Thexton and Barrie and Anor

[2021] FCCA 929

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THEXTON & BARRIE & ANOR [2021] FCCA 929

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – application by the mother to restrain the paternal grandmother from relocating to New Zealand with a child aged 4 – where the child has been in the care of the grandmother since he was 1 and is primarily bonded to her – where the child has significant special needs – where the court could not consider making an order for the child to live with the mother on an interim basis due to allegations about her drug use, lifestyle choices and housing instability – where the father’s drug use rules him out as a carer for the child – where there is no other relative in Australia willing to care for the child if the paternal grandmother relocates to New Zealand – interim relocation permitted – family report ordered.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.60CC

Cases cited:
Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286

Applicant: MS THEXTON

First Respondent: MS BARRIE

Second Respondent: MR BARRIE

File Number: NCC 644 of 2021

Judgment of: Judge Terry

Hearing date: 6 April 2021

Date of Last Submission: 6 April 2021

Delivered at: Newcastle

Delivered on: 12 April 2021

REPRESENTATION

Solicitor for the Applicant: Ashby Family Lawyers

First Respondent: Ms Barrie

Second Respondent: No appearance

Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Strive Family Law & Mediations

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS ON AN INTERIM BASIS THAT:

1. The child X born in 2017 (“the child”) shall live with the paternal grandmother Ms Barrie.

2. The paternal grandmother is permitted to relocate the child’s place of residence to New Zealand.

3. Insofar as the child has been placed on the Watch List as a result of the mother filing her application the Australian Federal Police are to remove the child’s name from the list.

4. The child shall spend time with the mother at times as agreed between the mother and the paternal grandmother NOTING THAT the paternal grandmother has agreed to bring the child to Australia on occasions to spend time with the mother AND FURTHER NOTING THAT the court is unable to make more precise orders for the child to spend time with the mother due to limited proposals by the parties.

5. The paternal grandmother shall ensure the child has Facetime communication with the mother on one occasion each week with the time at which that is to occur to be agreed between the mother and the paternal grandmother NOTING THAT given the child’s issues as referred to in a letter dated 7 August 2020 from Region C Local Health District there may be difficulty in the child engaging in Facetime communication but the parties shall use their best endeavours to ensure that productive Facetime communication occurs.

6. The paternal grandmother shall promptly advise the mother of her residential address in New Zealand, her email address and her telephone number once she has moved to New Zealand and shall keep the mother advised of any changes to those details.

7. The mother shall promptly advise the paternal grandmother of her residential address, email address and her telephone number and keep the paternal grandmother advised of any changes to those details.

THE COURT ORDERS PENDING FURTHER ORDER THAT:

1. Pursuant to s.62G(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 the parties and the child of the relationship attend upon a family consultant nominated by the Manager, Child Dispute Services on a date and at times to be advised for the purposes of the preparation of a Family Report and in particular NOTING THAT the issue in dispute is whether the child should continue to live with the paternal grandmother or should be transitioned into the mother’s care and if the child is not to be transitioned into the mother’s care, the ongoing arrangements for the child to spend time with the mother.

2. The Court requests the said report be released by 14 January 2021.

3. Pursuant to Regulation 1.06 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 the court dispenses with the requirements of Division 15A.01 of the said Rules and the Family Consultant is granted leave to inspect all documents produced in response to subpoena, including material which is unreleased due to the issuing party not filing a Notice of Request to Inspect promptly after the date of production as well as any Local Court file marked as a subpoena packet in the proceedings.

4. If the Family Consultant is unable to inspect documents produced in response to subpoena at the Newcastle Registry of the Commonwealth Law Courts, the Registry Manager upon receiving a request from the Family Consultant, is to forward such documents to the Registry nominated by such consultant to permit such inspection.

5. The paternal grandmother is required to bring the child to Australia for the purposes of taking part in the Family Report interviews.

THE COURT ORDERS PENDING FURTHER ORDER THAT:

1. The matter is adjourned to 9.30am on 31 January 2022 for further consideration.

2. Each of the parties and legal representatives have liberty to attend by telephone on 31 January 2022 by dialling in using the following details:

   a.Phone:             02 9161 1229 Australia, Sydney (Toll)

   b.Conference ID: 172 971 08#

   c.If the court has muted participants, when the matter is called each party and legal representative will need to press *6 to unmute themselves.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT NEWCASTLE

NCC 644 of 2021

MS THEXTON

Applicant

And

MS BARRIE

First Respondent

And

MR BARRIE

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. These reasons for judgment were delivered orally and have been corrected from the transcript. Grammatical errors have been corrected and an attempt has been made to render the orally delivered reasons amenable to being read.

2. This matter involves parenting arrangements for X, who was born in 2017 and who recently turned four. It is an interim application but the dispute is significant. The mother wishes X to remain in Australia. The paternal grandmother, with whom X has been living for the last three years, wishes to take him to New Zealand to live.

3. There is some urgency in a decision being made about the matter because the paternal grandmother’s lease is due to expire, she has given up her job, she has made arrangements to live in New Zealand and she is due to depart tomorrow.

4. The paternal grandmother says that she is willing to bring X back to Australia a couple of times a year to visit his mother and that the mother can have social media access to X.

5. The mother wishes X to remain in Australia because she wishes for him to transition back into her full-time care. She says that if the paternal grandmother cannot remain in Australia then X should live with her.

6. The only parties who took part in the interim hearing were the mother and the paternal grandmother.

7. The father has had very little involvement with X. He is using heroin and ice. He is a party and he signed an affidavit which supported the paternal grandmother’s case but it is not surprising that he is not on the line for the interim hearing

8. The paternal grandmother’s former husband, who is the child’s paternal grandfather, and the maternal grandmother, both signed affidavits in support of the paternal grandmother’s proposal to take X to New Zealand. They both said that they were unable to care for X if he remained in Australia.

Background

1. The mother and father formed a relationship in 2013 when the mother was about 18. By that time the mother already had a son, D, born in 2012.

2. D currently lives with his father in Melbourne. The exact reason why that came about and the steps taken to put that into place are not currently clear to me. There is some suggestion that D first lived with the maternal grandmother and then went to his father. There is a mention of some Children’s Court proceedings but no details about that are available to me.

3. D spends no time with the mother. There was reference to him perhaps having some communication with her.

4. The mother and father were both heavily into drugs during their relationship, and it included the use of methamphetamine or ice. The mother said that she ceased using ice when she fell pregnant with X but that following his birth in 2017 she immediately recommenced using it.

5. X lived with either the mother or with the mother and the father until he was 13 months old. The mother said that at that stage she handed him over to the paternal grandmother because she knew that he was not being properly looked after. The paternal grandmother said that that wasn’t quite right. She said that X was taken from the mother by the police and given to her. She attached to her affidavit a letter from the Department of Family & Community Services as it then was which seems to confirm that her version of events is more accurate.

6. But in any event, X came into the paternal grandmother’s care and the Department were aware that had taken place. There have been no previous Court proceedings about X and no orders have ever been made about him.  

7. Since X came into the paternal grandmother’s care she has been solely responsible for his support. The mother agreed that the paternal grandmother could access the Centrelink benefits for X but the paternal grandmother receives no contribution from either parent to X’s support.

8. The mother was involved in criminal activities and after X came into the paternal grandmother’s care she was arrested and sentenced to two and a half years in jail. She served about seven months and was released on parole in 2019. Her parole period ended in 2021.

9. The mother said that the paternal grandmother refused to bring X to see her in jail but that the maternal grandmother occasionally brought him to see her.

10. The mother said that following her release she saw X from time to time by agreement with the paternal grandmother. She said that this happened when the paternal grandmother allowed it and that the time had taken place at a beach or a park and that she had had two overnight visits.

11. I cannot make a finding about the nature and extent of the time the mother has spent with X since she was released from jail. There is a suggestion by the paternal grandmother that time away from her only occurred when the maternal grandmother was available to take part in the visit as well. However there is no dispute that following the mother’s release from jail in 2019 X continued to live with the paternal grandmother, she continued to be make decisions about his health and about him having speech therapy and occupational therapy and she continued to be the sole financial supporter of the child.

12. The paternal grandmother told me during submissions that she had been in Australia for 40 years but was originally from New Zealand and I commented on the fact that she still retained her New Zealand accent.

13. Prior to the current proceedings commencing the paternal grandmother had, with the consent of the mother and I presume the father, obtained a passport for X and had taken him on a holiday to New Zealand.

14. The mother said that on 30 January 2021 the paternal grandmother told her that she had given up her lease and intended to move to New Zealand with X. She said that she was alarmed about this and immediately went to see a solicitor and on 3 March 2021 she filed an application in this Court.

15. On an interim basis the mother sought an order restraining the paternal grandmother from removing X from Australia and orders about X spending time with her. She proposed that it begin with time from 9.00am until 5.00pm each Saturday for six weeks and that it increase incrementally until after 18 weeks the child was living in a week about arrangement. She proposed that after a further six months X commencing living with her and spending each alternate weekend with the paternal grandmother.

16. On a final basis the mother sought an order that X live with her.

17. The paternal grandmother filed a response in which she sought an order that X live with her. She did not agree that the mother had been surprised when she told her on 30 January 2021 that she wanted to move New Zealand. She said that she had raised this with the mother at an earlier time.

18. On the first mention date of the matter the paternal grandmother proposed that she be able to take X to New Zealand. She proposed that the informal arrangement for X to spend time with the mother continue and that X spend time with her whenever he was in Australia, and she proposed that the mother have contact with X via social media.

19. On 16 March 2021 when the matter was first mentioned the paternal grandmother told me that she was booked to leave Australia on 13 April 2021 and that she had arranged to do quarantine in New Zealand, which she said had to be booked considerably in advance. She informed me that she intended to live in City E on the Region F of New Zealand and that she had a job waiting for her there and had family in that area.

20. Because of the urgency of the matter I listed it for interim hearing on 6 April 2021 and I appointed an Independent Children’s Lawyer. I also ordered that the mother do a hair test to test for illicit drugs.

21. The Independent Children’s Lawyer was appointed and I heard the matter on 6 April 2021 and I have to make a decision about what I am going to do.

The mother’s case

1. The mother’s case was that she had spoken to the paternal grandmother well prior to 31 January 2021 about X returning to her care and that the paternal grandmother had agreed that this could occur if she was stable and clean of illicit drug use.

2. The mother said that if the paternal grandmother took X to New Zealand her relationship with him would cease. She said that she could not afford to travel to New Zealand, and by implication said that the little bit of time she might get in Australia, which I pause to add she didn’t trust the paternal grandmother to facilitate, would not enable her to have a meaningful relationship with X.

3. The mother said that her life was stable at present. She was living with a man called Mr G and they had a lease on a home.

4. In the first affidavit she filed in these proceedings the mother admitted that she was using cannabis but said that she was otherwise drug-free.

5. At the hearing on 6 April 2021 she said she had not yet done a hair test because she was on Legal Aid and had to apply for funding to do the test.

6. The mother said that the paternal grandmother had not responded to letters from her solicitor seeking information about the names of the services which were providing assistance for X so that her solicitor could issue subpoenas. She said that in light of this she was very concerned about the paternal grandmother cooperating with her in the future, not only as to her enabling her to see X but also as to keeping her advised about what was happening for him.

The paternal grandmother’s case

1. The paternal grandmother said that she needed to return to New Zealand for support. She was getting older and X had significant special needs. She said that she had not renewed her lease and she was booked to leave Australia, had arranged to do her two weeks quarantine, had a job to go to in City E and had family in that area.

2. The paternal grandmother said that it was not possible for X to live with the mother. She said that the information available to her, which was supported by the information in some Face Book pages attached to her affidavit, indicated that the mother and Mr G were involved in a very troubling lifestyle which included among other things offering to provide sexual services and seeking to employ sex workers. She said that Mr G had an affiliation with a bikie gang and that the mother’s partner before him, a man named Mr H, had a similarly unsatisfactory history.

3. The paternal grandmother produced some evidence which she said supported her case that the mother did not have stable accommodation and that her long-standing history of not being able to maintain accommodation continued.

4. The paternal grandmother said that X had significant special needs and may have ASD and ADD and that he needed stable care. She strongly asserted that the mother was not in a position to provide that care.

5. The paternal grandmother said that her son Mr Barrie was an ice and heroin user and he could not care for X. She said that the maternal grandmother could not take him and neither could the paternal grandfather who had some health issues of his own.

6. The maternal grandmother, I might add, not that I am being critical of her; she may be a wonderful person and it may be issue to do with the children, also did not keep D and he ultimately went to his father.

The disputed and undisputed matters

1. In Goode & Goode[1] the Full Court set out a pathway which it recommended the court follow when determining interim matters, and I have followed it to this point in that I have identified the parties’ proposals. The next thing that Goode & Goode recommends is that the Court should consider the disputed and undisputed matters.

   [1] Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286

2. There are a number of matters in dispute. The court cannot usually make findings about disputed matters at an interim hearing but that does not mean that it can ignore them. Sometimes the evidence is such that the Court has to err on the side of caution, and it always has to make some assessment of probabilities in deciding what it should do.

3. An issue in dispute was the nature of the mother’s current lifestyle.

4. The mother is not employed. She said she was in receipt of Job Seeker and she vigorously denied that she was engaged in sex work.

5. The paternal grandmother provided some Facebook pages which suggested that the mother and her current partner were offering sexual services to the public and offering to employ sex workers. The paternal grandmother endeavoured to be fair and said that some people did engage in that kind of work, but one of the Facebook pages was very concerning and she said that given X’s special needs it would be deleterious to him to be living with someone who was engaged in that sort of lifestyle.

6. The paternal grandmother submitted, and she provided Facebook pages which she said seemed to confirm it, that Mr G was a member of a bikie gang.

7. When asked about the Facebook pages during submissions the mother’s solicitor said that they were fakes. However the paternal grandmother’s affidavit was filed nearly three weeks before the interim hearing and the mother did not file an affidavit alleging that or specifically addressing the content of the pages. All she said was that she was not a prostitute and did not go to the Region J for that purpose as the paternal grandmother alleged, indeed she could not do so because she was on parole and was not allowed to go to another state.

8. Most importantly, the mother’s partner did not provide an affidavit and the truth about his situation is unknown to the Court. The mother said that he had a criminal history and was last in jail in 2020. She said it was for driving offences, but it raises a red flag and it is gravely concerning that he did not provide an affidavit.

9. Not much is known about the mother’s previous partner Mr H either. The paternal grandmother made some allegations about him and said that he was currently in jail. The mother failed to respond to those allegations.

10. I cannot make findings about the allegations about the mother’s lifestyle and about Mr G but the allegations are alarming and extensive, and they backed up by some evidence which raises a concern and I cannot lightly dismiss them and say that I am not going to have any regard to them in making an interim decision.

11. Another issue in dispute was the mother’s housing stability. The mother said that she currently had a lease and that there should not be any concern about her housing. However there has to be a concern about it because the mother gave two different addresses, one in the first affidavit she filed and another in the second after she changed accommodation.

1. The maternal grandmother attached to her affidavit information about the termination of the lease the mother and Mr H had and about tenancy issues in relation to that lease, and the mother’s current lease was only signed on 26 March 2021.

2. I cannot make precise findings about the issue but I cannot discount the possibility that the mother continues to have issues with housing instability.

3. The paternal grandmother said, and I cannot lightly discount it at this stage, that when the mother could not get a lease she would couch surf.

4. Another issue in dispute was whether the paternal grandmother stopped the mother from seeing X after she told her on 30 January 2021 that she was moving to New Zealand. The mother said that she did. The paternal grandmother disputed it. She said she agreed to facilitate X spending some time with the mother provided that she was there and that she offered FaceTime but the mother didn’t take her up on it.

5. The paternal grandmother attached some text messages to her affidavit which seemed to support her evidence that she offered time and video calls, and there is reference in one of those messages to simply wanting the maternal grandmother to be present if time occurred.

6. On the documents I have the mother has not made out a case that the paternal grandmother has refused to let her see or speak to X since 30 January 2021.

7. The mother did not accept that X had the extensive problems described by the paternal grandmother and she was critical of the paternal grandmother for suggesting that he may have ASD or ADHD.

8. The paternal grandmother did not claim that the child had been diagnosed. She said it was a provisional diagnosis. She said that when X came into her care he was malnourished, developmentally delayed and was a very distressed little boy. Given the mother’s lifestyle at that time, including using ice, those allegations have a colour of credibility.

9. The paternal grandmother has arranged for X to have speech therapy and occupational therapy and she attached to her affidavit a report about him prepared by Ms K, a speech pathologist employed by Region C Local Health District on 7 August 2020, well predating the commencement of these proceedings.

10. The report is several pages long and in it Ms K points out that X has significant special needs and that he has difficulty with his speech, his capacity to engage with others and even his capacity to play with toys.

11. Although I cannot put a label on it, and I cannot determine whether the mother is right and X doesn’t have autism, there is no doubt that X has significant special needs.

12. The next issue in dispute is whether the mother is currently using hard drugs. She admitted in her first affidavit that she was using cannabis but the paternal grandmother is concerned that she may have been using other drugs and she has used ice and GHB as well as cannabis in the past.

13. Where the truth of that lies I cannot say. The mother has an extensive history of illicit drug use so there could be some truth in it, or it could be that the mother has moved past those problems.

14. I made an order for the mother to do a hair test and she has not done one. It is somewhat doubtful that the result would have been available by now even if she had promptly done the test but it does concern me that given the mother’s admitted extensive drug use history, the problems that it has caused in her life and the fact that the issue was squarely raised by the paternal grandmother and she admitted she was still using cannabis, that she did not even produce a urine test for this hearing.

15. I cannot determine what the situation is with the mother’s drug use but I cannot rule out that she has a more significant problem than she admits, and in any event cannabis use alone is a problem and the mother admits to continuing to use cannabis.

16. The undisputed facts are that X has lived with the paternal grandmother since he was 13 months old. The mother conceded in her affidavit that she was caring well for him, and she did not feel compelled to bring proceedings prior to March 2021. There is no evidence of her ever making a complaint to the Department of Communities & Justice or to anyone else about X’s care and there is no evidence of any Departmental involvement with the child since February 2018.

17. The letter from Ms K also makes clear that the paternal grandmother is doing a good job caring for X.

18. The mother has spent very limited time with the child since X was 13 months old. His primary attachment would be to his grandmother.

19. The next undisputed fact is that the paternal grandmother is from New Zealand. There is nothing irrational about her wish to live there.

20. The next undisputed fact is that the paternal grandmother told the mother on 30 January 2021 that she intended to move to New Zealand with X. This is not the case where she was stopped at the airport. It is not the case where she disappeared and the mother had to bring Hague Convention proceedings. She was upfront with the mother about it, which suggests that it did not occur to her that the mother was likely to try to prevent it happening.

21. The next undisputed fact is that the mother has a lengthy history of illicit drug use and is currently using cannabis.

22. Next, there are no other family members beside the paternal grandmother who are willing to take X.

23. Next, the mother has an older child with whom she has no relationship.

The implications of the move to New Zealand

1. City L is about a three-hour flight from Sydney. It is on the Region M. City E is on the Region F so it is a further trek across New Zealand to get there but New Zealand is not a large country. There are parts of Australia that are further away from Australia than City E; Perth stands out.

2. The mother said that she would not be able to afford to travel to New Zealand. Economy airfares may not be too daunting so I am not sure that I fully accept that, but an issue which is relevant, and it was not raised in submissions but I am going to put it out there because I do consider it relevant, is that the mother has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2.5 years and there could be some difficulties because of that with her entering New Zealand to visit the child.

3. New Zealand is a country which is very similar to Australia. There is no reason to suppose that the paternal grandmother will not be able to access appropriate services for X in New Zealand. The Independent Children's Lawyer expressed concern about her not articulating her plans about that in huge detail although she did give some detail about it. However the mother conceded that the grandmother had appropriately cared for X in Australia and I am satisfied she can do so in New Zealand.

4. Any orders made by this court would be enforceable in New Zealand and X’s return to Australia could be enforced if necessary.

5. The issue however about the move to New Zealand is that the mother and X have a very tenuous bond at present and if X moves to New Zealand and only sees the mother a couple of times a year, that bond might never develop, making it very hard for the mother to persuade the court in the future that there should be a change of residence.

The child’s best interests

1. Any orders I make about X must be orders determined by treating his best interest as the paramount consideration and to determine his best interests I must have regard to the matters in sections 60CC (2) and (3) of the Family Law Act. I am fully cognisant of what they are and I am going to take them into account but I am going to do so in a holistic way.

2. There are two primary considerations in section 60CC (2) and the first of those is the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of his parents.

3. The father is not a suitable carer or even a suitable person for the child to spend time with and there is no evidence that he has showed much interest in the child. The mother, on the other hand, is interested in the child. Since her release from jail almost two years ago she has arranged to spend time with him. She has also very recently filed this application which implies a wish to have an ongoing relationship with him. It is important that opportunities are created for the mother to have a relationship with the child when she is the only parent who is interested in him.

4. The second primary consideration however is the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect and family violence.

5. The mother has a lengthy history of drug use, including methamphetamine use, and a criminal history, and she is still using cannabis and she has not done a urine drug test voluntarily for these proceedings.

6. The Facebook posts the paternal grandmother provided raise serious concerns about the mother’s lifestyle and also about her partner, and no affidavit was provided from her partner. The material filed by both the paternal and maternal grandmother raises concerns about the mother’s housing stability.

7. I cannot rule the possibility that the mother either poses a significant risk of harm to X or at the very least is incapable of providing him with appropriate parenting, and X is a vulnerable child with significant special needs, as detailed in the letter dated 7 August 2020. The content of that letter makes clear that it is essential that anyone caring for X has empathy and patience and is not living a chaotic lifestyle.

8. If X remains in Australia the best that could be ordered in light of the unresolved issues about the mother, including her drug use, her lifestyle and her choice of partner, would be that X spend supervised time with her, and given X’s issues and the uncertainty about the mother’s drug use, it may initially have to be professionally supervised time.

9. Under no circumstances could the court consider making an order at the moment that X live with the mother. He could be placed at serious risk of harm. It is not something the court could even remotely contemplate doing and there are no other family members available to care for him.

10. If X goes to New Zealand the mother may lose an opportunity to form a strong bond with him. However she can keep in touch with him and a delay in the matter being resolved may work in the mother’s favour. It may give her an opportunity to demonstrate that she can overcome her drug use and has no lifestyle issues that compromise her capacity to care for X and that unsupervised time should be ordered in due course.

11. The mother has had the opportunity to take steps to increase her time with X if she wanted to be a bigger part of his life since she was released from jail in 2019, nearly two years ago. She did not organise any mediation. She did not start any court proceedings and even on her own case the time she spent with him was not frequent. She said it was not as much as she wanted and yet she took no steps to change that.

12. The mother does not have a strong bond with X and he would be at unacceptable risk of harm if he spent unsupervised time with her. The paternal grandmother is the only family member who has been there for X for the last three years. She is his primary attachment figure and the mother conceded that she was caring for him well.

13. I could take a chance and refuse the application by the paternal grandmother to be able to go to New Zealand with X. I could take a chance and hope that if I did that she would remain in Australia, but the harm for X if the paternal grandmother felt she could not remain would be catastrophic.

14. It would also be unjust to force the paternal grandmother to remain in Australia to care for X simply so that he can now build a bond with the mother which she has not vigorously pursued up to date, when nobody is providing her with any financial support to assist her in the care of X or is willing to take on his care if something happens to her, and she wishes to secure her and X’s future in New Zealand.

15. Although it is an unusual step for the court to take, it is appropriate that an order be made permitting the paternal grandmother to take X to New Zealand.

16. I am going to order the preparation of a family report and I am going to ask that the report be released by 14 January 2022. The issue in dispute is whether X should continue to live with the paternal grandmother or should be transitioned into the mother’s care and if X is not to be transitioned into the mother’s care, the ongoing arrangements with X to spend time with the mother.

17. The paternal grandmother said that she could bring X back to Australia a couple of times a year and she will need to bring him back for the family report interviews.

I certify that the preceding ninety seven (97) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Terry

Associate:    

Date:             5 May 2021