Thomas and Alley

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THOMAS & ALLEY

[2016] FCCA 236

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Whether father can care for child overnight given child’s special needs – whether child at risk from father’s use of cannabis.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.11F, 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60DA, 60DAA

Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346

Applicant:

MS THOMAS

Respondent:

MR ALLEY

File Number:

DGC 604 of 2014

Judgment of:

Judge Phipps

Hearing dates:

11 & 12 June 2015

Date of Last Submission:

12 June 2015

Delivered at:

Dandenong

Delivered on:

12 February 2016

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant:

Appearing on their own behalf

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Stanley

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Roberts Beckwith Partners

ORDERS

That all previous orders are discharged.
That the mother and the father have equal shared parental responsibility for the child X born (omitted) 2011.
That the child live with the mother.
That the child spend time and communicate with the father as follows:
(a)During alternate weekends:
(i)Each alternate weekend for a period of eight weeks from 10.30am to 6.30pm on the Saturday of the weekend and from 9.00am to 1.00pm on the Sunday of the weekend;
(ii)Thereafter each alternate weekend for a period of eight weeks from 9.30am to 6.30pm on the Saturday of the weekend and from 9.00am to 5.00pm on the Sunday of the weekend;
(iii)Thereafter for a period of three months each alternate weekend from 9.00am Saturday to 5.00pm Sunday and 6.00pm during daylight saving months;
(iv)Thereafter until the child commences school each alternate weekend from 5.00pm Friday until 5.00pm Sunday and 6.00pm during daylight saving months;
(v)Upon the child commencing school each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school (or if not a school day) 3.30pm Friday until 5.00pm Sunday and 6.00pm during daylight saving months;
(b)Each Thursday (or other weekday as agreed):
(i)Until the child commences school from 4.00pm to 6.30pm;
(ii)Upon the child commencing school from after school until 6.30pm;
(c)During the first year that the child attends school, subject to the father being able to obtain leave from work:
(i)During the first and second term holidays alternate weekends shall be extended to 5.00pm on Monday;
(ii)During the third term school holidays alternate weekends shall be extended to 5.00pm on Tuesday;
(d)During the summer vacation at the end of the child’s first term at school, subject to the father being able to obtain leave from work, alternate weekends shall be extended to 6.00pm on Wednesday;
(e)Commencing with the child’s second year at school:
(i)Half of school term holidays as agreed, subject to the father being able to obtain leave from work; and failing agreement the first half during even numbered years and the second half during odd numbered years;
(ii)During the summer vacation, subject to the father being able to obtain leave from work, alternate weeks as agreed and if not agreed commencing with the first week in even numbered years and the second week in odd numbered years.
(f)On the child’s birthday, unless the child is otherwise spending time with the father, for three hours as agreed on a week day and four hours as agreed on a weekend day;
(g)On Father’s Day, unless the child is otherwise spending time with the father, from 10.00am to 5.00pm;
(h)By telephone at 6.00pm on Tuesday each week with the father to place the call to a phone number as nominated by the mother and for the mother to facilitate such call.
Notwithstanding the previous paragraphs at Christmas the child shall spend time with each parent as follows:
(a)At Christmas 2016 and each alternate year thereafter:
(i)With the father from 12 noon 24 December until 12 noon 25 December;
(ii)With the mother from 12 noon 25 December until 12 noon 26 December;
(b)At Christmas 2017 and each alternate year thereafter;
(i)With the father from 12 noon 25 December until 12 noon 26 December;
(ii)With the mother from 12 noon 24 December until 12 noon 25 December;
The child’s time with the father shall be suspended as follows:
(a)On the child’s birthday for three hours as agreed on a week day and four hours as agreed on a weekend day;
(b)On Mother’s Day from 10.00am until the conclusion of the time the child would otherwise be spending with the father.
That commencing with the child’s second year at school time pursuant to paragraphs 4(a) and (b) shall be suspended during all school term and summer holidays
That each of the mother and father ensure the other is kept informed in writing (which may be in electronic form) as soon as reasonably practicable of:
(a)Any medical problems, illness or condition suffered by the child whilst in the care of the other, and any medications prescribed for the child (including any change to same);
(b)The names and contact details of any doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, counsellor, therapist, and like practitioners that are working with the child and/or the mother is consulting in relation to the child (in including any change of the same);
(c)Any specialist, medical or like appointments for the child of any doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, counsellor, therapist, and like practitioners (including any change of the same);
(d)Any school or school associated functions which the child attends;
(e)The residential address and telephone contact number of the other party;
That, except for minor illnesses, upon initially consulting or making an appointment for the child with any doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, counsellor, therapist, and like practitioner the mother to do all things and sign all necessary authorities to authorise the practitioner consulted to communicate with the father during the period that the child is under their treatment.
That each parent is entitled to attend events involving the child being:
(a)Sporting fixtures;
(b)Extracurricular activities that allow for parental attendance or participation;
(c)School events and preschool functions and events that allow for parental attendance or participation;
That upon enrolling the child in any kindergarten, school or extracurricular activity the mother do all things necessary and sign all necessary authorities to authorise the school or organisation to communicate with the father during the period the child is enrolled.
That each party is restrained by injunction from denigrating the other party to or in the presence of the child or permitting any other person to do so.
Otherwise all extant applications are dismissed.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DANDENONG

DGC 604 of 2014

MS THOMAS

Applicant

And

MR ALLEY

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

The applicant mother, Ms Thomas and the Respondent father, Mr Alley, have one child X born (omitted) 2011, aged four. They disagree about the amount of time she should spend with her father.
Each party proposes that the child live with the mother. In her application the mother proposes that she have sole parental responsibility for the child. She is self-represented and in the course of her evidence she said that she is willing to involve the father in matters relating to the child's health, and education and other decision-making features. The father proposes that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.
The mother proposes that the child spend time with the father as follows:
a)Each alternate weekend from 9.30am to 4.00pm on Saturday and Sunday;
b)Each alternate Thursday from 4.00pm to 6.30pm.
She agrees to some orders proposed in the father's outline of case which are about information concerning medical matters and addresses and attendance at the various activities.
The father proposes that the child spend time with him as follows:
a)Each alternate weekend from 6.00pm (upon the child commencing school from the conclusion of school) on Friday until 6 00pm Sunday;
b)One night per week on a day mutually agreed between the parties from 5.00pm until 8.00pm;
c)For half of each of school term and long summer Victorian school/kindergarten holidays as agreed between the parties, subject to the father having leave from work and failing agreement the first half of the holidays in even numbered years and the second half of the holidays in odd numbered years;
d)From 3.00pm Christmas Eve to 3.00pm Christmas Day in even numbered years, and 3.00pm Christmas Day to 3.00pm Boxing Day in odd numbered years;
e)On Father's Day from 6.00pm on the Saturday preceding Father's Day to 6.00pm on Father's Day;
f)For a period of not less than four hours on the father’s and the child's birthday;
g)At other times as agreed;
The father proposes phone communication at 6.00pm on Tuesday and Thursday each week with the father to place the phone number as nominated by the mother and for the mother to facilitate such call.
The parties agree provision be made for Mother’s Day and the child’s birthdays. The mother proposes time on birthdays of her two older children.
The significant issues are:
a)The child’s relationship with the father;
b)The father’s ability to care for the child.
These issues have to be considered in the context of the provisions of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the children’s provisions.
The objects and principles of the part are contained in s.60B. Section 60CA provides that the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration in considering parenting orders. Section 60CC contains the best interest considerations. Section 60DA provides a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility and section 60DAA sets out the consequences of an order for equal shared parental responsibility. That is, if the court makes or intends to make such order then it must consider whether equal time with each parent is in the best interests of the child and reasonably practicable or if not equal time substantial and significant time.
In Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346 the Full Court of The Family Court described the pathway through the legislation. This commences with the parties proposals then proceeds to the issues, the agreed facts, the best interest considerations and then ss.60DA and 60DAA.

Background

The mother was born on (omitted) 1976 and the father on (omitted) 1974. The mother lives in (omitted) and is engaged in the care of the children. She receives social welfare benefits. The father lives at (omitted) and is employed as a (occupation omitted). The mother has two children from previous relationships, Y aged 13 and Z aged 7.
The parties commenced their relationship (but not cohabitation) in (omitted) 2010. They commenced living together on (omitted) 2011 after the child was born. Prior to that there had been some breaks in the relationship.
The mother became pregnant with twins in (omitted) 2011. One of the twins miscarried at six weeks. The parties dispute whether the mother informed the father. The father alleges that the mother told him on (omitted) 2011 that she had decided to abort the pregnancy and that then on (omitted) 2011 he received a text from her saying that she was having a miscarriage. He says he believed the baby had died and did not know until (omitted) 2011 that one twin had miscarried but the other was still alive. The mother disputes what he says. The significance of this dispute now is it is part of the obvious conflict between the parties.
The mother obtained an interim family violence intervention order in May 2011. Both parties attended court on 20 September 2011 and the father consented to an intervention order without admissions. The parties signed a Parenting Plan for the father to spend time with the child. That contained agreement that the child live with the mother and spend time and communicate with the father each Tuesday and Friday between 5.00pm and 5.30pm at the Food Court at (omitted) Shopping Centre, such time to be supervised by the mother unless otherwise agreed in writing.
The parties resumed their relationship in (omitted) 2011 and commenced cohabitation on (omitted) 2011. They separated finally on 25 May 2012. Following separation the father visited the mother’s home and spent time with the child. He says it was three times a week and says they would go on normal family outings. The mother says it was each day after work. The father’s time with the child was always in the presence of the mother. In December 2012 the mother obtained Department of Housing accommodation in (omitted) and moved in January or February 2013.
After the move the father spent time with the child infrequently according to him and every two weeks according to the mother. The mother says that they would rotate between her house in (omitted) and his house in (omitted). She was always present. This continued until Christmas Day 2013. The mother took the child and her other two children to the father’s house in (omitted). She says she could smell cannabis on his breath. She says he was nasty and aggressive towards her child Z and that this ruined Christmas Day. The father denies that he was nasty and aggressive. He says Z would not get into the mother’s car and he, the father, told Z he should do so.
Time between the child and the father ceased after Christmas Day 2013. The mother commenced this proceeding on 4 March 2014. The first orders made on 15 April 2014 provide for the child to live with the mother and to spend time with the father at McDonald’s restaurant (omitted) each alternate Sunday commencing 20 April 2014 from 11.00am to 1.00pm and 4.00pm to 6.00pm on the other week on Wednesday with the mother or her nominee in attendance. The order provided for the parties to make application to a children’s contact centre. The order was made for each party to undertake a random supervised drug screen.
The parties and the child attended a Family Consultant pursuant to an order under s.11F of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) on 1 July 2014. Following that, on 10 July 2014, orders provided for the child to spend time with the father each alternate Sunday from 11.00am until 2.00pm commencing 27 July 2014 and each alternate Thursday from 4.00pm until 6.30pm commencing 17 July 2014. Change overs were to take place at (omitted) Police Station
Further orders on 25 September 2014 increased the time on the alternate Sunday so that it was from 10.30am until 6.30pm. The orders provided for the preparation of a family report and final hearing. The child’s time with the father has continued in accordance with this order.
The father has undertaken drug tests on a regular basis. They are referred to under the best interest considerations.

Best interest considerations

The relevant best interest considerations in s.60CC are the two primary considerations:
(a) the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents; and
(b) the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
and these additional considerations:
(a) any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child's maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child's views;
(b) The nature of the relationship of the child with:
(i) Each of the child's parents; and
(ii) other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
(c) the extent to which each of the child's parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity:
(i) to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and
(ii) to spend time with the child; and
(iii) to communicate with the child;
(ca) the extent to which each of the child's parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent's obligations to maintain the child;
(d) the likely effect of any changes in the child's circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:
(i) either of his or her parents; or
(ii) any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living;
(e) the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child's right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis;
(f) the capacity of:
(i) each of the child's parents; and
(ii) any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs;
(g) the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child's parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant;
(i) the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents;
(j) any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family;
(k) if a family violence order applies, or has applied, to a child or a member of the child's family--any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following:
(i) the nature of the order;
(ii) he circumstances in which the order was made;
(iii) any evidence admitted in proceedings for the order;
(iv) any findings made by the court in, or in proceedings for, the order;
I will leave the first of the primary considerations until later.
The evidence relevant to the second of the primary considerations, the need to protect the child from risk, is relevant. The father acknowledges using cannabis in the past. He says he stopped in January or February 2014. A letter dated 4 April 2014 from a member of the Withdrawal Team of the (omitted) Drug and Alcohol Program, part of (omitted) Health, states:
Mr Alley was initially assessed on 11 February 2014 following a self-referral to the service.
Since that time he has attended a further six appointments as scheduled. Mr Alley has attended appointments punctually and has been pleasant and cooperative throughout our sessions.
He has identified a strong motivation to cease Cannabis use and is making progress in implementing changes to support that goal.
The referral has been made to the PenDAP counselling team for additional support and will commence when a place is available.
The father has undertaken a number of supervised drug screens. All of them produced negative results to common non-prescription drugs, including cannabis. The tests undertaken on 14 July 2014 and 3 December 2014 both show low levels of creatinine below 1.8 mmol/L. A third sample collected on 16 June 2014 had creatinine levels below 3 mmol/L. An affidavit annexing a report from Dr M, a clinical and forensic toxicologist, says that below 1.8 mmol/L is regarded as dilute and below 3 mmol/L is low.
Dr M says that levels of creatinine in individuals may vary but low levels may occur due to excessive hydration and dilution of the urine. He says:
Low levels of creatinine in the urine may also occur due to excessive hydration and dilution of the urine. This is generally achieved by the use of diuretics or excess water consumption. Whilst the intent of dilution cannot generally be established based on the creatinine levels alone, these are well known and well documented techniques to divert the concentration of drugs in the urine with the intent of obtaining a “false negative” result.

The drug testing required they be taken within 24 hours of the request. The mother contests that the father had done this. The father says that he gave samples within 24 hours of receiving the request from his solicitor. He usually received them by mail. A schedule of the date requests were received from the mother’s solicitors by the father’s solicitors, the dates were forwarded to the father and the dates of the samples being taken with the various documents annexed is in evidence. Those dates are consistent with, or at least not inconsistent with, the father’s evidence that he gave the samples 24 hours of receiving the request from his solicitors. A concern of the mother is that the father has not undertaken a test for synthetic cannabis. This is something I must take into account.
I am satisfied from the father’s evidence that he is motivated to have his daughter spend time with him and that he be in a condition where he can keep her safe. The letter from the (omitted) Drug and Alcohol Service confirms his motivation to stop using cannabis. While the drug tests do not positively prove that the father has not been using cannabis on occasions they show that he is not a regular user. It is possible that he is using cannabis from time to time, and if he is not, there is a risk that he may relapse to using cannabis again. There is no evidence that he has used the cannabis, but, as the mother points out no drug test to show that he has not. The risks must be balanced against the other best interest considerations.
The mother raised issues of family violence in the past and has concerns about the father’s ability to care for the child overnight. They are considered later in these reasons and are not such that they need to be looked at in the context of this best interest consideration.
The first of the additional considerations is the child’s views. The child is too young to have any relevant views.
The next consideration is of particular significance that is, the relationship of the child with each parent. Her mother is her acknowledged primary carer. The father describes his time with the child as going very well. Dr T, the family consultant who prepared the family report, says that he is somewhat confused by the mother’s attitude to the child’s time with the father. The mother acknowledged to Dr T that the child enjoyed spending time with the father and was apparently quite happy going to him and was happy on return yet to Dr T she maintained her insistence that all time be supervised. Dr T considered that with the mother there was a magnification of the child’s special needs issues. These are referred to later in the reasons.
At the hearing the mother no longer proposed supervised time but opposed overnight time. Dr T describes her as negative about the father’s parenting and says that she emphasised the fact that he had been violent towards her two sons. She gave some evidence of the child’s behaviour following time with the father from which she would wish to draw an inference that the child is not enjoying that time, and so different to her statements reported by Dr T. Given the other evidence of the child’s relationship with the father there is little significance in this evidence of the mother.
The child has been diagnosed with autism and some development issues. The family report was prepared by Dr T. Part of the information available to him was a psychological report by Ms C, Psychologist. Her report is separately in the evidence. Dr T summarises the report as follows:
X was assessed as having a significant language delay and some sensory seeking and avoidant behaviour. She was also assessed as falling within the Low Average range of cognitive functioning. She also scored “above the cut-off for autism”, and was noted to have significant impairments in communication and social interaction, and displaying “some sensory issues and stereotypical movements indicative of autism and meeting the DSM-V criteria for a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder without Intellectual Disability”.
Dr T found the child enjoys a happy relationship with both parents. He says this of the child’s relationship with the father:
As outlined previously her interaction with Mr Alley was observed to be enjoyable and X confidently led her father in play. Her upset at his departure was notable and signified her connection with him and her sense of safety in his presence. Given that X is a child with special needs and requires ongoing care, her ability and willingness to engage so comfortably with her father is significant and indicative of the positive state of their relationship. Mr Alley was attuned to X’s needs and seemed comfortable in permitting her to take charge in their activities. His acceptance that she is not always happy to speak with him on the telephone is realistic and sensible given her young age and language difficulties.
Dr T said that autistic children benefit from regularity and routine, and they change with difficulty. He considered the more regular the time can be the more beneficial it will be for her. He considered that the weekday time for a few hours should be once a week.
The next consideration may be summarised as the extent to which each parent has participated in the child’s life. The history set out above is the evidence of this participation. The father, since separation, has engaged with the child to the extent that the mother permitted prior to these proceedings, and then in accordance with the interim orders.
The next consideration is the extent to which each party has contributed to the upkeep of the child. The mother depends upon social security payments and child support payments. The father pays child support as assessed. The mother alleges he will not contribute to the additional requirements the child has because of her special needs, something the father disputes.
The next consideration is any practical difficulty in the child spending time with the other parent. There is no evidence of this. The parties live close enough to enable the child to transfer between each parent without a great deal of difficulty.
The next consideration is the effect on the child of any change. The relevant evidence under this consideration is largely the same as the evidence relevant to each parent’s ability to provide for the needs of the child. The mother’s concern is that the father lacks the ability to care for the child properly given her special needs and so there should be no overnight time.
The next consideration is the ability of each parent to provide for the needs of the child, including intellectual and emotional needs. The father’s ability is a concern of the mother. The father’s evidence shows that, while he does not consider the child’s autism is as serious as the mother does, he still recognises her needs and has attended the psychologist that the child has attended. Relevant evidence is Dr T’s observation that the child felt safe in the father’s presence. Relevant is the mother’s evidence in the course of the hearing that she considered that the father should be involved making decisions about medical treatment and education. The mother is opposed to overnight time. Her concern is that the father would not be able to care for the child overnight, and that the child might become emotionally distressed spending overnight time with the father.
The next consideration is the maturity and lifestyle of the child. Her age and intellectual difficulties are the relevant evidence.
The last two considerations are family violence and family violence orders. The father consented to a family violence intervention order applied for by the mother on 20 September 2011. They then reconciled.
The mother alleges one episode where she says that the father kicked one of her sons. This was in the context of a normal childhood dispute between the two boys over a toy. The father denies that this occurred. She alleges other instances of violence towards her sons and at least one towards the child, all denied by the father. The evidence received some attention during cross-examination but not sufficient to enable a finding to be made one way or the other. The episodes were now some years ago and given Dr T’s observations of the child with the father there is no evidence from which an inference can be drawn that the child is at any risk of violence by the father now.

Conclusion

In his report Dr T makes the following recommendations:
a)The parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the child;
b)The child live with the mother;
c)Providing the fathers drug screens confirmed the absence of illegal substances the child spend time with him as follows:
i)From 10:30am each alternate Saturday the 6.30pm, and the following morning Sunday from 9.00am to 1.00pm for eight weeks;
ii)From 9:30am each alternate Saturday to 6:30pm on the following morning Sunday from 9.00am to 5.00pm for eight weeks;
iii)Thereafter each alternate weekend from 9.00am Saturday to 5.00pm Sunday, and until 6.00pm Sunday during daylight saving months;
iv)On special occasions including but not necessarily limited to Christmas, Easter, Father’s Day and the child’s birthday at times as agreed or otherwise as ordered by the court.
In his oral evidence he was asked about the mothers proposals for midweek time each alternate week. He considered it would be more beneficial if that was on a weekly basis. Dr T considered that once school commenced it would be beneficial for the child to be picked up from school by the father.
Dr T considered that the second night at a weekend should commence once the child was well settled with the first night. He thought that would be 2 to 3 months after the first night had commenced.
The child’s best interests are met by adopting the family consultant’s recommendations. There is a good and happy relationship between the child and the father. Overall, looking at the evidence relevant to the first of the primary considerations, the benefit to the child of a meaningful relationship with each parent, more time will strengthen her relationship with her father and so meet the requirements of this consideration.
One issue is the child’s ability to cope with extra time and in particular overnight time. Dr T was careful in his evidence and recommended increase in overnight time, but with a gradual introduction.
As far as holiday time is concerned Dr T considered that that should start with an extra night and gradually increase from there. He did not make a recommendation about whether it could at any stage progress to half school holidays. Given the child’s special needs caution will best promote her relationship with her father.
The child has a good relationship with her father and will benefit from increasing time and the strengthening of the relationship. She has special needs. The father is aware of them and will cope with them. There is some risk from his past use of marijuana but when that risk is balanced against the benefit to the child of her relationship with her father it can be put to one side. The risk is small compared to the benefit to the child of her relationship with her father. The father has produced clear drug screens and, while they have been an issue raised by the mother, they do not need to continue.
There may have been some family violence in the past, particularly the father’s behaviour towards the mother’s two sons. If there was family violence the presumption of equal shared responsibility in s.65DA would be rebutted but I do not need to consider that. The child’s best interests are met by making an order for equal shared parental responsibility. To a large extent the mother acknowledged the existence of circumstances which lead to an order for equal shared parental responsibility. She acknowledged that the father should be involved in decisions about the child’s medical needs. In the circumstances of this case they are the significant major long-term matters.
The other major long-term issue which will require decision is the child’s education both present and future. Given the child’s special needs this is not an issue which will require as much attention as the child’s medical needs. If the parties are to have joint responsibility for decisions in relation to medical matters then they should have joint responsibility for decision in regard to education matters. Overall that leads to the conclusion that there should be an order for equal shared parental responsibility.
An order for equal shared parental responsibility activates the requirements of s.65DA. This requires the court to consider whether an order for equal time would be in the child’s best interests and reasonably practicable or if not equal time substantial and significant time.
Neither party proposes equal time. The reasons already given show the family consultant’s recommendations are in the child’s best interests. To the extent that the matters described as substantial and significant time in s.65DAA go beyond this they are not in the child’s best interests. So far as reasonably practical is concerned the order as proposed meet the various considerations contained in s.65DAA(5) so that they are reasonably practicable. The parties live close enough together to make them reasonably practicable and while their relationship is difficult they are able to discuss and cooperate to the extent necessary to make the orders work.

I certify that the preceding fifty-four (54) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Phipps.

Date: 12 February 2016

[2016] FCCA 236

12 February 2016

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Legal Concepts

Injunction

Procedural Fairness