Turner and Marijke

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TURNER & MARIJKE

[2009] FamCA 1342

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Relocation overseas
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Substantial and significant time – Relocation overseas

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60C, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 61DAC, 61DAE, 65DAA

A & A (2000) FLC 93-035

APPLICANT:

Mr Turner

RESPONDENT:

Ms Marijke

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Lioumis

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

779

2007

DATE DELIVERED:

7 December 2009

PLACE DELIVERED:

Parramatta

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Waddy J

HEARING DATE:

29,30 May, 1, 2 June, 2, 3, 4 and 5 July, 2, 3, 4 & 5 November 2009

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Ford

Brischetto & Ford Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Hausman

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Slade Manwaring Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Clifford

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Legal Aid Commission of NSW

Orders

All previous orders are discharged.

Parental Responsibility:

The parties shall have:
(a) equal shared parental responsibility for the decisions concerning the long term care, welfare and development of the child born … April 2005 (“A”); and
(b)sole responsibility for the decisions concerning the day to day care, welfare and development of the child whilst the child is in his or her care.

FATHER’S TIME WITH THE CHILD:
Until the child Commences School:

Until the child commences school, the child shall live with the father as follows:-
(a)Week 1: From 5.00 p.m. Friday to 10.00 a.m. Tuesday and each alternate week thereafter; and
(b)Week 2: From 9.00 a.m. Monday to 10.00 a.m. Tuesday and each alternate week thereafter.
(c)These orders shall commence on Monday 14 December 2009 which should be taken to be the commencement of week 2.

On commencement of School:

Upon the child commencing school, the child shall live with the father as follows:
(a)Week 1 of the school term: From the conclusion of school on Friday to the commencement of school on Tuesday and each alternate week thereafter;
(b)Week 2 of the school term: From the conclusion of school on Monday to the commencement of school on Tuesday and each alternate week thereafter;
(c)or as otherwise agreed in writing.

During School Holiday Periods:

Until the commencement of NSW gazetted 2013 school year, the child shall live with the father:
(a)For one half of all gazetted NSW term school holiday periods;
(b)In the December/January school holidays for each alternate week from 5.00 p.m. Friday to 5.00 p.m. the following Friday.
From the commencement of the NSW gazetted 2013 school year, the child shall live with the father for one half of all school holidays and in default of agreement the second half in odd numbered years and for the first half in even numbered years AND for the purpose of calculation such holiday time shall be deemed to commence on the day that school is suspended and to conclude on the day prior to the commencement of the next term.

Christmas Day:

For Christmas 2009, the child will live with the father from 9.00 a.m. on Christmas Eve until 5.00 p.m. Boxing Day.
In the event that the child has not commenced school at all in 2010, pursuant to Order 12, for Christmas 2010, The child will live with the father from 9.00 a.m. on 23 December until 9.00 a.m. Christmas Eve and that the child will then be returned to the mother where any time allocated to the father subject to these orders will be suspended until 5.00 p.m. Boxing Day.
Subject to order 16, the child shall live with the father as agreed in writing between the parents or failing agreement as follows:

Easter:
(a)In odd numbered years: from 5.00 p.m. on Easter Saturday until 5.00 p.m. on Easter Monday; and
(b)In even numbered years: from 9.00 a.m. on Good Friday until 5.00 p.m. on Easter Saturday.

The Child’s Birthday:
(c)In odd numbered years: from 9.00 a.m. on the day before the child’s birthday until 9.00 a.m. on the day of the child’s birthday;
(d)In even numbered years: from 9.00 a.m. on the day of the child’s birthday until 9.00 a.m. on the following day.

Father’s Day:
(e)Each year on Father’s Day from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.

General:
(f)The time the father spends with the child is subject to order 27 below.

MOTHER’S TIME WITH THE CHILD:

The child shall live with the mother at all other times, including the following times when the father’s time is otherwise suspended:

Mother’s Day:
(a)Each year from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.

Easter:
(b)In even number years: From 5.00 p.m. on Easter Saturday until 5.00 p.m. on Easter Monday; and
(c)In odd numbered years: from 9.00 a.m. on Good Friday until 5.00 p.m. on Easter Saturday.

Sinterklaas 5 December

The child shall spend time with the mother to celebrate Sinterklaas on 5 December each year as follows and the father’s time with the child is suspended:
(a)School day: Where 5 December falls on a school day from after school on 5 December until commencement of school the next day or 9.00 a.m. if the next day falls on a weekend.
(b)Weekend: Where 5 December falls on a Saturday from 3.00 p.m. Friday until 12 noon on the Sunday or where 5 December falls on a Sunday from 4.00 p.m. on Saturday until the commencement of school on Monday.
(c)Dutch Association celebration: where this event falls on a weekend, from 9.00 a.m. until 5.00 p.m. on either the Saturday or the Sunday.

School:

The child shall commence school in 2010 at the commencement of first term or so soon thereafter as a vacancy for the child becomes available and each parent shall do all things and sign all documents necessary to enrol the child in the W School or any other such school as may be agreed by the parties in writing.
Both parents shall do all things to ensure that the child is enrolled and attends at a Dutch school in Australia of the mother’s choosing for a minimum of two hours per week, and these lessons shall coincide with periods that the child is in the mother’s care.

Parents’ Birthdays and Special Occasions:

The child shall spend time with her mother and father:
(a)On their respective birthdays, as agreed in writing and failing agreement for no less than four hours; and if such day falls on a school or day care day, from after school or day care to the commencement of school or day care the following day;
(b)On special family celebrations important to either parent as agreed between the parties.

Contact Changeover:

For the purpose of these orders “changeover” is to occur at school or pre/school/day care and if the child is not at school, preschool or day care then:
(a)The mother shall deliver the child to McDonalds at S at the commencement of the child’s time with the father and the father shall deliver the child to McDonalds at D at the commencement of the child’s time with the mother; or
(b)changeover at the end of time spent with a parent shall be reverse of (a) and the mother shall deliver the child to McDonalds at S at the end of the child’s time with her and the father shall return the child to the mother at the end of the child’s time with him by delivering the child to the mother at McDonalds at D; and
(c)Or otherwise as agreed between the parties.

Mother’s Travel to Netherlands:

The child shall spend time with the mother as follows for the purpose of travel to The Netherlands:
(a)Up until the child commences school: For 2 months each calendar year provided that same does not occur over Christmas as specified in order 5, 6, 7 and 8 when the child would otherwise be spending time with the father, unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing.
(b)From the time the child commences school: The mother shall be permitted to travel with the child to The Netherlands for a consecutive period of up to five (5) weeks in any one calendar year period in either April to October or the period of December to January;
(c)If the mother elects to travel in accordance with Order 16(b) she is to ensure that the period of travel includes either April or June school holidays or if the mother elects to travel in the December/January period then such travel is not to occur during a period where the child would be living with her father in accordance with Order 7, 8 or 9 herein.
(d)In the event the child travels in accordance with this order, she shall be provided make up time with the father for those periods missed as agreed, or if not agreed, by way of additional consecutive weekends and blocks of holiday time equal to the weekends and holiday time the father has foregone commencing on the child’s return.
In the event, and unless otherwise agreed, if the mother travels to The Netherlands at any other time the child shall live with her father for that period.
For the purpose of Order 16 and 17, the mother shall meet all costs associated with her and the child’s overseas travel.

Communication:

Both parties shall be able to communicate with the child by telephone at all reasonable times and by agreement, and in the absence of agreement between 6.30 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. on days when the child is not living with them and the parent with whom the child is not living with is to initiate the phone calls and the parent with whom the child is living to ensure that the child can be readily contacted at such times.
Both parents shall be able to communicate with the child by electronic communication including Skype/webcam as agreed and at all reasonable times as requested by the child including on her birthday and on Christmas Day.

Sydney Metropolitan Area:

Each parent is hereby restrained by injunction from doing any act or thing to cause or permit the child to live outside the Sydney Metropolitan Area without first obtaining the consent in writing of the other parent or the order of the Court.

Overseas Travel:

Subject to the above orders, each parent is hereby restrained by injunction from removing and/or causing to be removed and/or allowing and/or attempting to remove the child from the Commonwealth of Australia or allowing any third party so to do without first obtaining the consent in writing of the other parent or order of the court.
For the purpose of any overseas travel in accordance with these orders, or otherwise as agreed between the parties, the parent travelling overseas with the child shall notify the other parent of all travel arrangements, including providing a copy of all flight details and a complete travel itinerary and shall at all times keep the other parent advised of all particulars in relation to the child’s address and contact telephone number and shall enable the other parent to communicate including by Skype and webcam with the child at reasonable times and on no less than one occasion each week for the duration of the overseas travel period.

Residential Address and Telephone Number:

Each parent shall forthwith provide the other with any current residential address and contact telephone number for the child, and shall promptly notify the other parent in the event that any of such details change.

Injury or Illness:

Each parent shall notify the other, as soon as possible and in any event within 12 hours of any serious injury or illness suffered by the child whilst in their care.

Non Denigration

Each parent is hereby restrained from denigrating the other parent or member of that parent’s household in the presence or hearing of the child or permitting any other person so to do.

The time that the child spends with the father pursuant to these orders is conditional upon the father:
(a)Not consuming alcohol or using elicit drugs for at least 12 hours before the father is due to spend time with the child, and the father shall refrain from consuming any alcohol during periods of time in which the child is in his care pursuant to these Orders;
(b)Not smoking tobacco or any other substance in the presence of the child or in the place where the child is staying or residing or in a motor vehicle in which the child is travelling.
For the purpose of both parents spending time with the child pursuant to these orders, they shall be permitted to travel with the child in Australia or overseas on providing to the other parent at least 28 days notice of their intention so to do. If a parent does travel they shall provide to the other parent a travel itinerary and contact details for the child.
For the purpose of the father spending time with the child pursuant to these orders he shall be permitted to travel with the child in Australia or overseas on providing to the mother 28 days notice of his intention to do so. If the father does so travel he shall provide to the mother a travel itinerary and contact details for the child. The mother shall provide to the father the child’s current passport to enable the child to travel with the father and the father shall return the child’s passport to the mother at the conclusion of the travel.
Either parent may permit any other adult member of their extended family to travel with the child within the Commonwealth of Australia whist the child is otherwise in the care of that parent.
The Mother shall forthwith authorise any child care centre, pre-school or school the child may attend to provide to the Father photocopies of all reports, newsletters and announcements of any activities of the centre or of the school or otherwise pertaining to the education of the child, in English if possible, and if none have been made available in writing, then the Mother shall provide written particulars thereof, in English, including by email if available, of such reports and/or activities to the Father within 3 days of such documents or particulars being received by the Mother from the centre or school and the Mother shall authorise the staff members at any child care centre, pre-school and school that the child may attend to discuss the child’s progress with the Father.
Each party shall attend a Parenting After Separation Course as nominated by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
Exhibits and documents on subpoena may be returned after the expiration of 65 days.

Pursuant to s.65DA(2), and s.62B:
(a)The particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders; and
(b)The legal representatives of the parties are requested to assist in explaining to their clients:
(i) the obligations that the orders create; and
(ii)the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes an order.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 779 of 2007

MR TURNER

Applicant

And

MS MARIJKE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this matter, Mr Ford, solicitor, appeared on behalf of the applicant mother; Ms Hausman, of counsel, appeared on behalf of the respondent father, and Ms Clifford, of counsel, appeared on behalf of the independent children’s lawyer. I place on record the exemplary manner in which each of the legal representatives has represented their client’s interest. Each has been of great assistance to the court and I mean that most sincerely.
The hearing dates were that the matter was heard before me over nine days – 29 and 30 May, June 1 and 2, July 2, 3, 4 and 5, and then again in November when judgment was reserved. An earlier hearing before my sister Justice Ryan was terminated when it appeared that her Honour knew one of the witnesses to be called.

The Proceedings

The proceedings relate to parenting issues and the mother’s application for the overseas relocation of the only child of the parties, A (“the child”), born in April 2005. She wished to relocate the child to the Netherlands. In the alternative, the mother seeks the child live with her in Australia, and that the child see the father on alternate weekends. On his part, the father sought the child remain in Sydney and spend half of her time with the father, and half with the mother.
The independent children’s lawyer’s eventual position opposed the relocation and propounded that the child live with her mother in Australia and spend substantial and significant time with the father.
The mother relied upon the following documents: five affidavits of hers, 24 October 2007, 27 December 2007, 16 January 2009, 21 January 2009 and 25 May 2009. She also relied upon the affidavit of Mr T filed on 16 January 2009, of Mr O filed 21 January 2009, Mr C filed 23 January 2009, the maternal aunt filed 28 May 2009, the maternal uncle filed 28 May 2009 and the affidavit of Mr S sworn 9 June 2009.
On his part, the father relied on his affidavits – two filed on 16 January 2009 and one of 28 May 2009. He relied upon two affidavits of his partner, Ms F – both filed on 16 January 2009, an affidavit of the paternal grandmother filed 20 January 2009, an affidavit of Mr X filed 20 January 2009, the affidavit of Mr N filed 16 January 2009. All parties relied on the family report dated 12 November 2008, prepared by the family consultant Ms M. There was also a short family report that had been prepared by Mr G dated 28 March 2008 when, I take it, the case was first before one of my brother or sister judges. As I said, this matter came to me after it had an aborted hearing.
The independent children’s lawyer took a very active and useful part in the proceedings and her counsel addressed herself to all the evidence and submitted a minute of orders on the last day of the hearing. This sought that the child live with the father at set times, approximately four nights one week and one night the alternate week and otherwise live with the mother. It also provided for annual travel to the Netherlands for the mother and child. All parties sought special issues orders and various time spent as holidays. I will refer back to the orders where necessary, but as they took up some 28 pages, I do not think I will put them all in here this morning.
In 1961, the mother’s partner, Mr T – also known as … – was born. He is now aged 47 years. The mother was born in the Netherlands in 1974, now aged 35. The father was born in Sydney in 1976. He is now aged 33. The father’s partner, Ms F, was born in 1976. She is 33.
In 2001, the father was convicted of low-range prescribed concentration of alcohol – or PCA. He was disqualified from driving for six months.
In 2002, the father was seriously injured in a motorcycle accident and was proscribed pain relief medication to which it appears he later became somewhat addicted for a time. In 2003, the father was convicted of a second – and his last – prescribed concentration of alcohol. He was disqualified from driving for two years and given a six months suspended sentence. The father then undertook a sobriety program, which involved counselling and regular urinalysis for a period of six months.
The father claims at the end of 2003, he commenced a relationship with the mother. At that time the mother was boarding with the father’s parents in W. The father was living in Melbourne. That father alleged that in February 2004, he moved back to Sydney and the parties commenced cohabitation at the father’s parents’ home in W. The mother claims the parties commenced a relationship in March 2004. I do not think anything turns on that, particularly. Around June 2004, the parties decided to have a child and the mother said she stopped taking the pill, having decided she wanted to settle in Australia. As her mother’s Australian visa was about to expire, she returned to the Netherlands to spend time with her family and to apply for a spousal visa.

Whilst in the Netherlands, the mother telephoned the father to inform him that she was pregnant. The father was delighted, immediately flew to Europe to spend most of four weeks with the mother. They attended an ultrasound for the mother together.
During September, the parties spent a week in Portugal. Around the date of his birthday, the father and mother went out to dinner at about 6 pm and then on to three different hotels. At the third hotel, the father met some Australian friends and he and they spoke together with the mother standing beside. The mother then wanted to go home, but the father did not. They argued. The mother claimed she walked home alone - the father, that he cut short his celebrations and walked her home for her protection. The father left the Netherlands at the end of September 2004 and the mother followed a week later when she obtained her visa for Australia.
The parties recommenced living in the father’s family home at W. The parties complain about each others’ conduct during this period. The mother reports the father having lost his licence for two years upon an accident, and his conviction. The father admits his 2003 conviction, which followed an earlier six month suspension of licence, as I say, when he was 25.
Following their return to Australia on October 26, the parties attended a celebration of the father’s sister. On the way home in the car, the mother and the father argued and the father got out of the car and walked home. The mother claimed it was due to the father’s anger. She went home and went to bed. She complains that on his return, the father hit a glass door of a cupboard in their bedroom. The door broke. The father fractured his hand and needed surgery, which he underwent on 29 October 2004.
The mother says that on another occasion in late 2004, she observed the father collide with a glass door in his parents’ home, which broke and the father injured his knee. The mother attributes that incident to the father’s lack of sobriety. I believe the above are the mother’s complaints about the father up to the end of 2004.
For his part, the father noticed mood swings the mother displayed prior to her pregnancy increased in frequency during her pregnancy and continued at that rate following the birth of the child. The father claims the mother originally told him that she had suffered from depression since she had been a teenager. Prior to, and during, her pregnancy, he observed the mother consuming the prescription drug Aropax on a daily basis. After medical advice, she reduced the dosage to a minimum. I might just continue that topic here and say that subsequently, around February 2006, the mother claimed to the father to be weaning herself off the antidepressants, and in mid-2006, she told the father she had ceased taking them altogether.
Let us return to the year 2005. In February 2005, the parties remained living in the paternal grandparents’ home, but moved to a self-contained area of the house. The mother was in an advanced state of pregnancy. She complained that the father’s drinking increased. He admits to two drinks each night, and more on Saturdays and Sundays. He also deposed that he had observed the mother, on at least 15 occasions, drink alcohol until she “threw up” both before and after the birth of their child. The child was born in April 2005.
A constant source of conflict seems to have arisen from the father’s dependence on the mother as the only licensed driver, and several arguments ensured. There was also friction over the spending of the $3,000 baby bonus payment. The mother’s complaints about the father, set out in her affidavit, include an occasion in May 2005 when toast he left in an oven caught fire and had to be extinguished; a verbal altercation in June 2005, topic forgotten; and another on 7 October 2005 where the mother’s refusal to drive and obtain some cigarettes for the father allegedly resulted in his comment, “You need a bullet.”
Two days later, the parents discussed going to counselling. The father suggested waiting three months and seeing if their relationship improved – especially as they intended to move out from living in his parents’ home.
In December 2005, the parties attended the wedding of the mother’s friends, Mr and Mrs C. The mother reported rudeness from the father when she delayed returning to him after offering to fetch him another drink.
In 2006 in March, the parents and child left the father’s parents home at W and moved to a rental property, where the father still resides, at D. Due to continuing problems in their relationship, both attended a named counsellor rather inconveniently located at North Sydney. Whilst the mother went three times, the father only managed one attendance, as he claimed it was too far and he had to work. The mother noted her complaint about that.
One night in May 2006, following an argument, both parties called the police. The father’s mother was also asked to attend. Despite advice to the contrary, both parties slept that night in the same house. Thereafter, the mother applied for an apprehended violence order at the local Police Station. Once served with the complaint and summonsed, the father stayed away for several days. Thereafter, the mother agreed to his request to withdraw the complaint, upon the father giving undertakings to the court without admissions, as advised by his solicitor on 5 June 2006. He promised, among other things, to attend counselling and an anger management course. The latter he did on 31 May, 7 and 14 June, 5, 12 and 26 July 2006. The course had been run by InterRelate.
On 16 August 2006, the mother and the child travelled to the Netherlands to visit her family at her parents’ expense. They were away six weeks. Subsequently, the mother reported that the father attended a counselling session at InterRelate on 10 January 2007. The mother omits from her affidavit the father attended four further sessions of counselling on 26 March, 23 April, 7 and 21 May 2007.
On the mother’s return from the Netherlands in September 2006, she complained about the state of the house and the father’s drinking habits. One Saturday in November 2006, whilst the mother worked at a shop, she left the child in his care. When she returned, she disapproved of the father drinking beer in the back yard whilst watching the child playing in a little blow-up pool. His mother was there, but left soon after the mother returned home. Despite the father’s assurance he had “only had a few”, corroborated by his mother later that week, the mother remained critical.
On 9 December 2006, the night of the father’s employer’s Christmas party, the mother complained of the father’s alcohol intake and claimed to be embarrassed at the father’s allegedly abusive attitude to a taxi driver.
On Sunday 10 December 2006, the mother saw the father start drinking beer at 11 am. Her mood changed. The parties argued. The mother took the child to the paternal grandparents’ home and told them that she would not live with their son any more, due to his “irresponsible behaviour and the distress it causes”. On 16 December 2006, the mother moved to housesit a friend’s house in a nearby suburb. On 19 December 2006, the mother met the father in a park so that he could see the child.
On Wednesday 20 December 2006, the father served the mother with ex parte orders he had obtained from the Local Court. These placed the child’s name on the airport watch list and provided that the father spend time with the child “away from the mother” each Sunday between the hours of 9 am and 5 pm, together with telephone contact between 5 pm and 6 pm on at least two occasions during each week. The matter was stood over to 19 January 2007.
At counselling at InterRelate on 10 January 2007, the mother claims the father allegedly said “I don’t want to go back to her. I felt I was being attacked.”
In January 2007, the maternal grandfather – resident in the Netherlands – suffered a stroke. Whilst the father would agree to the mother going there, he would not agree to the child being taken out of the country.
Subsequently the parties reconciled. After a separation of three months, the mother moved back into the house at D - the father, having cleaned the house and walked the dog to her satisfaction. The terms of the reconciliation were reduced to writing and put into effect by order of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia. Having recited that the parties had reconciled, the orders continued:
It is further noted, however, that in the event of the relationship of the parties breaking down in the future, then it is the intention of the parties that they shall share equal time with the child of the relationship.
Curiously, although legally represented, the mother signed the terms. However, she swore she never intended to be bound by that notation. It was there to mislead the father and to keep him satisfied – as explained to her, allegedly, by her solicitor. The father agreed to facilitate the child obtaining a Dutch passport, and the mother was permitted to visit her family in the Netherlands during 2007 for up to three months. And in the subsequent years for six weeks, six years as mutually agreed. The parties agreed to participate in family counselling and so on. Interestingly, each party undertook to the court not to abuse the consumption of alcohol whilst in the company of the child. And the parties further agreed not to verbally abuse each other, nor denigrate the other in the presence of the child. Both parties had their own individual legal practitioners who witnessed the terms of settlement.
The child was put into day care two days per week and the mother went back to work. The father’s business was not making enough to support the family. The mother criticised the father’s intake of alcohol and she became very homesick and very unhappy. The father agreed to the mother and the child flying to the Netherlands. Her parents again paid for her flights. On 5 May 2007, the mother complained the father had drunk alcohol to excess. After an argument over the child’s passport, the mother involved the paternal grandfather by asking, “Can you please come and pick up your drunk son?” The paternal grandfather attended and argued with his son, but left unaccompanied. Apparently the arguing continued.
On 7 May 2007, both father and mother attended counselling, as I have set out above. On 25 May 2007, as booked, the mother and the child flew to the Netherlands where the maternal grandfather had suffered another stroke. They were to be away for two months. But later, this was extended to three months. The mother complained that she had to try several times to phone the father, spoke to his mother instead and only made contact with the father the next day, on 26 May 2007. On 5 June, the mother wrote to the father, but he did not open the letter and gave it back to her on her return.
On 8 June, the father did telephone. The mother was critical of the tone of his voice and fobbed off the call. The father rang back, the mother handed the telephone to her sister, the sister said, “Ring the land line later tomorrow.” The mother was critical that the father failed to do so. She further complained he was not answering his home phone, did not reply to text messages and did not call her. However, on 12 June, the mother did speak to the father and told him about the death of her father. She complained that the father did not telephone her on the day of her father’s funeral, nor a few days later in June 2007 – her birthday.
On 30 June the mother spoke briefly to the father by telephone. On 6 July the father did telephone her and thereafter they communicated by email, as the paternal grandmother had relocated to new premises where an email connection was available to him. Annexed to the file of his affidavit were several of the emails exchanged.
On 25 July 2007 the mother stated she would like to stay longer in the Netherlands and needed more time there. Next day the father replied by text, “For something like this I do think a phone call would be appropriate. Love from [the father].”
On 31 July the mother inquired of the father whether he had thought about the mother and the child staying longer in the Netherlands. Half an hour later she got the following reply:
[Mother’s name], I do not know what you want and when I do ask you say you don’t know. I’m not a mind reader and I need some solid information if you want me to make compassionate decisions, love from [the father].
An email also dated 31 July included the following from the father:
I do know your mother’s needs. You, I am more than happy for you to stay. I would like, however, to be around A. Your coldness has made me choose to think about what I want, as for the last three months I have been content knowing that you are where you are for a good reason and put all my feelings aside. If you want to stay longer, I would like it A came home for three months. And if you are still not ready to come back A could come back to you for another three months. Does this sound like a fair way to go, love from [the father].
31 July, the mother sent a longer email. This included the following:
I am sorry, but I cannot bear the thought to be without A, for her, after I have been with her since the day she was born. I need to be there.
The mother raised the practical issues of the child’s travel, 24-hour care of a two-year old and so on. She continued:
I have been screaming for us to be a happy family. I have been scared and upset. Every time there was too much alcohol and abuse from you. I have told you what it does to me.
Later – further, she wrote:
[Father’s name], I have nothing to come back to in Australia. I feel my well is empty there. I have no family, no career, no security, no peaceful place to be. All I want is to give my child a warm and secure home with a happy mother. I cannot change you and I will have to accept that. I do not want to fight with you anymore. It’s a waste of energy for all of us. Love, [the mother].
The father said that for all the time the mother and the child in the Netherlands, despite his requests, the mother did not allow him to speak to the child once. When he asked, the mother either did not respond or said no.
The father received a telephone call from a solicitor on 23 August 2007 seeking his address. On 24 August 2007 the father received a letter from the solicitor. It informed the father the mother considered their relationship had come to an end. Further, she did not intend to live with him when she returned to Australia, but would obtain short term accommodation with friends. On the mother’s instructions, her solicitor stated the mother was extremely concerned about his capacity to care for the child, unless our client is present. That is, the mother was refusing time with the child unless she were present. The letter stated:
These concerns are based on your frequent excessive alcohol consumption and verbal abuse directed towards our client whilst in the presence and hearing of A.
The solicitor sought assurances to be communicated to their firm that the father would not meet the mother on her return, that he would attend mediation, that he would inform them of the time as post 28 August 2007 when he would be available to spend time with the child “in our client’s presence.” That was the sine qua non, the mother’s presence.
The mother’s email of Tuesday, 28 August 2007 sets out her conduct following: it was headed, Your Refusal to See your Daughter. It also stated:
During our conversation over the phone the past three days I’ve asked if you wanted to see A and you declined the offers. I’ve also spoken to your father and mother on two separate occasions since then offering the opportunity to see A. I was told by your father not to invade his space. I told him I was only offering him time with A. You asked me to rush back from the Netherlands leaving my grieving mum behind, because you and your sick father wanted to see A and now you have refused to see her. I am very confused and upset about this, [mother’s name].
I will not detail the solicitor’s correspondence that followed, nor accusation upon accusation. The fact is that the paternal grandfather was in the last stages of terminal cancer. The burden on him, on his devoted wife and his two sons, of which the father was one, would not be hard for anyone of any empathy to imagine. To have thrown into this evolving tragedy, the actions of the mother, holding back the granddaughter from contact unless she were present all the time is mind boggling.
To endeavour to force herself into a house of death as a condition of even seeing their granddaughter is to be seen only for what it was and is. It is not as though the mother was ignorant of the situation of a dying parent.
The mother well knew that no harm could possibly come to the child if she were looked after by her paternal grandmother. The mother had used the paternal grandmother to provide a place to board, to sponsor her into Australia, to put a roof over her head and the father’s head for years, to have baby-sat when needed and to provide even a separate flat in the house of the grandparents so the two could be together. There is no evidence that the dying grandfather had ever done the mother any injury. He had provided shelter as well and taken her part against his son at the mother’s request on at least one occasion that I referred to.
Into his dying weeks came the mother’s intrusion as a condition of seeing his granddaughter. The mother was full of pity for her own feelings of loss of her own father and of the feelings of a widowed mother, but I see no glimmer of pity or decency in her treatment of the child’s grandparents in the month after her return. Indeed, there was a flurry of legal posturing consistent with her emails from the Netherlands. I have not mentioned the mother’s conduct towards the father as I intend to do so shortly.
On 16 September the mother wrote a note in her own hand to the dying grandfather and sent it either on the 16^th or 17^th of that month:
Dear [paternal grandfather], I am writing to let you know that if you would like to see A, I am more than happy for this. I was under the impression that it was not very important to you due to your previous reaction to my offer. Please contact me personally, [mother’s name].
A mobile phone number was provided. On 18 September, the dying man replied:
Dear [mother’s name], thank you for your letter dated 16 September 2007, and yes, it is important and we would be delighted to see A with her father, as I don’t have much time left as my health is failing. However, please be aware we have joined with [the father] as grandparents seeking shared access with A through the Federal MagistratesCourt. As a loving family we hope this imbalance can be restored between all parties sensibly and quickly for the wellbeing of A. Regards, [the paternal grandfather].
On 18 September the mother’s solicitors repeated that the mother’s position, insisting on her personal supervision, was unchanged and allegedly that the father’s calls and text messages asking to see the child unsupervised accounted to “harassment.” Communication in the future was to be only through solicitors.
Thus it was that the father’s solicitors informed the mother by letter of 22 October 2007 that the paternal grandfather had died the weekend before. It continued:
It is tragic that the behaviour of your client prevented our client’s father seeing his granddaughter for the last time.
The letter sought agreement that the child be permitted to spend time with her father and his widowed mother at the grandfather’s funeral in October 2007, and then afterwards with the family at the grandparent’s home. The reply was swift and negative.
The mother claimed she had let the child see the grandfather on 23 September 2007, as indeed she had, and did not think it appropriate that the child attend “the funeral tomorrow.” Not only a no, but further, the mother was taking the child out of Sydney for the balance of the week, and accordingly “our client will be unable to arrange for your client to see the child this week.”

I turn to the father’s time with the child from May to December 2007. The father agreed the mother could take the child to the Netherlands to visit her seriously ill maternal grandfather. They left on 25 May 2007, and from the time that the mother kept the child with her. During the three months that the child was separated from her father, despite his many requests to the mother, the child was not allowed to speak on the telephone to the father once. That situation was the same even when the father agreed to successive requests from the mother to stay longer in the Netherlands. Not once did the father or daughter speak to each other during her absence in Europe.
On the mother’s and the child’s return to Sydney from the Netherlands on 25 August 2007 the father attended the airport to meet them, despite the solicitor’s letter asking not do so. The child was very excited to see her father, called out “Papa.” He gave her a kiss. The reunited family spent about 10 minutes sitting on a bench and playing until the mother said, “Can we go?” The father drove the child and her mother to where the mother was to stay. She refused an invitation to return to the leased property at D, where they had lived before she had travelled overseas.
The father and daughter were together in these circumstances, 10 minutes on a bench and about an hour in the car. So let us say an hour and a half.
The father next saw the child while driving in W. He stopped. The child called out, “Papa.” He approached the mother and daughter. After five minutes of the father talking to the child, she stepped towards her father and sat on his knee as he was squatting. Immediately the mother said, “Can we go now,” and took the child into a garage nearby.
As the paternal grandfather’s health failed and death was near the father repeatedly asked the mother to allow the child to see the paternal grandfather, as I have set out. Eventually, on 22 September 2007, he sent a message he would pick both of them up about 8.30 am, thus succumbing to the mother’s demand for her to supervise all contact. He sat outside the mother’s residence until 9 am. She told him she had an appointment to go to and drove off with the child. During the rest of the day he repeated his request to her.
On 23 September 2007 the mother finally agreed to his requests. The mother arrived at the paternal grandfather’s home with the child and some other people. The child had spent only half an hour with the father and his parents when the mother returned to the front door and announced it was time to go.
When she was told the father and the child were just about to read a book to the paternal grandfather, the mother said, “No, it is time to go. Come along, A.” Not wanting to cause a scene the father acquiesced and the visit was terminated.
The father did not see the child again in September, October or November. The paternal grandfather’s health deteriorated. He was hospitalised for two weeks before he died. The father continued to ask for the child to see her grandfather, but the mother refused. He did not see his grandchild again before he died.
I should add for completeness that the mother, through her solicitors, suggested that the paternal grandfather was understood to have a virus that the child might catch. A certificate from the attending doctor was demanded and it informed her that cancer was not contagious.
In summary, on this aspect of the matter, I find the mother did all she could to place pressure on the father by keeping his daughter from him and his family at a time of great crisis for them. Having herself had the comfort of their daughter during the latter part of her own father’s death, she exhibited no compassion for the father’s parents, who had done so much for her, and nowhere is there the slightest suggestion that she showed any empathy or understanding of the father’s tragic position.
The mother exhibited a lack of empathy for the father’s double loss, of being the loss of his father to death and the loss of his presence of his only child. The mother deliberately and intentionally withheld the child from the father and the family. Her conduct is frighteningly similar to the observation of the family consultant in her report concerning the mother’s perceptions. This was written in November 2008:
Paragraph 45: [the mother] failed to demonstrate, during her interview, any empathic understanding or insight into how A could experience the loss of her father in her day-to-day life should the relocation be permitted.
The family counsellor even suggested a course of Parenting After Separation that might assist the mother “to develop the ability to empathically understand and give priority to her child’s needs and to see them as distinctly separate from her own.”
I turn now to the mother’s criticism for the father. Although the mother, in her oral evidence, conceded the father could offer the child warmth and love, she found it difficult to identify anything else she thought the father could offer the child, as she developed into a young lady. I quote her words:
Right now it is – I find it – I do think so, but maybe later when she gets older he may be able to offer her different things.
The mother suggested:
Maybe he can teach her how to fix things.
When asked to identify anything positive about the father she could say, she only raised the following:
I believe he doesn’t hurt her physically.
Asked:
Is that all?
The mother replied:
Well, he can teach her now how to do a wheelie with her pram.
The mother adhered to the criticisms of the father that she had made to the family consultant. This is her evidence, and it was also set out in the family report. This is her evidence:
His values do not involve any form of sophistication, and therefore will not add to A’s wellbeing and success in society.
The mother described her decision to have a child by the father as a mistake.
The mother was very critical to the family consultant of the father’s use of alcohol, part of which I have referred to earlier. But in cross-examination she admitted that at no time, whilst he was allegedly abusing alcohol, had he had the care of the child. This was somewhat at variance with her earlier complaint about the child being in the inflatable pool and him drinking, a claim refuted at the time by the paternal grandmother.
The solicitor for the mother elicited from the father that at the wake held for the paternal grandfather the two brothers, sons of the grandfather, had argued, and the child’s uncle had called the police.
Although the uncle, (who had been arguing with his brother, the father), had regretted doing so, prima facie the actions of the father had provoked it. The father readily admitted he had consumed too much alcohol at his father’s wake and he climbed on the single storey roof at a point from which as a child he had been accustomed to dive into the pool. He admitted he had “had enough,” and wanted some peace and solitude. He said in evidence to me, “I was drunk, but it is very easy to climb up on that roof at that end of the house and just sit there, away from everyone else.”
The father did not seek to justify his actions. Considering the pressures the father was under with the long slow process of his father dying from cancer, the aggravation of the mother refusing him seeing his daughter or the child seeing the deceased without the mother being present, as well as denying the father the comfort of his daughter on that day, I make no adverse finding against the father for his otherwise seemingly bizarre conduct of climbing on a roof at his father’s wake in a quest to be on his own.
The mother was also critical of the father’s capacity to assist the child’s intellectual development, whereas her new partner, Mr T, in her view, could provide very well for the child’s intellectual and cultural development. Mr T, she said, would be a good role model for the child.
Whereas the mother believed the child’s father did not teach her right from wrong when the child returned to the mother’s home from being with her father, the mother told the child “This is where we behave normal.”
To the family consultant, the mother complained that the child returned home “exhausted” due to the father not putting the child to bed early enough or for a daytime sleep. She was pleased the child spent two days of the days she was to spend with her father at childcare as it was preferable for the child rather than the child being with the father: whether being at childcare was the cause of the child’s tiredness was not explored.
The mother also stated the child did not get enough quiet time when with her father: again, the stimulating effect of the child V, Ms F’s son, was not explored.
Another complaint about the father’s care was that the child watched “too much television”: the mother herself only watched television once per month. Furthermore, the food the child ate at her father’s was not healthy and the child was given lollies by her father.
Overall, the mother was concerned about the father’s ability to provide a healthy upbringing for the child, due to the father’s alcohol dependence and also because he had different norms, values and views on the child’s upbringing to her own.
Even if the mother were allowed to relocate the child to the Netherlands, she would only provide regular information about their daughter to the father, as she told the family consultant, as long as she was “not being harassed or intimidated.”
I formed the view that the mother had very little respect for the father, indeed, was contemptuous of him, and condemned his parenting and conduct as well as his own values. I found this attitude of the mother’s extremely patronising and unjustified, on my observations of the father in the course of the hearing. I so find.
Despite the mother’s lip service to “always supporting a relationship with the father” when interviewed by the family consultant, I find that were the mother permitted to relocate the child to the Netherlands, it is likely to sever nearly all bonds that the child presently has with the father and with the father’s family.
I accept the father’s contention expressed by the family consultant that by her conduct to date – that is, November 2008, when the report was written – the mother has been endeavouring to greatly restrict his relationship with his daughter so that the child could be relocated to the Netherlands.
A great deal of the evidence of her course of conduct concerning the father’s time with the child or, more accurately, lack of time with the child – is explicable on the balance of probabilities by this factor, which if not the only one appears to me to be a major one. The family consultant reported that both the father and the paternal grandmother raised the question of the mother’s mental health. The father had noticed that the mother’s conduct after the birth of the child had changed and he believed the mother may have suffered from postpartum depression. He reported that the mother had taken antidepressant medication for three years prior to the child’s birth. The paternal grandmother reported that when the mother had ceased her antidepressant medication she had noticed changes in the mother’s personality. She had become more argumentative and changeable, according to the mother-in-law.
In her affidavit of 16 January 2009 the mother dealt with her “unhappiness.” She claimed the main reason for her unhappiness was that she worried about the child as she “could see how she’s not being looked after whilst in the care of the father.” She was also concerned about the effect adult conflict was having on the child. She listed her complaints of the father’s care of his daughter and his “norms and values, which do not involve any form of sophistication thus tending to add nothing to the child’s well-being and success in society.” The mother denied she had suffered from depression since she had been a teenager. If that were true it leaves unexplained her use of antidepressant medication up until the time she fell pregnant and so on.
The mother reported that she “felt depressed” when she had been in a relationship with the father due to his alleged behaviour that had caused her “fear and stress.”
The mother reported a feeling of “homesickness” which had been during her pregnancy, which was worsened since the birth. She attributed this to the father’s alleged shortcomings. She saw the source of her future happiness as being with a new partner, Mr T, who afforded her and the child love, warmth and happiness. The mother testified that the happiness “goes together with being able to care for A.”
The mother had attended a clinical psychologist, Mr S, to “cope with her unhappiness.” A report dated 17 November 2008 from him was annexed to her affidavit and a transcript of his evidence, which was taken in the first aborted trial, came into evidence by consent.
Mr S observed that the mother often appeared anxious and depressed in reaction to discussing the conflict between herself and her former partner with regards to the child. After at least three visits of an hour each, including extensive testing, he recorded that the mother had “no signs of psychopathology in evidence.” He attached an opinion that dealt with mainly family dynamics and directly addressed itself to the theories of Freud, etcetera. He was of the opinion that the mother could greatly benefit from the emotional and financial support of Mr T and from emotional and practical and physical support from her family and friends in the Netherlands.
In the transcript of his oral evidence it emerged that Mr S had seen the mother for over 14 sessions between 1 May 2008 and 19 February 2009. Mr S reported that the mother had a positive attitude in terms of the future and especially in terms of her new relationship with Mr T. The mother claimed to be a realist and had contemplated an outcome of the litigation where she might not be permitted to relocate the child to the Netherlands.
With the background of the mother having endured two reactive depressive episodes clinically, related to relationship breakups, Mr S was asked to consider the child, and thus the mother, remaining in Australia. Mr S was unable to predict if the mother would develop a full-blown depression in reaction to that, as the earlier two episodes had occurred in a relational context. He noted the mother had developed a lot of resilience over the years and that, although she could find some an outcome extremely difficult and hard, she would accept it. She had indicated to Mr S that she planned to do further study in accounting, try her best to find a stable position, and build a career from thereon. He had some confidence in her ability to cope if she and her daughter remain here.
There was also the possibility, which eventually Mr S said was “highly likely” that in the short term at the least there was going to be an increase in the mother’s symptoms, although such an increase needed to be quantified and qualified in relation to the anticipated intensity and the anticipated ability for her to recover.
The golden thread running through her life, Mr S said, was her assumption of a “nurturing” role. She had been a nanny and taken a nurturing and caring role in her previous relationships. He dubbed as “interesting” an aspect of the mother’s reaction, being that as soon as she becomes more and more emotional or depressed the intensity of nurturing increases as well. Even if it is a projection of her own needs for nurture and care, at least it is her primary reaction and response to difficult emotional periods of her life: “she increases her nurturing.” As soon as she is more distressed she becomes more overprotective, more caring, more nurturing and more involved. Mr S would expect more focus by the mother on the child in such circumstances. The mother’s depression manifested itself in heightened involvement.
Mr S had assessed the mother’s new partner, Mr T, and found him to be a responsible, stable person with no history of psychopathology. The relationship between him and the mother was different to her past relationships in terms of its gradual development and in terms of support and stability.
I, too, formed a favourable impression of Mr T.
Mr S expressed himself ready to continue to treat the mother in the future. I accept the evidence of Mr S as I have set it out above.
The mother commenced proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court on 25 October 2007. In her application she asked that the orders previously made on 2 April 2007 be discharged and she be permitted to relocate the child to the Netherlands, with consequential orders. She supported her application by her affidavit sworn 24 October 2007.
In a further affidavit sworn on 17 December 2007 the mother swore that the father had spent time with the child on 22 August 2007:
… for one and a half hours when he collected me and A from the airport in my presence.
and on 23 September 2007:
…for 40 minutes at his parents’ residence with his family present.
On Sunday 16 December the mother had taken the child to the park and the police became involved, eventually allowing the father to take the child home without the mother being present. She claimed the child was to be returned at 5 pm.
On 17 December the mother brought proceedings.
On 19 December Halligan FM made interim orders appointing an independent child’s lawyer and provided for the father to have graduated time with the child. Basically, the orders started with two hours three times a week to be spent with the father, followed by gradual increases to eight hours three times a week until, from 5 May 2008, the father’s time was to extend from 9 am Monday to 5 pm Wednesday each week. The child was to live with her mother at all other times.
The mother kept a very detailed record of the parties’ interactions, including her throwing a bucket of water, with which she had been washing the floor, over the father. The father was justifiably furious but she did not record any actions or words he used: I take it there were none relevant to report.
The mother recorded in detail her breaching of the orders of 29 December 2008. She completely, unreasonably, refused to hand over the child to the paternal grandmother, who had known the child all her life, when the grandmother had appeared for changeover. Contrary to the orders, which permitted a nominee of the father to collect the child, the mother refused to do so and persisted with her wrongful attitude all that day and the next. The result was that the child’s best interests were deliberately subjected to the mother’s whim and misinterpretation of the court orders.
When the father collected the child on 5 January 2009 the mother approached the local police station for help if the father did not return the child on 7 January 2009.
On 7 January the father sent a text that the child would be available the next day, the 8^th, at 5 pm. The mother reported the matter to police but they offered her no assistance but invited a call if the child were not returned.
The father’s solicitor’s letter of 6 January was unanswered by the mother’s solicitors. It appeared that his office was closed and apparently did not reopen until 14 January 2009. After detailing the mother’s failure to deliver the child on 29 December 2008 in wilful breach of the orders of 19 December 2007, the letter from the father’s solicitor proposed make-up time as set out by making the return day as Thursday 8 January 2009 at 5 pm and a day’s further extension for the two following Sundays to Wednesday in each case. The letter contained the following:
If we do not hear from you we’ll presume that your client is agreeable to the above arrangement and, accordingly, A will be available for collection by your client at 5 pm on Thursday 8 January 2009. In the absence of any agreement from your client or any reasonable alternative proposal, contravention proceedings may follow.

The mother’s solicitor’s office was closed. The mother’s solicitor did nothing, claiming on 15 January 2009 to be have been on annual leave. The offer was rejected. No alternative was put.
The mother presented herself to collect the child at the time specified in the orders, not in the letter. Neither the father nor child was there, changeover did not occur and the mother turned to the police for help. They declined to assist.
On Thursday 8 January 2009 at 5 pm the child was made available to the mother.
On Wednesday 14 January 2009 the mother again presented herself to pick up the child, claiming to have been ignorant of the father’s solicitor’s letter to her solicitor.
Her solicitor’s letters indicated the letter was read by that office on 14 January 2007 and stamped “received”. The solicitor chose not to reply until 15 January 2007, when a reply was faxed at 3.27 pm.
To enforce her view of the arrangements, the mother arrived at the father’s residence with three men: Mr O, his son JO, and Mr H. She claimed that she knew Mr O was to meet her outside the father’s residence for the purpose of picking up the child. In fact, she had asked Mr C to attend but he had arranged for Mr O to come. The mother had met Mr H a few times but had not met JO.
When the mother approached the house she entered the garden and saw the father walk out of the door. She asked that the child be brought out for her. The mother approached the house close enough to see through a window. The father asked his partner to close the door and went into a side gate himself. He closed that. The father told the mother to leave the property.
The mother’s evidence was that she soon went down to the stairs, where she waited until JO arrived. The father went back up into the front yard and saw her walk up the street. The father re-entered the house.
The father then received a message from a private investigator, who had been hired to check on the availability to the mother of a motor car, that the mother was on her way back “with some heavy artillery.” The mother was seen then to re-enter the front yard followed by three big men. The mother spoke to them.
The father then saw the three men approach the house. One stayed with the mother at the base of the stairs, as the mother said.
I accept the evidence that an attempt was made to force the door open. The father pressed against it to avoid it being broken open.
One of the two men said, “Open this door. We are here to get the child.” The father told the men to leave his property.
As this conduct continued the father’s partner called the police. The father called out, “We’ve called the police,” and the men were to leave the premises. When the men left the premises they remained in the street in front of the property. The father reported to his solicitor – and it was included in a letter of complaint sent the next day by the solicitor – that the mother encouraged the men to get her daughter. The father claims she did this three times and that after the mother spoke to the men they again approached the door, banging it afresh with their fists and kicking it. Again, the father stood by the door to prevent it opening.
The mother acknowledged that although she had been ordered to leave the property, she stood at the bottom of the stairs on the property. She also acknowledged that Mr O was ordered to leave the property. He did not.
The mother does not deny that she attended the premises and sought the aid of at least one of the men to retrieve her child. Nor do her witnesses deny going to the premises for that purpose. Mr O admits that he went there with the intent of fetching the child. He corroborates the evidence that when the mother went to the house on her own, she was ordered off the property. He admits that he, with Mr H, went to the front door and knocked on it, asking that it be opened. He also swore he said, “We need to talk.”
At some stage, the door was kicked by at least one of the men and this was conveyed to the private investigator shortly after the occurrence. As Mr O was unknown to the father, or at least the father did not recognise any of the three men, it is difficult to understand Mr O’s assertion of a need to talk. The father ordered the three men to leave the property. They did not do so at that time.
Mr O then swore he said, “We are here to pick up the child, there is a court order in place.” After the father told the men the police had been called, the men walked across the front yard and one shook his fists. Eventually the men did leave the property, but waited outside. The police attended and the child remained with the father.
I accept the evidence of the father and his partner as to this incident. I also accept the father’s evidence that the incident frightened him immensely, that he did not sleep well that night, constantly waking to any small sound.
All this took place at the mother’s instigation. At the time, she had a lawyer retained and either got advice and did not follow it, or decided that brute force might intimidate – if not overcome – the father. Putting the father in fear was an assault, while there was no battery on him, but rather on the door.
The mother expected the child to have been in the house and was indifferent to what distress it may have caused the child. Luckily the father and his partner ensured that the child was taken to another part of the house and sheltered from the pandemonium.
On Friday 23 January 2009, the matter was again before the court and consent orders were made altering the place of changeover.
Overall, I accept the submission of counsel for the independent children’s lawyers that from the time of the consent orders in December 2007, there has been regular time for the child to spend with each parent. I accept that overall, there has been compliance with the orders by both parents – save for the two incidents where the child was withheld by each parent. The first was when the mother wrongfully withheld the child from the paternal grandmother and then from the father for several days from 29 December 2008. This was not only erroneous but showed no thought of the best interests of the child; or of the unnecessary slight to the paternal grandmother for no good reason; or of the effect such wilful action would have on the father, who – under the orders – was entitled to have time with the child.
The second incident was the alleged makeup time, thought to have been arranged by the father’s solicitors by letter. These were put in place in accordance with the letter. But both parties did not realise there had been a breakdown in communication between the two firms of lawyers. It is a wonder how Shakespeare managed to write Othello without any of them being represented by lawyers.
The climax came on 14 January 2009, when the father retained the child in accordance with the supposed change to makeup time. The mother encouraged three men, whom he met at the premises to “get” her child. This was a serious intrusion on the father’s premises, and caused him fear. It should never have happened.
This all had a subplot, in that the parents had been arguing as to whether or not the mother had access to a vehicle in which to collect the child. Disbelieving her denials that she did not have access to the car, the father employed a private investigator to watch. Sure enough, the mother did drive a convertible motor vehicle – I think a Saab – and on 14 January 2009, she was observed to park it out of the father’s sight around a corner. The car was filmed by the investigator and DVD evidence obtained and shown in court. It did not improve my opinion of the general lack of veracity of the mother, nor many of her protestations.
Having looked at these two major incidents, neither of which showed either parent in a good light, I accept the submission of counsel for the ICL that neither parent ought to rely on criticism of the other in circumstances where both events were clearly difficult for the child. Thankfully they have not been repeated since January 2009.
I also accept there has mainly been civility between the relevant adults – particularly this year – and the utilisation of a communication book has replaced most verbal communication between the parents.
I turn now to consider the evidence of the parties’ witnesses, before analysing the proposals and applying the mandatory sections of the Act.
The mother’s case was supported by her partner Mr T, who had been in a relationship with the mother since the beginning of November 2007. He had arrived in Australia in 2006, and had lived here at the time of swearing his affidavit.
Mr T owns a 23 metre boat on which he proposes he and the mother and the child will live if the child is relocated to the Netherlands. The boat is moored in a university town in the Netherlands with some 112,000 inhabitants. He has family in the Netherlands, he supports the relocation and he stated he was prepared to contribute to a fund to ensure the child could travel back to Australia to spend time with and communicate with her father.
He recognised the bond the father had with the child, and the child with the father, and swore to support it. And I have already indicated the favourable view I formed of that witness.
The mother also relied on the evidence of her sister, the maternal aunt, a health worker – then-located in the United Kingdom with her husband, the maternal uncle. Both swore to having opened a bank account containing 5,000 Great British Pounds, as a travel fund for the child. They were prepared to top it up from time to time, at whatever intervals the court deemed fit. As a father of three young children, the maternal uncle recognised the importance of the relationship between father and daughter.
The maternal aunt, his wife, however set out a litany of criticisms of the father. At first the mother’s sister had wholeheartedly supported the mother in her decision to build a life in Australia with the child’s father. She loves both her sister and the child, and both she and her husband have supported the mother and the child financially and emotionally.
Were the mother and child to relocate to the Netherlands, they would have the support of her sister and her husband, cousins aged, 8, , 5, and 2, together with the maternal grandmother, extended family and a network of loyal and loving friends.
So strong is the maternal aunt in support for her sister, that she will continue hers and her family’s support wherever the mother and the family are located. Relocation, though, would involve proximity and make the support available much more hands-on. Indeed, the sister attended the court for part of the hearing having travelled from overseas.
However, the maternal aunt added a list of shortcomings of the father. This is her own view. She listed examples of the father’s alleged lack of interest in both the child and the mother. She listed only one mobile text message from him to the mother in September 2006, when the mother spent a fortnight with her sister and brother-in-law.
The maternal aunt recalled the father’s repeated calls to the mother in June 2007 when she had intervened and spoken herself to the father. She labelled his words as slurred, and stated he was “aggressive and drunk”. The deponent does not mention why the mobile telephone was not turned off, if no calls were welcome – a rather simple remedy for unwanted calls when the two sisters were visiting their dying father a day before his death at the hospital. They knew where they were when the phone rang – but the father did not, apparently. The sister was critical that for a few days after her father’s death the mother had tried successively and unsuccessfully to contact the father. Furthermore, when she had done so, there were no returned phone calls only a “deafening silence”. This encompassed the mother’s birthday as well.
As if these criticisms were not enough, the maternal aunt claimed to have experienced the father’s “severe lack of interest in people”. She had never received any personal response from the father for messages concerning birthdays, a new job, passing an exam or any cards to him and his daughter. Her criticism of the father is long-held. In 2004, she had found it “amazing” how little time the father was prepared to spend with visitors.
In 2005, when she had visited the mother and family in Australia, she claimed the father had done his utmost to avoid personal contact with her, as well as with his family “as much as he could”. Although having deposed to all of the above and later had sworn the father’s misconduct bothered her, the maternal aunt claimed that she would encourage her sister to keep a strong relationship between the child and her father.
She readily admitted she did not have a high opinion of the father. I find that to do so, she would have to overcome a deep-seated antipathy towards the father, as evidenced by what I have recited, and demonstrated.
Under cross-examination, the maternal aunt was unable to say if the funds set aside by her and her husband would be available to the mother to assist her visiting the Netherlands, if the child remained located in Australia.
The maternal aunt had visited Australia in June 2005, a few months after the birth of the child, and again to testify in June 2006. The transcript of her evidence became an exhibit before me. Since 2005, the two sisters had seen each other basically annually. The maternal aunt had sent money – approximately $10,000 to her sister – over a four-year period. She felt it was unfair that the father had never contributed to the travel fares of the mother and the child on their trips to the Netherlands.
A transcript of the evidence of the mother’s brother-in-law – the maternal aunt’s husband, the maternal uncle, also became an exhibit. He, too, stated it would be a matter of discussion between himself and his wife, whether or not the travel fund set up would be available not only if the mother lived in the Netherlands, but if the mother lived in Australia it would be available to the mother and the child to visit annually or otherwise the Netherlands.
The mother also relied upon an affidavit of Mr C which in four short paragraphs explained that he had been unable to fulfil an agreement to accompany the mother to collect the child on Wednesday 14 January 2009 and, that being the case, he had asked Mr O to do so. He swore that he had warned Mr O “Don’t do anything stupid, there is a court order in place.” Such a warning, sitting as it does otherwise unexplained, seems an odd thing to have said, unless Mr C felt it necessary. It is a great shame the advice was not followed. The warning was not recorded in Mr O’s affidavit. But enough has already been said about the conduct of parties in December 2008 and January 2009.
Finally, the mother also relied on the affidavit and evidence of Mr S, a clinical psychologist who annexed his report of 17 December 2008, to which I have referred earlier. It was clearly written with the conflict of the parties over the custody arrangements of the child in view. The mother had been referred to Mr S by her psychiatrist Dr J, who was not called to give evidence. I have referred to this report earlier, and I assume Dr J’s evidence would not have improved the mother’s case.
On behalf of the father, reliance was placed on the evidence of his partner, Ms F. They had known each other since being neighbours in 2005. They entered into a relationship on 10 May 2008, and cohabited from 24 May 2008.
Ms F has a son, V, by a former partner. V was born in January 2006, and he is now nearly four years old – a little younger than the subject child.
Ms F has known the child since she the child was approximately nine months old. Ms F and the father, jointly share the care of both children whilst they are with them – and they contribute roughly equally to the household chores of cooking and eating. Ms F gave details of the accommodation and routine of the household, which I find were perfectly adequate and unexceptional – particularly the children’s diet, activities and discipline. The children have the same bedtimes, and play together, use their own toys – over which they have the occasional spat. The parents discuss boundary setting and endeavour to be consistent with their approach – that is, consistent between the father and Ms F.
Ms F has observed a warm and loving relationship between the child and her father, to whom the child looks for reassurance, support and praise as may be needed. She has often observed the child to sit on her father’s lap and cuddle into him.
Ms F was present during the lamentable episode on 14 January 2009, when the mother attended their home with the three males. She corroborated the father’s evidence. Fortunately, she continually checked on the child – four or five times – to ensure the child was okay, and the child remained in the play room throughout.
However, Ms F, too, was scared by the whole incident – unable to sleep well that night, constantly waking to any small sound and afraid that the men might return again. She and the father made arrangements for the child to sleep away from the house that night. Ms F delayed her return to the house from work by going directly to a gymnasium, in fear of a repeat visit by the mother and the men. She considered staying overnight with a girlfriend, but returned home with her partner. So upset was she, that she discussed making alternative arrangements for her son for the next week. She annexed an email sent to the mother within hours of the event:
[Mother’s name], I am appalled and quite shocked that we just had some thugs come and try to kick our door in, and place threats on [the father].
The court echoes Ms F’s sentiments.
The paternal grandmother also gave evidence by affidavit and orally. She and her husband had accepted the mother into their family as part of their family unit. She had observed the mother to be very happy living with them. She supported the mother’s application for residence in Australia, and gave an Assurance of Support to the government for two years from 6 October 2004, to enable the mother to enter the country.
In February 2005, the paternal grandmother and her husband had moved out of their bedroom, so that the mother and father could live independently in a self-contained section of their home. The father and mother did not move to D until February/March 2006.
When the child was born in April 2005, the father took leave from work and was very absorbed by the baby, according to his mother. The mother left milk she had expressed behind. When the mother returned to work on Tuesdays and Sundays, between April 2005 and November 2006, the paternal grandmother cared for the child.
Between April 2005 and October 2006, the father cared for the baby on Sundays. From October to November 2006, the paternal grandmother looked after the child Tuesdays and Sundays. The mother terminated this arrangement in November 2006 without any given reason.
In October 2005 the mother’s parents, the maternal grandmother and the maternal grandfather, came to Australia and the paternal grandmother provided accommodation for them at her home. I think it went on for a month.
In May 2006 the mother attended the parent’s home, when asked by her son, as he claimed the mother was “yelling and yelling.” The mother said they had argued about money and the police attended. Despite advice the mother had said the father could stay overnight, as the mother herself was not afraid of the father. That is what the mother told to the father’s mother at the time. However, she later sought an AVO, as I have outlined, and the father moved to his parent’s home for a week from the day of the hearing of the AVO on 5 June 2006.
On 16 December 2006 the mother told the paternal grandmother that she was leaving the father. She was not sure if she would go to France or Spain. The parties separated for three months in fact.

Well, that completes, I think, what I have to do with section 60 off CC3.
Under section CC4 the court must consider:
The extent to which each of the child's parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, his or her responsibilities as a parent and, in particular, the extent to which each of the child's parents:
(a) 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; and
(b) has facilitated, or failed to facilitate, the other parent:
(i) participating in making decisions about major long‑term issues in relation to the child; and
(ii)           spending time with the child; and
(iii)communicating with the child; and
The father’s counsel provided detailed submissions on this topic, and it really retraces the evidence and findings I have made earlier. She set out a list of the times when the father requested extra time and the mother refused or frustrated his time with the child. Among those dates that were submitted was 25 December 2006, 26 August 2007, 2 September 2007, 22 September 2007, 4 October 2007, 2 December 2007, 16 December 2007 and 29 December 2008. I am not going back to all those instances but that is cumulatively quite a lot of time when he felt refused or frustrated by the mother when trying to obtain extra time with the child.
Both parties complain that the other does not allow participation in decision making about long-term issues.
The father has always spent the time allocated with the child in accordance with the court orders, as has the mother.
Both parents complain that the other is not facilitating communication with respect to the child. However, on the other hand, the communication book seems to be effective.
Both parents complain the other has failed to assist and facilitate participation in making decisions about long-term issues, and both parents allege the other interfered with his or her capacity to spend time with the child.
I must also turn to section 62DAA.:
The parties are agreed on equal shared parental responsibility. That was supported by the independent children’s lawyer and adopted by me. I intend to order it. There was no rebuttal of the presumption.
Then, having ordered that, I must look at again the provision 65DAA where I have to consider the child spending equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each parent in certain circumstances. Even the High Court is saying this goes round, I think, in circles, so I am sorry it is so circuitous.
There is no way under the Netherlands proposal that there could be equal time or substantial and significant time as defined by the Act. Under the father’s regime of 50/50, that is equal time, but it seems to me that, on the evidence I set out above, equal time would not be in the best interests of the child of her present age. I think she needs her mother and her mother needs her. The child has not had equal time up to the present and I think it would be a retrograde step to impose it now.
The child has a lot to get used to and she is solidly established in her mother’s household. I would not be party to breaking that up.
Then, not ordering such equal time, I must look at substantial and significant time and, applying the provisions that I set out earlier, it seems to me that that is the appropriate order. It is also sought by the independent child’s lawyer. Remember, this is defined to be time the child spends with the parents, including both days that fall on weekends and holidays and days that do not fall on weekends or holidays. It allows the parent to be involved in the child’s daily routine, occasional events of particular significance to the child and times when occasions and events are of special significance to the parent.
It seems to me that a child of this age would be better preparing till school starts then sticking to her mother’s routine most of the time. However, the independent children’s lawyer’s submission is that the period of time can be moved to include the weekend and one week day and give more time free time with the child for the father. Although it means one less over-night, it is a sensible and agreeable submission which I intend to adopt.
Under Section 65DAA (f) the Court must also look at:
(a) how far apart the parents live from each other; and
On the mother’s hypothesis it would be hemisphere to hemisphere. Otherwise, if it is Sydney, the father lives at D and the mother is agreeing to the child going to the Dutch school if she has to remain here. I believe she will relocate somewhere near that; at least on the north side of the harbour.
(b) the parents’ current and future capacity to implement an arrangement for the child spending equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the parents; and
It seems to me that is established.
(c) the parents’ current and future capacity to communicate with each other and resolve difficulties that might arise in implementing an arrangement of that kind; and
That can be done through the communications book.
(d) the impact that an arrangement of that kind would have on the child; and
I believe the orders proposed by the independent children’s lawyer would be the least likely to interfere with the child and the best that can be done, where the parents that she loves have split up, to minimise the impact on the child.
Now, I think I have covered everything that needs to be covered. I must say I do hope that if the Parliament looks to these provisions it acknowledges that half the litigants of this court come here on their own. Life could be made considerably easier for them, and for the bench, if this Act were rewritten: not necessarily changed but rewritten.
So let me sum up.
In the terms of the relocation to the Netherlands I accept that the mother would be happier. She would be surrounded by her own family. She would have financial, moral and emotional support from her sister, her extended family and her mother. I accept that the mother would be happier, particularly in the short-term, if that were to occur, and I think that does favour relocation.
On the other hand, I think the father has a meaningful, loving, caring relationship with the child. The child has the same with the father. I do not believe that that relationship could be maintained, and it could certainly not be improved, by the proposals that have put forward of the father travelling to the Netherlands and the mother travelling to Australia from time to time with the child.
It seems to me that the mother’s chance of a new life with Mr T will be available to her, certainly not ruled out by him, in Australia. There is provision in the orders for substantial time to be spent by the mother and the child in the Netherlands, rather as the mother has done for the last 10 or 12 years.
Against the relocation is the wrench that the child will feel being taken from her father and losing contact with him in any meaningful way. Secondly, it seems to me, she will also be taken from her paternal grandmother and, indeed, taken from Australia.
In terms of culture, the child would pick up more culture under the mother’s proposal, of the culture of the Netherlands. However, she will obtain sufficient of it, I believe, with her mother, attending the Dutch school and enjoying the Dutch community here in Australia. She will also benefit in that regard particularly from the contribution of the mother’s new partner, who is of Dutch nationality.

THE ORDERS

I will hand the orders down shortly and you can go through them and if there are minor matters that you want altered I will do that, but I am not inviting argument about the basics. I have decided some of the minor issues along the way.
I provided for equal shared parental responsibility under order 2 and under (b) for decisions concerning day to day care.
The father’s time with the child I provided, until she commences school she will live with the father as follows: week 1 from 5 pm Friday to 10 am Tuesday and then week 2 from Monday at 9 am till 10 am Tuesday. On the commencement of school then the child shall live with the father in week 1 from the conclusion of school on Friday to the commencement of school on Tuesday and in week 2 from the conclusion of school on Monday to the commencement of school on Tuesday, or as otherwise agreed in writing.
During the school holidays I have provided that until the commencement of the New South Wales gazetted 2013 school year the child will live with the father for one half of all gazetted New South Wales term holiday periods and in December/January school holidays for each alternate week, from 5 pm on Friday to 5 pm the following Friday.
From the commencement of the New South Wales gazetted school year in 2013 the child will live with her father for one half of all school holidays, in default of agreement the second half in odd numbered years, the first half in even numbered years. Now, for the purposes of such holiday time, I have deemed them to commence on the day that school is suspended and to conclude on the day prior to the commencement of the term.
For Christmas Day, I have provided for it as proposed by the independent children’s lawyer.
At Easter I have provided the child to live with the father in odd-numbered years from 5 pm on Easter Saturday till 5 pm Easter Monday and even years 9 am on Good Friday till 5 pm on Easter Saturday.
In odd-numbered years on her birthday I have provided for.
I have provided for Father’s Day, and I have indicated that that is all subject to order 27 which concerns alcohol.
The child will live with the mother at all times, including the following times:
Sinterklaas on 5 December the child will spend with the mother each year, and the father’s time suspended where it falls on a school day from after school on 5 December until commencement next day, or 9 am if the next day falls on a weekend. And where Sinterklass falls on a Saturday, from 3 pm Friday till 12 noon on the Sunday; where the 5^th falls on a Sunday from 4 pm on Saturday till commencement of school on Monday.
The Dutch Association celebration, where that falls on a weekend, from 9 to 5 p.m. is provided for.
There has been a dispute as to when the child should start school. I have had regards to the only evidence that I have, and that is the evidence taken by telephone from Ms R. That is the only evidence before me as to the child’s readiness to attend school.
The father’s desire is that the child start school next year and the mother’s desire is that she starts a year later. I have accepted the evidence that has been placed before me, and it seems to me following that, that I order that the child commence school at the first term 2010 or as soon thereafter as a vacancy for the child becomes available. Each parent is to do all things and sign all documents necessary to enrol the child in the W School, or any such school as they may be agreed by the parties in writing.
The last provision was prompted by countenancing that it is all very well to want to go to school, but one cannot always get in. I have provided for what could happen until the time the child starts. It may also be, on discussion, that the parents want to agree to start later – halfway through the year or some other time – and I have left that option open. So those other orders are made, not by oversight but deliberately. Even though I have ordered that the child should commence school in 2010. I have provided for the parents birthday’s and special occasions as asked, and other special family celebrations important to either parent, as agreed between the parties.
I have provided orders for changeover, which is to occur at school or preschool or day care. And if the child is not at school, preschool or day care, then the mother is to deliver the child to McDonald’s at S at the commencement of the child’s time with the father, and the father to deliver the child to McDonald’s at D at the commencement of the child’s time with the mother. The changeover at the end of time spent with the parents will be the reverse of order (a) – the mother will deliver the child to McDonald’s at S at the end of the child’s time with her, and the father shall return the child to the mother at the end of the child’s time with him, by delivering the child to the mother at McDonald’s at D – or otherwise as agreed between the parties.
I have provided for the mother’s travel to the Netherlands, and for the child to spend time with the mother for the purpose of travelling to the Netherlands up until she commences school, for two months each calendar year, provided the travel does not occur over Christmas – as specified in orders 5, 6, 7 and 8, when the child would otherwise be spending time with the father unless the parties agree otherwise in writing.
From the time the child commences school, the mother be permitted to travel with the child to the Netherlands for a consecutive period. It happens to fall midway between the six weeks sought by one and the four weeks sought by the other. I have made it five weeks. I think that is a pretty good holiday – in any one calendar year period, in either April to October, or the period of December to January.
If the mother elects to travel in accordance with order 16(b), she is to ensure the period of travel includes either the April or June school holidays. Or, if the mother elects to travel in the December-January period, then such travel is not to occur during a period when the child would be living with the father, in accordance with orders 7, 8 or 9.
In the event the child travels in accordance with the orders, she will be provided makeup time with her father for those periods missed as agreed – or if not agreed, by way of additional consecutive weekends and blocks of holiday time equal to the weekends and holiday time the father has foregone, commencing upon the child’s return. Can I suggest you do not do it on the basis of, “If we don’t hear from you, we assume that you are going to do it.” Can I suggest that you might pay regard to the fact that some solicitors actually go on holiday and you just cannot have open ended messages like that without leading to uncertainty.
I have also provided for the mother to travel to the Netherlands without the child at any time, and the child could live with her father for that period. It seems to me that there may be times when the mother would wish to go in an emergency or hurry and for the purpose of orders 16 and 17, the mother will meet all costs associated with her and the child’s overseas travel.
I have provided for communication by telephone at all reasonable times by agreement and in the absence of agreement, between 6.30 and 7.30 pm on days when the child is not living with that party. The parent with whom the child is not living is to initiate the phone calls. The parent with whom the child is living is to ensure that the child can be readily contacted at such times.
Both parents are be able to communicate with the child by electronic communications, including Skype, webcams as agreed at all reasonable times requested by the child– including on her birthday and on Christmas Day.
Each parent is restrained by injunction from doing act or thing which would cause the child to live outside the Sydney metropolitan area, without first obtaining the consent in writing of the other in the period of the order of the court.
Overseas travel: subject to the above orders, each parent is restrained from removing and/or causing to be removed and/or allowing and/or attempting to remove the child from the Commonwealth of Australia, or allowing any third party so to do, without first obtaining the consent in writing of the other parent, or order of the court.
Otherwise than agreed between the parties, a parent travelling overseas with the child shall notify the other parent of all travel arrangements - including providing a copy of all flight details and a complete travel itinerary; shall at all times keep the other parent advised of all particulars in relation to the child’s address, to have a contact telephone number to enable the other parent to communicate by Skype or webcam and so on.
I have provided for the parties to keep each other advised of their residential address and telephone numbers.
Injury and illness, is provided for in paragraph 25.
A non-denigration order is made against each party denigrating the other parent or member of that parent’s household in the presence of the child, or permitting any others to do so. What the children carry from one house to another can be very damaging.
Then I order, under 27, the time the child spends with the father – pursuant to these orders conditional upon the father:
(a) not consuming alcohol or using illicit drugs for at least 12 hours before the father is due to spend time with A. The father shall refrain from consuming any alcohol during the period of time in which A is in his care, pursuant to these orders. That is a very strong order which he has consented to.
(b) not smoking tobacco or any other substance in the presence of A, or in the place where A is staying or residing and I added or in a motor vehicle in which A is travelling.
Under order 28, for the purpose of both parents spending time with the child pursuant to these orders, they shall be permitted to travel with the child in Australia or overseas, providing the other parent gives 28 days notice of their intention so to do. If the parent does travel, they shall provide the other parent a travel itinerary and contact details for the child.
So, if the Turner family decides to go to Bali or Fiji or something, there is a provision for that – no matter who pays.
There is another provision for travel by the father in paragraph 29.
Order 30 is the authorisation of child care centre, preschool the child attends, to provide photocopies of reports and letters.
I have ordered that each party shall attend a parenting after separation course as nominated by the independent children’s lawyer.
The orders concluded with the residuary matters of the exhibits being returned, and the obligations be explained to the parties by their legal representatives.

Conclusion

Having reviewed the evidence in great detail, having paid attention to the submissions of the legal representatives, having rehearsed the law as I understand it to be, under the statute and under the decisions of the court of appeal, I propose to make the orders that I have just adverted to. And, subject to minor alterations the parties may wish to put to me, before I formally do so, those will be the orders that I intend to make. I shall invite submissions over lesser details but not substantial matters.
My associate brought to my attention that the weeks needed to be each alternative thereafter, and I have amended the proposed orders to identify the week 1 of term and week 2 of term, so that every term you know which weekend it is going to be.
The order shall now read:
Until the child commences school, the child shall live with the father as follows:
(a)Week 1, from 5 pm Friday to 10 am Tuesday and each alternate week thereafter;
(b)week 2, from 9 am Monday to 10 am Tuesday and each alternate week thereafter.
(c)These orders shall commence on Monday, 14 December 2009, which will be taken to be the commencement of week 2.
There is to be a new order 30:
30.Either parent may permit any adult member of the extended family to travel with the child within the Commonwealth of Australia whilst the child is otherwise in the care of that parent.
I now make the orders in their amended form. Each party will leave here with their own copy.

I certify that the preceding four hundred and forty seven (447) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Waddy

Associate:

Date: 23 February 2010

[2009] FamCA 1342

7 December 2009

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Legal Concepts

Injunction

Procedural Fairness