WEBBER & WEBBER

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WEBBER & WEBBER

[2014] FCCA 2164

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Interim parenting – where a father abuses alcohol – weight be given to the report of a treating psychologist.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA

Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346
MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4

Applicant:

MS WEBBER

Respondent:

MR WEBBER

File Number:

WOC 370 of 2010

Judgment of:

Judge Altobelli

Hearing date:

25 August 2014

Date of Last Submission:

25 August 2014

Delivered at:

Wollongong

Delivered on:

29 August 2014

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Bailey Mullard Lawyers

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Marriott Oliver Solicitors

Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer:

Legal Aid NSW

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS PENDING FURTHER ORDER

Pending further Order, all Parenting Orders are hereby suspended.
The Mother and Father are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child X born (omitted) 2003 ("the child") in relation to: -
(a)any proposal to change the child’s name; and
(b)any proposal to relocate the child’s residence.
Except as set out in Order 2 above, the Mother is to have sole parental responsibility for the child.
The Mother is to keep the Father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer informed of:
(a)any significant medical problems or illnesses suffered by the child whilst in her care;
(b)any occasion that the child is due to be hospitalised or has been hospitalised; or;
(c)if the child receives any treatment or therapy from a Specialist Medical Doctor, Psychiatrist, Psychologist, Counsellor or Therapist (‘Treating Practitioner’) other than Mr T or Dr S.
The Mother is to keep the Father informed of her telephone contact numbers (both landline and mobile if applicable) and the Mother’s E-Mail address.
The Mother is to authorise any Treating Practitioner to provide the Father with copies of assessments or reports prepared in relation to the child.
The mother is to keep the father and Independent Children's Lawyer informed of any serious medical emergencies (including mental health emergencies) regarding the child.
That in the event that the child attends upon a medical or health facility because of a serious medical or mental health emergency, the Father and Independent Children’s Lawyer are entitled to receive information from the medical or health facility.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer is authorised to receive information from the child’s Treating Practitioners regarding the child’s ongoing treatment and progress.
The Mother is to provide written information to the Father and to the Independent Children’s Lawyer regarding the child’s school progress at the end of each NSW school term.
The Father is to keep the Mother informed of his telephone contact numbers (both landline and mobile if applicable), his residential address and E-Mail address.
The child is to live with the Mother.
The child’s time and communication with the Father is suspended.
The Father is restrained from attending any school related or extra-curricular activity that the child may be involved in from time to time.
The Father is restrained from coming within 100 metres of the mother’s residence.
In the event that the child attends upon a school facility, the Father is restrained from coming within 100 metres of this school facility.
Subject to a grant of legal aid from the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales, that pursuant to Division 15.5.2 of the Family Law Rules 2004, Dr K be appointed as the Single Expert Witness to enquire into and report upon matters relating to the welfare of the child X born (omitted) 2003, and that in preparing the updated report to the Court, the Expert be requested to consider the following matters and documents:
(a)the documents produced on Subpoena in these proceedings;
(b)the Single Expert Report prepared by Dr K dated 10 May 2012 in relation to previous proceedings;
(c)to consider the issues raised in the Family Consultant’s Memorandums to the Court dated 13 March 2014;
(d)the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both his parents;
(e)whether the child is at risk of being exposed to any physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence;
(f)any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as maturity and level of understanding) that may affect the weight to be accorded to those views;
(g)the nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child's parents and other persons including any significant other persons;
(h)the willingness and ability of each of the child's parents to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent;
(i)the likely effect of any changes to the child's circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either of the child's parents or
(j)another person with whom the child has been living;
(k)the capacity of each parent, and of any other person, to provide the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs;
(l)the capacity and willingness of each parent to follow any advice or
(m)recommendations made by any treating health professional regarding the child;
(n)the attitude to the child and to the responsibilities of parenthood demonstrated by each of the child's parents, and any other relevant person;
(o)the effect on the child of any family violence to which the child may have been exposed to;
(p)the mental state of both parents in so far as it is relates to parenting issues;
(q)the nature of the parents' relationship and the impact of this relationship on the child;
(r)to assess each parent's proposed home environments for the child;
(s)to assess the proposals of each parent as to the child’s future; and
(t)any other matter the Court Expert considers relevant.
That in the event that the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales is not prepared to fund the costs of at least the Mother's share of the Expert Report, then pursuant to section 62G(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 the parents and the child attend upon a Family Consultant as nominated by the Manager, Child Dispute Services on a date and at times to be advised for the purposes of the preparation of a Family Report and in preparing the report to the Court, the Family Consultant be requested to consider the following matters and documents:
(a)the documents produced on Subpoena in these proceedings;
(b)the Single Expert Report prepared by Dr K dated 10 May 2012 in relation to previous proceedings;
(c)to consider the issues raised in the Family Consultant’s Memorandums to the Court dated 13 March 2014 and 15 August 2014;
(d)the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both his parents;
(e)whether the child is at risk of being exposed to any physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence;
(f)any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as maturity and level of understanding) that may affect the weight to be accorded to those views;
(g)the nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child's parents and other persons including any significant other persons;
(h)the willingness and ability of each of the child's parents to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent;
(i)the likely effect of any changes to the child's circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either of the child's parents or another person with whom the child has been living;
(j)the capacity of each parent, and of any other person, to provide the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs;
(k)the capacity and willingness of each parent to follow any advice or
(l)recommendations made by any treating health professional regarding the child;
(m)the attitude to the child and to the responsibilities of parenthood demonstrated by each of the child's parents, and any other relevant person;
(n)the effect on the child of any family violence to which the child may have been exposed to;
(o)the mental state of both parents in so far as it is relates to parenting issues;
(p)the nature of the parents' relationship and the impact of this relationship on the child;
(q)to assess each parent's proposed home environments for the child;
(r)to assess the proposals of each parent as to the child’s future; and
(s)any other matter the Family Consultant considers relevant.

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:

The matter be listed for Final Hearing on 19 March 2015 at 10:00am (allocating 2 days) before Judge Henderson in the Wollongong registry.
The matter be adjourned to 26 November 2014 at 9:30am for mention.
Leave granted to the parties to relist on 7 days notice.
Leave granted to the parties to file in Chambers a Minute of Order appointing an expert.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Webber & Webber is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT WOLLONGONG

WOC 370 of 2010

MS WEBBER

Applicant

And

MR WEBBER

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I provide the following ex tempore reasons. This case is about X, who was born on (omitted) 2003. X is 11 and a half. The Applicant is his mother; she is 53. The Father is the Respondent; he is 51. The relationship commenced in 1994. They married in 2003. X was born that year, of course, and the parents separated in 2008. The matter was last before the Court in a substantive sense on 23 November 2012, when Foster FM, as he then was, made some orders by consent.
1. That the Mother and Father have equal shared parental responsibility for the child X born (omitted) 2003 ("the child") in relation to: -
1.1    any proposal to change the child’s name; and
1.2    any proposal to relocate the child’s residence to a place which would significantly affect the arrangements for the child to spend time with the Father as set out in Order 11 below.
2. Except as set out in Order 1 above, that the Mother have sole parental responsibility for the child.
3. That the Mother is to keep the Father informed of:-
3.1    any significant medical problems or illness suffered by the child whilst in her care;
3.2    any occasion that the child is due to be hospitalised or has been hospitalised;
3.3    any medication prescribed for the child that will require the Father to administer such medication;
3.4    any engagement of the child with any Specialist Medical Doctor, Psychiatrist, Psychologist, Counsellor or Therapist ('treating practitioner);
3.5    the name of any primary school or high school the child is enrolled in from time to time;
3.6    the Mother’s telephone contact numbers (including both landline and mobile if applicable), SKYPE address for the child (if applicable) and the Mother's E-Mail address; and
3.7    an address where the Father can send correspondence or presents to the child.
4. That the Mother authorise any treating practitioner to provide the Father with copies of assessments or reports prepared in relation to the child.
5. That the Father is at liberty to arrange an appointment with any of the child's treating practitioners on a different date and time to the Mother's appointments for the purpose of discussing the child's diagnosis, treatment or progress.
6. That the Mother ensure the Father is included on the child’s school enrolment details from time to time.
7. That the Mother authorise the child's school to provide the Father with any reports, newsletters or notices usually received by parents from the school.
8. That the Father is granted permission to contact by telephone or in writing the child's school to inquire as to the child’s progress from time to time.
9. That the Father keep the Mother informed of:-
9.1    any medical problems or illness suffered by the child whilst in his care;
9.2    any occasion that the child is due to be hospitalised or has been hospitalised;
9.3    any medication that has been prescribed for the child; and
9.4    the Father’s telephone contact numbers (including both landline and mobile if applicable), the Father's SKYPE address (if applicable) and the Father's E-Mail address;
10.    That the child live with the Mother.
11.    That the child spend time with the Father as follows:
11.1 from 8am until 5pm Saturday 24 November 2012, and on this occasion, the Father to collect the child from (omitted) Railway Station at the commencement of the Father’s time with the child and then deliver the child to the Mother at (omitted) Service Station (Northbound) at the conclusion of the Father’s time with the child.
11.2 commencing on Sunday 2 December 2012, from 9am until 5pm and thereafter each alternate Sunday; with this time to be spent in the (omitted) area (except on Father's Day each year where this time shall be spent in the (omitted) area),
11.3 provided conditions are met as set out in Order 13 from 9am Saturday until 2pm Sunday each 5^th Saturday in Terms 1, 2,3 and 4 BUT in the event conditions are not met as set out in Order 13 from 9am until 5pm Saturday and from 9am until 2pm Sunday; with this time to be spent in the (omitted) area,
11.4 provided that conditions are met as set out in Order 13 from 9am Saturday 5 January 2013 until 4pm Sunday 6 January 2013, BUT in the event that conditions are not met as set out in Order 13, from 9am until 5pm 5 January 2013 and from 9am until 4pm Sunday 6 January 2013; with this time to be spent in the (omitted) area;
11.5 provided that conditions are met as set out in Order 13 from 9am Saturday 26 January 2013 until 4pm 27 January 2013, BUT in the event conditions are not met as set out in Order 13 from 9am until 5pm Saturday 26 January 2013 and from 9am until 4pm Sunday 27 January 2013; with this time to be spent in the (omitted) area.
11.6 provided that conditions are met as set out in Order 13 from 9am Saturday until 4pm Sunday on the first Saturday and Sunday that falls in the first half of each NSW School Holiday period each year, BUT in the event that conditions are not met as set out in Order 13, from 9am until 5pm Saturday and from 9am until 4pm Sunday; with this time to be spent in the (omitted) area.
11.7 provided that conditions are met as set out in Order 13 from 9am Saturday until 4pm Monday upon two occasions in the NSW Christmas School Holiday period commencing in December 2013 to January 2014, to coincide with the first Saturday in January of each year and the second last Saturday of January of each year, BUT in the event conditions are not met as set out in Order 13 from 9am until 5pm Saturday and from 9am until 4pm Sunday; with this time to be spent in the (omitted) area.
1.8    in the event that the child is not already spending time with the Father on the child's birthday, from 9am until 2pm if the child's birthday falls on a non-school day and from 3pm until 6pm if the child's birthday falls on a school day; with this time to be spent in the (omitted) area,
11.9 in the event that the child is not already spending time with the Father on Father's Day, from 9am until 4pm on Father's Day; with this time to be spent in the (omitted) area.
11.10         in the event that the child is not already spending time with the Father on 24 December each year, from 9am until 5pm; with this time to be spent in the (omitted) area.
11.11         any additional time agreed to between the Mother and Father in writing from time to time.
12.    That Order 11.2 is suspended during all NSW School Holiday periods and Order 11.2 is to recommence on the first Sunday after the child returns to school.
13.    The child is to spend overnight time with the Father if there is another adult present at all times from 6pm in the evening until 9am the following morning on each occasion that the child is to spend overnight time with the Father and this adult has been deemed to be an acceptable person by the Court subject to that person providing written Undertakings to the Court.
14.    To facilitate these Orders, changeover is to take place at (omitted) Hungry Jacks on all occasions that the child is to spend time with the Father in the (omitted) area and at (omitted) Railway Station on all occasions that the child is to spend time with the Father in the (omitted) area unless otherwise agreed to in writing.
15.    In the event that the child's time with the Father pursuant to Order 11.2 should fall during the Mother's Day weekend, the child's time with the Father is suspended.
16.    In the event that the child's time with the Father pursuant to Order 11.2 should fall on the 25 December in any year, the child's time with the Father is suspended.
17.    The Father is entitled to attend the child's:
17.1 Sporting activities or events,
17.2 School functions and events; and,
17.3 extra-curricular activities that allow for parental attendance or involvement.
18.    That the Father have telephone communication with the child at 6.30pm each Wednesday and alternate Sunday (where the Father is not already spending time with the child), and to facilitate this communication, the Father is to call the Mother on her mobile phone and then the Mother is to hand the telephone to the child and the Mother is at liberty to have the telephone on speaker phone.
19.    That the parties are to communicate via E-Mail regarding any provision in these Orders; except in the case of an emergency or an unforeseen event, where the parties are permitted to communicate via SMS messaging.
20.    The Mother and Father are restrained from making any critical or derogatory remarks in relation to the other parent in the presence or within the hearing of the child.
21.    The Mother and Father are to use their best endeavours to prevent any third party from making any critical or derogatory remarks in relation to the other parent in the presence or within hearing of the child.
22.    The Father is restrained from coming within 100 metres of the Mother's residence.
23.    That the Father is restrained from consuming alcohol in amounts that would cause his blood alcohol content level to be in excess of the legal limit for a low-range driving offence during his time spent with the child.
24.    The Mother and Father are at liberty to provide a copy of Expert Report prepared by Dr K dated the 10 May 2012 to their treating practitioner from time to time.
25.    The Independent Children's Lawyer is at liberty to provide to the child's school and to Dr S the following extracts from Dr K's report dated the 10 May 2012 (paragraphs 212 to 275 inclusive, paragraphs 278 to 297 inclusive, paragraphs 318 to 323 inclusive and paragraphs 331 and 332).
An interesting and important notation is contained in Federal Magistrate Foster’s (as His Honour was then) Orders. This may well be because, at the final hearing, Mr Webber was representing himself. Notation B says:
The court has brought the father’s attention to the further recommendations of Dr K, more particularly set out in paragraphs 371 to 374 of the single expert report, and, in circumstances where the father asserts that he has undertaken and successfully completed that intervention, he may make application to the court as to a variation of the orders made today if appropriate.
The significance of that will become apparent.
The matter came before me on 25 August 2014, earlier this week. The Mother’s proposal was that the existing Orders be discharged to the effect that X would not be spending time with his father nor having any communication with him. The Independent Children’s Lawyer, for practical purposes, is aligned to the Mother in this regard.

The Father’s proposal was that the existing Orders be suspended, that there be Orders in relation to parental responsibility similar to the Orders made on 23 November 2012, that X live with his mother but spend time with the Father alternate Sundays between 9:00am and 5:00pm, with changeover at (omitted), and in the presence of Ms M.

The applicable law

In determining parenting matters under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975, the Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration: s.60CA.
The objects and principles of Part VII are set out at s.60B:
60B Objects of Part and principles underlying it
(1)     The objects of this Part are to ensure that the best interests of children are met by:
(a)     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
(b)     protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and
(c) ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and
(d)     ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.
(2)     The principles underlying these objects are that (except when it is or would be contrary to a child’s best interests):
(a)     children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together; and
(b)     children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development (such as grandparents and other relatives); and
(c) parents jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and
(d)     parents should agree about the future parenting of their children; and
(e)     children have a right to enjoy their culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture).
(3)     For the purposes of subparagraph (2)(e), an Aboriginal child’s or Torres Strait Islander child’s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture includes the right:
(a)     to maintain a connection with that culture; and
(b)     to have the support, opportunity and encouragement necessary:
(i) to explore the full extent of that culture, consistent with the child’s age and developmental level and the child’s views; and
(ii)     to develop a positive appreciation of that culture.
At the very core of Part VII of the Act is the creation of a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in s.61DA. Section 61DA provides:
61DA Presumption of equal shared parental responsibility when making parenting orders
(1)     When making a parenting order in relation to a child, 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 for the child.
(2)     The presumption does not apply if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent of the child (or a person who lives with a parent of the child) has engaged in:
(a)     abuse of the child or another child who, at the time, was a member of the parent’s family (or that other person’s family); or
(b)     family violence.
(3)     When the court is making an interim order, the presumption applies unless the court considers that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for the presumption to be applied when making that order.
(4)     The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that satisfies the court that it would not be in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.
If the presumption applies, the Court is required to consider certain things:
65DAA Court to consider child spending equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent in certain circumstances
Equal time
(1)     If a parenting order provides (or is to provide) that a child’s parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, the court must:
(a)     consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and
(b)     consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable; and
(c) if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents.
Substantial and significant time
(2)     If:
(a)     a parenting order provides (or is to provide) that a child’s parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child; and
(b)     the court does not make an order (or include a provision in the order) for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents; and
the court must:
(c) consider whether the child spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and
(d)     consider whether the child spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable; and
(e)     if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the child to spend substantial and significant time with each of the parents.
(3) will be taken to spend substantial and significant time with a parent only if:
(a)     the time the child spends with the parent includes both:
(i) days that fall on weekends and holidays; and
(ii)     days that do not fall on weekends or holidays; and
(b)     the time the child spends with the parent allows the parent to be involved in:
(i) the child’s daily routine; and
(ii)     occasions and events that are of particular significance to the child; and
(c) the time the child spends with the parent allows the child to be involved in occasions and events that are of special significance to the parent.
(4)     Subsection (3) does not limit the other matters to which a court can have regard in determining whether the time a child spends with a parent would be substantial and significant.
Reasonable practicality
(5)     In determining for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) whether it is reasonably practicable for a child to spend equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the child’s parents, the court must have regard to:
(a)     how far apart the parents live from each other; and
(b)     the parents’ current and future capacity to implement an arrangement for the child spending equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the parents; and
(c) the parents’ current and future capacity to communicate with each other and resolve difficulties that might arise in implementing an arrangement of that kind; and
(d)     the impact that an arrangement of that kind would have on the child; and
(e)     such other matters as the court considers relevant.
Because s.65DAA refers to the best interests of the child the Court must then go back to consider s.60CC which specifies how the Court must determine what is in a child’s best interests.
Determining child's best interests
(1) Subject to subsection (5), in determining what is in the child's best interests, the court must consider the matters set out in subsections (2) and (3).
Primary considerations
(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.
Note: Making these considerations the primary ones is consistent with the objects of this Part set out in paragraphs 60B(1)(a) and (b).
(2A) In applying the considerations set out in subsection (2), the court is to give greater weight to the consideration set out in paragraph (2)(b).
Additional considerations
(3) Additional considerations are:
(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;
(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);
(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;
(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; or
(ii) any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living;
(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;
(f) the capacity of:
(i) each of the child's parents; and
(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;
(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;
(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;
(i) the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents;
(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;
(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;
(m) any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant.
In MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4, the High Court said
8. Sub-section (1) of s 65DAA is headed "Equal time" and provides:
"If a parenting order provides (or is to provide) that a child's parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, the court must:
(a)     consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and
(b)     consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable; and
(c) if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents." (emphasis added)
Sub-section (2) makes provision for where a parenting order provides that a child's parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child (par (a)) but the Court does not make an order for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents (par (b)). In such a circumstance the Court is obliged to:
"(c)    consider whether the child spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and
(d)     consider whether the child spending substantial and significant time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable; and
(e)     if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the child to spend substantial and significant time with each of the parents."
Sub-section (3) explains what is meant by the phrase "substantial and significant time".
9. Each of sub-ss (1)(b) and (2)(d) of s 65DAA require the Court to consider whether it is reasonably practicable for the child to spend equal time or substantial and significant time with each of the parents. It is clearly intended that the Court determine that question. Sub-section (5) provides in that respect that the Court "must have regard" to certain matters, such as how far apart the parents live from each other and their capacity to implement the arrangement in question, and "such other matters as the court considers relevant", "[i]n determining for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) whether it is reasonably practicable for a child to spend equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the child's parents".
A little later in the judgment the High Court said:
Section 65DAA(1) is expressed in imperative terms. It obliges the Court to consider both the question whether it is in the best interests of the child to spend equal time with each of the parents (par (a)) and the question whether it is reasonably practicable that the child spend equal time with each of them (par (b)). It is only where both questions are answered in the affirmative that consideration may be given, under par (c), to the making of an order.
The Full Court’s decision in Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346, provides some guidance about the interpretation of Part VII of the Act.
68. In our view some of the comments of the Full Court in paragraph 18 are still apposite. For example, the procedure for making interim parenting orders will continue to be an abridged process where the scope of the enquiry is “significantly curtailed”. Where the Court cannot make findings of fact it should not be drawn into issues of fact or matters relating to the merits of the substantive case where findings are not possible. The Court also looks to the less contentious matters, such as the agreed facts and issues not in dispute and would have regard to the care arrangements prior to separation, the current circumstances of the parties and their children, and the parties’ respective proposals for the future.
…
72. In our view, it can be fairly said there is a legislative intent evinced in favour of substantial involvement of both parents in their children’s lives, both as to parental responsibility and as to time spent with children, subject to the need to protect children from harm, from abuse and family violence and provided it is in their best interests and reasonably practicable. This means where there is a status quo or well settled environment, instead of simply preserving it, unless there are protective or other significant best interests concerns for the child, the Court must follow the structure of the Act and consider accepting, where applicable, equal or significant involvement by both parents in the care arrangements for the child.
…
82. In an interim case that would involve the following:
(a) identifying the competing proposals of the parties;
(b) identifying the issues in dispute in the interim hearing;
(c) identifying any agreed or uncontested relevant facts;
(d) considering the matters in s 60CC that are relevant and, if possible, making findings about them (in interim proceedings there may be little uncontested evidence to enable more than a limited consideration of these matters to take place);
(e) deciding whether the presumption in s 61DA that equal shared parental responsibility is in the best interests of the child applies or does not apply because there are reasonable grounds to believe there has been abuse of the child or family violence or, in an interim matter, the Court does not consider it appropriate to apply the presumption;
(f) if the presumption does apply, deciding whether it is rebutted because application of it would not be in the child’s best interests;
(g) if the presumption applies and is not rebutted, considering making an order that the child spend equal time with the parents unless it is contrary to the child’s best interests as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in s 60CC, or impracticable;
(h) if equal time is found not to be in the child’s best interests, considering making an order that the child spend substantial and significant time as defined in s 65DAA(3) with the parents, unless contrary to the child’s best interests as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in s 60CC, or impracticable;
(i) if neither equal time nor substantial and significant time is considered to be in the best interests of the child, then making such orders in the discretion of the Court that are in the best interests of the child, as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in s 60CC;
(j) if the presumption is not applied or is rebutted, then making such order as is in the best interests of the child, as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in s 60CC; and
(k) even then the Court may need to consider equal time or substantial and significant time, especially if one of the parties has sought it or, even if neither has sought it, if the Court considers after affording procedural fairness to the parties it to be in the best interests of the child.

The evidence

The evidence before the Court was quite substantial, despite the fact that it is an interim hearing. In the Mother’s case, there was a very helpful case outline in her Affidavit of 20 January 2014. In the Father’s case, likewise, there was a very helpful case outline, and his Affidavits of 15 August 2014 and 12 March 2014 were relied on in the context of the interim hearing.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer relied on a number of documents to which I will make reference. I should record, however, the Court’s gratitude to the Independent Children’s Lawyer for the preparation of an exhaustive chronology which was of much – indeed, great – assistance to the Court in dealing with this matter. In addition, in evidence was the Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum to the Court dated 13 March 2014, and Dr K's Report of 10 May 2012.
There were three documents exhibited as a result of tenders by the Independent Children’s Lawyer. There is the Report from Mr T from the (omitted) Clinic, which is exhibit ICL1. There is the letter requesting that report, exhibit ICL2, and then exhibit ICL3 is a tender bundle consisting of documents from various sources including Department of Family and Community Services, Dr S and (omitted). Mr T gave oral evidence by way of telephone.
I am going to incorporate into these reasons the chronology that was prepared by the Independent Children’s Lawyer:

Date	Event	Source
(omitted) 1960	Father born.
(omitted) 1962	Mother born.
(omitted) 1978	Ms A born (Mother’s child from a previous relationship).
(omitted) 1979	Mr D born (Mother’s child from a previous relationship).
1994	Parties commence their relationship.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p3
(omitted) 2003	Parties marry.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p3
(omitted) 2003	X born.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p3
28 March 2008	Parties separate.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p3
18 September 2011	Parties Divorce.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p3
23 November 2012	Final Orders made by consent in the Federal Magistrates Court at Wollongong. Final Orders provide for the Mother to have sole PR regarding X’s health and education and for X to live with the Mother. X is to spend one alternate weekend with the Father in the (omitted) area during the day on a Sunday and then on the alternate weekend in (omitted); with this time to occur overnight if an acceptable supervisor is present in the home during the night and if not, then day time only on the Sunday. The Court also notes that the Father can make a further Application to the Court to dispense with the requirement to have a supervisor being present during any overnight period provided that the Father addresses recommendations made by Dr K in his Report dated 10 May 2012.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p6 M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p7 M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p8
16 December 2012	The father and Ms M (‘Ms M’) return X to the mother at (omitted) Hungry Jacks at approximately 5pm. The Mother was waiting in the car park and when she gets out of her car, the father walks straight past the mother without even acknowledging her. Ms M follows also ignoring the mother. The father then tries to buy an ice cream for X but buys an iced cola drink instead. When the mother reminds X they have to go to a Christmas fete and carols, X wants to leave. On the way home X vomits. At home, he throws up again.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p16-19
17 December 2012	X has a school presentation night. The mother asserts that the father was aware he should attend 10 minutes before the start of the event at 6.30pm. Mother attends at 6pm and she and X wait for the father. At 6.20, X tries to call his father on the mobile. The father then arrives after the ceremony commences. The mother immediately recognises that the father is drunk. His face is red and he is unsteady on his feet. He bumps into people and he stands at the back of the hall. Throughout the performance, the father pulls faces at X and he dances around. X is distracted by his father’s behaviour. During the supper break, the father takes X out of the hall without telling anybody. The mother frantically searches the hall and she asks several parents if they have seen X. The mother goes outside the hall and searches the car park. The mother eventually finds X with the father near the father’s car. The mother does not want to confront the father because of previous violence so she goes back in the hall. The mother asks Ms M to request that the father come back inside as the ceremony is about to recommence. Ms M goes outside and waits for approximately 5 minutes. X does not return. The ceremony restarts and the mother goes outside to look for X again. The mother discovers the father across the road with X and up the street a considerable distance away from the hall. The mother calls X back in because the ceremony has started. The mother alleges the father slurs his words and says, “I’ll bring him back now.” The father then brings X back to the hall slowly, still staggering. When the mother returns home that evening, X says to her, “I’m glad that Dad finally came to a school thing, but I didn’t like it that he was drunk. He liked S though” (a student at X’s school). X then tells his mother that the father touched S on her cheek and told her he liked her.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p20-30
17 December 2012	Father states that he was not aware that he had to attend the presentation evening early. The Father denies that he was drunk that evening. The Father asserts that he drove to the event and that he did not behave in a manner that would cause X embarrassment. He denies pulling faces and dancing around. He denies being unsteady on his feet and bumping into people. Father agrees that he took X for a walk outside and across the road because it was a hot evening. Father asserts that he was aware the performance was to restart and that he was not the last to re-enter the hall. He denies staggering or slurring his words. The Father also denies meeting a child S at the event.	F Aff 12 March 2014 P 9 -13
Ms M states that she did not see any behaviour of the Father that might cause comment. She agrees that the Father took X across the road to retrieve some items from the car boot. Ms M asserts that the Mother shouted at X to come back and this startled X causing him to start to run across the Road. The Father stopped him from running and they crossed the road safely.	MP Aff 12 March 2014 P 8
19 December 2012	Mother speaks to S’s mother about the Father touching S during the school presentation ceremony. The Mother reports that S was quite distressed about the incident as well.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p31
24 December 2012	X spends time with the Father in the (omitted) area. At changeover, the Mother observes X and the Father get out of the car. The Father takes X’s stuff from his car. Mother alleges that the Father is unsteady on his feet and drops X’s things as he tries to get them out of the car. The Mother alleges that the Father is affected by alcohol. The Mother goes over to the Father’s car to retrieve X’s things. The Father quickly gets back into the driver’s seat and starts the car. He then drives off and the Mother has to jump out of the way otherwise the Father would have hit her with his car.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p38 & 39
24 December 2012	At home after contact, X tells the Mother what a particular sign means. X points to his index finger on one hand. He wraps his other hand around his index and then starts moving his finger up and down quickly. As he is moving is hand up and down on his finger. X says to the Mother “Dad says this is what boys do and it is called masturbation. He talked about it all day. But I didn’t really listen to him. I don’t know why he was even talking about it. He just wanted to talk about it all of the time”. The Mother changes the subject. X also tells him mother he has a secret to tell her but his father doesn’t want him to tell her. He tells her that he and the father will be sleeping in the tent on the balcony when he goes for the sleepover. He has to sleep in the same bed as his father because only one bed can fit. X says to his mother, “Dad wants me to sleep with him anyway.” X then tells his mother that he does not want to share a bed with his father as he knows his father will be drinking. X says to his mother, “When he’s drunk, he touches me more and wants me to lay down with him, but I don’t like doing it.” X also tells his mother the father told him there is no Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Santa and God.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p844 & 45 M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p46-47 M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p40-41
24 December 2012	Father denies that he was drunk at changeover. He denies being unsteady on his feet and dropping X’s things. The Father denies driving in a manner that would have caused the Mother to jump out of the way. Father also denies having a conversation with X about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy as alleged by the Mother. He also denies having a conversation with X about God.	F Aff 12 March 2014 P 15-16
The Father also denies showing X “sex signing”. He asserts that X showed him this and he told him that the kids at school do it. The Father also denies raising this topic or that he discussed masturbation with X.	F Aff 12 March 2014 P 18
24 December 2012	Ms M does not recall the car moving off before the Mother had a chance to retrieve the belongings.	MP Aff 12 March 2014
Ms M agrees that the Father had a couple of beers throughout the course of the day but she did not see any evidence to suggest that he was over the legal limit.	MP Aff 12 March 2014 P 7
Ms M asserts that when X was in the car with her and the Father, that X said “Dad, do you know what this means?” He demonstrated a sign for the sexual act. She says the Father asked him what he means and X said “You know Dad, have sex. You do this when it’s a boy with a girl and (another way) when it’s a boy doing it to another boy”. According to Ms M the Father asked X who taught him this and X replied “All the boys at school do it”.	MP Aff 12 March 2014 P 11
6 January 2013	X spends overnight time with the father in (omitted) this weekend. On the way home, he says to the mother, “Dad told me that you used to work selling beer to people and that you would drink and get drunk and fight with everyone, and the next day you wouldn’t remember anything about it. Is that true?” Mother tells him she used to drink alcohol but she stopped when he was a baby.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p50-51
9 January 2013	X sends an email to his Father and the Father responds. The Father asserts that this exchange is the usual type of exchange between himself and X.	F Aff 12 March 2014 P 32
18 February 2013	Mother attends X’s swimming carnival. The father and Ms M also attend. X sits with his father and Ms M in the stands. At one stage when the mother is talking to Ms M, the father takes X outside the pool complex. Parents and teachers call out to X to stop and to come back inside, but the father and X continue. The mother runs outside the pool complex to retrieve X. When he comes back with the mother, X is crying and he says to his mother, “Dad said to come”. X becomes really upset so she sits with him to calm him down. Father then comes back into the pool complex and yells out at the mother, “One rule for me and another one for you then.” X overhears this and starts to shake and he cries some more. X says, “Dad told me to come out twice today so I did.” X is so distressed after this incident that the mother has to take him home early from the swimming carnival.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p56-60
18 February 2013	The Father asserts that X is happy to see him when he arrives at the pool with his partner Ms M. X chose to sit with him and Ms M in the stands. The Father agrees that he left the pool complex in order to retrieve something out of the car for X. He asserts that the Mother became hysterical in the car park and that X became frightened. He agrees X began to cry. The Father alleges that the Mother said “I’ll make sure you are never able to attend a school function in the future”. The Father asserts that the distress X experienced was caused by the Mother.	F Aff 12 March 2014 P 22
April 2013	Ms M alleges that she overheard X tell his Father that the son of the Maternal Aunt’s (Aunty S’s) partner’s son (W) was humping a teddy bear and that W tried to get X to hump his cousin B. Ms M also alleges that on an occasion before this X told his Father that the son of the Mother’s friend Ms I named C was playing a rude video and wanking to it while he was in the room.	MP Aff 12 March 2014 P 12
Ms M maintains that X chose to sleep with his Father during contact.	MP Aff 12 March 2014 P 14
15 April 2013	X spends overnight time with his Father. On the way home. X says to his Mother “Mum, Dad came into the shower while I was in there and flicked me with a towel”. X tells his Mother that he was scared and he doesn’t like it when his Father comes in to the shower with him. When the Mother suggests that he lock the bathroom door while he is in the shower so he can have some privacy, X says to his Mother “I do mum, but dad always unlocks the door from the outside with metal picker thing and comes in anyway. I don’t like it when he gets undressed and then gets in the shower with me”. The Mother asks why he doesn’t ask him to get out of the shower and X says to his Mother “I tell him that all the time mum, but he just laughs at me and stays in the shower with me. So I quickly finish my shower, just so I can get out, even if I haven’t cleaned myself properly, like you always tell me to do”. X tells his Mother that he was cranky at his Father and his Father let him do a fire dance for Aunty S and Nanny. When the Mother asks what a fire dance is X says to her “Dad gave me a stick with a rag tied to it and I poured that stuff that you use when you are painting on the rag and then lit it. The fire was really big and I was swinging it around so the flames looked really cool”.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p63-66
X tells the Mother that the Father has set up a facebook account for him. He tells the Mother “So that I can talk to him more mum and you don’t have to be around”.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p67
15 April 2013	Father agrees that he has had a shower together with X at X’s request. Father denies that X seemed distressed by this when he showered with X on one occasion. The Father denies unpicking a door lock to get into the shower whilst X is showering or dressing. The Father does not recall flicking X with a towel.	F Aff 12 March 2014 P 24
7 May 2013	Mother asserts that X is worried about the Father attending X’s school to meet with the principal. X says to the Mother “Dad still drinks a lot mum and Ms M is the only one who knows what he is saying. I don’t get it and Ms M has to tell me. I hope Ms M is there with him so the Principal understands what he is saying”.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p68
2 June 2013	Mother collects X from (omitted) Railway Station after he has spent the weekend with the Father. When they get into the car X is excited and gives the Mother a rocky road he says he made with his Father and Ms M. The Mother begins to chew the rocky road and realises that there are nuts in it. X says to the Mother “Oh and dad says that there is a surprise it”. As the Mother is extremely allergic to cashew nuts, she immediately starts spitting out the rocky road. She asks X what type of nuts are in the rocky road without trying to frighten him. X says “Peanuts, no not peanuts, cashews. I like cashews and they put extra in”. The Mother’s sister Ms A is with her and she tells her she is allergic to cashew nuts. The Mother spits the food out and X says to her “The surprise was for me mum not you”. The Mother then goes to the (omitted) shopping centre and rinses her mouth out in the toilets. She then goes to the chemist for some antihistamines. She sits at the chemist for half an hour until she feels safe to leave. The chemist give her an Epi Pen just in case she has a bad allergic reaction. The Mother alleges that the Father was aware of her allergy because of a previous life threatening incident while they were still married. That night the Mother goes back to her sister’s house and stays for a couple of days because she is scared to be on her own. The Mother asserts that X was also scared by the events that occurred.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p72 – 81
2 June 2013	Father denies having any input in the making of the Rocky Road for the Mother. The Father asserts that the above incident is a reflection of the Mother’s paranoia. The Father denies ever being violent towards the Mother or ever threatening to kill her.	F Aff 12 March 2014 P 27
5 June 2013	X tells his Mother that while the Father is doing a dance lesson that he was in the den playing with a blow torch but that it didn’t work. When the Father found him and saw him, he gave him another blow torch that worked. X tells his Mother that he lit several things with the blow torch including a fire and kerosene lamp as well as other items.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p82 – 83
5 June 2013	Father denies that he has a den and a blowtorch. Father asserts that X used a small torch that people use in cooking to glaze the top of desserts. He used this under the Father’s supervision. X did use it to light a fire in the fireplace in the lounge room.	F Aff 12 March 2014 P 29
9 June 2013	X tells the Mother that when he does not want to talk to the Father on the phone that he says to the Father “You know dad,” and the Father thinks that the Mother has told him to get off the phone. X admits that he lies to the Father when he doesn’t want to talk to him.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p84 – 85
9 June 2013	Father agrees that he told X to use the words “you know Dad” as a way to signal that his Mother wants him to get off the phone. Father asserts that he was trying to give X a coping strategy so that he could end the conversation when his Mother wanted him off the phone.	F Aff 12 March 2014 P 30
16 June 2013	After spending time with the Father, X tells his Mother at home that he told his Father about the Mother’s allergy to cashews and that his Mother could have died and it was scary. X says to his Mother “Dad just laughed and he said to Ms M that they should make a cake and fill it with cashews so that they could kill you off and they laughed”. X tells his Mother that he is scared that the Father is trying to kill her and the Mother assures X that it would not happen even though the Mother is scared herself.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p86 – 87
16 June 2013	Father recalls saying to X, regarding the Rocky Road incident “Did Mum think that I was trying to kill her?” X smiled at the Father and said, “Yes”. The Father asserts that X thought it was funny that his Mother would think that.	F Aff 12 March 2014 P 27
20 June 2013	X tells his Mother that his Father says his sister is a dog.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p88
24 June 2013	Report sent to Dr S by X's Psychologist Mr T. The report raises concerns about X spending time with his Father.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p 117 (Annexure D)
27 June 2013	X tells his Mother that he does not want to spend time with the Father on the upcoming weekend. The Mother encourages X to tell his Father himself. The Mother helps X write an email to the Father. The Mother helps X with some spelling but she does not help him with what to write. X says to his Father “Dear dad I am very sorry but I cannot come this weekend. I am so sorry. You get too drunk and you freak me out in bed when you drink and smoke and you don’t realise that you stop breathing and it makes your breath stink and it affects me so please stop drinking and smoking or I will never come to you (sic for a sleepover).”	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p89-90
27 June 2013	The Father asserts that the email sent to the Father by X is unlike any email X has sent to him.	F Aff 12 March 2014 P 32
3 July 2013	Dr S writes to X's Psychologist, Mr T expressing that “X's Father’s involvement continues to be inappropriate and counter to X’s psychological and physical welfare”.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p 117 (Annexure C)
10 July 2013	Mother asserts that she receives a call from a person called Ms W from DOCS and that Ms W tells her that she is concerned about X spending time with his Father. She advises the Mother that she has received a copy of Mr T's Report to Dr S. She also advises that they have received a letter from Dr S which a quite concerning as Dr S has received an email from the Father which has increased Dr S’s concern about X spending time with the Father. Ms W then reads extracts from Mr T's Report to the Mother and Dr S’s letter dated 3 July 2013. She advised the Mother that she will provide her with a copy. The Mother alleges that Ms W says to her that if the Mother continues to allow X to have contact with his Father overnight that they could remove X from the Mother’s care. Ms W suggests that the Mother obtain legal advice about having the Orders changed and in the meantime, she recommends that X not spend any time with his Father. The Mother immediately calls the legal assistance line to obtain advice and an appointment is made for to see a Family Law Solicitor on 16 July 2013.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p94-99
11 July 2013	Mother speaks to Dr S who informs her that he has received a few abusive emails from the Father. Dr S says to the Mother “I don’t think X should be spending any time with him at this point in time, it is having a detrimental effect on his emotional wellbeing”.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p100
11 July 2013	The Mother tells X that he won’t be able to have contact with his Father for a little while until things can be sorted out. X says to his Mother “Good. I don’t want to see Dad, as I don’t feel safe, especially in (omitted) where I have to stay overnight. I feel safer in (omitted), when it’s just during the day, but even then it’s sometimes scary, especially when Dad drinks”.

11 July 2013	Mother sends an email to the Father advising him that she is postponing his time with X while she obtains legal advice.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p 103
17 July 2013	Mother sends an email to the Father, Ms M and Mr G, advising that there would be no access or communication between X and the Father on the advice of DoCS.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p 106
30 July 2013	Father files Application/Contravention
Mid August 2013	X asks his Mother whether he could send a letter to his Father. The Mother agrees and X writes a letter to the Father that the Mother puts in a sealed envelope which she posts to the Father.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p 109
21 August 2013	X asks his Mother if he can call his Father because he wants to know if his Father has received his letter and if his Father is going to give him the $35.00 he asked for. X speaks to the Father in another room and the Mother does not hear the conversation. After the call ends, X throws the phone at the Mother and yells at her, “Dad said that he has finally found a Judge that will do exactly what he wants him to do, so I will be living with Dad before Christmas”. The Mother does not say anything to X because she is worried he might become aggressive. X is very nasty to the Mother for the rest of the night.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p 111 – 113.
The Father denies that he told X he has found a Judge that will do exactly what he wants him to do and that X will be living with him before Christmas. Father asserts that X asked to come and live with him and that he said, “I friggin hate Mum”. The Father then has a conversation with X about the previous Court proceedings and that the ICL advised the Judge that X could not live with the Father. X tells the Father that he told the ICL that he wanted to live with the Father. According to the Father, X expresses that the ICL lied to him and that he did not want to see her because he did not trust her.	F Aff 12 March 2014 P 35
22 August 2013	Father writes to X. In the letter the Father says to him “I love you very much and can’t wait until you can live with me and Aunty M”.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p 161 (Annexure E)
22 August 2013	X comes into the Mother’s bedroom and says to her “I won’t be going to live with Dad before Christmas will I Mum?” X has tears in his eyes. Mother reassures him that she does not believe it will happen.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p 113
1 September 2013	X tells his Mother that he wants to see his Father for Father’s Day but only in (omitted) where he feels safe. The Mother emails the Father advising him that he can see X for Father’s Day but the Father does not take up this offer.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p 115
4 September 2013	Mother receives a parcel from the Father which is for X. She gives this to X. The Father recommences calling X by phone each Wednesday and Sunday close to 6:30pm after this date.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p 116
6 November 2013	Dr S writes to Dr G stating that “X seems much more settled now that the custody issues are becoming resolved”.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p 164 (Annexure F)
11 November 2013	Contravention proceedings are adjourned to 31 January 2014 for Hearing. Father is given leave to amend his Contravention Application. The Respondent Mother is granted leave to file any application she may wish to make varying the existing Orders by 31 January 2014.
13 November 2013	X says to the Mother “I want to see Dad, but only in (omitted), because I will only feel safe in (omitted)”. The Mother encourages X to call his Father to tell him that and to come to (omitted). X calls the Father and asks him to come to (omitted). The Father requests that the Mother bring X to Sydney on the train since she only has to pay $2.50 for her and X. As the conversation progresses, X becomes distressed and upset. Eventually he begins to cry. X then ends the call and the Father says he will ring back. X tells him they are busy and to ring on Sunday. Despite this, the Father rings him that evening and when the Mother hands the phone to X, he terminates the call.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p 118-123
17 November 2013	Mother provides the Father with a list of dates he can spend time with X. That evening the Father calls X and tells him he wants to see him but that X has to come to either (omitted) or Sydney. This upsets X and he starts to cry. X tells his Father that he wants him to come to (omitted). X then terminates the call.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p 125-127
27 November 2013	The Father calls X. The Father confirms with X that he will be coming to (omitted). X tells his Father that he is looking forward to seeing him on the Sunday. When the call ends, X tells his Mother that he is not looking forward to seeing his Father and that he really wants to stay with her because his Father freaks him out.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p 135-137
1 December 2013	X spends the day with his Father in the (omitted) area.
2 December 2013	Mother is rostered on Canteen duty at the school and she sees the Father walk into the school and then to X’s class. Less than 1 minute later, X is at the door of the Canteen very distressed. X is crying hysterically and shaking uncontrollably. X tells his Mother that his Father is at school. X's Teachers Aid also goes to the Canteen and tries to get X to go back to class but X refuses to go. X then runs out of the Canteen and hides behind a tank crying. The Mother goes out to reassure him. While the Mother is talking to X, the Father comes around the corner. As soon as X sees his Father, X starts to cry even more and immediately clings to the Mother tightly. The Mother encourages X to say goodbye to his Father. X lets go of his Mother and the Father grabs him and starts to hug X. The Father then asks X to say goodbye to Aunty M. The Father then takes X by the hand and leads him to his car outside the school yard. There is constant struggling between the Father and X as X is trying to come back into the school yard. Ms M then gets out of the car to hug X as X fights. The Father and Ms M then drive off and X runs back to the Mother crying. The Mother has to sit with X during lunch. The Mother then leaves but has to return to the school soon after to take X home because he is too distressed to continue in class. That evening X insists on sleeping with the Mother and over the next few weeks X is quite unsettled and refuses to let the Mother out of his sight.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p 139-145
Father agrees he attended X’s school to return some items to X. He goes to the office and it’s unattended. He then goes to the Canteen to make inquiries. The Father is shocked to see the Mother there. The Mother tells him to leave the items with her. The Father leaves and proceeds to X’s classroom. He knocks on the door and introduces himself and speaks to the teacher. He asks the teacher to give the items to X. The Father sees X with his head in his arms on the desktop. The Teacher tells the Father that X is tired and is having some time out. The Father goes over to X and touches his back. X tells his Father to go away. The Father gently pokes X in the upper right arm and X turns his head towards his Father with a surprised expression and calls out “Dad”. X then jumps up immediately and runs out of the classroom. The Father follows him and X disappears behind one of the buildings. X has wedged himself between the water tank and the building wall. The principal asks the Father to come into the office. The Father refuses and says that he would rather find X first. The Father wants to know where X’s usual hiding holes are and the Principal tells him that X does not normally run out of the classroom. By the time the Father and the Principal find X, the Mother is attempting to pull X out from the water tank and the building. The Father goes to X and puts his hand out and X immediately dislodges himself. The Father asks him to say goodbye to himself and Aunty M in the car out the front. The Principal says she will go as well. X runs to Ms M and is sobbing. Ms M and the Father give X a kiss and he goes back into the school grounds with the Principal.	F Aff 12 March 2014 P 39
9 December 2013	Father files Amended Application/ Contravention.
10 December 2013	X is very upset and he does not want to go to the school presentation night the following evening.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p 146
11 December 2013	X refuses to go to school. He tells the Mother that he does not want to go the presentation night because his Father may show up. The Mother discusses this with the school principal and it is agreed that X does not need to attend the school presentation night. After X is told this, he settles down and his behaviour improves.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p 146-147
11 December 2013	Father calls X. X asks where he is and the Father tells him he is in (omitted). X tells his Father that his presentation is on but that he will not be going. Father then says to X “If you had told me it was on I would have come”.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p 148-149
11 December 2013	Father denies attending X’s presentation evening because he was not given sufficient notice.	F Aff 12 March 2014 P 40
11 December 2013	Ms M asserts that the Father was not at X’s school presentation night because he was in (omitted) with her and other people.	MP Aff 12 March 2014 P 9
12 December 2013	When the mother drops X to school, parents tell her that the father attended the presentation night. After school, X is angry and upset and tells the Mother “the other kids told me that Dad showed up to the presentation last night. Lucky I didn’t go. But I am angry at Dad because he lied to me, he told me that he was in (omitted). I don’t trust Dad, he lies to me all of the time”.	M Aff 20 Jan 2014 p 150
21 January 2014	Initiating Application filed by the Mother. The Mother seeks Final Orders discharging Orders 11, 12, 13, 14 17, and 18 of Final Parenting Orders made on 23 November 2012 and instead seeks Final Orders for the child to spend time with the Father from 9:00 am until 5:00 pm each Sunday to occur in the (omitted) area (with this time to be suspended during all NSW School Holiday periods). In addition, the Mother seeks Orders for the Father to have telephone communication with the child at 6:30 pm each Wednesday and on every Sunday that the child is not already spending time with the Father; with changeover to occur at Hungry Jack’s Restaurant at (omitted). The Mother also seeks a restraint on the Father from coming within 100m of the child’s school, unless agreed to by the Mother in writing. The Mother seeks the same Interim Orders.
21 January 2014	Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk of Family Violence filed by the Mother.
31 January 2014	Contravention proceedings are adjourned to 2 April 2014 for Mention. The parties are ordered to attend upon a Family Consultant on 13 March 2014.
3 February 2014	The Mother tells the Father that X wants to spend time with the Father in (omitted) rather than attend a reunion on the 8 February 2014.	F Aff 12 March 2014 P 46 (Annexure F)
23 February 2014	Father asserts that X said to him, “Mum was cranky with me and said alright go and live with your Father”. When the Father asks X what this is about, X says to him “Mum saw the phone card and she tore it up whilst she was saying these things with me”.	F Aff 12 March 2014 P 44
5 – 7 March 2014	Emails sent between Mother and Father regarding difficulties with telephone communication.	F Aff 12 March 2014 P 14 (Annexure C1-C3)
12 March 2014	The Father files a Response seeking Final Orders discharging Orders 10, 11,12,14,15 & 16 of Orders dated 23 November 2012. The Father also seeks Orders that the child live with the Mother but that the child spend time with the Father each alternate weekend from 4:00pm Friday until 6:00pm Sunday and for half of all NSW School Holiday periods. To facilitate contact, the Father proposes that changeover occur at (omitted) Railway Station. At the commencement of his time and then Hungry Jacks (omitted) at the conclusion of his time. The Father does not seek any Interim Orders in response to the Mother’s Initiating Application filed 21 January 2014.	F Aff 12 March 2014
13 March 2014	Parties attend upon Family Consultant Ms E.
27 March 2014	Orders made in Chambers releasing the Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum to the Legal Representatives only.
2 April 2014	Order made for the appointment of an ICL and the matter is adjourned to 21 May 2014
21 May 2014	The Father is directed to file an Affidavit setting out the manner in which he has addressed the recommendations made by Dr K as noted in Notation B of Orders dated 23 November 2012. The matter is adjourned to 8 July 2014
8 July 2014	Order made by Consent restraining the Father from consuming any alcohol at least 24 hours prior to the child X coming into his care until such time that X is no longer in his care. Directions are made in preparation for an Interim Hearing and the matter is listed on 25 August 2014 for Interim Hearing.
31 July to 4 August 2014	Father attends residential detoxification unit in (omitted) Hospital. Thereafter father begins attending Alcoholics Anonymous.	F Aff 15 Aug 14, Annex A, p4
After 4 August 2014	Father asserts that since completing residential detoxification, that he has not consumed any alcohol and it is his future intention not to consume any alcohol.	F Aff 15 Aug 14, Annex A, p6
8 August 2014	Father undertakes a blood test and he asserts that the test shows a drop in critical levels in his blood enzymes following his time at the detoxification unit.	F Aff 15 Aug 14, Annex B, p7

The Mother relied on the following Documents:
·Minute of Orders sought by the Applicant Mother, dated 18 August 2012;
·Single Expert Report of Dr K, dated 30 May 2012;
·Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk of Family Violence filed 21 January 2014;
·Affidavit of Ms W, sworn 20 January 2014; and
·Affidavit of Ms W, sworn 20 August 2014.
The Father relied on the following documents:
·Minute of Orders sought by the Father, dated 18 August 2014;
·Affidavit of Mr Webber, sworn 12 March 2014; and
·Affidavit of Mr Webber, sworn 15 August 2014.

Discussion

The issue before the Court is whether, and if so on what conditions, the Father should spend time or communicate with X. I will discuss firstly the oral evidence that Mr T gave.
Mr T, of course, confirmed the Report that he had given and expanded on the matters that were contained therein. He explained the desirability of excluding the Father from X’s life whilst what he described as reparative parenting therapy was undertaken. He thought that there was a risk of re-traumatisation for X which would inhibit the therapy if he were to continue to spend time with his father. He was of the opinion that X does want to spend time with his father, but not when his father has been drinking.
Mr T acknowledged that X would be missing his father but nonetheless, in his opinion, there would not be many negative consequences for X of not spending time with his father. He believed that the therapy would take about 12 months. However, in cross-examination he did concede that it was difficult to make the link between the behavioural issues that X exhibits and the time that he spends with his father. And as it turns out, this is a significant issue in the case.
I will attempt here to summarise the cases advanced. Firstly the Independent Children Lawyer’s case. It was, in effect, that there should be no spends time with or communication between X and his father, for two main reasons. Firstly, X’s need for therapy as outlined by Mr T, and I will describe this argument as the first limb of the case; secondly, the risk to X that is created by the Father continuing to drink, and I will describe this as the second limb of the case.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer submitted, in effect, that the Father had failed to engage with the recommendations that Dr K made in his Report, recommendations that were explicitly referred to in the Orders made by FM Foster. The Independent Children’s Lawyer submitted that, because of the consequential risk of neglect, matters identified by Dr K, there was a need to proceed most cautiously.
The Mother’s case was not dissimilar. She asserted that X’s safety was the main issue, and that the November 2012 Orders provided a safety net of supervision which is simply not working. The Mother’s case depended on X making multiple disclosures to the Mother and Mr T, who said that therapy is urgently needed and that, indeed, the evidence suggests that it would be a relief for X not to be spending time with his father.
The Father’s case involved a number of aspects. It was urged that the cessation of the spends time with order does not necessarily resolve or even address the complex issues that X already faces and, indeed, had been facing at the time of the original Consent Orders. It was argued that all of the issues that were raised had already been dealt with by Dr K who, for example, was quite aware of X’s special needs, was quite aware of the Father’s struggle with alcohol but, nonetheless, Dr K recommended spends time with on conditions.
It was urged on the Father’s behalf that, if the limited daytime contact proposed on his behalf were adopted by the Court, then X would continue to have the benefit of a meaningful relationship with his father whilst, nonetheless, being protected from the various issues that had been raised, e.g. about showering with his father, about the sleeping arrangements.
On the Father’s behalf, it was urged that there should be real reason to be doubtful about X’s disclosures and how they have been treated by Mr T who had failed to consider alternative hypothesis. And it was urged, in the Father’s case, that historically the previous experiences of X not spending time with his father included adverse impacts to him.
A number of procedural issues arise in this sense. For example, the Mother sought Interim Orders for no time and no contact; that the matter be adjourned for a period of 12 months whilst therapy occurs, and that the matter then be reconsidered. By contrast, the Father proposed that the final hearing be expedited in the context of maintaining the spends time with arrangement. The Independent Children's Lawyer, in effect, proposed that time ought to be allowed for the therapy to take place and then a Report be ordered. So there are a number of procedural issues that need to be resolved as well as the substantive issues.
In terms of common ground or uncontested issues, they are limited and, quite frankly, any common ground is not relevant to the present decision that needs to be made. The Father consents to most of the Independent Children's Lawyer’s Orders, except those relating to spends times with and communication. There seemed to be a preference amongst the parties to, if possible, obtain a further Report from Dr K, otherwise to order a Family Report.
The evidence before the Court enables it to make some observations, firstly about X. Quite a lot is known about X, primarily from Dr K's Single Joint Expert Report of 10 May 2012. And, in addition, much is known about him as a result of, what I will describe as, the less contentious aspects of Mr T's Report of 8 August 2014. It seems that X suffers from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, that he suffers from Oppositional Defiant Disorder and, that he has cognitive learning and language problems. Mr T asserts, but Dr K does not refer to, X suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. One of the more controversial diagnoses is that of Mr T, to the effect that he, that is X, has experienced severe attachment trauma. Clearly X is a vulnerable child who has special needs.

In relation to the Mother, Dr K described her as suffering from mood disorder, secondary to brain injury.
In relation to the Father, Dr K described him as suffering from alcohol dependence with physiological dependence of moderate severity, which may be in sustained partial remission. He also referred to the Father suffering from antisocial and narcissistic personality traits. In relation to the Father, he has, perhaps belatedly but nonetheless, attended at a residential detox unit, and has engaged with Alcoholics Anonymous.
Mr T's Report needs to be considered initially. He is a psychologist in the Child and Family Health team at the (omitted) clinic, (omitted). He has had face-to-face assessments with X since June 2012. He acknowledges the limitations of his assessment in his Report. He acknowledges that he did not interview the Father or the Father’s partner. In cross-examination, he acknowledged that it is difficult to draw the link between X’s problematic behaviour and spending time with his father.
It is important to note, in general terms, the commonality between Mr T’s report and Dr K’s, namely that X suffers Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Dr K, of course, does not refer to post-traumatic stress disorder, nor does he say that X has experienced a severe attachment trauma. The Court has to recognise the possibility that post-traumatic stress disorder and severe attachment trauma has developed since Dr K's Report.
The Court observes that Dr K's Report has the benefit of being a forensic process involving the Father that was undertaken by a psychiatrist. Mr T's Report is undertaken as a psychologist working in a therapeutic environment. What becomes critical from the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s and the Mother’s case is that the Court accepts Mr T’s opinion set out in two paragraphs in the penultimate page of his unnumbered report under the heading ‘Summary’ and ‘Opinion’. It is clearly part of the Father’s case, however, that limited weight should be given to this Report. The paragraphs in question are as follows:
I am of the opinion that X has experienced severe attachment trauma; that is, trauma in which a primary attachment figure was either the source of the trauma and/or perceived as unavailable or rejecting and when there is great conflict between the need for safety and trust and the awareness that the attachment figure is not safe. His neurodevelopment has been profoundly impacted due to his ongoing contact with his father, Mr Webber. I believe that X’s interests would be best served by the cessation of all contact with the father for a period of no less than two years, with contact beyond this point to be carefully planned and supervised and to not occur overnight.
For the reasons that will be set out, the Court accepts the Father’s submission that very limited weight can be given to Mr T’s opinion. Firstly, Mr T is quite dogmatic in his opinion. He is quite clear. X’s neurodevelopment has been profoundly impacted due to his ongoing contact with his father, such that all contact should be ceased for two years. The Court has grave reservations about such a dogmatic expression of an opinion having such serious consequences without interviewing the Father. There is no explanation as to why, for example, Mr T would suggest that there be no contact for two years in his Report, but say that therapy would be for a year or about a year in his oral evidence.
Secondly, it is obvious that Mr T has unquestioningly accepted the Mother’s version of the parental relationship and this is, for example, apparent from the fourth paragraph on the second page, where he says, as a result of matters described to him by the Mother that:
X’s father’s use of these power and control dynamics consistent with domestic violence have continued beyond the end of the relationship, to the present day, and have continued to place X in the middle.
The absence of any other evidence to found such a conclusion is disconcerting.
Thirdly it is obvious that Mr T has relied very heavily on what X has reportedly told him without any probing, questioning, or reality testing, and despite the inherent lack of plausibility of what he may be saying. For example, page 5, the third paragraph, where X refers to an incident as follows:
X then provided a vivid picture of his recollection of an event in 2008. X described that he was living with Ms W at the time, and shouting and yelling had ensued after his father arrived and he had, and I quote, “taken me and put me in his van, and it really hurt my legs.” X described that the police were called, attended the scene, and took his father with them to the police station.
What is odd is that this event, this supposed event, is not even deposed to by the Mother, either in her primary Affidavit in the 2012 proceedings, or in the Affidavit she has filed in these proceedings. Another example is found in the first paragraph on page 6, as follows, and I quote:
X has also talked about Mr Webber encouraging him to drink throughout his childhood, saying he does not like the taste of beer, but that whiskey tastes yum. X said that “The last time I was up at (omitted), in 2013, was the last time I had beer, and I had too much.” X spoke about times when in Mr Webber’s care, and with Mr Webber’s encouragement, when he consumed beer and whiskey mixed together, and that this had been occurring when he was living with his dad “as a two year old, and as a five year old,” and when he visited and stayed with his dad.
Again, perhaps oddly, there is no reference to these alleged events in the Mother’s evidence, and the inherent lack of plausibility of the assertion that as a two year old he had consumed beer and whiskey mixed together appears not to have crossed the mind of Mr T.
The fourth concern about Mr T’s evidence is his failure, not just in one case, but in several, to consider the alternative hypotheses. For example, the taking of the piece of coal from the museum at page 3, paragraph 2 of his Report; an incident which is then elevated into an example of, in effect, disregarding the rules, and as antisocial behaviour. The alternative hypothesis that was put during submissions was that the coal at the museum was there for the purposes of taking away.
The fifth point that raises concern is derived from other evidence which casts doubt on the wisdom of accepting what X says. For example, in Dr K’s report, at paragraph 44, this is what the Mother says:
The child sometimes lies. He will embellish a story, like telling people that he has been to a certain place on the weekend when this never happened. He will also lie to avoid getting in trouble; for example, breaking something, then blaming it on his younger nephew.
At paragraph 244 of Dr K's Report, this is Dr K’s observation:
The child started talking. He gave a flowing narrative interspersed with some opinion, moving from one remembered scenario to another; at times, it was my impression, merging two or more events into one. This narrative had the quality of a rather disinhibited, unedited collection of memories interspersed with opinions. It did not have the quality of a prepared or coached preparation. At times, opposite views or opinions would be expressed, reflecting, it was impression, a mixed, ambivalent, or confused opinion in the child.
A third example of the need to be very cautious in accepting what X says is in fact found in the Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum of 13 March 2014. On page 3, on the second dot point, the Family Consultant records:
He said that he tells each of his parents different things, including having told his father that he wants to live with him, and that his mother “knows that I want to live with her.” He said that he tells each parent different things because I just want to keep them both happy.
Having regard to those matters, there is more than ample reason to be cautious about the report of Mr T if it sought to justify the cessation of all contact between X and his father. Accordingly, the first limb of the Mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s case fails. Indeed, there must be some reason to at least pause before unreservedly accepting Mr T’s recommendations of therapy following a diagnosis that, perhaps, is flawed.
What I will describe as the second limb of the Mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer’s case is that it is the Father’s consumption of alcohol that is the reason for the cessation of contact. The focus here is on the evidence about what the Father’s drinking was at the time the Orders were made in 2012, the Orders that were actually made, and then what happened afterwards.
Dr K's Report, of course, deals with the Father’s consumption of alcohol quite extensively. The relevant paragraphs are as follows: paragraph 171 to 180, 334 to 339, 354, 371, and 372. This is probably the most reliable evidence we have about this issue. It is a useful benchmark from which to measure later events.
The alcohol-related events after 23 November 2012 appear to be as follows. On 17 December 2012, the totality of the evidence presented creates the impression, or leads to the inference that the Father was under the influence of alcohol at this event which took place at the school. In reaching this impression, or forming this inference, no reliance is placed on anything that X said. However, the Court does prefer the Mother’s evidence over that of the Father, primarily having regard to Dr K’s findings, that make it more plausible than not that the mother’s version is correct, and that the father was, indeed, under the influence of alcohol on 17 December 2012.
The second event is on 24 December 2012. At changeover, the Mother observes the Father to be unsteady on his feet and dropping things and that he drove off quickly. She believes that he was under the influence of alcohol. The Father denies this. The Court again leans in favour of the Mother’s version of events given the recency of the event on 17 December and the recency of Dr K’s opinion about the Father’s consumption of alcohol. The Father’s evidence is that he did attend residential detox at a (omitted) hospital between 31 July and 4 August and that he has joined Alcoholics Anonymous. He asserts that he has not consumed alcohol since then and does not intend to.
The evidence about the Father’s consumption of alcohol since the Orders were made is truly disconcerting at many different levels. For example, less than one month after the Orders were made, there is reason to be concerned about the Father’s continued alcohol abuse. Quite apart from the issue of whether he was complying with the Orders of 23 November 2012, there is the issue of taking on board Dr K’s advice as well as whether he had any insight at all into the matters in question. Nextly, the Father’s attempt to comply with Dr K’s recommendations at paragraph 354 of this Report occur well after the initiation of the present proceedings. In any event and nextly, the Father’s attempt to comply with Dr K's Report does not meet the criteria that is set out by Dr K, especially at 354.2 of the Report.
The Court fully accepts that Dr K recommended that the Father should still spend time with X during the day until such time as he did rehab, but subsequent events demonstrate the Father’s almost cavalier attitude and lack of insight about the potential impact of his behaviour on his son. His belated and half-hearted attempt to deal with his alcohol abuse reflects poorly on him. It is reason enough to suspend all time he spends with X. He has not done what was required of him. It was spelled out in the clearest possible terms. Until he has demonstrated a sustained period of abstinence and completed the rehabilitation that Dr K recommended, this Court concludes that it is not safe for X to spend time with him supervised or unsupervised.
The Court’s conclusion in this regard is supported by some matters but not by all and it is therefore important to spell out what these matters are. The Court is not influenced by the continuing tensions that exist between the parents at changeovers. Quite frankly, there is nothing new here. The Court is not influenced about any evidence about discussions, for example, about masturbation or sharing showers together. These issues may take on a significance at a final hearing but certainly not at an interim hearing. There are so many elements of this that are entirely consistent with X’s behaviour before the last Orders anyway. The incidents that appear to have taken place at the swimming pool and at the school, however, merely confirm the Court’s concerns about the Father’s glaring lack of insight about the impact of his behaviour on his son. The rocky road incident is, in this Court’s opinion, a totally irrelevant to its decision.
The Court recognises that X has consistently and quite firmly expressed the view that he wants to spend time with his father. In circumstances however where the Court has such deep concerns in relation to X’s safety in his father’s care, his views cannot be given weight to.
What then is the future of this case? In circumstances where the Court suspends all contact with the Father, it is important that the Father have the benefit of a final hearing date so that he can present his case more fully and attempt to convince the court that he has addressed the issues that have been raised, not just by this court, but by Dr K. The Court will therefore allocate a date.
I make a number of observations generally without in any way pre-empting the evidence. Firstly, this case needs to be heard, not settled. Both the Mother and the Father and their witnesses need to go into the witness box and have their evidence tested. This case is about risk assessment. It cannot be determined without that risk being thoroughly assessed including in the witness box.
Secondly, the best expert evidence ideally would be from Dr K, but it would be in the context of preparing a supplementary or updating report. One would imagine that the process, the time and the cost would be less than in relation to a full report. The Court accepts that there are cost issues involved. Perhaps there is benefit to both parents but especially the Father if evidence were led from Dr K. I accept that it is up to the parties.
Thirdly, what the Father needs to do of course is completely up to him. Dr K has suggested a road map. The Father has another opportunity to consider and implement the same. The Father says he is abstinent. Well, time will tell. The future is in the Father’s hands.
Fourthly, Mr T suggested the need for therapy. The Court has said what it has said about Mr T's Report. That does not mean that nothing needs to be done. The parents need to decide this issue, not the Court.

I certify that the preceding fifty-five (55) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Altobelli

Associate:

Date: 19 February 2015

[2014] FCCA 2164

29 August 2014

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Civil Procedure

Legal Concepts

Injunction

Expert Evidence

Costs

Procedural Fairness

Appeal