Wallace and Wallace and Ors

[2017] FamCA 60

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WALLACE & WALLACE & ORS [2017] FamCA 60

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – interim orders – where parenting orders are sought by both the mother and the father – where the children currently reside with the paternal grandparents – where the parties have been engaged in reunification therapy – where there is a family assessment report – where consideration is given to the best interests of the child – where the children are to remain living with the paternal grandparents – where it is ordered that the children spend gradually increasing time with the mother – where an order is made for payment of the cost of the reunification therapy – where the interim matters are further adjourned.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC
APPLICANT:	Ms Wallace

1st RESPONDENT: Mr Wallace

2^nd & 3^rd RESPONDENT: Ms and Mr Southey

4^th & 5^th RESPONDENT: Mr A and Ms B Wallace

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Services Commission of SA

FILE NUMBER: ADC 3290 of 2015

DATE DELIVERED: 9 February 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

PLACE HEARD: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Berman J

HEARING DATE: 3 February 2017

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Hurley

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Pascale Legal Barristers & Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT: Mr Wabnitz

SOLICITOR FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT: Daniel John Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE 2^ND & 3RD RESPONDENTS: Mr Adey

SOLICITOR FOR THE 2^ND & 3^RD RESPONDENTS: Norman Waterhouse

COUNSEL FOR THE 4TH & 5TH RESPONDENTS:	Ms Ross
Cardone & Associates

SOLICITOR FOR THE 4^TH & 5^TH
RESPONDENTS:

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Mr Stephen

Legal Services Commission of SA

Orders

1. That the orders made on 15 December 2016 be discharged.

2. That further consideration of the interim parenting issues be adjourned to 7 April 2017 at 9.00 am.

3. That during the period of the adjournment C born … 2008 and D born … 2011 (“the children”) spend time with the mother as follows:

   (a)on Saturday or Sunday from 10.00 am to 5.00 pm on the weekends commencing Saturday 11 February and 18 February 2017 with the day to be agreed between the mother and the paternal grandparents;

   (b)from 10.00 am Saturday to 5.00 pm Sunday on the weekends commencing 25 February 2017 and 11 March 2017 PROVIDED THAT the mother’s time shall be supervised by the maternal grandparents or either of them between the hours of 6.00 pm Saturday to 8.00 am Sunday;

   (c)on Saturday or Sunday from 10.00 am to 5.00 pm with the day to be agreed between the mother and the paternal grandparents on the weekend commencing 4 March 2017 and each alternate weekend thereafter;

   (d)from after school on Friday to the commencement of school on the following Monday commencing 24 March 2017 and each alternate weekend thereafter.

4. That the children do live with the paternal grandparents at all other times.

5. That during the period of the adjournment all handovers that do not take place at the children’s school do occur inside the Suburb E Police Station at the commencement of such time and conclude at the Suburb F McDonald’s Restaurant at the conclusion thereof or as otherwise agreed.

6. That the father be restrained from attending any handover of the children including between the mother and the paternal grandparents.

7. That the father be at liberty to assist the paternal grandparents to transport the children to and from their school.

8. That the mother do have the sole authority to do all things necessary and sign any document as may be required to cause the sum of ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN DOLLARS ($1,184) to be transferred from money standing to the credit of the parties in Pascale Legal Trust Account to the office account of Pascale Legal in full satisfaction of the discharge by them of outstanding accounts to Ms G, psychologist.

9. That the order of 15 December 2016 allowing the maternal grandparents to intervene in the proceedings is discharged.

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

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

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 r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADC 3290  of 2015

Ms Wallace

Applicant

And

Mr Wallace
1^st Respondent

And

Ms and Mr Southey
2^nd & 3^rd Respondents

And

Mr A and Ms B Wallace

4^th & 5^th Respondents

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. By Initiating Application Ms Wallace (“the mother”) filed 8 December 2015 seeks orders that C born in 2008 (“C”) and D born in 2011 (“D”) (collectively “the children”) live equally with each of the parties and that they shall have equal shared parental responsibility for the children.

2. The interim orders sought in the Initiating Application conceded that until the disposal of the substantive proceedings, the children would live with the father and spend time with the mother each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school on Friday to the commencement of school on Monday.

3. By Response filed on 9 November 2015, Mr Wallace (“the father”) seeks orders that he have the sole parental responsibility for the children, that they live with him but spend time with the mother as may be agreed between the parties, with the mother being restrained from attending at any school attended by the children, attending at or in the vicinity of the father’s place of residence and having any contact with the children other than as agreed in writing by the father or otherwise as may be ordered.

4. The father also seeks orders for settlement of property but it is conceded by the parties that their property interests are modest and the main focus at present is in respect of the parenting arrangements for the children.

5. The interim orders sought by the father are in similar terms to the tenor of the final orders.

6. By Application in a Case filed 13 December 2016, the mother seeks a discharge of orders made by Judge Mead on 31 August 2016 which provided for the parties to engage Ms G (psychologist) to undertake reunification counselling for the children with the mother.

7. In addition the mother sought that the children live with her, spend no time with the father, but spend time with the paternal and maternal grandparents as may be agreed between each of them and the mother.

8. She also seeks orders that the father provide his authority to pay outstanding invoices due to Ms G from monies held in the trust account of the mother’s solicitors as provided for in paragraph 5 of orders made 31 August 2016 namely, that in respect of the first anticipated trance of reunification counselling and including any recommendations as to future counselling, the parties are to bear the costs of same equally but to be paid from the monies standing to their credit in the said trust account.

9. On 27 October 2016 an Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) was appointed to represent the interests of the children and the parties were each restrained from utilising any social media site (other than the “Our Children” website) relating to the parties to the proceedings, issues in respect of the proceedings and in particular the children.

10. On 15 December 2016 Judge Mead granted leave to the paternal grandparents and maternal grandparents to intervene in the proceedings and during the period of the adjournment the children were to live with the paternal grandparents and to spend time with the maternal grandparents each Saturday or Sunday from 10 am until 5 pm with the father being restrained from being present during any time spent between the children and the maternal grandparents and that the mother be at liberty to be present with the children during their time with the maternal grandparents.

11. Her Honour transferred the proceedings to the Family Court of Australia.

12. The hearing before me was the first occasion for the Court to consider the ongoing interim parenting arrangements.

13. All parties were represented at the hearing, however the solicitor for the father had only recently taken instructions and there was not yet in place a grant of legal aid.

14. The father’s solicitor was candid in his submission to the Court that if given an appropriate opportunity to do so, he intended to supplement the Court file with a psychiatric/psychological report as to the father’s current functioning and suitability to resume unsupervised time with the children, the status of his criminal proceedings in respect of conduct involving his partner Ms H and the status of their relationship.

15. Notwithstanding the leave given to intervene in the proceeding, the maternal grandparents do not intend to seek orders in respect of the children but rather are prepared to be of assistance to the Court and to support the mother if their ongoing supervision should be required.

16. The mother seeks orders that the children spend time with her without supervision and in particular to include overnight time.

17. She concedes that subject to the orders she seeks, the children should remain in the care of the paternal grandparents and whilst she has no objection to the father spending time with the children when the paternal grandparents are generally present (at present the father resides with his parents), she objects to the father transporting the children to and from their school in the absence of one or both of his parents.

18. The paternal grandparents are generally supportive of the father, but at this stage the extent to which they intend to remain involved in the proceedings and seek orders in respect of the children is as yet unknown.

19. Their intervention was predicated on their view that at the time orders were made placing the children in their primary care, the father was not able to appropriately and safely parent the children.  He had suffered psychiatric trauma, was the subject of investigation and intervention order in respect of alleged family violence directed to his partner and in their view the children were not safe in his care.

20. The father’s current presentation is that whilst he asserts that he has largely resolved his mental health issues and that there are good prospects for a reconciliation of his relationship with his partner, he concedes that until those matters are set out with some clarity, the Court is unlikely to consider that a return of the children to his primary care would be in their best interests.

21. Further consideration of the interim arrangements in respect of the children has been adjourned to 7 April 2017 to enable the father to update the Court in respect of his personal circumstances and possibly for further information to be provided by the mother as to the progress of her time with the children during the period of the adjournment.

22. The paternal grandparents and the ICL generally concede that it would be appropriate for the children to spend time with the mother initially supervised, then unsupervised but during daylight hours only and thereafter any overnight time should be the subject of supervision but with the potential to graduate to unsupervised time.

23. The background to the proceedings and the significant disruption to the lives of the children firstly in terms of their relationship with their mother and then of more recent date with their father was such that I considered it to be in their interests that consideration should be given as to the time that they spend with each of the parties between now and the adjourned date.

24. The mother agitates for orders that the father provide his authority for the payment of  money to her solicitors in respect of their payment of outstanding invoice to Ms G, or in the alternative that the Court should order same.  For reasons that are not clearly understood the father appears resistive to providing his authority.

25. I propose to deal with that aspect of the mother’s application given her intimation that Ms G was actively pursuing the payment of her outstanding accounts as the catalyst for payment by her solicitors.

BACKGROUND

1. The father was born in 1977 and the mother in 1978.  The parties met in 2004, commenced cohabitation in late 2005 and married in 2006.  It appears uncontroversial that they separated on 24 January 2015.

2. Immediately following separation the children remained in the father’s care and spent no time with the mother, nor was she able to communicate with them pursuant to an intervention order and criminal proceedings that were pending in a Magistrates Court.

3. She was charged with separate counts of the  aggravated assault of C and the father.

4. It is common ground that an incident occurred on 23 January 2015 where faced with what she says was the child’s disobedience to direction, she forcefully grabbed the child, carried him to his bed and smacked him on his bottom.  The extent of her grip on the child’s arms left a bruise.

5. It appears that the prosecution and the Magistrate accepted that the basis of the charge was founded on the mother’s excessive chastisement of C.  The father agrees that the charge was disposed of in that way.

6. The offense involving the father with respect was in respect of an incident that occurred in the period between July 2013 and January 2015 where the mother threw an object at the father.

7. No conviction was recorded but the mother was required to enter into a bond to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months.  It appears that the bond has now expired without incident or repeat offending.

8. In her affidavit filed in support of the Initiating Application the mother expresses regret in respect of the incident involving the father, but in particular in respect of C and asserts that prior to the separation she was the primary caregiver of the children and that her conduct should not be seen as an indication that she has an aggressive demeanour.  In particular she asserts that there have been no other incidents involving the children.

9. In his affidavit filed 5 November 2013 the father sets out that he has had concerns in respect of the mother’s aggressive behaviour towards the children.  He alleges that there have been other assaults and that the mother was quick to temper and displayed “violent outbursts”.

10. He describes various incidents in 2013, 2014 and 2015 leading up to the mother’s assault on the child on 23 January 2015.

11. The father has remained steadfast in his allegation that the mother poses a risk to the children, that each of them but in particular C remains wary and fearful of her and that more needs to be done by the mother before her time with the children should resume on an unconditional basis.

12. The parties and the children attended upon Ms I for the preparation of an assessment report to assist the Court in the future conduct of the proceedings.  At the time of the assessment (late February 2016), the children remained in the care of the father and had not spent time with nor had any contact with the mother for over 12 months.

13. It was the strong recommendations of Ms I that steps be taken as soon as possible to reunite the children with their mother by the mother and the children engaging in reunification counselling and until the therapeutic intervention could be commenced, the children should see their mother at a children’s contact centre.

14. Ms G was engaged by the parties to undertake the therapeutic intervention and whilst there remains disagreement as to the effectiveness of the therapy and complaint by the mother that the father had attempted to sabotage the counselling, it appears that the intervention has met with considerable success and the children appear to be comfortable spending time with the mother albeit at present with the maternal grandparents being present.

15. The current circumstances wherein the children live with the paternal grandparents has its genesis in their Application in a Case filed 12 December 2016 seeking orders that the children live with them pending further order of the Court.  The application is supported by affidavits filed on behalf of the paternal grandparents and the catalyst for the intervention and application by them appears to be based on their observations that from October 2016 the relationship between the father and his partner Ms H demonstrated signs of high conflict.  They were arguing with each other and Ms H’s motor vehicle had been the subject of vandalism in September 2016.  On 16 November 2016 the father asked his parents to look after the children and on 18 November 2016 they were advised that the father was to be detained under the provisions of the Mental Health Act 2009 (SA), was taken to the J Hospital (“JH”) and then transferred to K Hospital on 21 November 2016. They allege that whilst in an open unit at K Hospital the father left the hospital grounds without permission and was taken by the police back to K Hospital where he remained until his release on 6 December 2016.

16. The paternal grandparents were concerned that the father’s medical and psychological state was such that he may pose as a risk either to himself, his partner, or in particular the children.  They assisted the father in obtaining bail on 7 December 2016 and whilst the interim medical reports suggested the father was not likely to be a risk to the children, he did pose a risk to Ms H.

Family assessment report

1. Ms I interviewed and assessed the children and the parties.  Whilst it was evident that the relationship between the parties was marred by one of high conflict, mistrust and allegations that each made against the other, when interviewing C he advised Ms I that he had written a letter to give to the mother.  Ms I records that the father provided the letter to her and summarises C’s presentation at paragraph 5 of her report:-

   [C] read the letter and showed a drawing of [C] and [the mother] together on the front.  He had written ‘you hit me [the mother], ‘stop’.  I felt sad and Mum’s don’t hit children, please give us money we need it’.  When queried about the reference to needing money, [C] reported ’Dad told us, she not give us money so I write that’.  When asked about [the mother] hurting him, he reported she scratched him, grabbed him and smacked him on the bum with her hand and a wooden spoon.  [C] was asked if there was anything discussed the previous day that had made him worried or upset and reported ‘nothing, it was all ok’, and he had slept ok. 

2. C was clearly distressed at his observations of the parties engaged in aggressive argument and conflict during the relationship.  He considered that both he and his mother were angry people.

3. Whilst there was some trepidation on the part of C to the prospect of seeing his mother, D was not so reluctant but nonetheless still referred to her as “angry mum” and asked Ms I “what if angry mum hurts us?”.

4. Given that the children had not seen their mother for a significant period of time, the observations of their interaction with their mother was promising.  Ms I records that the mother appeared to be contrite and to proffer sincere apology for her behaviour if it had frightened or hurt the children and both C and then D appeared to quickly re-establish a relationship with her.

5. C again raised with his mother financial issues which appeared to be out of context.

6. Ms I considered that the children’s meeting with their mother was positive and she observed that they were responsive to her communication, that she was appropriate and child focussed and that there were open and spontaneous demonstrations of affection.

7. Following the children’s observed interaction with their mother, the father sought that they be re-interviewed by Ms I on the basis of his concerns that their behaviour appeared to have regressed.

1. The children’s presentation to Ms I did not mirror or reflect the father’s concern.  Indeed, that they enjoyed seeing their mother again but were nonetheless uncertain in respect of future contact, particularly if the mother were to behave aggressively towards them.  Nonetheless, it was the opinion of Ms I that the children would benefit if they were able to re-establish a relationship with their mother and it was upon that premise that reunification counselling was considered an appropriate next step.

Reunification therapy

1. Ms G commenced the reunification counselling in June 2016 and provided a report of the interaction between the children and the mother in the period from 23 June 2016 to 11 August 2016.

2. Ms G considered that:-

   … the children continue to show an interest in their mother.  Not surprisingly given the time that has passed since they had had regular contact with their mother and the conflict that is present in the family, they both expressed reluctance to see her again.  [C] was able to articulate this well when he said that he enjoyed seeing his mother during the family assessment but that he felt sick afterwards.  This is a challenging process for all involved, and especially the children.

3. D was observed to be comfortable in the presence of the mother and was prepared to be “physically close to her”.  C was more reticent.  Ms G considered that he would need time to readjust in seeing his mother and that this could be more quickly achieved if there was clear support from the paternal family, in particular the father, indicative of his support that the children had no reason to be fearful of their mother.

4. It was recommended that there be further reunification counselling sessions.

5. A further report was prepared by Ms G on 5 December 2016 in respect of the sessions that occurred between 1 September 2016 and 26 October 2016.  Two proposed sessions were cancelled and there was no attendance on the last session namely 9 November 2016.

6. Ms G records her initial discussion with the father and C.  It appears that the father was no longer supportive of the reunification process and notwithstanding the observations of Ms G that the mother had behaved appropriately, the father reported that C “saw the red beast” which was a reference from a book that the father had read on anger and anger management.

7. The father denied that either he or C suffered from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) notwithstanding that the father’s psychologist had provided that information and then there was the somewhat disconcerting observation of Ms G of a letter that the mother had written to the child having been thrown on the floor.

8. The father cancelled the session that was to occur on 15 September 2016 based upon an allegation that “my family were the victim of a very malicious attack on Sunday night” and that it was under active investigation by the police.

9. The clear implication was that whatever the attack involved, the mother was in some way connected or related.  The father advised that the children were “shaken by the incident”.

10. Of concern to Ms G was information received by her that the father has posted information on the internet and on social media sites on 27 September 2016 alleging that he was “the victim of domestic violence at the hands of my ex-wife for 5 year!.  My two beautiful children were also victims of violence by their mother!”.  He referred to “my two beautiful innocent kids were physically assaulted on multiple occasions by their mother.  They are still at risk because our court system is failing to protect them”.

11. Notwithstanding the difficulties that confronted the mother and the children, Ms G considered that:-

    Reunification had been successful in regards to the children having opportunities to spend time with their mother and get to know her again.  During this period [C’s] challenging and at times defiant behaviour had begun to change. He now appears more relaxed during sessions and to be enjoying time with his mother.  In the last session [C] agreed to be in photos with his mother and [D], which he previously refused to do.  [D] has been physically affectionate towards her mother for some time.  She enjoys time with her mother and more recently was asking about seeing her more often that fortnightly.

12. Ms G considered the father’s conduct and expressed the opinion that the reasons provided by the father for cancelling the sessions were “improbable”.  Her concerns were heightened by the postponement of the reunification session on 9 November 2016 following a formal report made by the father to the police and an indication to them that the mother would be at the office of Ms G and could therefore be arrested at her office.  The father was apparently keen to record the interaction between the mother and the police and this lead to Ms G having misgivings as to the father’s presentation, resulting in a recommendation that he should seek further therapy with a psychologist to address his “lack of support for contact between the children and their mother”.  The extent of her concerns as to the father’s conduct is encapsulated in the concluding paragraph of her report in the following terms:-

    If  contact between [the mother] and the children does not progress, and [the father] continues to be unsupportive, it may be worth considering a longer period of [the mother] caring for the children.  While this would not be ideal for the children initially, it would give them a proper opportunity to re-establish their relationships with their mother.

Time spent with the mother following orders made 15 December 2016

1. The mother’s time with the children is set out in the affidavits filed on behalf of the paternal grandfather on 1 February 2017, the maternal grandparents on 2 February 2017 and the mother on 1 February 2017.

2. There appears to be a significant advancement in the relationship between the children and their mother.

3. The paternal grandfather was able to observe the presentation of the children at the conclusion of their time with the mother and I accept his assertion that both he and the paternal grandmother are supportive of the children re-establishing a relationship with their mother.  It is his assessment at paragraphs 35 and 36 that:-

   35.We believe that [D] would not have problems with sleepovers if [C] also was there.  If these sleepovers take place without [C], then we consider that the sleepovers would be stressful for her and counterproductive to the reconciliation process with their mother.

   36.As to [C], we believe that he needs some assistance to deal with his fear of staying over with his mother without his Nanna and Pa being present.

4. The paternal grandparents assert that they are supportive of the children being reunited with the mother, but are conscious of C’s wariness towards her.

5. The affidavit of the maternal grandmother observes that the children reacted well with the mother and that there were no issues of concern that arose during her observations.  Whilst obviously from a different perspective, the observations of the children’s grandparents are consistent.

6. The mother’s affidavit provides greater detail as to the activities undertaken with the children.  Her observations appear to be unchallenged and she summarises their engagement with her in the following paragraphs:-

   182.I say the time spent with the children has been incredible (sic) positive.  The children appear to enjoy this time and it has strengthened our bond.

   183.Given the difficulties experienced in this matter to date, the recent progress with the children has been wonderful.  The children have been incredible (sic) relaxed around me, have spoken and (sic) length about issues important to me and have been calling me “Mum”.

   184.The children love being at my house and in fact have made it clear that they would like to spending time at the house.  They like their bedrooms very much.

   185.I am confident that the children and I are ready to move forward.

PRINCIPLES TO BE APPLIED

1. Notwithstanding that the Court is to further consider the interim proceedings on 7 April 2017, nonetheless even during the period of the adjournment any orders that I make must be considered to be in the best interests of the children. I do so by reference to the primary and additional considerations in s 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). In particular, s 60CC(2)(a) provides for the benefit to the children of having a meaningful relationship with both of their parents, but in particular the mother. The children and the father both reside in the home of the paternal grandparents. It is not intended during the period of the adjournment that the order providing for the children to live with the paternal grandparents will be discharged.

2. The necessity for the Court to consider the benefits to the children of having a meaningful relationship with their parents must be tempered by the provisions of s 60CC(2)(b) namely, the need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm, from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.

3. Given the history of the matter, the Court’s initial focus has been on the need to balance the advantages to the children of a relationship with their mother, but to ensure that they were safe and that she did not pose a risk to them in terms of matters of family violence.

4. I consider that the reports of Ms I and Ms G are such that the mother does not now pose a risk to the children subject to the cautionary note raised by the paternal grandfather that C may continue to be wary of his mother.

5. The application of the paternal grandparents and the subsequent orders of Judge Mead have now turned the focus to the father in respect of his psychological functioning and his allegedly aggressive and intimidating conduct towards his partner.

6. A further consideration relates to the concern expressed by Ms G as to whether the father was able to support the children’s relationship with their mother.

7. The reports of the experts strongly support orders that would continue to reinforce and re-establish a close and affectionate relationship between the children and the mother.  The observations of the grandparents, both those supervising and of the children’s return at the conclusion of their time with the mother, together with the uncontested narrative by the mother of her time with the children, would suggest that there is no impediment to unsupervised time commencing.  It is also to the children’s advantage to commence overnight time but initially supervised by the maternal grandparents, but thereafter to put in place orders that would see the children spending significant and substantial time in their mother’s care.

8. Whilst the detail may differ, the proposed way forward appears to have the strong and unequivocal support of the ICL.

9. The mother seeks to restrict the father’s ability to spend time with the children out of the presence of his parents, but in particular of driving the children to and from their school.  As a result of the children living with the paternal grandparents, a difficulty has arisen in that the travelling time between their home and the children’s school is at least an hour each way.

10. Given that at present the father lives with his parents and that he is under their direct observation, I consider that it would be unnecessarily restrictive to now allow the father to transport the children to and from school, particular if his parents are not available or able to do so.

11. Notwithstanding the distance, time is nonetheless limited and his current living arrangements impose an inbuilt check and balance on any adverse or inappropriate behaviour on his part.

12. The paternal grandparents have not been reticent in bringing an application seeking that the children live with them in circumstances where they were concerned about their son’s presentation.  I consider that they would have no hesitation in doing so again if they had similar concerns.

Parenting orders

1. The current orders provide that the children spend time with the maternal grandparents (with the mother being at liberty to attend) each Saturday or Sunday from 10 am to 5 pm.  I propose to discharge that order and provide that the children spend time with their mother during the same periods on a further two occasions, but without the need for supervision.  Thereafter, on the basis of each alternate weekend, the mother’s time will be extended from 10 am on Saturday to 5 pm on Sunday, with the mother’s time to be supervised from 6 pm on Saturday to 8 am on Sunday.  Following two such overnight times, the arrangements will continue but without the need for supervision for a further two occasions.  Thereafter the mother’s time will be extended from after school on Friday to the commencement school on the following Monday with the children spending time with the mother on the intervening Saturday or Sunday from 10 am to 5 pm.  Handovers shall take place at the Suburb E Police Station at the commencement of time and at the Suburb F McDonald’s Restaurant at the conclusion of time, other than where handovers shall take place at the children’s school.

2. The father will continue to be restrained from being present at any time that the children spend with the mother or at any handover.

Payment of outstanding invoices

1. The mother seeks orders that would see the amounts outstanding to Ms G for her services paid from the monies standing to the credit of the parties in the mother’s solicitors trust account.

2. The mother’s solicitors have paid the amount outstanding to Ms G in the sum of $1,814 from her account.  The order that the mother now seeks is rather than Ms G be paid, that her solicitor be reimbursed for the expenses paid for and on behalf of the father.

3. The order made on 31 August 2016 was clearly predicated on the Court forming the view that it was in the best interests of the children that the reunification therapy commence and that the parties should share equally in the costs of same.

4. It is difficult to understand the exact nature of the father’s concerns, but there is some disagreement in that he considers Ms G did not discharge her duties appropriately.

5. The amounts involved are minor and whilst it is not the Court’s intention to require the parties to further engage with Ms G at this stage, it may be necessary that Ms G be re-engaged in order to assist the Court.

6. The parties have not concluded orders for property settlement and whilst the pool is likely to be modest, nonetheless if there is complaint by the father then there can be adjustment made in respect of future proceedings.

7. I propose therefore to order that payment be made from the trust account of Pascale Legal to the office account of the mother’s solicitors in the sum of $1,814 to be deducted from monies held on behalf of the parties.

8. I make orders as appear at the commencement of these reasons.

I certify that the preceding eighty nine (89) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Berman delivered on 9 February 2017.

Associate: 

Date:  9 February 2017