SUTHERLAND & SUTHERLAND

[2019] FCCA 1135

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SUTHERLAND & SUTHERLAND [2019] FCCA 1135

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW –Parenting – consideration of equal time or substantial and significant time.

Legislation:

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

Applicant: MR SUTHERLAND

Respondent: MS SUTHERLAND

File Number: LNC 473 of 2018

Judgment of: Judge McGuire

Hearing date: 28 March 2019

Date of Last Submission: 28 March 2019

Delivered at: Launceston

Delivered on: 2 May 2019

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms A Trezise

Solicitors for the Applicant: Andrea Trezise

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr P McVeity

Solicitors for the Respondent: Philip Welch

ORDERS

1. That the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children [X] born … 2014 and [Y] born … 2016 (“the children”).

2. That the children live with the father.

3. That the children spend time with the mother as follows:

   (a)During school terms for five nights each fortnight being in the first week from 5.00 p.m. Thursday until 5.00 p.m. Sunday and in the second week between 5.00 p.m. Wednesday and 5.00 p.m. Friday;

   (b)During term holidays in 2019 and the summer school holidays 2019/20 for block periods of five days and nights in each fortnightly period being from the first Friday at 5.00 p.m. until the following Wednesday at 5.00 p.m.;

   (c)That as from the first term school holidays in 2020 then for the first half of each term holidays being from the first Friday at 5.00p.m. until the second Saturday at 12.00 noon and on a week about basis during the summer school holidays in each year with the children to spend time with the mother in the first week of such holidays and alternate weeks thereafter being from the Friday at 5.00 p.m. until the following Friday at 5.00 p.m.

4. That in any event the children spend time with the mother at Christmas in 2019 and in each alternate year thereafter from Christmas Eve at 5.00 p.m. until Christmas Day at 2.00 p.m. and in 2020 and in each alternate year thereafter from Christmas Day at 2.00 p.m. until Boxing Day at 5.00 p.m. and spend time with the father at Christmas in 2019 and in each alternate year thereafter from Christmas Day at 2.00 p.m. until Boxing Day at 5.00 p.m. and in 2020 and in each alternate year thereafter from Christmas Eve at 5.00 p.m. until Christmas Day at 2.00 p.m.

5. That the children spend time between their parents otherwise as agreed between the parents or variations of the above as agreed between the parents.

6. That school term time with the children between their parents be suspended during all school holiday time.

7. That the children have reasonable telephone communication with the other parent when in the care of each parent.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT LAUNCESTON

LNC 473 of 2018

MR SUTHERLAND

Applicant

And

MS SUTHERLAND

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Applications

1. These are parenting proceedings in respect of two children namely [X] born … 2014 (aged 5 years) and [Y] born … 2016 (aged 3 years).

2. The father is the applicant. He seeks orders that [X] and [Y] live with him and spend two periods each of two days/nights with the mother each fortnight being in the first week from 5 p.m. Friday until 5 p.m. Sunday and in the second week from 5 p.m. Wednesday until 5 p.m. Friday.

3. The respondent mother asks for orders which would give [X] and [Y] equal time between their parents. She proposes that the children be with her from 5 p.m. Wednesday until 5 p.m. Friday in one week and then from 5 p.m. Wednesday until 5 p.m. the following Monday in the following week. 

4. Each parent asks for orders for equal shared parental responsibility for [X] and [Y]. The parents also propose specific orders for special days for the children between their parents.

Background

1. The parties commenced cohabitation in either 2004 or 2005. They separated on 23 September 2017 when they agreed on a trial separation and the mother moved to New South Wales for about eight months.  The children remained in Tasmania with the father. The mother travelled back to Tasmania on occasion to visit the children.

2. The mother returned to live in Town A in … 2018 whereupon negotiations between the parties resulted in the mother spending only day time with the children.

3. The father bought an application in this Court on 30 July 2018 seeking both parenting and financial orders.

4. On 3 October 2018 interim parenting orders were made by consent whereby the children were to live with the mother for five nights each fortnight and for the father on nine nights per fortnight.  An order was also made for a family report.

5. Final orders as to property settlement were made by consent on 25 February 2019.

6. The trial in respect of parenting matters proceeded over one day on 28 March 2019.

7. The father is a tradesman. He works only part-time so as to accommodate his care for the children. He has not re-partnered.

8. The mother is a public servant. She works part time. She has re-partnered with Mr B. Mr B lives in New South Wales. The mother gave evidence to this Court that she has no current intention of relocating herself to New South Wales and does not anticipate Mr B moving to Tasmania given that he has a child in New South Wales. 

The Father’s Case

1. Mr Sutherland argues that the children should remain living with him given that he has established and can provide a primary home base for the children in the former matrimonial home. He alludes to corporal punishment by the mother and the maternal grandmother on the children in the mother’s home. He criticises the mother for “co-sleeping” with the children thereby causing them to be tired and upset on their return to him. He deposes to the mother’s historical detachment from the children and suggests that she might suffer a form of “mental illness” or “depression”. Mr Sutherland says that the parties have poor communication and are untrusting of each other thereby arguing against a successful regime of equal time for the children between their parents. He himself is suspicious of the mother’s motives and suggests her ultimate ambition is to relocate with the children to New South Wales.

2. Specifically, Mr Sutherland argues that the current arrangements for the children whereby they spend nine nights per fortnight with him and five nights with the mother have been unsuccessful and that he regrets entering into the consent orders in such terms in October 2018. He says that the children habitually return to him tired and anxious. As such, he argues for a reduction from the current interim orders to a regime where the children spend two periods each of two days and nights with the mother in a fortnight.

The Mother’s Case

1. The mother says that she was the primary parent for the children until September 2017. She says that she regrets leaving the children in the care of the father for eight months and now understands that there has been some impact on her relationships with [X] and [Y]. She says, however, that those relationships have been or are substantially re-established. She denies that she or her mother use corporal punishment on the children. She says that she does not habitually “co-sleep” with the children.

2. Ms Sutherland argues that she needs to maximise her time with the children so as to maintain the attachments impacted by her absence in 2017/18.

3. Ms Sutherland denies any ambition to relocate herself and the children to New South Wales.

4. The tenor of Ms Sutherland’s evidence is that the father exaggerates or embellishes any normal tiredness or irritability of the children and thereby blaming her or criticising her parenting capacity.

5. Ms Sutherland says that that an equal time arrangement is reasonably practicable for the children where the parties live in the same suburb and are only a few minutes apart.

6. Ms Sutherland also deposes to a poor personal relationship with Mr Sutherland with a lack of open communication and trust.

The Issues

1. The major issue for the Court is whether the children live primarily with the father or whether there be an equal time arrangement for the children between their parents. There are, of course, numerous sub-issues underlying the major considerations. Firstly, the capacity of each of the parents to attend to the children’s emotional needs is a consideration. Further, the ability of the parents to undertake a successful equal shared parenting arrangement is at issue.

The Evidence – Family Report

1. The Court has had the considerable assistance of a family report prepared by Family Consultant Ms C in this matter and dated 12 September 2018. Ms C also saw the parties and prepared a short-form report pursuant to section 11F of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”) on 2 October 2018.

2. In her final report Ms C makes the following recommendations:

   [82] it is recommended that [X] and [Y] live with their father.

   [83] it is recommended that [X] and [Y] spend time with their mother in accordance with the current interim Orders (week 1 two nights, week 2 three nights).

   [84] it is recommended that holiday time occur every school holidays for five days, nights each week in term holidays and every second week in the long summer holidays and that this increase every year by one day and night until 7 days are occurring (2021). *(in cross-examination Ms C confirmed that this recommendation was, in fact, that [X] and [Y] commence by spending block periods of five days and nights with their mother in each term holidays and progressing accordingly).

   [85] it is recommended that at the commencement of the year [Y] turns four years of age (2020) that time between [X] and [Y] and their mother occur in a two, two, five, five, parenting arrangement as suggested by Ms Sutherland in paragraph 15.

   [86] it is recommended that at the commencement of the year when [Y] commences his first year in grade school (2022) that a week about parenting arrangement commence.

   [87] it is recommended that Mr Sutherland and Ms Sutherland (sic) undertake parenting when separated counselling. Such counselling is available through relationships Australia.

   [88] it is recommended that Ms Sutherland considers seeking professional assistance to assist her to repair her relationship with [X] and [Y].

3. Ms C gave evidence and was cross-examined. Ms C had the benefit of meeting the children and observing the children with each of the parents. At [57] and following Ms C records those observations thus:

   [X] and [Y] were seen to have a warm connectivity with their father and appeared settled, confidant (sic) and certain in their relationship with him. 

   The children appeared less secure in their relationship with their mother. Whilst appearing pleased to see her, they did not appear to need her emotionally to encourage them to continue to play on their own and both children opted to play independently of her.  [Y] refused to give his mother a kiss when requested by her. Both [Y] and [X] exhibited signs of stress and dysregulation during their time with their mother. [Y] appeared to be missing his father…and [X] somewhat surprisingly dissolved into tears and clung to her mother when asked if she would like to accompany the writer to her room on her own, at the end of the mother’s observation session.

   When the children were observed with their father, they appeared settled and happy…

   Mr Sutherland was observed to be a vocally present father. He chatted frequently and age appropriately with both children, dividing his time between them with ease. Both children appeared comfortable with their father and chatted happily with him. [X] exhibited signs of confidence and assertiveness and readily took up the suggestions her father made and began to independently play every now and then declaring something to her father.

   [Y] was seen to be very happy in his father’s care.

   Both children, especially [Y] appeared less settled when in the company of their mother. They were subdued and less engaged with her.

   [X] too appeared a little distant from her mother and played independently for a time…neither child was observed to seek their mother out from for emotional confirmation, or reassurance, nor at any time was either child seen to initiate physical engagement with her.

   The children responded in a somewhat indifferent fashion (to the mother). The children were seen to be familiar with their mother but possibly insecure around her.

   Ms Sutherland was not observed to be able to placate [Y], and to meet his immediate emotional needs.

   Ms Sutherland was observed to offer neither child any assistance to disengage from her, and appeared instead to inhibit their ability to get off her lap and go to their father; holding them tightly and putting her head into them. Eventually the writer needed to intervene and suggest that Ms Sutherland stand up and physically assist the children to leave her lap. When this occurred the children went unhesitatingly to their father.

4. Under the heading “evaluation” Ms C opines:

   [X] and [Y] have lived with both their mother and their father until [X] was three and half years old and [Y] was one and a half years old. Their mother from both accounts was the primary carer during this time. The father, however, was a daily presence in the children’s lives…

   It is likely that [X]’s and [Y]’s sense of maternal attachment has been damaged, and that they found their mother’s absence for eight months psychologically stressful.

   It is important for [X]’s and [Y]’s future mental health, emotional adjustment, moral development and all spheres of adult functioning for this damage to be repaired. A consolidation of maternal attachment appears necessary. Both [Y]’s and [X]’s emotional distress when in the company of their mother, possibly are indicators of this compromised attachment relationship.

   Ms Sutherland’s relationship with [X] and [Y] appears to need rebuilding. This is most likely to occur more quickly if Ms Sutherland has the opportunity to spend a significant and meaningful amount of time with the children. This should, however, not happen at the expense of the children’s sense of security and safety…such repair will occur over many months of sustained parenting.

   It is likely that [X] and [Y], due to their parental circumstances, have developed a strong reliance on their father as he quickly became their primary parent when the mother was physically absent and became emotionally unavailable to them. Mr Sutherland likely emotionally assisted [X] and [Y] to cope with their feelings of loss, helping them to feel secure when their primary attachment figure was absent. The close connectivity, calm and happy observation of Mr Sutherland and the children supports this proposition.

   Mr Sutherland and Ms Sutherland do not presently have a cooperative parenting alliance.  They may be able to develop one through counselling. Ms Sutherland also appears to need to accept that Mr Sutherland is now equally qualified as her to determine what is in the children’s best interest…

   The best arrangements for young children whose parents have separated is a stable home base with regular visits to the other parent’s home. Young children such as [X] and [Y] need a secure base from which to explore the world. This base can and should expand as they grow older. One strong stable base is going to be psychologically better for [X] and [Y] at the present time, than attempting to have two intermittent bases.

   It is considered at the present time that Mr Sutherland and Ms Sutherland would struggle to cooperatively co-parent, and [X] and [Y] would struggle to thrive in any 50/50 shared care parenting arrangements. A 50/50 shared care parenting arrangement is unlikely to be in the children’s best interest until both parents have developed a clearer appreciation for the importance of both the maternal and the paternal relationship through counselling.

   The two, two, five, five parenting arrangement as suggested by Ms Sutherland in paragraph 15 is considered to be an excellent transition into an eventual week about parenting arrangement.

5. Ms C’s evidence in the witness box generally supported the evidence and conclusions from her family report. Nevertheless, one matter in her recommendations was the subject of some attack. It is clear that Ms C’s recommendations are of a continuation of the current nine-five arrangements pursuant to the interim orders but with the children progressing to an equal time arrangement at the beginning of 2020. Nevertheless, Ms C in her family report and in her evidence in Court confirmed that these parents exhibited poor communication and cooperation traits when interviewed by her in late 2018. In this respect, Ms C confirmed the commonly held view of those in her profession that a successful equal time arrangement for children between parents requires the precursors of a high level of communication, trust and respect between the parents together with an ability to cooperatively parent and to easily and comfortably transition the children between two homes. Ms C conceded that her recommendation for equal time for the children between their parents was therefore based to a large extent on the children’s need to rebuild their relationship and attachment with their mother but perhaps with neglect as to the above precursors for successful equal time arrangements. Ms C does, however, emphasise that she has suggested counselling for these parents to attend to the communication and cooperation difficulties that they clearly exhibited before her.

The Father’s Evidence

1. Mr Sutherland provided affidavits and gave evidence in Court and was cross-examined. My observations of Mr Sutherland in the witness box suggested a father still struggling to compartmentalise his own residual grief and grievances in respect of his marriage breakdown to the objective needs of his children. He readily identifies traits and behavioural issues in the children such as tiredness and irritability as being a result of their time with their mother or their mother’s inferior parenting capacity. Whilst he was keen to emphasise the problems he sees in his children’s relationship with their mother and the mother’s lack of capacity, his explanation in attempting to resolve these problems with a simple reduction from five nights per fortnight to four nights per fortnight was unconvincing. Generally, however, Mr Sutherland presented as a loving and devoted father who has admirably taken on the role of sole parent for two very young children in circumstances where he had not previously been the primary parent.

The Mother’s Evidence

1. The mother also provided affidavits and was cross-examined. She presented as a candid and honest witness able to give answers against interest. Ms Sutherland has, from my observations of her in the witness box, more obviously moved on from the relationship breakdown than has the father. She, however, and like Mr Sutherland, frequently referenced the interpersonal communication and trust difficulties between the parents without necessarily giving me any cause for optimism as to these issues being resolved in the near future.

2. Whilst Ms Sutherland was more able than Mr Sutherland to differentiate her interpersonal relationship issues from the children’s best interests, and displayed assertive confidence in her own parenting capacity, her failure to acknowledge the impact of her separation from these children for eight months at their formative attachment years, and as observed and reported in detail by the family reporter, suggests a certain naïveté or deliberate blindness in Ms Sutherland in relation to such important matters.

Relevant Law

1. Section 60CA of the Family Law Act provides that I am to have the best interests of [X] and [Y] as my paramount consideration in determining their living and parenting arrangements. I determine those best interests by referencing the parties’ proposals and the probative evidence to the objects and principles of the Act as set out in section 60B, and, on a more pragmatic basis, to the numerous mandatory considerations at sections 60CC(2) and (3) of the Act.

S 60CC Factors

S 60CC(2)(a) – the benefit to the children of having a meaningful relationship with both of the children’s parents.

1. Significantly, these children are still very young. They have always lived with their father. They have attached, established and loving relationships with him. There has been a significant gap, however, in the children’s relationship with the mother and at formative years for those attachments. The family reporter notes obvious attachment issues and suggests that the relationships need “rebuilding” with a most obvious tool to assist such rebuilding being a quantity of consistent and frequent time between children and mother.

S 60CC(2)(b) – the need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm, from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.

1. Although the aspects of family violence most commonly raised in these Courts were fortunately not apparent here, it is clear that the relationship between these two parents remains acrimonious and conflictual. Both parents alluded to arguments between them at changeovers and which therefore occur in the presence of the children. As mentioned above, the demeanours and attitudes of each of these parents in the witness box was highly demonstrative of a tense and volatile relationship between them.

S 60CC(3)(f) – the capacity of the parents to attend to the children’s physical, intellectual and emotional needs.

1. The mother delegated her care of the children to the father in 2017 and at a time when these children were very young and where she had been their primary parent. This being the case, it is difficult to criticise the father’s capacity to care for [X] and [Y] where he took on this role when the children were very young with high level physical and emotional needs. All of the evidence suggests that he remains a most capable parent. The only criticism, perhaps, of Mr Sutherland is in respect of his insight in respect of the emotional needs of the children to again develop and maintain a bond with their mother and where he presents as overly vigilant and keen to criticise the mother. Prima facie, the mother’s capacity to understand the needs of these young children is impeached by her leaving them at such young ages where she had been their primary parent. I accept, however, that circumstances prevailed at the time such that the mother may not have appreciated the impact on these children as observed by the family reporter. I repeat, as mentioned above, however, that the mother’s capacity to understand the emotional needs of her children is challenged by her evidence to this Court suggesting that she does not acknowledge any real issues for the children in the terms observed and reported by Ms C.

S 60CC(3)(i) – the attitude to the responsibilities of parenthood demonstrated by the parents.

1. The mother must live with her decision to move from Tasmania without her young children. Nevertheless, her evidence generally impressed me as someone who is now prepared to accept the responsibilities of parenting [X] and [Y]. Again, the father admirably accepted the role of sole parent. As such, the major criticism to be levelled at the attitudes of these two parents is their continued propensity for conflict as opposed to cooperative and communicative parenting.

2. These are the considerations under sections 60CC(2) and (3) which primarily attend my determination as to the best interests of [X] and [Y]. They are young children and are not to otherwise able to rationalise their own views and preferences. The parties live in close proximity and there should be few, if any, logistical problems in the children moving between the two households. Issues of family violence do not feature in the dispute between these two parents. The nature of the relationships for [X] and [Y] with each of their parents has been set out above. The mother says under her affirmation that she has no intention of moving herself and the children to New South Wales.

Findings and Conclusions

1. These two parents have a relationship which is untrusting, suspicious, non-communicative and conflictual. 

2. The mother is more assertive and advanced in her moving forward from the relationship breakdown than is the father but the mother being the initiator of that separation and doing so by leaving the children with the father perhaps makes this an understandable difference between the two parents.

3. The children’s relationship with their father is strong, attached, supportive and dependent. 

4. The children’s relationship with their mother is damaged. I accept the evidence of the family reporter over that of the mother in this respect.

5. Both parents are generally capable parents and any incapacities are directly related to their poor interpersonal relationship.

6. Not surprisingly, the father is more cautious and reluctant in expanding the children’s time and relationship with the mother. Frankly, that is understandable. To his credit he says that he wants the problems that he observes between the children and their mother to be “fixed”.

7. Also unsurprisingly, the mother is more ambitious and confident in her quest for equal time with the children. I am not persuaded, however, that her confidence is matched by an understanding or acceptance/acknowledgement of the impact on these two very young children of her move away from them and that this impact continues.

8. I find accordingly that that the proposals of each of these parents to be somewhat flawed. Firstly, the father’s proposal, in my view, does nothing to deal with his perceived problems for the children with their mother. As a proposition, I do not generally accept that a simple reduction in time from five days per fortnight to four days per fortnight reduces the possibility of such anxiety or behavioural problems. In my view, such anxieties are innate and without any time nexus or certainly not a nexus to the difference between five and four days/nights per fortnight.

9. Secondly, the mother’s proposal simply neglects the delicate and discreet nature of the children’s issues in the changes in their relationship with her following an eight month hiatus and a change of primary parent. I think her voluntary use of the word “fair” in respect of the equal time orders that she seeks speaks volumes as to her motivation and her primary focus in respect of her application but misses the primary consideration for this Court being the children’s best interests.

10. These parties have virtually no communication in respect of their children. Such communication as there is happens by text message and usually by one parent complaining of the other. They have mutual and residual problems of trust. The children are still very young at three and four years of age. The parties have thus far been unable to execute even the most straightforward of changeovers between homes without manifesting their conflict in the presence of the children.  Each of these parents is critical of the physical parenting styles of the other. These are all factors which argue strongly against an immediate move to an equal time arrangement and I am not persuaded, therefore, to accede to the mother’s application for orders in those terms.

11. Similarly, however, I do not accept the father’s argument for a reduction in the children’s time with their mother from five nights per fortnight to four. The family reporter argues strongly against any reduction where her focus is clearly on the “rebuilding” of the children’s relationship with their mother. The nine/five arrangement was reached by consent between these parties, as long ago as October 2018 although I do now note the father’s stated “regret” in agreeing to such orders. As mentioned above, I do not accept the validity of the father’s argument for a reduction of time by one day per fortnight. Even if the father’s concerns are factual, they must be weighed and balanced against the positives and benefits for these two young children in maximising their time and hence their relationship with their mother in circumstances and within the context of the children needing a stable home base.

12. It follows, therefore, that I am satisfied that the children’s best interests are now served by a continuation of the regime where they live for nine nights per fortnight with their father and five nights per fortnight with their mother. I accept the family reporter’s view that in pre-school aged years this should take place in the mother’s home by way of blocks of two and three nights and in circumstances where the parties live relatively proximate but mindful of the need for both parents to address the issues that have manifested at changeovers.

13. There remains for me to consider now whether I make orders which further advance the children’s time with the mother up to and including an equal time arrangement and as recommended by the family reporter.  I am mindful that these children have, at the ages of four and three years, lived already in the following regimes: –

    (a)living with both parents;

    (b)living with the father for a period of eight months with only limited and infrequent time with the mother;

    (c)day time only with the mother; and

    (d)five nights per fortnight with the mother and nine nights per fortnight with the father.

14. I give some weight to the family reporter’s observations that there needs to be a “rebuild” in the relationship between the children and their mother.

15. The family reporter interviewed these two parents in December 2018.  She had also interviewed them in October of that year.  It is clear from Ms C’s evidence from her report and in the witness box that she had witnessed traits of poor communication, mistrust, lack of ability to cooperatively parent, suspicion and conflict between these parents. Ms C suggested that counselling might assist the mother and the father to rectify these problems. On the evidence before me, neither parent has undertaken any counselling of the focused and specific type recommended by Ms C. My observations of the parties giving their evidence was consistent with those of Ms C in 2018. That is, the evidence remains that they are unable to similarly execute transitions for these two children between their households. They remain mutually suspicious and critical of each other. Both readily claim that there is no communication between them save and except as a tool to criticise each other. Their evidence was substantially critical of the other as to parenting capacity and motivation.

16. Consequently, and whereas I understand the motivation of the family reporter in “hoping” that the parties could rectify their failings with counselling, no such counselling has been undertaken and the problems remain unaddressed. For good reason, it is generally accepted by experts in this field and Judges sitting in these Courts, that a regime of equal time for children between their parents requires high levels of communication, cooperation, respect and trust. None of those traits are evident here. As such, and whilst the family reporter may properly speculate, my obligation is to make orders on the basis of evidence and certainly not by reason of speculation or hope. Those same experts and Judges, of course, also recognise the benefit for very young children of one stable home base for the children and particularly so, where the relationship between parents is conflictual. Whilst it might be argued, therefore, that a parent or parents need the same skills, facilities, insight and inter-personal traits for a regime of “substantial and significant time” as for instance a nine-five arrangement as they would for a seven-seven arrangement, I place some real weight on the need for these children to have one stable home base which together with (or because of) the above mentioned failings of these parents all of which argue against an equal time arrangement both currently and in the foreseeable future. Consequently, I am unable to accept, on the evidence before me, the speculative recommendation of the family reporter as to moving these children to an equal time arrangement between their parents. As such, the order for the children to live in a regime of nine nights per fortnight with their father and five nights per fortnight with their mother will be a final order. I do, however, place less store on the stable home base argument in respect of school holidays. Holidays provide quality time for relationships between parents and children including the ability to travel and without the structures of school weeks. Consequently, I intend to make an order that the children’s time with their mother be extended to one half of Tasmania’s term school holidays as from the commencement of the school year in 2020 but accepting Ms C’s recommendations for the children to spend five night blocks with their mother in the remaining term holidays of 2019 and for the 2019/20 summer holidays. 

17. Finally, I am asked to consider altering the current changeover arrangements for the children between their parents to take place at a public place rather than the current arrangement where the father will deliver the children to the mother at the commencement of their time with her and she will return them at the conclusion of those times.  Frankly, on reflection, I am not persuaded that the venue is the problem with these two parents. Rather, it is their attitude and insight into the need to protect their children from exposure to adult disputes. Again, being frank, my observation of these two parents and their residual animosities is such that they are as likely to enter into an argument at a fast food car park as they are outside each other’s homes. The challenge, therefore, is for each of Mr and Ms Sutherland to acknowledge and address the issue of their behaviour in the presence of their children. I do not intend to make any orders for time changeovers to occur in a public place. 

I certify that the preceding fifty two (52) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge McGuire

Date: 2 May 2019