WOODS & HENDRY
[2019] FCCA 3838
•24 December 2019
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| WOODS & HENDRY | [2019] FCCA 3838 |
| Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Interim parenting – best interests of children – orders made. |
| Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC. |
| Cases cited: Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286 Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCA 240 Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36 |
| Applicant: | MS WOODS |
| Respondent: | MR HENDRY |
| File Number: | PAC 2429 of 2019 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Newbrun |
| Hearing date: | 17 December 2019 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 17 December 2019 |
| Delivered at: | Parramatta |
| Delivered on: | 24 December 2019 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Mr Ndou |
| The Respondent appeared in person |
| Solicitors for the Independent Children's Lawyer: | Mr Samuel |
ORDERS PENDING FURTHER ORDER
That all previous parenting orders between the parties be discharged.
That the child [X] born … 2018 live with the mother.
That the parties do all things necessary and sign all documents required to complete any and all intake procedures at Town A Children’s Contact service in order to enable the child to commence spending supervised time with the father.
That the child spend time with the father supervised by Town A Children’s Contact Service for a minimum period of two (2) hours each week if at all possible from 3.00pm to 5.00pm on Friday or otherwise on a day and time convenient to the said contact centre.
That the father pay for the costs of the said contact service.
That Order 4 continue for a period of at eight (8) weeks from the date of commencement of the child spending time with the father pursuant to Order 4 herein.
Upon the expiration of the above period of eight (8) weeks the said child is to spend time with the father for a period of 5 hours once a week on either Saturday or Sunday as agreed between the parties in writing through their respective lawyers (if applicable), such time to be supervised by the father’s mother, Ms B Hendry.
That in order to facilitate all changeovers pursuant to Order 7 herein the father’s mother, Ms B Hendry shall collect the child from the mother’s home, and deliver the child to the mother’s home at the commencement and conclusion of the child’s time with the father.
That Orders 7 and 8 herein not commence until the following:-
9.1
All drug tests requests of the father pursuant to these orders herein are negative;
9.2
The father has enrolled in and commenced a C Parenting Program;
9.3
The father has enrolled in and commenced a men’s behaviour Change program; and
9.4
The father has enrolled in and commenced post separation parenting program.
In the event that the father has not complied with Order 9 of these orders the child [X]’s time with the father shall continue to be supervised by Town A Children’s Contact Service in accordance with Order 4 of these orders.
That WITHOUT ADMISSION both parties be restrained from:
11.1
Exposing the child to violence including physical or verbal threats or intimidation, whether such threats or intimidation or violence be directed at the child, the Mother, the father, or any other member of either party’s household;
11.2 Physically disciplining the child;
11.3 Denigrating the other or members of the other party’s family in the presence or hearing of the child and each party shall do all acts and things reasonably necessary to prevent any other person doing so.
11.4
Discussing these proceedings or any issues arising out of these proceedings with the children or permitting any third party to do so.
11.5
Making critical or derogatory remarks on social media, such as Facebook or Twitter in relation to the other parent or referring in any way to the proceedings.
11.6 Being under the influence of alcohol in the presence of the child or whilst the child is in his or her care to a point of a blood alcohol level of in excess of 0.05;
11.7 Using, ingesting or administering to himself or herself any illicit or non-prescribed drugs (other than over the counter medication);
11.8 Bringing the child into contact with any person under the influence of illicit drugs or alcohol in excess;
That each party submit to Urinalysis, under supervision and chain of custody, upon written request of the Independent Children’s Lawyer, no more than once per month, with such testing to take place within 48 hours of such request and to be conducted in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Standard 4308:2008: Procedure for the collection, detection and quantification of drugs of abuse in urine (“the drug test”).
Each party to cause the drug test results to be forwarded to the Independent Children’s Lawyer and to the other party within 48 hours of receipt.
Each party to pay their own costs associated with the drug tests.
In the event that any such drug test returns a positive reading leave be granted to either party and or to the Independent Children’s lawyer to re-list the proceedings on seven (7) days’ notice.
That the mother keep the father advised at all times of all organisations, schools, day care providers, medical practitioners and health workers with whom the child attends from time to time or are involved in and that each such person, organisation or group be provided with the contact details for the father and the mother shall further do all things required to direct and authorise such organisation or individuals to have contact with and receive information from the father.
That mother keep the father informed of the child’s health and any health issues affecting the child.
That the mother keep the father informed as soon as reasonably practicable of any medical procedure or operations to be undertaken by the child prior to those operations or procedures being undertaken except in the case of an emergency with the mother in such circumstances to inform the father as soon as is reasonably practicable.
That each party notify the other of any serious illness or accident that the child suffers as soon as is reasonably practicable.
That the mother do all things necessary and sign all documents required to authorise the child’s day care provider to speak and communicate with the father directly.
That the mother do all things necessary to have [X] assessed by a paediatrician in respect to possible speech delay and that she follow all recommendations of the paediatrician in that regard including having [X] attend upon a speech therapist should that be necessary.
That the mother continue to ensure that [X] attend day care for a minimum of two (2) days per week and that she further follow all reasonable recommendations of the day care provider in respect to [X]’s attendance at day care.
That the mother continue to engage with D Parenting Program as is recommended by that service and that she provide to the father through her legal representative and to the Independent Children’s Lawyer a letter from D Parenting Program advising as follows:
23.1
The period of their involvement with the mother and with [X];
23.2
Details of the nature and purpose of their involvement with the mother and the child [X] and all services provided by them to the mother; and
23.3
Any recommendations of D Parenting Program as to ongoing services required by and provided to the mother.
That both parties are to forthwith attend upon and complete a post separation parenting program such as offered by Relationships Australia, Catholic Care, Uniting or Anglicare.
That the father is to forthwith complete a C Parenting Program.
That without admissions the father is to forthwith enrol in and complete a men’s behaviour change program with Relationships Australia or such other similar service provider.
That in the event that they have not already done so each party undergo Carbohydrate deficient Transferrin testing (%CDT) within 21 days of this order and that they provide a copy of such test results to the other party and to the Independent Children’s Lawyer forthwith.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Woods & Hendry is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA |
PAC 2429 of 2019
| MS WOODS |
Applicant
And
| MR HENDRY |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
These Reasons relate to an interim hearing held on 17 December 2019, in relation to the child [X] born … 2018.
A significant issue at the interim hearing was whether or not the child should spend supervised time with the father.
By the time of the interim hearing, the father appeared for himself. The mother was legally represented and the ICL appeared in person.
These proceedings were commenced by the mother on 27 May 2019. The first return date before the Court was 20 August 2019. On that date, both parties had legal representation. The Court then, by consent, made interim orders, inter alia, that:
a)for a period of eight weeks, either party shall require the other on not more than one occasion each week to undergo random urinalysis within 48 hours of request for specimen collection and the detection and quantification of drugs of abuse in urine;
b)that each party undergo a CDT test within 21 days;
c)that without admissions, the father complete the Relationships Australia “Managing Anger” course at the earliest opportunity;
d)that without admissions, on the provision of clean urinalysis tests for 6 weeks, the father shall spend time with the child for a period of five hours once a week on either Saturday or Sunday, as agreed between the parties in writing through their respective lawyers, such time to be under the supervision of the father’s mother;
e)to facilitate the above order, the father’s mother shall collect the child from the mother’s home, and deliver the child to the mother’s home at the commencement and conclusion of the child’s time with the father;
f)that the parties undertake, on a without admission basis, to refrain from the use of drugs and alcohol to the point of a blood alcohol level of 0.05 whilst the child is in their care;
g)the parties attend a Child Dispute Conference on 30 October 2019;
h)the Court appoint an Independent Children’s Lawyer to represent the child.
Proposals and material relied upon
The ICL relied upon his Case Outline, and his proposed orders were set out in his Case Outline at pages 4-7. His proposed orders, in relation to the child spending time with the father, provided for the child spending an initial period of eight weeks supervised time at the Town A Children’s Contact Service. Upon the expiration of this eight week period, the child spend time with the father for five hours once a week on either Saturday or Sunday, such time to be supervised by the father’s mother. However such supervised time by the father’s mother was not to commence until:
a)all drug test requests of the father “pursuant to these orders” were negative;
b)the father has enrolled in and commenced a C Parenting Program;
c)the father has enrolled in and commenced a men’s behaviour change program; and
d)the father has enrolled in and commenced a post-separation parenting program.
The ICL relied upon his Case Outline, the CDC memorandum dated 15 November 2019, and Exhibit A, being certain subpoenaed records from NSW Police.
The father sought interim parenting orders as referred to in a document, which the Court has marked Exhibit D, and which sought interim parenting orders, inter alia, that:
a)the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the child;
b)the child live with the mother;
c)the child spend time with the father each alternate weekend from 5PM on Friday to 5PM on Sunday, and each other week on a day to be agreed by the parties from the conclusion of day care until 5:30PM.
The father relied upon his Response filed 17 August 2019, his Affidavit filed 17 August 2019, Notice of Risk filed the same date, and Exhibit C being two negative chain of custody urine drug tests, dated 28 October 2019 and 11 December 2019.
The mother relied upon her Case Outline dated 16 December 2019, Exhibit B being D Parenting Program documents, copies of certificates relating to the completed C Parenting Program course, C Parenting Program ,Triple P Positive Parenting Program course, negative chain of custody urine test reports dated 4 September 2019 and 10 December 2019, normal CDT test dated 11 September 2019, and her Affidavit filed 27 May 2019.
The mother supported the ICL’s proposed interim parenting orders.
Agreed facts unless otherwise stated
The mother is aged 30 years of age. The mother is presently unemployed. The father is aged 37 years. He works as a tradesman.
The father has provided 2 urinalysis test results which were negative: see Exhibit C in relation to negative tests on 28 October 2019 and 11 December 2019.
The mother asserts that the parties met in 2016 and that they were never in a serious relationship.
The mother had a child from a previous relationship, [E], who is currently nine years of age. He was removed from the mother’s care in about 2017 due to a drug and alcohol problem that the mother had at the time. The mother asserts that she has addressed this problem and she intends to have this child placed back into her care. The mother asserts she currently sees and spends time with [E] once every month.
The mother asserts that in early 2017 after the child [E] was removed from her care she spent a month in custody due to a number of offences including drug charges. The mother asserts that she hasn’t touched the illicit drug Ice since May 2017 and she asserts that she has also attended a drug and alcohol course. On the other hand, the father asserts that in about May 2018 he spoke with the mother who sounded like she was high on Ice. The father asserts that at this time the mother told him that her friend was dead from an overdose.
The mother asserts that the father has a long history of drug use. She asserts that his drug of choice is Ice. She asserts that the father has been on Ice since she has known him and that he takes Ice on a daily basis. On the other hand, the father asserts that he was never a regular user of methamphetamine. He asserts that he stopped using it before the mother was imprisoned. He asserts he no longer uses it and that he doesn’t use any other prohibited drugs.
Legal principles
Relevant principles in relation to parenting proceedings, including interim proceedings, are well settled: see Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286.
In Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCA 240, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia discussed the problems associated with making findings on disputed evidence as follows:
[120] As has frequently been emphasised interim parenting proceedings, and orders made as a consequence, are a necessary but temporary measure until all the evidence can be tested, evaluated and weighed at a final hearing by the making of final parenting orders. Decisions judicial officers have to make in interim proceedings are difficult and, often for very good reason, a conservative approach, or one which is likely to avoid harm to a child is adopted. This is often to the understandable distress of a party who may not achieve the outcome he or she desires, or thinks to be in the best interests of their child or children. Interim parenting orders are frequently modified or changed after a final hearing, and any allocation of parental responsibility made at an interim hearing is disregarded at the final hearing (s 61DB).
[122] In SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13 the majority (Boland and Thackray JJ) discussed at paragraph 88 of their reasons the care necessary to be exercised in making findings in interim parenting proceedings. Their Honours said:
In our view, findings made at an interim hearing should be couched with great circumspection, no matter how firmly a judge’s intuition may suggest that the finding will be borne out after a full testing of the evidence.
[123] Later, at paragraph 100 their Honours amplified their comments and said:
The intuition involved in decision-making concerning children is arguably of even greater importance when a judge is obliged to make interim decisions following a hearing at which time constraints prevent the evidence being tested. Apart from relying upon the uncontroversial or agreed facts, a judge will sometimes have little alternative than to weigh the probabilities of competing claims and the likely impact on children in the event that a controversial assertion is acted upon or rejected. It is not always feasible when dealing with the immediate welfare of children simply to ignore an assertion because its accuracy has been put in issue.
Of this, the Full Court in Eaby & Speelman [2015] FamCAFC 104 said at [19]:
As would be immediately apparent, this approach enables the Court to appropriately and carefully deal with contentious issues relevant to the welfare of the child, and for those issues to not be ignored.
Section 60B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) sets out the objects of Part VII of the Act relating to children that inform the making of parenting Orders.
In deciding whether to make a particular parenting Order in relation to a child, a Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration: section 60CA of the Act.
Section 60CC of the Act provides that in determining what is in the child’s best interests, the Court must consider the matters set out in subsections (2) and (3). In the context of s60CC, the Court refers to the decision of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Banks & Banks (2015) FamCAFC 36, especially at paragraphs 46 to 52.
Meaningful relationship primary consideration
The mother asserts that she has been the child’s primary carer. The child has a meaningful relationship with her and would benefit from a continuance of that relationship.
Since the child’s birth, the child has spent irregular and limited time with the father, despite the father’s wish to spend more time with the child. It is unclear, on the material before the Court, what is the present nature of the child’s relationship with the father. It is possible that the child presently enjoys a positive relationship with the father. Prospectively, the child may benefit from having a meaningful relationship with the father provided it is safe for the child to do so.
Should the child spend time with the father as proposed by the ICL, there is a reasonable prospect that a meaningful relationship between the child and the father can be developed.
Need to protect primary consideration
On the material before the Court, there is an unacceptable risk of harm (psychological and/or physical) in the child presently spending unsupervised time with the father. There is a need to protect the child from the risk of being exposed to neglect, abuse or family violence if spending unsupervised time with the father.
The mother makes very serious allegations of family violence having been perpetrated against her by the father, both prior to and after the child was born. The father denies these allegations.
Inter alia, the mother alleges past threats of violence by the father towards the mother and her family members. The mother alleges that the father’s illicit drug use leads the father to become very erratic and violent. She alleges physical family violence as well as verbal abuse from the father.
The Court observes that a final Domestic Violence Order (“Protection Order”) was made on 13 November 2018 in the Court F, for the protection of the mother from the father. This protection order was made for a period of five years. The mother alleges that the father has continued to breach this order although the mother has not reported the father. The mother alleges that after the order was made she moved back to Sydney and that she allowed the father to spend time with the child, supervised by her, although she continues to still hold serious concerns about the father’s volatile behaviour. The mother alleges that the father insisted on keeping the child overnight and when she refused, the father made threats of violence against her and verbally abused her; she asserts in her Affidavit that such behaviour of the father continued through to May 2019. The mother alleged to the Family Consultant that the father had stalked her by attending her friends’ homes. The mother asserts that she is very fearful for her life and that of the child. The mother alleges that she is constantly worried that the father might carry out his threats.
The Court refers to the subpoenaed documents within Exhibit A from NSW Police, including reference to the father’s conviction on …2019; and his conviction, the offence dates … 2019 and … 2019 to … 2019, and convictions for contravene domestic AVO in the period early July 2019.
The mother asserted to the Family Consultant that the father had sworn at her during video time between the child and the father.
The father denied to the Family Consultant that he has a problem managing anger. He asserted that he had completed four of five sessions of the anger management program at Psychologist G at Town A in order to satisfy the mother.
The father admitted to the Family Consultant to being verbally abusive towards the mother and he also admitted to threatening her when she withheld the child from him stating, “I’ve sent some nasty messages”. The father acknowledged that he had breached the “ADVO” by contacting the mother and asking to see the child.
The Family Consultant stated that during the interview for the CDC, she observed the father to speak very fast, get frustrated, distressed and to go on with what could only be described as a “rant” at times. The Family Consultant explained to the father about his presentation when discussing the issues and the father acknowledged this may be the case, stating that he was very distressed about not having the opportunity to spend regular time with the child. The Family Consultant explained to the father that such presentation could make the mother feel intimidated and advised the father to implement the strategies he had been learning in anger management. The father maintained that the mother knows he would never harm her but he agreed that, for the time being, it would be better if they did not come into contact until things had calmed down. The father maintained that if he was able to spend time with the child he would not be as distressed and worked up. The father told the Family Consultant that while he does not believe supervision is required, he is willing, without admission, to commence spending time with the child under the supervision of the paternal grandmother, so as to be able to maintain a relationship with him until the matter progresses. The father told the family consultant that he is willing to do a parenting program, such as C Parenting Program.
On the material presently before the Court, there is a significant suggestion that the father has an anger management problem and that he lacks sufficient insight into such problem; should the child spend unsupervised time with the father there is a significant risk that the child will be exposed to psychological harm by reason of the father’s anger management problem.
The Family Consultant stated that it was unclear whether the content of the anger management program the father is attending is adequate, and he may benefit from completing a men’s behaviour change program with Relationships Australia. Based on the material before the Court, the Court has a real concern that the anger management program that the father has been attending is insufficient for his anger management problem and that a men’s behaviour change program would be best suited for him.
The Family Consultant recommended, inter alia, that the father commence spending time with the child under supervision at a Children’s Contact Centre. She stated that given the father’s flexibility with his working hours, this could possibly occur at Town A on a Friday afternoon, when the waiting list is not as long.
The Court should state, based on the material before it, that it has a concern as to the father’s parenting capacity for this very young child.
The above risks and concerns of the Court can be minimised and addressed by the child spending time with the father in accordance with the proposed orders of the ICL; by the father undertaking relevant alcohol and illicit drug tests pursuant to the proposed orders of the ICL; by the father commencing a C Parenting Program; by the father enrolling in and commencing a men’s behaviour change program; and the father commencing a post-separation parenting program, as proposed by the ICL.
The Court has not overlooked the father’s allegations of family violence having been perpetrated by the mother against him, and in relation to her illicit drug use. In this context, the Court observes, and it is not without relevance, that the father is seeking an order that the child live with the mother. Further, the Court refers to the mother’s assertions that she has taken steps to address her past illicit drug use and further, the Court refers to Exhibit B being the D Parenting Program report relating to the mother’s apparent positive engagement with D Parenting Program, being a parenting support service provided to the mother. The report refers to the mother receiving family support from her sister in the context of Court proceedings. The report refers to the mother enjoying the therapeutic support group process with D Parenting Program and being with parents who are on their own journeys of family restoration, and see the Family Consultant’s positive reference to the mother’s engagement with D Parenting Program. The Court observes the mother’s participation in the various courses referred to in Exhibit B. Inter alia, the mother’s engagement with D Parenting Program, and her participation in the various courses suggests that she has not insignificant insight into her problems. The Court refers to the mother’s drug and alcohol tests in Exhibit B and the Court refers to the ICL’s proposed restraining and other protective orders in relation to each parent and the child.
In relation to the above matters, the Court has taken into account the material before the Court. Such material includes the Child Dispute Conference Memorandum, whilst acknowledging that that Memorandum remains untested.
The Court has considered the father’s submissions that he poses no risk of harm to the child. Inter alia, he contended that he had done nothing wrong (as far as the child was concerned); that he has no drug related convictions, and that he has never been to jail. He contended that his worst behaviour was the nasty messages he sent to the mother however this occurred because the mother had refused him time with the child; he had submitted to the Court that, “in the heat of the moment, I got pissed off.” He submitted that the Family Consultant cannot understand how he feels (in relation to not being able to spend regular time with the child), and that he had always asked about the child. Despite these contentions and submissions, the Court’s concerns remain that presently there is an unacceptable risk of harm posed to the child in spending unsupervised time with the father. The Court refers to its discussions above under this need to protect primary consideration in relation to family violence, anger management and alcohol and illicit drug issues, pertaining to the father.
The Court gives significant weight to this need to protect primary consideration.
Relevant additional considerations
Based on all the material before the Court, including the Child Dispute Conference Memorandum, it will be in the best interests of the child that the Court make the ICL’s proposed orders relating to the parties being restrained from the various matters set out in proposed order 11 in the ICL’s proposed orders. It will be in the best interests of the child that the Court make the ICL’s proposed orders, inter alia, relating to the parties communicating various matters to each other; and that the child be assessed by a paediatrician; and that the mother continue to engage with D Parenting Program.
It would appear that the mother has a developing capacity to provide for the child’s needs (assisted through D Parenting Program), subject to the Court’s concerns as discussed above under the need to protect primary consideration. The Court has concerns in relation to the father’s parenting capacity and the proposed parenting courses and supervisory orders that the ICL proposes will assist the father in this context.
As to the parties demonstrating appropriate attitudes towards the child and the responsibilities of parenthood, the Court refers to its discussion above under the need to protect primary consideration.
In relation to parental responsibility, it will not be in the best interests of the children that the Court make the father’s proposed order that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility in respect to the child at this interim stage. The child is of tender years and there is no looming major decision for this child.
Evaluating the above discussed considerations under section 60CC of the Act, it will be in the best interests of the child to make the following orders:
That all previous parenting orders between the parties be discharged.
That the child [X] born … 2018 live with the mother.
That the parties do all things necessary and sign all documents required to complete any and all intake procedures at Town A Children’s Contact service in order to enable the child to commence spending supervised time with the father.
That the child spend time with the father supervised by Town A Children’s Contact Service for a minimum period of two (2) hours each week if at all possible from 3.00pm to 5.00pm on Friday or otherwise on a day and time convenient to the said contact centre.
That the father pay for the costs of the said contact service.
That Order 4 continue for a period of at eight (8) weeks from the date of commencement of the child spending time with the father pursuant to Order 4 herein.
Upon the expiration of the above period of eight (8) weeks the said child is to spend time with the father for a period of 5 hours once a week on either Saturday or Sunday as agreed between the parties in writing through their respective lawyers (if applicable), such time to be supervised by the father’s mother, Ms B Hendry.
That in order to facilitate all changeovers pursuant to Order 7 herein the father’s mother, Ms B Hendry shall collect the child from the mother’s home, and deliver the child to the mother’s home at the commencement and conclusion of the child’s time with the father.
That Orders 7 and 8 herein not commence until the following:-
9.1
All drug tests requests of the father pursuant to these orders herein are negative;
9.2
The father has enrolled in and commenced a C Parenting Program;
9.3
The father has enrolled in and commenced a men’s behaviour Change program; and
9.4
The father has enrolled in and commenced post separation parenting program.
In the event that the father has not complied with Order 9 of these orders the child [X]’s time with the father shall continue to be supervised by Town A Children’s Contact Service in accordance with Order 4 of these orders.
That WITHOUT ADMISSION both parties be restrained from:
11.1
Exposing the child to violence including physical or verbal threats or intimidation, whether such threats or intimidation or violence be directed at the child, the Mother, the father, or any other member of either party’s household;
11.2 Physically disciplining the child;
11.3 Denigrating the other or members of the other party’s family in the presence or hearing of the child and each party shall do all acts and things reasonably necessary to prevent any other person doing so.
11.4
Discussing these proceedings or any issues arising out of these proceedings with the children or permitting any third party to do so.
11.5
Making critical or derogatory remarks on social media, such as Facebook or Twitter in relation to the other parent or referring in any way to the proceedings.
11.6 Being under the influence of alcohol in the presence of the child or whilst the child is in his or her care to a point of a blood alcohol level of in excess of 0.05;
11.7 Using, ingesting or administering to himself or herself any illicit or non-prescribed drugs (other than over the counter medication);
11.8 Bringing the child into contact with any person under the influence of illicit drugs or alcohol in excess;
That each party submit to Urinalysis, under supervision and chain of custody, upon written request of the Independent Children’s Lawyer, no more than once per month, with such testing to take place within 48 hours of such request and to be conducted in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Standard 4308:2008: Procedure for the collection, detection and quantification of drugs of abuse in urine (“the drug test”).
Each party to cause the drug test results to be forwarded to the Independent Children’s Lawyer and to the other party within 48 hours of receipt.
Each party to pay their own costs associated with the drug tests.
In the event that any such drug test returns a positive reading leave be granted to either party and or to the Independent Children’s lawyer to re-list the proceedings on seven (7) days’ notice.
That the mother keep the father advised at all times of all organisations, schools, day care providers, medical practitioners and health workers with whom the child attends from time to time or are involved in and that each such person, organisation or group be provided with the contact details for the father and the mother shall further do all things required to direct and authorise such organisation or individuals to have contact with and receive information from the father.
That mother keep the father informed of the child’s health and any health issues affecting the child.
That the mother keep the father informed as soon as reasonably practicable of any medical procedure or operations to be undertaken by the child prior to those operations or procedures being undertaken except in the case of an emergency with the mother in such circumstances to inform the father as soon as is reasonably practicable.
That each party notify the other of any serious illness or accident that the child suffers as soon as is reasonably practicable.
That the mother do all things necessary and sign all documents required to authorise the child’s day care provider to speak and communicate with the father directly.
That the mother do all things necessary to have [X] assessed by a paediatrician in respect to possible speech delay and that she follow all recommendations of the paediatrician in that regard including having [X] attend upon a speech therapist should that be necessary.
That the mother continue to ensure that [X] attend day care for a minimum of two (2) days per week and that she further follow all reasonable recommendations of the day care provider in respect to [X]’s attendance at day care.
That the mother continue to engage with D Parenting Program as is recommended by that service and that she provide to the father through her legal representative and to the Independent Children’s Lawyer a letter from D Parenting Program advising as follows:
23.1
The period of their involvement with the mother and with [X];
23.2
Details of the nature and purpose of their involvement with the mother and the child [X] and all services provided by them to the mother; and
23.3
Any recommendations of D Parenting Program as to ongoing services required by and provided to the mother.
That both parties are to forthwith attend upon and complete a post separation parenting program such as offered by Relationships Australia, Catholic Care, Uniting or Anglicare.
That the father is to forthwith complete a C Parenting Program.
That without admissions the father is to forthwith enrol in and complete a men’s behaviour change program with Relationships Australia or such other similar service provider.
That in the event that they have not already done so each party undergo Carbohydrate deficient Transferrin testing (%CDT) within 21 days of this order and that they provide a copy of such test results to the other party and to the Independent Children’s Lawyer forthwith.
I certify that the preceding forty-seven (47) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Newbrun
Associate:
Date: 24 December 2019
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
0
3
2