Waverley and Labelle

[2017] FamCA 861

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WAVERLEY & LABELLE [2017] FamCA 861

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting unopposed – less time ordered than was sought – desirability of psychiatric assessment of the parents – high parental conflict – interim disposition with liberty to apply

APPLICANT: Mr Waverley

RESPONDENT: Ms Labelle

FILE NUMBER: MLC 1021 of 2017

DATE DELIVERED: 6 September 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Bennett J

HEARING DATE: 6 September 2017

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: In Person

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: No Appearance

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1.Until further order, the children B born … 2006 and C born … (“the children”) reside with the mother.

2.Until further order, the children spend time with the father as follows:-

a)      During term times, each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school on Friday until the commencement of school on Monday such time to commence on 13 October 2017;

b)      For the forthcoming school holidays from 12.00 noon on 28 September 2017 until 6.00 pm on Sunday 8 October 2017; and

c)      As may otherwise be agreed between the parents from time to time and confirmed in writing.

3.For the purpose of time which is expressed to commence at the conclusion of school, the mother is responsible for ensuring the children are at school and the father is responsible for collecting both children from school at the conclusion of school. Any changeovers not expressed to be at the conclusion or commencement of school be effected at the mother’s residence at 24 Steele Street, Moonee Ponds.

4.That pursuant to Section 68L(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 the children B born … 2006 and C born … 2008 be separately represented AND IT IS REQUESTED that Victoria Legal Aid arrange such separate representation NOTING THAT this is a high conflict case.

5.That forthwith upon appointment by the said Victoria Legal Aid or otherwise the independent children’s lawyer file a Notice of Address for Service.

6.That within 48 hours of notification of such appointment the solicitors for the respective parties provide to the independent children’s lawyer copies of all relevant documents relied upon.

7.The mother and father each do all acts and things necessary to individually attend the parenting orders program through the G Program in either Suburb T or Suburb M or such other parenting orders program as the independent children’s lawyer may, at the request of one of them, recommend.

8.The mother and the father each do all acts and things necessary to undergo a psychiatric assessment by Dr P or such other appropriately qualified person as the independent children’s lawyer may nominate in writing. (“the psychiatrist”)

9.The independent children’s lawyer ensure that the psychiatrist has a copy of the material filed by the parties in this proceeding, the Parent and Children’s Issues Assessment of Ms S, family consultant, dated 10 July 2017 and my reasons for decision.

10.The parties and the independent children’s lawyer be restrained and an injunction is hereby granted restraining all of them from making any complaint to a professional body or association concerning the conduct of the psychiatrist, the family consultant, and any social science expert or practitioner in this case or permitting any other person to do so, without first obtaining leave of the Court and this injunction remain in full force and effect following completion of the proceedings.

11.For the avoidance of doubt, each parent share equally in the cost of the psychiatric assessments referred to in paragraph 8 of this Order and do so by depositing an amount equivalent to one half of the estimated cost into a trust account nominated by the independent children’s lawyer not less than 7 days prior to the first appointment for either of the parties and be paid out to the expert upon production of an invoice for same.

12.Within 14 days the husband make file and serve an affidavit in which he explains how his use of a private investigator to follow the movements of the wife was endorsed as appropriate by the “Singapore Court” and in the event that the husband relies on assertions made by his lawyer in Singapore the father obtain and file evidence in admissible form from that lawyer.

13.Within 14 days the wife make file and serve an affidavit in which she explains her non-attendance at Court this day.

14.In the event that the independent children’s lawyer, once appointed, forms the view that the matter should be re-listed for consideration of further interim parenting orders he or she be at liberty to contact my Associate for consideration of having the matter listed in the next Judicial Duty List. Nothing in this Order entitles either parent or practitioners who may act on their behalf to contact my Associate in relation to a listing.

15.The husband and the wife be mutually restrained from:-

a)      Denigrating or criticising the other parent to the children (or either of them) or allowing any third party to denigrate or criticise the other parent within the presence or hearing of the children (or either of them);

b)      Discussing these proceedings or any other court proceedings to which the husband and the wife have been a party with the children (or either of them) or any other third party save for the purpose of explaining to the children or any other third party the orders made this day;

c)      Denigrating or criticising the other parent and/or their parenting skills to any third party, including but not limited to the principal, staff and parents of either of the children’s schools; and

d)      Denigrating or criticising the other parent and/ or their parenting skills on any website, electronic platform, network and/or forum, including but not limited to social media websites and networking websites.

16.Until further order, each party keep the other informed of all medical issues concerning the children including attendances upon general practitioners, specialists or allied health professionals, medications prescribed and any advices in respect of major treatment within 24 hours of such event.

17.By way of disclosure, and in addition to the documents required to be disclosed pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Order made on 15 May 2017, the wife provide to the husband a copy of the following:-

a)      Documents in relation to the purchase of the property at “N Street, Suburb D” (as deposed to in the wife’s financial statement filed on 5 May 2017 at item 36), or such other property as may be owned by the wife, including but not limited to:-

i)The contract of sale;

ii)Settlement statement;

iii)Bank statements, loan documents or any other documents evidencing the source of funds used to purchase the property;

iv)Rental statements and rental agreements for the period 1 January 2015 to present.

b)      Documents in relation to the purchase of the property at E Street, Suburb H including but not limited to:-

i)The contract of sale;

ii)Settlement statement;

iii)Bank statements, loan documents or any other documents evidencing the source of funds used to purchase the property

18.The Registrar of the Court send a sealed copy of this Order by electronic means to the Proper Officer of J School and F School requesting that this Order be placed on the personal file of each of the respective children.

19.For the avoidance of doubt, the husband’s application for interim orders filed 1 September 2017 is not dismissed and he is at liberty to pursue a subsequent listing of the matter for interim orders sought by him.

20.The applications for final orders be placed in the list of cases awaiting allocation to a judicial docket.

21.I reserve liberty to the wife to vary or set aside these orders by application filed within 14 days or as she may be advised.

22.That pursuant to Sections 65DA(2) and 62B the particulars and the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and those particulars are included in these orders.

IT IS DIRECTED:

23.That my reasons for decision this day be transcribed and when settled be placed on the Court file and a copy provided to each of the parties.

AND IT IS NOTED

A.That whereas the father was seeing each of the children at school or attending their schools by arrangement with the school on a regular basis, the father will now cease that activity.

B.That, in the event that a party fails to attend a hearing or defaults in the filing of documents or things required of him/her, the Court may proceed to determine the matter without any input by the non-attending or defaulting party.

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

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 1021  of 2017

Mr Waverley

Applicant

And

Ms Labelle

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

EX-TEMPORE

1. This matter comes before me in the judicial duty list, having been adjourned by Johns J on 1 August 2017.  These are essentially parenting proceedings. 

2. Today the father attends Court.  The mother does not.  The mother was called at the door of my Court at the time at which the matter was listed.  When the father appeared he said he had been waiting in another Court, so the wife was then called outside that Court.  There was no response to the call.  My Court officer telephoned the mother’s telephone number, as it appears in the Notice of Ceasing to Act filed by her former solicitors on 22 June 2017.  The father confirmed that is the number he also has for the mother to be contacted by mobile telephone. The call was not answered.  There was a recorded message.  No message was left.  I have asked the father and he says he knows of no explanation as to why the mother is not at Court today. 

3. On 1 August 2017 the matter was listed in the judicial duty list and the mother failed or neglected to appear.  On that day Johns J ordered, amongst other things, that by 15 August 2015 the wife file and serve an affidavit setting out the reasons for her non-attendance at Court that day.  There is no affidavit filed by the mother.  The mother was also required to attend personally for the hearing today, being 6 September 2017.  As indicated, she has failed to do so.

4. The father, however, has not sought that a warrant issue for her arrest.  In fact, when I suggested that that could be a mechanism employed, he said that he did not want his children’s mother being put in jail or arrested and the children being indirectly impacted. 

   RECORDED   :   NOT TRANSCRIBED

5. I am satisfied that the mother knows of the proceedings returnable today and that it is appropriate to proceed with applications of which the mother has notice.

6. Very briefly, the father is 44 years of age.  He was born in Australia and his parents reside in Sydney.  He says he lives at K Street, Suburb N.  He is currently unemployed and says that he has applied for some 70 positions in the last year or since being back in Australia in January of this year.

   RECORDED   :   NOT TRANSCRIBED

7. The mother is 42 years of age.  She is employed as a senior manager and is in receipt of an income of in excess of $200,000 a year. 

8. The two children of the relationship are B who is aged 11 and C who is aged nine.  B attends year 5 at J School and C is in year 3 at F School. 

9. The parties commenced cohabitation, according to the wife, in approximately 2000.  They married in 2005 and separated on 19 October 2012.  The marriage was dissolved in 2014.

10. In 2001 the parties moved to the United Kingdom and then, in 2008, they moved to Singapore.  The wife deposes that on 10 June 2015 she was permitted to relocate the children’s residence from Singapore to Australia and she did so.  The relocation proceedings involved orders for the father to spend time with the children once they relocated to Australia.  However, as I read it, that was on the basis that the father would be then residing in Singapore.  The father, however, moved to Australia in  2016.  Thereafter, the mother appears to have permitted the father to have time with the children pursuant to the orders that he would have enjoyed had he resided in Singapore, that is, essentially on school holidays. I note that the mother deposes at paragraph 131 of the affidavit filed on 5 May 2017 that the children have spent school holidays with the father’s parents in New South Wales :- “The children have spent the last 4 consecutive school holidays with [Mr Waverley’s] parents at [T Street, Suburb Y]”…”I have never objected to this arrangement or in any way attempted to prevent [Mr Waverley] from taking the children to Sydney during his time with the children”.  Through dint of effort, the father has also managed to see the children at their respective schools on one day each week.  I will say something further about the time at school.

    RECORDED   :  NOT TRANSCRIBED

11. On 30 June 2017 the mother and father were seen by Ms W for a child responsive program assessment.  Then on 7 July 2017 Ms W saw the parents again in the company of the children.  A parent and children’s issues assessment was published on 10 July 2017 and is on the Court file and it has also been sent to both of the parties.  It is a well-reasoned assessment of the family, noting that this is an 11F assessment and not a full family report.  It speaks of the children enjoying being with their father, seeking to have more regular time with their father than merely holidays or school time.  I take the assessment into account noting that it has not been tested under cross-examination.

12. In the report Ms W opines that it is far from ideal that the father spends time with the children at school and that their respective schools should be havens for them and not places where any conflict is played out between parents or the children necessarily spend time with a parent.  The family consultant comments further on the children’s schools at paragraph 28 and 36 extracted below.

13. The children were observed to be very relaxed and comfortable in the care of the mother.  Under risk factors the family consultant refers to allegations by the mother against the father of very serious physical family violence and equally serious coercive and controlling behaviour, as well as some other matters which would, if true, have the effect of undermining the children’s confidence in the care of them by their mother and their mother’s partner, a Mr Z.

14. Under the heading “Co-Parenting Relationship” the family consultant records the following:

    24.       There is no functional communication between [the father] and [the mother]. Both parents allege the other involves the children in inappropriate conversations about Court proceedings, the dispute in general and the other parent.

    25.       The non-existent parental communication is a major factor in the current situation. [The mother] expressed openness to [the father] having regular time with the children as she believed both children wanted to spend time with him. However, given her refusal to engage in what she described as a level of harassment, she said she defaulted to following the Court orders. To that end, she said she was following orders from Singapore which named the school holidays as the time when the children would attend with the father.

    26.       [The father] expressed a level of confusion as to whether time would occur in the school holidays commencing the day after the second part of this assessment.  However, [the mother] simply stated that it was her understanding that the children would go to [the father] for a week commencing on the Sunday given that is what the Orders said.

    27.       There is a high level of distrust between these parents. [The mother] was not convinced [the father] was actually living in Melbourne. She suspected he was living in Sydney. She believed that part of his motivation for further Court proceedings was to cause her harm; she felt he used the children for the same reason.

    28.       [The father] exhibited some behaviour that demonstrated he is a man who is prepared to do what it takes to meet his goals. He described engaging in a dispute with the children’s school and the education department in order to be allowed to spend time with the children at school. At this point in time he attends [C’s] school each Monday morning to help in the classroom and therefore interact with [C]. One lunch time per fortnight he collects [B] from school and takes her out to lunch.

    29.       [The father] sees himself as the person who engaged in very reasonable communication. He gave examples of times he had approached [the mother] to discuss things with her and he was critical of her refusal to engage, but could not see that some of his communication would be viewed as critical. He also maintained the need to record all communication as “proof” which is somewhat concerning. [The mother] described [the father’s] methods of communication as harassment and therefore chose to disengage. The effect of this is that [the mother] tends to ignore [the father] and no arrangements are made. Unfortunately it is the children who are most impacted by this.

    30.       Both parents criticised the other for denigrating them to the children. Both allege the other engaged in tactics whereby they questioned the children repeatedly and both believed the other engaged the children in the adult content of the dispute. Interestingly the children did not have any commentary to offer on this. They appeared largely unaware of their parents conflict and believed they are capable of being friendly towards each other.

    EVALUATION

    31.       This matter is before the Court to determine the best interests of [B] and [C]. Their parents: [Mr Waverley] and [Ms Labelle] are in dispute about what time they should spend with their father and how that should be facilitated.

    32.       There have been multiple Court hearings across settings with [the father] alleging that he has been able to prove that all of [the mother’s] allegations are false. She however maintains this is part of a broader picture of family violence whereby he has used these proceedings to control her. [The mother] is further critical that [the father] only follows orders that suit him and he ignores all others. In particular she expressed a high level of frustration that [the father] had refused to follow the financial orders that were made in Singapore.

    33.       [The mother] presented as somewhat traumatised. At times her tears turned to sobs as she detailed her past experiences. She clearly struggled with the content however, was able to provide consistent messages of verbal and psychological abuse that if found to be accurate would be consistent with her presentation. She described remaining in Singapore for four years while the family law proceedings continued there, leaving immediately after they finalised only to have them commence again now. Both parents reported a high desire to exit these processes.

    34.       [The father] presented with a high level of conviction that his version of events were accurate and [The mother’s] were not. It would appear he goes to significant lengths to ensure he always has proof of any claims he makes and wants to draw the conclusion that in the absence of that “proof” there is no case. Unfortunately these matters are rarely that simple.

    35.       [The father] delivered most of his points as defendable facts and while it is eminently possible that his version is accurate, it is also possible that it is not. His communication style is to defend himself and offers explanations that place his motivations as exemplary, however this could also be experienced as some form of coercion. When challenged on particular points he was quick to defend himself and always offering to back up his claims with proof. This method of communication could be very difficult for any who wished to disagree with him or present an alternative view. It is plausible that [the mother] is wearied by the communication process and therefore defaults to a position of no communication. While that may be the explanation, it is problematic as arrangements cannot be negotiated.

    36.       In relation to parenting, [the father] presents as a very energetic and engaged father. He has not been put off by [the mother’s] decision to follow the Singapore Orders and insisted upon time spent at the children’s schools. While this could demonstrate the lengths he will go to in order to ensure a good relationship, it also demonstrates his capacity to place his own needs first. Schools should always be a place where children can be removed from their parent’s dispute. It will be important that all future arrangements are negotiated away from the children’s schools.

    37.       [The mother’s] decision to only follow the Singapore Orders has been problematic. A situation has arisen whereby the children were asking for additional time, [the father] was also asking, and [the mother] was expressing a willingness to facilitate. It will be important that future orders provides some flexibility but also recognise that the parent’s inability to communicate effectively will most likely continue to be a barrier.

    38.       Given the high level of parental conflict and the capacity for perhaps both, but possibly only [the father] to engage the children is discussions about what is occurring in the other home, there is the capacity for the children to seek strategies that remove them from the conflict. It would be deeply concerning if the children began to self-select one parent over the other and start to refuse time with the other. At this time, both children are expressing willingness to spend time with both parents and to that end, maintaining a situation that supports that is important.

    39.       It is concerning that this matter has had such lengthy legal intervention in Singapore only to re-commence in Australia. For [the mother], this resumption of a legal case so soon after the conclusion of the prior one is a source of significant stress. It is in the interests of both of the children to have this matter resolved in order to reduce that stress.

1. Finally, the family consultant provides the following recommendations by way of future directions:

   a)That the children continue to reside with their mother;  

   b)That B and C spend time with their father from the conclusion of school on each alternate Friday until the return to school on the following Monday; 

   c)Additional holiday and special days are considered or be considered;

   d)An independent children’s lawyer be considered;

   e)Both parents engage with parenting orders programmed through the G Group in either Suburb T or Suburb M;

   f)Some consideration be given to each of the parents undergoing a comparative psychiatric assessment to determine whether one or both parents have an underlying disorder;

   g)That both parents be restrained from denigrating the other in the presence of the children and be restrained from involving the children in any adult content of their dispute.

2. Now, as indicated, the report was published on 10 July 2017, certainly in comfortable time to be considered by the parties prior to the last hearing on 1 August 2017 when the mother failed to attend Court.  I am concerned that the matter not be further delayed and that the desire of the children – or that the apparent needs identified by the family consultant for the children to have regular and more frequent time with the father away from school be implemented now.  The mother does not attend Court.  She does not put a case.  This is a Court of private law.  If the wife had matters to say in opposition to the application and the father adopting the recommendations by the family consultant she has had adequate opportunity to do so.  I am, however, concerned about the presentation of the mother and father as described by the family consultant at paragraphs 33 to 36, extracted above, I am also concerned that the mother may be failing to communicate with the Court as she has failed to communicate with the father, for reasons of frustration and exasperation.

3. Turning to what the father seeks.  He sought a non-denigration order and a regime of parenting whereby the children would reside with him for –

   RECORDED   :   NOT TRANSCRIBED

4. Five out of 14 days, including some time in each week.  I am not prepared to exceed to the father’s application at this stage in the proceedings.  What I am prepared to do is implement the recommendations of the family consultant.  I note that the family consultant has not been called for cross-examination and her evidence is untested.  However, her report does appear to be well reasoned.  I do not exclude the possibility later of the family consultant being available for cross-examination on the parenting and issues assessment, but that would await a further application by one of the parties and the matter returning to Court.  To the extent that the time involves holiday periods, I note that the mother has previously agreed to holiday time (see paragraph 7 of these reasons).

5. I will also appoint an independent children’s lawyer and make that lawyer responsible for refining arrangements for each party to attend a psychiatrist or appropriately qualified person for the purpose of an assessment such as that suggested by the family consultant.  In the absence of the independent children’s lawyer nominating another psychiatrist, the parties can attend upon Dr P, as I said, they can attend upon any other psychiatrist that the independent children’s lawyer recommends.  They will need to do so at their own expense.  Whatever occurs, both parents need to be seen by the same expert.  My impression is that the mother is exhausted by the court processes in both countries. I may be wrong but I expect that she will be despondent at the prospect of submitting to a psychiatric assessment.  However, parental conflict appears to be at the centre of this family’s problems and I am satisfied that a psychiatric assessment by an experienced clinician such as, say, Dr P will expand for the Court its’ breadth of knowledge and understanding of the parents and their individual characteristics.  This is unlikely to be a matter where the best interests of the children will be served by simplistically acceding to the application of one engaged party, the father, in the absence of participation by the non-communicative party, the mother.  It may be that neither parent, once assessed, will fall within the clinically relevant range for psychiatric illness.  Their personal qualities are rather more subtle.  The court will be assisted to understand how the parents’ unique and somewhat fixed views of each other, parenting and the children combine for the benefit or detriment of the children.  The extent to which each parent’s personality and behaviour contributes to, and may be a reaction to, the conflict with the other parent will be valuable in assessing the capacity of each party to parent the children.

6. The parents should also engage in the parenting orders program suggested by the family consultant and I will order accordingly.

7. In reaching my determination today I regard the best interests of the children as paramount consideration. In doing so, I prioritise over other factors the need to protect the children from physical and emotional harm. I don’t know much about the case so I have been conservative. The court’s task will be to assess the extent to which it will benefit B and C to have a meaningful relationship with both parents.  That is an essential task in deciding what orders are in the children’s best interests and what parenting arrangements should be made to facilitate time between the children and their father.

8. There are allegations of family violence by the mother against the father which are denied.  Ms W records:-

   17. Family Violence: The parents gave disparate versions of Family Violence. If [the mother’s] version were to be accepted, she has experience a high level of control where she has been subject to ongoing verbal, psychological and physical abuse. She gave examples of having been followed, photographed, made to explain her actions including all of her spending. She also spoke of being denigrated, being told she had to walk away from [the father] as she was so repugnant that he did not wish for people to realise they were married.

   18. Further to this she provided examples whereby she said she described [the father] wrapping her head in a sheet before beating her causing bleeding to her ear resulting in some hearing loss. [The mother] described her experiences with [the father] has [sic] highly traumatic and she described a feeling of always being in “damage control” as she described being bombarded with legal documents across a variety of courts, contant text messages and emails.

   19. [The father] denied all of these allegations and believed he had proof that they were all “lies”. He pointed to some Court appearances where he said [the mother] was unable to substantiate her claims and they were therefore found to be false. He said she had been warned by Judges not to make claims without substance.

   20. [The father] did acknowledge pushing [the mother] onto the bed on one occasion as he said he was defending himself. He also acknowledged a practice of always recording [the mother] so that he would have evidence of all interactions. He did not see any issue with this practice, rather saw it as necessary in order to prove that he was innocent. He further commented that he had used a private investigator in the past to follow her movements, but this had been endorsed as appropriate by the Singapore Court.

   I will require the father to elaborate on the Singaporean Court’s endorsement of his surveillance of the mother.

9. The children express a desire to see the father more regularly. The children have been observed to react warmly to each parent. Somehow, the children appear to have been spared the full impact of the high parental conflict and the consequence of there being “no functional communication between [the father] and [the mother]”.  However, that is unlikely to remain the case with frequent and regular time.

10. I take into account the balance of additional considerations, set out in s60CC(3) insofar as they are relevant. The orders I make do not involve substantial changes for the children and certainly not as substantial as is sought by the father in his current application. As I have said, parenting capacity is something that is yet to be fully assessed by this Court.

11. I would have commenced the father’s ultimate weekend time this weekend.  However, he tells me that he is required to travel to Singapore on business and will not be returning until September.

    RECORDED  :  NOT TRANSCRIBED

12. The father says that the school holidays for the children do not exactly coincide this year.  B commences her school holidays on Monday, 18 September and they last until 8 October.  C has holidays from 25 September until 8 October.  The father wishes to take the children to see his family or his parents, specifically, in Sydney from 1 October to 8 October.  That appears to be, in all the circumstances, reasonable.  The father also sought time with B of two or three days duration whilst she is on holidays and C is not.  On questioning by me, the father said he has not had B without C for more than the odd night.  He has, however, had both children in his care for five continuous weeks during the last long summer school vacation.

13. It seems to me appropriate to order that the children spend time with the father from 28 September until 8 October.  That is more than one-half of C’s school term holidays but less than one-half of B’s school term holidays.  The orders for alternate weekend time from Friday to Monday with changeovers to be conducted at the respective schools of the children can commence in the first week after the resumption of school in October. 

    RECORDED   :   NOT TRANSCRIBED

14. I have asked the father how he will arrange for the collection of both children after school on the Friday of each alternate weekend.  Whereas B is used to taking the school bus, the school bus between J School and proximate to his home in Suburb N has a waiting list and so she would be required to take public transport.  Whilst it is possible, it does not seem to me, in all of the circumstances, to be ideal because she would not have had any experience in taking public transport between her school and the husband’s home in Suburb N.  The father has sensibly, in my view, opted for making sure that one child is in after school care run by whichever school they attend whilst he collects the other and then the child collected by him and the father will go to collect the other child.

15. I make these orders in the face of the mother not having appeared today to oppose the application by the father for even greater time.  However, I do not exclude the possibility of the matter returning to Court on a contested basis for an interim hearing and, if that is necessary, the independent children’s lawyer can contact my associate and ask that the matter be relisted.  The matter would merely then be put into the next judicial duty list as and when a position is available. 

    RECORDED   :   NOT TRANSCRIBED

I certify that the preceding twenty-nine (29) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Bennett delivered on 6 September 2017

Associate: 

Date:  30 October 2017