Vogel & Franks

[2021] FamCA 497

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Vogel & Franks [2021] FamCA 497

File number(s):	SYC 6657 of 2007
Judgment of:	HENDERSON J
Date of judgment:	9 July 2021
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Application by the mother to discharge final parenting orders made in July 2013 providing for the parties to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child of the relationship, for the mother to pay a bond of $200,000 when travelling overseas with the child and for the child’s passport to be held by the Court – Where the father opposes the application – Where the mother has, in the past, absconded with the child overseas resulting in Hague Convention proceedings being initiated by the father – Where the mother has returned to Australia from overseas travel with the child on no less than six occasions since 2013 – Where the child is 16 years of age and spends time with the father according to his wishes and has chosen to not exercise this time since September 2020 – Consideration of applicable principles – No alteration to  the orders for equal shared parental responsibility – Order discharging the requirement for the mother to pay a bond – Order for the mother to hold the child’s passport
Cases cited:	Kuebler & Kuebler (1978) FLC 90-434
Number of paragraphs:	95
Date of hearing:	24 June 2021
Place:	Sydney
The Applicant:	Litigant in person
The Respondent:	Litigant in person
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Ms Wearne

ORDERS

SYC 6657 of 2007

BETWEEN:

MS VOGEL

Applicant

AND:

MR FRANKS

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	HENDERSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	9 JULY 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Orders 23, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 made 24 July 2013 are discharged.

2.The mother is permitted to travel internationally with B without first obtaining the consent of the father:

(a)During school holiday periods, provided that she complies with Order 24 made on 24 July 2013; and

(b)At other times in the case of a family emergency or significant family event, provided that she provides the father with the information required by Orders 24.1 to 24.3 made on 24 July 2013, no less than six (6) hours before the time of intended departure.

3.That B’s Country D and Australian passports shall be released to the mother and she shall hold them when they are not in use.

4.Provided the father provides to the mother the information required by Orders 24.1 to 24.3 made on 24 July 2013 no less than 14 days prior to the date of intended departure, he may also travel internationally with B, in accordance with Order 2 made on 17 February 2021.

5.Upon the father complying with the information provision requirements in Order 4 herein, the mother shall release B’s passport to him no less than seven (7) days prior to the date of departure and he shall return B’s passport to her when he returns B to her care following the travel.

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Vogel & Franks has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application by Ms Vogel (“the mother”) to discharge orders made in 2013 that she be required to place a bond of $200,000 into a lawyer’s trust account prior to her taking the parties’ son, B born in 2005 (“the child”), to Country D.

2. Secondly, to discharge the equal shared parental responsibility orders made in 2013 by Justice Rees being Order 3 of her Honour’s orders that the parents equally share responsibility for decisions about the child's place of residence provided the father, Mr Franks (“the father”), continues to reside in the Sydney metropolitan area and any psychological, psychiatric, mental health, behaviour modification or like therapeutic treatment required by the child.

3. The father resists any variation to any of the orders.  I note the father now lives at M Town, some three to four hours north of Sydney. Thus it would appear he no longer has equal shared parental responsibility for where the child lives given he no longer resides in the Sydney metropolitan area.

4. Further, the child is doing extremely well at school, is now aged 16 having been born in 2005 and is completing Year 10 at the L School. The evidence discloses that he does not require any psychological, psychiatric, mental health, behaviour modification or like therapeutic treatment and thus the mother's position that Order 3 of the Orders made 24 July 2013 be discharged had some merit for it is clear from Order 4 of the Orders of 24 July 2013 that the mother was to be solely responsible for decisions in relation to his schooling and education and medical treatment, with the mother being required to obtain the father’s views and give his views proper consideration.

5. The evidence is also that the mother has carried out her obligation pursuant to Orders 4 and 5 of the 2013 Orders. 

6. Further, in 20 months the child will be 18 and the Orders of 2013 will have no effect.

7. The evidence I read for the parties was as follows.

8. For the mother:

   (1)Initiating Application of the mother filed 19 September 2019 and Amended Initiating Application of the mother filed 16 February 2021; and

   (2)Affidavit of the mother filed 29 March 2021.

9. For the father:

   (1)Response of the father filed 22 October 2019;

   (2)Affidavits of the father filed 16 December 2019 and 6 March 2020; and

   (3)Application in a Case of the father filed 16 December 2019.

10. I also read:

    (1)The Child Inclusive Memorandum prepared by family consultant Ms N dated 3 February 2020;

    (2)Orders made by Senior Registrar Campbell (as his Honour then was) on 11 March 2020; and

    (3)The Independent Children's Lawyer's Case Outline.  

11. Both the mother and father represented themselves.  Ms Wearne, solicitor, represented the child and each of the parents were cross-examined.

    SHORT, RELEVANT CHRONOLOGY

12. The mother was born in Country D in Europe in 1981 and is aged 39.

13. The father was born in New Zealand in 1974 and is aged 47.

14. The child was born in 2005.

15. On 6 July 2009 final parenting orders were made by consent providing for equal shared parental responsibility and for the child to live with his father five nights a fortnight.

16. In May 2010 the mother took the child to Country D, with the father's consent, and time was agreed to be extended to 22 June 2010. The purpose of the visit was to allow the mother to attend the funeral of a family member.

17. On 21 June 2010 the mother emailed a large group of people advising them that she is living in Country D permanently. 

18. On 22 June 2010 the mother emailed the father indicating she and the child were leaving Country D on Friday 25 June and arriving in Sydney on Saturday 26 June 2010.  This did not eventuate.

19. On 28 June 2010 the father called the maternal grandmother and asked to speak to the child. The father was told she did not know where the mother and the child were.

20. On 29 June 2010 the father discovered that the mother's rented home in Sydney was empty and the child was no longer enrolled at preschool.

21. On 8 July 2010 the father met with the International Kidnapping Team who assisted him in bringing an application under the Hague Convention.

22. On 27 September 2010 the Attorney General’s Department was notified the mother had been located in City I, Country D and proceedings had been commenced by the Country D Central Authority for the child's return from Country D to Australia.

23. On 13 December 2010 an order was made in Country D for the child to be returned to Australia. The mother appealed this order.

24. On 8 December 2011 the father travelled to Country D for the appeal and the child had no contact with his father during this time.

25. On 15 February 2011 the mother's appeal was dismissed and the child was ordered to be returned to Australia by 28 February 2011.

26. On 1 March 2011 the wife's lawyer in Country D notified the father by letter that the mother had booked a one-way flight back to Sydney on 8 March 2011 and the father was asked to agree for the mother and the child to travel to New Zealand for six days in April and to Country D for four weeks in May. The mother did not return to Australia or New Zealand.

27. On 10 March 2011 the father filed a further application in City I for enforcement.

28. On 12 April 2011 the Country D Appeal Court heard the mother's further appeal which was dismissed, confirming the mother was to return the child to Australia. The mother did not comply.

29. On 27 April 2011 the Country D Appeal Court ordered that the mother was forbidden from changing the child's permanent or temporary place of residence and taking him outside of City I, and she was ordered to surrender her and the child's passport within two weeks.  The mother did not comply with the order and removed the child from City I to City J.

30. On 7 September 2011 the mother and the child were located in City J and an enforcement order was made. The mother did not comply.

31. On 13 September 2011 the child was removed from school by his father and paternal grandmother, under the supervision of the Country D authorities, and returned to Australia. The child was placed with his mother shortly thereafter. The Court notes at this stage the child had no English language skills and only spoke Country D.

32. From 6 August 2012 to 16 August 2012 there was a ten day final hearing of the mother's application to relocate with the child to Country D which was not completed.

33. On 24 July 2013 final orders were made by consent for the child to live with the mother and spend time with his father graduating to alternate weekends and half school holidays in 2014.

34. The orders permitted each parent to travel internationally with the child however for the mother to lodge a $200,000 bond if she was to do so.

35. From 23 June 2014 to 14 July 2014 the mother and the child travelled to Country D to visit family and returned to Australia.

36. In 2015 the mother was urgently required to travel to Country D as her father was dying. She was unable to raise the $200,000 bond and the child was left in the care of his father.

37. From 23 June 2015 to 14 July 2015 the mother and the child travelled to Country D and Country P and returned to Australia.

38. From 14 January 2016 to 29 January 2016 the mother and the child travelled to City Q and returned to Australia.

39. From 23 June 2016 to 14 July 2016 the mother and the child travelled to Country D, Country R and Country S and returned to Australia.

40. From August 2016 to March 2017 there was a dispute between the parents regarding each parent’s international travel with the child in 2017 and the assistance of the Court was required.

41. From 23 June 2018 to 14 July 2018 the mother and the child travelled to Country D and Country T and returned to Australia.

42. From 15 December 2019 to 10 January 2019 the mother and the child travelled to Country D and returned to Australia.

43. On 19 September 2019 the mother filed an Initiating Application seeking to relocate to Country D.

44. On 22 October 2019 the father filed a Response seeking that the child live with him.

45. In December 2019 the parents again disputed their international holidays with the child and required the assistance of the Court.

46. On 16 December 2019 the father filed an Application in a Case seeking orders for the release of the child's passport so they could travel to New Zealand from 21 December 2019.

47. In Term 3 2020 the child ceased spending time with his father who was by then living in M Town.

48. On 16 February 2021 the mother filed an Amended Initiating Application abandoning her relocation application, seeking orders that she hold sole parental responsibility, for the child to spend time with his father in accordance with his wishes, and for the discharge of the restrictions upon her and the child leaving Australia and that she hold the child's passport.

49. On 17 February 2021 orders were made by consent that all prior parenting orders in relation to the child's time and communication with his father be discharged and for the child to spend time with and communicate with his father in accordance with his wishes.

    EVIDENCE

50. At the commencement of the hearing the Independent Children's Lawyer had not yet determined whether they would support the mother's application.  After cross-examination, Ms Wearne supported the mother's application that all orders relating to the mother having to place a bond to travel internationally with the child be discharged and that the mother hold the child's passport however did not support any variation of the current parental responsibility orders.

51. Although the mother still sought the discharge of the equal shared parental responsibility orders, given her position that they reflected the reality of the situation, she agreed with the position of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.  The father resisted any change to the orders.

52. There is no doubt that the mother's behaviour when she absconded with the child to Country D in 2010 and her subsequent behaviour in failing to adhere to orders made by the Country D authorities on multiple occasions that she return to Australia with the child traumatised the father and the child. The child has responded well to therapeutic intervention with Dr C and is an impressive young man as the Child Inclusive Memorandum of Ms N attests to at paragraph 85 wherein she reports:

    B presented as a very engaging, mature, high achieving adolescent.

53. At paragraph 59:

    B presented as a very well spoke, polite, mature and intelligent young adult. He portrayed himself as worldly, studios [sic], resilient and adaptable. He engaged very well in his interview, which occurred for over an hour.  

54. Thus, any trauma he did sustain would appear to have resolved.

55. Unfortunately, but perhaps understandably, the father is still traumatised by the mother's conduct and the lengths he and his parents went to, to ensure his son was returned to Australia. The father has no trust in the mother and he was very honest and open in his answers in cross-examination.  He is firmly of the view that the only reason the mother has now returned from overseas to Australia with the child on no less than six occasions is because of the $200,000 bond. He is also of the view that the mother is a wealthy woman who can easily put up the bond and, given her behaviour in 2010 and 2011, it is important that the bond remain in place.  Although the father agrees his son is progressing extremely well at school, his closing words were that the reason he spends no time with his son now and that their relationship is at a very low ebb is because his mother “poisoned” him against the father.  The father expressed no culpability for this sad state of affairs and unfortunately the evidence did not support his position.

56. The mother has not “poisoned” the father to the child. The father has not listened to his son and that comes out clearly from Ms N’s Child Inclusive Memorandum at paragraphs 34-36 where the father said his relationship with the child was “good” but “testy”.  That the child has oppositional defiance disorder (“ODD”) diagnosed in 2012 yet this interview took place in 2020. That the child was “addicted” to his devices and this was as a result of the mother's poor parenting. That the child was “neglected” by his mother because he was in childcare before and after school. That the mother “did not want” the child in the Easter, July, September and December school holidays and he cared for him on those occasions.

57. The reality of the situation is that the child has never been diagnosed with ODD, but of course he was traumatised being removed from Country D to Australia and required therapeutic intervention at that time. The mother, consistent with the child, said the father does not support the child attending his current school events on the weekend when it is inconsistent with the father building his home at M Town.  Although the mother said she was saddened that their relationship was deteriorating, she said this was because of how the father treated their son and that the father had not adapted to the child's change into an adolescent and approaching manhood.

58. The child told Ms N only his mother is involved in the school events and, at paragraph 61, confirmed he is “well connected” to his mother, he has a “difficult relationship” with his father and there had been “tension” between them since he returned to live in Australia and that it had been “up and down in its intensity”. That his father would argue daily about “adolescent issues” and that he and his father are different and his father is “not open minded”.

59. Of real concern was the child said although he loves his father he feels “unsupported by him” and concerned about his treatment towards him and that the father calls his mother “mentally unstable”.  As an example of feeling unsupported, the child said his father would not take him to sport on the weekend from Suburb U, where his father was then living, and the child was required to catch public transport. That when he was unable to go to Country D with his mother in 2015 his father left him with strangers for some three weeks and the father would “come and go” during the period. The child told his father that at M Town he cannot do his school work because the internet connection is bad but this is not something his father appears concerned about.  That he would only see his father on the weekends if his father was living in Suburb U and not at M Town.  Most importantly, the child said he would not reside with his father on any long-term basis and, at paragraph 81, that this would “not improve their relationship”, contrary to the father's opinion.

60. There have been ongoing difficulties with the parents in relation to overseas travel and who is to hold passports.  Orders were made for the passport to be held by a firm called W Lawyers.  The father was the last parent to use the passport and he did not return the passport to this firm. He held onto it for a period of time and then determined to lodge it with the Court. When Ms Wearne asked the father why he did not comply with the orders of 24 July 2013 in relation to the passport he said they made it difficult for him to get the passport and:

    On return I wasn’t comfortable with W Lawyers holding the passport.

61. Thus the father also has not complied with court orders.

62. Despite the father's position that the mother can instantly raise $200,000 to provide a bond and travel to Country D in the case of a family emergency, she cannot, and that was clear in 2015 when she had to leave the child in his father's care to attend Country D. This was the time where the child says his father was virtually absent for three weeks and came in and out of the home he was living in whilst the child was being cared for by others.

63. The mother was clear in her evidence she intends now to live in Australia as does the child.  The child is intent on completing his Year 12 in Australia and starts his Higher School Certificate (“HSC”) at the end of next year.  The mother said that the child is interested in joining the Defence Force and doing a law degree. That the child has commenced one HSC subject in advanced languages already and it is very important to the child and his mother that he finishes high school in Australia.

64. The mother agreed it is highly unlikely there will be any travel in 2021 and the Court can take note that it is unlikely there will be much international travel in 2022, save perhaps for an emergency.  The mother also agreed the child's HSC demands will restrict any overseas travel.

1. The mother was correct. The orders are very strict and there was an extremely good reason why they were so strict in that they were made at a time when the mother had behaved in such an egregious fashion in not complying with orders of the Country D courts and having absconded with the parties’ child in the first place.  However it is now 2021 and the child is 16 years and three months of age and completing his HSC in Australia.

2. The mother said the orders are inflexible. For example, for the death of her father, other family members, a christening, a wedding, she is not able to just go with the child and if she cannot raise the money she cannot attend these important family events for her. The mother also said that the child cannot live with his father and it is clear, after hearing the evidence, that he cannot. To make an order that the child is to live with his father would be exposing the child to an unacceptable level of risk given he has already run away from his father's care on two occasions at Christmas 2019/2020 and in 2020 and returned to his mother's care and has not spent face-to-face time with his father since September 2020. The pressing of such an application by the father was impracticable and not in the child's best interests.

3. As the mother said, she is bound by the school calendar, she is an educator and her holidays and any travel that they could potentially take would only be in school holidays and there is no risk to his education if I make the orders she seeks in relation to travel.

4. The mother was not forthcoming in relation to her income, only that she earns about $35,000 per annum in her role as a part-time educator.  I formed the view she is clearly seized of significant assets overseas and asserted she had a taxable income of some $400,000 AUD but did not earn that because funds went back into company shares. These are matters I am unclear about however she would have known what her income was at the hearing given she has just recently applied for a loan for $650,000 to purchase a property west of Sydney. The current intention is to rent that property out and continue to live in Sydney while the child finishes his schooling.

5. The mother was sad that her son's relationship with his father had deteriorated and that he would not even telephone his father, even after his father has just announced the birth of a daughter.  The father had not sent him a birthday gift or Christmas gift and the father confirmed he still had the child's Christmas presents at his home at M Town waiting for him.  Those presents are not much use to the child at his home, unfortunately. Further, the father said he had not sent the gift because he asked the child for his address when the reality is the child has lived at his current address for many years. This evidence did the father little good.

6. The father's evidence was somewhat concerning in his inability to see that his son the child is 16 and not six. Parents have rules in the home such as restricting screen time however the child is a highly talented student who does school work on his school computer and this is how children do their school work in this modern age.

7. The father said they have a “tech free” day on Sunday. The child was caught using his computer or his phone in the evening when his son was with him in the school holidays of January 2020.  His father confiscated both his phone and his laptop, put them in his car and took them to his place of work. The father believed his son could not self-regulate his use of technology and this was the only way to assist him to do this.

8. What occurred was that the child went to his father's place of work and obtained his equipment and caught a taxi to his mother's home. The father would not be drawn on whether there was a rule of how long this equipment would be kept from him, making it impossible for the child to know what the clear rules were. It is clear to me after hearing this evidence that that father has an authoritarian approach with his son, which is not working, and that if the child did visit him the father would continue with this approach no matter the cost.

9. The father said he does not go to any school events and that he just receives the child’s school reports. He said that he now calls his son once a month but the child does not return his calls, a significant sadness for the father and his son.

10. The father could not make any concession in relation to the mother. For example, when asked whether there any reasons to disbelieve the mother's sworn evidence that the child will be remaining at the L School to complete his education the father's answer was:

    She is a convicted liar, a thief and a cheat.

    SUBMISSIONS

11. The mother submitted that the reality for the child and herself is that the father plays little, if any, role in their day-to-day life and there are in reality few, if any, long-term decisions to be made and that accordingly I should as a matter of practical reality discharge any joint parental responsibility orders.

12. The mother further submitted that the requirement to lodge a bond of such significance is impractical for any emergency travel and has already had a consequence of the child living with his father for three weeks at the time of the death of her father in circumstances when the child said his father was virtually absent for that period of time.

13. That the child and his father have an extremely fractured relationship at present and it is not practical or realistic, nor in the child's best interests, that he live with his father in his mother's absence, given he has not spent time with his father since September 2020 and will not even telephone his father or take his father's calls.

14. That the mother has abandoned her application for relocation and she and the child intend on living in Australia, he finishing his schooling and attending university to complete a law degree and/or join the Defence Force.

15. That having regard to her track record, the child's age and their intention to remain in Australia to enable him to complete his education, this all indicates she is no longer a flight risk with the child.

16. The father is still in 2010 and cannot see his way clear to acknowledge any of the positives of the mother and her impeccable conduct since she has returned to Australia in compliance with orders of the Court.  The father has not complied with orders of the Court, for example, in retaining the child's passport and then making an application to lodge it with the Court which application was granted. The father's opinion is that the mother is a “liar, a thief and a cheat” and cannot be trusted and that the only reason she has returned to Australia is due to the bond.

17. However that argument is fallacious for if, as the father asks me to accept, the mother has earned $8 million in ten years a loss of a $200,000 bond in order to live where you wish to live would not have been a problem. Yet the mother has returned to Australia with the child on no less than six occasions. The father does not accept her withdrawing her application for relocation is also a positive for her intention to remain in Australia or that the age of his son and his desire to complete high school is a further comfort to the Court.

18. Going now to the submissions of the Independent Children’s Lawyer. Ms Wearne submitted to me that the leading case in this matter is Kuebler & Kuebler (1978) FLC 90-434 (“Kuebler”). There are five principles distilled in that matter in relation to such applications, namely travelling with the child outside the jurisdiction where opposed, and they are:  

    (1)The length of the proposed stay outside the jurisdiction;

    (2)The bona fides of the application;

    (3)The effect on the child of any deprivation of access;

    (4)Any threats to the welfare of the child by circumstances of the proposed environment;

    (5)The degree of satisfaction in which the Court based its assessment of the parties that a promise of a return to the jurisdiction would be honoured.[1]

    [1] Kuebler at 77,205–77,206.

19. I accept the mother's application is bona fide in seeking to discharge the bond.  Her proposal is for time overseas with the child, herself and his extended family in Country D as he has enjoyed on no less than six occasions since their return to Australia. The time would be in school holidays and would not interfere with his schooling.  Further, the mother seeks the removal of the bond so that the child can accompany her on any emergency travel she may have to take. To not do so would pose a threat to the child if her solo travel resulted in him having to live with his father in circumstances where he has run away on two occasions from his father's care in 2019 and in 2020, has not spent time with his father since September 2020 and his father lives many hours from the child’s school. The father’s glib evidence that the child could do his school work remotely did not assist the Court as he had not even made the barest of enquiries of how this could be managed.

20. There will be no effect of deprivation of time with the father upon the child of any travel as he has no time with his father now of his choosing and there are no orders for him to spend time specifically other than as he wishes.

21. The Court is entirely satisfied that the mother will return. The mother said she would return and has done so on no less than six occasions since she returned to Australia in 2012. The Court accepts the mother's evidence that she and her son intend on living in Australia and that he will be completing his schooling in Australia.

22. Further, the Court notes the child is 16 years and three months of age and in 20 months these matters will be decisions he makes and this Court and his parents will have no jurisdiction over those decisions.

23. The father's position is based upon events that occurred in 2010 and 2011 and, understandably, he has little trust in the mother. However he has not looked at his son's progress and the mother's conduct since her return to Australia. The father accepts no blame for the poor state of their relationship when the Child Inclusive Memorandum released 3 February 2020 sets out his responsibility clearly.

24. The father was dismissive of that important document and I am not certain he has read it thoroughly and taken on board any of the important information contained therein. As a consequence the father has not changed his position, as he is entitled to do. However there are consequences of adult decisions and unfortunately in this matter it has been a fracturing of the relationship between himself and the child.  It is not a “poisoning” by the mother. It is the child's experience of his father's inflexibility, the child's experience of his father's inability to find time to take him to his commitments such as Saturday sport and the child's experience of his father's inability to see matters from the child's position.

25. The complete lack of trust in the mother and very poor opinion of her is what is driving the father's position in resisting any change to the orders and, although perhaps understandable at one level, my task is to make an order in the child's best interests. To not amend the orders and discharge the $200,000 bond would not be an order in the child's best interests.  As Ms Wearne submitted, it would be disastrous for the child to be ordered to live with his father if his mother had to, in an emergency situation, travel to Country D due to problems in her family. The child would refuse to live with his father or, if he did, he would leave as he has done on two previous occasions returning to his mother's empty home. Such a consequence would be perilous for the child and the prospect of this happening is real and almost certain.

26. Further, there is no certainty he can do his school work remotely from M Town and the evidence from the child in the Child Inclusive Memorandum is to the contrary.

27. The mother's family in Country D is important to her and is also part of the child's heritage and, given his age and the mother's recent history together with abandoning her application to relocate, the Court is confident she will ensure the child returns to Australia if in fact they are able to travel in 2021 or 2022.  I note on his birthday in 2023 the child will be able to travel at will.

28. In light of the evidence, the submissions of the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the mother's behaviour since returning to Australia in 2011. I will discharge the order for the travel bond and the mother is free to travel with the child overseas provided she complies with the request to notify the father of same.

29. Further, I will order that the passport currently held by the Court is to be returned to the mother and she will hold that passport. I note the mother contended by letter dated 25 June 2021 that the child had a New Zealand passport and if so wished to hold that as well. The father responded by letter dated 25 June 2021 that the child never had a New Zealand passport.

30. I will not interfere with the parental responsibility orders given the reality is they have worked well, have not caused a problem for the child and there are very few, if any, long-term decisions that need to be made in the child's best interests between now and his 18th birthday in 2023.

31. Accordingly I will make the orders sought by the Independent Children's Lawyer as the orders in the child's best interests.

I certify that the preceding ninety-five (95) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Henderson.

Associate:

Dated:       9 July 2021