Thompson and Platt - [2015] FCCA 67

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THOMPSON & PLATT

[2015] FCCA 67

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – highly conflicted relationship between the parties – short relationship with separation to all intents having occurred prior to the birth of the child – allegations by each parent of failures on the part of the other to act responsibly in relation to the parenting of the child – issues as to parental responsibility and whether presumption of equal shared parental responsibility is rebutted – determination that presumption is rebutted – consideration of objects and principles and factors required to be considered in relation to a determination of with whom the child should live – consideration of proposed relocation by the mother with the child and the significant effect upon the father’s relationship with the child – consideration of family report and evidence of family reporter, particularly with regard to the damaging effects upon the relationship of the father and child if relocation is allowed – consideration of mother’s capacity to foster a relationship with the father or to recognise the importance of the father in the child’s life – consideration of significance of child the subject of proceedings being separated from a sibling and step-father living in Melbourne – balancing significant relationships with others important in the child’s life and with the father – determination to vest sole parental responsibility in the father and to live with the father – determination that if mother remains in the same locality then that she spend equal time with the child.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60B, 60CC, 60DA, 61B, 61C, 61D, 61DA, 65DAA, 65DAC, 65DAE

Lansa & Clovelly [2010] FamCA 80
AIF v AMS (1999) 199 CLR 160
U v U (2002) 211 CLR 238
Heath & Hemming (No 2) [2011] FamCA 749
Collu & Rinaldo [2010] Fam CAFC 53 (25 March 2010)
Sigley & Evor (2011) 44 Fam LR 439
Marvel & Marvel (2010) 43 Fam LR 348
Mazorski v Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518
McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93-405
M & S (2007) FLC 93-313
Godfrey & Sanders [2007] FamCA 102
Champness & Hanson (2009) FLC 93-407
Hepburn v Noble (2010) FLC 93-438
MRR v GR (2010) 240 CLR 461

Applicant:

MS THOMPSON

Respondent:

MR PLATT

File Number:

TVC 1003 of 2012

Judgment of:

Judge Coker

Hearing dates:

13 & 14 February 2014, 8 & 9 July 2014

Date of Last Submission:

1 August 2014

Delivered at:

Townsville

Delivered on:

15 January 2015

REPRESENTATION

Applicant:

In Person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Pack

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Strategic Family Lawyers

ORDERS

That the Father have sole parental responsibility for decisions in relation to the long-term care, welfare and development of the child, [X] born [omitted] 2011, subject to the Father consulting with the Mother in relation to such decisions prior to making any final decisions, such consultation and communication to include but not be limited to:
(a)a child’s education (both current and future);
(b)child’s religious and cultural upbringing;
(c)a child’s health;
(d)a child’s name;
(e)changes to the child’s living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with other parent.
Notwithstanding order 1 herein:
(a)The Mother be responsible for the day-to-day care, welfare and development of the child when she is living with or spending time with her.
(b)The Father be responsible for the day-to-day care, welfare and development of the child when she is living with or spending time with him.
That the child live with the Father in the [A]/[C] area.

IN THE EVENT THE MOTHER REMAINS LIVING IN THE [A]/[C] AREA

The Mother spend time with the child as follows:
(a)From 15 January 2015 until 31 August 2015 from 5.00pm Wednesday until 9.00am Monday in each week;
(b)From 1 September 2015 until 31 March 2016 from 5.00pm Thursday until 9.00am Monday in each week;
(c)From 1 April 2016 from 5.00pm Friday or 3.00pm, should the child be attending school or day care, until 5.00pm on the following Friday or to the commencement of school or day care on the following Friday in each alternate week.
That the time with each parent pursuant to Order 4 be suspended during school holiday periods commencing from the Term 3 school holidays in 2015.
Each parent spend one half of each school holiday period with the child, or be responsible for decisions in relation to the care of the child during that time, unless otherwise agreed, as follows:
(a)With the Father for the first half in odd numbered years and with the Mother for the second half in odd numbered years; and
(b)With the Mother for the first half in even numbered years and with the Father for the second half in even numbered years.
That unless otherwise agreed the child spend time with the parent who would not otherwise have the child in their care on special days as follows:
(a)On the child’s birthday, from 3.00pm until 7.00pm;
(b)On each of the parent’s birthdays and sibling’s birthday, from 3.00pm until 7.00pm;
(c)On Father’s Day and Mother’s Day, the parent who is having the special day spend time with the child from 9.00am to 5.30pm; and
(d)On Christmas Day, if the parent not having the child in their care is in the same locality as the parent having the child in their care, then that parent shall have the opportunity to spend time with the child from 2.00pm Christmas Day until 2.00pm Boxing Day.

IN THE EVENT THAT THE MOTHER DOES NOT RESIDE IN THE [A]/[C] AREA

The Mother spend time with the child as follows:
(a)For the whole of the gazetted Term 1 and Term 3 school holidays in even numbered years;
(b)For the whole of the gazetted Term 2 school holidays in odd numbered years; and
(c)For the first four weeks of the gazetted Term 4 school holidays in odd numbered years and for the last four weeks of the gazetted Term 4 school holidays in even numbered years.
(d)Should the Mother be in the [A]/[C] area, for further periods during the gazetted school term of up to ten (10) days on one occasion each term, provided that the Mother has given written notice to the Father at least four weeks prior advising of her intention to spend time with the child, and that the Mother ensures that the child attends school, day care and all other activities that the child might otherwise necessarily be involved in during the gazetted school term.
The Mother be responsible for the costs of transportation for the child to and from the airport closest to the Father’s residence, and that the Mother advise the Father of any such travel arrangements in writing at least 21 days prior to any such travel.
That each parent have telephone communication with the child when the child is in the other parent’s care at all reasonable times as may be agreed and, failing agreement, at 6.00pm on each Tuesday and Friday, and if not in the same locality on the child’s birthday, the Mother’s birthday, any sibling’s birthday, Mother’s or Father’s Day and Christmas day, with the parent not having the child to facilitate the call and the parent with whom the child is living to ensure that the child is available to take the calls in a quiet and private environment.
That changeovers occur, unless otherwise agreed between the parties as follows:
(a)If the parties are living in the same locality, then changeover occur at the child’s day care or school, and if not attending day care or school, then at the McDonald’s Family Restaurant closest to the residence of the parent delivering the child up to the other parent; and
(b)If the parties are not living in the same locality, then changeover be effected at the airport closest in proximity to the Father’s residence.
The parties shall communicate in the first instance with each other by text message or email, except in the case of an emergency.
That the Mother and the Father shall:
(a)Keep the other parent informed at all times of their residential address and landline and mobile contact telephone number and notify the other parent within 48 hours of any change;
(b)Keep the other parent informed of the names and addresses of any treating medical or other health practitioner who treat the child and authorise that practitioner to provide the other parent with information that they are lawfully able to provide about the child; and
(c)Inform the other parent as soon as reasonably practicable of any medical condition, significant health issue or illness suffered by the child. This Order authorises any treating medical practitioner to release the child’s medical information to the other parent.
That the Mother and Father authorise, by this Order, the schools or day care centres attended by the child to give each parent information about the child’s educational progress and other school-related activities and supply them with copies of school reports, photographs, certificates and awards obtained by the child.
That each party be restrained from consuming alcohol in excess of the legal blood/alcohol driving limit of 0.05 whilst having the child in their care or using illicit drugs in the presence of the child or from allowing the child to remain in the presence of any other person consuming alcohol or using illicit drugs.
That each party be restrained from denigrating the other parent and from discussing the court proceedings in the presence of the child or allowing the child to remain in the presence of any other person acting in such a way.
That each party be restrained from travelling overseas with the child without the agreement of the other party or Order of a court of competent jurisdiction
That the process to be used for resolving disputes about the terms or operations of these orders shall be as follows:
(a)The parties shall consult with a Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner to assist with resolving any dispute or reaching agreement about changes to be made;
(b)They shall pay the costs of the Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner equally;
(c)In the event that they cannot agree on a Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner, the Mother shall nominate three practitioners and advise in writing details of their fees, experience and availability.
(d)The Father shall choose one of the listed practitioners within 7days of receipt of the list;
(e)If the Father fails to choose then the Mother may choose.
That for the purposes of defining the first and second half of gazetted school holiday periods, the following apply:

IN THE EVENT THAT THE TERM 1 GAZETTED SCHOOL HOLIDAYS COMMENCE FROM THE EASTER LONG WEEKEND THEN

(a)The first half of the gazetted end of Term 1 school holiday period shall be from 5.00pm on the Thursday preceding Good Friday until 6.00pm on the following Saturday;
(b)The second half of the gazetted end of Term 1 school holiday period shall be from 6.00pm on the Saturday following the Easter public holidays to 6.00pm on the Sunday preceding the recommencement of school;
(c)The whole of the gazetted end of Term 1 school holiday period shall be from 5.00pm on the Thursday preceding Good Friday until 6.00pm on the Sunday preceding the recommencement of school;

IN THE EVENT THAT THE TERM 1 GAZETTED SCHOOL HOLIDAYS DO NOT INCLUDE THE EASTER LONG WEEKEND THEN

(d)The first half of the gazetted end of Terms 1, 2 and 3 school holiday period commences from 5.00pm on the Friday which follows or is the last day of school until 6.00pm on the Saturday of the middle weekend of such holiday period;
(e)The second half of the gazetted end of Terms 1, 2 and 3 school holiday period commences from 6.00pm on the Saturday of the middle weekend of the school holiday period until 6.00pm on the Sunday preceding the recommencement of school;
(f)The whole of the gazetted end of Terms 1, 2 and 3 school holiday period commences from 5.00pm on the Friday which follows or is the last day of school until 6.00pm on the Sunday preceding the recommencement of school;
(g)The first half of the gazetted Christmas school holiday period commences from 5.00pm on the Friday following or the Friday on which school concludes until 6.00pm on the Saturday falling 22 days later;
(h)The second half of the gazetted Christmas school holiday period commences from 6.00pm on the Saturday in the middle weekend of the Christmas school holiday period until 6.00pm on the Sunday immediately preceding the recommencement of school;
(i)The first four weeks of the gazetted Christmas school holiday period commences from 5.00pm on the Friday following or the Friday on which school concludes until 6.00pm on the Saturday falling 29 days later;
(j)The last four weeks of the gazetted Christmas school holiday period commences from 6.00pm on the Saturday immediately following Christmas Day until 6.00pm on the Sunday immediately preceding the recommencement of school.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA

AT TOWNSVILLE

TVC 1003 of 2012

MS THOMPSON

Applicant

And

MR PLATT

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

On 14 September 2012 Ms Thompson, whom I shall refer to as the mother, filed an application in this Court seeking interim and final orders in relation to the future parenting of the child, [X]. [X] was born on [omitted] 2011 and, therefore, had just turned one year of age at the time that proceedings were commenced. She has recently turned three years of age and, as is obvious, more than half of her life has been the subject of proceedings before the Court. The respondent to the application is Mr Platt. For convenience, I shall refer to him as the father.
Before turning specifically to the applications, the evidence and the various matters that must be considered in relation to the proceedings, I am mindful of the comments that were made by the report writer,

Mr H, in his report provided to the Court and dated 30 May 2014.

Mr H, under the heading “Background to Dispute” at the very beginning of the application, says the following:
The parents have never lived together and were already in conflict prior to [X]'s birth. Neither parent alleges physical violence although Ms Thompson alleges that Mr Platt is passively aggressive and uses his position in the police force to intimidate her.
I might add that the opening two lines of that quotation are the very cornerstone of the dispute in relation to this particular little girl. These parents have been in dispute since before the child was born. In fact, in many respects it is a great tragedy that a child was born of the relationship at all, because each would appear, in different ways, to acknowledge that the relationship was one that was based on sand rather than rock. There was little, if any, possibility whatsoever of this couple forming a long term relationship. But, of course, having had a child they are now in a position where it is essential that they attempt to work together so as to ensure that [X]'s opportunities for achieving all that she possibly can are able to be fulfilled.

THE APPLICATIONS

The mother's application sought final orders which can be summarised as follows:
·The child live with the mother.
·The child be permitted to relocate with the mother to Melbourne.
·The child spend time with the father at all reasonable times as agreed between the parents and, failing agreement, for not more than six weeks each year with such time to not exceed one week in any block period.
·The father sign all documentation so as to enable the mother to obtain a passport for the child.
·That the mother provide the father with at least one month's written notice of her intention to take the child overseas for holidays and that the mother provide the father with details as to how communication whilst overseas can be facilitated.
The application while seeking final orders also sought urgent interim orders in relation to parenting and they included orders generally reflective of the final orders but, in particular, commenced with an application for what is commonly referred to as a recovery order, an order directing and authorising the marshal of the Court and officers of the federal and state police forces to take possession of the child and to deliver the child up to the mother. If you like, the application on 14 September 2012, arising from events on 9 and 10 September 2012 were the catalyst for all that has subsequently occurred in relation to these proceedings.
The father responded to the application on 11 October 2012, though only a matter of a week or so later, on 19 October 2012, amended his response to detail the orders that he proposed in relation to final parenting, as well as orders in relation to interim time with the child. The primary orders sought, those with regard to final arrangements in relation to parenting, can be summarised as follows:
·that the child live with the mother;
·that the mother is to reside in the [W] area and does not have leave to relocate unless agreed by both parents or as ordered by a court;
·that the father reside in the same area as the child and the mother;
·that the father sign the passport application and documentation for the child, [X], but upon conditions including that the passport not be used for travel unless there is mutual agreement between the parents and that the passport be held at the offices of the father's solicitor of choice; and
·that the father's time with the child commence upon a basis of two by five hour visits per week and that there then be increases which were based on percentage increases of time with the child of 15 per cent, 25 per cent and upon the child attaining four years of age 50 per cent of time spent with each parent.
It was noted in the proposals that were put forward by the father, that there be agreement between the parents as to the location for collection and return of the child to and from the father during periods that he spend time with the child and that the parents share the responsibility for collection and return, or at least the travel involved with collection and return, between the parents. The father also sought orders that he be permitted to pick the child up from day care, it being a continuing dispute between the parents as to whether that would be appropriate.
The mother subsequently amended her initiating application in relation to parenting arrangements, to reflect a continuation of the proposals with regard to the child living with the mother and the mother being permitted to relocate with [X] to Melbourne but then also went on to propose that the father have the opportunity for time to be spent with the child on weekends from Friday until Sunday, but as agreed between the parents and only upon the giving of two weeks written notice in relation to such time being spent by the father, as well as for there to be block periods of up to six weeks in total each year, but clarifying and specifying that there be no periods that exceed one week in duration.
Thereafter, the mother also sought alternate orders in relation to the obtaining of a passport which was to be facilitated upon only one signature, that of the mother, being used for the purposes of obtaining the passport. Then the mother sought an order that the passport be held by her solicitors, though it should be noted that by the time the matter commenced at trial there was heated and significant dispute between the mother and her legal representatives, such that the legal representatives did not act on her behalf at the proceedings.

As is often the case, the parties' positions in respect of the parenting arrangements and the orders that they sought varied during the preparation of the matter for trial and, of course, were crystallised, if that term can be used, at the commencement of the hearing. The orders sought by the father were detailed in some considerably lengthy drafts, which were provided to the court and which were also annexed to the submissions that were provided on the part of the father, following the hearing. The orders were couched in alternative terms, either upon the basis of the mother not being able to relocate and what should then occur both in regard to the child spending time with each parent developing, the father says, such that as and from 1 January 2017, the child spend time with each parent during each alternate week.
The father's alternative proposals related to circumstances where the mother was able to relocate with the child to Melbourne and in that case the father proposed that the child live with the mother and that the child spend time with the father for three periods of 14 days each year, until [X] were to commence preparatory school and after commencing prep or formal education, that there be similar opportunities for time, but, in addition, that the father have the opportunity to spend time with the child at all times that he might travel to Melbourne for the purposes of employment or holiday. The orders that were sought by the father in the alternative are annexed to these reasons and are marked with the letter “A”. **
The mother, in her submissions in relation to these proceedings, indicated that there should be further allocations of time available for the father to spend with the child, [X], but noted that her proposal was to include an arrangement with regard to the child living with the mother in Melbourne and those greater opportunities for time to be spent by the father depended on where it occurred. The fact is that the parents were, to all intents and purposes, diametrically opposed to the position of the other parent, when it is clear that the mother sought primarily to have the opportunity to relocate with the child to Melbourne and the father sought to preclude that upon the basis that there would be little, if any, prospect of the relationship between he and the child being properly fostered or developed.

THE EVIDENCE

Obviously the matter was hotly contested. The evidence that was called in relation to the matter by both parents was substantial. Both parents called a number of witnesses to support them and their positions in relation to what they considered to be in the best interests of the child. Some of those witnesses were required for cross-examination and, from the perspective of the mother, included her brother Mr T and her mother Ms T. Also called was the mother's fiancé Mr C.
Also, reliance to differing degrees was placed by the mother upon evidence called from Ms B and Ms N, though Ms N was subsequently not called on the part of the mother, as she was given the opportunity to attend and to assist as a McKenzie friend, in relation to the proceedings.
From the perspective of the father, a number of witnesses also were called in relation to these proceedings. They included the paternal grandmother Ms T and the paternal grandfather Mr P.
Additionally, evidence was called in a rather unusual way on the part of the mother, though, with respect, it appeared to be of little assistance value, in relation to the mother's case. The mother directed subpoenas to Ms L and to a police officer, Mr B. Both of those persons attended in answer to their subpoena and gave evidence in relation to these proceedings. I shall come to their evidence a little later in these reasons. Of course, the primary evidence fell from the parents themselves and I will have a considerable amount to comment about, in relation to their evidence.
In light of the way this matter progressed, I also made orders with regard to the preparation urgently of a family report, addressing issues in relation to the wants, needs and attachments of the child and, of course, much more particularly, in light of the heated dispute between the mother and the father, the capacity of each parent to provide for and to meet the needs of the child, including the capacity to foster and develop the relationship with the other parent. The evidence of the report writer Mr H was of significance in relation to these proceedings.
Before turning, however, to the specific evidence of the parties and of the report writer, it is appropriate that I should make some comment in relation to the evidence of the witnesses called in relation to the proceedings, whether they were required for cross-examination or not. The mother's brother, Mr T, was called in relation to the proceedings. Mr T described himself as a business owner and driver and detailed in his affidavit filed 28 January 2014 particulars with regard to his family and their close relationship with his sister and her partner Mr C.
Reference was also made specifically to the relationship and the importance of the relationship that existed not only between the child [X], but also as between [X] and her sister [Y]. [Y] is a child of the mother's by another relationship with a Mr O and that child was born on [omitted] 2003. [Y] lives with Mr C in Melbourne, and it would appear from the evidence that Mr C is her godfather and that, to all intents and purposes, is her primary carer and guardian.
Mr T in his affidavit spoke at length about the family attachments and said at paragraph 5, for example, that he and his wife were very close to [Y], it being the case that she and Mr C visit their residence on a regular basis. He goes on to note that there are numerous family occasions that occur in Melbourne and that because of the fact that the mother and [X] reside in [A], there is little, if any, opportunity for interaction there. At paragraph 12 he notes that the family see it as significant that at family gatherings, the mother and [X] are absent.

Mr T also goes on to make reference to issues with regard to the distress that he is aware of, being suffered by the mother as a result of her being isolated in [A] and absent from those in Melbourne with whom she wishes to spend time.
In cross-examination, Mr T was asked about the number of times he had interacted with the mother, [X] and Mr C and he initially indicated that it would have been at least 10 or 20 occasions, including family gatherings for Christmas, special family circumstances and the like. He then corrected that by indicating that he was mistaken in that answer, thinking that reference was being made to [Y] rather than to [X] and that it might be three to five occasions each year.
When pressed on the point, however, he acknowledged that he may not have actually seen the mother or [X] on many of those occasions, it being the case that the mother and [X], if they travelled to Melbourne, only travel for short periods of time and with his work he was often away. He indicated, however, that his wife and children, [X]'s aunt and cousins, had the opportunity for interaction with the child when visiting in Melbourne.
Interestingly, and, I thought, rather tellingly, Mr T did not have a strong grasp of many of the issues in relation to this child and family associations. The distinct impression I gained was that there was little real closeness in the relationship other than, of course, the understandable familial ties that arise in relation to a family. Mr T was the child's uncle, but there was, with respect, little evidence of close associations and, in particular, noting that Mr T had indicated that he had never been to [A] to see the child, I could not assess that there was any real or close association between Mr T and [X] other than, of course, that which would arise from normal occasional family interaction.
Also giving evidence in relation to this matter and called on behalf of the mother was the maternal grandmother, Ms T. Ms T indicated that she was the maternal grandmother of [X], and also of [Y] whose full name is [Y].
Ms T indicated that she resides in a retirement village in Melbourne and that she regularly has interaction with her granddaughter [Y] because of Mr C making arrangements to visit at the retirement village. She also indicated that she has the opportunity for interaction with the mother and [X], on occasions when the mother travels with [X] to Melbourne but that there are also instances where there are other interactions, for example, on occasions when she has travelled to [A] to spend time with the mother and [X]. Ms T, understandably, spoke of the close sibling relationship between [X] and [Y] and noted in paragraph 10 of her affidavit that they:
...have a good relationship, they clearly love each other very much and [Y] misses [X] terribly when she travels back to [A].
I accept that that would be the case, though, I must say that with the only limited opportunities for interaction between the sisters, whilst there is no doubt an association between the two and a love and affection that each holds for the other, it is to be expected that they are able to get on with their lives without close interaction with the other. This is because of the circumstances that have existed for approximately two years or more, with regard to [Y] living and attending school in Melbourne and [X] living with her mother, primarily, in [A].
Ms T was the subject of cross-examination in relation to these proceedings and was simply asked to clarify certain matters, including, for example, the number of times that she had visited [A] since the birth of [X] and the normal duration of such trips. The responses were understandable. There were three or four occasions in the last two or three years that attendances had been made and the visits were from one to two weeks, though they varied depending upon arrangements that were made.
I specifically enquired of Ms T whether she had ever met the father in these proceedings. She indicated that she had. When I enquired when that might have been she was unable to be precise but indicated that when she first met the father, and it would have obviously been fairly early on following the birth of [X], he appeared to her to be happy with the birth of the child and when I asked whether he was a proud dad she, interestingly, answered as follows, "Yes, he became so."
I was a little confused and concerned about that answer in relation to the matter, because it would seem that if Ms T's visits were only of limited compass, any assessment of whether the father was not proud of the birth of his daughter but then became so is more, if you like, a reflection of information provided to her by the mother, rather than any reflection of what she may have seen.
It was noteworthy, however, that she did indicate her observation of the father being happy with the birth of the child and becoming proud of the child, because the mother's recurrent theme in relation to these proceedings was that the father showed little interest in relation to the child and, if you like, it was that initial display of little interest or pride in the child that should be taken into consideration with regard to any final determination of issues, with regard to parenting.
Also called as witnesses in relation to these proceedings were Ms B, though Ms B was not required for cross-examination. Ms B's evidence related to her position as the manager of the [omitted] Resort in [A]. Ms B's evidence was of little assistance to me in a number of respects, not the least of which was that her recollection of events, at or around 28 November 2012 were not her own observations of what had occurred but rather a compilation of what she had been told by the mother.
She indicated, for example, that the mother had attended with her to inform her that [X]'s father had arrived with another police officer in full uniform and had knocked loudly on her door. Additionally, she was able to indicate that the mother appeared upset because when she answered the door the father was rude to her. It was then noted that the mother had enquired whether staff had informed the father of her unit number and when informed that that was not the case, the mother's own position was to assess that the father must have illegally or improperly obtained information with regard to her address.
Ms B noted thereafter that the mother had indicated she did not feel safe at the unit and another apartment was found in a more secure part of the complex, rather than the residence originally occupied. I was not, with respect, assisted in any way by the evidence of Ms B.
Further, called in relation to this matter was the mother's partner Mr C. Mr C is employed as a [omitted] with a family owned business situate in Melbourne. Mr C and the mother have been involved in a relationship to varying degrees, for a period of 20 or more years.
The mother indicates that she met Mr C in her early 20s and that whilst they have had on different occasions an intimate relationship, there have also been numerous other occasions where they have simply maintained a close and abiding friendship with each other. Mr C indicated that he had asked the mother to marry him on a number of occasions and it appears that in recent times they have actually agreed to marry. It was also noted that that was to occur in or about August or September of 2014, though, I am, of course, not aware whether that might or might not have occurred.
Mr C and the mother are the owners of a property at [omitted] in Melbourne and have owned that property jointly for a period of about 16 years. Mr C indicated, however, that as he is the person residing there primarily, he is the one who has taken responsibility for various payments in relation to the property, including mortgage and other outgoings.
Mr C emphasised, understandably, that as he and the mother wished to commence their relationship on a more formal marital basis, that they wished to reside together and, understandably, the current circumstances were a significant financial drain upon both of them in seeking to maintain the home in Melbourne as well as the residence and other expenses associated with the mother's continued residence in [A] with [X].
Mr C spoke about his relationship with the children and, in particular, the very close nature of the relationship with [Y], who calls him “Dad”. Mr C noted in his affidavit that he considers himself to be her father. He commented upon the family life that he, the mother and the girls have when they are together and that, in his observation, [Y] is at her happiest when all of the family are together. That is, of course, understandable and I accept that that would be the case.
Mr C goes on, again understandably, to comment upon the strong family ties that the mother has with Melbourne not only, of course, including he and [Y] but involving a number of other extended family members that are all in that locality. Mr C was cross-examined in relation to his evidence given in relation to these proceedings and also was asked about the circumstances of [Y]'s move from [A] to Melbourne, in or about July of 2012. Mr C acknowledged that it had followed apparent bullying at [Y]'s school and a desire by [Y] to move.
Mr C was asked, whether the father in these proceedings had been considered in discussions regarding [Y] because, as would be obvious, the move by [Y] to Melbourne and the obvious desire if not already in place in July of 2012 then evidencing itself within a short time would be that the mother and, of course therefore, [X], would also be seeking to move to Melbourne. Mr C indicated that the father's name was not raised and obviously there was no consideration of the effects that there might be upon the father's relationship with [X], if the move occurred.
Similarly, Mr C indicated that when there were discussions between the mother and he about the sale of her business and of a move with [X] back to Melbourne, the father's name had not been raised and there had not been, at least as far as he was aware, discussion with regard to the effects upon the father if the move occurred and, therefore, the consequences for the relationship between the father and [X].
Mr C was also asked about his comment in paragraph 8 of his affidavit relating to the father spending very little time with [X]. He indicated that his statement in that regard was not something that was arising from his own observations but rather was simply reflective of what had been told to him by the mother, on occasions when they spoke on the telephone. In fact, Mr C went on specifically to note, in words to the effect, "I don't get involved in what is not my business."
Quite clearly, Mr C's view was that arrangements in relation to [X]'s relationship with Mr Platt was not his business. Though, of course, the decisions that were made between Mr C and the mother would have a direct consequence and effect upon the relationship between the father and [X].
Mr C also spoke about the better circumstances that he and the mother would be in if they were able to live together in Melbourne, including, of course, not having the dual obligations for two lots of rent or mortgage and the doubling up of many of the expenses that would obviously arise with he and [Y] living in Melbourne and the mother and [X] living in [A]. He indicated that there would, in fact, be an improvement in the time that the father would spend with the child over and above that which was currently the case, noting at paragraph 19 of his affidavit of 28 January 2014 the following:
My understanding of the Orders that Ms Thompson seeks from the Court is that the time she proposes [X] spends with her father would be more than double the time they currently spend together.
Of course, any information that Mr C had with regard to the time spent by [X] with her father was reflective exactly of what the mother had told him and was in no way a reflection of what actually was occurring or what might have been sought by the father. More particularly, when pressed, Mr C was unable to actually elaborate upon what might have been proposed by the mother other than, as he indicated in the material, to suggest that it was fair or reasonable.
Mr C indicated, in cross-examination, that if time were to be provided for the father to spend periods with [X], hypothesising that the mother would be living in Melbourne, then he would not want to take a child away from their father and would not hold back the opportunity for time to be spent. Again, however, there was nothing specific in what Mr C said and he indicated that as [X] was not his child, the father should be free to see the child as and when he liked. But, there was nothing of a concrete or particularised nature in relation to the father's opportunity to spend time with the child. In fact, at the conclusion of cross-examination Mr C noted that he did not want to get involved in the situation and did not want to come between the father and the child.
I must say, with respect, that the stance taken by Mr C, whilst perhaps understandable, was, with all consideration being given to it, somewhat naïve. The fact is that the mother would no doubt seek his participation and involvement in arrangements, and if there were, for example, orders to be made which included obligations for the mother to facilitate transportation for the child to spend time with the father, then there would be direct and specific consequences for Mr C and the mother and for their household generally.
Mr C otherwise, however, impressed me as an honest and genuine man caught in a situation quite beyond his normal experience.
Also called in relation to these proceedings was the father's parents, the paternal grandparents. Mr P was called and filed an affidavit on 11 February 2014. He noted in that affidavit that he was aware of the conflict between the mother and the father and noted at paragraph 4:
I am aware that Ms Thompson wishes to take my granddaughter to Melbourne.

He goes on to note that as a pensioner he did not have a lot of money and that, therefore, he would only be able to spend limited opportunities for time with the child. He also noted that in the father's line of work as a police officer, there would only be limited opportunities for him to spend time with [X] if she were living in Melbourne and to that end, it had been agreed that the paternal grandfather and grandmother would move to the [A] area, to provide support for the father's relationship with the child.
In cross-examination Mr P came across as somewhat “crusty”. When asked by the mother whether they had ever met, he indicated that he had not met the mother and then was asked a number of questions which were wholly irrelevant to any determination of these proceedings. In some respects, however, they were indicative of the mother's attitude to the father and to proceedings generally. Without being specific, the mother asked Mr P about some deceit or deception perpetrated by the father in introducing his mother as his aunt and his Aunt [D] as his mother. It was nonsensical and, understandably, was indicated by Mr P as not being anything that he had any understanding of but that it would not, in his assessment, have occurred.
He was also asked whether he was aware that the father did not want a child with the mother because the mother had brown eyes and he did not like brown eyes. Mr P indicated in a somewhat incredulous way that he was not aware of that. Mr P was then asked whether he had ever approached the mother to facilitate a conversation or to develop a friendship. As I say, Mr P was somewhat crusty in his responses and indicated that he had not because, "You're on the other side." He indicated that he did not seek a relationship with the mother but obviously realised that he wished a relationship with his granddaughter.
Mr P's evidence was generally of little assistance in relation to this matter, other than to confirm, of course, as it did, that he would be willing and intended to move to the [A] area, to provide support for his son.
Also called on the part of the father was his mother Ms T. Ms T was a less confrontational individual than the paternal grandfather and seemed surprised at the questions that were directed to her by the mother. The very first question was to the effect, "You've not met me before," to which Ms T replied, "Yes, it was with my sister." Two interesting points arose from that. The first of those was that the mother's next question indicated that there had been a meeting, in that she then went on to say that, "You introduced yourself to me as [D]" and Ms T responded by saying, "No, [first name omitted], my sister is [D]."
The interesting points there are, firstly, that the mother's own evidence was that they had met but then because there appears to have been some confusion, it could not ever be considered by the mother that it may have been confusion on her part but rather deceit or trickery on the part of the father or the father's mother. It was nonsensical and again reflected upon the conspiratorial nature of the mother's attitude to almost everything that arose in these proceedings.
The mother questioned Ms T about previous opportunities taken by her, along with the father, to spend time with [X]. It was noteworthy that again, following the conspiratorial nature of the mother's personality, it was suggested that because Ms T had indicated she would move to [C] rather than to, say, live with Mr Platt, that there was something being hidden and there would not be the support that was suggested within the material. It was nonsensical and it reflected poorly upon the mother and what might have arisen in relation to these proceedings.
Ms T was not required for any lengthy cross-examination and I must say that I generally formed the view that Ms T would be good to her word, that she would facilitate a relationship with the mother and that the primary concern for her was to ensure that a relationship was able to be fostered between [X] and her father and that she would take an appropriate role, as a grandparent, in assisting the father when and where assistance was necessary.
Before turning to the evidence of the parents and the report writer in relation to these proceedings it is important that reference be made to the evidence that was called from Ms L and Mr B. Ms L was called on the part of the mother in answer to a subpoena delivered by the mother. Her evidence was, I suspect, sought on the part of the mother to cast aspersions upon the father and his lack of responsibility, in relation to care for the child. No such concern arose in relation to the matter and, in fact, far more significantly was the impression that was gained that the father had acted quickly but appropriately in seeking the assistance of Ms L in providing care for [X] on the occasion of early September 2012, when the child was in his care.
There is little that needs to be referred to in relation to the evidence of Ms L other than that she “stepped up”. She provided assistance and support for the father when the father sought that assistance and support when [X] was in his care. Ms L was not part of some conspiracy on the part of the father to remove the child from the mother. If anything, the behaviours of both the mother and the father were self-centred and lacked any insight into the effect that their behaviours had on each other.
But what was clear was that Ms L, acting upon what she understood from the father were the circumstances, provided assistance and support. She cared for [X]. She made alternative arrangements for [X] to be placed in day care and to be collected by another friend at the appropriate time when she, because of her own work and other commitments, was unable to step up and assist.
The fact is that the mother called Ms L for purposes which she suggested would assist her in a clear indication of the father's lack of appropriate parenting. If anything, the calling of Ms L simply indicated the mother's lack of appreciation again, as is so often the case in this matter, of her responsibilities in relation to the child and her failure to put the child's needs ahead of her intention to score points against the father and to act appropriately, in relation to parenting. I was assisted in the determination of this matter by the evidence of

Ms L, but not in any way that would have been anticipated by the mother.
Similarly, the calling of Mr B by the mother, in my assessment, was unhelpful for the mother's case but of assistance in relation to the determination of these proceedings. Mr B had never been requested by the mother to provide an affidavit or a statement in relation to these proceedings. He was simply subpoenaed and, if you like, it was a reflection of the mother's approach to these proceedings of an “us and them mentality”. She was critical, understandably, of the paternal grandfather's reference to her being on the other side, but, with respect, that was exactly the attitude that was displayed by the mother entirely through the days of the hearing of these proceedings.
Mr B was a police officer. He worked with the father as his superior officer and, therefore, was on “the other side”. However, his evidence was, in fact, of particular assistance to the father's position in relation to this matter and generally of little, if any, aid to the mother's case.

Mr B spoke of having had some interaction with the mother, as a result of being introduced to her by the father. He indicated that, as best he understood, the mother and the father were "involved", but could not otherwise talk of their relationship.
When asked whether the father bragged about the relationship between he and the mother Mr B said that he spoke of the dinners that were cooked. He denied that there had been conversations about the father seeking to borrow an amount of $250,000 from the mother and, rather he said that he had not heard of any suggestion of Mr Platt seeking to borrow $250,000.
Mr B, however, was able to comment upon what he observed as changes in the father's attitude or lifestyle. He noted, for example, that the father had only stopped long haul work and supervision of oversized loads after the child had been born and indicated that he had changed his lifestyle, in that before the birth of [X] or certainly in earlier times, he had been more career orientated and that he had now given up work on various private jobs to become a devoted dad. He was, as Mr B noted, a parent willing to give 100 per cent to his daughter.
Mr B commented in response to questions asked by me, that he had seen the father at different times with [X] and that his observations of him as a father giving 100 per cent to the child, arose from his observations of a father spending time with a child and wanting to be involved in the child's life. As a lay observer, Mr B noted that he was a father of a young child also and that he, therefore, knew the importance of a father's involvement in a child's life.
I was impressed by Mr B and again assisted by his evidence given in relation to these proceedings, though, as I have indicated, not on the basis of what might have been hoped to be gained by the mother in subpoenaing Mr B to give evidence, in these proceedings.
I turn then to the evidence of the parties. As I indicated at the very commencement of these reasons, the parties have been at war since before this little girl was born. The relationship was one which was, with respect, doomed to fail. The parties were of different ages. They had different perspectives and expectations in relation to their lives and whilst their relationship, as described by the mother, was one based on food, sex and money, there was little else that would be reflective in any way of the positives in the relationship that might have hoped to have been there, particularly when the responsibilities for a child arose.
The mother was self-represented in the trial, though she was, until the last few weeks prior to the hearing, represented by solicitors. Her material was comprehensive, and the distinct impression that I gained in relation to the mother was that she was a woman of above average intelligence and able to articulately express her feelings. Unfortunately, the distinct impression that I gained in relation to the mother was that she felt in some way hard done by by the father as a result of his perhaps immature approach to the relationship and, in particular, his approach to her pregnancy and the birth of the child.
The mother gave the impression of “a woman scorned”. But, more importantly, and, unfortunately, more significantly, a woman not prepared to forgive. Quite simply, the mother indicated throughout her evidence, both in her affidavits and her oral evidence that she had been ignored by the father during the early part of their relationship and that it was, as she indicated, a relationship based on food, sex and money, all of which were provided by her to the father.
She suggested repeatedly, and it was noteworthy that queries were directed to Mr B, that the father was almost embarrassed about his relationship with her and that he did not seek to involve her as a partner, in relationships outside of their personal relationship. For example, the mother strongly suggested that the father on no occasion sought to take her to functions with other police officers and their families. The fact was that the mother thought that the relationship was one in which she was being used and though she had fallen pregnant with [X], did not see any reason or need for the father to be involved in a relationship with the child.
That is not to say that the father's behaviours were not on many occasions generally irresponsible and I would think immature. Unfortunately, that is not an uncommon occurrence, particularly in young men at the time of finding that they were to be parents, and, of course, in this instance at the time that the relationship commenced, the father had not been in, it would appear, any long term relationships. At the birth of [X], the father was only 28 or 29 years and the responsibility came as something of a surprise.
However, it appeared clear that the mother sought, almost from the time that she found that she was pregnant, to exclude the father. Every reason and excuse that could be found by the mother to be critical of the father or to cause him discomfort in their relationship appeared to be taken up by her. Every opportunity that could be found by the mother to cause difficulties for the father in his employment were taken up by her and there were a number of complaints made to the Crime and Misconduct Commission (as it was then called). Whilst at the time of trial some inquiries were still being made, others had been concluded and there had been little, if anything, of fault found in the behaviours of the father.
Quite simply, the mother was determined, as best she could, to exclude the father from time with the child. Her proposals, though to some extent taken up by the father, of very limited opportunities of a few hours with the child failed to in any way appreciate the need for this little girl to have a relationship with both of her parents. Her criticisms that the father took time with the child, only on occasions when he was working and not on occasions when he was on rostered days off held some weight, obviously because the father was not taking every opportunity to be involved in the child's life. But again that may be more, in my assessment, a reflection of his immaturity or, as was suggested, a reflection of his desire to "get ahead financially" so as to provide a home for he and the child.
The fact is, however, that the father changed and the father has sought a relationship with the child without any real expectation of the mother facilitating that time with the child. It was clear that the relationship between the mother and the father from the very beginning was torrid. The mother's reaction when the father communicated with her in September of 2012, when [X] was only one year of age was to remove her from day care, take her to a police station and seek to hand her over to the father.
There were occasions when the child was delivered to the father late in the evening, and whilst that was not normally a subject of dispute, it led to the bringing of the application by the mother for a recovery order as contained within the interim orders sought in the application of 14 September 2012. Quite simply, the parties each sought to irritate the other. I have no doubt that the father wore his police uniform proudly, but also on occasions to act in a manner which might cause embarrassment to the mother.
It must have been embarrassing for the mother to have the father and another police officer knocking on her door, apparently early in the morning. The mother says that the father then suggested that it was a mistake and that he had attended at the wrong address. An inquiry was made and that appears to have been found to have been the reason for the attendance, but it is clear that dispute between the mother and the father was at every opportunity, emphasised by each parent about the other.
The mother's response, however, in sending a “peace offering” to the father which included a goodies bag of sex toys and gay videos was designed specifically to humiliate and to embarrass the father. She did so, she said, initially upon the basis of wanting to deliver a peace offering to the father. But to deliver it by taxi to the main police station and have it delivered to the front desk smacked of nothing other than a determined effort to humiliate the father.
I specifically raised with the mother whether that was her intention and she indicated initially that there was no intent to humiliate the father but that it was purely to be a peace offering. The sending of videos of homosexual relationships when the father was not homosexual and there was no evidence that that was a particular predilection of his, could have been designed for no other reason, when delivered to the police station, to cause embarrassment. Only when pressed did she indicate that part of the reason or “a bit of the reason” that she had done it, was to cause him humiliation and embarrassment.
When asked by counsel whether she acknowledged that at that time it was, therefore, perhaps an immature act on her part the best she could indicate was that it was “somewhat immature”. It certainly was, but it was also indicative of the relationship that each had with the other and that each had shown clearly as indicators of their intent to hurt each other, rather than to recognise the importance to [X] of a proper meaningful relationship fostered by both parents with the other parent.
The mother's attitude to time being spent by the father with the child was controlling. It continued to be controlling during all of the times that the father sought time with the child and, in fact, continued to be controlling, even after the first few days of hearing in February 2014, when the parties were unable to agree on times to be spent by the father with the child, notwithstanding the direct orders and indications given by me of the importance of such time occurring each week, for a period of 24 hours.
The mother “threw spanners in the works”. There were difficulties in her making the child available, difficulties in the time sought by the father being appropriate times from the mother's perspective and perhaps it was reflected in an answer given by the mother when asked about her relationship with the father, when she said words to the effect, "I want nothing to do with Mr Platt. I will not accept him back into my family."
The fact is that the mother did not see any worth in the father, then and she still sees no worth in the father. Her protestations and proclamations now, that she will facilitate a relationship with the father, in my assessment, fall hollow. The mother has acted at all times suitable to herself. She lacks any appreciation of the importance to this little girl and the rights of [X] to a relationship with her father.
The mother did all that she could to undermine that, and when complaining of behaviours by the father which might be referred to as passively aggressive, took no account of the fact that she, on many occasions fired the “first shot” in the dispute that then occurred between she and the father. For example, when she says she had no intent whatsoever of moving to Port Douglas she sent texts to the father of that intent and when finally pressed indicated that she just said that, to mislead the father.
When asked whether she had asked the father to attend at the birth, her response was not to answer the question but rather to say in her assessment the father was not interested in the child. Similarly, when asked whether she had asked the father to attend [X]'s baptism she again avoided answering yes or no but simply indicated that it was not necessary, because the father was an atheist.
In every respect, the mother had a pat answer to be given in relation to proceedings, all of which she seemed to think justified her position in relation to the matter, but really which simply reflected her determination, perhaps even unknown to herself, to exclude the father as much as possible, from involvement in the child's life.
The mother's attitude to the father and her lack of respect for the father was evidenced in so much of what she did and said. But it was also indicated as part of her attitude of the father being a bad person, a manipulative and controlling person and one who, therefore, should not have any involvement in the life of this child. In passing, as an example, she made reference to the listing of her business, [omitted], a sex shop operating in the [A] area, for sale. It was noted as being for sale with a business brokerage magazine called “[omitted]” and she indicated that she had not listed the business with that organisation and that by inference, it must have been something done by or on behalf of the father.

Accordingly, the orders of the Court will be as outlined at the commencement of these reasons.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and seventy-nine (179) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Coker

Associate:

Date: 15 January 2015

“A”
FINAL ORDERS

ORDERS SOUGHT BY THE RESPONDENT FATHER IF THE COURT REFUSES THE RELOCATION APPLICATION

1. All previous orders be discharged.

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

2. That MS THOMPSON (“the Mother”) and MR PLATT (“the Father”) have equal shared responsibility for decisions in relation to the long-term care, welfare and development of [X] (“the Child”) born [omitted] 2011.

3. That the parties are required to make all decisions about major long-term issue in relation to the child jointly.

4. For the purposes of these orders, the parties shall consult with each other in relation to major long-term issues which shall include but is not limited to issues about:

a) the child’s education both current and future;
b) the child’s religious and cultural upbringing;
c) the child’s health;
d) the child’s name; and
e) changes to the child’s living arrangement that make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with a party.

5. That the parties are not required to consult with the other when making decisions while the child is in their care under this order about issues that are not major long-term issues.

RESIDENCE AND TIME

6. [X] (“the Child”) born [omitted] 2011 live with the MS THOMPSON (“Mother”).

7. The child shall live in [A], [J] or [C] area.

8. In the event that the Mother relocates from the [A], [J] or [C] area without the written consent of the Father or Court Order, then the child will live with the Father.

9. The child will spend time with the Father at all times as may be agreed between the parties but failing agreement as follows:

a) Until 31 December 2014 upon providing information in relation to the Father’s work roster by email to the Mother, the Father shall spend 24 hours per week or alternatively 48 hours per fortnight with the child;

b) From 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015 the Father shall spend time with the child from 9:00am each Monday until 5:00pm each Tuesday;

c) From 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2015 the Father shall spend time with the child from 9:00am each Monday until 5:00pm each Wednesday;

d) From 1 January 2017 the Father shall spend time with the child:

i) During the school term from after school Friday to the following Friday with the father to collect and deliver the child to school; and
ii) At all other times the Father shall spend time with the child from 5:00pm Friday to 5:00pm the following Friday.
CHANGEOVERS

10. That unless otherwise agreed in writing changeovers shall occur as follows:

a) At McDonalds Family Restaurant, [A] at the commencement of the Father’s time with the child; and
b) At McDonalds Family Restaurant, [C] at the conclusion of the Father’s time with the child.

11.That the Father or his agents, such as but not limited to the Paternal Grandparents, be at liberty to collect and deliver the child.

COMMUNICATION

12. The parties will communicate by text message or email except in case of emergency then by telephone.
13. Each party is to keep the other informed of any change of address, email address or telephone number within 48 hours of any change.

SPECIAL DAYS

14. That in all even numbered years:

a) the child spend time with the Father from 2:00pm Christmas Eve until 2:00pm Christmas Day; and
b) that the child spend time with the Mother from 2:00pm Christmas Day until 2:00pm Boxing Day.

15. That in all odd numbered years:

a) the child spend time with the Mother from 2:00pm Christmas Eve until 2:00pm Christmas Day; and
b) that the child spend time with the Father from 2:00pm Christmas Day until 2:00pm Boxing Day.
16. That the child spend time with the Father from 9:00am to 5:00pm on Father’s Day and that any provision for time under this order that is inconsistent with this paragraph be suspended so as to facilitate time under this paragraph.
17. That the child spend time with the Mother from 9:00am to 5:00pm on Mother’s day and that any provision for time under this order that is inconsistent with this paragraph be suspended.
18. That the child spend equal time with the Mother and the Father on:
a) the child’s birthday;
b) the Mother’s birthday; and
c) the Father’s birthday.
19. At times to be agreed between the Mother and the Father, and failing agreement, the Child shall spend time with the Father from 3:00pm until 7:00pm on those birthdays and the Mother at all other times on those days; and that any provisions of time under this order that is inconsistent with this paragraph be suspended.
HOLIDAYS
20. The Mother shall be allowed to take the child to Melbourne at all times as agreed between the parents but failing agreement for 2 weeks on two occasions each calendar year.
21. From 2015, the Father shall be allowed to take the child for a 1 week holiday at a place of his choosing in each calendar year provided the Father gives the Mother at least 6 weeks notice of his intention to take the child for a holiday.
22. From 2016, the Father shall be allowed to take the child for a 2 week holiday at a place of his choosing in each calendar year provided the Father gives the Mother at least 6 weeks notice of his intention to take the child for a holiday.
RESTRAINTS
23. That the Mother be restrained until further order from:
a) Contacting the Father at the [W] Police Station other than in the case of emergency;
b) Making frivolous or vexatious complaints to:
i) Queensland Police Service;

Queensland Police Ethical Standards Command;
Crime and Misconduct Commission; and
Any other statutory body.

24. The parents are hereby restrained from consuming alcohol to access, consuming or possessing any illicit substance in the presence of the child.
25. The parties shall no denigrate the other parent or other family members in the presence or hearing of the child and shall remove the child from any other person who may denigrate the other parent or other family members including denigration of the other partner or other family members on social media.
26. The parties are restrained from discussing these orders, Court proceedings and matters relating to these proceedings with the child and shall remove the child from any other person discussing these matters in the presence of the child.
PASSPORT
27. That no passport will be issued for the child.
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
28. In the event of any dispute as to the interpretation, implementation or enforcement of this order (including any claim by a party that it should be varied) the parties shall first attend family dispute resolution (FDR) with an FDR practitioner appointed by the parties and make a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute. Failing agreement as to that appointment the part raising the dispute shall nominate three FDR practitioners, one of whom shall be chosen by the other party within 14 days.

ORDERS SOUGHT BY THE RESPONDENT FATHER IF THE COURT ALLOWS THE CHILD TO RELOCATE

RELOCATE

All previous orders be discharged.

CHILD’S LIVING ARRANGEMENTS

The child [X] (“the Child”) born [omitted] 2011 live with the MS THOMPSON (“Mother”).
The child be permitted to reside with the Mother in Melbourne.

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

The Mother have equal parental responsibility for decisions in relation to the long-term care, welfare and development of the child subject to notifying the Father of such decisions including but not limited to:
a)    The child’s education (both current and future);
b)    The child’s religion;
c)    The child’s health;
d)    Changes to the child’s living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with the other parent.

TIME THE CHILD [X] WILL SPEND WITH THE FATHER

The child [X] will spend time with her Father MR PLATT at all times as agreed between the parties for six (6) weeks per year but failing agreement as follows:
Before the child commences prep and/or school
a) 3 periods of 14 days per year; and
Upon the child commencing prep and/or school
b) In the event that the Father travels to Melbourne at times and intervals that can be agreed. Failing agreement, not less than 4 hours.

COSTS

The travel cost for the child spending time with the Father shall be shared between the parties.

CHANGEOVERS

That unless otherwise agreed in writing changeovers shall occur as follows:
a) At [Queensland airports omitted] or Melbourne Airport.

COMMUNICATION

The parties will communicate by text message or email except in case of emergency then by telephone call.
Each party is to keep the other informed of any change of address, email address or telephone number within 48 hours of any change.
These orders provide authority for the child’s school to provide information to the Father regarding the child’s progress at school and for the Father to obtain at his expense copies of the child’s school reports and school photographs. The Father and paternal Grandfather and Grandmother are permitted to attend any school events or functions.
These orders provide authority for the child’s doctors to provide information to the Father regarding the child’s health and for the Father to obtain at his expense copies of the child’s medical reports. The Father and paternal Grandfather and Grandmother are permitted to attend any medical appointments.
If the child requires any medical or allied health treatment whilst in the Father’s care, the Father shall advise the Mother as soon as possible of the health matter and provide authority to any treating medical practitioner or allied health care professional to provide information to the Mother and the Mother is permitted to attend any related appointments.
Telephone calls may be facilitated by the Father to the child at reasonable times as agreed with the Mother and failing agreement each Monday evening prior to 6:00pm.

SPECIAL OCCASIONS

The Father gets to spend time with the child on her birthday, his birthday and Father’s Day at such times as are agreed between the parents.

RESTRAINTS

That the Mother be restrained until further order from:
a) Contacting the Father at the [W] Police Station other than in the case of emergency;
b) Making frivolous or vexatious complaints to:
i.Queensland Police Service;
ii.Queensland Police Ethical Standards Command;
iii.Crime and Misconduct Commission; and
iv.Any other statutory body.
The parents are hereby restrained from consuming alcohol to access, consuming or possessing any illicit substance in the presence of the child.
The parties shall not denigrate the other parent or other family members in the presence or hearing of the child and shall remove the child from any other person who may denigrate the other parent or other family members including denigration of the other partner or other family members on social media.
The parties are restrained from discussing these orders, Court proceedings and matters relating to these proceedings with the child and shall remove the child from any other person discussing these matters in the presence of the child.

PASSPORT

That no passport will be issued for the child.

OTHER ORDERS

The parties have liberty to apply for an order seeking family counselling, family dispute resolution and family services pursuant to section 13(1) of the Family Law Act 1975.