Wickham and Wickham
[2008] FMCAfam 1084
•3 October 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| WICKHAM & WICKHAM | [2008] FMCAfam 1084 |
| FAMILY LAW – Parental responsibility – whether order should be made for equal shared parental responsibility where presumption inapplicable. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.4, 60B, 60CC, 61B, 61C, 61DA, 64B, 65D, 65DAC |
| Blair & Blair [2007] Fam CA 253 |
| Applicant: | MS WICKHAM |
| Respondent: | MR WICKHAM |
| File Number: | BRC 11100 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Wilson FM |
| Hearing date: | 26 September 2008 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 26 September 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Brisbane |
| Delivered on: | 3 October 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | N/A |
| The Applicant in person: | Ms Wickham |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Ms Kirkman-Scroope |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Einsiedels |
ORDERS
That the father and mother have equal shared parental responsibility for the children namely [Y] born in 1998 and [X] born in 1999.
That the children live with the mother at all times they are not spending time and communicating with the father.
That the children spend time with the father in Victoria as agreed between the parties but failing agreement not less than the following:
(a)For the first week of the gazetted Queensland school holidays in June and September of each year. Such week to commence from 10.00am on the first Saturday of each holiday period.
(b)To give effect to order 3(a) above, the father shall be responsible for making all travel arrangements and paying the costs of transportation of the children to and from Victoria and Coolangatta. The father shall also provide the mother with a copy of the flight details no less than 30 days prior to the period of time referred to in order 3(a) above.
(c)For 4 days during Easter in each alternate year with the children to spend the first Easter with their father in 2009 and each alternate year thereafter. Such time is to occur in Victoria and commence from 10am on Good Friday and conclude at 5pm on Easter Monday or 5pm on the Tuesday following the Easter Monday if the Tuesday is not a school day.
(d)To give effect to order 3(c) above, the father shall be responsible for making all travel arrangements and paying the costs of transportation of the children to and from Victoria and Coolangatta. The father shall provide the mother with a copy of the flight details no less than 30 days prior to the period of time referred to in order 3(c) above
(e)From 20th December 2008 to 10th January 2009 and in alternate years thereafter.
(f)To give effect to order 3(e) above, the father shall be responsible for making all travel arrangements and paying the costs of transportation of the children to and from Victoria and Coolangatta. The father shall provide the mother with a copy of the flight details no less than 30 days prior to the period of time referred to in order 3(e) above.
(g)From 29th December 2009 to 20th January 2010 and in each alternate years thereafter.
(h)To give effect to order 3(g) above, the father shall be responsible for making all travel arrangements and paying the costs of transportation of the children to and from Victoria and Coolangatta. The father shall also provide the mother with a copy of the flight details no less than 30 days prior to the period of time referred to in order 3(g).
For the purpose of the father making the travel arrangements for the children:
(a)Flights shall be arranged to and from Coolangatta airport;
(b)Flights from Coolangatta shall not depart before 8:00 am;
(c)Flights to Coolangatta shall not arrive after 8 pm;
(d)The mother shall be responsible for delivering the children to and collecting the children from the departure gate at Coolangatta airport for the purpose of such flights, and shall meet her own costs of doing so;
(e)The father shall be responsible for delivering the children to and collecting the children from the departure gate at Melbourne airport for the purpose of such flights, and shall meet his own costs of doing so.
In the event that the father is not able to spend time and communicate with the children in accordance with the orders set out above, he is to provide to the mother a minimum of four weeks notice and if any alternative arrangements are then proposed by the father, the applicant mother will agree to any such change unless it is unreasonable for her to do so.
That the children spend time with their father at the Gold Coast as agreed between the parties but failing agreement not less than
4 weekends per calendar year upon the father providing the mother
30 days written notice of his intention to travel to the Gold Coast and exercise such time with the children.
To give effect to order 6 above the father shall collect the children from the mother’s residence on Friday evening before 8pm and shall return the children to the mother’s residence no later than 6pm on Sunday evening.
The mother shall ensure that the father is notified as such to the children’s school and treating medical or allied health professionals, together with his contact details.
This order constitutes sufficient authority for the father to contact the children’s school and any treating doctor or allied health professional for the purpose of discussing any issues affecting the children, and for such persons to release any necessary information to the father.
That each party keep the other informed of the names and addresses of any and all medical practitioners who are involved in treating or caring for the children.
That each party authorises the children’s medical practitioner/s to discuss with the other parent the children’s health and medical treatment.
That the mother and father authorise the school to provide to the other parent copies of all school reports and any other report on the children’s progress and behaviour issues and all notices received from the school including newsletters, parent letters and general notices.
Neither party shall denigrate the other to or in the presence of the children, and if any other person is denigrating the other parent, shall remove the children from that situation as soon as reasonably practicable.
That both parties are entitled to attend any sporting, school event or extra-curricular activity in which the children are involved.
Each party will advise the other of their respective residential address and telephone number, and of any changes thereto within 48 hours of such change occurring.
The children shall communicate with their father by telephone between the hours of 6.30pm and 7.00pm (Queensland time) every Sunday.
For the purposes of order 16 the father shall purchase and provide to the children a mobile telephone, and shall pay for the ongoing costs thereof. The mother shall ensure that the said mobile telephone is kept charged, and is switched on at the time referred to in order 16 hereof.
The mother shall be entitled to telephone the children whilst they are in the father’s care, not more frequently than twice weekly, to the mobile telephone provided by the father. For that purpose, whilst the children are in his care the father shall ensure that the mobile phone is switched on and charged.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Wickham & Wickham is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE |
BRC 11100 of 2007
| MS WICKHAM |
Applicant
And
| MR WICKHAM |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The parents of [Y], born in 1998, and [X], born in 1999 are unable to agree on three distinct issues concerning the parenting orders for their children.
By his Response filed 29 November 2007, the father sought the following orders:
(1)That the husband and the wife have equal shared parental responsibility for the children of the marriage:
[Y] born in 1998
[X] born in 1999
(2)That the children live with the wife.
(3)That the husband spend time with the children as follows:
(a)For one week to commence 10.00am the first Saturday in each of the June and September school term holidays.
(b)From 29th December 2007 to 20th January 2008 and alternate years thereafter
(c)From 20th December 2008 to 10th January 2009 and alternate years thereafter.
(d)Landline telephone contact between 7.30am & 8.00am on the children’s birthdays and Christmas Day and between 7.00pm and 7.30pm each Sunday.
(e)As may otherwise be agreed between the parties from time to time.
(4)The husband will sign such documents as required to allow Australian Passports to issue to the said children.
(5)The husband will provide return airline tickets to and from either Brisbane or Collangatta (sic) airports to enable the children to travel. Both parents will ensure that the children are delivered to the relevant airport in sufficient time to catch the booked flights.
By her Reply filed 14 January 2008, the mother sought the following orders:
(1)The applicant mother shall have sole parental responsibility for the children [Y], born in 1998 and [X], born in 1999, including for the making of all decisions to do with the children’s day to day and long term welfare and wellbeing, particularly in the areas to do with health/medical, education and religion and the respondent father is not to make any such decisions nor arrange for any procedures to be carried out on the children whilst they are in his care at any particular time.
(2)That the children live with the applicant mother.
(3)That the children will spend time and communicate with the respondent father as and when agreed between the applicant mother and the respondent father, including the following:
(a)The first week of the June/July and the September/October gazetted Queensland school holiday periods, with such periods to commence on the Saturday immediately following the end of the school term and ending on the following Sunday.
(b)For two weeks during each Christmas holiday period with this time to commence from 29th December each year and ending 14 days thereafter.
(c)Contingent upon the children being willing to spend an extra week with the respondent father at the end of the time in Order 3(b), the children will spend this additional time with the father each year, and will return to the mother on the 21st day following the commencement of this time with the father.
(4)With respect to the arrangements in Order 3, above, the respondent father will be responsible for paying all the travel and associated costs in respect thereof and all such travel from the Gold Coast to Melbourne will be arranged by the father to commence at Gold Coast Airport and not the Brisbane Airport.
(5)
The father is to supply to the mother an itinerary of the proposed travel arrangements in respect of the above orders no later than
14 days before the date of the proposed travel.
(6)With respect to any travel arrangements proposed by the mother for the children to any overseas destinations for the purposes of holidays, an itinerary will be supplied to the father no later than 14 days before any proposed travel.
(7)The respondent father will sign any passport application made by the mother for the children upon the expiration of their current passports.
(8)In the event that the father is not able to spend time and communicate with the children in accordance with the orders set out above, he is to provide to the applicant mother a minimum of four weeks notice and if any alternative arrangements are then proposed by the father, the applicant mother will agree to any such change unless it is unreasonable for her to do so.
(9)With respect to the father communicating with the children by telephone the applicant mother will make the children available for any such communication on her mobile telephone between the hours of 6.30 – 7.00pm (Queensland time) each Sunday with the respondent father to initiate any such call.
An amended Reply was filed on 12 September 2008. The mother made amendments to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the orders that she sought as follows:
(1)With respect to the arrangements in Order 3, above, the respondent father will be responsible for paying all the travel and associated costs in respect thereof and all such travel form the Gold Coast to Melbourne will be arranged by the father confirming and agreeing on flights, times and days by both parties before flights are booked and to commence at Gold Coast Airport and not the Brisbane Airport with flights leaving no earlier than 8.00am.
(2)The father is to supply to the mother an itinerary of the proposed travel arrangements in respect of the above orders no later than
14 daysone month before the date of the proposed travel.At the commencement of the final hearing, the father handed to the court his proposed final orders, which were as follows:
(1)That the father and mother have equal shared parental responsibility for the children of the marriage namely:
[Y] born in 1998
[X] born in 1999
(2)That the children live with the mother
(3)That the children spend time with the father in Victoria as agreed between the parties but failing agreement not less than the following:
(a)For the first week of the gazetted Queensland school holidays in June and September of each year. Such week to commence from 10.00am on the first Saturday of each holiday period.
(a)(1) to give effect to order 3(a) above, the father shall be responsible for making all travel arrangements and pay the costs of transportation of the children to and from Victoria and Brisbane. The father shall also provide the mother with a copy of the flight details no less than 7 days prior to the period of time referred to in order 3(a) above.
(b)For 4 days during Easter in each alternate year with the children to spend the first Easter with their father in 2009 and each alternate year thereafter. Such time is to occur in Victoria and commence from 10am on Good Friday and conclude at 5pm on Easter Monday or 5pm on the Tuesday following the Easter Monday if the Tuesday is not a school day.
(b)(1) to give effect to order 3(b) above, the mother shall be responsible for making all travel arrangements and pay the costs of transportation of the children to and from Victoria and Brisbane. The mother shall provide the father with a copy of the flight details no less than 7 days prior to the period of time referred to in order 3(b) above
(c)From 20th December 2008 to 10th January 2009 and alternate years thereafter.
(c)(1) to give effect to order 3(c) above, the mother shall be responsible for making all travel arrangements and pay the costs of transportation of the children to and from Victoria and Brisbane. The mother shall provide the father with a copy of the flight details no less than 7 days prior to the period of time referred to in order 3(c) above.
(d)From 29th December 2009 to 20th January 2010 and each alternate years thereafter.
(d)(1) to give effect to order 3(d) above, the father shall be responsible for making all travel arrangements and pay the costs of transportation of the children to and from Victoria and Brisbane. The father shall also provide the mother with a copy of the flight details no less than 7 days prior to the period of time referred to in order 3(d).
(4)That the children spend time with their father in Brisbane/GoldCoast as agreed between the parties but failing agreement not less than 4 weekends per calendar year upon the father providing the mother 30 days written notice of his intention to travel to Brisbane and exercise such time with the children.
(4)(a)to give effect to order 4 above the father shall collect the children from the mothers residence on Friday evening before 8pm and shall return the children to the mothers residence no later than 6pm on Sunday evening.
(5)The children shall communicate with their father by telephone between the hours of 7.30am and 8.00am on the children’s birthdays and Christmas Day.
(6)The children shall communicate with their father by telephone between the hours of 7.00pm and 7.30pm every Sunday.
(7)To give effect to orders 4 and 5 above, the father shall telephone the children on the mother landline telephone. The mother will provide her landline telephone number to the father and ensure the children are available to speak with their father. The mother will ensure the children are able to speak with the father in private and she will not place the telephone on “hands free”.
(8)
If at any time the mother wishes to take the children overseas for any reasons whatsoever she will give the father no less than
30 days notice of her intention to do so.
(9)No less than 14 days prior to any departure the mother shall provide the father with the following: a full travel itinerary, inclusive of all destinations and contact details for the children at each destination whilst they are away and documentary proof of the purchase of a return air ticket to Australia for the children.
The first issue that needs to be resolved is whether the parents should equally share parental responsibility.
Section 61C of the Family Law Act1975 provides:
(1) Each of the parents of a child who is not 18 has parental responsibility for the child.
(2) Subsection (1) has effect despite any changes in the nature of the relationships of the child's parents. It is not affected, for example, by the parents becoming separated or by either or both of them marrying or re‑marrying.
(3) Subsection (1) has effect subject to any order of a court for the time being in force (whether or not made under this Act and whether made before or after the commencement of this section).
“Parental responsibility” is defined in s.4(1) of the Act as follows:
"parental responsibility" , in Part VII, has the meaning given by section 61B.
Section 61B of the Act provides:
In this Part, parental responsibility , in relation to a child, means all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which, by law, parents have in relation to children.
Thus, in the absence of any order, both parents would have parental responsibility for their two children.
Sections 61DA(1) and (2) of the Act provide:
(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.
It is conceded on behalf of the father that the presumption referred to in s.61DA(1) is rebutted in this case. The mother has an extant protection order against the father.
Nevertheless the father submits that the court has power to, and should, make an order for equal shared parental responsibility.
As to power, I agree that the displacement of the presumption in s.61DA(1) does not remove the power of the court to make whatever parenting order it considers is in the best interests of the children concerned. That is its paramount consideration: s.60CA of the Act.
Counsel for the father relied on the decision of Le Poer Trench J in Blair & Blair [2007] Fam CA 253 as authority for the proposition that the court retains the power to make an order for equal shared parental responsibility notwithstanding the displacement of the presumption in s.61DA(1) of the Act. However, his Honour did not consider the issue in any depth, and his observations are confined to paragraphs [114] – [116] of the Reasons for Judgment.
In my view the non-application of the presumption in s.61DA(1) of the Act should not be treated as a presumption of the opposite to what the subsection applies. That is, s.61DA(1) provides that it is to be presumed to be in a child’s best interests that his or her parents have equal shared parental responsibility. That is the starting point. However, the presumption does not apply if the circumstances in s.61DA(2) are engaged. However, that does not mean that if those circumstances are engaged, it should be presumed that it is not in a child’s best interests for his or her parents to have equal shared parental responsibility.
Where s.61DA(2) applies, the court must decide the issue of parental responsibility from the evidence, unassisted by any presumption. It may decide that equal shared parental responsibility is nevertheless in the child’s best interests.
In my view, this conclusion is reinforced by the terms of s.65D(1) which provides:
(1) In proceedings for a parenting order, the court may, subject to sections 61DA (presumption of equal shared parental responsibility when making parenting orders) and 65DAB (parenting plans) and this Division, make such parenting order as it thinks proper.
In order to determine whether an order for equal shared parental responsibility is appropriate, the court must consider a number of matters, against the paramount consideration of best interests. Without attempting to be exhaustive I refer to the most obvious matters that the court needs to consider. First, regard should be had to the principles and objects in s.60B of the Act. In particular s.60B(1)(a) and (d) and s.60B(2)(c) and (d) which provide:
(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
…
(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):
…
(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
…
The court should also consider the matters in s.60CC(3)(i), 60CC(4), 60CC(4A).
Then, the court must consider what happens if an order is made for equal shared parental responsibility. Section 65DAC of the Act provides:
(1) This section applies if, under a parenting order:
(a) 2 or more persons are to share parental responsibility for a child; and
(b) the exercise of that parental responsibility involves making a decision about a major long‑term issue in relation to the child.
(2) The order is taken to require the decision to be made jointly by those persons.
(3) The order is taken to require each of those persons:
(a) to consult the other person in relation to the decision to be made about that issue; and
(b) to make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision about that issue.
(4) To avoid doubt, this section does not require any other person to establish, before acting on a decision about the child communicated by one of those persons, that the decision has been made jointly.
“Major long term issues” is defined in s.4(1) of the Act as follows:
"major long-term issues" , in relation to a child, means issues about the care, welfare and development of the child of a long-term nature and includes (but is not limited to) issues of that nature about:
(a) the child's education (both current and future); and
(b) the child's religious and cultural upbringing; and
(c) the child's health; and
(d) the child's name; and
(e) changes to the child's living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with a parent.
To avoid doubt, a decision by a parent of a child to form a relationship with a new partner is not, of itself, a major long‑term issue in relation to the child. However, the decision will involve a major long‑term issue if, for example, the relationship with the new partner involves the parent moving to another area and the move will make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with the other parent.
During the hearing of this matter, I raised with the parties the issue of what happens if an order is made for equal shared parental responsibility, and the parties comply with s.65DAC of the Act but cannot reach an agreement. I queried whether in those circumstances, the parties defaulted to their parental responsibility under s.61C(1) and could therefore each make a decision.
However, on reflection, I think that s.61C (3) (when read with s.64B (2) (c)) provides the answer to my query. Once a court order is made dealing with parental responsibility, it has precedence. Therefore, if an order is made, and the parties cannot reach agreement, they must seek the decision of the court (after having attempted dispute resolution pursuant to s.60I of the Act).
The mother says that since the parties separated in 2003 she has had to make all of the decisions in respect of the children. She says that the father played little part in the children’s lives until relatively recently. The father seems to accept this to be the case, and was rather focussed on what occurred from here on, rather than dwelling on what happened in the past.
The mother contended that, since separation, she has effectively had sole parental responsibility. As a matter of law that is incorrect. Both parents currently have parental responsibility.
Pursuant to the parenting orders upon which the parties have agreed, the children will live predominantly with the mother, and spend essentially four weeks a year with the father, wholly during school holiday time. The mother lives at Tallai on the Gold Coast in Queensland and the father at Berwick in Victoria. Given the geographic separation of the parties, and the father’s work commitments, which limit him to four weeks holiday a year, these orders provide the best way of the children maintaining a relationship with their father. That relationship can also be enhanced by regular telephone communication between the father and his sons, and by the father spending time with them if he ever travels to the Gold Coast.
The practical effect of the care arrangements is that the mother will make all of the day to day decisions for the children. Equal shared parental responsibility only has practical relevance to major long term issues. In this case it transpired that of the specified types of decisions in the definition of that term, the parties were agreed as to the children’s names, and their religious upbringing. They were also agreed in large measure as to the children’s living arrangements. The matters on which they potentially disagreed were the children’s education and the children’s (particularly [X]’s) health.
The mother contends that equal shared parental responsibility is inappropriate because the father will use his position to frustrate her and will not agree to anything she proposes. She relied on the father’s refusal to sign an application for the children to obtain passports, and her need to bring an application to obtain an order to that end. The mother also relied on the father’s behaviour towards the children during telephone calls he has with them. She relies on the father’s lack of involvement with the children for almost five years. The mother also relied on the father’s recent behaviour in not allowing the children to speak to their mother on the telephone, despite them being with him for five days.
For his part, the father agrees that he has said to the children that if they don’t speak to him on the telephone why should they come and see him, and why should he buy them Christmas presents, but says he made these remarks in jest. The father now perhaps realises the inappropriateness of these remarks and hopefully will not repeat them in the future.
An order for sole parental responsibility in favour of a party means that the other party has no rights, responsibility, and authority in respect of major long-term issues for the child, save those as expressly ordered. I raised with the parties during addresses what some of the consequences of such an order may be.
In this case, where the father professes a desire to be a part of his son’s lives, and where the parties are able to agree on some major long term issues, I do not see why the father should be excluded from any decision making role. That is not necessary to protect the children from harm. In my view, it is in the best interests of the two boys that they both have a meaningful relationship with their father, as well as with their mother. In my view, such a meaningful relationship is likely to be promoted if the boys know that their father has an involvement in their lives, and is interested in making decisions regarding their long term interests.
So far as education is concerned the parents should discuss where the children are to go to school. The father should be recorded on the school enrolment records. He should be able to contact the school and enquire about his sons’ progress.
So far as the children’s health is concerned, any serious health issues should be discussed between the parents. The father should be able to talk to his sons’ doctor about their health. Neither parent should be able to subject either child to medical treatment for other than minor illnesses without first seeking the agreement of the other. That works as much in the mother’s favour as in the father’s favour, if the mother is concerned that the father is over willing to believe that [X] has serious medical problems.
Neither parent should discuss medical matters with the children without first raising the issue with the other parent.
If the mother is concerned that the father will descend to verbal abuse if she tries to talk to him about matters, then the preferred means of communication should be by way of email. In that way, if the parents cannot agree, and the court is called on to decide an issue, the incontrovertible written evidence will be available.
In my view a high level of parental conflict, of itself, is not fatal to the making of an order for equal shared parental responsibility. The matters that they will need to discuss will be few and far between. They can communicate, as I have said, in writing.
I will make an order for equal shared parental responsibility.
The second issue that the parties cannot agree upon is whether the children should spend Christmas Day with their father every second year. The children have not spent Christmas Day with their father since separation.
In a memorandum from Lynne Clark dated 13 August 2007 it is recorded that the parties agreed that:
a)The children would live with their mother;
b)The mother would be responsible for all decisions relating to their day to day care;
c)The children would spend time with their father as agreed between the parents, but failing agreement for:
i)The first week of the school holidays at the end of the first and third terms;
ii)Two weeks during the Christmas school holiday period, with the father spending two weeks from 28 December in each odd numbered year, and two weeks from 24 December in each even numbered year;
d)The mother would forward the father copies of the children’s school reports;
e)The children could have an Australian passport;
f)In the event that they could not resolve a dispute they would in the first instance seek dispute resolution ;
g)In the event the father is unable to take up his time with the children, he agrees to give a minimum of four weeks notice.
Despite her agreement referred to in paragraph 40(c)(ii) above the mother now says the children disagree and do not want to spend Christmas Day with their father.
[X]’s birthday falls on 16 December; the mother’s birthday on the
17th December, and the maternal grandmother’s birthday on the
18th December. In recognition of this, the father has proposed that in those years where he is to spend Christmas Day with the children, his time not commence until 20 December, so that the children can spend the birthdays with their mother and grandmother.
There is no good reason why the boys should not spend alternate Christmas Days with their father. It will assist in the development of the relationship between the sons and their father. Orders will be made to that effect.
The final issue requiring a determination concerns telephone communication between the father and his sons. As I have said, the mother’s position is that the boys do not want to talk to their father. In my view, in order to foster a meaningful relationship between the parties there should be regular telephone communication between the boys and their father. The parties agreed that the time of that communication should be altered to between 6:30pm and 7pm Queensland time. The father made a sensible suggestion so as to avoid problems that have apparently occurred with the use of the mother’s home phone. He will purchase and pay the ongoing costs of a mobile phone so that the boys can receive his telephone calls, and can, if they want, telephone him. In my view, telephone communication between the father and his sons is important and should be encouraged by the mother.
Although there was originally a contest as to the sharing of travel costs to and from Melbourne, during the hearing the father accepted that he would meet the costs. The father also accepted that the children should fly in and out of Coolangatta airport, so as to avoid the need, and associated time and expense, of the mother having to transport the children to Brisbane airport. The father also accepted that he would give 30 days notice of the flights, and of any time that he wanted to spend with the children at the Gold Coast.
For her part the mother agreed that the father should be permitted to contact the children’s doctor and school. She also agreed that the father should spend time with his sons at the Gold Coast, provided she was given notice of his intention to do so.
The orders will be as set out at the commencement of these reasons.
I certify that the preceding forty seven (47) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Wilson FM
Associate: Lynnette Chin
Date: 3 October 2008
0
0
1