Wilde and Wilde (No. 2)

[2007] FamCA 880

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WILDE & WILDE (NO 2) [2007] FamCA 880

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN - With whom a child spends time with

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CA, s 60CC, s 69ZP, s 69ZQ(g), s 69ZT(1)(a)

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) Div 3, 4 and 5 of Part 2.1, s 27

Family Law Rules Rule 15.14

APPLICANT: Mr Wilde

RESPONDENT: Mrs Wilde

FILE NUMBER: SYF 3943 of 1999

DATE DELIVERED: 24 August 2007

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Watts J

HEARING DATE: 1 August 2007

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Litigant in person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Litigant in person

Orders

1. All previous parenting orders be discharged.

2. The child …born … August 1992 (“the child”) live with his mother except at times when the child wishes to have time with his father, which time is to be mutually convenient to both the child and his father. 

3. The father is to use his best endeavours to ensure that the child informs his mother about when the child intends to spend time with his father or when the child is spending time with his father.

4. Each party have the day to day care and control of the child during periods the child is in their care.

5. The mother have sole responsibility for decisions relating to the child’s education and health and that the mother forthwith inform the father by email of any significant decision she takes in relation to the child’s education or health and that otherwise the parties have joint responsibility in consultation with each other for the long term care, welfare and development of the child.  In the event that they cannot agree in relation to issues relating to his long term care, welfare and development (apart from education and health) then those decisions be made by further order of the Court.

6. Each party have reasonable telephone contact with the child when he is in the care of the other party and each party shall give to the other details of the location of the child during any holiday including a telephone contact number. 

7. The father shall not unless otherwise agreed in writing between the parties enter any residence in which the wife shall live from time to time. 

8. Both parties sign an application for a passport for the child; each party facilitate the child obtaining a passport and that each party consent to his travelling overseas with either party for a period not exceeding one month during school holidays and after giving the other party at least four (4) months notice of such intended overseas travel.

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

IT IS NOTED IN CONNECTION WITH THESE ORDERS that the judgment of the Honourable Justice Watts delivered this day will for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as Wilde & Wilde (No. 2)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYF. 3943 of 1999

Mr Wilde

Applicant

And

Mrs Wilde

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. This matter is about competing applications between the parents of a child born in August 1992 (he was almost 15 at the date of the hearing).

2. Orders were made in relation to the child on 10 May 2001.  Both parties sought variation to those orders as detailed below.  The father also sought an order in relation to the child’s passport and overseas travel. 

BACKGROUND FACTS

1. Both parties filed a questionnaire about parenting arrangements.  I did not ask either party to adopt their respective questionnaires on their oath.

2. I set out the following as non controversial facts derived from both parties’ questionnaires:

   4.1.The child is now 15 years and is in Year 9 at F School.

   4.2.Both parties own their own home.

   4.3.The parties live 30 to 35 kilometres apart.

   4.4.The child ordinarily lives at home with his mother and his 28 year old step brother.

   4.5.The father currently pays about $1,229 per month to the mother by way of child support.

   4.6.There are no current family violence orders nor are there any concerns about safety issues.

APPLICATIONS

Father’s application

1. The father filed an Application for Final Orders on 16 April 2007 but did not press an application in the terms of that written application except in relation to order 12 which was in the following terms:-

   “That the mother sign an application for a passport and each party facilitates [the child] obtaining a passport and consents to his travelling overseas with either party for a period not exceeding one month and after giving the other party at least two month’s notice of such intended overseas travel.”

Mother’s application

1. The mother filed a written Response to the Application for Final Orders on 27 April 2007.

2. The mother did not press the orders that she sought in that application. 

3. The focus of both parties’ applications before me centred around varying the current orders made on 10 May 2001.

ORDERS OF 10 MAY 2001

1. On 10 May 2001 the following orders were made by consent:-

   1.That the child […] live with the wife.

   2.That the child have contact with the husband as follows:-

   (a)each alternate weekend from Friday evening at 6.00pm until Sunday evening at 6.00pm;

   (b)for one half of the NSW gazetted school holidays being the first half of each school holiday unless otherwise agreed between the parties with the exception of the December/January period;

   (c)for the December/January holiday period for each alternate week provided however that in the event that either party wishes to take the child on an extended holiday then upon giving one month’s notice in writing of his or her intention to do so either party may have continuous contact with the child for the second half of such period.

   (d)on Father’s Day from 9.00am to 6.00pm and in the event that Mother’s Day falls on a contact weekend then the husband shall forego contact on such day;

   (e)on 25 December 2000 from 12 noon to 6.00pm on 26 December 2000 and from 6.00pm on 24 December 2001 until 12 noon on 25 December 2001 and thereafter alternating in subsequent years between such days and times;

   (f)at such other times as the parties may agree.

   3.That the husband’s weekend contact be suspended during holiday periods.

   4.That each party have the day to day care and control of the child during periods he is in their care.

   5.That the parties have the joint responsibility in consultation with each other for the long term care welfare and development of the child.

   6.That the wife provide copies of the child’s school reports to the husband within 7 days of them being made available to her by the school.

   7.That each party have reasonable telephone contact with the child when he is in the care of the other party and each party shall give to the other details of the location of the child during any holiday including a telephone contact number.

   8.That each party shall not discuss with the child any proposed holiday arrangements without first having discussed the same with the other party.

   9.That the husband shall collect the child from the wife at the commencement of contact periods and return him to her at the conclusion of same.

   10.That the husband shall not unless otherwise agreed in writing between the parties:-

   (a)remove the child from his school or from his home (other than in accordance with these orders); or

   (b)enter any residence in which the wife shall live from time to time.

VARIATIONS SOUGHT BY BOTH PARTIES TO THE CURRENT ORDERS

Father

1. The father sought that the following variations be made to the orders of 10 May 2001:

   10.1.Order 1, retained but with the extra words added to it “except at times when [the child] wishes to have time with his father, the time is to be mutually convenient to both [the child] and his father”. 

   10.2.Order 2, discharged

   10.3.Order 3, discharged

   10.4.Order 4, retained

   10.5.Order 5, retained

   10.6.Order 6, discharged

   10.7.Order 7, retained

   10.8.Order 8, discharged

   10.9.Order 9, discharged

   10.10.Order 10(a) discharged; Order 10(b) retained.

Mother

1. The mother opposed the additional words sought by the father being added to Order 1.

2. The mother agrees to Orders 2, 3 and 6 being discharged and Order 7 and 10(b) being retained.

3. The mother wishes Orders 4 and 5 to be discharged and for her to have sole responsibility for both day to day and long term decisions about the child’s care, welfare and development. 

4. The mother did not agree to Orders 8, 9 and 10(a) being discharged. 

5. The mother wished the word ‘holiday’ to be removed from Order 8. 

PART VII DIVISION 12A

1. The applications of both parties were filed after 1 July 2006 and consequently these are proceedings to which the provisions of Part VIII (Division 12A) Family Law Act (“FLA”) apply. The Court may exercise power under that Division on its own initiative (s.69ZP FLA). I have done so in this matter. Given the child’s age, I have had particular regard to Principles 2 and 5 set out in s.69ZN FLA (“the court is to actively direct, control and manage the conduct of proceedings” and “proceedings are to be conducted without undue delay and with as little formality, and legal technicality and form, as possible”) and my general duty under s.69ZQ(g) FLA (“deal with as many aspects of the matter as I can on a single occasion”).

2. Section 69ZT(1)(a) FLA makes it clear that unless I otherwise decide it is appropriate, the normal rules of evidence do not apply. In particular (with some exceptions) Division 3, 4 and 5 of Part 2.1 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) (“EA”) do not apply to these proceedings.

3. Section 27 EA is part of Division 3 of Part 2.1 EA.

4. Section 27 EA says:-

   “A party may question any witness except as provided by this Act”

5. Section 69ZT(1)(a) FLA excludes that statutory right. As a result, the question of whether a party may question a witness is a matter for the Court and not for a party.

6. Any rule of common law giving a right to a party of cross examination is not revived by the exclusion of s.27 EA (see s.69ZT(5)(a) FLA).

7. Arguably s.11 EA, already gave the Court power to override a party’s right to cross examine.

8. Normally a Court would allow cross examination (see Rule 15.14 Family law Rules).

9. I did not invite either party to cross examine the other, in the circumstances of this case, because:

   24.1.each party was given an opportunity, on their oath, to inform me of relevant factual matters in an interactive manner; and

   24.2.the facts referred to in paragraphs 4 and those referred to in my discussion (below) of the statutory considerations, were not contentious; and

   24.3.cross examination of one party by the other had the potential to unduly delay the proceedings.

RICE & ASPLUND

1. The different variations sought by both parties to the 2001 orders give some indication that the current orders are not working in the child’s best interests.

2. I had evidence before me that there had been a series of contravention applications brought by the mother on the basis that she asserted that it was in the child’s best interest to force the father to abide by the defined regime of the child spending time with his father.  The evidence was that none of the mother’s contravention applications to have the father dealt with for contravention of the orders because he had not made himself available for the child had been successful.  That the current orders are leading the mother to serving contravention applications because the father is NOT seeing the child in accordance with the defined orders is one strong and substantial reason as to why these orders should be revisited. 

3. A second reason was the evidence from the father, confirmed by the mother, that at the current time the relationship between the father and the child had broken down.  The father gave evidence that in April the child had taken the father’s credit card and had gone to two automatic teller machines and withdrawn money.  The child had been photographed at each machine doing so.  The police have laid charges against the child.  The father has currently left a message with the child via his mother that he requires an apology from his son, whom he considers to be a thief, prior to contact being resumed.  He also has indicated that the child has refused to answer the text messages that he has left.  These new circumstances are also a strong and substantial reason why the orders should be revisited.

ORDERS MADE 1 AUGUST 2007

1. Both parties agreed to the discharge of Orders 2, 3 and 6 of orders made 10 May 2001.  On 1 August 2007 I made orders, by consent, to that effect.

STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS

1. In deciding what parenting orders to make for the child I must regard his best interests as my paramount consideration (s.60CA FLA).

Primary considerations

1. In determining those best interests I must primarily consider the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of his parents (s.60CC(2)(a) FLA). There is no issue in this case of abuse, neglect or family violence that either party has given evidence about.

2. In addition I must consider those matters set out in s.60CC(3) and (4) FLA and I also have in mind the objects and their underlying principals as set out in Part VII FLA.

Additional considerations

Expressed views and their weight

1. At this time the child is expressing a view that he does not want to see his father.  His father gave evidence that he is refusing at the moment to respond to text messages.  The father is hopeful that that situation will improve at some stage in the future but is seeking an apology for behaviour referred to previously in these reasons.  The mother says that the father has pushed the child away and that the child’s real wish is to restore what the child had with his father.  The mother is of the view that the father has taken a very selfish attitude towards the child.

2. I have evidence that the child is a strong willed boy.  The child is 15.  I conclude he could contact his father if that was his wish and that the child’s current wish is not to have contact with his father.

3. The child’s current wish must be given considerable weight given his age and strength of will.  It is a powerful reason why the mother’s position, which would require the father to see the child, should not succeed. 

4. The mother’s evidence also is that the child’s wish may weaken over time and that over time the child may express a wish to see his father.  If that wish is expressed in the future then weight should be then placed on that wish and the order I make will be structured in a way that the child’s wish can be respected, at times that are mutually convenient to the child and his father. 

Willingness to encourage and attitude to relationship between the child and the other parent

1. Section 60CC(4A) FLA requires me in particular to focus upon events that have happened and circumstances that have existed since separation occurred. That is now a considerable time ago. The main feature of the events that have occurred between the parties, particularly since 2001, is serial litigation which has, both parties acknowledged, been so extensive that a number of boxes holding Court documents evidence the extent of the litigation between the parties. A cursory perusal of Court records reveal the parties have so far had three trips to the Full Court in relation to financial matters. I have already referred to three applications by the mother for non compliance with parenting orders on the basis that the mother has claimed the father has not turned up for his time with the child.

2. Whilst on the face the mother shows a willingness and ability to facilitate and encourage a continuing relationship between the child and his father, it has an unusual feature.  That feature is that she insists that the father see the child in accordance with strictly defined orders, notwithstanding reluctance of the father to do so on particular occasions.  It appears to me that there is very little flexibility in the mother’s attitude towards facilitating a fluent arrangement between a 15 year old boy and his father. 

3. The father has not participated, to any significant and substantial extent, in decision making in relation to major long term issues concerning the child, particularly issues in relation to education.

4. The reference to child support in the evidence by the mother would indicate that no current arrears are asserted.  The mother however indicated that because of the smaller amount of time that the father now might spend with the child she might intend to seek to a variation of child support and I am satisfied that she understands the normal process by which she would pursue any such claim.

Effect of change

1. I have no detailed evidence before me as to how the child’s estrangement from his father has affected him.  The orders I make however will be structured in such a way as to give flexibility to the child to reconnect with his father if and when he feels the time is right for him to do so. 

Practical difficulty and expense of being with and in touch with the other parent

1. The orders that I make will leave the arrangements for the child to spend time with his father up to both of them to decide.  On most occasions the burden of transportation will fall on the father if the child is to spend time with his father.

The capacity of the parents and others to provide for the needs of the child (including emotional and intellectual needs)

1. The mother has raised no issue in the evidence before me in relation to the child spending time at his father’s household with the father’s new partner.  I infer that the high conflict that has existed between the parties over a long period of time has had an affect on the child and in turn reflects on the capacity of each of the parents to have properly provided for the child’s emotional needs.  Having said that, I have got no doubt that the child has a strong attachment to his mother.  It may be that with time the child may reconnect with his father

Family violence

1. There is no issue in respect of family violence.  There is no family violence order.

The order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings

1. It would be bold of me to suggest, given the history of litigation between the parties, that any order that I might craft would be less likely than any other order I might craft to lead to the institution of further proceedings.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Having considered all the matters referred to in s.60CC(2), (3) and (4) FLA, I reach the following conclusions in relation to the issues between the child’s parents.

VARIATION OF ORDERS

Order 1

1. The father wants an order which allows the child the flexibility to communicate a wish for the child to have time with his father and for his father to make an arrangement with the child for the child to have time with his father at a mutually convenient time. 

2. As previously indicated, the child and his father are currently estranged.  The father however seemed to have some confidence that that might not be a long term condition. 

3. The mother confirmed that she gets along well with the child, that he respects her wishes and if she gave him a good reason why he should not see his father on a particular occasion because she already had something planned then he would respect her wishes. 

4. The father’s reasons for seeking the variation to Order 1 arise from the experiences he has had with the mother bringing contravention applications against him in circumstances where for various reasons he says he was unable to fulfil the responsibilities imposed by a strict defined regime of time with the child.  The variation is also motivated by the fact that currently there is no ability for him to see the child and at the child’s age he wishes for the child to make a decision about if and when he sees his father as long as that happens at a mutually convenient time.  The father does not want to be back in the situation where the child expresses a wish to see him at a time when he cannot accommodate that and to then face a further application by the mother for contravention of the order. 

1. The mother’s position in relation to the variation to Order 1 was that she feels that the child’s father has pushed the child away and that it is selfish of him to have done so.  She thinks that what the father is seeking is a cop out of his responsibilities and it also is of concern to her that it takes her out of the picture and reduces her parenting control over what the child is doing from time to time. She said to me later in her evidence that the child was not only a strong willed boy but is a little bit on the lazy side and might use going to see his father as an excuse not to study.  This was evidence which I found slightly inconsistent with her earlier evidence that the child would respect her wishes. 

2. The father agreed that it would be appropriate for him to use his best endeavours to ensure that the child keep his mother informed about times when the child intends to or is spending with his father. 

Conclusion in relation to Order 1

1. The child is now all but 15 years of age and is in Year 9 at school.  He is a strong willed boy who respects his mother.  It is appropriate at his age for him to be the person who has the primary say about if and when he sees his father.  Accordingly, I conclude that it is in the child’s best interests for an order to be made in the terms sought by his father on the condition that his father use his best endeavours to ensure that the child inform his mother of the times that he intends to or is spending with his father.

Order 4

1. The mother asserted that she should have day to day care and control of the child during any period of time that he spends with his father.  Her reason for that was that she believed that the child’s father was relinquishing the child’s care and it would therefore be appropriate for her to have sole responsibility for day to day care.

Conclusion in relation to Order 4

1. It is in my view not in the child’s best interests for the mother to be able to give direction to the father as to how he should care for the child on a day to day basis at times when the child might be in his care. Section 65DAE FLA is to the effect that each party have the day to day care and control of a child during periods when they are in that parent’s care and there is nothing in the evidence before me which would indicate that should not be so in this case.

Order 5

1. The father seeks that the parties have joint responsibility in consultation with each other for the long term care, welfare and development of the child.  The mother seeks sole responsibility.

2. Section 61DA FLA provides that 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. Section 61DA(2) FLA sets out circumstances in which that presumption would not apply. Those circumstances are not relevant to this case.

3. Section 61DA(4) FLA provides that 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.

4. The mother’s evidence is that the father has never shown an interest in making long term decisions.  Since 2001 the mother has been the one who has dealt with all of the child’s schooling decisions.  She enrolled the child at school, she has delivered the child to school when he could not get there by the bus, she has been to every school function, attended all parent/teacher interviews, bought expensive tutoring software.  At the moment the child has a broken patella.  The mother had not told the father about this.  The father, in his evidence, did not dispute any of this. 

5. The mother answers questions 39 and 40 of her questionnaire as follows:-

   39.[The child] dislocated and fractured his knee during the Easter break.  He is under the care of an orthopaedic specialist, and is using a split and crutches. 

   40.Since he fractured his right patella and tearing some ligaments he has been under medical supervision and regular physiotherapy treatment.

6. The father does not mention this in his questionnaire. 

7. I conclude, on the evidence before me, that the parties cannot effectively communicate.  There has been no cooperation between the parties since the May 2001 orders in relation to making decisions about schooling and the father says that he has had no input into the child’s schooling.  Between 2001 and the current time there has been no significant issue in relation to any medical treatment for the child.  It is possible some medical matter might arise in the future. 

Conclusion in relation to Order 5

1. There are good reasons in this case why, in the child’s best interests, the presumption of equal shares parental responsibility is rebutted.  Given the history of the litigation between the parties and the extent of the current disagreement about the child, I conclude that the parties are totally unable to communicate with each other in the child’s best interests.  I conclude that it is in the child’s best interests for his mother to have sole responsibility for long term decisions about issues that are likely to raise problems.  These relate to the child’s education and health.  The mother indicated that she had no intention of changing the child’s surname nor moving away.  No issue in relation to religion was raised.  Therefore, I intend to confine the sole responsibility order to issues relating to education and health. 

2. The mother agreed that she would inform the father by email of any long term decisions she made.

Order 7

1. Order 7 made 10 May 2001 provides that each party have reasonable telephone contact with the child when he is in the care of the other party and each party shall give to the other details of the location of the child during any holiday including a telephone contact number.  The father originally wanted this order discharged.  The mother wanted it to remain.  The father subsequently indicated that he would agree to Order 7 remaining. 

Order 8

1. The mother’s resistance to the discharge of Order 8 and her wish to have the word “holiday” removed meant that it was the mother’s position that the child not be involved in discussion with his father about any time they will spend together unless that proposed arrangement was first discussed between the father and the mother.  The mother said that she wished that order to be made because in the past the father had made arrangements directly with the child and had bullied him into agreeing to those arrangements and had made it look like it was the child’s idea.  It was however, she said, not always what the child wanted.  This evidence slightly contradicted earlier evidence that she had given to the effect that the child was a strong willed boy who respected his mother’s wishes. 

Conclusion in relation to Order 8

1. I conclude that it is in the child’s best interests for him to be able to freely indicate to his father when he wants to see his father and for his father to accommodate those wishes if possible. 

2. Given the history of high conflict between the parties I do not believe that it is in the child’s best interest for the mother to be involved in those discussions.  The mother, as acknowledged by the father, should at all times know when the child proposes to be or is with his father and I will make an order that would facilitate that information being conveyed to the mother. 

Order 9

1. Order 9 currently requires that the husband shall collect the child from the wife at the commencement of contact periods and return him to her at the conclusion of same. 

2. The father says he should not have to collect the child on every occasion.  The father gave evidence that the child travelled to his school by bus.  The father said that sometimes he would be happy to pick the child up from his home but he did not want to be restricted in that regard.  He said for example his new partner resided at D and he believed the child was old enough now for example to on occasions ride his bike to his partner’s home.

3. The mother’s position is that the father should continue to collect the child from his home.  She said that it was a long way from B to the father’s work at R.  The inference being that it was too far for the child to travel by public transport.  The mother did not have a problem with the father collecting the child from anywhere he was from time to time and said that the father had a luxury motor vehicle in which he could collect the child.

Conclusion in relation to Order 9

1. Given that one of the preconditions for the child spending time with his father is that it is in accordance with the child’s wishes, in my view it is not in the child’s best interests for any fetter to be placed on the arrangement by requiring that at all times the father collect the child.  I conclude that the child will only agree to spend time with his father if he is comfortable with the arrangements that are made for that to happen.  This might mean that on some occasions the child is comfortable with travelling on public transport or on his pushbike.  The father has indicated that he would expect that most of the time he would pick the child up from his home, his school, his friend’s place or wherever the child was.  It is not in the child’s best interests to make an order that retains Order 9.

Order 10(a)

1. Order 10(a) in its current terms required that “the husband shall not unless otherwise agreed in writing between the parties remove the child from his school or from his home (other than in accordance with these orders)”.  The mother wanted this order to continue because she said it was intended to stop the father from collecting the child whenever he wanted to.

2. The father’s position was that this order would not be consistent with orders which were designed to allow the child and he to make their own flexible arrangements with one another. 

Conclusion in relation to order 10(a)

1. I find that it is in the child’s best interests for there not to be any requirement for there to be an agreement in writing before the father can pick the child up from his school or from his home.  As I have already indicated, I will make an order that would require the father to use his best endeavours to ensure that the child informs his mother at all times about when he proposes to be or is with his father. 

Passport

1. The mother indicated that she had no problem with the child getting a passport as long as he did not travel overseas during school term. She said that she was apprehensive about his school work.  She also said that she did not want a notice arrangement interfering with plans she had made in any particular school holiday to do things with the child.  I suggested a solution to that might be a longer notice period.  I suggested four months.  The father pressed for two months but said that perhaps three months notice would be an appropriate compromise.  He asserted that some overseas travel might be something that is arranged at short notice, because for example the child might become aware of the football competitions in Europe. 

Conclusion in relation to overseas travel

1. In my view, given the difficulties that have clearly existed between the parties in the past, it would be in the child’s best interests for his mother to receive four month’s notice in the event that the father intended travelling overseas with the child for a period not exceeding one month.  I am also of the view that travel should not happen during school term.  I am mindful of the fact that this means that if the father wanted to take the child overseas for a period of one month then it would necessarily have to take place during the term 4 (Christmas) school holidays. 

PROPOSED ORDERS

1. The effect of the orders I make should be as follows:-

   1.Order 1 made 10 May 2001 be varied by adding the words “except at times when [the child] wishes to have time with his father, which time is to be mutually convenient to both [the child] and his father.

   2.The father is to use his best endeavours to ensure that the child informs his mother about when the child intends to spend time with his father or when the child is spending time with his father.

   3.Order 4 made 10 May 2001 not be discharged.

   4.Order 5 made 10 May 2001 be varied so that the mother have sole responsibility for decisions relating to the child’s education and health and that the mother forthwith inform the father by email of any significant decision she takes in relation to the child’s education or health and that otherwise the parties have joint responsibility in consultation with each other for the long term care, welfare and development of the child.  In the event that they cannot agree in relation to issues relating to his long term care, welfare and development (apart from education and health) then those decisions be made by further order of the Court.

   5.Order 7 made 10 May 2001 not be discharged.

   6.Order 8 made 10 May 2001 be discharged.

   7.Order 9 made 10 May 2001 be discharged.

   8.Order 10(a) made 10 May 2001 be discharged.

   9.Both parties sign an application for a passport for the child; each party facilitate the child obtaining a passport and that each party consent to his travelling overseas with either party for a period not exceeding one month during school holidays and after giving the other party at least four (4) months notice of such intended overseas travel.

CONSOLIDATED ORDERS

1. Given the litigation between the parties I think it is best for me to publish a new set of consolidated orders which reflect the outcome of the orders I have proposed. 

I certify that the preceding seventy-eight (78) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Watts

Associate: 

Date:  24.8.07