TEMPLER & TEMPLER

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TEMPLER & TEMPLER

[2021] FCCA 375

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – best interests of child – Orders made.

Legislation:

Family Law Act1975 (Cth) ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 65D, 61DA, 62B, 65DA,

65DAA

Cases cited:

Lansa & Clovelly [2010] FamCA 80

Applicant:

MR TEMPLER

Respondent:

MS TEMPLER

File Number:

PAC 1271 of 2015

Judgment of:

Judge Newbrun

Hearing date:

12 February 2021

Date of Last Submission:

12 February 2021

Delivered at:

Parramatta

Delivered on:

16 March 2021

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Fowler of Counsel

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Watts Mccray (Nsw) Pty Ltd

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms Katie of Counsel

Solicitors for the Respondent:	Jacqui Griffin Mobile Solicitor
Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer	Ms Hamilton of Counsel
Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer	JLM Family Lawyers Pty Ltd

ORDERS

That the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, X, born in 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "X").
That X shall live with the Mother.
That forthwith and from the date of these Orders and until 2021, X shall spend time with the Father as follows:
(a)Each alternate weekend from after school Friday to 9:00pm Saturday;
(b)On Father's Day from 11:00am to 9:00pm;
(c)On X's birthday from 5:00pm to 9:00pm;
(d)On Christmas Day from 3:00pm to 9:00pm;
(e)At any other times in accordance with X's wishes.
That after 2021, X shall spend time with the Father as follows:
(a)Each alternate weekend from after school Friday to 9:00pm Sunday;
(b)On Father's Day from 11:00am to 9:00pm;
(c)On X's birthday from 5:00pm to 9:00pm;
(d)On Christmas Day from 3:00pm to 9:00pm;
(e)At any other times in accordance with X's wishes.
That during the NSW gazetted school holiday periods, X’s time with the Father on each alternate weekend, as per Order 4 above, shall continue.
That within 7 days of the date of these Orders, the Father and Mother contact B Counselling and attend intake for the purpose of family therapy between the Father and X, and that an appointment be made in the first instance for X to attend upon Dr C or another available therapist at B Counselling, other than Ms D, and that thereafter, the parents follow all directions of B Counselling to ensure that family therapy between the Father and X continue.
That the parents have leave to provide B Counselling or alternate family therapist (as provided for in order 8 below) with a copy of the Single Expert Report produced by Ms D and dated 31 July 2019 and Reasons for Judgment when delivered by the Court.
That if, after intake, B Counselling are unable to provide family therapy, then within 14 days the Father shall provide to the Mother three names of alternate family therapists and the Mother shall respond with her selection within a further 7 days and should that occur, then where the word "B Counselling" occurs in these Orders the selected therapist shall be substituted.
The family therapy shall be non-reportable.
That the Mother and Father shall facilitate the family therapy between the Father and X, including ensuring X is transported to B Counselling for each appointment and for this purpose the Father shall collect X and take him to his family therapy session and at the conclusion return X to the Mother.
That X shall have telephone communication with the Father in accordance with his wishes.
That for the purpose of these Orders, changeover will occur as agreed between the parties and in absence of an agreement:
(a)At school on school days; and
(b)On non-school days the Father shall deliver and collect X to and from the Mother's residence at the commencement and conclusion of X's time with him.
That should X require urgent medical attention or be hospitalised, the parent with care of X at that time shall contact the other parent by text message and advise the other parent of the details of X's location, diagnosis and prognosis.
The parties shall communicate urgent matters in relation to X by way of text message and non-urgent matters by way of email.
That within 7 days of the date of these Orders, the parents shall provide to each other their current mobile telephone number, email address and residential address and any changes thereto seven days prior to any such change occurring.
That the parents be at liberty to obtain from X's school all materials usually available to parents, including but not limited to school reports, school newsletters, school photos and portfolios.
That both parents are hereby restrained from speaking about the other parent or a member of the Father's household in a derogatory manner in the presence or hearing of X and will remove X from the presence or hearing of any third party doing so.
That both parents are hereby restrained from speaking to X about any matter in relation to these proceedings or showing X any document in relation to these proceedings.
That the cost of family therapy between the Father and X will be met by the Father.
That upon receipt of the Final Orders, the Independent Children’s Lawyer shall meet with X and explain the Final Orders and the Court's decision to him. That the Mother shall facilitate the meeting between the Independent Children’s Lawyer and X, including ensuring X is transported to the appointment for this purpose.
The ICL’s application for an order for costs against the parties is dismissed.
That pursuant to s 62B of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth), information about the family counselling services, family dispute resolution services and other courses, programs and services available, is set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto.
That pursuant to s 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth), 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.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

PAC 1271 of 2015

MR TEMPLER

Applicant

And

MS TEMPLER

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction and background

This final parenting hearing relates to the child X born in 2005.
The Father is 51 years. The Mother is 49 years.
The parties married in 2001 and separated on 21 December 2013.
The parties entered into a Parenting plan on 4 November 2015 providing, inter alia, for the child to live with the Mother; the child spend time with the Father each alternate weekend from 7 PM Friday until 10:30 PM Sunday, and for up to half of each school holiday period by agreement between the parents, and on special occasions.
On 6 March 2019, interim Orders were made that provide for the child to spend time with the Father in the presence of the Mother each Saturday from 12 PM to 4 PM.
On 25 September 2019, further interim Orders were made, inter alia, for the child to spend time with the Father each alternate Sunday from 1 PM to 9 PM. An interim Order was made for the parents to contact E Counselling and do an intake for the purpose of family therapy.
The Father commenced a new relationship with Ms F in late 2014. They were married in 2017. Ms F has two daughters from a previous relationship who are in their twenties and live with the Father and Ms F.
The Father is employed as a public servant with the Employer G.
The Mother is a full time at home Mother to X undertaking home duties and has been doing so since the child’s birth.
The child is in Year 10 in 2021 at the H School.

Proposals

The Father’s proposals were initially set out in his Amended Initiating Application filed 24 August 2020. Inter alia, he sought orders that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the child; that the child live with the Mother; that the child spend time with the Father from the commencement of term 4, 2020 school term, on a fortnightly basis, in week one from 1 PM to 9 PM Sunday, and in week two from Friday after school until 9 PM Sunday; that the child spend time with the Father from the commencement of term 1, 2021 school term and thereafter on a week about basis; that the child spend overnight time with the Father during school holidays.
Ultimately, following submissions, the Father’s proposals were set out in a proposed Minute of Order emailed to the Court on 16 February 2021, providing, inter alia, that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the child; that the child live with the Mother; that until 2021, the child spend time with the Father, inter alia, each alternate weekend from after school Friday to 9 PM Saturday; that after 2021, the child spend time with the Father each alternate weekend from after school Friday to 9 PM Sunday; that during NSW gazetted school holiday periods, the child’s time with the Father be each alternate weekend from Thursday at 11 AM to 9 PM Sunday; and that the parties contact B Counselling and attend intake for the purpose of family therapy between the Father and the child.
The Mother’s proposals were initially set out in her Amended Response filed 7 September 2020. Inter alia, she sought orders that the Mother have sole parental responsibility for the child; that the child live with the Mother; and that the child spend time with the Father as agreed between the Mother and Father and subject to the child’s wishes.
Ultimately, following submissions, the Mother’s proposals were set out in a proposed Minute of Order emailed to the Court on 17 February 2021, providing, inter alia, that the Mother have sole parental responsibility for the child; that the child live with the Mother; that the child spend time with the Father until he reaches the age of 16 each alternate Sunday from 1 PM to 9 PM and on other special occasions, and any other times in accordance with the child’s wishes; and that upon the child turning 16 years of age, the child shall spend time with the Father in accordance with his wishes.
The ICL’s proposals are set out in the Case Outline for the ICL filed 11 September 2020. Inter alia, the ICL seeks orders of the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the child; that the child live with the Mother; that the child spend time with the Father, until he reaches age 16 years as follows: each alternate Sunday from 1 PM to 9 PM; on Father’s Day from 1 PM to 9 PM; on the child’s birthday from 5 PM to 9 PM; on Christmas Day from 3 PM to 9 PM; and any other times in accordance with the child’s wishes; that upon the child turning 16 years of age, the child shall spend time with the Father in accordance with his wishes; and that the child shall have telephone communication with the Father in accordance with his wishes.
The Mother relied upon the following documents:
a)The Mother’s Trial Affidavit filed 8 September 2020;
b)The Mother’s Amended Response filed 7 September 2020; and
c)Notice of Risk filed 11 December 2018.
The Father relied upon the following documents:
a)Amended Initiating Application filed 24 August 2020;
b)The Father’s Affidavit filed 25 August 2020;
c)Affidavit of Ms J filed 24 August 2020; and
d)Affidavit of Ms F filed 24 August 2020.
The ICL relied upon the following documents:
a)The Family Report of Ms K dated 31 July 2019.
The following exhibits were relied upon:
a)Exhibit A: The ICL’s Tender Bundle;
b)Exhibit B: The Applicant Father’s Tender Bundle;
c)Exhibit C: The Father’s Proof of Evidence Document;
d)Exhibit D: The Family Report of Ms K dated 31 July 2019;
e)Exhibit E: Sleeve 16 Subpoena Bundle;
f)Exhibit F: 2018 Contact Details of X.

Evidence

There was evidence before the Court from the Father. The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of such evidence.
The Mother became socially withdrawn after the child’s birth. She does not drive a car. The Mother and the child did not leave the home whilst the Father was at work.
The Mother was obsessive about cleanliness during the relationship. She was also very concerned about money.
The child’s relationship with the Father deteriorated after the parties’ separation. A pattern developed of the Father having difficulty spending time with the child, the child enjoying those times with the Father, and then the child being hostile towards the Father during phone calls while he was with the Mother in 2014 and continuing into 2015.
In September 2015 the Father moved out of his parents’ home and into the home of his now wife and her daughters at Suburb L. In October 2015 the child refused to spend his scheduled weekend with the Father and told the Father he would not spend time with them unless he moved back in with his parents. In December 2015, the child told the Father that he would not be spending Christmas with the Father again if his now wife would be there.
The Father did not speak with the Mother from about 23 December 2015 until March 2019 when he saw her at court.
In January 2016, the child commenced spending his weekend visits with the Father at the Father’s residence. At about that time the Father and child exchanged a series of text messages in which the Father and child made disparaging comments of each other. Nevertheless, time continued between the child and the Father. In December 2016, the child refused to spend Christmas Day with the Father.
From early 2014 the child refused to share details of his life with the Father.
In about mid-March 2017 the child sent some disparaging text messages to the Father in relation to a parent/teacher meeting. There was verbal disputation between the child and the Father in 2017. The child attended the Father’s wedding in 2017 and enjoyed himself.
The child did not attend the H School orientation camp for Year 7 students at the end of 2017. The Mother wanted the child to attend the camp but she did not want to jeopardise the child’s health by reason of a mouth ulcer the child had developed. The Mother had obtained a medical certificate for the child.
The child spent several days with the Father from Christmas Day 2017 which was enjoyable. The child reacted verbally adversely when the Father told him that he wanted the child to live with him.
In April 2018, a counsellor from B Counselling, following her counselling session with the child, told the Father that the child had informed her that he no longer saw the Father as his Father and that he did not believe that he loved him. This feedback caused the Father significant distress and triggered a period of deep sadness in him. In late April 2018 the Father emailed the counsellor to inform her that he had cut ties with the child. In a text message to the child at about this time the Father had also stated that he would always be waiting and hoping that the child would want to have a relationship with him. Later in 2018 the Father had psychological counselling and then wanted to re-establish his relationship with the child.
The Father had no contact with the child from late April 2018 to 30 March 2019.
Pursuant to Court Orders in March 2019 the child commenced to spend time with the Father at the end of March 2019.
In June 2019 at a parent/teacher interview the child, most teachers described the child as well-behaved.
The Father observed that during time with the child, initially the child was curt and hostile towards the Father but as visits progressed there were periods where the child appeared to be generally enjoying his time with the Father and the paternal grandmother.
Interim Court Orders of 25 September 2019 provided for the child to spend additional time with the Father without the requirement of the paternal grandmother being present.
The parties in late 2019 did an intake with Mr M at E Counselling pursuant to the interim Court orders.
In February 2020 the Father spoke to Mr M who told him that he did not think he could assist in the matter stating that counselling would not work while the family law proceedings were underway.
The Father and child spend time together on 26 January 2020 travelling to Suburb N.
The Father and child continue to spend time together, pursuant to the Court’s most recent interim Orders.
The Father admits, on one occasion during the relationship, that he did raise his fist in a moment of spontaneous anger towards the Mother but that they were separated by a kitchen counter.
The Father acknowledged chasing the child (when 6 years old) when angry with an intention to smack him following the child hitting the Father on the back of his head.
The Father spent time with the child on 6 September 2020. The child rejected the Father’s request for a hug with the child stating to the Father, inter alia, “You don’t get to celebrate Father’s Day if you’re not a Father.”
The Father gave oral evidence.
The Father stated that he believed the child was happy with the Mother and was content with the current (parenting) arrangements.
The Father stated the child was 5’11”.
The Father was asked what his response would be if the Court made orders for a week about arrangement and the child refused to attend and spend a whole week with the Father. The Father stated that he would call his solicitors and seek advice as to how to deal with the situation. He stated that if his solicitors advised that there had been a contravention of the Court’s Orders, he would not firstly file an Application in a Case but would have his solicitors write a letter pointing out the alleged contravention. The Father stated that he did not know whether he would recommence proceedings if the Child did not comply with Court Orders.
The Father stated that the Mother was a good Mother and that she would do anything for the child. He stated the Mother was very caring for the child and was a dedicated Mother. When specifically asked when the Mother was doing a good job with the child, the Father stated in the negative.
The Father recognised that if the Court made his proposed orders (inter alia, an equal time arrangement) the child would be upset. He stated that he would facilitate further counselling and that he would talk to the child in a loving and caring way. He would make the child’s time with him as enjoyable as he could.
The Father stated he did not believe that there had been any telephone calls between the child and himself since 2017. He believed the last overnight time between the child and the Father would have been since December 2017, in early 2018.
The Father stated that he had not discussed his current Application (inter alia, seeking a week about arrangement) with the child. He did not know whether the child knew he was no longer seeking a live-with Application.
The Father agreed that his relationship with the child was not close and this had been the case for three years. He agreed the relationship needed work to get on track.
The Father stated that at changeovers he does not see the Mother at all.
The Father agreed that in past communications with the child he had inflamed the situation (through his verbal statements to the child) and that he could have handled the situation better.
The Father stated that (through his proposed Orders) he could offer the child a healthier lifestyle with more interaction with other people.
The Father stated that the child was so obsessed with technology.
The Father stated that academically the child was performing well below his capabilities. He stated the child was now a B- student, formally being a C student. He stated that the teachers referred to the child’s progress as a “mixed bag”. The child was not interested in sport. The child had never been interested in team sport. The Father stated that he would want the child to give sport “a go” with a view to achieving pride and self-achievement.

The Father agreed that the child presents as a child of strong conviction and has an anxious and obsessive personality style.
The Father agreed that since the Court’s Orders of September 2019, the child had been spending time with him every second Sunday from 1 PM to 9 PM.
The Father stated that whilst there may be teething issues in relation to the child and the adult daughters of his wife living in the Father’s residence, including the sharing of a bathroom, he did not have significant concerns in this respect.
There was evidence before the Court from the Father’s wife. The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of such evidence.
The Father’s wife is aged 49 years. She has had a long career working as a carer. She first commenced working in 1999. She has two adult children of her former marriage currently aged about 23 and 25 and they live with herself and the Father.
The Father’s wife has observed the child having fun when spending time with the Father. Previously, she has observed the child show affection towards the Father although she observed this affection to cease once overnight time between the child and the Father ceased. She did not spend much time with the child during 2019 or 2020. She normally works from 11:30 AM to 9:30 PM on Sundays and has not been able to see the child very much since he ceased spending overnight time on the weekends in their home, and started spending time with the Father on Sundays instead of Saturdays. She saw the child during the period March to June 2020 when her workplace was closed. She wants to continue to assist the Father with the care of the child and support both the child and Father through any transition for the child spending increased time with the Father. The assistance that she intends to provide for the Father in caring for the child includes such things as cooking meals for the family, and driving the child to school if the Father is not available.
The Father’s wife gave oral evidence.
The Father’s wife stated that she had last seen the child on weekends just before June 2020. She had never met the Mother. She agreed that she did not have a present relationship with the child. She had last had a conversation with the child about 1.5 years ago.
The Father’s wife stated that she had discussed with her daughters the Father’s proposed orders. She stated her belief that the child did not have a sleeping routine living with the Mother, he was socially behind, he was not doing well at school, and he was physically very unfit for a boy his age. She confirmed there was an occasion where the child refused to sit on a chair because it was dirty.
The Father’s wife stated that the child would have to accept the rules in her home. In this context she referred to the child having dinner manners, introducing the child to using a knife and fork, and the child being polite. She stated that they would hope to implement such rules slowly. She stated that the whole point (in relation to the child living in a week about arrangement) was to expose the child to different routines.
There was evidence before the Court from the paternal grandmother.
The paternal grandmother, during the parties’ relationship, observed the Mother to be very fussy about everybody washing their hands and that the Mother was concerned about people bringing germs inside her house.
The paternal grandmother was hopeful that if the child starts spending more time with the Father and their family, that the child will enjoy broader experiences in his life.
From September 2015 until early 2016, the Father came to the paternal grandparents home every second Friday, and spent his weekend with the child there.
The paternal grandmother saw the child at her wedding anniversary in 2018.
Pursuant to previous interim Court Orders in 2019, the paternal grandmother was present during the Father’s time with the child.
The paternal grandmother and the child have maintained a close relationship since that time of his birth. The child is very affectionate towards the paternal grandmother and usually greets her with a hug.
The child and Father come to the paternal grandparents’ home every second Sunday night for dinner.
The child and Father came to visit the paternal grandmother in early August 2020 in hospital after she suffered a fall.
There was evidence before the Court from the Mother. The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of such evidence.
The Mother encouraged the child to stay in contact with the paternal grandmother.
The Mother observes that currently, when the child comes home after spending a day with the Father, he is calm. The child has told the Mother that his visits with the Father are okay but can be very boring at times because the majority of the time is just spent at the Father’s home. The child has told the Mother that he has asked the Father if they can do something fun like archery but the Father has never taken him to do that.
The Mother observes the parties’ relationship as poor.
The Mother is of the view that the child should have more of a say on how much time he wants to spend with the Father.
The Mother gave oral evidence.
The Mother stated that the child never lies to her. She stated that she did not think that the child would ever lie to her, stating, “that’s the sort of relationship we have”.
The Mother stated she is looking for work and that she was on Jobseeker. She had been working as a casual in 2016 and 2017 and had been on her employer’s books up until Covid time. Her work required her to meet face-to-face with people, and she did this work at shopping centres.
The Mother did not accept that she had presented to the family report writer with anxiety and obsessional tendencies and had limited insight into these. She did not agree that she had obsessional tendencies. She did not accept that she had long-standing anxiety. She stated that she was hygienic and did not apologise for that. She was just cautious about cleanliness and hygiene. She later stated that the child may have learned from herself to be cautious in this regard.
The Mother stated that the child was overly cautious when he was younger. However, since attending high school, the child was completely different. The Mother gave an example of the child attending PE in Year 7 and rolling around on the grass as a commando.
The Mother stated that the child loves a particular sport but it was not offered by his school.
The Mother stated that the child asked the Father if he could do archery and shooting and the Father ignored him. The Mother stated that the child had told her that the Father wants him to do things that he does not want (to do). The Mother stated that the Father does not listen to the child.
The Mother stated that the child’s relationship with the Father now was okay which is what the child says. The child tells the Mother that the visits with the Father are okay. The child does not like it when the Father is always criticising him. When the child and the Father are just doing activities, the child tells the Mother that it’s okay. The child does not get upset like he used to. The child is older and does not get baited into fights with the Father. Later the Mother stated that the child had enjoyed his visits with the Father when time was spent with the paternal grandmother.
The Mother stated that the child would benefit from having a good relationship with the Father, and in this context, the Mother stated that it was “up to the Father”. She stated that the benefits to the child would be a more rounded childhood experience with the Father.
The Mother was asked what the Father can offer the child as the Father. The Mother stated that she hoped that the Father could offer support and encouragement.
The Mother referred to the Father having four days with the child at Christmas and that the Father had told the child he wanted the child to live with him. In this context, the Mother was critical of the Father for not just allowing the child to make his (own) choices.
The Mother stated the last time she communicated directly with the Father, by way of telephone or email, was in 2017.
The Mother stated she preferred to communicate with the Father by email only. She stated that emails had served the parties well. She stated that she does not feel comfortable with the Father having her phone number.
The Mother stated that the child had never caught public transport by himself. She stated that the child will not catch public transport.
The Mother confirmed that Christmas 2017/early 2018 was a low point in the child’s relationship with the Father. The Mother stated that the child, before Christmas 2017, had told her that the Father was like a black storm wherever he goes. The Father was always bringing the child down and that the Father could not help himself.
The Mother stated that the child still does not want to spend overnight time with the Father. The Mother stated that the last time the child had discussed overnight time with the Father with her was yesterday.
The Mother was asked to imagine overnight time with the Father if there was a gradual increase in time. The Mother stated that based on what the child says to her, “no”. The Mother stated that it may happen in the future. The child told the Mother that it was hard to take the Father for too long. She stated that the child talks about spending time with the Father in small doses. The Mother stated that the child’s relationship with the Father is okay for activities.
It was suggested to the Mother that the child’s sports activity with the Father on 6 September 2020 was a positive experience for the child. The Mother responded by stating that if the child likes the activity it is okay. The Mother then referred to the constant negativity of the Father towards the child and stated that the Father does not know how to parent the child.
It was suggested to the Mother that the child’s overall relationship with the Father was better than it was in early 2018. The Mother responded by stating that the child is older now, he can defend himself against the Father, and that the child knows how to ignore the Father.
The Mother stated that the child is happy to spend time with the Father on (fortnightly) Sunday afternoons. She stated that the child hates having no choice. The Mother disagreed that leaving the issue of time to be spent with the Father was a burden upon the child.
The Mother stated that over the last 12 months she has not seen any hostile messages sent by the child to the Father, and in this context, stated that the child has grown up and he has toughened up.
The Mother stated that the child had told her that he had had no choice with the Parenting Plan and was angry. She stated that the child had told her, “It’s my life”, and “I have never had the freedom”.
The Mother stated that her last face-to-face conversation with the Father regarding the child was possibly in December 2015.
The Mother stated that she would not cooperate with the Father for a passport in relation to the child. The Mother stated that the child was healthy and that there were no medical issues for the child in the foreseeable future. The Mother stated that the Father makes every little thing into a big thing. She stated that the parties could make a decision together relating to major surgery for the child but she did not think she would be able to cooperate with him. He stated the Father was always trying to force his opinion.
The Mother stated that she did not agree to the Father contacting her on her mobile phone as she did not want to get into escalations with him.
The Mother was asked whether if the child chose to live with the parents on a week about arrangement, whether the Mother would support the child. The Mother answered in the affirmative but stated that that was a fairytale. The Mother stated that that would never happen because the child does not like living there (at the Father’s residence), because there were bugs, doors slamming and he cannot sleep there.

Family Report Writer

Ms K was appointed as an expert to prepare a single expert report in relation to the parties and child on 9 April 2019 pursuant to Court Orders. Ms K is a forensic and clinical psychologist with a Master’s degree in Forensic Psychology and a further Master’s degree in Clinical Psychology. Inter alia, she has 11 years’ experience as a psychologist. Her expert report is dated 31 July 2019. She interviewed the parties, the child, the paternal grandparents, and the Father’s wife in June and July 2019. At this time the child was aged about 13 years, 8 months. She spoke with Ms D, social worker with B Counselling, also in July 2019.
The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of the contents of the expert report.
The family report writer observed that the parties do not communicate at all at present. The Mother stated that she does not see a need to communicate with the Father, explaining, “there’s nothing for us to say”.
The Mother confirmed to the family report writer that she was willing to resume sessions with B Counselling if these are recommended. Ms D had provided sessions to the family in the first quarter of 2018. The Father had emailed Ms D on 24 April 2018 confirming that he had decided to cease pursuing a relationship with the child and thus did not require further sessions. The Father reported a poor therapeutic alliance with Ms D and stated that while he would be happy to return to B Counselling as a service, he would prefer to see a new clinician.
The Mother impressed the family report writer as a socially awkward woman with a range of quirks, but no psychopathology that could impact her capacity to participate in the assessment. When the Mother and the family report writer spoke by phone, the Mother’s presentation was suggestive of poor social boundaries and poor self-regulation when anxious or emotionally heightened.
The Mother described herself as the middle of five children born to her parents. She did not have a close relationship with her Mother however did have a close relationship with her Father who died in 2016. She reported no current relationship with any of her siblings.
The Mother reported a stable educational experience, attending university after school and completing further TAFE courses. The Mother has primarily worked in corporate administrative roles. The Mother advised that she was currently seeking employment that she could perform during school hours.
The Mother, according to the family report writer, did not appear to have any close friends with whom she connects on a regular basis. The Mother described the women in her employment group as people that she talks to, but then confirmed that she does not see them outside of their weekly or fortnightly structured sessions. She described some other friends, but her accounts suggested superficial relationships.
The Mother described a loving and close relationship with the child. She stated that she talks to the child about everything. She stated that she believes that the child can talk to her about anything.
The Mother described her primary parenting stressor was trying to get the child motivated sometimes, noting that the child would not engage in an activity or task if he was not interested in it. She identified her parenting weaknesses as excessive affection particularly when the child was younger and allowing the child to get away with things. The family report writer observed that the Mother’s account suggested difficulty setting appropriate boundaries for the child at different points in his life.
The Mother advised that the child returns home after school and does not engage in extracurricular activities. The Mother advised that the child has never engaged in after school sport or other activities as he has not been interested in this. She advised sometimes the child stops off at a friend’s house on the way home. She advised that after completing his homework, the child plays games on his iPad or computer and that she overhears the child talking on earphones to his friends whilst playing. She stated that the child does not see his friends on weekends. If the child is invited to a party he does go but this is irregular. The family report writer observed that the Mother’s account in this context suggested that both the Mother and child are socially isolated.
The family report writer observed that ultimately the Mother could not identify reasons why the child’s relationship with the Father was important.
The family report writer stated that the Mother’s presentation in the assessment of being highly focused on specific details of events, her inability to respond to questions asked due to her focus on portraying the information that she wanted to focus on, and her repeated returning to her perception of others’ faults, suggested a woman who struggled with anxiety and possible obsessional tendencies. The family report writer stated that it seems likely that the Mother has limited insight into her psychological functioning.
The Father completed his qualifications at TAFE following completion of his high school certificate.
The Father reported that his wife currently has no meaningful relationship with the child, although there were reportedly periods in the past where they had quite a good relationship, primarily when the child was staying with the Father over the course of the weekend. The Father noted that currently his wife sometimes has to persist with saying hello to the child when she sees him on weekends as he ignores her. The Father stated that his wife’s adult daughters have a limited relationship with the child; the Father stated he did not believe that this would be an issue except for the fact that they would have to share a bathroom with the child.
The Father reported a close relationship with the child until the point of separation from the Mother.
The Father began crying while speaking about how the child does not engage in any outdoor activities and has minimal social engagement, such that he is concerned he will not be able to function in the world. The Father’s perception of the child’s life was that it was narrow and limited.
The Father stated that if the child resided with him, he would confiscate his devices initially and encourage him to engage in other activities. He would hope that the child could resume using technology as a reward for good behaviour. The Father acknowledged that the child would likely be very hostile in response to this, as well as the change of residence. As such, he advised that he aims to take 3 to 6 months of long service leave to support the child with this transition.
The Father stated his hope to engage the child in some weekend activities including sports and creative pursuits, citing a desire for the child to have a hobby that was not videogames. However, he acknowledged that he will need to phase things in slowly, otherwise it would be a disaster.
In terms of parenting weaknesses, the Father acknowledged that he did lose his cool and took his frustrations out on the child in the past, but attributed this to stressors in the relationship with the Mother. He suggested he would utilise “reward/punishment” revolving around the child’s devices.
The Father stated that he had proposed a six-month period of no contact between the child and his Mother not to be malicious but because this was advice from his lawyers and his own research to break the hold and give the Father and child relationship a chance to rebuild.
The paternal grandmother reported minimal engagement with the Mother. She stated that she does not know why the child will not see the Father without her being present. She reported a good relationship with the Father’s wife, describing her as family focused.
The Father’s wife confirmed that she had not spent much time with the child. She described the child refusing to sit on any of the chairs when the child visited her workplace once because they were dirty. She stated that the child does not use manners and cannot use a knife and fork. She expressed concern that the child has no routine, noting that he played computer games until 3 or 4 AM at times that he stayed overnight with them in the past. She confirmed that her daughters have no relationship with the child. She reported that both of her daughters were offended by the child’s behaviour previously in relation to the child directing the Father to clean the stairs because he did not want to catch the germs of one of the Father’s wife’s daughters who he believed was sick having heard that daughter coughing. The Father’s wife stated that both of her daughters have not been interested in pursuing a relationship with the child since this event.

The child was interviewed by the family report writer.
The child impressed the family report writer as an adolescent with a number of quirks and an odd style of engagement.
The child told the family report writer that he did not want to live with the Father. He stated that he understood his family was going through court proceedings because the Father was trying to acquire him.
The child stated that the Mother was really nice and he hoped that the Mother and himself could have a long happy life together. He stated that he hoped that the Mother and himself could always live either together or very close together.
The child described his relationship with the Father as not close. He recalled enjoying playing videogames with the Father when the family resided together, but spoke about his frustrations after the parties’ separation when the Father suggested that he wanted the child to live with him. The child spoke about feeling like a possession. The child recalled the Father becoming angry with him and chasing him at home. When asked what the child likes about the Father, the child stated, “nothing really that much.”
The child expressed a belief that the Father had become more demanding since commencing a relationship with his wife and he was clear that he did not like seeing the Father at his Father and wife’s house. The child said he is happy to see the Father with his grandmother, “but mainly Granny.”
The child stated that he has made some friends at school and has a group of friends, one of whom he sees after school during the week. He stated that most of his social contact was online, playing games with his friends from school. He stated that he has no interest in seeing his friends on weekends and that he believes he currently has a good balance in terms of physical and sedentary pastimes, and online and in person contact. The family report writer observed that the only physical activity the child appears to participate in is during sport at school.
The child described himself as a person who knows what he wants and he does not like to veer from what he wants. He stated that this is why the thought of residing with the Father is so distressing, because he would make him do things. The child suggested that the Father had some sort of sinister plan behind his wish to have the child reside with him and expressed frustration that the Father does not respect much of his feelings about not wanting to do this. When asked about how much time he would like with the Father, the child stated that the maximum he would tolerate is the once a week, but preferably when the child decides to make an arrangement. The child does not believe the Father loved him, noting that if his Father did love him, he would not be trying to take him away from the Mother that he loves.
The child reported limited contact with the Father’s wife and stated that he did not like her.
The child stated that if the Court made orders that he reside with the Father, he would simply leave and return to the Mother.
The family report writer observed the child with the Father, the paternal grandmother and the Father’s wife. There were positive interactions between the child and these persons. The family report writer observed that the child’s relationship with the Father appeared stilted, more so when the Father was discussing difficult topics. However, despite the child’s expressed dislike of the Father, the child demonstrated capacity to engage with the Father around most topics, to laugh with him, and he did not reject physical contact with the Father when their feet were touching. The child clearly enjoyed his time with the paternal grandmother and appeared capable of conversation with the Father’s wife.
The family report writer spoke with Ms D from B Counselling. Ms D advised that the child had engaged well in therapy and spoke about wanting a better relationship with the Father. However, the child had been clear that he did not want to reside with the Father and expressed frustration that the Father did not appear to listen to him. Ms D confirmed that the Mother had difficulties with anxiety and an issue with germs in particular.
Under the heading “Opinion/Summary”, the family report writer stated that the parties separated when the child was eight years old and since that time the child has resided with the Mother and spent time with the Father at apparently irregular intervals.
The family report writer stated that although the Mother may not have actively discouraged the relationship between the child and the Father, it was also apparent that the Mother has not actively encouraged it. The family report writer stated that the Mother had exposed the child to inappropriate information regarding the current court proceedings and it was likely that she had also exposed the child to her distress at the breakdown of the relationship with the Father.
The family report writer stated that if the child had been exposed to the Mother’s distress, it was unsurprising that he had aligned with her so closely, in an effort to offer her emotional protection. The child and the Mother presented with an enmeshed relationship which was likely a function of the Mother’s anxiety and her parenting approach, including her difficulty setting boundaries. The child loves the Mother a great deal and it was apparent that he feels very supported by her.
Both the child and the Mother presented as quirky individuals and while the Father maintained that this was evidence of the Mother’s psychopathology, it was also possible that they were simply introverted individuals with some personality quirks. Despite the child’s unusual presentation, the child impressed the family report writer as an engaging and charming child, with a strong sense of self. That said, both the child and the Mother impressed as rigid in their thinking.
The Father presented as a generally more psychologically stable man, however, his decision-making regarding his relationship with the child had exacerbated the barriers that were already present, including any interference by the Mother. The Father’s decision to cease contact with the child and then his decision to pursue the current court proceedings, seeking that the child reside with him, demonstrated a lack of insight into the child’s potential experience of their relationship to date. Although frustration in the face of the child’s abject refusal to spend time with the Father, and the nature of the aggressive text messages from the child was certainly understandable, the Father’s response to this by terminating time with the child must have had an impact on the child’s sense of his relationship with the Father. In this respect, it appeared that the Father presented with his own difficulties with behavioural regulation when distressed. This was consistent with his account of serious aggression towards the child when frustrated, when the child was younger.
The family report writer stated:
In some respects, the key issue of dispute comes down to an ideological issue about the boundaries that should be set for children and the types of experiences they should be exposed to. Ms Templer presents as comfortable with their constricted lifestyle and while some of Ms D’s parenting decisions are less than ideal, they alone do not reach the level of being psychologically abusive. That is not to say that they have not caused psychological harm, however, as X presents with features of anxiety and inflexible thinking, similar to his Mother. Both X and his Mother would benefit from a therapeutic intervention to address these issues. Mr Templer alleges that Ms D has deliberately disrupted the relationship between X and his Father. It is more likely that Ms D's negative influence on X's relationship with his Father is a result of her lack of insight, her self-absorption, her anxiety and poor self-regulation. Ultimately, these difficulties have provided limited opportunity for X to develop appropriately and have concurrently disrupted his relationship with his Father. While Mr Templer would like his son to have broader social and physical experiences, and stricter boundaries, the reality is that at age 13, he is likely to have limited success implementing a regime such as the one he proposes. It is unfortunate that X has not had the benefit of exposure to both of his parents' lifestyles and interests from the point of his parents' separation.
Under the heading, “The nature of the relationship between the child and the parents”, the family report writer stated:
X and his Mother present with an enmeshed relationship. X feels protective of his Mother and it is likely that he has assumed a role in attempting to protect her psychologically at times. X's relationship with his Father is currently distant, owing in part due to Ms D's impact on X's view of his Father and her decision to place responsibility on X to make decisions regarding time with his Father, but also due to Mr Templer's own approach in his relationship with his son, whereby X feels that his Father does not listen to him and does not share his interests. Furthermore, Mr Templer has demonstrated incidents of poor self-regulation as a parent, and Ms D appears to have capitalised on these.
Under the heading, “The likely effect of any changes in circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either parent or household”, the family report writer stated:
X would experience a separation from his Mother as highly distressing. Given X's rigid thinking and his anxiety, such distress could have catastrophic consequences on his overall functioning. X is 13 years old and while Mr Templer does not believe he is capable of making his own way back to his Mother, I believe that he would most likely try to do so, and involvement of law enforcement would only serve to further disrupt the relationship between him and his Father. While the changes that Mr Templer is recommending are developmentally appropriate, the combination of these at once would be overwhelming for X, and unlikely to succeed given his age.
The Court interpolates at this point by stating that the Father’s proposals at the time of the family report interviews was that he was seeking a change of residence and a six-month period of no contact between X and his Mother. After the six-month period, he proposed a step-up approach to X spending alternate weekends and half of school holidays with his Mother.
Under the heading, “The capacity of the parents or any other person to provide for the needs of the child including physical, emotional and intellectual needs”, the family report writer stated:
I hold concern about Ms D's capacity to support X to develop to his full potential due to her own anxiety and destructive parenting approach. However, it is apparent that the strict regime that Mr Templer proposes would be equally unhelpful. It is unfortunate the parents have not been able to effectively co-parent as X would have benefited from more input from his Father at an earlier stage. Both parents have their son's best interests at heart, however, both are lacking in significant respects. Mr Templer is lacking in that he views some features of X's personality as an impact of Ms D's input, such that he disregards some of X's genuine interests and wishes. Ms D is lacking in that she struggles to be the parent in her relationship with X and places inappropriate expectations on him, and she has failed to encourage the relationship between X and his Father. Her approach has contributed to X's current anxiety and social isolation.
Under the heading, “The maturity, sex, cultural background and any other characteristics of the child are either parent that the expert thinks are relevant to the welfare of the child”, the family report writer stated:
X is 13 years old and presents as a child of strong conviction. While it is apparent that his Mother's parenting style has impacted his development through reinforcement of a possibly already anxious and obsessive personality style, it is also apparent that he is of an age where forced change in residence is unlikely to be effective. It is my opinion that such a determination by the Court would cause the relationship between X and his Father to further deteriorate and would increase X's anxiety beyond a point where he was able to function appropriately.
The Court has highlighted the above in bold to indicate that a change of residence is not the Father’s present proposal.
Under the heading, “Whether either parent has any mental health impairment that has affected or will affect their ability to or capacity to parent the child”, the family report writer stated:
Ms D presents with anxiety and obsessional tendencies and limited insight into these. These features of her functioning have impacted her parenting in that she shares inappropriate information with X at times, likely not just in relation to the Court proceedings. This has likely created their enmeshed relationship. Furthermore, her expressed anxiety no doubt contributes to some of X's own anxieties and his rigid thinking. Mr Templer presents as more psychologically stable, however, it is apparent that he is prone to moments of poor decision-making when feeling psychologically overwhelmed.
Under the heading, “Recommendations”, the family report writer stated:
On the basis of the information available to me in the preparation of this report, including the documentation provided, my interviews and observations with relevant parties, I recommend:
a) X should continue to reside with his Mother;
b) He should continue to spend time with his Father on weekends, however, this should be stepped up towards alternate weekends in order to provide him with exposure to other activities and hopefully reduce his anxiety;
c) The family should re-engage with B Counselling, however, with a new clinician given the rift in the therapeutic relationship between Mr Templer and Ms D. Alternatively, they could engage with another clinician with expertise in family law proceedings. Ms D's sessions should support her to manage her anxiety and to encourage the relationship between X and his Father, or at least be neutral. Ms D should engage with specialist anxiety treatment as recommended by Ms D.
The family report writer gave oral evidence in 2 separate sittings; on 16 September 2020 and on 12 February 2021. The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of her oral evidence.
The family report writer gave oral evidence on 16 September 2020.
The family report writer stated that the child was aware of the Mother’s negative perception of the Father.
The family report writer gave this evidence:
And both his Father and his Mother give some evidence about that. His Mother’s evidence, which is in paragraph 101 of her Affidavit, was, in fact, X was so worried about going that she wouldn’t force him to go – sorry – he was so worried that the Mother would force him to go that he developed an ulcer. The Mother took him to a GP. The evidence is that the GP located a small ulcer on the floor of the mouth and, at the Mother’s request, provided a letter that X didn’t need to attend the orientation camp. Is that – is the Mother’s conduct in relation to that incident somewhat concerning in relation to X not being able to build up a sense of resilience?   Yes, it is.
And if X continues to reside in the current arrangements with his Mother and his Mother does not change her parenting in that regard, it’s going to have a significant adverse effect on X’s development going forward; would you agree with that? Perhaps I should be more specific. I will – though I will hand it to you to explain, but by “X’s development”, I mean going forward, if that continues, he’s likely not to develop sufficient levels of resilience. It’s likely not to engage in social outdoor events, etcetera, etcetera?   My pause there was just in relation to the definition around “significant adverse effects”.
Well, perhaps delete my words “significant” and you can explain it in your words?   Yes. I do believe there are some potential adverse effects and I think X has already demonstrated some of those. But at the same time, I note that when I met with him, and note that this was over a year ago that I met with him, I think I described him as a likeable child, that he was able to engage. You know, he had some social quirks and some ..... engagement, but he was able to engage with me. He spoke about contact with people. You know, I held some concerns about his social development and lack of opportunity that he has access to in his mum’s care, but I don’t know it reaches the point of significant – significant adverse effects. I think adverse effects, yes, but with those qualifications that he seems to be doing okay in terms of school and social interactions. It’s less than optimal, but it’s okay.
And when you say “it’s less than optimal,” one way of giving X a greater opportunity to develop in the future, including development of resilience and development of social contacts, etcetera, would be for him to develop a stronger relationship with his Father?   I believe so, yes.
Because the evidence, some of the evidence that has been given in these proceedings and it’s also touched on in the Father’s Affidavit is that when X is spending time with his Father, that his Father engages him or tries to engage him in active activities, such sporting activities, hitting a cricket ball in a net, playing Pokémon Go, which is – taps into X’s computer ..... that it’s also a movement or active-orientated activity and going on long walks. And the Father says in his evidence that X is initially reluctant to do so, but he generally then engages with it and appears to enjoy himself. And that would be one way of improving X’s social interaction and getting over some of those anxieties and bringing him closer to that optimum level. Would that be right?   I – yes, I do think so. I think a physical aspect is certainly one side of it, but, as everyone in this hearing would know, that some kids simply don’t enjoy, you know, sport and physical activity. It’s important that they do it for their physical health, but it’s also important that they have access to other activities that they enjoy. I think that when we think about what Mr Templer offers, as well as the physical activity, I think it’s the opportunity for contact with extended family, offering opportunity for more identity development, a sense of connection, connection with adults who offer him positive – unconditional positive regard, these kind of things. So if we’re talking about the importance of X having time with his Father, these are the things – and a psychologist that I would be prioritising, while acknowledging that, yes, the physical aspect is also important.
Right. And the physical aspect of that X engaging with his Father in those activities in a willing or enjoyable way is also a great way for them to work on their relationship and to increase bonding; would you agree with that?   So ..... yes.
The family report writer was questioned about the enmeshed relationship between the child and Mother. In this context, she referred to the very strong emotional attachment between the child and the Mother including their shared emotional experiences rather than having separate experiences, and there being little distinction between the way the child and his Mother think and act.
The family report writer gave this evidence in relation to the implications for the child of having an enmeshed relationship with the Mother going forward:
And the implications for X of having an enmeshed relationship with his Mother going forward are very concerning, aren’t they?   Yes. Bearing in mind that X is at quite a critical point of development.
So if the enmeshed relationship continues, for example, and isn’t broken, X is likely always to have a dependent relationship with his Mother?   It’s a possibility. Yes.
Failure to develop independence and to be himself?   It’s a possibility.
Inability to secure secondary relationships or relationships with other persons? That’s a possibility. Yes.
Remaining emotionally immature, unrealistically demanding, prone to anxiety and fear, results of enmeshed relationships?   It’s a possibility. Yes.
And, perhaps one of the more serious possible results in the future is if his relationship with his Mother at any time is ruptured or interrupted it will be a significant trauma for him, won’t it?   Yes. It would be.
And likely to lead to him being socially isolated, particularly if he hasn’t had the opportunity of forming other meaningful relationships in the meantime?   Yes.
The intervention that would be appropriate in X’s circumstances – well, most appropriate, can I suggest to you – to protect him against those possible future repercussions of the enmeshed relationship would mostly be promoting him building relationships with other people apart from his Mother; agreed?   Yes. I do.
In fact, to change X’s enmeshed relationship with his mum, it’s really necessary to change his world so his world is not he and his Mother; is that – do you agree with that?   To make some changes, yes.
And, in terms of the most appropriate intervention – and that is building relationships with others in a significant way, first and foremost, that ought to be with his Father; do you agree with that?   Yes.
You’re aware, of course, now that the Father’s position in terms of the orders he seeks from this court is different to that in that he seeks a build-up – a rapid build-up of overnight time to a stage of week about time commencing first term 2021; you’re aware of that?   Yes.

The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility is rebutted at least by the Mother’s conceded family violence in June 2018; s 61DA(2)(b) of the Act. It is open to the Court to nevertheless determine, should it be in the best interests of the child, to order equal shared parental responsibility.
It is a very serious matter to exclude a parent from decision making in respect to major decisions affecting the child. In Lansa & Clovelly [2010] FamCA 80, Murphy J stated:
148. The definition of “parental responsibility” in s 61B refers to “all of” the powers, duties etc of parents. It is strongly arguable, then, that the expression “sole parental responsibility” means, or is intended to mean, that the specified parent has “all of” the powers, duties etc in relation to the specified children. If so, it seems to me equally strongly arguable that the expression means, or is intended to mean, that the other parent has no parental responsibility – that is none of the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority over their child otherwise conferred by law.
149. If that is the meaning of the expression, then, in my view, a Court should take account of a particular additional consideration (see s 60CC(3)(m)): the exercise of discretion in favour of excluding one parent from the decision making and responsibilities for their children in respect of “major long-term issues” in the manner just outlined - particularly where, as here, there are many years until the children turn 18 – is, it seems to me, a very significant interference with the fundamental rights of a person. There is no doubt that those rights must give way in favour of an outcome which is found to be in the best interests of the children. But, the fact that this is the paramount consideration does not, in my view, mean it is the sole consideration nor that the legitimate fundamental rights of a parent are irrelevant. (cf AIF v AMS (1999) 199 CLR 160; U v U [2002] HCA 36; (2002) 211 CLR 238).
The Court recognises that the parties have not had face-to-face communication or telephone calls in relation to the child for a significant period of time. However, they have been able to communicate to some not insignificant extent by email; the Mother had stated in evidence that emails had served the parties well. The Court recognises that the Mother finds communicating with the Father difficult and that there has been some conflict in relation to communication between the parties historically. And the Court recognises that historically the Mother has been making major decisions in relation to the child.
Nevertheless, the Court is of the view that there is a real prospect that the parties will be able to reach agreement in relation to major decisions affecting the child’s care, welfare and development, in a timely fashion and without significant conflict. The Mother herself stated in evidence that were the child to require major surgery, for example, she believed she could reach agreement with the Father. Prospectively, at this time, there would not appear to be any major decisions looming to be made for the child.
The Father has a willingness to communicate with the Mother in a positive manner.
The child should have the benefit of having each parent making a contribution into any major decisions affecting him. With the parties being subject to an Order for equal shared parental responsibility, such an Order may well assist in maintaining and enhancing the child’s relationship with the Father.
The Court observes that the parties agreed to equal shared parental responsibility for the child in their Parenting Plan of November 2015.
It will be in the best interests of the child that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for him.
As to equal time, it will not be in the best interests of the child that he be subject to an equal time parenting regime, and in this regard the Court refers to its discussions above under the primary and additional considerations of s 60CC of the Act. No party ultimately sought such an Order.
As to substantial and significant time, pursuant to the Court’s proposed time-with Orders, discussed above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration, ultimately the child will spend time with the Father not constituting substantial and significant time with him under s65DAA(3) of the Act because the Father will not be involved in getting the child ready for school. In principle, such time would be reasonably practicable if ordered.

Summary

Evaluating the above discussed considerations under section 60CC of the Act, it will be in the best interests of the children to make the following Orders:
That the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, X, born in 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "X").
That X shall live with the Mother.
That forthwith and from the date of these Orders and until 2021, X shall spend time with the Father as follows:
(a)Each alternate weekend from after school Friday to 9:00pm Saturday;
(b)On Father's Day from 11:00am to 9:00pm;
(c)On X's birthday from 5:00pm to 9:00pm;
(d)On Christmas Day from 3:00pm to 9:00pm;
(e)At any other times in accordance with X's wishes.
That after 2021, X shall spend time with the Father as follows:
(a)Each alternate weekend from after school Friday to 9:00pm Sunday;
(b)On Father's Day from 11:00am to 9:00pm;
(c)On X's birthday from 5:00pm to 9:00pm;
(d)On Christmas Day from 3:00pm to 9:00pm;
(e)At any other times in accordance with X's wishes.
That during the NSW gazetted school holiday periods, X’s time with the Father on each alternate weekend, as per Order 4 above, shall continue.
That within 7 days of the date of these Orders, the Father and Mother contact B Counselling and attend intake for the purpose of family therapy between the Father and X, and that an appointment be made in the first instance for X to attend upon Dr C or another available therapist at B Counselling, other than Ms D, and that thereafter, the parents follow all directions of B Counselling to ensure that family therapy between the Father and X continue.
That the parents have leave to provide B Counselling or alternate family therapist (as provided for in order 8 below) with a copy of the Single Expert Report produced by Ms K and dated 31 July 2019 and Reasons for Judgment when delivered by the Court.
That if, after intake, B Counselling are unable to provide family therapy, then within 14 days the Father shall provide to the Mother three names of alternate family therapists and the Mother shall respond with her selection within a further 7 days and should that occur, then where the word "B Counselling" occurs in these Orders the selected therapist shall be substituted.
The family therapy shall be non-reportable.
That the Mother and Father shall facilitate the family therapy between the Father and X, including ensuring X is transported to B Counselling for each appointment and for this purpose the Father shall collect X and take him to his family therapy session and at the conclusion return X to the Mother.
That X shall have telephone communication with the Father in accordance with his wishes.
That for the purpose of these Orders, changeover will occur as agreed between the parties and in absence of an agreement:
(a)At school on school days; and
(b)On non-school days the Father shall deliver and collect X to and from the Mother's residence at the commencement and conclusion of X's time with him.
That should X require urgent medical attention or be hospitalised, the parent with care of X at that time shall contact the other parent by text message and advise the other parent of the details of X's location, diagnosis and prognosis.
The parties shall communicate urgent matters in relation to X by way of text message and non-urgent matters by way of email.
That within 7 days of the date of these Orders, the parents shall provide to each other their current mobile telephone number, email address and residential address and any changes thereto seven days prior to any such change occurring.
That the parents be at liberty to obtain from X's school all materials usually available to parents, including but not limited to school reports, school newsletters, school photos and portfolios.
That both parents are hereby restrained from speaking about the other parent or a member of the Father's household in a derogatory manner in the presence or hearing of X and will remove X from the presence or hearing of any third party doing so.
That both parents are hereby restrained from speaking to X about any matter in relation to these proceedings or showing X any document in relation to these proceedings.
That the cost of family therapy between the Father and X will be met by the Father.
That upon receipt of the Final Orders, the Independent Children’s Lawyer shall meet with X and explain the Final Orders and the Court's decision to him. That the Mother shall facilitate the meeting between the Independent Children’s Lawyer and X, including ensuring X is transported to the appointment for this purpose.
The ICL’s application for an order for costs against the parties is dismissed.
That pursuant to s 62B of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth), information about the family counselling services, family dispute resolution services and other courses, programs and services available, is set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto.
That pursuant to s 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth), 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.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and seventy four (274) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Newbrun

Associate:

Date: 17 March 2021

[2021] FCCA 375

16 March 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Legal Concepts

Remedies

Costs