Watkins & Goddard
[2023] FedCFamC1F 603
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Watkins & Goddard [2023] FedCFamC1F 603
File number: BRC 6501 of 2023 Judgment of: BRASCH J Date of judgment: 14 July 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CRITICAL INCIDENT LIST – Where mother of children allegedly murdered by father – Where father in custody – Where children placed with the maternal grandmother by the police and the Department – Where major long term decisions were required on an urgent basis – Where the maternal grandmother sought parental responsibility for the children – Where interim orders had been made to allow the maternal grandmother to access service providers for the children – Where the Department holds no concerns – Where father has not engaged in proceedings – Final orders made Legislation: Child Protection Act 1999 s 11
Family Law Act1975 (Cth) Part VII, ss 60CA, 60CC, 60CC(2)(a)-(b), 60CC(3)(a)-(m), 61DA, 65D(1)
Cases cited: Masson & Parsons (2019) 266 CLR 554; [2019] HCA 21
Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725
Tibb & Sheehan (2018) 58 Fam LR 351; [2018] FamCAFC 142
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 54 Date of hearing: 14 July 2023 Place: Sydney (by video conference) Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Alexander Solicitor for the Applicant: Evans Brandon Family Lawyers The Respondent: Litigant in person (did not participate) ORDERS
BRC 6501 of 2023 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS WATKINS
Applicant
AND: MR GODDARD
Respondent
order made by:
BRASCH J
DATE OF ORDER:
14 JULY 2023
THE COURT ORDERS:
Parenting Arrangements
1.That the father have no parental responsibility for the children:
(a)X born 2019;
(b)Y born 2021; and/or
(c)Z born 2022.
2.That the children shall spend no time with the father.
3.That parental responsibility for the children be allocated to the applicant maternal grandmother, MS WATKINS, for all major long term decisions related to the children, including:
(a)The children’s education (both current and future);
(b)The children’s religious and cultural upbringing;
(c)The children’s health;
(d)Requesting that the Health Insurance Commission issue a card or cards for the children and claiming Medicare benefits for them;
(e)Requesting that an Australian travel document, including a passport issue for the children; and
(f)Requesting the issue of any documents which prove or establish the identity of the children including but not limited to:
(1)Birth certificates; and/or
(2)Identity cards.
4.That the children live with the applicant maternal grandmother, MS WATKINS.
5.That the children’s maternal grandmother, MS WATKINS have responsibility for all day-to-day decisions with respect to the children.
Information orders
6.That MS WATKINS is at liberty to provide a copy of these orders to all service providers for the children, including but not limited to the children’s school or any child care or day care facility, treating medical practitioners, any other doctors, therapists, counsellors, professionals or any other person or entity who provide services to or for the benefit of the children, as well as government departments and health insurers.
7.That these orders are authority for MS WATKINS to schedule and consent to treatment, therapy, schooling, programs, care, services and the like for the children, and to give and receive such information from service providers as a parent would ordinarily receive in relation to the children.
Personal Protection Orders
8.That, pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), an injunction is hereby issued restraining the father, whether by himself, his servants or agents from:
(a)Entering or remaining in a place of residence, employment or education of the children or MS WATKINS or a place where any one or more of the children is receiving or attending to receive the benefit of medical or educational or other professional or other services, or from attempting to enter such place or places;
(b)Entering or remaining in a specified area that contains a place of a kind referred to in Order 8(a);
(c)Entering or remaining in a place of residence, employment or education of MS WATKINS or any other member of the maternal family of the children, or any place where they or any maternal family of the children is receiving or attending to receive the benefit of medical or other professional or other services, or from attempting to enter such place or places;
(d)A specified area that contains a place of a kind referred to in Order 8(c);
(e)Using any carriage service or social media to make contact with, message, communicate with MS WATKINS or to publish to or interact via any social media application, any material or content concerning the children or any one or more of them and/or MS WATKINS for any reason;
(f)Taking possession of the children or any one or more of them, or attempting to do so; and
(g)Instructing or requesting any other person to do any of the acts referred to in Orders 8(a) – (f) inclusive.
9.That for the purposes of Order 8, the specified area shall be 150 metres.
10.That the above Orders 8 and 9 are orders made for the personal protection of the maternal grandmother and the children, and is an order to which the power of arrest without warrant attaches pursuant to s 68C of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
Dissemination of orders
11.That a copy of these orders be published to the Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs and the Child Protection and Investigation Unit of the Queensland Police Force.
12.Pursuant to s 11 of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth), the applicant maternal grandmother MS WATKINS has authority to cause the children to be issued with an Australian travel document and be permitted to remove the children from the Commonwealth of Australia, and the need for the father’s signature is dispensed with.
Further orders
13.In the event any wording in this order constrains or otherwise fetters the applicant’s ability to deal with service providers for the children, the applicant has liberty to approach chambers by email (with an affidavit setting out the problem) seeking the relevant amendment/s.
14.If either Ms C the paternal aunt or the father files an application in this matter, the Registry is requested to list the application before me.
IT IS DIRECTED THAT:
15.The applicant maternal grandmother (via her instructing solicitor) cause a copy of this Order to be served on the father as provided for in the Rules for persons in custody.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BRASCH J:
This is an application that concerns three young children, X born 2020, Y born 2021 and Z born 2022. The children’s tender ages will not be lost on anyone.
The applicant in these proceedings is the maternal grandmother Ms Watkins, who was born in 1975. She and her partner Mr D have been together for 16 years. They have a daughter B who is now aged seven. The three children to whom I have referred, the three Goddard children, are, by virtue of orders that I made and an earlier placement by the Department of Child Safety, Seniors and Disability Services (“the Department”) living with Mr D and the applicant maternal grandmother. They have the sibship, although it will be a newly developing one, with B.
The applicant grandmother’s daughter, that is, the children’s mother, was Ms E. Ms E was born in 1975 (“the mother”). Tragically, Ms E died in 2023. At that time, I am told by sworn evidence from the maternal grandmother, and have no reason to doubt, that Ms E had recently separated from the father Mr Goddard (“the father”). She was living with the children at an address in Town F. Ms E was an aggrieved in a domestic violence order. On the evening that Ms E died, the children were apparently inside the mother’s unit, either asleep or being cared for in Ms E’s unit.
The father attended. For reasons the maternal grandmother does not know (and will never know) Ms E went outside of her apartment where the maternal grandmother says she was killed by the father. The maternal grandmother tells me the father then fled the scene, failing to render any assistance to the mother of his children or awaiting attendance on emergency services. “Mercifully”, the maternal grandmother deposes, the father did not take the children with him.
I am told in the maternal grandmother’s affidavit that the father was taken into custody.
The evidence before me is that the father was charged several serious offences.
The matter first came before me on 26 May 2023. It came before me in the Court’s Critical Incident List. That is the list where a non-parent, as the maternal grandmother indeed is, needs urgent major long-term decision-making for the children in circumstances where there are no parents either available or appropriate to make such decisions. At that hearing, I was satisfied for the short reasons given at the time that, particularly with respect to medical issues, urgent major long-term decisions were required for the children. I also made orders that the maternal grandmother have parental responsibility for the children, the father have no parental responsibility for the children and he spend no time with them. I made a range of information orders to facilitate the maternal grandmother obtaining such important things like birth certificates and Medicare cards for the children. I also made orders that this matter be brought to the attention of the father at his correctional facility. I will say a little more about service upon him later.
The arrival of the three children, understandably, into the maternal grandmother’s home with such limited possessions and significant needs on their behalf was at a time when the maternal grandmother herself was grieving the loss of her daughter, Ms E. She told me in her affidavit that it was very tough and understandably so, but she also deposed – and I have no reason to doubt – that she was committed to caring for her grandchildren as best that she could. The maternal grandmother was, and remains, a stay at home parent to her daughter B, and she is therefore able to be a ready parent of her grandchildren and offer them, as she says, the same love and support. I have no doubt that this has been a very difficult time for the maternal grandmother, but I commend her for her recognising the needs of her grandchildren and putting those needs ahead [of her grief] or doing her best to hide her grief from those children.
The children, as I alluded to before, were placed in the maternal grandmother’s care by the Queensland Police. The maternal grandmother was told that occurred with the “child safety team’s” knowledge and permission. I will say a little more about that later.
The children are terribly young. X is three this year. Y is two. Z is just one year old. The maternal grandmother told me – and it comes as no surprise – that they are constantly calling for their mother and looking for her. The maternal grandmother needs to be in and out of this court system as quickly as she can so that she can deal with her own grief and secure the supports for these three young children as expeditiously as possible.
I was told in a more recent affidavit that the maternal grandmother had assistance to find a new residence, which better accommodates the three children along with the applicant’s daughter and partner. I have no interest in knowing the address, although I am told by Mr Evans (her solicitor) that he is aware of it. Pleasingly, the maternal grandmother has received a Medicare card for use to assist the children, and Centrelink has cooperated to assist in their support. I am told as recently as 12 July 2023, being two days ago, that since the orders were made on 26 May 2023, neither the Queensland Police Service nor the Department have had any further requirements of her.
What is critically important for the maternal grandmother is, as she deposed in her affidavit, that she be able to cater to their essential needs, help them achieve their milestones just as she did, and I have no doubt, with her own children. I am impressed by the maternal grandmother’s candour in telling me she is unsure how to discuss the children’s father with them. I am impressed because (a) she admits she is unsure what to do, but more so, (b) that she will take advice on this topic and follow professional advice that she hopes will be supportive. As I have already indicated, the children are terribly young, and the explanation they might need about their father [and mother] now will be one that evolves over time and as they develop. I have no doubt the maternal grandmother will take advice on that.
Material
The applicant relied upon the following documents:
·Initiating Application filed 23 May 2023;
·Affidavit of Ms Watkins filed 23 May 2023;
·Affidavit of Ms Watkins filed 23 May 2023;
·Notice of child abuse, family violence or risk filed 23 May 2023;
·Affidavit of Dean Evans filed 23 May 2023; and
·Affidavit of Dean Evans filed 12 July 2023.
Critical Incident List matters, by their nature, often have no natural contradictor. I requested the co-located officer relevant to where the maternal grandmother resides to either attend Court on the first return [by Microsoft Teams] or furnish me with a report. A report was provided, and the bottom line of that report, as I indicated when the matter was before me last, was the Department had no concerns with the three children being in the care of the maternal grandmother. For this hearing, I again invited the co-located officer to either attend or to provide me with a report. I received an updated report dated 11 July 2023 (Exhibit 1).
As I said, I have no natural contradictor in these matters. Receiving information from the co‑located officer, who is very much focused on whether there are parents willing and able to protect children and children’s best interests, gives me considerable comfort that the children are safe with the maternal grandmother and she is an entirely appropriate person to care for them.
However, there have been notifications received by the Department. The first was in mid‑2023. That was in relation to Mr Goddard being in police custody after the alleged homicide of his partner, the children’s mother, Ms E. That went to Town F for an intake. The ultimate conclusion was in the following month and the Investigation and Assessment was finalised. The outcome was unsubstantiated – children not in need of protection. For the purposes of that assessment and importantly for my purposes, Ms Watkins, the maternal grandmother was considered a parent pursuant to s 11 of the Child Protection Act 1999. The matter was unsubstantiated because the Department determined Ms Watkins was a parent willing and able to provide for the children’s care and protection and that she was well supported by a network of family and professionals to care for the children.
There were no concerns on the Department’s behalf with Ms E’s older child in the care of their father and paternal grandmother. A child concern report was recorded in mid-2023. The worries reported – if I can call it that – were in relation to an historical issue of a child, now adult, of Ms Watkin’s. That matter did not meet the Department’s threshold for a notification. There was a further concern raised the following month about bruising on a child, not a child subject of these proceedings.
It is not clear on the report, but it is most likely to be B. The Department said this did not meet their threshold for a notification, and there was no reasonable suspicion that could be determined that this child had suffered significant harm. The Department again referred to the supports that the maternal grandmother has. Those two reports, the initial one [on the first return] and the current one, give me considerable comfort about these three children being placed on a final basis in the care of the maternal grandmother.
PARENTING PROCEEDINGS – LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Part VII of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) sets out the relevant statutory provisions applicable to proceedings in relation to children. Section 65D(1) of the Act provides that this Court may make such parenting orders as it thinks proper, subject to ss 61DA and 65DAB, which is irrelevant here. Section 60B of the Act sets out the objects and principles of Part VII as follows:
The objects are to ensure that the best interests of children are met by:
•ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child; and
•protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and
•ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and
•ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.
In Masson & Parsons (2019) 266 CLR 554, their Honours, Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle and Gordon JJ noted at [8] that the focus of the objects was on “ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the children”.
Very tragically for these children and their mother, that meaningful relationship will never develop. The father is in jail. I will deal with service in a minute, but I am amply satisfied that this matter has come before him. I also do not need to deal with the presumption, for example, of equal shared parental responsibility and a range of the s 60CC factors because they refer to parents.
Service on the father
Whilst talking about parents, I have a detailed but concise affidavit from Mr Evans, the maternal grandmother’s solicitor, that sets out the steps that he has taken to bring this matter to the father’s attention.
In compliance with the Orders 14(a) and (b) of 26 May 2023, he prepared and dispatched by Australia Post Express Post (and tracked) all of the documents that had been filed in this matter to the G Correctional Centre and Legal Aid Queensland, Town F office. I have been provided (in his affidavit) with a copy of the Evans Brandon mail book for 26 May 2023, which records the Express Post tracking numbers.
Mr Evans tells me – and I have absolutely no reason to doubt – that he has been monitoring the incoming email of his firm to see whether the father, or anyone on his behalf, made contact. He deposes that neither Mr Goddard, nor any lawyer, made any contact with him seeking to agitate or discuss family law issues.
However, on 12 June 2023, his office received a telephone call from a person who identified as Ms C. She said she was the sister of the respondent father; that is, she is the paternal aunt. Mr Evans and Ms C engaged in a series of emails, which are also before me. Very appropriately, Mr Evans told Ms C of these Court proceedings and told her of the Court hearing scheduled for this afternoon. Again, very appropriately and helpfully from my perspective, Mr Evans provided a copy of the May orders to Ms C.
Mr Evans emailed Ms C on 16 June 2023 and received no reply from Ms C, any legal practitioner or otherwise in relation to her position. There has been no application brought before me or filed by Ms C. What she may wish to do in the future is a matter for her.
In terms of service and notice, I confirm my associate called the father three times, and there was no response. Mr Evans also tells me that on 12 July 2023, being the date of his affidavit, he logged into Commonwealth Courts’ portal to see if anybody had filed anything in this matter.
He confirms no other person has filed any documents in the Court’s registry for this file number. He, too, since effecting service of the Court’s orders on 26 May 2023, and also giving copies to the Queensland Police Service and Department, has not received any further communication from any government department or delegate thereof concerning Ms Watkins or her application before Court. I am grateful to Mr Evans for his thoroughness in bringing this matter to the attention both of the father and his cooperation with Ms C.
I return, then, to the legal principles that are relevant to this matter. I have already dealt with what Pt VII means and the objects and principles and the primary considerations.
Best Interests of the Child
Section 60CA of the Act provides that “[i]n deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to the children, a court must regard the best interests of the children as the paramount consideration”.
The best interests of the child are determined by an examination of the considerations set out in s 60CC of the Act. In Tibb & Sheehan (2018) 58 Fam LR 351 at [74]–[78], the Full Court made clear that while the Court must consider each of the primary and additional considerations in s 60CC, express discussion is not necessary. The relevant considerations are determined by the way in which the parties present their cases.
In this matter, many of the usually relevant considerations are not relevant. As I have already said, many of them relate to parents. The primary consideration set out in s 60CC(2) of the Act are as follows:
•the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents; and
•the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
In balancing these considerations, s 60CC(2)(a) of the Act requires the Court to give greater weight to the need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence: s 60CC(2)(b) of the Act.
It is obviously apparent the benefit of the children having a meaningful relationship with both their parents is one that is not possible. I am, though, when turning to the issue of protecting the children from harm, greatly satisfied by the material I have just read into the record from the Department. They hold no concerns about the children being in the care of the maternal grandmother. It is not necessary for me to go through, as might occur in a traditional parenting case, what a meaningful relationship means. That is the primary consideration s 60CC(2)(a).
Additional considerations
I turn, then, to the additional considerations at s 60CC(3).
(a) any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child's maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child's views;
The children are too young to be expressing any views, as s 60CC(3)(a) requires I turn my mind.
(b) the nature of the relationship of the child with: (i) each of the child's parents; and (ii) other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
Section 60CC(3)(b)(i) is irrelevant.
Section 60CC(3)(b)(ii) is about other persons, the nature of the child’s relationship – the children’s relationships with other persons.
The children are young. They are developing their relationships. They are fortunate that they have a family member who has – who is prepared to, despite her own grief – to take the children in and, as I have already referred to, love and care for them as if they were her own, to provide nurture, support and stability for them. It may be another person, the paternal aunt, Ms C – it will be a matter for Ms C if she wishes at some point in the future – to engage with the maternal grandmother about seeing the children. There is no application by her before me now, so it is not something I can deal with. Suffice to say there may come a point when the maternal grandmother is able to reach out to Ms C.
It is important, if possible, for these children to have the maternal link, which they will have through their grandmother, but also a paternal link, if at all possible and safe. Whether Ms C ends up seeing the children is not something I can determine today. I am confident, though, at the right time and the right place, the maternal grandmother will turn her mind to that.
(c) the extent to which each of the child's parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity: (i) to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and (ii) to spend time with the child; and (iii) to communicate with the child;
(ca) the extent to which each of the child's parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent's obligations to maintain the child;
Section 60CC(3)(c) is irrelevant, because it refers to parents, as is subsection (3)(ca).
(d) the likely effect of any changes in the child's circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from: (i) either of his or her parents; (ii) any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living;
Section 60CC(3)(d)(i) is irrelevant; it refers to parents. But s 60CC(3)(d)(ii) refers to any other child or person, including any other relative, and the change of the children’s circumstances from and any separation from a person, such as the maternal grandmother.
The children have had, even in their tender years, incredible upheaval. They have lost their mother. They are calling for her. They have in reality, too, lost their father. It is important, therefore, that they have stability. As I have said, the Department is not troubled by the children being placed with the maternal grandmother. These children need stability and her nurture and care. I am comforted by the fact that the maternal grandmother will seek professional advices on how she tells the children about where their mother is and where their father is. Of course, when I refer to the father, what is alleged against him is allegations at this point, and I was at pains to say when I refer to the maternal grandmother’s recitations that that is how she sees things.
(e) the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child's right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis;
Section 60CC(3)(e), practical difficulty, is irrelevant; it is about parents.
(f) the capacity of: (i) each of the child's parents, to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs; (ii) any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child); to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs;
Section 60CC(3)(f)(i) is irrelevant; it is about parents. Section 60CC(3)(f)(ii) is the capacity of any other person, including other relative of the children. It is clear to me that the maternal grandmother is a person who has capacity to parent or, in this case, capacity to grandparent. That she has been able to take the children in, that she has been able to do her best to quarantine her own grief from the children speaks volumes to her capacity to parent. Her affidavit satisfies me more than enough that she is able to provide for the needs of the children, including their emotional and intellectual needs.
(g) the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child's parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant;
Section 60CC(3)(g) does not seem relevant; nothing arises in the material before me about the characteristics of the children.
(h) if the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child: (i) the child’s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture); and (ii) the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right;
Section 60CC(3)(h) is not relevant; it is about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.
(i) the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each child's parents;
Section 60CC(3)(i) really goes hand in hand with what I said about s 60CC(3)(f). Section 60CC(3)(f) is about capacity to parent; s 60CC(3)(i) is about the responsibilities of parenthood, but s 60CC(3)(i) specifically concerns the children’s parents. Suffice to say I am satisfied for the reasons already given that the maternal grandmother possesses the responsibilities of parenthood.
(j) any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family;
(k) if a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child’s family—any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following: (i) the nature of the order; (ii) the circumstances in which the order was made; (iii) any evidence admitted in proceedings for the order; (iv) any findings made by the court in, or in proceedings for, the order; (v) any other relevant matter;
What the grandmother deposes to are horrendous things. It will be for another Court to determine whether the father is guilty or acquitted of the many charges that are placed upon him, but on the material I have before me, I am satisfied that the personal protection orders that the maternal grandmother seeks are in the best interests of the children.
They are also good for the maternal grandmother, who – even though the father is, on all evidence, in custody right now – does not have to be worried if he were bailed that he will come anywhere near her or the children. She needs to be able to parent these children (or grandparent as it more perhaps might be) without looking over her shoulder. Should the father be released from jail, be it on bail or be acquitted, he will be able to take whatever advice – legal advice - he needs about what avenues he may have in this Court.
(l) whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child;
I have already said it is a matter for Ms C what she may do. This order, of course, is being made in the absence of the father, and he can take, if he wishes to, some legal advice about that. He, too, can ask a lawyer, who will no doubt tell him about the principles in Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725. But right now, the best thing I can do for these children is bring this litigation to an end as quickly as I can. I do not have a crystal ball for the future, but I will make a further order and request that if either Ms C or the father file an application, the registry list the matter before me.
(m) any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant.
The Critical Incident List was developed for people just like the maternal grandmother. She is grieving. She suddenly finds herself in the position of a parent of three very young children. She has her own daughter; she has her own relationship to tend to. The last thing someone like the maternal grandmother needs to be doing is coming into Court, even if by Microsoft Teams, on a regular basis.
It is in the best interests of the children that I finalise the matter today for all of the reasons I have given, including the space that Ms Watkins needs to be able to grieve, to parent and to care for these children without having to file affidavits and come to Court as frequently as other traditional matters may.
For all of those reasons, I make the orders as I discussed with Mr Alexander at the start of the hearing. I will make the direction about bringing the orders to the attention, that is, serving this order on the father care of his Corrective Services facility. I will also make an order requesting that if Ms C or the father should file proceedings, the registry list the matter before me. I cannot guarantee that, but the best I can do in the circumstances is request.
I certify that the preceding fifty-four (54) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Brasch. Associate:
Dated: 21 July 2023
0