Valencina and Piero

[2009] FamCA 935

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VALENCINA & PIERO [2009] FamCA 935

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Overseas travel

APPLICANT: Ms Valencina

RESPONDENT: Mr Piero

FILE NUMBER: SYC 4779 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 30 September 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Cohen J

HEARING DATE: 24 and 25 September 2009

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Adams of Hamish Cummings Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Hanna

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Fox O'Brien Lawyers

Orders

1. That the mother is hereby entitled to take … (“the child”), born … January 1998 in Columbia and the holder of both Australian and Columbian Citizenship from Australia on 17 November 2009 until and including 13 January 2010 for the purpose of holidaying in Columbia provided that with 21 days of the date of these orders she lodges with the Court the sum of $50,000.00 or a bank bond promising to pay to the Court the sum of $50,000.00 within not less than 7 days of a demand to the bank for such payment by the Court as security for the child’s return to Australia on or before 13 January 2010.

2. That on lodgement of the said security the mother shall forthwith inform the father of such lodgement by email to his email address.

3. That for the purposes of order 1. the father shall forthwith do all things and execute all consents and documents necessary for the mother to obtain for the said child at the mother’s cost valid and current Australian and Columbian passports.

4. That if the mother obtains one or both of the said passports before the security referred to in order 1. is lodged with the Court she shall lodge the passport or passports with the Court forthwith upon their receipt and the said passports shall not be returned to her until such security is lodged with the Court and in the event that it is not lodged they shall not be returned to either party without further order of the Court.

5. That for the purposes of telephone contact with the child while she is outside Australia pursuant to Order 1. the father shall provide to the child at his cost a telephone which she can use to contact the father or which the father can use to contact the child in each instance at his cost.

6. That on the child’s return to Australia on or before 13 January 2010 she shall reside during the balance of the 2009/2010 Christmas school holiday with the father and the security lodged in accordance with order 1. shall be returned forthwith to the mother or discharged.

7. That in the event that the mother does not return the child to Australia on or before 13 January 2010 the father is hereby granted leave to apply to the Court ex parte for payment to him of part or all of the security referred to in order 1. to meet his expenses of and costs associated with his efforts to gain the child’s return to Australia, including legal costs in Australia and Columbia, travel expenses and loss of income.

8. Costs are reserved. 

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 4779  of 2009

MS VALENCINA

Applicant

And

MR PIERO

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application by the mother for orders which permit her to take the parties child, who was born in January 1998, to Columbia from 17 November 2009 until 13 January 2009, despite the father’s refusal to give consent to the trip.

2. The mother says that she wishes to take the child to Columbia to see her family, all of whom live in Columbia and in particular to attend her sister’s wedding, at which the child has been asked to be a flower girl, and her cousin’s wedding, both of which are set for December 2009 and to ensure the child is able to see her maternal grandparents and her great grandmother whom is very ill. The mother’s father has a heart condition and cannot travel. The father opposes the application principally because he claims the mother will not return the child to Australia.

3. The parties met in Columbia in 1994 when they were both students at University. The father had been born in Australia and had moved to Columbia when he was two years old. The mother was born in Columbia. They are now in their mid thirties.

4. They commenced living together in Columbia in 1998, probably after the child was born. Both graduated university there. When the child was 4 years old, in 2002, they migrated to Australia. The mother’s family remained in Columbia. The move to Australia could not be said to have been beneficial to the parties’ relationship because they separated in 2003.

5. The mother was unhappy. She found life difficult because she missed her family, spoke little English, was struggling financially, had no significant emotional support here and was homesick. She wished to return to live in Columbia but the father would not permit her to take the child. When she first requested the father to allow her to take the child to Columbia for a holiday, the father refused because he believed, probably correctly, that the mother would not return to Australia and would keep the child there. The mother had not been in Australia for long and was not settled here.

6. In March 2004 consent interim orders were made in this Court which principally provided that the child live with the parents in a week about arrangement. Final Orders to the same effect were made by consent on or about 14 January 2005. The parties have raised the child in accordance with the regime prescribed by these orders.

7. The mother has not been able to gain registration in her profession in Australia. In 2004 she commenced to restructure her life here. She commenced attending a TAFE and, through membership of a Church, developed a new network of friends. In November 2005, she married Mr B. She met him through her church.

8. He is of South American background but was born in Australia,  grew up here and has always lived here. His extended family on his father’s and mother’s sides are all living in Australia and he has no close family in South America. He has visited South America only once and has no intention of living anywhere but Australia. He is a sales manager earning about $55,000.00 per annum. He has worked for his current employer for more than two years. He says his marriage to the mother is happy and successful and that he and he mother plan to buy a house and have a child. Currently they are renting. He has about $15,000.00 in savings. He supports the mother’s application but is not planning to travel to Columbia with the mother and the child.

9. The mother has held her current job since mid 2006. It was full time until March this year when the mother and her employer agreed to convert it to casual because the mother had not been well and because she wished to have a better balance in her life between work, educational and family commitments. The flexible employment arrangements now in place allow the mother time to give the child more support in her educational and extra-curricular activities and to embark on studies designed to improve her employment qualifications. She usually works from two to four days a week. The campus she will attend is about 60km from the centre of Sydney and which, by train, does not take long. She plans to attend the course with colleagues from her work.

10. The child is now approaching 12 years. She has not seen her maternal extended family since she was four years old. She is in year 6 at school. Next year she will go to high school. Her enrolment at S High School has already been accepted. According to the mother, she is a bright child who is not only doing well at school but has outside interests. She excels at sport and has represented her school nationally in aerobics. The mother says the child is keen to visit her family in Columbia.

11. The father claims to lack confidence that the mother will return to Australia with the child to the extent which he says that it is not a case of a mere risk of non-return, it is a case of probability that there will be no return.

12. He says the mother has often told friends and acquaintances she wishes to return to Columbia permanently and take the child with her and has told him, in effect, that he would not be able to prevent her from doing so. He says her attitude is that it is her right to do so. He points out that the mother’s husband will not be going to Columbia with her and claims that because the marriage is not going well the mother intends to abandon him.

13. His claims in support of his stance are:

    a)The child does not wish to go now and would like to delay going to Columbia until she is older. He does not say how much older.

    b)Columbia is a lawless, insecure and dangerous country frequented by terrorists and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade warns traveller to take a high degree of caution about being there and, in relation to the specific city; L, where the mother’s family live and nearly all rural areas, potential visitors should reconsider the need to go there. There is a risk of kidnapping; one of the highest in the world and foreigners including children have been kidnapped and murdered. As recently as February 2009 there was a small scale bomb attack in L. Although in the capital Bogota and major cities, medical facilities are adequate, elsewhere facilities are lacking. There is a prevalence of some serious infections and water and food borne diseases. Yellow fever is endemic. Difficulties for Australians travellers in Columbia may be increased by the lack of consular or ambassadorial facilities there.

    c)The child has never spent so much time away from the father as this holiday will involve.

    d)The mother has no significant property in Australia and no family ties here. Her relationship with her husband is so poor it can be expected that she will leave him. She has recently changed from full time to part time employment. It is employment without the relatively higher income and social standing that the mother would have in her profession in Columbia.

    e)Columbia, although a Hague Convention signatory, has a history of non-compliance or poor compliance. The legal system until recently has been inclined to deal with Hague Convention applications as custody cases.

    f)The proposed trip will deprive the child of participating in her school end of year activities which she is looking forward to.

    g)The child will be deprived of appropriate Christmas school holiday time with the father.

    h)No itinerary or contact addresses or telephone numbers have been supplied by the mother.

    i)The mother has relied on a variety of excuses in attempts to convince the father that he should allow her to take the child to Columbia.

14. It is convenient to deal with the mother’s answers to and my conclusions on each of the above claims seriatim.

    a)The mother’s evidence indirectly contradicts that of the father. The mother does not say that the child has expressed any continuing desire to visit Columbia now, to attend the wedding or to be a flower girl. However, she does say that when she first told the child of the proposed trip the child said she could not wait to see her grandparents and other family and that she loves her grandparents very much. She was also excited at the prospect of being a flower girl.

    One must wonder why an 11 year old who has grandparents overseas might not express keenness to go on the holiday offered, attend two weddings and be a flower girl at one. The most probable answer, in the absence of expert evidence, is that she has been influenced by the father, is attempting to please him, or both. That she has not attempted to please the wife by continuing to adhere to her initial spontaneous and unaffected reaction indicates that she has less fear of being open with the mother than with the father. It verges on the unbelievable that an 11 year old would not be delighted to go on this holiday with her mother. There is no suggestion that the relationship between mother and daughter is other than good.

    b)As a native of L in Columbia who has only been away for seven years and who is visiting family who are residents there, the situation for her and the child is different from that of tourists or business visitors. Although I accept that Columbia is a much more dangerous country than Australia, the danger to individuals with local knowledge who also speak Spanish as their native tongue is still, in my assessment, relatively low. The child understands Spanish. The father says she does not speak Spanish although he speaks it to her at home. The mother says she speaks it fluently. As there is no allegation by the father that the mother lacks parental responsibility and as I regard her as intelligent, alert and astute, the likelihood is that she can more than adequately protect the child from harm whether due to lawlessness or disease.

    c)I cannot understand how it could be felt that that a girl of nearly 12 years old who has been residing on a week about basis with her parents for some years and who is suggested by the evidence to be bright, able, healthy and normal could not cope with this amount of time away from her father. If she has difficulty doing so, which I greatly doubt, and it is not actually said she has, it is about time she started to individuate and learn to be independent from the father. It is certainly in her best interest to do so.      

    d)The mother says she is now close to her husband’s family and has an enduring marital relationship which has created ties here. In addition she has found her place here as part of her church, has a good job and better prospects and is now settled in Australia. It is likely that she is much more settled now than she was more immediately to the breakdown of her marriage to the father.

    The suggestion the father makes that she is about to leave her marriage because it is unhappy is quite inconsistent with evidence I accept. Her husband supported her application and gave evidence to the effect that, although the mother has tried to borrow money to provide as security for the child’s return, he is prepared to borrow up to $50,000.00 for such security and is confident that he will be successful in making a loan application. He would not be putting up this security in the hope that she will not return and that this will be a cheap way of ensuring he has no greater property liability than that under s 79 of the Family Law Act. His $15,000.00 savings are his only substantial property. He must be confident enough in the relationship to personally become indebted for the security moneys in circumstances where his ties are in Australia. The mother offered the lodgement of $50,000.00 security after the father’s lawyer nominated it as the step she could take to satisfy the father that she will return the child.

    The father now argues that, as the mother has provided no bank documents which establish the loan will come from a bank, it is likely to be the mother’s father who will provide the money and be will be prepared to lose it as the price to pay for getting the mother and the child back to Columbia permanently. He relies on allegations that the mother has, in the past, said her father is wealthy and will pay to ensure her return. He also relies on the fact that the wife’s father provided the family with the $10,000.00 they needed to migrate to Australia.

    $50,000.00 is likely to he regarded as a much more substantial sum by residents of Columbia than it is by Australian residents. Nevertheless, for the wife’s husband, it must also be regarded as a large sum. It is only a little less than his earnings for a year.

    More importantly, such a security is not to be seen as merely putting pressure on the provider to return a child. It is to provide a fund to the deprived parent to take the steps in the country to which the child has been taken to find her and obtain her return. For this, considering that Columbia is a Hague Convention Country and the other matters relevant to return which I shall discuss in due course, $50,000.00 ought to be more than adequate. In the latter character, the source of the security is irrelevant.

    It is to be noted that the mother now says that because of the cost to her of this litigation she has expended moneys which will make it much more difficult to raise $50,000.00 when these costs are taken into account. She has $2,000.00 or $3,000.00 in savings herself and says that $25,000.00 is a more appropriate security. With her husband’s and her savings, if her husband can borrow $50,000.00, she can, nevertheless, afford to lodge $50,000.00.

    Overall, I am of the opinion that the mother is in a quite different situation to that which she was in when she did wish to return permanently to Columbia. The steps she has taken have commenced to improve her life here and must be able to be seen by her as likely to further improve it, especially her marriage, her study plans and the changed circumstances of employment.  Her employers seem very happy with her. Her job is both flexible and secure.

    Although most of the affidavit material about the mother’s stated wish to return to Columbia is of statements she made from 2002 to 2004, the affidavit of Ms R raises what could be significant concerns because it refers to conversations which occurred in 2009. Careful reading of what the mother is alleged to have said results in the conclusions that she was probably speaking about a holiday to see her family rather than permanent return and that her father will pay for the cost of these proceedings to enable her to go on a holiday to see her family. Nevertheless, there should be some misgivings because the mother is not prevented from going for a holiday to see her family. She is only prevented from taking the child with her. Yet it is understandable that she might not wish to go on a holiday without taking the child too, particularly if her financial or family situation is such that she will not be able to go again in the foreseeable future.

    As for practicing her profession in Columbia, it may well be that the mother hoped to do so here, but she still must have seen Columbia as an undesirable place to live compared to Australia, The comparison, if the assessment of the Department of Foreign Affairs and trade has any realism, ought to continue to influence her.

    (e)Although it was originally argued that Columbia is a non-compliant signatory to the Hague Convention, this argument was not persisted with in the light of the most up-to-date information. It is regarded as neither non-compliant nor as demonstrating patterns of non-compliance. Thus, it can be expected that if the mother is permitted to take the child to Columbia and fails to return her, fairly prompt return will be achieved.  The father, having lived in Columbia for many years and being a Spanish speaker, is in a good position to ensure steps are taken to locate the child and to hasten the conclusion of return proceedings. He is familiar with the mother’s family’s home addresses and the area in which they live. The availability of the $50,000.00 security to draw on as the Court may permit should permit him to take time off work and travel to Columbia as needed for recovery purposes.

    (f)It appears to be correct that some end of year school activities such as a dinner, a dance and a graduation ceremony will be held after the child would have left for Columbia. There is no evidence that she wishes to attend these in preference to a holiday in Columbia. Generally speaking, one ought to regard the holiday as much more important, significant and beneficial to a girl of the child’s age, especially as she will be involved with beloved family members, especially elderly grandparents and a great-grandparent who she may not get the opportunity to see again and because she will be attending two significant family events, the weddings, one as a flower girl. The benefit of gaining a better understanding of her parent’s cultures by visiting Columbia should not be overlooked.  

    (g)The father’s claim about school holiday time is a sign of selfishness. She does not lack sufficient time with each parent under the regime in place. Either the father’s argument is merely tactical or it is about his rights rather than the child’s welfare. The mother is quite content for the child to spend the balance of the Christmas holidays after her return with the father.

    (h)The lack of itinerary is of no significance. The father knows that the mother proposes to live with the child at her parent’s home. The father knows where that is. The travel itinerary is provided by the flight schedules for the air tickets the mother has already purchased which are in evidence. The child usually speaks by telephone to the parent with whom she is not living daily. The father has offered to provide the child with a mobile telephone for use overseas and the mother has no opposition to the child taking and using it daily for contact with the father.

    (i)There is no substance in this complaint. The mother sent an email to the father on 7 May 2009 which argued that the child should be able to go to Columbia to see her ill great-grandmother. The mother informed the father of her sister’s wedding on 13 May in a letter her solicitor wrote to the father referring to the wedding and its date. The object of seeing family members, especially older ones, speaks for itself. 

1. Section 60B of the Act states the objects of the Act in relation to children and the principles underlying them.

2. One object, stated in s.60B(1)(a), is to ensure that the best interests of the children are met by both parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives. To become close to the mother’s blood relatives, especially in their native environment, will increase the meaningfulness of the mother’s characteristics to the child.

3. The object of the Act to promote children’s best interests by protecting them from physical harm and psychological harm (s.60B(1)(b)) means, in this instance, that the Court must be diligent to ensure that, within reason, the child will be free from significant risk of harm if she travels to Columbia. As has been said, I am of the view that the mother’s and her family’s familiarity with the areas where the child will be visiting family members will, within reasonable bounds, protect the child from harm.

4. The risks to the child’s psychological wellbeing are twofold. There is likely to be significant risk to her emotional welfare if she is taken to Columbia and not returned. The Court is in a position to make orders which will tend to eliminate such a risk, although I do not regard it as likely that the mother will not return her. Is she does not, the Hague Convention should ensure her return within a reasonable time.   

5. There is a risk to the child’s emotional welfare is she is not taken to see her close relatives in Columbia. Both grandparents and her great-grandmother are probably not young. Her great-grandmother is quite ill and her grandfather is not well. She should have as much opportunity to form or maintain or improve her attachment to them and should not be put in a position where she may not see any of them again. She will regret not having the opportunity to have contact with any of them if, by the time she can go to Columbia, they have died. If the father causes this situation, the child may well resent him for his actions. She should not be put in that situation if it can reasonably be avoided.

6. Two of the underlying principles stated in s 60B(2) are relevant to the decision on this matter. One is that children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with people, such as grandparents and other relatives, who are significant to their welfare and development. Here there can be no regular face-to-face contact, but some contact is likely to be much better for the child than no contact at all.

7. The other underlying principle is the right of children to enjoy their culture, especially with those who share that culture. The child has the right to enjoy her Columbian cultural heritage with the mother and her other relatives in Columbia.

8. The lynchpin of the provisions in the Family Law Act for the making of children’s orders is s 60CA. It provides that in making such orders the paramount consideration for the Court is to promote the best interests of each child who is the subject of the orders. This does not mean other considerations such as parental wishes and needs are to be ignored, but these will be given less weight than the child’s best interest. Here, the parental needs and wishes are not of sufficient weight to warrant their consideration in any detail. I shall simply assume that the father does not wish the child to go to Columbia because he is worried about the possibility she will not be returned, and will be anxious if she goes until she returns. It will be of some inconvenience to him if he has to go to Columbia to facilitate return. I regard his other stated reasons for opposing travel as tactical, so do not think they will cause him anxiety if the child is permitted to travel to Columbia.

9. The mother is keen to take the child to visit her family. She does not say she will not go on the holiday there herself is she cannot take the child, but if she does go without the child, she will not enjoy her holiday as much.

10. In deciding what is in a child’s best interests the Court must apply s 60CC of the Act. This provides for two principal or primary considerations which accord with the two objects of the Act pursuant to s 60B(1) which I have already discussed. I consider these matters to be very important in deciding where the best interests of the child lie.

11. What are termed “Additional considerations” are listed in S.60CC(3). These are matters of significance in deciding where the child’s best interests lie, but none of them are to be regarded as more significant than the primary considerations. This does not mean that, in the circumstances, any one and any combination could not determine the issue of best interests. Here, some of the additional considerations are not relevant. Because of the nature of the application, it being limited to a two month holiday, others are of insufficient relevance to warrant more than passing consideration. I shall deal with each matter in the order it is listed in s 60CC(3).

    a)The child’s expressed views and the weight they should be given – As has been mentioned, the child’s later expressed views seem to me to have been influenced by a need to please the father. Her spontaneous original expression of her views to the mother should be given more weight. This is especially so because of the child’s age. She is old enough to feel a need to please the father despite having a wish to do the opposite. Her real needs for herself, as contrasted to her need to please the father, are likely to be to go on the holiday as she originally expressed them.

    b)The child’s relationship with her parents and others of importance – She has a good relationship with both parents but is likely to regard the father as the weaker of the two and therefore to be more in need of protection than the mother. It is in her interest, if this is the case, for the Court to ensure that she is protected by her parents rather than that she should act against her basic feelings and needs to protect the parent she regards as more vulnerable.

    The child knows her grandparents and extended Columbian family because she lived in Columbia until she was four years old. She has, according to the mother, formed attachments to them and has fond memories of them. In that circumstance, it would be in her best interests to be able to improve her relationship with them and place them in a more realistic context by being able to visit them.

    c)Willingness of each parent to encourage etc the relationship with the child and the other parent – It is not suggested by the mother that the father opposes the holiday because he does not wish the relationship between the child and the mother to be improved by it, nor is it suggested by the father that the mother is specifically attempting to break down the relationship between the child and himself by taking her to Columbia. Nevertheless, there is an inherent likelihood that this will occur if the mother does not return the child. The father’s case is that the mother selfishly wants to live permanently in Columbia but is not willing to do so without the child. It is that she does not care sufficiently about the child’s relationship with the father to be dissuaded from keeping the child in Columbia. The impression I was given is that the mother appreciates the child’s need for a good and continuing relationship with the father; one that should not be undermined.

    d)The likely effect of a change in circumstances – The only relevant and significant change of circumstances could be that brought about by a failure to return the child to Australia. That is likely to cause the child significant emotional harm because she has a good relationship with the father which will be undermined if she does not continue to have the regular and frequent contact with him which has been the result of the residential regime she has been subjected to.

    e)Practical difficulties – If the child goes to Columbia and is not returned in accordance with the orders the father is bound to be prevented from having appropriate or any contact with her for some time and will probably be put to expense in having to take time off work and travel to Columbia to try to facilitate her prompt return to Australia despite the fact that the Hague Convention return procedures will be put into operation without the absolute need for him to be a party or go to Columbia.

    f)Capacity of parents and other to provide for the child’s needs including emotional and intellectual needs – The holiday itself will not be an interference with the child’s emotional or intellectual needs. It is likely to advance her emotional needs and possibly her intellectual needs i.e. she will learn about a country other than Australia and her culture in a different context. 

    If she is not returned that will demonstrate a lack of capacity in the mother and her family in Columbia to meet her emotional and intellectual needs. All the child’s formal education has been in Australia and in English. She will be set back in it if she must continue it in Columbia in Spanish which, according to the evidence of both parents, is now a second language to her.

    g)The child’s maturity and background – the child will better understand her Columbian heritage if she visits her mother’s family in Columbia. She is of an age when she is bound to benefit from this because she is mature enough to take advantage of what she experiences in Columbia. She has also essentially been raised in Australia. She will, despite her background, be a foreigner there; with all the disadvantages that will be involved if she is there for more than a holiday.

    h)Not relevant.

    i)Parental Responsibility – Both parents appear to me to display a high degree of parental responsibility. The mother does not seem likely to fail to the child promptly to Australia.

    j)Not relevant.

    k)Not relevant.

    l)Further proceedings – It is nearly always preferable to make an order which is likely to best avoid further proceedings being instituted over a child. In this instance, if I allow the child to holiday in Columbia and she is not returned in time, proceedings are bound to be instituted. If she is returned on time this is likely to avoid the need for further proceedings to allow her to have another holiday in Columbia. If I refuse to let her go to Columbia, it is likely that within the next year or two another application will be made. I think that to allow the mother’s application will be more likely to avoid the institution of further proceedings over the child.

    m)Other relevant matters – There are none. I do not regard the fact that the mother has brought the tickets in anticipation of a favourable order as relevant.

12. A weighing of all the above matters leads to the conclusion that there is some risk that the mother will not return the child if she is permitted to take her to Columbia. That risk is reduced below the unacceptable if she is, as a condition of being permitted to do so, required to lodge a $50,000.00 security. The mother has argued that it should be less because when the original $50,000.00 offer was made she had not incurred and did not expect to incur, the legal costs of bringing these proceedings and that $50,000.00 was likely to be the limit on the amount available. The mother’s husband, rather than the mother, will borrow the $50,000.00. He also has savings of about $15,000.00. The mother has $2000 or $3000 in savings. In the circumstances, I think that $50,000.00 is the proper sum to be provided as security. I think the risk of non-return would exceed the limit of acceptability if a lesser were to be made the security for the child’s return.

13. I am quite satisfied that, if the child is returned in accordance with the mother’s promise, the trip will greatly advance the child’s welfare and be in her best inertest. If she is not returned on time, the situation will turn into one where her best interests will be greatly undermined. Orders can and should be made which permit the mother to take the child on the proposed holiday provided she lodges $50,000.00 or a bank bond for that sum within 14 days to be held by the Court as security for the child’s return to Australia on or before 13 January 2010. In the event that she is not returned, the father should have leave to apply ex parte to the Court for access to all or part of the security to fund a trip to Columbia to help ensure the child’s return, to obtain legal advice in Australia and in Columbia and to compensate him for loss of earnings in his business while he is away. The parties are in agreement that if the child is permitted to go to Columbia and is returned on time she should live with the father for the balance of her Christmas 2009-10 school holidays and that the father will provide her with a telephone which will allow her, at his cost, to receive his calls and to make calls to him.

14. I shall make orders which accord with the above.

I certify that the preceding twenty eight (28) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cohen  

Associate: 

Date:  30 September 2009