WATERS & SCHUBERT

[2015] FamCA 658

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WATERS & SCHUBERT [2015] FamCA 658

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – best interests – the importance of the child maintaining a meaningful relationship with his parents – substantial and significant time – where regard is had to the legislative pathway of Goode & Goode – where the mother has taken the child interstate – where there are allegations of risk.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) - s 60 CC, s 60 CC(2)(a), s 61DA, s 65DAA(3), s 67N.

Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-287
Mazorski & Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518

APPLICANT: Mr Waters

RESPONDENT: Ms Schubert

FILE NUMBER: ADC 2379 of 2015

DATE DELIVERED: 12 August 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Berman J

HEARING DATE: 3 August 2015

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Dickson

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Norman Waterhouse Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Glenn

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Dawn Saxton and Associates

Orders

1. That within 48 hours of the making of these orders the mother do deliver up to the father the child B, born … 2011.

2. That the handover of the child into the care of the father shall take place at the N Police Station in the State of New South Wales with the mother to be at liberty to attend the handover personally or in the presence of other persons or to instruct other persons to effect the handover.

3. That if the mother shall fail to deliver up the child then the father shall be at liberty to relist the proceedings generally or in respect of a recovery order in particular on 24 hours’ notice.

4. That the child shall live with the father.

5. That the mother shall spend time with the child as follows:

   (a)From 10 am Thursday to 10 am on the following Monday and each alternate weekend thereafter.

   (b)By telephone on each Wednesday and Sunday between the hours of 4.30 pm and 6 pm Central Standard Time, with the duration of the said telephone communication to not exceed 30 minutes.

6. That the mother be restrained and an injunction be granted restraining her from changing the child’s place of residence currently situate at C Street, Suburb D, but if it is the mother’s intention that her time either in whole or in part with the child shall be spent outside of the State of South Australia THEN the mother shall give the father 48 hours’ notice of her intention to so do.

7. That the interim proceedings are dismissed.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADC 2379  of 2015

Mr Waters

Applicant

And

Ms Schubert

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION  

1. By Initiating Application filed 29 June 2015, the father seeks that by way of final orders he shall have the sole parental responsibility for the child B (“the child”), born in 2011.  In addition, the child should live with him and spend unspecified time with the mother as may ultimately be determined by the court.

2. The father also seeks an order that the mother be restrained and an injunction granted restraining her from removing the child from the father’s residence at Suburb D, the State of South Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia.

3. By way of interim orders the father seeks that the mother do forthwith deliver up the child to him and that the child shall live with him pending further determination.

4. The proceedings were filed in circumstances where the father alleges that the mother either took the child or caused the child to be taken from the care of the father in Adelaide and delivered into her care in New South Wales. The uncertainty of the mother and therefore the child’s whereabouts prompted the father to seek a location order pursuant to s 67N of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) and if necessary a recovery order.

5. A recovery and a location order were ultimately unnecessary. Following service of the Initiating Application, the proceedings came before me on 9 July 2015 with the applicant father represented by counsel and the respondent mother by her solicitor who attended by telephone.

6. Urgent and interim orders were made that required the mother to file a Response and an Affidavit in support and importantly provided some interim arrangements for the child to spend time with the father for a 24 hour period as and from 10 am on 10 July 2015 with handover to occur at a police station in New South Wales.  Orders were also made for the father to communicate with the child by telephone on five separate occasions.

7. The proceedings were adjourned to 3 August 2015.

8. By Response to the Initiating Application filed 29 July 2015, the mother sought final orders that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, that the child live with the mother and spend time with the father as follows:-

   a)for a period of seven consecutive days per month before the child commences primary school;

   b)once the child has commenced primary school, for one half of the school holiday period at the end of terms one, two and three as agreed between the parties and failing agreement being the first half of the school holidays in even numbered years and the second half of school holidays in odd numbered years;

   c)for one half of the Christmas school holiday period as agreed between the parties and failing agreement being the first half in even numbered years and the second half in odd numbered years;

   d)on Father’s Day each year;

   e)on the weekend of the father’s birthday;

   f)at such other times as may be agreed between the parties with the father’s time suspended to accommodate the child spending time with the mother on Mother’s Day.

9. In the alternative, if the court were to order that the child should live with the father then the mother seeks that the child spend time with her on the same terms and conditions as she was proposing for the father.

10. The mother also seeks final orders for property settlement but the interim proceedings were confined to parenting issues only.  The father will file an Amended Response and Financial Statement to enable the property component to be listed for a financial conciliation conference to be convened by a Registrar of the court.

11. Relevant to the application, the mother seeks interim orders that the child live with her and spend seven consecutive days (one week) per month with the father.  It is implicit in the orders sought by the mother that she would remain in New South Wales, the child would reside with her and to the extent that she proposes that the child spend time with the father, that would take place in Adelaide.

12. At the commencement of the hearing, the mother’s solicitor set out the applicable financial arrangements for the payment of the travelling costs for the child.  Essentially the parties are to share equally in the child’s travel expenses with the father being responsible for the payment of the air ticket for the child at the commencement of his time and the mother for the costs involved in the return of the child to her care.

13. There is some uncertainty as to the extent to which the child will need to be accompanied and how that would occur and be paid for.  The child is three and a half years of age.

14. Notwithstanding that the mother sought interim property orders, they were not pressed.

DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON

1. The father relies upon the following documents:

   ·Initiating Application filed 29 June 2015

   ·Notice of Child Abuse Family Violence or Risk of Family Violence filed 29 June 2015

   ·Affidavit of father filed 29 June 2015

   ·Affidavit of father filed 31 July 2015

   ·Affidavit of Ms S (maternal grandmother) filed 31 July 2015

2. The mother relies upon the following documents:

   ·Response to Initiating Application filed 29 July 2015

   ·Notice of Child Abuse Family Violence or Risk of Family Violence filed 30 July 2015

   ·Affidavit of mother filed 29 July 2015

ALLEGED RISK

1. The allegations of risk as set out in the Notice of Risk are as follows:-

   (1)the level of the mother’s depression results in the mother sleeping for long periods at a time preventing her from properly supervising the child;

   (2)the mother’s depression causes her to suffer from significant mood swings which she is not capable of property caring for the child;

   (3)the mother does not feed the said child when he is hungry;

   (4)the mother regularly uses inappropriate language, including swear words, when speaking to the said child or in the child’s presence.

2. The allegations of risk by the mother as set out in the notice are as follows:-

   (1)the respondent mother states that from December 2011 onwards the father would smoke marijuana approximately once a month up until the date of separation.  The respondent mother states the father would on these occasions disengage from conversation and be unwilling to partake in family activities;

   (2)the respondent mother states that around August 2013 the father was charged with having a “commercial quantity” of marijuana;

   (3)the respondent mother sates that around 18 June 2015 she found “two buds” of marijuana in a container in the pantry at the house property;

   (4)the respondent mother states that the father admitted to smoking marijuana from “time to time” and “taking Endone”;

   (5)the respondent mother states that she is concerned about how smoking marijuana from “time to time” and “taking Endone” would affect the father’s capacity to care for the child.

BACKGROUND

1. The father is 28 years of age.  The mother is 27 years of age. The parties commenced a de facto relationship in or about June 2004.  The child the subject of the proceedings is the only child of the relationship.  The child is currently three and a half years of age.  The parties separated either in September or October 2014.

2. The father alleges that it was the mother who wished to terminate the relationship, leave Adelaide and to permanently reside in Sydney with her new partner Mr W.

3. The mother does not deny the broad summary of the circumstances of their separation.

4. The parties met whilst they were each studying at an adult education campus.  They were both about 17 years of age and their relationship was quickly formed.  Initially they lived with the father’s parents, then in a caravan until they were able to purchase their first home at Suburb D.  As soon as the parties settled on the property they took up residence and they remained in that property until the date of separation being September 2014.

5. The father alleges that the mother met Mr W online and that they shared an on line gaming interest namely “Warcraft”.  Whilst there is some dispute as to the current status of the relationship between the mother and Mr W, it is clear that he has been a current feature in the mother’s life.

6. It is her submission that whilst she currently resides in Mr W’s home, whatever may have been their previous relationship they are now no more than close friends.  The child apparently has a relationship with Mr W and he has a significant position and involvement in the child’s day to day care.

7. For his part, the father was unemployed from late 2012 to August 2014 when he obtained employment.  When not employed he would care for the child.  As a result of the separation and the mother’s intended permanent move interstate, the father ceased his employment and cared for the child on a full time basis assisted by an entitlement to a single parent benefit.

8. The mother did not enter employment during the period of the relationship.

9. There was some dispute between the parties as to whether the mother could or should take up employment.  She made various applications and received a potential job opportunity.  After discussion with the father, the parties agreed that the travel arrangements and the time that the mother would be away from the home would not justify the relatively modest wage that the mother was likely to receive.

10. The father alleges that the mother struggled in her role as a full time mother.  He suggests that she had difficulty in coping with the rigor of caring for a young child.  He alleges that she struggled with mental health problems.

11. The mother denies that she had difficulty in caring for the child but concedes that she found the child difficult to settle which adversely affected her own ability to sleep.

12. The parties are not agreed as to who took on the various aspects of the child’s parenting and whilst I suspect that the mother does concede some early parental difficulties, there is no evidence and certainly no concession by the mother that she suffered from any mental health issues and if so, that they rendered her incapable of effective, appropriate or protective parenting.

13. The respective proposals of the parties will not be determined upon an arbitrary decision that the mother or the father suffered mental health issues which affected their capacity as a parent.

14. The issues as between the parties relate to the difficulty in their relationship from about 2012.  The mother alleges that the father was controlling and would be prescriptive in terms of his control of family finances and the manner in which the mother should conduct herself including her dress and clothing.

15. She also alleges that there were times when the father threatened to physically assault the mother and at times she felt humiliated by his conduct in public.

16. She alleges that in or about May 2012 the father punched her to the side of the head on three occasions whilst they were in their bedroom.  The child was present but obviously only a few months of age.

17. The mother alleges that there were further occasions of family violence in July 2012 where she alleges that the father’s attempt to push the mother away resulted in the child being struck (presumably accidentally) thereby causing a bruise to be sustained.  In June 2013 the mother makes the observation that when the child appeared to be having a tantrum the father shouted at the child for 30 seconds and refused to allow the mother to comfort the child.  It was the mother’s view that the father used excessive and unnecessary force with the child.

18. There was some police involvement in relation to the marijuana use of the father and it appears that it resulted in the father being charged with having a commercial quantity of marijuana, being placed on a good behaviour bond for 18 months and a fine of about $420.  The father denies the mother’s allegations and counters her claims of family violence perpetrated by him by reference to alleged behaviour by the mother that she would scream at the child if he was distracting her from her computer time, would swear at the child and on one occasion left him unattended in the bath in a darkened room.

19. By early 2012 the father alleges that the mother formed what he considered to be an intimate online relationship with Mr W who lived in Sydney.  The mother agrees that the common interest with Mr W was the interest in on line gaming.

20. It appears that by about August or September 2014 the parties’ relationship had broken down and had become quite conflictual.  There is some uncertainty as to the division of parental duties in respect of the child but ultimately the mother left the Adelaide property on 12 October 2014 eventually travelling to Sydney where she was met and given accommodation by Mr W.

21. The mother considers that she had little choice. Her initial position was that she would travel to New South Wales but take the child with her.  When the father refused to allow the child to leave his care, she considered she had little or no choice given the poor relationship and presumably what she considered would be better circumstances in Sydney and in a new relationship with Mr W.

22. The father states that the mother at no time had any intention of taking the child with her and making it clear that she considered her life to be in Sydney and not in Adelaide.  It may have been the case that the mother understood the father would never consent to the child being taken from Adelaide, but nonetheless, he states that the mother had little or no hesitation in deciding that she would go and leave the child with the father.

23. Thereafter the father took on the sole parenting role of the child.

24. A somewhat unusual feature of the relationship between the parties is that the father formed a close relationship to the maternal grandparents who lived in a nearby suburb.  He considered that they were supportive of him and he determined that it was important in the absence of the mother that the child had a close relationship with the mother’s parents.

25. A routine soon developed whereby the child would spend two to three nights with the maternal grandparents every second weekend.  The father also alleges that he contacted the mother and asked her whether she would return to Adelaide, obtain her own home and resume a relationship with the child.  The mother apparently declined the father’s proposal and, in respect of this issue, the mother’s affidavit is silent.

26. The father alleges that the mother did not see the child at all between mid- September 2014 and November 2014.  The parties are not in agreement as to the extent to which the father did or not facilitate time and/or communication between the mother and the child.

27. It is likely that the child would not easily have understood the absence of his mother.  There is however no suggestion that the father actively kept the child from the mother and she properly concedes that there was telephone communication between the parties about the child.

28. On 25 November 2014 without the father’s knowledge, the mother assisted by the maternal grandmother, removed the child from the father’s care and together travelled to the mother’s home situate in a rural town approximately 100 kilometres from Sydney.

29. The mother agrees with the broad chronology of events but confirmed that she was also accompanied by Mr W.

30. It appears that on 26 November 2014, the maternal grandmother determined that she was not comfortable with the child remaining in the care of the mother.  Without any advice to her, the maternal grandmother returned to Adelaide with the child and delivered him up to the father.  Notwithstanding the child’s absence from the care of the father, he had assumed that the child was with the maternal grandmother and did not realise that the child had travelled to and from New South Wales.

31. The mother and Mr W travelled back to Adelaide with the intention of retaking the child back into the mother’s care and presumably back to New South Wales.

32. Unfortunately there was an unpleasant and probably aggressive confrontation between the parties in Adelaide.  The father and members of his family confronted the mother, Mr W and potentially others.  The father alleges that the mother punched him in the face.  She says she intervened in what could have been a violent altercation between the father and Mr W. Ultimately, the mother and Mr W returned to New South Wales without the child.

33. The father alleges that between 27 November 2014 and 10 May 2015 there was scant contact between the mother and the child.  There were however more efforts made by the mother as and from May 2015 and ultimately the parties agreed that they would attempt a reconciliation.

34. Each of the parties has a different version of the extent to which their relationship was dysfunctional notwithstanding an attempt at reconciliation.

35. The mother returned to Adelaide on 17 June 2015 and the father concedes that the child was excited to see his mother.

36. By 20 June 2015 the mother had apparently changed her mind.  She alleges that there was a violent altercation between the parties following an admission by the mother that she no longer wished to remain in a relationship with the father and that she had made a mistake in resuming residence in Adelaide.

1. The mother alleges that the father had punched a door which so affected her that on 21 June 2015 she made contact with Mr W and determined that she would return to New South Wales.  She called the police and the father was arrested.

2. The father denies that there was any aggression between the parties but rather, was concerned as to the emotional stability of the mother and informed her that he would help her return to New South Wales when his finances permitted.

3. The father was charged with aggravated assault and an interim intervention order was granted. When the father returned home the mother and the child were gone.

4. The child currently resides with the mother in rural New South Wales in the home of Mr W.  She asserts that she is currently studying through Open College Learning and whilst she has little or no relationship with her parents, she does have some extended family in New South Wales including a maternal aunt, an uncle and a cousin although not geographically close to where the mother resides.

5. It is now agreed that the charge of aggravated assault has been withdrawn and the interim intervention order also the subject of challenge is listed for a pre-trial conference in September 2015 and if not resolved then a trial possibly in November 2015.

6. Pursuant to orders made, the father has travelled to New South Wales and spent time with the child.

7. The father’s application is supported by the maternal grandmother.  I have regard to her affidavit filed 31 July 2015.

8. She is remorseful in respect of her involvement in the initial removal of the child from the father’s care.  She concedes that a mistake was made and whilst favourably disposed to the father and indeed complimentary of him and his parenting, she is less enamoured with her daughter’s care and the involvement of Mr W.

9. She was concerned as to the state of the mother’s home and considered that it was unhygienic and not appropriate for the ongoing care of a small child.  The mother allegedly had few clothes available for the child, no nappies and only a small number of toys.  There was little food in the house and this raised the grandmother’s concerns that the mother had undertaken little or no preparation in anticipation of the child residing with her.

10. The maternal grandmother does not support the mother’s contention that there was clear evidence of aggressive behaviour by the father towards the mother and/or the child or that she had witnessed any conduct of the father consistent with family violence.

11. If anything, she was concerned as to the ability of the mother to care for the child. 

12. At paragraph 87 she says:

    From my observations [the child] was happy and well cared for by [the father] since he and [the mother] separated.  I observed that the child’s speech was a lot better and that his vocabulary was vastly improved.  I credit this effort made by the father.  In addition, the child’s toilet training has improved immensely since he has been under the father’s sole care.

PROPOSAL OF THE PARTIES

1. The mother proposes that the child reside with her in rural New South Wales in the home of Mr W.  Notwithstanding her poor financial position, it is proposed that the child would spend seven days a month with the father in Adelaide with the costs to be generally shared. If the court determines that the interests of the child would be promoted by residence with the father, then she seeks that the care of the child be shared namely, fourteen days with the father in Adelaide and 14 days with the mother in New South Wales.

2. The father’s proposal is significantly different.  He does not object to the child spending substantial time with the mother but is not able to afford the cost involved with the child travelling between Adelaide and rural New South Wales.  His income is limited and the evidence of the mother’s financial circumstances as set out in the financial statement filed 30 July 2015 refers to her current occupation as a student and her income being limited to a Centrelink single parent’s pension which will most likely be substantially reduced if the child is placed in the primary care of the father.

3. To the extent that the father’s proposal offers the mother significant and substantial time but most likely to be taken in South Australia with perhaps infrequent travel to New South Wales is reasonably practicable if the mother resides in Adelaide.

4. The mother’s proposal does not seem financially viable and there is a further difficulty that it does not consider the effect on the child of substantial travel nor indeed the significant uncertainties as to the mother’s current residence and the extent of the involvement, if any, of Mr W.

5. The mother has also made it clear that she does not intend under any circumstance to change her place of residence from New South Wales to Adelaide.

6. The parties are entitled to put forward their separate proposals to the Court.  I am obliged to have regard to the totality of their separate proposals and on that basis make orders that are in the best interests of the child.  It is not a matter where it is proper to draw an adverse inference against the mother on the basis that she chooses to remain in New South Wales if a decision is made that the child will live in the primary care of the father.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

1. I have regard to the “legislative pathway” as set out in Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-287. At paragraph 82 of the Judgment the following is stated:-

   In an interim case that would involve the following:-

   (a)identifying the competing proposals of the parties;

   (b)identifying the issues in dispute in the interim hearing;

   (c)identifying any agreed or uncontested relevant facts;

   (d)considering the matters in section 60CC that are relevant and, if possible, making findings about them (in interim proceedings there may be little uncontested evidence to enable more than a limited consideration of these matters to take place);

   (e)deciding whether the presumption in section 61DA that equal shared parental responsibility is in the best interests of the child applies or does not apply because there are no reasonable grounds to believe there has been abuse of the child or family violence or, in an interim matter, the court does not consider it appropriate to apply the presumption;

   (f)if the presumption does apply, deciding whether it is rebutted because application of it would not be in the child’s best interests;

   (g)if the presumption applies and is not rebutted considering whether making an order that the child spend equal time with the parents unless it is contrary to the child’s best interests are the result of consideration of one or more of the matters in section 60CC or is impracticable;

   (h)if equal time is found not to be in the child’s best interests, considering making an order that the child spend substantial and significant time as defined in section 65DAA(3) with the parents, unless contrary to the best interests as a result of consideration of one of more of the matters in section 60CC, or impracticable;

   (i)if neither equal time nor substantial and significant time is considered to be in the best interests of the child, then making such an orders in the discretion of the Court that are in the best interests of the child, as a result of the consideration of one or more of the matters in section 60CC;

   (j)if the presumption is not applied or is rebutted, then making such order as is in the best interests of the child, as a result of the consideration or one or more of the matters in section 60CC; and

   (k)even then the Court may need to consider equal time or substantial and significant time, especially if one of the parties has sought it or, even if neither has sought it, if the Court considers after affording procedural fairness to the parties it is in the best interests of the child.

2. The circumstances in this case are that the child had been living primarily with the father and as a result of the actions of the mother now lives with her in a different state.  The father’s time with the child has been limited by his ability to travel to New South Wales leaving the only reasonable option is to communicate with the child by telephone.

3. The father’s relationship with the child has been fundamentally disrupted in circumstances where there would appear to be no explanation for the unilateral action of the mother.

CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 60CC

1. As is so often the case, the tension arises in respect of the consideration of the primary matters in s 60CC(2)(a) namely the importance of the child maintaining a meaningful relationship with his parents, but in doing so to ensure that the child is not at serious risk of psychological or emotional harm.

2. In Mazorski & Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518 Brown J commented on the definition of “meaningful” and said:-

   [26]What these definitions convey is that “meaningful” when used in the context of “meaningful relationship” is synonymous with “significant” which, in turn, is generally used as a synonym for “important” or “of consequence”.  I proceed on the basis that when considering the primary considerations and the application of the objects and principles, a meaningful relationship or a meaningful involvement is one which is important, significant and valuable to the child.  It is a qualitative adjective, not a strictly quantitative one.  Quantitative concepts may be addressed as part of the process of considering the consequences of the application of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and the requirement for time with the children to be, where possible and in their best interests, substantial and significant.

3. In this case it is interesting to note that the mother concedes the father is a good and loving parent.  She says so notwithstanding a basic premise of her opposition to the child residing primarily with the father and as a basis for her flight to New South Wales namely, that the father engaged in family violence.  The father denies the allegations.  I am not able to divine the truth of the mother’s allegations and the father’s denials.  I am able to bring to account that even at the high water mark of the mother’s allegations there is no credible explanation for her conduct in moving from South Australia to New South Wales.  There is no suggestion that she remains in some form of constant fear or indeed that there has been any ongoing or inappropriate conduct by the father which would corroborate any feelings of fear.  Rather, the father’s conduct has been benign, measured and appropriate. He has sought his remedy via court order. His involvement with the maternal grandmother and his readiness to ensure that the child maintained a proper relationship with the mother’s extended family is also instructive.

4. I am significantly comforted by the father’s conduct and restraint notwithstanding the mother’s behaviour.

5. It is difficult to assess the wishes of the child.  He is very young.  Whilst his verbal expressions are not able to be ascertained, the observations of the maternal grandmother of the closeness of the child’s relationship with the father and the very chronology of this matter would make it more likely than not that the child was and hopefully remains closely bonded to the applicant.

6. Much is known of the father’s current circumstances.  Almost nothing is known of the mother’s circumstances.  She has not chosen to provide an affidavit from Mr W in circumstances where she denies that there is an ongoing relationship with him, but acknowledges that they are on friendly terms and he has significant involvement with the child. In those circumstances it would have been of assistance for the court to better understand the care arrangements for the child in the mother’s home.

7. To the extent that there are allegations of his aggressive conduct but perhaps of greater relevance for these proceedings is his involvement in assisting the mother to remove the child from South Australia.

8. I find that the mother appears to be in the thrall of Mr W and it is her relationship with him that dominates and determines her actions and movements as opposed to any vague allegation of family violence of the father is the mother’s motivating cause.

CONCLUSION

1. I find that the best interests of the child will be served in the primary care of the father in Adelaide.  The father offers the mother significant and substantial time and I consider this can be satisfied by an order that would see the child spend four days a fortnight in the care of the mother from 10 am Thursday to 10 am on the following Monday and each alternate weekend thereafter.

2. In order to reduce the potentially disruptive consequences of travel, whilst there should be no prohibition on the mother taking the child out of the State of South Australia, it is proper that she provide 48 hours’ notice of her intention to do so.

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

I certify that the preceding eighty six (86) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Berman delivered on 12 August 2015.

Associate: 

Date:  12 August 2015