WALLACE & CROSBY
[2017] FCCA 586
•27 March 2017
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| WALLACE & CROSBY | [2017] FCCA 586 |
| Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Parenting – interim orders – 17 month old baby – child has been living with father since November 2016 – father alleges child at an unacceptable risk of harm with mother – child to live with father and spend time with the mother. |
| Legislation: Family Law Act 1975, ss.60CC, 61C, 61DA, 68B, 68L |
| Cases cited: Banks & Banks (2015) FLC 93-637 |
| Applicant: | MR WALLACE |
| Respondent: | MS CROSBY |
| File Number: | PAC 5655 of 2016 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Obradovic |
| Hearing date: | 1 March 2017 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 1 March 2017 |
| Delivered at: | Parramatta |
| Delivered on: | 27 March 2017 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Stenhouse |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Central Coast Family Law |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Ms Judge |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Linden Legal |
PENDING FURTHER ORDERS
The child X born (omitted) 2015 shall live with the father.
The child shall spend time with the mother:
(a)Each Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 10am to 4pm; and
(b)Each alternate weekend from 10am on Friday to 3pm on Saturday with such time to commence on 1 April 2017.
That within 7 days of the date of these Orders the mother file and serve an Undertaking from the maternal grandmother Ms L whereby Ms L undertakes that:
(a)The mother will reside with her at all times that the child is in the mother’s care; and
(b)If she forms a view that the mother is affected by either alcohol or illicit substances, she will immediately telephone the father and arrange for the child to be handed over to the father pending further order.
Pursuant to s68B the mother is restrained by injunction from consuming any alcohol or illicit substance at least 12 hours prior to the child coming into her care and for the duration of the time the child is living with her.
Pursuant to s68B the father is restrained by injunction from consuming any alcohol for at least 12 hours prior to the child coming into his care and for the duration of the time that the child is spending with the father.
Within seven (7) days, each of the parents shall attend to provide a sample for forensic testing with respect to the presence of cannaboids, opiates, amphetamines, methamphetamines and benzoids and such sample shall be provided and testing shall occur in accordance with the appropriate Australian standard for supervised chain of custody testing and upon provision of a testing report arising from same, each parent shall cause and ensure that report to be provided to the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the other party.
In the event that the testing report discloses a reportable quantity of any of the above substances, that parent shall then continue to attend and provide a sample and cause such sample to be tested in accordance with the above order no less than each seven (7) days and until such time as a report is provided which discloses no reportable quantity of any of the tested substances.
In the event any test is positive as above, the parent who has been subject to a positive testing report shall then forthwith contact such service local to them as the Independent Children’s Lawyer may nominate for the purpose of enrolling in a course or program designed to assist them in addressing their drug use and becoming and remaining drug free.
Pursuant to section 13C of the Family Law Act1975, the mother shall forthwith and within 7 days contact the intake officer of Relationships Australia for the purpose of arranging and attending the first available and offered intake appointment for the assessment of suitability for the “(omitted) Family Referral Service” program to assist the mother dealing with any mental health issues and any drug and alcohol issues and subject to the assessment of suitability the mother shall then:
(a)Attend at such times, dates and places as may be advised; and
(b)Pay such fees as may be charged;
to participate in and complete such program.
Pursuant to section 13C of the Family Law Act1975, the parties and each of them shall forthwith and within 7 days contact the intake officer of Relationships Australia for the purpose of arranging and attending the first available and offered intake appointment for the assessment of suitability for the ‘Parenting Orders’ program offered by that organisation and subject to the assessment of suitability each party shall then:
(a)Attend at such times, dates and places as may be advised; and
(b)Pay such fees as may be charged;
to participate in and complete such program.
THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:
Pursuant to Section 68L of the Family Law Act an Independent Children’s Lawyer is appointed for X born (omitted) 2015 and request the Legal Aid Commission of NSW to provide such representation.
The parties are to provide to the Independent Children’s Lawyer, within 48 hours of receiving notice of their appointment, all documents thus far filed by them in these proceedings together with all existing orders and copies of any relevant reports.
The Applicant and Respondent are to provide to the Independent Children’s Lawyer immediately upon notification of their appointment, a copy of any subpoena issued in the proceedings.
List the matter for directions at 11.30am on 13 June 2017.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Wallace & Crosby is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA |
PAC 5655 of 2016
| MR WALLACE |
Applicant
And
| MS CROSBY |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
Since 24 November 2016, X born on (omitted) 2015 has been living with the father and not spending any time with the mother. At the date of the interim hearing, X was aged 17 months.
These of course are interim parenting proceedings.
By way of brief procedural chronology the proceedings were commenced on 1 December 2016 when the father filed an Initiating Application, with the Court Registry allocating that application the first return date of 14 February 2017.
The mother did not file a Response until 10 February 2017.
On 14 February 2017 the parties were directed to attend a Child Dispute Conference with a Child Dispute Conference Memorandum being available to the Court that same afternoon. No resolution was reached during the conference however both parties raised significant issues of risk being family violence, alcohol and other drug use, mental health and child protection issues. The Family Consultant was also of the view, unsurprisingly, that the parents appeared to have an acrimonious post-separation parenting relationship.
The central enquiry for the Court is to determine the outcome that will be best for the child the subject of these proceedings. The primary issue is whether the child is at an unacceptable risk of harm in the mother’s care and if so what, if any time, he should be spending with his mother. If the answer is that he is not, the issue then becomes a competing interim live with application, based on the determination of the relevant best interest considerations.[1]
[1] see for example Lang & Partington [2017] FamCAFC 40 at [53]
The Full Court in Goode v Goode[2] mandated that the legislative pathway must be followed in all parenting cases, and in particular set out the procedural steps to be followed on an interim application, such as this one. The Full Court in Goode & Goode also said:
… the procedure for making interim parenting orders will continue to be an abridged process, where the scope of the enquiry is ‘significantly curtailed’. Where the Court cannot make findings of fact it should not be drawn into issues of fact or matters relating to the merits of the substantive case where findings are not possible.
[2] (2007) 36 Fam LR 422, (2006) FLC 93-286 at [81]
Further Full Court authority has expanded upon what the Full Court said in Goode & Goode. In Marvel & Marvel[3] where the Full Court made the following obiter comments:
As has frequently been emphasised interim parenting proceedings, and orders made as a consequence, are a necessary but temporary measure until all the evidence can be tested, evaluated and weighed at a final hearing by the making of final parenting orders. Decisions judicial officers have to make in interim proceedings are difficult and, often for very good reason, a conservative approach, or one which is likely to avoid harm to a child is adopted. This is often to the understandable distress of a party who may not achieve the outcome he or she desires, or thinks to be in the best interests of their child or children. Interim parenting orders are frequently modified or changed after a final hearing, and any allocation of parental responsibility made at an interim hearing is disregarded at the final hearing….
[3] [2010] FamCAFC 101 at [120]
The Full Court in Keats & Keats, held in respect of the conduct of interim proceedings:[4]
…the principles that emerge from cases such as SS v AH [2010] FamCAFC 13, [are] namely, that apart from relying upon the uncontroversial or agreed facts, a judge may have little alternative than to weigh the probabilities of competing claims and the likely impact on children in the event that a controversial assertion is acted upon or rejected.
[4] [2016] FamCAFC 156 at [9]
Notwithstanding that a cautious or conservative approach is at times appropriate such an approach cannot fetter a Court’s discretion judiciously exercised. Any outcome determined by the Court must be based on evidence and it must be an outcome which the Court holds is in the child’s best interest.
Competing Proposals
The mother’s application is for the child to live with her and provided that the father resides with the paternal grandmother during the times that the child is with him, that the child spend time with the father each week from 5pm Saturday to 5pm Sunday, with such time to commence no earlier than 14 days after the child is returned to the mother.
The father’s application is for the child to live with the father and to spend time with the mother, provided the mother resides with the maternal grandmother and is supervised by her during the times that the child is with her, that the child spend time with the mother each week on Monday and Wednesday from 10am to 4 pm. The father also sought an order for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.
Uncontested Relevant Facts
The father was born on (omitted) 1970.
The mother was born on (omitted) 1995.
There is one child of the relationship, who at the time of the hearing was only 17 months old. The child was born on (omitted) 2015. At the time of the child’s birth, the mother was 20 years old and the father was almost 45.
The child was born premature. After his birth, he stayed in hospital for approximately 3 months, until he was well enough to be released.
The child has not spent any time with the mother since mid-November 2016.
Section 60CC(3) Considerations
The child is still a very young baby, and it appears that for most of his young life his mother has been his primary carer. The father has always worked. Neither party makes the assertion that the child is not bonded with the other parent. There is no objective evidence to suggest that the child has not been well looked after by either of his parents when he has been in their respective care.
The parties’ evidence is conflicting in respect of their relationship, and exactly how long they were together for. Certainly it seems that there were periods of separation and/or periods when the parents did not live together albeit there might not have been a formal separation.
The mother says the parties separated on a final basis in mid-November 2016 after the father assaulted her. No police records were tendered showing an alleged assault of the mother on or about 12 November 2016. As is noted later in these reasons, the mother did call the police on 24 November 2016 after the father refused to return the child to her. The police records do not mention the mother making any complaint to them on that day that she had been assaulted by the father on 12 November 2016.
It is of significant concern that after 24 November 2016 to at least the date of the hearing, the child had not spent any time with the mother. This is a period of some 3 months and in the life of a very young child, a significant portion of the child’s life. The father says that he had tried to facilitate time but it did not eventuate. The mother disputes that the father had tried to facilitate any time. This factual dispute is yet to be decided.
However, it is not in the child’s best interest to have his relationship with the parent who on all accounts was his primary carer curtailed in such a manner, unless it is because of some significant risk of harm. The father did not say to the Police on 24 November 2016 (referred to below in these reasons) when he retained the child that day, that he had fears for the child if he was to be in the mother’s care, as he asserts throughout his affidavit. The reasons for this might be many and indeed same might be explained or clarified when the evidence can be properly tested, but it is certainly a matter which the Court has taken into consideration.
By ensuring that the child will be spending frequent and regular time with the mother pursuant to these orders, the Court is of the view that the child’s relationship with the mother will be preserved pending a final determination of the matter.
Primary Considerations and Risk of Harm
The protection of a child from harm is an important matter for the Court’s consideration when weighing up the primary considerations. Indeed, the Court must prioritise the need to protect the child from harm as against the benefit of the child having a meaningful relationship with the parents.
The child is still very young and as such extremely vulnerable. He is not of an age yet where he can verbalise his concerns to any significant or meaningful extent, nor where he can protect himself from risks which might exist in either or both of his parents’ households.
The issue is however not simply about the risk of harm, it is about the nature of the risk, the degree of risk, what might be done about the risk and the balancing of assessed risks against the benefit of the child having a relationship with the parent against whom the risk of harm is alleged to be unacceptable.[5] The issue is the extent of the risk and the things that might be done reasonably to alleviate (not eliminate, but alleviate) the risk.[6]
[5] Jopson & Lilwall (No.2) [2016] FamCAFC 262 at [58]
[6] Jopson & Lilwall (No.2) [2016] FamCAFC 262 at [56]
What are the alleged risks?
In the Notice of Risk filed 1 December 2016 the father sets out the particulars of alleged risk of abuse as follows:
a)the mother has physically assaulted the father whilst the child was present and the father is concerned the mother may take her emotions out on the child in his absence;
b)the mother suffers from mental health issues and the father is concerned the mother is not able to properly supervise and adequately nourish the child; and
c)the mother is a binge drinker of alcohol and the father is concerned that the mother is not properly able to supervise and adequately nourish the child.
In that Notice of Risk, he also sets out the particulars of alleged family violence or risk of family violence as follows:
a)Child was present when the mother physically abused the father, which included acts such as:
i)chasing the father with a butcher’s knife;
ii)assaulting father by punching him in the head, arms, legs and torso on many occasions;
iii)assaulting the father with a batton;
iv)broken the father’s nose by head-butting him;
v)pulled father’s hair;
vi)throwing objects at the father.
b)Mother has frequently called the father names whilst the child was present;
c)Mother has called the child names;
d)Mother has damaged property which includes:
i)throwing objects around the room;
ii)punching holes in the walls;
iii)kicking items of furniture;
iv)smashing items including mirrors, windows, remote controls and electrical appliances;
e)Child was present when the mother attempted suicide;
f)Mother forced the father to cut ties with female friends during the relationship.
The father also alleges that the mother suffers from anxiety and depression and as a consequence of the mother’s anxiety and depression the mother is not able to adequately care for and nourish the child. Furthermore the father alleges that the mother abuses drugs and alcohol and that she becomes violent when under the influence of alcohol and drugs.
In her Notice of Risk filed on 10 February 2017, the mother alleges that from the onset of and throughout the relationship the mother has been subjected to verbal and physical abuse from the father, including:
a)The father grabbing the mother by the upper arms and shaking her;
b)The father pushing the mother and refusing to let her leave;
c)The father pulling on the mother’s hair and throwing her to the ground;
d)The father grabbing the mother by the throat, choking her whilst she was holding the child;
e)The father grabbing the mother by her hair and clothes, dragging her across the floor and lifting her by her hips and throwing her;
f)The father twisting the mother’s fingers causing extreme pain while she was holding the child;
g)The father denigrating the mother calling her names and saying words to the effect of:
“slut”, “ignorant”, “fat”, “lazy”, “putrid maggot”, “fucking whore”, “junkie”, “you are nothing”, “you are a waste of space”, “you need me”, “you’re good for nothing”, “you’re lazy and fat”, “you don’t deserve X or me”, “you should kill yourself” and “no wonder nobody loves you, you’re crazy.”
Each of the parties’ Affidavits contains material which supports the allegations they each make. However, they each deny the allegations that the other makes. At the interim hearing, there was no testing of any of the evidence and as such, where facts are contested, which they mostly are in this instance, the Court is not able to make any findings.
In her Affidavit the mother denies the use of any illicit substance and that as a teenager she had a difficult time, and that she was anxious and depressed but by the time that she was 18 she had settled and was not suffering from the issues.
There were a number of documents which were tendered at the hearing, those documents being produced under Subpoena from various organisations.
It was submitted on behalf of the father that the Court would have a great deal of concern for the mother’s capacity to care for the child, about her mental health (particularly as her evidence appears to be at odds with some of the material which has been tendered), and that she is not being honest about her mental health and drug related issues.
The Exhibits disclosed that:
a)In May 2009 the mother was admitted as an involuntary patient to the (omitted) Hospital after she was brought in by the police threating self-harm and harm to her mother’s boyfriend. It is recorded that at the time she had been smoking up to 20 cones per day for 3 months but had stopped the week prior. She was discharged into her mother’s care;
b)In March 2010, the mother was admitted to (omitted) Hospital as ‘mentally disordered’. She had been brought into emergency by her step-father after she had expressed suicidal ideation. The record also indicates that three days prior the mother had been brought into the Emergency Department by the police and in her agitated state she was required to be physically restrained and had resulted in a mid-shaft fracture of her right humerus. She is recorded as having a history of abuse, a long history of mood instability and drug and alcohol misuse. She had apparently threatened to kill her brother on several occasions and was living in a tent in her mother’s backyard;
c)In 2010 a complaint was made against the father by his former partner that he had been texting her and calling her over the last 12 months, which usually happened when he had been drinking. Although the complainant on that occasion indicated that she had no fears for her safety she still wanted the harassment to stop.
d)In 2011 an application for an Apprehended Violence Order was made against the father by the police in relation to his former partner, similar to the one that was applied for in August 2010.
e)In June 2013 the mother was brought in by the police to (omitted) Emergency Department following a domestic altercation with a boyfriend where she had armed herself with a knife and cut the boyfriend’s hand.
f)On 27 May 2015 the police were called out after the mother had what was called a “mental health episode”. She had been throwing her clothes around the houseboat and damaging property. When the police arrived the mother was very emotional and said “I don’t want to live anymore.” She was conveyed by the police to hospital.
g)On 30 March 2016 the police were called out to the father’s houseboat, in response to a “knifing” incident. Upon arrival they observed the mother who was visibly upset and screaming while the father was at the rear of the houseboat with the child. The mother became aggressive and agitated and refused to speak with or comply with the directions given by the police. The mother had used a large silver knife to cut her arm, after the parties had got into an argument. She was forcibly removed from the boat by the police and ambulance officers who were called to the scene. She was placed in handcuffs and restrained whilst in the ambulance. She was scheduled to be assessed under the Mental Health Act 2007. The father said that he was sick of the mother’s drinking and that she had already consumed three ‘long necks’ which apparently resulted in the argument between the parties.
h)The records from (omitted) Hospital from that admission on 30 March 2016 indicate that the mother stated that she normally lived with the maternal grandmother, and the members of that household. She denied being in a relationship with the father and she stated that she had been anxious about the child being left with the father. She said that this was because the father is not used to looking after the child. The mother indicated to the staff at the hospital that there was no argument between her and the father that day, she said that there were a number of things that had built up: those being stress from being away from home, that she had gained weight in the last couple of days, that she had tried to get dressed to go out and thought that she didn’t look good in anything. The mother admitted to drinking but she said that this was out of the ordinary for her. She said that harming herself was impulsive and that she regretted it straight away. She felt very foolish. The ambulance records were noted as indicating that the mother had reported to the ambulance that she had been drinking eight beers and the notes also recorded that she had been aggressive to the police and to the ambulance. The records relating to the mother’s admission at (omitted) Hospital on 30 March 2016 are lengthy which included a notation that:
There has been previous mental health presentations of deliberate self-harm - Ms Crosby reported to isolated incidents during her teenage years (seven years ago), with no further presentations until today. Review of old notes suggests that Ms Crosby has minimised her past history. There had been multiple similar presentations of DSH in the past in the context of alcohol abuse and argument with ex-partner. There had been previous issues with alcohol use disorder…
i)On the 17 May 2016 the mother sought a welfare check for the child in circumstances where the child was being cared for by the paternal grandmother. The grandmother had been caring for the child as the father worked six days a week leaving home at about 5am and not returning until about 6pm. The police spoke with the father at about 4pm that day when he was at his mother’s picking up the child. The mother had alleged that the child had been snatched by the grandmother on 13 May 2016 and had sought assistance from Legal Aid for a Recovery Order. The father said to the police that the mother had wandered off on Friday night and that he had later found her on a neighbouring boat affected by the drug ‘ice’. He went on saying that the mother had then left and he hadn’t seen her for several days. The record of 17 May 2016 also states that the police had dealt with the mother on 30 March 2015[7], where she had slit her wrists while affected by drugs/alcohol and had been released from hospital shortly after self-harming.
j)On 22 July 2016 the mother had called the police advising that she had “just had enough” of the father and that she does not want to stay with him anymore. She told the police that while the father was at work she had packed up her belongings and that she was planning on leaving. A little while later the father became “aggressive and argumentative with the police and tried to interfere in an attempt to get the child back” from the mother. He called the paternal grandmother and his brother to assist him and all three of them attended (omitted) Police Station and were recorded as being argumentative with the police.
k)The police were by the mother called on 24 November 2016 after the father took the child into his care, and refused to return him to the mother. The father, according to the police records, stated that he had been trying to contact the mother for the past two weeks and that this was the first time that he had managed to make contact, and as such he was taking custody of the child for an undisclosed amount of time. That day the police attended at the father’s home, at the request of the mother. They spoke to the paternal grandmother and the father and cited the child who appeared to be “in excellent spirits and was physically very healthy”.
l)On 15 December 2016 the police attended the waterfront after they had received a call regarding a Facebook post made by the mother to one of her friends. The mother and the father were together and the mother indicated that they had known each other for years and “that they were catching up”. The mother freely admitted to the police that she had consumed ‘ice’ whilst on board. The police spoke to the father who appeared sober. He explained to the police that he was trying to assist the mother to get off ‘ice’ and he confirmed that the mother had used ‘ice’ recently;
m)The mother missed a number of medical appointments in late 2016 and early 2017 with her general practitioner;
n)A home visit was conducted by the Department of Family and Community Services on 2 February 2017, at whose request it is not clear. The records of that home visit indicate that the mother’s residence is an appropriate place for the child and otherwise appears to be self-serving statements made by the mother to the caseworker.
[7] There was no other record of any incident occurring on 30 March 2015, the records related to an incident on the 30 March 2016
If the matters which are recorded in the various Subpoenaed documents tendered in these proceedings are correct, then the mother has not been completely honest and truthful in her Affidavit. However, due to the nature of the interim hearing, none of those matters could have been put to the mother as the interim hearing was limited to a hearing ‘on the papers’. As such the Court is not able to make findings about whether or not the matters recorded in the Exhibits are correct, except to the extent that they had been admitted by either one or both of the parties (and against whose interest they are).
It was submitted on behalf of the mother that she was prepared to submit to any condition to have the child returned to her care and to attend upon any professional as the Court might require. The maternal grandmother was in Court and prepared to give any undertaking. The orders sought on the interim application by the mother were not reflective of this, but the Court accepts the submissions made on the day of the hearing as regards those matters.
The mother in her Affidavit makes a number of allegations of domestic violence against the father with the allegations essentially relating to coercive and controlling behaviour by the father towards the mother, physical violence and that there was a power imbalance between the parties mainly due to their age difference which was fertile ground for the alleged coercive and controlling behaviour. The mother also makes an allegation that the father had used cocaine and ‘ice’, and that he smokes a ‘fair amount of marijuana’.
There were no records from any institution or any police records which were tendered which might have corroborated the mother’s assertions about the father physically abusing her, or that he was a user of illicit substances.
During the hearing a recording of two voice messages left by the father was played. These voice messages were left by the father on 7 February 2017. The Court formed the view when listening to the recordings that the father’s voice sounded slurred and that he appeared to be aggressive in his tone and manner. What was said was certainly not flattering of the mother. The father said things such as:
“The only thing you haven’t got is your fucking son ‘cos you’re a low life piece of fucking shit”
And
“You choose: dead shits or your child. Your choice, it’s really simple. Until then, fucking wake up to yourself, you fucking desperate.”
That recording appears to be corroborative of the allegations which the mother makes about the father’s drinking and calling her nasty names. It was a message that was left by the father when the child was in his care. It was left after the mother had filed her Response and a few days before the first return date of the father’s Application. It does not reflect well on the father.
It is not necessary for the purposes of the interim hearing for the Court to go into the detail of every single one of the allegations that each party makes against the other. The Court is significantly concerned that there at least appears, on the face of the mother’s Affidavit, to be a failure to disclose to the Court all of the matters which have been noted in the tendered material.
The Court is also significantly concerned that the mother may pose an unacceptable risk of harm to the child if the child was to be placed in her full-time care, at least at this interim stage in the proceedings. Notwithstanding that, if sufficient safeguards are put in place, the child will not be at an unacceptable risk of harm if he was to spend limited but regular time with the mother in accordance with these Orders.
It may be that after the mother complies with the orders made herein, that the risk of harm which the Court currently assesses as unacceptable should the child be living with the mother, will be further alleviated and further minimised. These are only interim orders and made at an early stage in the proceedings.
The child, as between the parents, had primarily being cared for by the mother during the parties’ often volatile relationship. The father works and has worked on a full-time basis since the child was born. Since November 2016 when the child came to be in the father’s care, it is the paternal grandmother who has been responsible for most of the day to day care of the child while the father has been at work. However it is the father who looks after the child at all other times at present.
Parental Responsibility
Section 61C of the Act provides that each of the parents of a child who is not 18 years has parental responsibility for the child. This section states the legal position that prevails in relation to parental responsibility to the extent to which it is not displaced by a parenting order.[8] Section 61DA provides for a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility that applies when the Court makes a parenting order. The presumption of course, applies only to parents.
[8] See note 1 s61C
The Court does not consider that any order for parental responsibility is in the child’s best interest at this very early interim stage.
Conclusion
The absence of discussion of any particular s 60CC factor above does not reflect any failure to consider it. Rather, it is reflective of the Court’s assessment that such factor has no sufficient relevance in the circumstances of this case to displace the determinative significance of those factors which were specifically addressed: Banks & Banks (2015) FLC 93-637 at [52]. It is also reflective of the Court’s assessment that the primary considerations in the instance of this matter are of such weight and significance that they are primarily determinative of the issue at the interim stage.
In all of the circumstances and for all of the reasons set out above, it is in the child’s best for orders to be made as set out at the forefront of these Reasons.
I certify that the preceding forty-nine (49) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Obradovic
Date: 27 March 2017
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Jurisdiction
-
Standing
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Natural Justice
-
Abuse of Process
0
4
2