Tahan & Radlov
[2024] FedCFamC2F 1303
•20 September 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Tahan & Radlov [2024] FedCFamC2F 1303
File number(s): DGC 2894 of 2022 Judgment of: JUDGE JENKINS Date of judgment: 20 September 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – drug use – physical discipline – verbal abuse – neglect – lack of parenting boundaries – parental denigration – lack of insight – stability for children – evidence of current risks – amelioration of risk – injunctions – joint decision making – international travel – trial commenced pre-6 May amendments to the Family Law Act Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 128, 140
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4AB, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 62B, 65D, 65DA, 65DAC
Cases cited: Carlson & Fluvium [2012] FamCA 32
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22
Grella & Jamieson [2017] FamCAFC 21
Isles and Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Masson & Parsons [2019] HCA 21
Mazorski & Albright [2007] FamCA 520
McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92
University of Wollongong v Metwally (1985) 158 CLR 447
Walpole & Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2020] FamCAFC 65
Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon [2003] HCA 48
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 133 Date of hearing: 12 - 13 March, 21 - 22 March, & 15 - 16 August 2024 Place: Dandenong Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Johnson Solicitor for the Applicant: Zenith Lawyers & Consultants Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Swart Solicitor for the Respondent: Kaj Sharma Legal Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms McNamee Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Melanie Wyatt Family Law ORDERS
DGC 2894 of 2022 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR TAHAN
Applicant
AND: MS RADLOV
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE JENKINS
DATE OF ORDER:
20 SEPTEMBER 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.All previous Orders be discharged.
Parental responsibility
2.The parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the children:
(a)X born in 2016;
(b)Y born in 2017; and
(c)Z born in 2019 (“the children”).
The children’s living arrangements
3.The children live with the father.
4.The children spend time and communicate with the mother as follows:
4.1During school terms, each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school on Friday or 3:30pm on Friday to the commencement of school or 9:00am Tuesday.
4.2In each term school holiday period from the conclusion of the last day of school until 5:00pm on the mid-Saturday of the school term school holiday period.
4.3In 2024/25 and each summer school holiday thereafter on a week about basis commencing from the conclusion of the last day of school with changeover occurring at 5:00pm.
4.4In 2024 and each alternate year thereafter on Christmas Eve from 5:00pm until 5:00pm Christmas Day.
4.5In 2025 and each alternate year thereafter on Christmas Day from 5:00pm until 5:00pm Boxing Day.
4.6On the children’s birthday for two (2) hours if a school day and for four (4) hours if a non-school day as agreed between the parties.
4.7On Mother’s Day weekend from 5:00pm the night prior until the commencement of school or 9:00 am Monday.
5.The mother’s time be suspended as follows:
5.1In 2024 and each alternate year thereafter on Christmas Day from 5:00pm until 5:00pm Boxing Day.
5.2In 2025 and each alternate year thereafter on Christmas Eve from 5:00pm until 5:00pm Christmas Day.
5.3On the children’s birthday for two (2) hours if a school day and for four (4) hours if a non-school day as agreed between the parties.
5.4On Father’s Day weekend from 5:00pm the night prior until the commencement of school or 9:00 am Monday.
Changeover
6.If changeover does not occur at the children’s school/kinder/day care, changeover to occur at McDonalds Suburb B.
Communication
7.The mother be permitted to telephone or facetime the children each Thursday and alternate Tuesday (following the weekend they have not been in her care) between 6:00pm and 6:30pm with the mother to place the call to the father’s mobile and if the children are unavailable to speak to the mother, the father will ensure they return the call that evening.
8.The parties shall communicate through the Talking Parents App or such other parenting application as agreed and use the parenting App for all communication between the parents.
9.Each parent is authorised to contact any medical, or other specialist, practitioner upon whom the children attend to discuss any issues and recommended treatment(s) for the children at their own expense.
10.Each of the parties advise the other as soon as possible, of all attendances upon health specialists, including but not limited to any injury or health concern or emergency medical or dental treatment concerning the children whilst they are in their respective care, and will provide the details of any treatment whatsoever, including the name and address of any treating practitioner and each of the parties are authorised to liaise directly with any of the children’s treating practitioners.
11.The children’s school and/or other care providers be authorised to communicate with both parents and provide details and copies of all documents and information about the children to both parties, including but not limited to, the children’s progress, school reports, newsletters, and any other details pertaining to the children’s school activities.
12.The parties shall be at liberty to attend all school events (including parent teacher interviews), curriculum and extracurricular activities participated by the children.
13.Each of the parties be at liberty to provide a copy of these orders to any school that the children attend.
14.Each of the parties shall keep each other informed of their current residential addresses, telephone contact numbers and email addresses and advise each other of any proposed changes to these details, no less than 14 days prior to any change, in writing (including by email or SMS text message in the event of emergency).
Injunctions
15.Each of the parties, their servants and agents be hereby restrained by injunction from:
15.1abusing, insulting, belittling, rebuking or otherwise denigrating the other party, their partners or family members;
15.2discussing these proceedings or the contents of any documents filed or intended for use in these proceedings to, with, or in the presence of hearing of the child, and from permitting any other person to do so; and
15.3publishing anything on the Internet or Social Media relating to the other parent that is considered to be defaming of the other parent.
16.Neither the mother or father be permitted to verbally abuse the children.
17.Neither the mother or the father be permitted to use physical discipline on the children.
18.Neither the mother or father be under the influence or use illicit drugs whilst the children are in their care.
19.The children continue counselling at their school as recommended by the counsellor.
20.Within seven (7) days of the date of these Orders that the parents enrol in the Parenting Orders Program (“the POP program”) and provide a copy of completion to the other parent.
21.The Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) be hereby dismissed.
22.Pursuant to sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.
23.All extant applications be otherwise dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to s 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE JENKINS:
This is a parenting matter concerning three children namely, X aged eight, Y aged seven, and Z aged five (“the children”).
The mother was the primary carer of the children until early 2022. From about early 2022 until mid-2022, the father took on greater care of the children and following the mother’s arrest for possession of illicit drugs, the children went to live in his primary care where they have remained ever since.
At the commencement of the trial the children were spending time with the mother on alternate weekends from Friday to Sunday and each Wednesday afterschool. By the conclusion of the trial the parties agreed to vary the arrangements on an interim basis, pending judgment, removing the Wednesday night visits and extending the alternate weekend to the Monday morning.
In terms of the parties’ proposed final orders, the mother initially sought the children be returned to her care and that they spend alternate weekends with the father, however by the end of the trial conceded the children remain with the father and spend five nights with her per fortnight. At the conclusion of the trial, the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“the ICL”) largely supported the spend time arrangements proposed by the mother. The father did not agree to any additional time beyond the extension to the Monday during school terms but was agreeable to significant holiday time.
BRIEF BACKGROUND
The parents met when they were both working in the allied health sector. They were in a relationship from 2014 until about June 2020.
Between late 2017 and separation in June 2020, the parents lived with the maternal grandfather, Mr C (“the grandfather”).
Following separation, the mother remained in the grandfather’s home with the children. The father stayed in hotels and short stay homes before finding his own accommodation in September 2020.
From 27 September 2020, the father began spending time with the children on alternate weekends.
In late 2020, the mother commenced working a second job as a customer service officer working nightshifts. The father says he then began spending additional time with the children to assist the mother with caring for the children. The mother says the grandfather looked after the children overnight while she worked, unless they were spending time with the father.
It appears the mother and children lived between the father’s accommodation and the grandfather’s home from early 2022 and mid-2022.
In early 2022, the mother says she commenced using illicit drugs to assist her to work double shifts. The father says this was part of a party lifestyle that the mother had developed with colleagues.
In 2022, the mother was arrested by the police whilst in the company of her then boyfriend, Mr D, for the possession of illicit drugs and non-prescribed medications. The mother returned to the father’s home the following morning and informed him about the arrest. The father left the children in her care that day and went to work. Upon his return to the home at 9:00pm, there was a dispute between the parties as the mother wished to take the children back to the grandfather’s home. The police were called, and the mother left without the children who remained in the father’s care.
At some point after the mother’s arrest, she reported to police that she had been raped by the father in early 2022.
In mid-2022, the mother obtained a Family Violence Intervention Order (“IVO”) which named the father as respondent and the mother as the affected family member. The IVO was varied in mid-2022 to include the children as affected family members.
In mid-2022, the father obtained an IVO which named the mother as respondent and himself and the children as affected family members.
The Department for Families, Fairness and Housing (“the DFFH”) were notified of the above circumstances and an investigation commenced.
The parties were unable to agree as to the time the mother would spend with the children.
The father consequently initiated these proceedings on 7 September 2022.
In mid-2023, the parents finalised the IVO proceedings by agreeing to mutual orders with limited clauses. Those orders have now expired.
The parties attended interviews for a Family Report in October 2022 with Ms E whose initial report is dated 7 November 2022 (“the first Family Report”).
Orders were subsequently made in this court on 9 November 2022 (“the November orders”) which provided for the arrangement that was in place at the commencement of the trial.
The parties attended for an updated report with Ms E in August 2023 which is dated 23 August 2023 (“the second Family Report”).
It appears that as a result of concerns highlighted in the second Family Report that the father unilaterally suspended the mother’s time with the children.
Following a hearing in October 2023 the father agreed to reinstate the mother’s time pursuant to the November orders.
ISSUES IN THIS CASE
Each of the parties initially opened their cases seeking findings on a range of issues, however by final submissions these had been reduced to the following:
(1)Whether the mother is currently a risk to the children due to use of illicit drugs;
(2)Whether the mother is currently a risk to the children as a result of physical or verbal abuse;
(3)Whether the mother is a risk to the children as a result of an ongoing campaign to influence them against the father;
(4)Whether the mother is a risk to the children as a result of neglect and/or in ability to enforce boundaries;
(5)Whether any risks posed by the mother can be ameliorated through limited time and if so, how limited; and
(6)How much weight can be placed on the children’s views and wishes.
DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON
The father relied upon the following documents:
·his further amended Application filed 14 February 2024;
·his trial affidavit filed 14 February 2024;
·his affidavit in reply filed 7 March 2024;
·the affidavit of Ms F, colleague, filed 14 February 2024;
·the affidavit of Mr G, friend, filed 14 February 2024;
·the affidavit of Ms E, social worker, annexing the first Family Report filed 27 September 2023 dated 7 November 2022; and
·the affidavit of Ms E annexing the second Family Report filed 12 September 2023.
The mother relied upon the following documents:
·her further amended response filed 16 March 2023;
·her trial affidavit filed 28 February 2024;
·the affidavit of Mr C, maternal grandfather, filed 7 September 2023;
·the affidavit of Ms N, friend, filed 13 September 2023;
·the affidavit of Ms J, colleague, filed 28 February 2024; and
·the affidavit of Ms K, friend and relative, filed 4 March 2024.
The ICL relied upon the following documents:
·the DFFH Response dated 14 September 2022;
·the DFFH Response dated 3 November 2022;
·the affidavit of Ms E, annexing the first Family Report filed 27 September 2023 dated 7 November 2022; and
·the affidavit of Ms E, annexing the second Family Report filed 12 September 2023
·the subpoena material from Victoria Police;
·the subpoena material from L Clinic; and
·the subpoena material from M Centre.
In addition, the following exhibits were tendered in this matter:
·M1 – Mother’s hair follicle test collected early 2024;
·M2 – Letter sent 2 November 2023 from mother’s solicitor and the father’s solicitor’s response dated 3 November 2023;
·M3 – Documents/photos of Z’s teeth;
·M4 – Mother’s proof of attendance at gynaecology appointment;
·M5 – Bundle of text messages between the parties 28 February to 3 March 2022;
·F1 – Brief of evidence dated 18 August 2022;
·F2 – Bundle of text messages between the parties March 2022 to May 2022;
·F3 – Bundle of three course completion certificates;
·F4 – Bundle of text messages between the parties dated 18 June 2022;
·F5 – Email from a Senior Constable of the Sexual Offence and Child Abuse Investigation Team (“SOCIT”) dated 14 August 2024;
·F6 – L Clinic medical records, pages 45 – 51;
·F7 – Victoria Police LEAP Record dated 19 June 2022;
·F8 – M Centre records, commencing with letter dated 24 November 2021;
·J1 – Text messages of 2 March 2022;
·J2 – Text messages of 11 and 12 May 2022; and
·J3 – Joint Minute provided 7 March 2024.
EVIDENCE
The final hearing of this matter commenced on 12 March 2024. The matter had to be adjourned after two days of evidence, as the father’s barrister was granted leave to withdraw from the proceedings. The matter continued for a further two days on 21 March 2024 and 22 March 2024 and concluded following two additional days of hearing on 15 August 2024 and 16 August 2024.
Although some of the evidence was heard electronically over Microsoft Teams, I am satisfied that this did not interfere with the fair conduct of the trial.
In terms of the evidence, I have taken into account the contents of each of the affidavits to the extent that they were referred to in cross-examination and submissions. It is not the responsibility of the court to go through evidence, not otherwise referred to at trial, and endeavour to determine how it is applicable to the parties’ competing positions. The parties are bound by the manner in which their case was conducted.[1]
[1] University of Wollongong v Metwally (1985) 158 CLR 447.
Furthermore, I have not had regard to the contents of any annexures to affidavits,[2] nor have I read any subpoenaed material, information provided by agencies such as the DFFH or police, documents in tender bundles, court books or any documents otherwise emailed to the court which were not separately tendered into evidence as exhibits. As the court observed in Walpole & Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2020] FamCAFC 65:
The Full Court has said more than once that a judge cannot be expected to rummage through a large volume of documents on the off chance that the facts might emerge.[3]
[2] See Rule 8.15(3)(e) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021.
[3] Walpole & Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2020] FamCAFC 65 at [53].
In determining these proceedings, I have considered all the evidence presented at trial although it is not possible to include every aspect of the parties’ evidence in these reasons for judgment. However, if a particular fact or issue is not mentioned in these reasons, it does not mean that I have failed to consider it. As per the High Court in Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon [2003] HCA 48:
A judge’s reasons are not required to mention every fact or argument relied on by the losing party as relevant to an issue. Judgments of trial judges would soon become longer than they already are if a judge’s failure to mention such facts and arguments would be evidence that he or she had not properly considered the losing party’s case.[4]
[4] Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon [2003] HCA 48 at [62].
Section 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) sets out that the standard of proof in these proceedings is to a balance of probabilities.
At trial, the mother and the father both gave evidence. The father also sought to rely on two other witnesses. Having read their affidavits I informed the parties that I did not require the father’s witnesses for cross-examination, as their evidence consisted almost entirely of hearsay and was not of assistance in this matter. The mother relied upon three other witnesses. In regard to the evidence of Ms N, I made the same comments as I made with respect to the father’s witnesses, and she was similarly not required.[5] Ms K was not available for cross-examination and her evidence was ultimately not relied upon. While Ms J gave limited evidence, I had no cause to question her bona fides. The grandfather, however, was clearly extremely hostile towards the father and yelled expletives at him from the witness box. Accordingly, the grandfather’s evidence was of little assistance to the court.
[5] See Rule 8.19 of Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules2021 (Cth).
In terms of the father, I accept that he gave evidence to the best of his recollection. Although at times there were inconsistencies, it did not appear to me that he was being intentionally dishonest.
Unfortunately, in regard to the mother, her own evidence was that she was prepared to lie to police by telling them she was prescribed the medication they found on her in mid-2022, which she later conceded was untrue. I also found the evidence around her arrest entirely implausible. The mother would have the court believe she was meeting her boyfriend at midnight to discuss their relationship, and it just so happened that she was carrying bags of illicit drugs, and the boyfriend, Mr D, a known drug dealer, had hundreds of dollars in cash and zip lock bags, in which he could put the drugs. In addition, the police officer who came across the boyfriend waiting for the mother, reported Mr D’s eyes were “red and glazed,”[6] and when asked what he was doing there, he said, “to buy drugs”[7] although laughed and “stated he was joking.”[8] The police also report that they found messages on his phone stating he was selling drugs although they do not state who those messages were with.[9]
[6] Father’s exhibit F1, at p.15 at [7].
[7] Father’s exhibit F1, at p.15 at [9].
[8] Father’s exhibit F1, at p.15 at [10].
[9] Father’s exhibit F1, at p.16 at [14].
The mother’s explanation about being in possession of the non-prescribed medication was also difficult to accept. Her evidence was she obtained them from a colleague, Ms H, to treat various illnesses including nausea, pain and to assist her to sleep.[10] It appears the medication was not correctly labelled, and the mother was unaware of the dosage. If I were to accept the evidence of the mother, she was prepared to take unlabelled medication of an unknown strength rather than simply attending a doctor herself.
[10] Trial affidavit of the mother filed 28 February 2024, at [40] (“Mother’s trial affidavit”).
The father asserts that the mother was also seeking to sell these medications on the black market.[11] Ms H did not provide an affidavit in support of the mother nor was she available to give evidence. The court was told that Ms H had an injured hand and was unable to sign an affidavit. This does not explain why she could not otherwise have given evidence at trial. Given this was a central concern in the case, and that Ms H could have corroborated the mother, and that they remained friends, I am prepared to draw the inference pursuant to Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 that her evidence would not have assisted the mother.[12]
[11] Affidavit of the father filed 2 November 2022 at [19].
[12] Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 at [320].
I do not accept the mother’s version of events. In my view it seems likely the mother intended to sell both the illicit drugs and prescribed medication to Mr D. In circumstances where she was prepared to lie to the police and maintain that lie in this Court, I am reluctant to place any weight on her evidence where it is in dispute and otherwise uncorroborated.
Having said that, I make the observation that it is not unusual in this jurisdiction for the evidence of witnesses to be affected by their emotions and the outcome which they seek to achieve. As observed by Kent J in Carlson & Fluvium [2012] FamCA 32:
…human beings have the capacity to reconstruct or rationalise or even misconstrue past events or conduct, or to engage in self-justification, particularly in recounting events in highly emotive settings or in respect of highly emotive issues. [13]
[13] Carlson & Fluvium [2012] FamCA 32 at [165].
Therefore, as far as possible, findings will be made on the basis of the available contemporaneous material, objectively established facts, and the apparent logic of events.[14]
[14] Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22 at [31] per Gleeson CJ, Gummow & Kirby JJ.
THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES APPLIED BY THE COURT IN DETERMINING WHERE A CHILD SHOULD LIVE
Pursuant to section 60CA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), (“the Act”) the best interests of a child are the paramount consideration for the court when making a parenting order.
Section 65D of the Act directs the court to make such parenting orders as it thinks proper. The court may therefore use its discretion to determine what is "proper." In this regard, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Grella & Jamieson [2017] FamCAFC 21 have said:
A discretionary judgment concerning parenting orders necessarily involves, because of the focus upon the future, significant elements of value judgments; assumptions; necessarily uncertain predictions and intuition.[15]
[15] Grella & Jamieson [2017] FamCAFC 21 at [18].
HOW DOES THE COURT DETERMINE WHAT IS IN THE CHILDRENS’ BEST INTERESTS?
Section 60CC sets out the matters to be taken into consideration when determining the best interests of the children. Given this trial commenced in March 2024, it is not subject to the new amendments to the Act which came into effect in May this year. Rather, the relevant version of section 60CC is as follows:
…
Primary considerations
(2) The primary considerations are:
(a)the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents; and
(b)the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
Note:Making these considerations the primary ones is consistent with the objects of this Part set out in paragraphs 60B(1)(a) and (b).
(2A)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).
Additional considerations
(3) Additional considerations are:
(a)any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child’s maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views;
(b)the nature of the relationship of the child with:
(i)each of the child’s parents; and
(ii)other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
(c)the extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity:
(i)to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and
(ii)to spend time with the child; and
(iii)to communicate with the child;
(ca)the extent to which each of the child’s parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent’s obligation to maintain the child;
(d)the likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:
(i)Either of his or her parents; or
(ii)Any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living;
(e)the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis;
(f)the capacity of:
(i)each of the child’s parents; and
(ii)any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs;
(g)the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child’s parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant;
(h)if the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child:
(i)the child’s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture); and
(ii)the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right;
(i)the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents;
(j)any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family;
(k)if a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child’s family – any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following:
(l)whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child;
(i)the nature of the order;
(ii)the circumstances in which the order was made;
(iii)any evidence admitted in proceedings for the order;
(iv)any findings made by the court in, or in proceedings for, the order;
(v)any other relevant matter;
(m)any other fact or circumstance that the court this is relevant.
…
I note that if there is a conflict between the two primary considerations, greater weight must be given to the need to protect the children from harm.
I have considered each of the matters under sections 60CC(2) and (3) of the Act. However, I will only specifically refer to them to the extent that they are relevant to my decision in this matter.
THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS
Do the parties’ proposals provide for a meaningful relationship between the children and each of their parents?
The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in the case of McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92 observed that the Act does not provide a definition of the word “meaningful”[16] however, they noted with approval the view of Brown J in the decision of Mazorski & Albright [2007] FamCA 520, in which Her Honour said the term was synonymous with notions such as “significant”, “important”, “of consequence” and “valuable to the child.”[17]
[16] McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92 at [115].
[17] Mazorski & Albright [2007] FamCA 520 at [26].
With regard to the above definition, the parties proposed orders enabling them to each have meaningful relationships with the children. However, pursuant to the High Court decision in Masson & Parsons [2019] HCA 21, the court also has the responsibility of:
Ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child.[18]
[18] Masson & Parsons [2019] HCA 21 at [8].
The father proposed orders that provide for relatively limited time between the mother and the children during school term time. This would necessarily curtail the opportunity for the mother to have substantial involvement in the children’s day to day lives, in particular during the school week. Taking into account all the considerations, I must determine whether such time is the maximum amount consistent with the children’s best interests.
Are the children at risk in either parties’ care?
The mother and father submitted at the commencement of the proceedings that the children were at risk in the care of the other parent. This was despite the fact that they each proposed unsupervised time.
By the conclusion of trial, the mother no longer pressed her concerns about the father, however the father maintained the children would be at risk of spending extended time with the mother, other than during school holidays.
The father remained concerned that the mother may relapse into drug use, that she struggled to impose boundaries on the children and resorted to inappropriate physical discipline. Additionally, the father maintained the children were at risk of neglect in the mother’s care and of being exposed to the mother’s ongoing denigration of him.
The mother’s drug use
The mother’s case is that for a short period in 2022 she took illicit drugs because she was required to fill in for another colleague at work and do double shifts. Her case is that other than that period and about a decade earlier, she has not used illicit drugs. However, the mother gave inconsistent evidence about when she used illicit drugs and how often.
In the first family report the mother said her use of illicit drugs was on one occasion in mid‑2022,[19] but in the second family report denied using in mid-2022 and said it was instead in early 2022.[20] Then, under cross-examination, the mother said she used illicit drugs in mid‑2022, whilst documents from L Clinic indicate she used illicit drugs for 20 out of 28 days.[21]
[19] First Family Report prepared by Ms E dated 7 November 2022 (“First Family Report”) at [33].
[20] Second Family Report prepared by Ms E dated 23 August 2023 (“Second Family Report”) at [32].
[21] Father’s exhibit, F6, at p.6.
The mother herself could not recall with any certainty how much of the drug she had purchased, or what she paid for it, saying it could have been two times, perhaps a gram, and maybe $300 on each occasion she purchased it.
For reasons already stated, I find the mother’s evidence wholly unreliable. It is likely, in my view, the mother was using illicit drugs for at least a month in 2022 and probably longer. I find that this may have continued but for her arrest and the father’s refusal to allow her to take the children.
It is my assessment that the mother minimised her drug use and attempted to justify it on the basis that she was working double shifts. When asked whether it would impact her parenting, she said, “I suppose so” and when asked to explain how, she gave a very vague and unconvincing answer.
I am not satisfied the mother truly recognises that her use of illicit drugs was problematic. Nonetheless, the mother has undergone a number of hair follicle tests which all appear to be negative for illicit substances. These tests were dated early 2022, early 2023 (albeit the hair samples were damaged), mid-2023, and early 2024 as well as two negative urine screens in mid-2022 and late 2022.[22]
[22] Mother’s trial affidavit at [43] – [49].
Although the father says the testing was delayed, the periods covered by the testing would seem to be sufficient to show the mother has been drug free since her arrest. There is otherwise no other evidence of any concerning behaviour which would suggest drug use.
Whilst there is always a risk that the mother might relapse, I do not believe this poses an unacceptable risk to the children.
Although the drug screens showed low to moderate alcohol use which was of some concern to the family report writer, Ms E, she ultimately accepted that if the mother’s use was at the low end, she would not maintain this concern. I note that in any event there is no evidence of any incidents involving the mother’s use of alcohol and the father did not press this as a live issue.
Concerns about physical discipline
The mother and father each accuse the other of physically disciplining the children, however, despite quite serious allegations,[23] the mother did not ultimately argue that the children were at risk in the father’s care.
[23] Mother’s trial affidavit at [104] – [105].
The father, however, continued to assert that the children would be at an unacceptable risk if the mother had extended time with the children.
The concerns of the father arose from the mother’s inability to manage the children’s behaviours, in particular in relation to Y, and concerns the mother would resort to physical discipline.
The father’s evidence is that in or about April 2023, Y told him that the mother had smacked her “all over” because she did not listen to the mother, and when asked about where she was smacked Y pointed to her arms and legs.[24]
[24] Trial affidavit of the father filed 14 February 2024 (“Father’s trial affidavit”) at [18].
Furthermore, the children reported to Ms E that it was the mother who yelled, swore, and hit them:
Within his mother’s care, [X] discussed his mother’s use of physical discipline, reporting that his mother regularly hit [Y] when she was angry and frustrated with her and that this did not happen every visit but “most visits.” Also, [X] suggested that his mother hit him sometimes, “but mainly [Y].” When [X] was asked if [Y] was physically harmed by his mother, he did not believe that [Y] received injuries but reported that she cried. [X] also reported that his mother regularly yelled and swore at [Y] and that sometimes [Y] and [Z] swore back at their mother. When [X] was asked who in his family swore the most, he replied, “Mum, then [Y].” He denied that his father hit the children or swore at them.
…
[Z] described all three (3) children as the happiest members of her family, and she described [Y] as the saddest family member, stating that her mother would hit [Y] and that her mother and [Y] would become angry with each other and yell and swear at each other. [Z] described her mother as the angriest family member, suggesting that her mother was often angry with the children.[25]
(Emphasis added)
[25] Second Family Report at [116], [126].
Ms E was of the view that as both X and Z separately reported the mother was targeting Y, rather than this coming from Y herself, that this lent significant weight to their disclosures.[26] Under cross-examination, Ms E did not resile from her concerns and maintained she did not believe the children had been coached.
[26] Second Family Report at [153].
Furthermore, the mother was observed to struggle to cope with the children’s behaviours during the observation session with Ms E reporting the mother “appeared out of her depth” and was unable to calm X when “he yelled and screamed at her, told her that he hated her, cried, threatened her and lashed out.”[27]
[27] Second Family Report at [136].
The mother’s own evidence portrayed a somewhat chaotic household, with the children repeatedly getting into physical fights with each other. Despite this, during her cross‑examination the mother continued to deny hitting or yelling at the children. She could not understand why the children were saying these things, save to suggest they were describing incidents where the mother was breaking the children up during their fights. The mother said the children would fight, she would pull them apart and maybe tread on their toes while doing so, but maintained she did not actually hit them. Furthermore, she said she would raise her voice and yell at the children but not in an angry or upset way.
Ms E was extremely concerned the mother was not acknowledging or showing insight into her behaviour which she said placed the children at greater risk. Ms E said she would be loath to support any additional time in such circumstances.
However, the mother gave evidence, when the matter continued in August 2024, that she had been working with the school counsellor, Mr O on better strategies for managing the children, such as implementing a timeout, in particular for Y who was the most problematic. The mother said that as a result of using such strategies, there had been fewer incidents where she was required to intervene.
It was submitted by the father that the mother’s evidence, which was that these incidents were now only about once per a weekend visit, was still very concerning. However, it was not put to the mother that the children were returning from visits stating they had been hit by the mother, or that they were covered in bruises. Given the father’s counsel did put to the mother allegations of Y misbehaving at a recent sports match (just prior to the resumption of the trial in August 2024), I presume that if the father had continued cause for concern about ongoing physical abuse it would have been raised.
There are also no apparent reports from the children’s school that they are disclosing any concerns or presenting with any unexplained bruising.
Furthermore, the father does not allege that the mother hit the children when the parties were together. Indeed, the father told the DFFH during their investigation that he was agreeable to equal shared care,[28] and confirmed this with Ms E in her first family report, subject to the mother not using drugs and her mental health being otherwise stable.[29]
[28] Father’s trial affidavit at [64].
[29] First Family Report at [22].
I find that is likely the mother has hit the children, in particular Y. I must however consider pursuant authorities such as Isles and Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97, the likelihood of this behaviour being repeated, the consequences if it is, and whether the risk can otherwise be ameliorated.
In this regard I note that the mother’s behaviour is only alleged to have occurred post-separation and, in a period when the mother was suffering a great deal of stress, in particular as a result of her mother, the maternal grandmother, being diagnosed with a terminal illness. However, the mother’s failure to acknowledge the behaviour remains concerning and, although she gave evidence of working with Mr O to develop other strategies, for reasons already stated, I am reluctant to place too much weight on the mother’s uncorroborated assertions.
Nonetheless, the evidence suggests that the physical discipline is more likely to occur when the children are spending extended periods with the mother, as her friend Ms J reports no such behaviour on the Wednesday evenings.
In my assessment the risk would be ameliorated by limiting the period of time the children spend in the mother’s care during school terms, when there are additional pressures on the household. However, in determining what length of time is in the best interests of the children, I must also take into account the additional considerations pursuant to section 60CC of the Act.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The children’s views
During the two family reports the children were given an opportunity to express their views about their living situation however in both reports, the children disclosed either being coached by the mother as to what to say or otherwise being aware of her wishes.
In the first family report, X told Ms E that the mother had informed him that she wanted him and his sisters to live with her “every day,”[30] and that he was not safe in his father’s care.[31] Y reported that her mother had told her that her father lies, and she does not want them to live with the father.[32]
[30] First Family Report at [92].
[31] First Family Report at [93].
[32] First Family Report at [95].
Ms E noted that the children “appeared to be emotionally burdened” by their mother’s views and wishes.[33]
[33] First Family Report at [98].
In the second family report, X reported that his mother had encouraged him to say that he wanted to live primarily with her.[34] Y said her mother wanted her to live primarily with the mother and “did not want her to see her father never ever, ever again”.[35] Further, Y expressed that she was “scared and sad and concerned that this might occur,”[36] and wanted assurance that she would be able to see both parents. Other than this, Y did not want to say anything further to the report writer as she was concerned that she might be “in trouble”.[37]
[34] Second Family Report at [114].
[35] Second Family Report at [120].
[36] Second Family Report at [121].
[37] Second Family Report at [121].
In the first family report, the mother admitted the children were aware she wishes them to return to live with her as she shared her views and wishes with them.[38]
[38] First Family Report at [76].
Nonetheless, X made it clear that “despite this knowledge that his mother would be sad and angry about this, he did not want more sleepovers with his mother during school weeks and sought to eliminate the stressful family dinners.”[39] When asked if he would like more overnight time with his mother, X did however suggest “maybe 4 sleeps in the holidays”.[40]
[39] Second Family Report at [114].
[40] Second Family Report at [114].
The mother’s counsel put to Ms E that perhaps the children’s comments resulted from the father telling the children to tell Ms E they had been influenced by the mother. Ms E said she had never heard of such a tactic but doubted all three children would be capable of following through, noting Z was only four years old at the time of the first family report. It was Ms E’s opinion there was no evidence the children had been coached by the father. It was then put to Ms E that the children may have heard the father talking about the mother or at the very least would be aware of the conflict due to the rapid change of residence in June 2022, but Ms E maintained that the children’s comments seemed genuine.
However, given the ages of the children, I must treat their views with some caution. None of the children are mature enough to understand the consequences of or the risks of any changes to their current arrangements.
Nature of relationships between the children, their parents and other significant persons
In the first family report, Ms E expressed the following opinion:
Unfortunately, [X]’s exposure to his mother’s negative views and wishes of his father, her repeated statements that he will be living primarily with her in the future, in addition to his being removed from school without his father’s knowledge, has detrimentally affected [X]’s relationship with his mother. Understandably, [X] currently feels insecure within his mother’s care, which was reflected within his interview and during his observation session with her. During his interview, while he sought some additional time with his mother, he strongly advocated structure within his parenting arrangements, preventing him from being withheld from his father.[41]
[41] First Family Report at [120].
Despite this, the mother maintains that the children want more time with her and so the children cry and act out when it comes time for changeover. As a result of this, she had a lot of difficulty getting the children into the car to go to changeover and once there, struggled to get them out of the car. This meant not only was the mother often late, but that because of the drawn-out process of changeover, the children would often not arrive back to the father’s home until after 9:30pm (noting changeover is at 8:00pm). The father alleged the mother was up to an hour late at times of changeover. Whilst the mother denied she was that late, her friend Ms J, said it could be up to half an hour.
The father denies the children become upset at changeover but says if they are it is because they are reacting to their mother’s distress at changeover. Again, X’s comments to Ms E support the father’s version of events. During the second family report interviews, X explained that “his mother would become emotional at handovers, which caused him stress because she wanted them to stay all night.”[42] Z also described the handovers from her mother’s care to her father as stressful and reported that her mother “becomes upset at this time.”[43]
[42] Second Family Report at [113].
[43] Second Family Report at [123].
The mother denied getting upset at changeover and maintained she waited until the children were gone before becoming emotional. This aside, the impression I received from the mother’s evidence was that she had little parental authority over the children who were allowed to decide when they were ready to go to the father, including at times being allowed to finish their games.
The mother described having to coax the children one by one to go to the father and reported one child jumping into the rear of the 4WD and at other times having to carry them. This resulted in, on at least one occasion, the remaining children running amok in the car park. The father was seemingly loath to get involved because he was concerned about further allegations from the mother, who he says parked a distance away and out of sight of CCTV cameras.
Ability to meet needs
Ms E made observations of each of the parents and their interactions with the children during the second family report interviews:
[The mother’s] interactions with the children remained positive for around five (5) minutes. She appeared anxious, which is common for many parents being observed in an unnatural environment, and it appeared that she was highly motivated to 'present well.' As a result, rather than leaving the children to remain relaxed and engaged in their activities, she attempted to direct their attention back to her, and the anxiety level within the room started to build.
Given that [Y] had been identified as the child who tended to clash with her mother by her siblings, the writer was somewhat surprised that it was [X] who engaged in a tantrum. When [X] became bored, he asked his mother to play on her smartphone. When she denied his request, he escalated and threw a tantrum, much like a toddler. [X] yelled and screamed at his mother, told her that he hated her, cried, threatened her and lashed out. [The mother] appeared out of her depth and was unable to calm him.[44]
(emphasis added)
[44]Second Family Report at [135] – [136].
This is to be contrasted with the father, who Ms E described as follows:
[The father’s] interactions with the children remained calm and child-focused. He maintained structure for the children, which the children quickly complied with. For example, he ensured the children had packed up some of their toys before opening others, and he moderated [X]’s volume within the room. Overall, the children appeared to share a positive, affectionate, and respectful relationship with their father, and they happily said goodbye to him and were excited to be reunited with their mother.[45]
[45] Second Family Report at [134].
This was consistent with the observations of the father in the first family report in which Ms E observed the father “responding appropriately to [Y]’s tantrums, acknowledging her feelings, providing her with emotional vocabulary, and encouraging her to return to play, demonstrated his ability to remain child focused.”[46]
[46] First Family Report at [101].
Impact of change of circumstances
Ms E was of the view that the children were settled and thriving in the father’s care.
The mother also confirmed in her interview for the first family report that X was performing well academically and enjoying school, although he some possible social issues.[47]
[47] First Family Report at [82].
By the end of the trial, the mother acknowledged that it would not be in the children’s best interests to move back to live with her or for them to live in a shared care arrangement.
However, the father maintained his concerns about the mother. In addition to her ability to manage the children’s behaviour, he was concerned about her general ability to care for them, including hygiene concerns such as ensuring that their hair is brushed, and that they are showered. Again, the father does not raise concerns about the mother’s ability to care for the children prior to 2022, and indeed he proposed to DFFH during their investigation that the parties have shared care for the children, which appears inconsistent with these concerns.
I am not persuaded that the evidence supports concerns about the mother’s day to day care of the children, however, I remain concerned about the mother’s ability to enforce boundaries with the children. Clearly the greater amount of time she spends with the children is the greater the risk that the children will act out and the mother will resort to inappropriate discipline.
Reasonable practicability
In this matter, the parents live close by to each other and regardless of the outcome the children will continue to attend the same schools. Otherwise, there did not appear to be any other practical issues that needed to be factored into my decision.
Attitudes and responsibilities towards parenting
One of the responsibilities of parenting is to promote the children’s relationship with the other parent. One of the father’s ongoing concerns is that the mother continues to denigrate him to, and, in front of the children.
This concern was supported by Ms E in the first family report who observed that the mother “tended to gratuitously impugn [the father] at every opportunity, seemingly in an attempt to convince the writer of his multiple shortcomings.”[48] Ms E went on to state:
This assessment suggests that [the mother] is currently unwilling to coparent with [the father], tends to dismiss his significant role as the children’s father, and fails to acknowledge the commitment he has made to step up and meet the needs of the children at that time when it was assessed by the DFFH that she was unable to do so [49]
[48] First Family Report at [68].
[49] First Family Report at [116].
In the second family report Z said that her mother frequently spoke negatively “nasty things” about her father, “using the F-word.” [50]
[50] Second Family Report at [116], [126] – [127].
The father also points out that the mother only reported him for the alleged rape after she was arrested for possession of drugs, and he would not allow her to take the children away from the home. Whilst the mother initially asked the court to make a finding that she was raped by the father, she ultimately conceded that it was unlikely such a finding could be made on the evidence before the court. In this regard I note the police have closed their investigation and do not propose to lay any charges. Although I am left with questions as to the mother’s bona fides, I am unable to make a finding in this regard.
In contrast to this, Ms E described the father’s attitude towards the mother as being more balanced.[51]
[51] Second Family Report at [47].
However, whilst appearing more balanced, the father’s evidence suggests that he has not always acted in a manner which promotes a relationship between the children and their mother. It was evident that he had not allowed them to attend various special occasions with the mother’s extended family, and that he had not agreed to additional time in the long summer holidays which resulted in a substantial gap in time between the children seeing their mother.
The father’s actions in not allowing the children to attend events such as the mother’s relative’s birthday and not to provide additional time on holidays, even if the orders did not provide for it, showed a certain lack of insight into the importance of their relationship with the mother.
However, I am not critical of the father for failing to notify the mother about a Mother’s Day event at kindergarten when it was evident she wanted nothing to do with the kindergarten. I can also understand why he would not necessarily want the mother at sports lessons when this may have been a distraction for the children.
DETERMINATION
Until about February/March 2022, the mother was the primary carer of the children. Prior to that, it would appear she had a been a loving and capable parent. Around early to mid-2022, she commenced working extra shifts at work and she says she began taking illicit drugs to assist. It is likely the combination of lack of sleep and her drug use began to take its toll on the mother’s daily functioning and her ability to manage the children. It seems that the children became a source of conflict between the mother and the grandfather, with whom they were living, which led to the mother and children spending greater amounts of time at the father’s home. Matters came to a head in mid-2022, when the mother was arrested for possessing illicit drugs and non-prescription medication and the father would not agree to the mother taking the children back to the grandfather’s home.
On one view, but for the mother’s use of illicit drugs, the children would still be in her full‑time care, however, since that time the mother appears to have struggled to deal with the children’s behaviour, in particular Y, which has led to both physical and verbal abuse. This remains the biggest concern in this case, especially given the mother’s failure to acknowledge and take responsibility for her own behaviour. Even if I accept the mother’s evidence that she has learnt other strategies to deal with the children, substantially increasing her time with them may set the mother up to fail.
Taking all these matters into consideration, I propose to extend the mother’s weekend term time but only by one further night, being a block of four nights. I am satisfied this will limit the risk created by extended time, in particular of the children being exposed to poor boundaries and/or inappropriate disciplinary measures. However, it will enable the mother to have more involvement with the children during the school week, including being able to collect the children from school on the Monday night and do ordinary afterschool tasks, like homework and the like which she may not experience if it was just weekend time. If the mother is unable to get the children to school on time, this will only be one morning per fortnight and, if it becomes an ongoing problem, the school will have a clear record of what has been occurring.
OTHER ORDERS IN DISPUTE
Parental responsibility
By the end of the trial, the mother and the ICL proposed orders for equal shared parental responsibility. The father proposed an order that he have sole parental responsibility subject to considering the mother’s views before making a decision and updating her in writing of major long-term decisions.[52]
[52] Joint exhibit, J3.
Section 61DA of the Act (prior to the new amendments) states as follows:
(1)When making a parenting order in relation to a child, the Court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child's parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.
Note: The presumption provided for in this subsection is a presumption that relates solely to the allocation of parental responsibility for a child as defined in section 61B. It does not provide for a presumption about the amount of time the child spends with each of the parents (this issue is dealt with in section 65DAA).
(2)The presumption does not apply if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent of the child (or a person who lives with a parent of the child) has engaged in:
(a)abuse of the child or another child who, at the time, was a member of the parent's family (or that other person's family); or
(b) family violence.
…
Having found that the mother has physically abused the children, the presumption is rebutted under section 61DA(2). However, that does not mean that the court must make an order for sole parental responsibility.
Indeed, one curiosity with the amendments to the Act is that whilst section 61DA remains in effect for matters that commenced prior to 6 May 2024, the new section 61CA applies to all matters from 6 May 2024 irrespective of whether a final hearing has commenced.
Section 61CA of the Act provides as follows:
If it is safe to do so, and subject to any court orders, the parents of a child who is not yet 18 are encouraged:
(a) to consult each other about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and
(b)in doing so, to have regard to the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.
In this case, the mother and father both say that until approximately June 2022, they were able to co-parent amicably and even since that time, there is no evidence the parents have had any issues making decisions such as schooling and medical for the children. Indeed, both parents have been attending school events and medical appointments.
Furthermore, at the conclusion of proceedings the court was told the parents have been attending upon the children’s counsellor, Mr O for what appears to be quasi family therapy.
I note further that although both parties had IVO’s against each other, these have now expired.
In such circumstances, it seems both safe and in the best interests of the children for the parents to endeavour to consult each other about major long terms issues in relation to the children and accordingly, I propose to make an order that requires them to do so.
Phone calls/Facetime
In terms of communication, the mother proposed orders to be able to communicate with the children at any reasonable time but was not opposed to more structured orders.
The father did not propose any orders for telephone or Facetime calls.
Given the gap between visits, it is important that the children are able to communicate with the mother in that time. However, in my view, the calls should be structured so that the father can ensure the children are available for the call.
I propose to order phone calls each Thursday and on the Tuesday in the week they are not otherwise seeing the mother. This should provide the children with sufficient frequency of contact but not be too disruptive to the father’s household.
Travel orders
The father proposed orders for interstate travel, which, if in the other parent’s time, was to be by agreement. However, the parents are already free to make such arrangements, so no such order is necessary.
Otherwise, the father wishes to be able to take the children back to his home country of Country P. This is opposed by the mother. However, there is no evidence before the court about the travel, including when the father intends to go, for how long, where he intends to stay and most importantly any Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade warnings for Country P. In such circumstances, I do not propose to make such an order or the associated passport orders at this time.
Physical discipline
The mother and ICL proposed an injunction restraining both parties from physically disciplining the children.
The father proposed an order that related to the mother only, given the children’s comments to and concerns raised by Ms E. However, given the mother has alleged historical concerns about the father in 2017 and there does not appear to be any prejudice to the father in being restrained from doing what is in all likelihood illegal, I propose to make the order as a mutual restraint.
Orders by consent
Otherwise, the parties provided a joint minute,[53] setting out orders which were in dispute, and which could otherwise be made by consent. During final submissions it was confirmed that orders 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, 15 to 20 and 24 to 26 of that proposed minute were by consent.[54] In addition, the parties agreed to orders with slight variations from the minute, for Christmas, Mother’s and Father’s Day, communication through a parenting app, changeover, the children attending counselling and the parents attending a parenting orders program.
[53] Joint exhibit, J3.
[54] Joint exhibit, J3.
However, following the conclusion of the trial, the parties sent through a revised joint minute, which differs slightly from the consent position established during final submissions. As the trial had concluded and neither party sought to reopen the matter, I have had no regard to that minute which was sought to be tendered as joint exhibit four.
Therefore, for all the aforementioned reasons, I make the orders as set out at the commencement of this judgment.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and thirty-three (133) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Jenkins. Associate:
Dated: 20 September 2024
0
11
2