WORRALL & WORRALL

[2017] FCCA 606

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WORRALL & WORRALL [2017] FCCA 606

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Interim parenting orders – best interests of children.

Legislation:

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

Cases cited:

Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286

Marvel & Marvel (2010) 43 Fam LR 348

SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13
Eaby & Speelman (2015) FLC 93-654

Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36

Applicant: MR WORRALL

Respondent: MS WORRALL

File Number: PAC 2519 of 2016

Judgment of: Judge Newbrun

Hearing date: 23 March 2017

Date of Last Submission: 23 March 2017

Delivered at: Parramatta

Delivered on: 30 March 2017

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Shelly Legal

Solicitors for the Respondent: John Spence & Associates

Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Legal Aid NSW Parramatta Family Law

ORDERS PENDING FURTHER ORDER

1. All previous parenting orders are discharged.

2. The parents shall have equal shared parental responsibility for the children of the marriage namely X born (omitted) 2009 and Y born (omitted) 2012.

3. The children shall live with the mother.

4. The children shall  spend time with the father as follows:

   (a)During the period commencing Saturday 8 April 2017 to 30 April 2017:

   (i)     Each Wednesday from after school until 6PM;

   (ii)Each alternate Saturday from 10 AM until 1 PM;

   (iii)Each alternate intervening Sunday from 10 AM until 1PM;

   (iv)such other times as may be agreed between the parents in writing.

   (b)During the period from 1 May 2017 to 25 June 2017:

   (i)Each Wednesday from after school until 7PM;

   (ii)Each alternate Saturday from 10 AM until 2PM;

   (iii)Each alternate intervening Sunday from 10 AM until 2PM;

   (iv)Such other times as may be agreed between the parents in writing.

   (c)From 26 June 2017 and thereafter:

   (i)Each Wednesday from after school until 7PM;

   (ii)Each alternate Saturday from 10 AM until 6PM;

   (iii)Each alternate intervening Sunday from 10 AM until 6PM;

   (iv)Such other times as may be agreed between the parents in writing.

5. To facilitate the above order, the father shall collect the children from their school (if a school day) or from the mother at Interrelate Centre, (omitted) (if a non-school day) at the commencement of his time and shall return the children to the mother at the said Interrelate Centre at the conclusion of his time.

6. The children shall communicate with the father by telephone each Monday when the father shall telephone the children by calling the mother’s mobile telephone between 6 PM and 6:30 PM. The mother shall ensure that the children are available to take the father’s call and shall give the children privacy during the call.

7. The father is restrained from consuming alcohol 12 hours prior to, or during, any period of time that he spends with the children.

8. The father shall submit to random CDT testing within 48 hours of any request been made by the Independent Children’s Lawyer that he do so and shall provide the results of such testing to the mother’s solicitor and the Independent Children’s Lawyer as soon as they are published.   

9. In the event that the father’s CDT test detects a level greater than 1.6%, the father’s time with the children shall be immediately suspended and the Independent Children’s Lawyer shall have liberty to relist the matter before the Court on short notice.

10. Each parent is restrained from denigrating the other parent, or from allowing any other person to do so, in the hearing or presence of the children.

11. Each parent is restrained from discussing the Court proceedings with the children or from allowing any other person other than a Family Consultant or the Independent Children’s Lawyer to do so.

12. Each parent is authorised to speak with and obtain feedback from the child X’s psychologist, Ms C.

13. Each party shall pay their own fee to the said Interrelate Centre being $10 each week.

14. That the parties forthwith complete intake procedures for changeover at the said Interrelate Centre, if not attended to already.

15. Unless completed already, the father shall take all reasonable steps to forthwith complete the Keeping Kids in Mind course by Catholic Care Social Services.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

PAC 2519 of 2016

MR WORRALL

Applicant

And

MS WORRALL

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This was an interim hearing of the father’s application seeking interim parenting orders relating to the children of the relationship, X born (omitted) 2009 and Y born (omitted) 2012; initially, at the interim hearing, his orders were set out in Exhibit B.  During the course of the interim hearing, the father indicated the Court that he was in broad agreement with the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s proposal in Exhibit C (see below).

2. The mother proposed different interim parenting orders, and were set out in Exhibit A (Exhibit A was amended by the mother, by adding the words “that the children spend time with the father” as the opening words of proposed orders 2 and 3).

3. The Independent Children’s Lawyer participated in the interim hearing and proposed interim orders in Exhibit C. The Independent Children’s Lawyer informed the Court that she was comfortable with the Court making “time with” interim parenting orders on a graduating basis, which were somewhat different from proposed order 4 in Exhibit C, namely that proposed order 4b), for the first 3 months, would be “each Saturday from 9AM to 1PM”, and thereafter order 4b) would be “each Saturday from 9AM until 5PM.

4. At this point, the father indicated to the Court, in the alternative, that, if the Court was minded to make interim parenting orders on a graduating basis, as proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, then he would adopt the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s proposals but that the period of “3 months” be “2 months” instead.

5. The essential dispute between the parties related to the extent and timing of unsupervised time to be spent by the children with the father.

6. The father relied upon his Affidavits filed 2 June 2016 and 24 November 2016.

7. The mother relied upon her Affidavits filed 27 July 2016 and 17 March 2017.

8. The documentary Exhibits in evidence at the interim hearing were Exhibits D, E and F, being certain solicitor correspondence, and pink tabbed documents from Sleeve 2 of the subpoenaed documents from the Department of Family and Community Services.

Evidence

1. The father is aged 51 years and the mother is aged almost 44 years.

2. The parties commenced cohabitation in about 2008.

3. It was common ground between the parties that the Independent Children’s Lawyer had spoken with the child X’s psychologist, Ms C, who had informed the Independent Children’s Lawyer that that child had had some 6 to 8 consultations with her which took place when that child wanted to speak to her, that when the issue of the child X’s fear was raised with Ms C, such fear was linked to the father’s drinking of alcohol, and that Ms C was supportive of the children spending regular time with the father. It was common ground that the Independent Children’s Lawyer had spoken to the children who had informed the Independent Children’s Lawyer that they wanted to spend time with the father and missed their father.

4. The father works as a (occupation omitted) with the (employer omitted). He has worked in this role for 17 years. The mother works as a (occupation omitted) with her own (omitted) business, and she has been practising for 19 years.

5. The parties separated in about September 2015. The father moved out of the home. He then usually saw the children each Wednesday from 4PM to 7:30PM and every Saturday from 4PM to 8:30PM and there may have been short periods of time in between the father changing his residences when he did not spend time with the children.

6. The mother agreed to the children having an overnight stay with the father on the Friday 13 November 2015.

7. The parties agreed to commence mediation shortly after March 2016. After mediation a draft parenting plan was made between the parties for the father to spend time with the children each alternative Saturday from 4PM to 8:30PM, every Monday 4PM until 7:30PM, every Thursday 4PM until 7:30PM. An agreement was reached whereby a breathalyser test would be submitted to by the father before and after spending time with the children.

8. The mother states that the father spent certain day time time with the children after mediation in about March 2016.

9. The incident between the parties on 18 April 2016 on the front porch of the parties’ former home was apparently witnessed by the children. (This incident is referred to below in the context of apprehended domestic violence orders).

10. On 29 July 2016, the parties, by consent, agreed to interim orders providing that the children live with the mother; that they spend time with the father, supervised by Children in Focus, for ultimately two hours each Monday and two hours each alternate Saturday, and two hours on Father’s Day; the father is restrained from consuming alcohol 12 hours before or during the time spent with the children; the father to undertake CDT testing within 48 hours of receipt of a written request by the mother’s legal representatives not more than twice each month.

11. Annexed to the father’s Affidavit filed 24 November 2016, are contact reports from Children in Focus, spanning the period from 8 August 2016 to 29 October 2016 and being some 12 visits between the children and the father. The Court Report from the main supervisor dated 25 October 2016 confirms that the children’s time with the father at the supervised contact visits had been “extremely positive overall”, and referred to the father having presented “as an emotionally stable individual, reliable, perpetual, organise, calm, easy-going, focused and well mannered.” There is no reference to the father in any of the contact reports being under the influence of alcohol during the visits.

12. The father has not seen or spoken with the children since about 31 October 2016.

13. The father asserts that he does not have an alcohol dependency. He states that he is regularly submitted to random alcohol testing in his workplace and has not had a positive result of alcohol in the period of his employment as a (occupation omitted). However he does refer to an incident in Easter 2015 when he was subjected to a random breath test by the police and recorded 0.059, then following his arrest, a breath test revealed a 0.049. The father states that nevertheless his employer, in relation to these random breath tests, made a finding of misconduct against him and he was placed on a 12 month performance supervision management, but no other action was taken.

14. The father states that he does not drink when the children are in his care. He stated he drinks socially, being a maximum of about 10 beers each week, and this is mainly during dinner or a few when he is watching football with his friends. He does not drink and drive.

15. The father undertook drug analysis on a weekly basis, as well as CDT testing, and the tests returned negative results. There were urine drug screen testings reported May 2016, June 2016, July 2016, August 2016, September 2016 and CDT testing in October 2016.

16. The mother asserts that during the parties’ relationship the father would occasionally be intoxicated in the context of arguments between the parties (see paragraph 51 of the mother’s Affidavit filed 27 July 2016). The mother refers to the father always drinking beer on a regular basis. She refers to the father drinking 2 to 4 beers “that I was aware of, more on the weekend”. She refers to the father always drinking alcohol whilst he had care of the children both before and after separation. She refers to asking the father during the relationship not to drink every day. She refers to the father becoming louder, obnoxious, slurring his speech when drinking alcohol. She refers to finding empty beer bottles in all manner of places. The mother refers to making an appointment with the family doctor in March 2015 in relation to the father’s drinking, and she states she was disregarded by the doctor, claiming the father didn’t have a drinking issue and the children were “okay with him”.

17. The mother states that she is the primary carer of the children who have resided with her since separation.

Relevant legal principles

1. The relevant principles in relation to parenting proceedings, including interim proceedings, are well settled: see Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286.

2. In Marvel v Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101; (2010) 43 Fam LR 348 the Full Court (Faulks DCJ, Boland and Stevenson JJ), 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 [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.”

3. Of this, the Full Court in Eaby & Speelman (2015) FLC 93-654 said at 80, 332:

   [80] 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.

4. The Court also refers to the recent decision of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Banks v Banks (2015) FamCAFC 36, especially at paragraph 46 to 52.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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).

8. 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 of the Act. When the Court is making an interim order, the presumption applies unless the Court considers that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for the presumption to be applied when making that order: section 61DA (3).

9. If the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in relation to the child applies, and is not rebutted, the Court must firstly consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child and reasonably practicable.

10. If equal time is found not to be in the child’s best interests, or impracticable, as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in section 60CC, the Court must consider making an order that the child spends substantial and significant time (as defined in section 65DAA (3)) with the parents, unless contrary to the child’s best interests as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in section 60CC, or impracticable.

11. If neither equal time nor substantial and significant time is considered to be in the best interests of the child, or impracticable, then the Court may make such orders in the discretion of the Court that it thinks proper, being orders that are in the best interests of the child, as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in section 60CC: sections 60CA, 60CC, 65D.

The Best Interests of the Children

Section 60CC Considerations

Subsection (2a) - the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents:  a primary consideration.

1. The children have a meaningful relationship with each parent and would benefit from a continuance of those relationships, subject to them, in respect to the father, not being exposed to a significant risk of harm in his care (and in this context, the Court notes the mother’s concerns relating to the father’s alcohol consumption and her concerns relating to the children’s anxiety post separation and alleged fears in spending time with the father).

2. The Court has taken into account the children’s time with the father after separation, including their supervised time with him during the period from early August 2016 to the end of October 2016 which was positive. It has also taken into account the children having told the Independent Children’s Lawyer that they missed the father and wanted to spend time with him. Further, that the psychologist Ms C was supportive of the children spending regular time with the father.

3. At this interim stage, should the children spend time with the father on a graduating basis as stated at the conclusion of these Reasons (a slightly modified version of the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s alternate proposals), the children’s meaningful relationship with the father should be maintained and enhanced and their meaningful relationship with the mother should not be detrimentally affected.

4. The Court is of the view that to accede to the mother’s proposed interim orders that the children spend time with the father (a fairly slow graduating basis) would carry the real risk that the children’s meaningful relationship with the father would be detrimentally affected and would not be maintained and enhanced.

5. The Court gives significant weight to this meaningful relationship primary consideration.

Subsection (2b) - the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.

1. The Court has considered the documents from Family and Community Services, including the allegations relating to the father’s historical consumption of alcohol dating back to 2007 and 2008; in this context, the father submitted at the interim hearing that he does not dispute prior alcohol issues in about 2008/2009.

2. The Court is of the view, at this interim stage, that there will be no unacceptable risk of harm (including relating to the risk of psychological harm, neglect or family violence) posed to the children in spending time with the father on a graduating basis as stated at the conclusion of these Reasons (a slightly modified version of the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s alternate proposals).

1. The mother asserts that the father has an alcohol dependency which is disputed by the father. The Court has considered the parties’ competing evidence in this context but is unable to make findings of fact at this interim stage. Nevertheless, in accordance with legal authority, the mother’s concerns in this context cannot be ignored.

2. The Court notes the mother’s assertions in this context which are well particularised. The Court notes that the mother does not oppose the children spending unsupervised time with the father, although the proposed interim “time with” orders of the mother are on a fairly slow graduating basis during the daytime.

3. The Court notes the father’s negative urine analysis and CDT test results referred to previously. The Court also notes the contact reports from the children’s supervised time with the father did not indicate the father was affected by alcohol on any of the supervised visits. Acting cautiously, the Court proposes to make interim orders in accordance with the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s proposals relating to the father being restrained from consuming alcohol 12 hours prior to or during any period of time that he spend with the children; that the father submit to random CDT testing as proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s with his time with the children being suspended if CDT testing detects a level greater than 1.6%; and again, the Court’s proposed interim time with orders, will be on a graduating basis, and shall not include overnight time.

4. As to the mother’s assertions that the children, in particular the child X, have experienced significant anxiety post separation, and that the eldest child remains scared and fearful of the father, the Court notes that X’s fears as expressed to the psychologist, Ms C, were in relation to the father’s alcohol consumption. The Court notes that during the children’s supervised time with the father no fears of the children were recorded in the contact reports. Again, acting cautiously, the Court refers immediately above to its proposed interim protective orders in relation to the father. As to any suggestion by the mother in her evidence that the eldest child’s fear of the father arises out of the parties’ altercation on 18 April 2016, again, acting cautiously, the Court refers to its immediately above proposed interim protective orders, and its proposed interim orders that changeovers for the children’s time with the father occur either at school or at the Interrelate Centre. The Court’s proposed protective orders should also appropriately ensure that the youngest child is not exposed to any risk of harm, including psychological harm in spending time with the father.

Section 60CC(3) - Additional Considerations

3) (a) Any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child maturity or level of understanding) that the Court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views

1. The Court refers to its discussions above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration.

(b) The nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child’s parents; and other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child)

1. The Court refers to its discussions above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration.

(c) The extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken or failed to take the opportunity; to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and to spend time with the child; and to communicate with the child

1. The parties would appear to have taken such opportunities.

(ca) The extent to which each of the child’s parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent’s obligations to maintain the child

1. It would appear that each party has maintained the children whilst they have been in their respective care post separation. The father has recently filed for bankruptcy. The Court notes the mother’s assertions in relation to the father’s financial position during the relationship. There is insufficient evidence before the Court at this interim stage to make firm findings of fact as to this additional consideration.

(d) The likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either of his or her parents; or any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living

1. The Court refers to its discussions above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration.

(e) The practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with the parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis

1. There would not appear to be any such significant difficulties or expenses.

(f) The capacity of each of the child’s parents; and any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs

1. Subject to the Court’s discussion above under the need to protect primary consideration, both parties would appear to have such capacities.

(g) The maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child’s parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the Court thinks are relevant

1. The Court refers to its discussion above under the need to protect primary consideration.

(i) The attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents

1. The Court refers to its discussion above under the need to protect primary consideration.

(j) Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family.

1. The Court refers to the mother’s assertion of family violence perpetrated against her during the relationship by the father, and the father’s denials in this context. The Court refers to the parties’ respective evidence relating to the incident on 18 April 2016, which occurred in the near presence of the children. The Court notes that the application on behalf of the mother for a final apprehended domestic violence order was dismissed. Nevertheless, again acting cautiously, the Court refers to its above proposed interim protective orders referred to above under the need to protect primary consideration, and its proposed interim orders that changeovers for the children’s time with the father occur either at school or at the Interrelate Centre.  

(k) If a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child’s family – any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following: the nature of the order; the circumstances in which the order was made; any findings made by the Court in, or in proceedings for, the order; any other relevant matter.

1. Arising out of the incident between the parties 18 April 2016, the police, on behalf the mother, sought apprehended domestic violence orders against the father. A provisional order was made against the father for the protection of the mother on or about 19 April 2016, and the grounds of the application in relation to that order are attached to the father’s Affidavit filed 2 June 2016. An interim domestic violence order was made against the father on or about 26 May 2016, and again the terms of that order are attached to the father’s said Affidavit. On 7 October 2016, the application for a final apprehended domestic violence order was dismissed in the Local Court at Bankstown, and the dismissal order is attached to the father’s Affidavit filed 24 November 2016.

(l) Whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child.

1. The Court refers to its discussion below in relation to parental responsibility.

Equal shared parental responsibility: section 61DA(1) and (2)

1. The father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s both seek an interim order that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility children. The mother seeks no express order for parental responsibility, submitting that the parties have not yet demonstrated an ability to communicate with each other.  

2. The Independent Children’s Lawyer’s submits that if no parental responsibility order is made, then there is a significant risk of conflict arising between the parties; in the absence of such an order, a party, in particular the father, may experience difficulties in obtaining relevant information from the children’s health professional treatment providers and schools. In the presence of such an order, the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s submits, the parties will thereby appreciate that they need to share relevant information pertaining to the children’s care welfare and development. There is force to these submissions of the Independent Children’s Lawyer (whilst noting that the present evidence before the Court relating to parental responsibility was not extensive). Further, the Court is not satisfied at this interim stage that the parties presently lack the ability to reach agreement on major decisions affecting the children’s care, welfare and development in a timely fashion. It is not without relevance in this latter context that the mother, by the time of this interim hearing, had moved from her previously held position that the children’s time to be spent with the father should be supervised. The Court also refers to the mother’s evidence in her Affidavit filed 17 March 2017, paragraph 77, where she states that in recent times the father’s telephone calls have been more limited and reasonably paced. 

3. At this interim stage, it will be in the best interests of the children to make an order for equal shared parental responsibility.

4. The Court refers to its discussions above under the primary considerations; at this interim stage it will not be in the best interests of the children for there to be an equal time shared care arrangement nor that the children spend time with the father on a substantial and significant basis.

Summary

1. Evaluating the above discussed considerations under section 60CC of the Act, it will be in the best interests of the children to make interim orders as follows:

   1)All previous parenting orders are discharged.

   2)The parents shall have equal shared parental responsibility for the children of the marriage namely X born (omitted) 2009 and Y born (omitted) 2012.

   3)The children shall live with the mother.

   4)The children shall  spend time with the father as follows:

   a.During the period commencing Saturday 8 April 2017 to 30 April 2017:

   i.Each  Wednesday from after school until 6PM

   ii.Each alternate Saturday from 10 AM until 1 PM

   iii.Each alternate intervening Sunday from 10 AM until 1PM

   iv.such other times as may be agreed between the parents in writing

   b.During the period from 1 May 2017 to 25 June 2017:

   i.Each  Wednesday from after school until 7PM

   ii. Each alternate Saturday from 10 AM until 2PM

   iii.Each alternate intervening Sunday from 10 AM until 2PM

   iv.Such other times as may be agreed between the parents in writing

   c.From 26 June 2017 and thereafter:

   i.Each  Wednesday from after school until 7PM

   ii.Each alternate Saturday from 10 AM until 6PM

   iii.Each alternate intervening Sunday from 10 AM until 6PM

   iv.Such other times as may be agreed between the parents in writing

   5)To facilitate the above order, the father shall collect the children from their school (if a school day) or from the mother at Interrelate Centre, (omitted), (if a non-school day) at the commencement of his time and shall return the children to the mother at the said Interrelate Centre at the conclusion of his time.

   6)The children shall communicate with the father by telephone each Monday when the father shall telephone the children by calling the mother’s mobile telephone between 6 PM and 6:30 PM. The mother shall ensure that the children are available to take the father’s call and shall give the children privacy during the call.

   7)The father is restrained from consuming alcohol 12 hours prior to or during any period of time that he spends with the children.

   8)The father shall submit to random CDT testing within 48 hours of any request been made by the independent children’s lawyer that he do so and shall provide the results of such testing to the mother’s solicitor and the independent children’s Lawyer as soon as they are published. 

   9)In the event that the father’s CDT test detects a level greater than 1.6%, the father’s time with the children shall be immediately suspended and the Independent children’s lawyer shall have liberty to relist the matter before the Court on short notice.

   10)Each parent is restrained from denigrating the other parent or from allowing any other person to do so in the hearing or presence of the children.

   11)Each parent is restrained from discussing the Court proceedings with the children or from allowing any other person other than a family consultant or the Independent children’s lawyer to do so.

   12)Each parent is authorised to speak with and obtain feedback from the child X’s psychologist, Ms C.

   13)Each party shall pay their own fee to the said Interrelate Centre been $10 each week.

   14)That the parties forthwith complete intake procedures for changeover at the said Interrelate Centre, if not attended to already.

   15)Unless completed already, the father shall take all reasonable steps to forthwith complete the Keeping Kids in Mind course by Catholic Care Social services.

I certify that the preceding sixty-four (64) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Newbrun

Date: 30 March 2017