’s relationship with each of their parents. He has sought a period of limited and supervised contact, but I am satisfied that those limitations are sought for all of the right reasons and on an entirely appropriate basis. The best evidence of his bona fides is the fact that, notwithstanding the history of this case, it is his objective to work towards a shared care and equal time arrangement within a period of as little as twelve months, provided the mother takes appropriate steps to address her own person issues.
In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that a placement of these children with their father is justified, not only as a consequence of my serious concerns about the dangers inherent in the mother’s household, but also on an entirely positive basis.

CHANGES IN THE CHILDREN’S CIRCUMSTANCES

In the course of my deliberations set out above, I have sought to address the relevant primary and additional considerations referred to in s 60CC of the Family Law Act. However, there is one matter which warrants individual identification and discussion. I refer to the provisions of s 60CC(3)(d) relating to the likely effect of any changes in the children’s circumstances, including the effect on the children of separation from their mother and, in this case, Y.
These matters stand as very significant considerations on the facts of this case. Given the nature of the relationship between these children and their mother, it is likely that the forced removal of these children from their mother will be extremely traumatic for all concerned. The mother is going to be completely devastated by such a decision and she would be simply unable to shield those feelings from her daughters. Unfortunately, it is more likely, in my view, that the mother will directly enlist the support of her children in dealing with such grief. It is inevitable that these three children, and perhaps F in particular, will be extremely distressed at the time of removal. It is likely that the children will miss their mother greatly and that this will be likely to manifest itself in various signs of stress.
I have taken account of such matters in reaching the decision I have made. Obviously, such matters do not represent pleasant prospects and I do not expose these children to that prospect lightly.
In reaching my decision, I have been comforted by the evidence of the Family Consultant, Mr S, who said that he, too, was acutely aware of such matters when making his recommendation of a change of residence. He said that, whilst there would clearly be some adverse impact upon these young children, he felt that the children’s underlying, secure attachment to their father would help them to cope with such change. It was in this context that he also highlighted the importance of the father’s insight into the likely difficulties in this regard for himself and his children and the importance of his willingness to seek help. I am also comforted by the presence, support and considerable personal resources of the paternal grandmother.
Whilst I am, of course, concerned about the impact of such an order upon these children, I am, nevertheless, satisfied that it is entirely necessary to make such an order, both to remove the children from what I regard as an unsafe environment and also to give them better prospects and to advance their welfare in the medium and longer term.

THE CHILDREN’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR MOTHER AFTER REMOVAL

This is a very vexed question. I have already described the prospect of a highly charged and emotional handover. When confronted with the prospect of such an order, the mother acknowledged that she would be extremely distressed and that she would find it very difficult to comply with such an order. It is a concern that features of the trauma of the first handover may well be repeated on subsequent contact occasions. The mother said that she would continue to find it most difficult to hand the children back.
Dr U and the Family Consultant, Mr S, were each asked to consider the option of a moratorium period of complete separation from the mother as a means of enabling the children to settle with the father and deal with the separation without the possible ordeal of periodic, emotionally charged contact with their mother. Whilst the experts acknowledged some potential benefits in this approach, and whilst they each acknowledged the risks associated with problematic contact, they each concluded that the prospect of no contact at all would be likely to be even more damaging to the children.
Dr U and Mr S each favoured the implementation of short periods of regular supervised contact as the best option in a difficult situation.
On balance, I have been persuaded by those arguments and the recommendations of the Independent Children’s Lawyer along those lines. As part of those proposals, I have also embraced the further safeguard of making a s 65L order to enable the involvement of a Family Consultant at the initial handover and to facilitate his or her ongoing involvement and monitoring, at least in the early periods of contact between the children and their mother.
I have also resolved to include some further safeguards in the form of extending the involvement of the Independent Children’s Lawyer for a further period of 12 months and, further, by providing liberty to apply for each of the parties and for the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
Unfortunately, there is certainly the potential for difficulties for these parties and their children in navigating the months ahead, given the history of the matter and the vulnerabilities of the mother and these children, which are clearly unlikely to disappear overnight. I am satisfied that such a package of arrangements provides the best prospects of successful transformation for this family in a most challenging set of circumstances.

ORDERS

I have adopted a set of orders which represents a compromise between the proposals put forward by the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the father.
It is clear on all of the evidence that an order for shared parental responsibility is neither viable, nor in the children’s best interest. The intensity of the mother’s feelings against the father are such as to make communication and co-operation entirely impossible.
I have not included in the orders made by me a series of orders proposed by the father which sought to regulate the mother’s hopefully increasing time with her children and make it subject to undertaking recommended medical treatment. As a general rule, I am uncomfortable with the notion that this Court should make final and long term orders mandating a possible wide range of medical intervention. I do not see that as a fundamental role of this Court. Further, and equally importantly, the nature of the mother’s condition, whilst uncertain, is said to be unlikely to be responsive to mandated therapy and treatment. It is only likely to be successful if the mother is able to acknowledge the need for such treatment and then voluntarily embrace it.
In this case, the mother has a much greater incentive than mere compliance with Court orders. She has the incentive of understanding that her willingness to embrace such treatment is the most effective way that she can ensure that she will, in the future, enjoy a meaningful relationship with her children. On my current view, she may well be unlikely to enjoy such an opportunity unless and until she addresses the wide range of personal and health problems I perceive her to have. I have concluded that a more appropriate way to deal with this aspect of the case is to make a number of notations which are designed to assist the mother in identifying what may be necessary to ensure that she enjoys a meaningful relationship and significant time with her children in the future.
I propose to make orders which are consistent with the prospect that the mother will address those issues, and by leaving the Independent Children’s Lawyer in the matter for a further 12 months and by giving the parties liberty to apply, I trust I have left in place the facility to have the mother’s progress monitored and the opportunity for the parties and/or this Court to review the viability of the expanding contact orders from time to time in what is likely to be a significantly changing landscape over the months and years ahead.
In all the circumstances, it is ordered:
1That all previous Orders and Parenting Plans be discharged.
2That except as otherwise stated, the Father have sole parental responsibility for the major long term issues of the children, F born … January 2005, M born … December 2005 and A born … March 2007.
3That notwithstanding the provisions of Order 2:
(a)the Mother shall be responsible for the daily care, welfare and development of the children when they are living with or spending time with her;
(b)the Father shall be responsible for the daily care, welfare and development of the children when they are living with or spending time with him.
4         That the Mother and Father shall:
(a)keep the other parent informed at all times of their residential address and landline contact telephone number;
(b)keep the other parent informed of the names and addresses of any treating medical or other health practitioners who treat the children and authorise those practitioners to provide the other parent with information that they are lawfully able to provide about the children;
(c)inform the other parent as soon as reasonably practicable of any medical condition, significant health issue or illness suffered by the children. This order authorises any treating medical practitioner to release the children’s medical information to the other parent.
5That the parents authorise, by this Order, the schools or day care centres attended by the children to give each parent information about the children’s educational progress and other school related activities and supply them with copies of school reports, photographs, certificates and awards obtained by the children (at the parent’s cost).
6         That during the time the children are with either parent, that parent shall:
(a)respect the privacy of the other parent and not question the children about the personal life of the other parent;
(b)speak of the other parent respectfully;
(c)not denigrate or insult the other parent in the presence or hearing of the children and use their best endeavours to ensure that others do not denigrate or insult the other parent in the hearing or presence of the children.
7         That the children shall live with the Father.
8That the children spend time with and/or communicate with the Mother as agreed between the parents and if they fail to agree, then as follows:
(a)for the first 4 months on a supervised basis for two hours twice a week at the E Contact Centre (subject to availability);
(b)commencing at the conclusion of the period referred to in (a), for a period of a further 4 months from 10.00 am to 4.00 pm two days per week on either Fridays, Saturdays or Sundays and the Mother may attend any pre-school that the child/ren may attend;
(c)commencing at the conclusion of the period referred to in (b), for a further period of 4 months from 10.00 am Saturday to 4.00 pm Sunday and the Mother may attend any pre-school that the child/ren may attend;
(d)commencing at the conclusion of the period referred to in (c), for each alternate weekend from after school/pre-school on Friday to before school/pre-school on Monday during the school term and for half of the school holidays, for a maximum of one week blocks at a time.
9That after the period of time as outlined in Order 8, the Father/Mother shall be at liberty to take the children on holiday of no more than 2 weeks at a time and no more than once a year, and in that event, the Father/Mother shall notify the Father/Mother at least 3 weeks beforehand, in which case Order 8 is suspended for the duration of the holiday and the Father/Mother is to have make-up time.
10That upon the expiration of 12 months of the date hereof, the children spend time with the Mother and the Father as follows:
(a)Christmas Day from 10.00 am to 6.00 pm in even numbered years with the Father and in odd numbered years with the Mother;
(b)on the birthday of each child (with the parent they are not living with on the day) (including every child):
(i)if a school day, from after school until 7.00 pm;
(ii)      if a non-school day, from 1.00 pm until 6.00 pm;
(iii)with the parent with whom the children are to spend time to be responsible to collect and return the children;
(c)with the Father on Father’s Day (if the children would otherwise be with the Mother) from 9.00 am until 5.00 pm, with the Father to be responsible to collect and return the children;
(d)with the Mother on Mother’s Day (if the children would otherwise be with the Father) from 9.00 am until 5.00 pm, with the Mother to be responsible to collect and return the children.
11That after the expiration of 2 months from the date of this order, the children shall communicate with their non-resident parent on the telephone at such times as a child reasonably requests but otherwise between 5.00 pm and 5.30 pm on each Friday, Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday, and in relation to such communication, each parent shall:
(a)ensure that the children are available to receive the telephone call;
(b)arrange for the children to telephone the other parent on the following night if, for any unforeseen circumstance, the children miss the telephone call from the parent;
(c)      ensure that the children have privacy during the conversation.
12(a)      That until the expiration of 12 months and unless otherwise agreed to between the parties, all handovers occur at the E Contact Centre, with the Father to deliver and collect the children.
(b)That after the expiration of 12 months, the children be delivered and collected at their school in accordance with these orders, or if there is to be a handover outside school times, it should occur at the E Contact Centre unless otherwise agreed to between the parties.
13(a)        That the children shall spend time/live with their parents for school holiday periods as follows:
(i)being the first half of the Autumn, Winter and Spring school holidays in even numbered years with the Father and in odd numbered years with the Mother; and
(ii)the second half of the Autumn, Winter and Spring school holidays in odd numbered years with the Father and in even numbered years with the Mother;
(iii)as to the Summer school holidays, the Mother shall spend alternate weeks from 10.00 am Sunday to 4.00 pm the following Saturday for half the school holiday period, commencing with the first Sunday of the Summer school holiday period.
(b)For the purpose of these Orders, the school holiday time shall commence:
(i)when a parent’s time falls in the first half of the holidays, from after school on the day the school term finishes and conclude at 4.00 pm on Sunday;
(ii)when a parent’s time falls in the second half of the holidays, from 4.00 pm on the second Sunday and contact shall end at 9.00 am on the day the school term commences.
14(a)        That an injunction issue and the Mother be restrained from using or attempting to use any surname for the child/ren other than the surname McIntosh-Slade either informally or formally for any purpose whatsoever.
(b)That the Father be authorised to sign all documents and do all things on behalf of the Mother to request that the Registrar or such other appropriate person pursuant to the provisions of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 1995 record the births of all the child/ren with the identity of the Mother and Father shown thereon and with the surname McIntosh-Slade.
15       That an injunction issue and that the Mother be restrained from:
(a)removing or preventing F born … January 2005, M born … December 2005 and A born … March 2007 from living with the Father or remaining in the care of the Father, other than in accordance with these Orders;
(b)removing or allowing F born … January 2005, M born … December 2005 and A born … March 2007 to be taken from H Street, C, New South Wales or any other address where the Father may reside;
(c)facilitating or permitting F born … January 2005, M born … December 2005 and A born … March 2007 to be taken by any other person to live in or occupy any other residence other than the Father’s residence or remove the child/children from any school or pre-school, other than in accordance with these Orders.
16That at 4.00 pm on the day of these Orders, the Mother deliver the children, F born … January 2005, M born … December 2005 and A born … March 2007, to a Family Consultant at the Family Court building in Lismore and the Father attend at the Court building to collect the said children.
17That the appointment of the Independent Children’s Lawyer in this matter be extended for a further period of 12 months from today’s date.
18That pursuant to Section 65L of the Family Law Act, the compliance of the parents with orders that the children spend time with a parent must, as far as practicable, be supervised by a Family Consultant and such supervisor is to provide each of the parents with such assistance as he or she reasonably requests in relation to complying with and carrying out these orders.
19       That there be liberty to apply.
NOTATIONS
A.In the course of these proceedings, the Court has identified that the Mother has a history of drug dependency and serious mental health issues.
B.The Court’s concerns in that regard have resulted in 3 young children being removed from the Mother’s care and placed with the Father.
C.In the short term, the Court has put in place restrictive contact arrangements.
D.In the medium and longer term, both the Court and the Father wish to have the children’s contact extended to substantial unsupervised time. It is the Father’s ultimate objective to have the children the subject of a shared care and equal time arrangement.
E.It is the view of the Court that those objectives are only likely to be achieved if the Mother obtains proper medical treatment and therapy for her drug and health problems.
F.The Mother’s capacity and willingness to comply with recommended treatment programs is likely to have a direct bearing upon her capacity to enjoy a meaningful relationship and substantial time with her children in the future.
G.The Court has made a Section 65L order and has asked the Independent Children’s Lawyer to remain in the matter for a further 12 months. The Court has also made an order for liberty to apply and each of these provisions have been left in place to enable the progress of the Mother and the viability of the Orders made to be monitored.
H.It is to be hoped that the Mother fully understands that, to a large extent, the fate of her future relationship with her children is in her own hands and will be monitored by the Court, which might be asked by the Father or the Independent Children’s Lawyer to modify or suspend the operation of these Orders in the event that the Mother does not properly manage the progress of these Orders and/or does not seek appropriate help and treatment.

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

Associate:

Date:

[2009] FamCA 1187

3 December 2009

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Legal Concepts

Injunction

Procedural Fairness

Remedies