Watts and Watts
[2014] FamCA 288
•2 May 2014
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| WATTS & WATTS | [2014] FamCA 288 |
| FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim parenting – Greater weight placed upon the second primary consideration of the need to protect the children from harm in respect of the children’s time with the father - What changes, if any, should be made in respect of the children’s time with their father – Whether the father’s time should be supervised – Whether there should be a change to parental responsibility – Order for equal shared parental responsibility made previously by consent maintained on an interim basis |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA |
| Goode and Goode (2006) FLC 93-286 |
| APPLICANT: | Ms Watts |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Watts |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 5605 | of | 2009 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 2 May 2014 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Parramatta |
| PLACE HEARD: | Parramatta |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Foster J |
| HEARING DATE: | 14 April 2014 |
REPRESENTATION
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Mahony Family Lawyers |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Warren McKeon Dickson Lawyers |
Orders
That pending further order, Orders 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 made on 28 June 2010 be suspended.
Each party must:
(a)contact a Contact Centre nominated by the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“the Contact Centre”) within 7 days of the Independent Children’s Lawyer nominating that Contact Centre and arrange an appointment for assessment of suitability for supervision of the time the children spend with the Father;
(b) attend the assessment;
(c)comply with any appointments made by the Contact Centre for supervised time;
(d) comply with all reasonable rules of the Contact Centre; and
(e)comply with all reasonable requests or directions of the staff of the Contact Centre.
If after the assessment intake procedure the Contact Centre is unable or unwilling to provide supervision as set out in Order 5 then the Independent Children’s Lawyer has leave to restore the matter to the list on 7 days’ written notice to the other party and to the Court.
The Contact Centre may recommend the parties, or either of them, to participate in a program or programs, and in that event, the Independent Children’s Lawyer may re-list the matter for mention on 7 days’ written notice to the other party and to the Court.
If after assessment the parties are accepted by the Contact Centre as suitable for supervised time the Father is to have contact with the children for a period of not less than two hours per fortnight at times nominated by the Contact Centre, and such contact is to occur at the Contact Centre.
The Mother must deliver the children to and collect the children from the Contact Centre at the times specified by the Contact Centre, and on each occasion, promptly leave the building and the vicinity.
In the event that the Contact Centre offers supervised time only at times which are less regular than specified in Order 5, then contact shall occur at the times that are offered by the Contact Centre.
The time the children spend with the Father under Order 5 is to be supervised by the Contact Centre and the Father must pay the reasonable fees for the supervision on each occasion of supervision.
The Father must not attend the Contact Centre or its vicinity before the time with the children is to start and must promptly leave the Contact Centre and the vicinity at the time his time with the children is to end.
If the Contact Centre during the currency of these Orders, declines or is unable to continue to provide its services, or the Director of the Contact Centre recommends in writing to the parties a variation of these Orders, then the Independent Children’s Lawyer may, on 7 days’ written notice to the other parties and the Court, restore the matter to the list.
If, during the currency of these Orders, the parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer agree in writing to vary these Orders, the parties have leave to list the proceedings in chambers urgently for consent orders to be made.
The period of contact provided in these orders may vary by reason of the closure of the Contact Centre’s services during school and public holiday periods, and in such event, contact shall occur at times when the services can be provided by the Contact Centre.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Watts & Watts 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 PARRAMATTA |
FILE NUMBER: SYC 5605 of 2009
| Ms Watts |
Applicant
And
| Mr Watts |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Final parenting Orders in relation to the children B, now aged 11, and C, now aged 7, were made by consent in proceedings before the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia, as it then was, on 28 June 2010. Since then, the relationship between the parents has deteriorated such that the issue of parenting is again before the Court.
The final Orders provided for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the children, for the children to spend time with the father on alternate weekends during school term and some mid-week time and for the parties to share the school holiday periods and made provision for other special days, and otherwise the children were to live with the mother.
The Orders also provided for the parties to seek therapeutic assistance in relation to the ongoing conflict between each other and the father’s partner, Ms D.
As a consequence of recent events, the Applicant mother has brought a further application before this Court seeking further orders as to parenting that provide for the mother to have sole parental responsibility for the children, that the children live with the mother, that the children spend institutional supervised time with the father and that the children have no contact or communication with the father’s partner, Ms D.
The father in his response to the mother’s application seeks orders that the mother and father to have equal shared parental responsibility and that there be, in substance, a shared care, week-about arrangement in relation to the children.
The present matter for determination is the mother’s interim application contained in her Initiating Application filed on 3 April 2014.
On an interim basis the mother seeks orders for the appointment of an Independent Children’s Lawyer, that all previous orders in respect of the children be suspended, that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children, that the children live with the mother and that the children have institutional supervised time with the father and that the children have no contact or communication with the father’s partner, Ms D.
Not surprisingly, the father opposes the interim orders sought by the mother.
Issues for determination
The issues for determination in the present application are as follows:
a)What further or other parenting orders should be made having regard to the best interests of the children?
b)Should there be a change to the orders made by consent on a final basis on 28 June 2010?
c)If so, what changes should be made, if any, to the children’s time with the father?
d)Should the children’s time with the father be supervised?
e)What changes should be made, if any, in relation to parental responsibility?
The children’s best interests.
The relevant principles in relation to parenting and interim proceedings are well settled: see Goode and Goode (2006) FLC 93-286.
Section 60B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) outlines the objects and principles underlying Part VII of the Act.
Section 60CA provides that in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order, the Court is to regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.
Section 60CC then outlines the primary (subsection (2)) and additional (subsection (3)) considerations that the Court is to take into account in determining what is in the best interests of the child.
Section 61DA of the Act provides that when making a parenting order, the Court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility.
The presumption does not apply where:
a)there are reasonable grounds to believe a parent has engaged in abuse of the child or family violence [s 61DA(2)];
b)in interim proceedings where the Court considers that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for the presumption to be applied when making that order [s 61DA(3)]; and
c)if the Court is satisfied that an order for equal shared parental responsibility would not be in the child’s best interests [s 61DA(4)].
If the presumption in section 61DA is to apply and the Court makes an order for equal shared parental responsibility, this “triggers” the operation of section 65DAA, which requires the Court to consider whether equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent is in the child’s best interests and reasonably practicable.
In considering the children’s best interests, it is necessary to have regard to the background of the present application, other than the history already referred to above.
Care must be had in recognising the difficulties of making findings on contested evidence in interim proceedings as discussed in Marvel & Marvel (No. 2) [2010] FamCAFC 101.
The mother’s evidence
The mother is presently 37 years of age and the father 38 years of age. The parties married in 2001 and separated on 25 August 2008.
Following separation, the father has re-partnered with his companion Ms D and he resides with her and her son E, now aged 10.
The mother remarried on 5 January 2013, but separated from her new husband in July 2013. The mother continues to use the surname Watts, that being a source of ongoing conflict between her and the father.
The mother complains that since final Orders were made there have been ongoing issues between her and the father. More particularly, she complains that the children have been subjected to family violence, abuse and ongoing denigration of the mother in the father’s home. The mother also complains of being subjected to ongoing abuse and threats by the father and his partner.
The mother complains that the father’s abusive and threatening behaviour has escalated significantly over the last 12 months.
The mother expresses concern that the nature of the ongoing relationship is such that the child B has been adversely affected psychologically and has shown signs of self-harming, resulting in a report being made to the NSW Department of Family and Community Services.
The mother sets out in her affidavit various incidents that have taken place relating to abusive behaviour towards her by the father or his partner and threats of harm to her made to the children by the father. The mother further asserts that the father has inappropriately enmeshed the children in the conflict between herself and the father and his partner in relation to child support and other financial issues.
The children have also complained to the mother about conflict between them and the child E. She alleges that that child E has behavioural issues and a history of violence against animals.
The course of electronic communication between the mother and father annexed to the mother’s affidavit demonstrates with some clarity the level of conflict between them and an ongoing inability to appropriately co-parent the children.
The recently the children have been engaged in counselling through F Family Support Services and it is the mother’s understanding that the support worker has made mandatory reports to the Department arising from her concern about the children’s presentation and disclosures.
The father’s evidence
In response to the mother’s application the father relied upon his affidavit filed on 10 April 2014. Somewhat surprisingly, there was no affidavit by his partner Ms D, that may have put in issue the mother’s complaints about Ms D’s conduct.
On the afternoon of Friday 4 April 2014 the father received an email communication from the mother’s solicitors. That email communication noted that the father had that day been served with the mother’s application and advised the father that, given the mother’s serious concerns about the welfare of the children, she would not be providing the children to spend time with him pending the mother’s interim application being heard. The mother, he was informed, believed the children to be at risk given the matters identified in her affidavit material.
The father complains that after he was served with the mother’s present application he was denied time with the children as was provided for in the final Orders of 2010.
He contacted the children’s school to discuss collecting the children from school, notwithstanding the Orders provided for his collection of the children otherwise.
He expressed a concern that the mother may have removed the children from NSW and contacted the police to conduct a welfare check. The mother had indeed taken the children to Adelaide for a period and the police informed the father of that circumstance and reported that there were no issues in relation to the children.
During periods that the children were to spend time with the father pursuant to the 2010 Orders, he has not always been available by reason of his work commitments and the children have been cared for by his partner Ms D. On occasions when both the father and his partner are unavailable to care for the children, they are either cared for by his partner’s parents at Suburb G or the father’s sister at Suburb H.
The father sees no issue in relation to the relationship between the children and his partner’s son E, nor in relation to the relationship between the children and his partner Ms D.
The father denies that he has seen any concerning issues arising from the children’s behaviour, nor have the children expressed any concerns to him about the child E.
The father acknowledges that there are ongoing communication issues in his relationship with the mother and asserts that he is willing to work on those issues for the benefit of the children. He says that the mother has become more aggressive in their relationship since separation from her second husband in mid-2013. He denies or puts in issue many of the mother’s allegations in relation to conflict, abuse and threatening behaviour. He exhibits to his affidavit electronic communication from the mother to him. It is clear that the nature of the communication with each other does no credit to the mother or the father.
The father expresses concern that he was not advised as to the children’s attendance upon a counsellor. He infers for some reason that it is not immediately obvious that the mother has failed to disclose her real financial circumstances to Centrelink.
He is of the view that a week-about arrangement for his time with the children would best suit them.
Objective Evidence
F Suburb Family Services
The mother contacted this service in July 2013; it appears as a consequence of the breakdown of her second marriage and issues that still remain from the breakdown of her relationship with the father in these proceedings. On 6 August 2013 the mother reported that the children had returned from the father’s home upset and very fearful. The children had told the mother that the father had said to them “I wish your mother died, and I don’t care if I go to jail for it”. On 27 August 2013 the mother described to the service her relationship with the father and his new partner as a “‘hate’ relationship for 5 years”.
On 19 February 2014 the mother reported to the service that the father and his partner continued to harass and intimidate her by sending abusive emails and even turning up at her door. She reported that she was scared of them and referred to an incident where the child C had a dental appointment at which the father and his partner turned up. The father’s partner insisted on being in the surgery with the parents.
The mother also reported that the children had said they were scared of their father and his partner and were very upset after hearing the father and his partner swearing at and calling the mother names.
On 11 March 2014 the mother was accompanied by the counsellor to the child C’s next dental appointment. The counsellor reports that the father and his partner had protested in relation to Ms D’s exclusion from the surgery. Subsequent to the appointment, the dentist and her staff reported that the father had acted aggressively. As a consequence, the mother made arrangements for the child’s appointment to be rescheduled at Suburb F Hospital on a later date where she felt that the environment was more secure. Once again, the father and his partner attended, with the mother reporting that she felt intimidated.
On 25 March 2014 the mother reported to her counsellor that on the last occasion the children were at the father’s home the child C wanted to come home early. B reported to her mother that the father had said to C “(i)f you walk out that door, you are never welcome back & you will never see me again”.
The children have been engaged with Suburb F Shire Family Services through the “Building Resilience in Children Project”. The children first became engaged with that service in late October 2013. Early in the children’s engagement with the service a notification had been made by the service to the Department. The notification reported “significant concerns for the children’s safety during contact with their father. Threats of violence towards the mother are escalation (sic) and the children are being significantly impacted”.
Of significant concern is the children’s enmeshment in the conflict between the mother and the father. On 20 October 2013 the service reported the child C during a group session saying “I do not like my dad because he is mean to my mum. He calls her the B word” and “I had a dream that my mum was dead, so I went into bed and make sure she is alive and she was”. The child B was reported to have said “the worst part is my dad’s new girlfriend; she was my mums best friend” and “I wish our life was easier”.
On 17 February 2014 the child B reported to the counsellor that “they keep calling mum a fucking bitch” and that the father’s partner Ms D tells her she “is old enough now to say how she really feels”. Both children stated to the counsellor that they “don’t want to go to dads anymore”. The child C stated that “pop watches over us and keeps us safe at dads”.
On 21 March 2014 the mother reported to the service concern is in relation to a recurring rash on the right arm of the child B and reported the child’s doctor is concerned that the rash may be self-harm.
On 4 April 2014 the counsellor engaged with the children, enquiring as to how they were feeling by reference to a variety of images. The child C picked “nervous” and the child B picked “sad and scared”. The child B reported that “she is scared that dad will come and hurt you ([Ms I]) [the counsellor] and [Ms J] (SSFS family worker)”. The counsellor then engaged the children to explore who were people in their lives who help keep them safe and help them feel secure. Neither of the children selected the father or his partner. B reported that “once when I wanted to go home from dads he said if you walk out that door don’t ever come back”.
The children were invited by the counsellor to write down some of their worries. Of concern C wrote “me and mummy Dying (sic)” and B wrote:
I wish that [Ms D] (sic) will stop calling my mum a STUPID DUMB BITCH!, … I was worried that my dad’s that my dad was going to hurt us [sad face emoticon omitted] and I hope that no one will get hurt by my DAD [sad face emoticon omitted].
These disclosures by the children are of significant concern.
Dr K
Dr K is a dermatologist.
On 13 March 2014 the child B attended upon Dr K. A history was given of recurrent eruption on her upper arms with four episodes so far, commencing in mid-2013. The more recent episode was following a weekend at the father’s home.
On examination Dr K observed lateral streaks of light bruises on antero-lateral aspects of the child’s upper arms. The doctor diagnosed dermatitis artefacta and suggested that it was likely to be a reflection of frustration/domestic problems with the separation of her parents.
Dr K referred B to a local paediatrician and provided a report back to the child’s general practitioner. The report to the general practitioner noted “[B], her younger brother and their mother are receiving counselling from Family Services. The pattern of the bruises suggest heavy finger pressure rubbing by [B’s] fingers of the opposite hands. Its distribution does not seem to suggest gripping by a third party. I have referred [B] to see [paediatrician name omitted], Paediatrician, for a general assessment and he would decide if further psychological support is needed for B”.
Suburb L Primary School
Documents produced from the Suburb L Primary School counsellor in relation to the child B clearly demonstrate that the child has been enmeshed in the conflict between her father and mother over a long period commencing in August 2009.
The best interests of the children
The best interests’ considerations are set out in s 60CC of the Act.
The Additional Considerations: s 60CC(3)
The additional considerations set out in s 60CC(3) of the Act. The relevant considerations are as follows:
(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;
Both children have expressed concerns as to the father and his conduct to the mother and their counsellor as referred to above. It is to be inferred that the children seek reassurances as to their psychological and physical safety and non-exposure to the conflict with, denigration of and threats against their mother.
(b) the nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child's parents and other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
The nature of the children’s relationships with their parents is clear from the matters referred to above. The children have a primary relationship with the mother and are protective of her. Their relationship with the father is circumspect and overborne by the ongoing conflict, abuse, denigration and apprehension as to their and their mother’s physical safety.
(c)the extent to which each of the child's parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and to spend time with the child and to communicate with the child;
This is not a relevant consideration, save to note that the conflict between the parties has overshadowed both parties role in this regard.
(d) the likely effect of any changes in the child's circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either of his or her parents; or any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living;
The children on the mother’s application will not see the father, save under supervision. Her proposal affords a breather to the children from the concerns and fears expressed by them most recently until a detailed consideration can be given to appropriate orders at a full hearing that is likely to be within this calendar year. The father seeks a continuation of the existing 2010 Orders such as would continue to expose the children the very concerns that they have expressed. A supervision order would operate protectively and address the present concerns of the children in order that, in a controlled way, their relationship with their father could continue.
(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;
This is not a significant consideration. The father is in employment and it is to be inferred could meet the cost of supervision.
(f) the capacity of each of the child's parents; and 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; the matters referred to above demonstrate that a determination of this issue will need to await a full hearing.
(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;
The children are now aged 11 and seven. There maturity in age is indicative of an ability to express feelings and fears appropriately, such as they have done to their counsellor, and in the case of B, to her school counsellor over a long period of time. This consideration affords some weight to the children’s complaints in relation to the parental conflict and the conduct of the father and his partner.
(i) the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents;
There is significant factual dispute between the parents in relation to the history post-separation. Whilst the Court is assisted greatly in the context of the present application by third-party documents, referred to above, a close consideration of this issue will need to await a final hearing. However, bearing in mind the complaints and reports of the children, the Court has significant reservations as to the father’s reflective capacity in relation to the proper needs of the children to be protected from conflict and behaviour such as is alleged in this matter.
(j) any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family;
Save as is referred to above in respect to the competing claims of the mother and father, a full consideration of this issue will need to await a final hearing.
(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;
These are interim proceedings brought in the circumstances referred to above and no consideration can be given to making orders as contemplated.
The Primary Considerations: s 60CC(2)
The primary considerations are:
(a) the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents; and
(b) the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
In Mazorski & Albright [2007] FamCA 520; Brown J considered the ordinary definitions of the term “meaningful” and observed at [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 object 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 quantitive (sic) one. Quantitive (sic) concepts may be addressed as part of the process of considering the consequences of the application of the presumption of equally shared parental responsibility and the requirement for time with children to be, where possible and in their best interests, substantial and significant.
The children’s relationship with the father at present is fraught with underlying concerns as referred to above. It is to be inferred that a father-child relationship on that basis cannot be something that is meaningful to the children in that a relationship of such a nature cannot be important, significant and valuable to the children. There is no doubt that the relationship between the father and the children will over time need to be ameliorated so as to restore trust and remove apprehension and concern as presently exhibited by the children. This is indicative of the necessity for the father’s time with the children to be supervised in order that his time with the children is the subject of third-party observation and, if necessary, report.
The children’s relationship with the mother is, as reported by the children, undermined by the father and his partner’s denigration of the mother to the children on an ongoing basis. The removal of the father’s opportunity to so denigrate the mother in the context of supervised time can only assist in improving the relationship between the mother and the children.
The second primary consideration is the need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence. In applying the consideration set out in subsection s60CC (2), the Court is to give greater weight to this consideration.
Whilst these are interim proceedings and there is significant factual dispute, the plurality of the Full Court observed in SS & AH[2010] FamCAFC 13:
88.… In our view, findings made at an interim hearing should be couched with great circumspection, no matter how firmly a judge’s intuition may suggest that the finding will be borne out after a full testing of the evidence.
…
100.The intuition involved in decision-making concerning children is arguably of even greater importance when a judge is obliged to make interim decisions following a hearing at which time constraints prevent the evidence being tested. Apart from relying upon the uncontroversial or agreed facts, a judge will sometimes 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. It is not always feasible when dealing with the immediate welfare of children simply to ignore an assertion because its accuracy has been put in issue.
In the overall context of this matter, the need to protect the children is of such significance that it is almost determinative of the orders to be made by the Court. The precarious circumstances in which the children find themselves in terms of their relationship with the father is referred to above. A continuation of their unsupervised relationship with the father has a significant prospect of continuing to expose the children to psychological harm as a consequence of the father’s behaviour, as alleged by the mother and the children, and the behaviour of his partner, as also alleged by the mother and the children.
The imposition of supervision is supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
What changes should be made if any to the children’s time with the father and should the children’s time with the father be supervised?
The best interest considerations as set out in s 60CC of the Act clearly demonstrate that the children’s relationship with the father (and his partner) needs to be in a child protective and safe environment such as is provided by institutional supervision.
In coming to this conclusion, the Court is conscious that in this Registry at present there is every prospect that, should this matter proceed to final hearing, it will be heard and determined before the end of this calendar year.
What changes should be made if any in relation to parental responsibility?
Section 61DA of the Act provides that when making a parenting order, the Court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of a child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility.
The presumption does not apply where:
a)there are reasonable grounds to believe a parent has engaged in abuse of the child or family violence [s 61DA(2)];
b)in interim proceedings where the Court considers that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for the presumption to be applied when making that order [s 61DA(3)]; and
c)if the Court is satisfied that an order for equal shared parental responsibility would not be in the child’s best interests [s 61DA(4)].
The parties by agreement provided for equal shared parental responsibility in final Orders made in 2010.
The major long-term issues the subject of parental responsibility relate to the children’s education, religion and cultural upbringing, health, name and changes to the children’s living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the children to spend time with a parent.
The mother, on an interim basis, seeks an order varying parental responsibility so that she would have sole parental responsibility.
The best interest considerations discussed above, whilst revealing extraordinary difficulties in the interpersonal relationships between the mother, the father and the children, are not indicative for the Court to interfere with the parties’ ability to have an equal say in the major long-term issues referred to. For that reason, the Court is not prepared to interfere with an existing Order made by consent in the context of this interim application where much of the evidence is in contest.
Notwithstanding the continuation of the existing Order for equal shared parental responsibility, the Court is required to give consideration to the provisions of s 65DAA of the Act and as to whether the children spending equal time with each of the parents is in the best interests of the children and reasonably practicable, and if so, to consider making an order for such equal time. If not, then the Court is required to consider whether the children spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the children and reasonably practicable.
Having regard to the considerations set out above, it is clear that the first question as to whether either of such arrangements would be in the best interests of the children must, at least at this interim stage, be answered in the negative. The Court is, thus, not required to consider the question of reasonably practicable.
Accordingly, the Orders to be made in relation to the children fall to be determined following a consideration of the relevant matters in s 60 CC of the Act.
It is in the best interests of the children, for the reasons discussed above, that the father’s time with the children as presently provided for in the Orders made in 2010 be suspended pending further order, and that pending further order the father’s time with the children be in an institutional supervised arrangement.
Orders will be made accordingly.
Otherwise, these proceedings remain listed at 9.30 am on 27 May 2014 so as to facilitate the intervention of the appointed Independent Children’s Lawyer in the proceedings (an order for such an appointment having been made on 14 April 2014) and the parties have appointments for intake into the Child Responsive Program on 21 July 2014.
I certify that the preceding eighty (80) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Foster delivered on 2 May 2014.
Legal Associate:
Date: 2 May 2014
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Injunction
-
Remedies
-
Costs
0
3
1