TANBERG & REMMY

[2020] FCCA 3175

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TANBERG & REMMY [2020] FCCA 3175

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – interim hearing – limited issues – previous agreement between parents for shared care arrangement for young child – limited utility of expert report which did not comment on any relevant risks to the child in the shared care arrangement continuing and did not recommend that the current shared care arrangement cease – Application by Mother to change shared care not accepted due to inconclusive evidence – other stressors not addressed in much detail such as the Father’s new partner and the tense relationship between her and the Mother.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), Part VII

Cases cited:

Goode v Goode (2007) 36 Fam LR 422

Applicant: MS TANBERG

Respondent: MR REMMY

File Number: CAC 2420 of 2019

Judgment of: Judge WJ Neville

Hearing date: 12 October 2020

Date of Last Submission: 12 October 2020

Delivered at: Canberra

Delivered on: 12 October 2020

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms M. Davis

Solicitors for the Applicant: Alliance Legal Services

Solicitors for the Respondent: Farrar Gesini Dunn

NOTATIONS

A.As a matter of evidence, there was insufficient material for the Court to rely on in order to make any changes to the existing consent Orders;

B.In particular, the expert report of Mr B is either inconclusive and/or does not directly address the issue of the potential positive and/or negative impact of a shared care arrangement in relation to the child, X (born: in 2017);

C.It is highly unusual to have a shared care arrangement for a young child, but for a number of reasons, some being pragmatic considerations, the parties agreed upon a shared care arrangement in December 2019; accordingly,

ORDERS

1. No later than 12:00pm on 16 October 2020 the parties are to jointly notify the Court via email to [email protected] as to whether:

   (a)A Final Hearing in this matter could be contained to 1 day; and

   (b)Whether the parties intend to obtain a further private expert report or a s62G report ahead of the Final Hearing.

2. The matter be listed for Final Hearing on a date and time to be advised by the Court.

NOTATION IN CHAMBERS

D.The Court is amenable to making a s.62G Order for a full Family Report. In the Courts’ view, not only would this save the parties money but also, given how long it will be until a Final Hearing can occur, it is likely to be of particular benefit to have “a different set of expert eyes.”

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT CANBERRA

CAC 2420 of 2019

MS TANBERG

Applicant

And

MR REMMY

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The following reasons have been revised from the transcript of the ex tempore judgment that was delivered on 12^th October 2020.  They have become necessary because the Mother has recently lodged an appeal from the Court’s decision delivered on that date.

2. The primary issue concerns the Mother’s Application to vary quite significantly the current shared care arrangements, which the parties agreed upon for their young daughter, X, who was born in 2017.[1]

   [1] The Mother’s Application in a Case was filed on 4^th June 2020.

3. Since consent Orders were made on 12^th December 2019, X (sometimes referred to as “X”) has been in a shared care/equal time arrangement with her parents.  Stated summarily, the Mother now says this arrangement is not working.  Among other things, she now says that the communication with the Father is poor; she also complains that the shared care arrangement is having an adverse impact on the child.

4. For his part, the Father says effectively that, with some “tweaking” regarding actual times, the equal time/shared care arrangement should continue because, in his view, it is working well.

5. Two preliminary matters should also be noted here.

6. First, as the transcript of the detailed hearing confirms (which will doubtless be before the Full Court), (a) at no stage did any of the lawyers appearing formally address any of the relevant “considerations” in Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”), but (b), the primary issues in dispute were nonetheless addressed at some length.

7. Secondly, the expert Report of Mr B (released to the parties on 13^th March 2020), albeit of some density and a degree of convolution, did not make any specific recommendations to alter the shared care arrangement.  Although more is noted later in these reasons, it is sufficient to note the following matters from that Report (unfortunately, references are to “lines” rather than paragraph numbers; thus here lines 140 - 152):

   The current care arrangements, as I understand them, is that the child is with each parent for a period of three days at a time, which often means that the weekend is split between the parents, which is somewhat restrictive in terms of the ability for X to settle in with one parent for the weekend, and it also means that both parents only see her for half the weekend. The Mother reported that the current doesn’t allow for X to settle in at either home, and the Father proposed that a 2/2/3 arrangement would be more beneficial to allow for every second full weekend with X. The time period of three days in a row at present does seem like an optimal amount of time for X to engage, but is also what I would consider the maximum duration of time that would be advisable for X to be away from her Mother without her being somewhat confused and likely distressed. This will change as she becomes older, and I would consider that from the age of 4-5 she would be able to tolerate lengthier periods of time away from the Mother without undue distress or de-stabilisation of routine.

8. Mr B went on (lines 156 – 172; emphasis added):

   As noted above, at this stage in X’s development I would not recommend X being separated from her Mother for longer than three days at a time. She is of an age where she is still very much reliant on her primary attachment figure for emotion regulation and any longer than three days could potentially cause her distress and difficulty with re-settling upon return.

   The Mother’s proposal seems to seek to limit Mr Remmy’s time with X significantly, and given that the current arrangement of three days at a time with Mr Remmy and Ms Tanberg alternatively, I believe that a reduction in this time with Mr Remmy is unnecessary to achieve what Ms Tanberg termed as “stability and consistency.” Stability and consistency will ensue once the parties have settled on a clear co-parenting plan together and continue to communicate well so that the routine and goals at both households are synchronised, and will not necessarily eventuate simply by being at the Mother’s residence for longer durations. The notion of 2/2/3, in my mind, does allow for a clearer pattern which as X matures, as it can be clearly marked on the weekly calendar and will over time lead to more meaningful interactions between the child and parents, especially on weekends. As she becomes older, this could easily then be altered to become weekabout to reduce the number of handovers.

9. The point that I draw from all of this is that whatever the comments and observations made in the course of the hearing, which I do not understand to be broadly disputed, as a general proposition, experts do not usually recommend a shared care arrangement for young children and especially in circumstances where parents do not have a reasonably good communication line.  All of this said, whatever tensions there currently are with the parents, and given the original consent position of the parties, X generally seems to be doing really quite well.

10. For the reasons given here, (a) because of the original consent position of the parties, (b) there being no specific and firm recommendation from the expert, Mr B, to change the current arrangements, and (c) because of the “she said – he said” nature of the evidence, in my view, it is inapposite to alter the current arrangement.  In such circumstances, and where there can be no formal testing of the evidence, in doing so there is a risk of prejudicing one or either party, and none of it necessarily points to a change now being in X’s best interests.

11. Further, as noted below, the disruption caused by the very large number of changeovers/handovers to accommodate all of the time that X spends in child/day-care, is very likely to be a contributing factor to any discordant behaviour by X, which is not – per se – related directly to the current, agreed shared care arrangement.

Written submissions of the Applicant Mother

1. The Mother’s detailed written submissions, filed 8^th October 2020, were as follows (they included a lengthy chronology which is also reproduced; footnotes omitted):

   Document Relied Upon

   •   Application in a Case filed 4 June 2020.

   •   Affidavits of Ms Tanberg affirmed 25 November 2019; 3 June 2020 and 7 July 2020.

   •   Reports of Mr B dated 9 March 2020 and 15 May 2020.

   •   Mother’s Chronology annexed to this outline of submissions.

   Outline of Submissions

   1.  These submissions are made in accordance with Orders of His Honour, Judge Neville on 15 June 2020. Due to the page limit, the submissions are very brief ‘dot point’ style and the history of the matter is referred to in the Mother’s Chronology filed contemporaneously with these Submissions.

   2.  The Mother is X’s primary carer. She says si; the expert says so and the Father says so by his actions in being free to take elective opportunities for travel away from X.

   3.  Mr B recommended that, due to her age and reliance on her Mother, three nights should be the maximum duration of time for X to be away from her without becoming confused and likely distressed. By contrast, Mr B’ comments that separation of X from her father for extended periods is likely to be experienced with less distress.

   4.  The Mother gives evidence of X becoming anxious or clingy about her separation from her mother. The Father says he has not seen this behaviour from X.

   5.  It is submitted that this behaviour is an indication of the risks associated with equal time arrangements for very young children and are not seen by the Father as he is not the child’s primary carer.

   6.  The parties each give evidence that the child does not wish to leave them to go to the other parent. In the context of multiple changeovers in a week, this is not surprising and likely a reflection of the child’s lack of a stable base.

   7.  The Mother seeks to provide that stability for X by providing a base of primary care with regular and significant time with the Father. The arrangements sought by the Mother will assist X’s sense of stability and provide for defined weekend time for each parent.

   8.  As studies have shown, the success of an equal time arrangement is dependent on good communication. Such communication is not currently available to these parents.

   Chronology of the Mother

   Affidavit of Ms Tanberg affirmed 25 November 2019 [AC]

   Affidavit of Ms Tanberg affirmed 3 June 2020 [2AC]
   Affidavit of Ms Tanberg affirmed 7 July 2020 [3AC]
   Affidavit of Mr Remmy affirmed 10 December 2019 [ ]
   Affidavit of Mr Remmy affirmed 11 June 2020 [2] Affidavit of Ms C affirmed 11 December 2019 [ ]

Date	Event	Reference
1986	Father born
1988	Mother born
1995	Father’s Partner born	2
2010	Parties started dating	7
2011	Parties commenced cohabitation in Brisbane	7
2017	X born
09.17 – 11.17	Father seconded to Canberra for three months. Father says he visited mother and child twice and they visited him once.	41a. 20(a)
01.18	Parties and child move to Canberra	9
2018	Mother returns to work from maternity leave	14
26.05.18	Parties separate NOTE: Father says separation occurred in February 2018	7 5
2018	Father commences relationship with Ms C	6
06.18	Mother commences seeing psychologist to assist with her separation and co-parenting.	57
07.18	Parties agree that X will not be quickly introduced to Father’s new partner.	47 7
07.18.08.18	Parties continue living separately. Mother says equal time on day about basis from this point, save for Father’s trips away. Father says initially ‘fluid’ but equal until beginning of 2019, when day about arrangement consistent.	22; 5  11-13
Early 09.18	X meets Father’s new partner	47;  7.
05.10.18	Father and his new partner send text messages to the mother about her ‘selfish’ wish to end the 50/50 arrangement	52-53; Annexures A & B
10.18	Father away one week, missing time with X. Father silent on this.	41b.
11.18	Father away for two weeks, missing time with X. Father says Mother and child visited for five days.	41c. 20(b)
12.18	Mother tries to discuss with the Father an end to the 50/50.	30
01.19	Father away for a week, missing time with X. Father silent on this.	41d.
21.7.19-03.08.19	Father away for almost 2 weeks, missing time with X, although he visited in the middle weekend.	41e.  20(c)
14.09.19	Mediation between the parties at D Counselling. No agreement reached.	55
19.10.19– 30.11.19	Father in Brisbane for six weeks. Mother take child to visit for 9 days and Father sees her for daytime period on four of those days.	41.f 20(d)
10.11.19	Mother tries to discuss less than equal time for X with the Father.	33
25.11.19	Mother commenced proceedings
10.12.19	Father files response and affidavit.
11.12.19	Father files affidavit by his partner, Ms C.
12.12.19	First Return Date. As no interim hearing time is available, parties agree to interim arrangement and private family report.	2 18 2 6
13.03.20	Report of Mr B released. Does not make recommendations but notes mother as primary carer and that her (then) proposal would unnecessarily limit the child’s relationship with the Father in orders to establish stability.
21.04.2020	Matter returns to Court and further information requested prior to any interim hearing.
15.05.20	‘Note’ provided by Mr B reflecting that Mother’s proposal would increase the parents’ and X’s sense of stability but that, if the court finds equal time, the Father’s proposal would be a way to lead into week about care later in X’s life.
04.06.20	Mother files Application in a Case and supporting affidavit.
12.06.20	Father files Affidavit and refiles his Response from 10 December 2019 in answer to the Mother’s Application in a Case.
07.07.20	Mother files reply to Father’s Affidavit.

Written submissions of the Respondent Father

1. The Father’s written submissions, filed 8^th October 2020, were as follows:

   RESPONDENT’S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS PRIOR TO INTERIM HEARING

   (Filed pursuant to Order 3 of the Orders dated 15 June 2020)

   1.  The Applicant Mother seeks no interim order for parental responsibility for the child X (born in 2017, aged 3). She seeks a final order for equal shared parental responsibility. The Respondent Father seeks interim and final orders for equal shared parental responsibility. It is submitted the presumption in s61DA applies, is appropriate to order, and is not rebutted by any evidence that it would not be in X’s best interests. An order for equal shared parental responsibility should be made.

   2.  X has lived in an equal time arrangement with the parties since separation in 2018. Broadly, the father says that is working well, and the mother says it is not.

   3.  The mother seeks that X live with her on an interim basis, and spend time with the father each alternate weekend from Friday at 4:00pm until Monday at 9:00am and from Wednesday at 4:00pm until Friday at 9:00am in the alternate week.

   4.  The father seeks an equal time arrangement, broken up into a 2/2/3/2/2/3 night arrangement, those numbers referring to the period of nights X is in each parent’s care.

   5.  X has attended full time daycare since May 2018 and has lived in an equal time arrangement since approximately June 2018, though the parties lived separated in the same home until October 2018. The father’s evidence is that X is thriving. The mother also deposes to X doing well.

   6.  The mother cites a number of observations that, one might conclude, cause her concern about the current arrangements for X. The Court could not, at this stage, conclude whether those matters are accurate, and if so, are exacerbated by, ameliorated by, or not affected by, the living arrangements for X.

   7.  Mr B reports that both parents have a secure attachment with X, X is not experiencing any signs of mental ill health, or attachment problems, and a reduction of X’s time is not necessary to achieve stability and consistency, but could result in a loss of the secure attachment that has been built between X and her father. Mr B also states that a 2/2/3 arrangement allows for a clearer pattern which will lead to more meaningful interactions between X and her parents, and which can be easily altered to week about when she reaches school age.

   8.  Implicit in each party’s proposal is an acceptance that the other is capable of looking after X. The mother seeks to restrict X’s time with her father, presumably on the basis that doing so would better meet her developmental needs. There is no evidence that it would.

   9.  There is no undisputed evidence before the Court at this stage to suggest an immediate change of living arrangements would benefit X. The orders sought by the father maintaining the equal time arrangement (supported by Mr B) should be made.

Expert Report

1. In addition to what was set out earlier in these reasons, the following matters from the Report of Mr B, it seems to me, have some relevance to the small range of issues the Court is currently required to consider.  Although not formally admitted into evidence, all parties referred to it in submissions.

2. At lines 83 – 104, the expert canvassed a number of matters, thus:

   Based on the observation and the perspective of both parents, I do not believe that X is experiencing any signs of mental ill health, or attachment problems. While Ms Tanberg did report some level of clinginess upon return from Mr Remmy’s, this is not abnormal in the circumstances, particularly when a child returns to their primary carer after an extended duration away from them.

   b) The nature of the relationship and emotional attachments between X and each of the Mother and Father.

   From the observations, it was clear that both parents had a secure attachment with X. Both were very attentive and engaged with her, and utilised different forms of play to interact.

   The mother appeared to be organised and prepared, and utilised strategy in playing, in attempts to assist her in developing strategy in her play and activities.

   The father seemed more active and physical in his play and engaged more affectionately in his interactions with X.

   c) The nature of the relationship and emotional attachments between X and any other significant person in her life.

   X’s relationship with Ms C was not assessed as part of this assessment, however given her involvement in her life, and the father’s life, I do believe that this could be beneficial into the future, if the mother’s concerns regarding the parenting capacity of the father’s partner are not assuaged by the contents of this report or future engagement with her.

3. Then at lines 126 – 135, Mr B highlighted what might be called a central issue – the communication between the adults involved:

   Of course, the above mentioned strategy may not reduce the conflict. Into the future my concerns regarding the co-parenting relationship hinge around the conflict between Ms C and Ms Tanberg. From Mr Remmy’s perspective, he does find that Ms Tanberg can transmit anger in her tone during text exchanges, yet he and Ms Tanberg both agreed that text is a format for communication that can often be misconstrued. My suggestion around this would be for the parents to engage in telephone calls if the content of the communication is likely to be lengthy, as this can be less time consuming, and as a consequence, less prone to frustration in the participants. It appears that direct communication between Ms Tanberg and Mr Remmy’s current partner has deteriorated previously, and I would advise that at least for the short-medium term, communication between them only occurs if in person while Mr Remmy is present.

1. Lines 179 – 189 considered some possible matters that might arise into the future if the communication and related matters were not relevantly addressed.  I need not set out those details.  Similarly, it is unnecessary to troll through the various and detailed aspects of the remainder of the Report that canvasses a myriad of things including Personality Assessment Inventory for the parties, observations of the child with the parties, their relationship and educational histories, and some comments by the Father on the mental health of his partner, Ms C.  All of these matters (a) were not really canvassed during the interim hearing, and (b) are more appropriately canvassed at a final hearing.  It remains the Father’s position, which is unsurprisingly supported by his partner’s Affidavit, that the child has a very good relationship with Ms C.

2. I do not need to address the issue of parental responsibility because (a) an Order for Equal shared parental responsibility was made by consent in December 2019, and (b) neither party sought to change it at the interim hearing.  The only issue “on the table’, so to speak, was and remains the “time with” arrangements that X spends with each parent following the shared care arrangement, as agreed between the parties in December 2019.  The Mother wants it changed dramatically, saying that the child is not coping; the Father does not want the current arrangements changed, saying that he does not see or experience the difficulties the Mother expresses.  The untested expert evidence does not, on my reading of it, support the drastic change in the child’s time with her Father that the Mother seeks.

Issues, evidence and arguments

1. While the communication generally seems to be somewhat unsatisfactory between the parents, there seems also to be more than a subterranean hint that the Mother finds it increasingly difficult.  It also seems very much to be the case that the once reasonably good communication between the parents has taken something of a “dive” since the Father’s new partner, Ms C, has come on the scene.  It might be said, perhaps a tad dramatically, that Ms C is something of a “spectre at the feast”, at least for the Mother who lists a number of complaints against the Father’s partner, both in her Affidavits and in the Report from Mr B.  I do not say this in any way critically but even in his partner’s (Ms C) Affidavit she acknowledges that there has been significant tension between the two ladies, plus some expressions of regret about language used, and much more besides.[2]

   [2] See, for example, Ms C’s Affidavit, filed 11^th December 2019, at pars.19 – 31 which recounts the Mother monitoring her social media, among other things, as well as alleged threats about the Father’s time with X while-ever his partner is around.  Ms C said (par.22) that when the Mother comes to the Father’s house, she hides “in the furthest corner from the door.”  She contended (par.24) that she has seen messages from the Mother to the effect that the Mother has threatened to take X away from the Father, using the Father’s partner as an excuse.

2. In par.18 of the Mother’s Affidavit, filed 4^th June 2020, she said:

   I continue to be of the view that an equal time arrangement is still not in X’s best interests as. When the matter was first heard before the Court on 12 December 2019, Mr Remmy and I agreed to change X’s arrangements from a ‘one day about’ to a ‘three day about’ rotation to provide more stability to X pending the release of the Family Report. Even with that variation I still find X to be clingy and upset at the end of her time with me.

3. As a very general observation, experts more usually advise against a shared care arrangement for young children.  But in the current matter, the Court has to deal with the evidence such as it is, and for better or for worse the parents agreed to this regular changeover time, and to this regular, shorter periods of time for the child to spend with each parent.

4. To some degree, clearly, this has worked moderately well based on the undisputed good attachment the child has with each parent, and the good relationship that X has with both parents.  So much is clear from the Affidavit material and from the expert Report.  That said, it is this constant tension between the following factors: (a) a very young child, (b) parents working all the time, (c) the child in day care, (d) the child is fatigued and likely emotionally somewhat “strung out”, (e) the parents are “rung out” (so to speak), and (f) the Father has a new partner which, in certain respects, has added an extra degree of frisson (not always a happy one by all reports from the Mother’s perspective) in the relational dynamics all round.  To be not overly utilitarian, the Father now has got an extra pair of hands in his household which the Mother does not.  I do not say it in any derogatory or pejorative way, but being a single parent, as the Mother is, she is obviously carrying so much of the load herself.

5. The difficulty with any interim Application is that the Court struggles to find assistance to get beyond the “he said, she said” situation.[3]  Whatever the remonstrations as may have been the case between Mother and Father, on the Mother’s evidence, the Father leaving X in the Mother’s care while he went on manoeuvres or whatever else it is, shorn of all of the grey areas in the matter, at the end of the day the parties agreed to this curious, somewhat questionably beneficial relationship in sharing X’s time with both parents where she is stretched between day care, nights, changeovers, and all else. 

   [3] All such concerns and difficulties are clearly set out in Goode v Goode (2007) 36 Fam LR 422 at [81] – [82]. At [82](d), the Full Court noted that “in interim proceedings there may be little uncontested evidence to enable more than a limited consideration of these matters to take place.” Innumerable cases since Goode have repeated the same cautions and difficulties regarding interim parenting disputes.

6. Unfortunately, it seems that Mr B really does not address a number of these nuts and bolts issues, including any possible risks to X of this ongoing shared care arrangement.  It seems, however, albeit somewhat contested, that the child, and her parents, have been able, for the most part, to absorb these somewhat relentless pressures in her life and which, at this stage, her parents have been unable to address.  This is to say, in no way critically, the parents are juggling a young child, in a shared care arrangement that involves a number of handovers, and which also includes multiple trips to and from day-care, while both parents work.  The juggling clearly is not easy and is taking its toll to some degree.  Such is often the situation in modern life, but it is nonetheless somewhat taxing.  At the same time, X does seem, in almost all respects, to still be thriving, which is quite a testament to the parents’ labours.

7. Whatever genuine sympathy I have for or with the predicament of the Mother, for example, in carrying the load of being a single parent, it seems indisputable that she is X’s primary carer despite the actual carving up of the time has been effectively a shared care arrangement with multiple changeovers.  I would respectfully suggest that if anyone was to come to me in other matters proposing such an arrangement I would likely just shake my head and say ‘why would you think this is a good idea.’  But sometimes, without ever knowing the whole story, especially in an interim hearing, there are other factors in play.

8. For example, perhaps, on one view, the current matter may simply be a circumstance that is guided or conditioned by basic pragmatism, where the parents said ‘well, this is the best that we have been able to come up with’ for X and ourselves.  If that be so, so be it.  I could certainly not authorise any longer period of time of three nights of X away from her Mother as Mr B plainly states.  However, to try to get into the interstices of the family report by some sort of hermeneutics of suspicion, or worse, is trying to draw too many fine-grained dots from a Report where crucial issues, specifically the one about any possible or likely risk to X, are really not, in my view, sufficiently addressed for the Court to do anything other than to leave the situation as it is, as potentially delicate and unfortunate as that is for everyone. 

9. I do not necessarily see the status quo as a long-term solution, but I can only go on the evidence available to me.  The evidence, as it is, forces me basically to leave the co-parenting situation as it is.  Last December the parents determined that it was in X’s best interests for there to be a shared care/equal time arrangement.  In March 2020, the family consultant noted some of the stresses and strains on the child and on the parents.  None of those stresses and strains are either novel or unforeseen, especially for a three year old child.  In my view it would be highly remarkable if a three year old child was not, at some stage, somewhat “clingy” towards one parent or another.  But, in my view, “clinginess” is not, without more, sufficient to warrant Court intervention where quite a few other factors or stressors seem clearly to be in play.  Here I have in mind in particular the difficult relationship between the Mother and the Father’s partner.  What was in the child’s best interests in December 2019, and not cautioned against by the expert in March 2020, still seems, for the most part, to be in the child’s best interests.  This is especially so given that the blocks of time with each parent are relatively short, thereby militating against any potential undue angst arising from separation. 

10. The matter will go into the queue of matters for final hearing.  I do not know whether or not, for example, the matter might be able to be accommodated within a single day.  The issues are incredibly small and the property aspect is settled.  If it is able to be accommodated within a single day we might be able to squeeze it in a bit earlier.  I do not know. 

11. But perhaps after the parties have digested my brief, somewhat diffuse, remarks, perhaps the parties can let my Chambers know by noon on Friday whether or not they think the matter might be able to be accommodated within a single day.  If the evidence is simply going to be “Mum and Dad”, perhaps the Father’s partner, and an expert, we might be able to fit it in to one day.  And then if we are running short of time the usual written submissions would be necessary.  However, the best thing for everyone, as always, with apologies to the lawyers having heard it so many times, the sooner the parties can get out of the legal system, the better. 

12. In the circumstances, for better or for worse, I do not see that I can grant today any relief of the kind that the Mother seeks on the evidence that I have got before me.  It might all reasonably or readily change at a final hearing.  Yes, there may be distress on the child’s part at times – I do not question what the Mother has said to me – but that distress in a three year old, which is hardly novel, without more, in my view, is an insufficient basis, given the existing Orders agreed by consent, and the imprecision in the expert’s Report, to change those now relatively longstanding arrangements.

I certify that the preceding thirty (30) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge WJ Neville

Associate: 

Date: 20 November 2020