Sterling and Wilde

[2013] FamCA 781

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STERLING & WILDE	[2013] FamCA 781
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – interim orders – with whom a child spends time – where consent orders that provided for the children to spend time with the Father had been suspended – best interests – orders for the children to resume spending time with the Father in accordance with the consent orders.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CA; 60CC; 62G; 68L; 69ZR; 69ZW; 91B

APPLICANT: Ms Sterling

RESPONDENT: Mr Wilde

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

FILE NUMBER: ADC 2717 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: 11 October 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Adelaide and Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Berman J

HEARING DATE:

4 October 2013 (Adelaide);

10 October 2013 (via video-link Brisbane) and
11 October 2013 (via video-link Brisbane)

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Ross

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Minney & Associates

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Boehm

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Hume Taylor And Co.

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Childs

Mr Childs

Legal Services Commission of South Australia

Orders

IT IS ORDERED UNTIL FURTHER ORDER:

1. That Order (6) of the Orders made by Judge Brown on 20 August 2013 be discharged.

2. That the children, B born … 2006 and C born … 2007, resume spending time with the Father pursuant to the Orders made 4 September 2009 as and from 11 October 2013.

3. That handover of the children pursuant to the Orders made 4 September 2009 if not to and from school, shall take place at the D Town Police Station, or with the agreement of the parties at such other place as they may agree, provided that only the parties are to attend the physical handover.

4. That the parties are restrained from causing the children or either of them from consulting with, undertaking therapy, counselling or investigation from any health professional, therapist, or counsellor relating to any allegation raised to date in the proceedings in respect of alleged sexual abuse, neglect, physical abuse or relationship issues with either party or their respective partners unless with the written consent of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

5. For the purpose of the handover on 11 October 2013, the handover shall occur at the Adelaide Police Station.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

1. I reserve the publication of my Reasons for Judgment.

2. Pursuant to s 62B and s 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), 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 to adjust to and comply with an order, are set out in the document entitled “Parenting orders – obligations, consequences and who can help”, a copy of which is annexed to these Orders.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: ADC 2717 of 2013

Ms Sterling

Applicant

And

Mr Wilde

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION  

1. The matter of Sterling and Wilde comes before me following Orders made by Judge Brown of the Federal Circuit Court on 20 August 2013, appointing an Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) pursuant to s 68L of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) to represent the interests of the infant children, B born in 2006 (seven years) and C born in 2007 (six years).

2. In addition, his Honour issued an invitation to the Minister for Education and Child Development (Families SA) pursuant to s 91B of the Act to intervene.

3. Further Orders were made pursuant to s 69ZW of the Act and the proceedings were then transferred to the Adelaide Registry of the Family Court of Australia.

4. Of critical relevance to the interim hearing is the further Order made by

   
   

   Brown J namely, to suspend Orders made on 4 September 2009, thereby stopping the Father spending time with the children until further order.

5. On 23 August 2013, Registrar Paxton designated the matter as a Magellan case and requested that Families SA prepare a report pursuant to the Magellan protocol.

6. On 24 September 2013, further Orders were made by Registrar Paxton giving leave to the legal representatives of the parties and the ICL to inspect documents produced by Families SA in respect of the Order made pursuant to

   
   

   s 69ZW. The interim proceedings were then adjourned for hearing before me at 10.00 am on 4 October 2013.

7. It is germane to the subsequent interim proceedings that before the Registrar, the parties were represented by Counsel, in particular Ms Cox appeared for the Applicant Mother, Mr Boehm appeared for the Respondent Father and

   
   

   Ms Fuda appeared for the ICL.

8. The matter came before me on 4 October 2013.  The Applicant Mother’s solicitor Ms Minney appeared for her, Mr Boehm of Counsel appeared for the Father and Mr Childs of Counsel appeared for the ICL.

9. On that occasion, an application was made by Ms Minney on behalf of the Mother that the proceedings be adjourned.  The Mother was not present and it is reasonable to infer from the submissions made by Ms Minney, that she had anticipated that an adjournment would be a likely outcome.  There had been some communication with my Chambers upon what amounted to a joint request as between the solicitors for the parties, that the application should be adjourned.  There was no consent to that proposal on behalf of the ICL.  Even if there had been consensus amongst all of those involved in the proceedings, it could not have been assumed that the Court would have considered an adjournment to be appropriate in the circumstances generally, but in particular, in relation to the state of the current Orders and the serious concerns that I expressed that any delay in the resolution of the matter, would not be in the interests of the children.

10. They had not seen their father for a significant period of time and it was not my impression that there was any significant level of urgency in the actions of the legal advisors to the parties to have at least the interim proceedings heard and determined.

11. In short, it was not open to the solicitors for the parties nor their Counsel, to assume that an adjournment was an inevitable consequence.

12. A further issue arose in respect of a subpoena to SAPOL issued in the Registry by the Mother.  The subpoena is returnable on 15 October 2013.  Ms Minney sought to rely upon the material that would potentially be produced under the subpoena as a further ground for the interim proceedings being adjourned.  Upon an enquiry as to the documents that were the subject of the subpoena and the use to which they would be put in respect of the interim application, I was not satisfied that the exercise was any more than “fishing” in the hope that it might turn up information adverse to the application of the Father.  I did not consider that the subpoena was a sufficient justification for the proceedings being adjourned to a date after 15 October 2013.  As will be seen, the Father denies that he has any criminal history likely to impact upon parenting orders.

13. I explored with Counsel whether the matter could be heard in the afternoon.  Ms Minney advised that she was not able to easily contact her client.  In any event, the geography was such that the Mother, even if she could be contacted, would not be able to attend the Court personally.

14. Whilst ultimately the Father’s Counsel was prepared to attend upon the argument in the afternoon, I was not satisfied that the hearing should proceed in what would have amounted to the complete absence of the knowledge of the proceedings by the Mother.

15. Instructions could not be obtained and there was the possibility that other matters may be put before the Court.  This was particularly so in view of my strong remarks that the Court would give serious consideration to a reinstatement of either the Orders of 4 September 2009 or at the very least, orders could be made that would see the children spending some time with their father.

16. Whilst there was some uncertainty as to the position of the ICL, there appeared to be support for at least some time to resume between the children and their father.

17. I had however formed the general view that a clear position had not been adopted by the ICL and accordingly, this was a further factor in support of an adjournment of the application, albeit for a short time.  Accordingly, I adjourned the matter to 10 October 2013.

18. I note that neither the parties nor the ICL have filed any further affidavit material.  Accordingly, the initial remarks made by me and the preliminary intimation given, sits comfortably with the power to make determinations, findings and orders during the proceedings pursuant to s 69ZR.

BACKGROUND

1. The proceedings have as their genesis, an action before the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia (as it then was) in suit number ADC 3776 of 2008.  Those proceedings were resolved with a comprehensive Consent Order before Federal Magistrate Brown (as he then was).

2. I do not propose to repeat the detailed Orders, but the overall effect is that the Father would spend time with the children, B and C, during his rostered days off.  Whilst the Mother complains that it was an unanticipated consequence of the Orders, a change in the work roster of the Father has had the ultimate effect that the time the children spent with each of the parties, was almost equal.

3. Nothing in respect of these proceedings turns on that dispute.  Whilst it is a matter complained of by the Mother, I am not convinced that the issue alone would justify a change to the Orders on an interim basis.  It would certainly not be enough to justify a suspension of the Order.  In any event the Father denies it was an unintended consequence.

4. The proceedings recommenced in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia by the Initiating Application of the Mother filed 1 August 2013.  The thrust was that the Mother seeks the sole parental responsibility for the children, that they live with her and that the time the children spend with their father be supervised and as may be agreed.  There are further orders sought that relate to the consumption of alcohol by the Father and the ingestion of illegal substances.  The interim orders sought were not dissimilar to the terms and conditions of the final orders save and except for the proposed involvement of D Town Children’s Contact Centre in the supervision process.

THE EVIDENCE

1. The Application of the Mother was supported by an affidavit filed 1 August 2013. 

2. It refers in particular to a diagnosis of C that she suffers autism and speech dyspraxia.  This diagnosis occurred in or about October or November 2012.

3. The significance of this diagnosis is central to an allegation that the Father does not go through flash cards with C, the communication book considered important by the Mother in respect of the ongoing arrangements in respect of C is not completed by the Father and that when C returns from her father, her behaviour is extreme.

4. Those allegations are denied by the Father, and he asserts that his care and attention to behavioural and developmental issues in respect of C are given his priority. 

5. The real gravamen of the opposition to the children continuing to spend unsupervised time with their father arises out of allegations of their abuse by him. 

6. In particular, the Mother alleges that in February of 2013 an ex-girlfriend of the Father namely Ms E, sent a letter to the Mother alleging that the Father had raped her in late January and further, that the children were in the room when the rape occurred.  B allegedly told the Mother that C and she were sleeping on the floor of the Father’s bedroom and awoke to a “funny noise”.

7. As a result of the alleged observations of the children, B has been having nightmares since February 2013.  The Mother alleges that B has severe mood swings, “happy one moment and the next moment she is yelling and screaming and crying.”

8. C is also having nightmares and she now exhibits behaviour wherein she will try and hide between her bed and her bedside cupboard or under her bed.  The Mother links this distressing behaviour to the time the child spends with the Father.

9. The history (on the Mother’s case) becomes more complicated by an admission by the Mother that arising out of a police search of her house in January 2013, she was not allowed to return to her home but rather stayed with the Respondent Father for about a week.

10. The Mother alleges in paragraph 23 of her affidavit that in February 2013 C “pointed to her vagina area and said, ‘ouch Mummy ouch’ ”.  She asked for cream, separated her vulva and the Mother allegedly observed that the child’s genitals were red raw and swollen.  C was taken to a general practitioner by the Mother and was diagnosed following a urine test with a urinary tract infection. 

11. The Mother rang the Child Abuse Help Line and reported C’s situation.  She alleges that the report “did not meet the criteria”.  Allegedly, C has made further complaints and the Mother has taken the child back to the doctor, who advised her to take C to the Sexual Abuse Clinic in Adelaide.  This has not occurred because the Mother says that she could not afford to travel to Adelaide.  According to the Mother, C has had four or five urinary tract infections since February 2013 and further whilst toilet trained, has since February started wetting her bed with a frequency of about every second day.  C has started touching her genitals and the Mother expresses concern about this.  B will no longer sleep in a dark room at night, she says she has bad dreams at her father’s house and that a focus of those dreams is that something is “sniffing her bottom”.

12. The Mother makes further complaints that the Father neglects the children when they are in his care.  There are allegations that the Father has returned the children with sunburn that has resulted in skin blistering.  In 2012/2013 this occurred on about four occasions.  There are other allegations of neglect which go back to 2010 and 2011.  The Mother refers to mouldy lunch boxes that have been returned, mouldy swimming gear and other behaviour of the Father in terms of parties where alcohol has been consumed, open bottles and cans left lying around and the children have apparently attempted to consume the remains of alcohol following these occasions.

13. The Mother alleges that on occasion the Father will sleep during the day and that the children are unsupervised. 

14. It is further alleged that on three different occasions, the Father lost C whilst she was in his care, that they have been found unsupervised in the pits of a local racing car circuit, that the children have suffered injuries that have required stitches, a black eye and broken nose in respect of C arising out of an incident in 2011 and more recently injuries sustained by C when she bruised her toe and fell off a scooter whilst in the Father’s care.

15. The Mother has formed a relationship with Mr F.  They have been together since June 2010, separated in 2013 but have now reconciled.  It was in the house that the Mother shared with Mr F that was the subject of a police search in January 2013 for drugs and guns.  Apparently it was the maternal grandmother who alerted the police, who then acted upon that information as the basis for the search.  The Mother says she does not have any criminal record, but she believes Mr F has two driving under the influence convictions.  There is also an unresolved charge of assault between Mr F and his brother.

16. There are two further non-biological children of the Mother, namely G and H.  The Mother asserts that B and C have a strong affection for their half-siblings. 

17. The Mother admits that she had been the subject of a Families SA notification in 2008 in relation to neglect of the children and drug use.  Nothing came of this notification.

18. On 1 August 2013, the Mother filed a Notice as to Risk based on the allegation that the children were in a room when the Father allegedly raped his then girlfriend (Ms E) in February 2013 and the redness and inflammation to C’s vaginal area.

19. The Father filed a Response to the Initiating Application on 28 August 2013, seeking orders that the children reside with him, that he have sole parental responsibility and that the Mother spend time with the children on a supervised basis through the D Town Children’s Contact Centre.  There were further orders by way of injunctive relief sought and in circumstances not dissimilar to the orders sought by the Mother; there was a focus on the consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs.  Importantly, the Father also seeks orders that the children not be brought into contact with Mr F, the Mother’s partner.

20. The Father filed an affidavit in support of his Response on 28 August 2013 and denies the allegations of the Mother.

21. In relation to C’s disability and her schooling, the Father sets out that he does go through C’s flash cards with her, and importantly has significant involvement with her school, the child’s teacher and the classroom.  Whilst he acknowledges that C’s behaviour can be at times difficult and challenging, he alleges that he is well able to deal with those difficulties and that he has a close and affectionate relationship with C.

22. The Father specifically deals with the allegation of rape in respect of his ex-girlfriend namely, Ms E.  At paragraph 17 he acknowledges that a complaint of rape was made to the police, that the matter was investigated and that there was no evidence to substantiate any charges.

23. The Father links the Mother’s current application in time to the final resolution of issues between he and Ms E, namely the consent without admission of liability to the making of an intervention order.  There is nothing in the affidavit material of the Mother or Ms E that suggests there is any pending investigation.

24. At paragraph 21, the Father refers to the children sleeping in his bedroom.  He alleges that whilst the children have a bedroom of their own, as part of their playtime they will often go to sleep on his bed and then the Father would return them to their room.  The children also enjoy sleeping in their tents and it is, according to the Father, a form of pretend camping.  The Father denies that there has been any sexual contact with the children and he expresses dismay that such an allegation should be made.

25. In general, each and every specific allegation made by the Mother is the subject of a clear denial by the Father in circumstances where there is scant evidence that would cast doubt on the position adopted by him.

26. The Father also refers to the relationship between the Mother and Mr F.  Not surprisingly, he has a different slant on the circumstances that saw the Mother reside in his home between 23 and 30 January 2013.  The Father alleges that the Mother was worried that Mr F might assault her and the children and that she did not feel safe in the home with him.  Of perhaps greater importance, is the communication between the Father and the maternal grandmother namely, Ms J who made the request for the Mother to take up temporary residence in the Father’s home.  She has expressed significant concern as to the threat that Mr F poses, not just to her daughter (the Mother) but the children.  The Father also alleges that Mr F may have other convictions over and above driving under the influence of alcohol.  The implication is that these convictions may be drug related, that Mr F does not have a licence and has been driving the children and the Mother in those circumstances.

27. The Father sets out his concerns as to the Mother’s capacity to care for the children.  Over and above the obvious concern arising out of the children coming into contact with Mr F, the Father highlights that whilst the children have been in the Mother’s care, C has had 13 absences from school and B has had 14 absences.  The overwhelming majority have apparently occurred whilst the children have been in the care of the Mother.  The Father also alleges that the Mother does not follow through with issues relating to the medical health of the children and provides examples of the alleged lack of concern by the Mother to properly investigate whether the children might have any diabetes-related conditions and also whether C is suffering from impaired vision.  The Mother denies any allegation of neglect and seeks to put any school absences in context.

1. The Father also raises concerns in respect of further allegations relating to

   
   

   Mr F, that he has been questioned in relation to allegations of sexual abuse concerning children, uses drugs and stores them at his home. 

2. The maternal grandmother has prepared an affidavit filed 28 August 2013 in support of the Father’s case.  The general tenor of her allegation is that the Mother is neglectful of the children, is always short of money and together with Mr F, regularly use drugs.  The house is in an appalling condition according to the maternal grandmother, and there are photographs forming exhibit “CHF 1” to the maternal grandmother’s affidavit which suggests a house in turmoil.

3. In short, the maternal grandmother is not supportive of her daughter in circumstances where she has a real concern as to the relationship between the Mother and Mr F and the potential impact that it has on the children.

4. The Father relies upon further affidavits from Mr K, the brother of Mr F.  He alleges that Mr F is a regular user of drugs and has a past association with an outlaw bikie gang.  A convenient summary of the view that Mr K has of his brother is set out in paragraph 5 of the affidavit:

   I am prepared to provide this affidavit because I believe my brother [Mr F] is a dangerous person with serious substance abuse problems and mental health issues that are of a long standing nature.

5. He asserts to having seen Mr F use speed, ecstasy and marihuana.  He also comments on the allegation of the Father that Mr F has been convicted of drug-driving charges. 

6. The Mother relies upon an affidavit filed by Mr F.  He sets out his circumstances and involvement with the Mother and the children.  He denies having a substance abuse problem or that he is a dangerous person.  He alleges that he does not suffer from depression, anxiety or any other mental illness, but does confirm that he has used marihuana as a young man and did an experiment with methamphetamine together with his brother for a period of six months in his late teens.  In terms of any connection with a bikie gang, Mr F refers to a second brother namely, Mr L, who did have a bikie gang association, but he is no longer a member.  Mr F denies the assault on his brother Mr K and sets out his own version of the events.

7. Notwithstanding the denial by Mr F of a conviction for driving under the influence of drugs on two occasions, he does admit that he has been convicted of one charge of driving with methamphetamine in fluid or blood.  He sets out the history to the charge, but in summary Mr F says that whilst the test came up positive for methamphetamine, he was very surprised not having knowingly consumed methamphetamine for a long time.  Whilst he does not dispute the accuracy of the results, he asserts that his drink must have been spiked.  Mr F admits however, that he instructed his solicitors to plead guilty to the charge.  He specifically denies that he is a drug dealer, that he sells drugs, or that he has association with drug dealers in the locality.

8. The Mother filed a further affidavit in support of her Application on 19 September 2013.  The matters raised in this document are germane to the proceedings.

9. In particular, paragraph 4 of the said affidavit sets out the background to an incident where B had been asking if she could see her father.  When apparently she did not get a palatable response, she ran away from the home of the Mother and ultimately found her way to the Father’s old house.  The clear implication is that B wanted to see her father and was prepared to take the dangerous process of running away from the Mother’s home in order to achieve that outcome.

10. At paragraph 8(s)(ii) the following is reported:

    [B] is very relaxed and happy around [Mr F].  [B] calls [Mr F] “Dad”.  She also tells him that she loves him.  Every time [B] sees [Mr F] she goes to get a hug from him.  She gets upset if he doesn’t go in to tuck her into bed each night.

11. In the circumstances of this case and even on an interim basis, it would not appear appropriate that there be any encouragement to B to call Mr F “Dad”.  The child has a father and the concern of the Court is that the circumstances that currently exist wherein the children are not able to spend time with the Father, may well result in some significant confusion in the children as to the current circumstances, why they cannot see their father and also has the potential to promote a situation where the children would be confused as to the parental hierarchy and importance of the significant adults in their lives.  In short, it is unacceptable for there to be any encouragement given to the children to refer to Mr F in the manner in which they do.

12. The balance of the affidavit is to deny the various allegations made by the Father, the maternal grandmother and Mr F’s brother.

13. I am not able to make any clear finding in respect of the allegations made by each of the parties against the other.  There may well be the need for complex evidence to be given and tested in order to resolve the factual matrix which is presented to the Court.  That however, is not the task in respect of these proceedings.

14. The Father is keen to resume time with the children and in respect of an order that saw a shared care arrangement put in place that continued until 2013, the focus must be whether the continuation of the suspension of those Orders has any justification.

15. As matters have been currently presented, I am not able to able to find support for the basis of suspension.

16. Importantly, a resumption of time is supported by the ICL.

17. The children appear keen and anxious to see their father.  To the extent that any behaviour exhibited by them in circumstances where they are not seeing their father, it may well be that it is not necessarily corroborative of the allegations made by the Mother, but rather more consistent with the children being denied a proper relationship with their father.

THE LAW

1. In giving consideration to the appropriate Orders to be made arising out of an interim application, I am nonetheless bound by the parenting provisions of the Act. In particular, I am bound to give consideration to the provisions of

   
   

   s 60CC noting that pursuant to s 60CA, I must at all times apply the test that the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration.

2. In giving consideration to s 60CC in terms of how a Court should determine what is in a child’s best interests, I note that there are primary and additional considerations.  In particular, under s 60CC(2) the primary considerations are:

   (2)(a)the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents; and

   (2(b)the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or violence.

3. In particular s 60CC(2A) provides that:

   In applying the considerations set out in subsection (2), the court is to give greater weight to the consideration set out in paragraph (2)(b).

4. Accordingly, the Court must give primary focus to the need to protect the children from abuse, neglect, violence or harm.

5. I do not propose to set out seriatim the additional considerations pursuant to

   
   

   s 60CC(3) of the Act, but I give specific attention to those matters.

CONCLUSION

1. This is a case where I consider that it is in the best interests of the children to have a meaningful relationship with both of their parents.  The time spent with each of the parties should not be suspended or supervised.  I would so order if I considered that there was credible evidence presented to me that the children or either of them need to be protected from physical or psychological harm that would emanate from a resumption of time with their father or to remain with their mother.

2. I note the allegations of the Mother and the trenchant denials of the Father.  I also note that there are significant allegations by the Father in terms of the ability of the Mother to care for the children with particular emphasis on her relationship with Mr F.  As indicated, there is a complex factual matrix that will need to be resolved.  I am not able to do so on an interim basis and accordingly, whilst I am not persuaded that I should make orders in terms of the Mother’s application, equally to make orders in terms of the Father’s application would require me to accept the allegations made by him and supported by the maternal grandmother and the brother of Mr F.  I am not in a position to do that.  I am not urged to do so by the ICL.

3. I am however able to consider whether there are any matters which would support the continued suspension of the Order of 4 September 2009.  I struggle to find any current basis to continue that Order.  It may well have been the case that when Brown J suspended the Order there was not yet in place comprehensive affidavit material which provided both the allegation, but also the denial.  I do not consider that the counter-allegations made by the Father provide any assistance in respect of the consideration as to what alternate orders should be put in place if the order of suspension is discharged.

4. Neither party, nor the ICL, put forward any alternate orders.  There is nothing to suggest that if I consider there should be a resumption of time between the Father and the children that it would be anything other than appropriate for there to be a resumption of Orders pursuant to the Consent Orders made on

   
   

   4 September 2009.

5. There is little or no independent material to support the allegations made by each of the parties against the other.  There is certainly nothing that would support the continued suspension of time between the children and their father, or indeed, a significant restriction on the manner in which such time should be exercised.  It is also not appropriate to make orders in respect of any restriction imposed on the children coming into contact with Mr F.

6. If anything, there appears to be some evidence to suggest that a resumption of time between the children and their father is a matter of some priority, certainly against the backdrop of the child B running away from the Mother’s home in search of the Father.

7. Accordingly, I am of the view that the parenting arrangements between the parties and the children should return to the circumstances as set out in the Order of 4 September 2009.

8. Accordingly, I propose to discharge Order (6) of Orders made by Brown J on 20 August 2013 which will see a resumption of the children spending time with their father pursuant to the Orders of 4 September 2009.

9. Further I propose to order that neither party shall cause the children or either of them to consult with or undertake therapy, counselling or investigation from any health professional relating to any allegation raised to date in the proceedings in respect of alleged sexual abuse or relationship issues with either party unless with the written consent of the ICL.

10. I have been asked to order an urgent s 62G(2) report.  I consider this is premature.  The orders that I propose to make may give cause to the parties to reflect on the future conduct of the proceedings.  If the matter is ultimately listed for trial, a report would then be warranted.

I certify that the preceding eighty-one (81) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Berman delivered on 11 October 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  11 October 2013