Xiu and Hodges

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

XIU & HODGES

[2007] FamCA 636

FAMILY LAW - CHILDREN - With whom a child lives - Best interests of child

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT:

MS XIU

RESPONDENT:

MR HODGES

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

MARIA BARBAYANNIS

FILE NUMBER:

MLF

519

2006

DATE DELIVERED:

5 June 2007

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

DESSAU J

HEARING DATE:

10 August 2006, 15 September 2006, 15 December 2006, 30 April 2007 1-4 May 2007, 21-22 May 2007

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

No appearance

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Dr Alexander

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Horsfield & Associates

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER COUNSEL:

Mr Nicholson

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER SOLICITOR:

Maria Barbayannis

Orders

1.All current parenting orders shall be discharged.
2.The husband and wife shall have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, a son, born … April 2002.
3.Subject to paragraph 4 of these orders:
(a)    The child shall live with the husband during school term and holiday time, each week from immediately after school Wednesday, or from 12.00 noon Wednesday when it is a non school day, to 6.00pm Saturday; and
(b)    The child shall live with the wife at all other times.
4.For the purposes of Christmas and Father’s Day:
(a)    The child shall live with the husband:
(i)     From 6.00pm on 24 December 2007 to 3.00pm on 25 December 2007 and each alternate year thereafter;
(ii)    From 3.00pm on 25 December 2008 to 6.00pm on 26 December 2008 and each alternate year thereafter;
(iii)     On the Father’s Day week-end in each year from 6.00pm Saturday to 6.00pm Sunday:
(b)    The child shall live with the wife:
(i)From 3.00pm on 25 December 2007 to 6.00pm 26 December 2007 and each alternate year thereafter; and
(ii)From 6.00pm 24 December 2008 to 3.00pm 25 December 2008 and each alternate year thereafter.

5.For the purpose of change-overs in these orders the husband or his nominee shall punctually collect the child from and return him to:
(a)    School where such time commences or concludes on a school day; and
(b)    The wife’s residence when such time commences or concludes on a non school day.
6.The husband and wife shall:
(a)    Keep the other advised at all times of the child’s current residential address and landline telephone number;
(b)    Advise the other immediately in the event that the child suffers any serious illness or injury;
(c)    Authorise any medical practitioner upon whom the child may attend from time to time, to communicate with the other in respect to his medical condition and/or requirements; and
(d)    Authorise all schools at which the child may attend from time to time to:
(i)     Provide the other at the expense of the other, copies of all school reports, school notices and school photographs in relation to the child;
(ii)    Communicate with the other either by telephone, in writing or by personal attendance, in respect to the child’s progress at his school; and
(iii)     Permit the other to attend all school functions to which parents are normally invited.
7.The husband shall be permitted to remove the child from school for the purpose of home-schooling on each Thursday in 2007 and thereafter:
(a)    On one day per week;
(b)    On a day when the child is living with him pursuant to these orders;
(c)    On the same day each week;
(d)    On a day that does not co-incide with formal therapy programmed for the child within the school environment; and
(e)    The husband shall provide to the wife written details on a monthly basis of the home education activities.
8.Pursuant to s 65L of the Family Law Act these orders shall be supervised by a Family Consultant appointed by the Director of Child Dispute Services at the Family Court of Australia Melbourne Registry for a period of two years and the Family Consultant shall be at liberty to report to the Court at the request of the Court or of a party in any future proceedings.
9.That:
(a)    As soon as practicable the parties shall do all acts and things necessary to obtain a referral from Dr G to attend the B Centre or in default of acceptance by the B Centre such therapeutic counselling service as may be recommended by the Family Consultant;
(b)    Subject to such referral the husband and wife shall co-operate with the requirements to attend and to take the child to attend when required, and to complete such family therapeutic program or such other programs as the B Centre or the Family Consultant may recommend, and the husband and the wife shall comply with all directions of the Manager or like Officer of the relevant program.
10.The Independent Children’s Lawyer shall be at liberty to provide a copy of these orders to the following:
(a)    The Principal of the child’s school;
(b)    Any medical practitioner and/or allied health professional attending upon the child; and
(c)    The B Centre and/or any other therapeutic counselling service as referred to in sub-paragraph 9(a) hereof, with a copy of my Reasons for Judgment in this case;
and thereafter the order of the court appointing the Independent Children’s Lawyer shall be discharged.
11.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.
12.That all applications in relation to parenting orders shall be otherwise dismissed and the case removed from the list of cases awaiting finalisation.
13.That pursuant to the Family Law Rules this matter reasonably required the attendance of counsel.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLF 519 of 2006

MS XIU

Applicant

And

MR HODGES

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

The child has just turned five. He suffers severe global development delay. He functions at about half his chronological age, is not toilet-trained, is largely non-verbal, and has difficulties with his fine motor skills. He cannot independently feed, wash or dress himself, and requires 24-hour care. The current prognosis is that he will remain severely disabled both physically and intellectually, but it is difficult to predict with certainty.
The father and mother are doting parents. They adore the child and are both committed to the labour intensive care that he requires, his well-being, and his optimal development. So too is his paternal grand-mother, in whose household the child lived for 16 months when he was younger. She assists both parents in any way that she can. Anyone would be in awe of their unfailing devotion to the child, who the Family Report writer describes as “thriving” and a “delightful child”.
This case started before me in August 2006 as part of the Children’s Cases Project and Child Responsive Model. That gave me the opportunity from the outset to hear directly from the parents, the paternal grand-mother, and the Family Consultant. In September 2006 I had the considerable advantage of hearing from the child’s various doctors, therapists and teachers, eight in all, who were able to give me an overview of his requirements from their various expert perspectives.
When this case first started, the parents approached it with a shared point of view that the child’s significant needs could best be met by the continuing involvement of both of them and the paternal grandmother. Their disagreement was mainly as to whether that should occur in one home especially set up for the child with the parents moving in and out on a rostered basis (as the mother wanted), or in their respective homes (as the father preferred). Sadly, as the case has proceeded, the gap has widened in their perspectives as to how the child’s interests can best be met.
The parents still agree that the child requires the love and the care of these three important adults, but they have different opinions as to how his housing should be organised, as to who should have responsibility for health and educational issues, and whether the child should continue to attend X Special Development School five days’ per week, or as the father would prefer, be home-schooled on two days’ per week. In addition, there are issues as to how prescriptive I should be in relation to various orders about day to day safety measures for the child.

BACKGROUND

The father is Mr Hodges. He is 39 years’ old, lives in H, receives a Newstart allowance, and is a part-time driver for disabled people. The child’s mother is Ms Xiu. She is 43 years’ old. She is a teacher by profession, lives in P, and is presently engaged in home duties. She was born in China. She met the father when he went there to teach English. They were married in 1996 and came to Australia in 1997. The child was born on … April 2002. The parents separated in February 2005 and were divorced in June 2006.
The paternal grand-mother … is a retired teacher. She retired in 2001 after 22 years teaching adults with disabilities at L Day Centre in G. She ran programs in independent living, numeracy, and literacy. For 16 months in 2004/2005 the child lived with her. The parents were both studying and they shared the child’s care at the paternal grandmother’s home. Since March 2005 each parent has maintained their own home, where they look after the child when he is with them. The grandmother has remained involved as a support and resource to the parents.
The child presently lives with his father from after school Friday until 6.00pm Sunday, and with his mother the rest of the week. As the mother does not drive, the father collects the child from her home and takes him to school each Monday morning. He then collects the child from school and returns him to his mother every Monday, Wednesday and Thursday. The parents also jointly attend various medical, therapy and education appointments with the child.

MATERIAL RELIED UPON AND ORDERS SOUGHT

The mother relies on the following:
·Her questionnaire filed 1 August 2006
·Her amended application filed 7 August 2006
·Her affidavit filed 20 April 2007
·The affidavit of Dr C filed 5 March 2007 (not cross-examined).
The mother was represented until early in the final part of the hearing when her solicitor and counsel withdrew. I stopped the hearing for her to make enquiries from Victoria Legal Aid as to whether she would be able to obtain further representation. She could not. Accordingly the case proceeded without her being represented. Her English is excellent, and she conducted herself very well in the difficult circumstances of heightened emotion and a limited understanding of the court process. Counsel for the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (the ICL) both made appropriate concessions to assist her in the way the proceedings were run, but without in any way compromising their roles on behalf of the other parties.
The mother’s proposal varied at different times in the course of the case (and I will consider the reasons for that in detail below) but she has not wavered from her view of the ideal, being one home for the child with the parents moving in and out to care for him on a rostered basis. During the final part of the hearing her second option was for the father to move closer to her and the school, and then for the child to spend two nights’ and one evening per week with him. Her next option was for the father’s time with the child to be supervised by his mother. By the close of the case, second to her ideal of the shared “[child’s] home”, she proposed that all of the father’s time with the child should be at the paternal grand-mother’s home.
The mother also proposed that a case manager from DHS be appointed, first “to monitor safety”, to ensure the father keeps the space safe for the child and secondly, “to facilitate team-work”, that is to help the parents reach agreement on issues in relation to the child’s care. She wants the power to make final decisions about the child’s health and education in the event that she and the father cannot agree. Otherwise, like the father, she envisages that both parents will continue shared learning activities, appointments and outings with the child.
The father relies upon:
·His questionnaire filed 8 August 2006
·His amended response filed 25 August 2006
·His affidavit filed 26 April 2007
·The statement of his mother the paternal grandmother dated 30 March 2006
·The affidavit of Ms T filed 28 February 2007 (not cross-examined)
·The affidavit of Ms R and Ms B filed 8 March 2007 (not cross-examined).
The father’s proposal is for equal shared parental responsibility to continue, and for the child to live with him from after school Wednesday until 6.00pm Saturday, on special occasions, for half school holidays, and otherwise with his mother. He wants to home-school the child two days’ per week.
The ICL relies upon:
·The Family Report of Mr A filed 7 March 2007
·The report of GP Dr G filed 5 January 2007 (not cross-examined)
·The reports of psychiatrist Dr J dated 25 April 2007 assessing each parent (not cross-examined)
·The report of paediatrician Dr M dated 26 February 2007 (not cross-examined).
At the end of the evidence, the ICL agreed with the father’s proposals save that she proposed one day of home schooling each week. She also proposed a s 65L supervision order and for the parents to attend the B Centre which specialises in assisting families with complex needs, to help them develop techniques to more seamlessly reach agreements for the child.

RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Part VII of the Family Law Act1975 was substantially amended in July 2006 by the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act.
Section 60B(1) sets out the objects of Part VII of the Act, to ensure the best interests of children are met by:
“(a)ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child; and
(b)protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and
(c)ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and
(d)ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.”
Section 60B(2) sets out the principles underlying those objects. They are that (except when it is or would be contrary to a child’s best interests):
“(a)children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together; and
(b)children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development (such as grandparents and other relatives); and
(c)parents jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and
(d)parents should agree about the future parenting of their children; and
(e)children have a right to enjoy their culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture).”
In deciding a particular parenting order the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration (s 60CA). Section 60CC(2) and (3) set out the primary and additional considerations for the court in determining what is in the child’s best interests. I will return to the detail below. Section 60CC(4) provides that the court must consider the extent to which each of the child’s parents has fulfilled or failed to fulfil his or her responsibilities as a parent, and the court must have regard in particular to events that have happened and circumstances that have existed since separation (see s 60CC(4A)).
There is a presumption that it is in the child’s best interests for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility (s 61DA). The presumption relates to the allocation of parental responsibility. It does not relate to the time the child spends with each parent. The presumption can be rebutted if the court is satisfied that shared parental responsibility would not be in the child’s best interests. That is an issue in this case.
The court is then required to consider whether the child spending equal time, or otherwise substantial and significant time with each parent is in his best interests (s 65DAA (1) and s 65DAA(2)). In this case, however the orders are ultimately structured, it is agreed that the child will spend substantial and significant time with each parent.

THE ISSUES

The issues that I have referred to above can best be dealt with under the headings provided in s 60CC of the Act. I will first consider the primary considerations under s 60CC(2).
(a)the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents;
The child needs a meaningful relationship with both his parents. His special needs mean that the physical, emotional, educational, and organisational input of his mother and his father (and they agree, his paternal grand-mother) is imperative for his well-being. All three have been integrally involved in every aspect of his care throughout his life. They agree that is the case and agree that it must continue, although they cannot agree on how to achieve it.
(b)the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence;
These are not relevant considerations in this case.
I must now consider the additional considerations.
(a)any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child’s maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views;
The child cannot express views as such but there is no doubt that he loves and depends on each parent. Nobody argues against that. The Family Report writer, Mr A, observed the child at home with each parent and noted he appeared happy and playful.
(b)the nature of the relationship of the child with:
(i) each of the child’s parents; and
(ii) other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
It was accepted throughout the case that the child has a wonderful relationship with both of his parents. Again, Mr A was complimentary of both of them. It is also agreed that he has a loving relationship with his paternal grand-mother and a good relationship with extended family on his father’s side, his mother's family being in China.
It is clear that aspects of the child’s relationship with each parent are different, but I will return to that in considering the parents’ respective capacities to look after him.
(c)the willingness and ability of each of the child’s parents to facilitate, and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent;
I am satisfied that each parent has the willingness and the ability to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent. They have demonstrated that throughout his life. They have shown a level of co-operation rarely seen in this court. They have discussed his care virtually on a daily basis. They have organised themselves into keeping and sharing very detailed records about his sleeping, eating, toileting, and playing activities. They attend a multitude of appointments together in relation to his medical needs and various therapies. The father takes him to and from school on days that the mother does not have transport. And they share outings, educational activities, and special occasions with him. To their credit, and to the grandmother’s credit, they have both worked co-operatively with her.

When this case started, although they disagreed about the structure of their time with the child, the parents were at one about the need for both of them to have a close and continuing relationship with him. I think they still are, but the litigation has impacted adversely. The parents’ respective positions have hardened and polarised. Every effort has been made to avoid that. In the early times at court, the case being conducted upon less adversarial lines, each parent was able to express their point of view openly to me, and they had the assistance of experts, including the Family Consultant, who were able to give suggestions along the way. Still, the conflict escalated with the parry and thrust of mutual grievances.
The lawyers representing the parents and the ICL were alive to the need to minimise litigation, and at their request, I gave them ample time to try to negotiate outstanding issues before the last part of the hearing commenced. Despite that, the case continued, negotiations having broken down, and the mother having lost her legal representation.
Although the litigation has inevitably taken its toll on the parties’ relationship with each-other, and on what has been a trusting and respectful relationship between the mother and paternal grand-mother, I am satisfied that each still shows a willingness and ability to facilitate and encourage the other’s relationship. That is clear from their conduct just weeks before the last part of the trial when together they embarked on a new teaching program for the child. It is also clear from how each talks of the future without any doubt that together they will teach the child and help him fulfil his capacity.
The difficulty for the parents is that they do have genuine problems in making some decisions together.
The mother’s frustration with the father’s rejection of professional advice is genuine. Her concerns about safety at his home are genuine. Her belief that she is more organised and capable of providing for the child’s daily needs is also genuine. All these things will be considered below when I am looking at each parent’s capacity to provide for the child’s needs. For present purposes it is important to note that although the mother’s proposals appear to reduce the father’s role in the child’s life, I am satisfied that is not her aim or expectation.
Repeatedly throughout the evidence the mother volunteered that whatever the formal structure, she expects that both parents will continue to make arrangements to share activities with and for the child, and to discuss the major decisions for him. She clearly expects that they will continue to attend appointments together and will engage in joint teaching activities, as frequently as on a daily basis. In fact, without the benefit of legal representation to help her clarify her proposal, her ambivalence was very obvious. If the father’s activities with the child could be based in one child-centred home, or in her home, or in the grand-mother’s home, or even in a home run by the father but closer to where she lives and in her view more safely organised, her approach to the time he spends with the child would be less restrictive. Similarly, although she seeks sole parental responsibility for health and education so that she would be in charge of decisions, she would only exercise that power if she and the father could not reach an agreement.
For his part, the father says that he wants both parents to have equal involvement. He is genuinely hurt by the mother’s proposals that would reduce his time with the child, his independent care of him, or his role in the decision-making for him.
I am satisfied that both parents have shown an outstanding willingness and ability to include the other in the child’s life, particularly before these proceedings commenced. Even since, and very close to this hearing when emotions were running high and the differences in each parent’s position were obvious, they were exploring various learning opportunities together and I saw a recent video of them practising one teaching method together with the child. Their co-operation and shared joy at his achievements were obvious. They have currently reached an impasse about how to approach the major issues of health and education. Satisfied of their demonstrated capacity to work together throughout the child’s life, I need to look at all relevant factors to decide the best way to deal with the impasse.
(d)the likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:
(i) either of his or her parents; or
(ii) any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living;
The expert evidence is that consistency is important for the child. That does not mean that I cannot make any changes for him, but I must tread carefully, and I must bear in mind the need for consistency in the ultimate arrangements.
The child is likely to suffer if he sees significantly less of any of the important adults in his life. They are the mainstays of his world. And I am satisfied that his care is so labour intensive, that respite for each parent is also an important consideration when I consider the time he should spend with each of them.
After the hearing, and with the other parties’ consent, the mother sent me reports from paediatricians – Dr L and Dr M – about the need for consistency and the benefits to the child of living in one residence and/or of all relevant adults living very close to each other and to the child’s school. Those reports help explain why the mother has become fixed in her view that it is the best way to meet the child’s interests. However, the reports are now close to two years’ old. Much has happened since. The child is older. He is now in a routine. His parents are not showing any capacity to share a house-hold. Dr M’s more contemporaneous report shows a modified approach on the doctor’s part, recognising that things have moved on.
Mr A’s expert opinion is that a move to the mother’s proposed shared home for the child is simply not feasible given it is not the shared vision of both of his parents, given their different parenting styles and approaches, and the prospect of conflict. He was clear too that the child needs to spend frequent periods of time with both his parents, there should be no reduction of the father’s time with him, and an increase in that time would not be detrimental. It was otherwise Mr A’s strongly expressed opinion that there should be no change to the equal shared parental responsibility, it being essential to the child’s development that both his parents remain fully engaged in the decision-making for him, but with expert assistance to help them navigate differences of approach or opinion.
As to schooling, Mr A has a positive view of both the full-time program at X, and of the program combined with home-schooling. Unlike the parents, he was not adamant that only one way was the best way forward for the child. He noted advantages in both positions and I will consider them further below.
(e)the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis;
The mother and grandmother live very close to each other and to X School. The mother does not drive. The father lives 15 minutes’ from the mother by car, and he participates in transporting the child almost on a daily basis. The mother is nevertheless concerned about the distance. She feels strongly that if the optimal arrangement of one shared household for the child is not acceptable, then the father should at least move to live very close to her, his mother’s home and the school. She points to the practicality of being within walking distance and of not wasting time travelling between homes and/or home and school. She highlights the benefit for the child in having more “learning time” each day with his parents.
Sharing one home, or being able to walk briefly between homes, could add to the ease of each parent spending time with their son. However, it is not a reasonable expectation, and not feasible for the parents to be forced to share a home or live within a short walk of each-other when it is not something that both of them want.
Objectively, living 15 minutes by car from each-other is entirely reasonable and practical. It would be an unnecessary infringement of the father’s freedom to impose any restrictions on that. If the father moved significantly further away, there may be practical difficulties with the level of involvement he could maintain in the child’s life on a day to day basis. However, the present living arrangements do not pose any practical limitations in that regard. The mother’s unshakeable view that they do is an indication of how she can be unreasonably rigid in her views. It also raises the possibility that she has not altogether adjusted to the breakdown of her relationship with the father. I can make no definitive finding about that, but I do note that the grandmother raised it as a possible concern, and the father referred to the need for “boundaries”. That need struck me as appropriate.
(f)the capacity of:
(i) each of the child’s parents; and
(ii) any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs:
(i)the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents;
Each parent recognises that the other parent loves the child very much and that each has skills in caring for him. The father acknowledges that the mother is an experienced teacher and that her background is an advantage in the way she helps the child learn. The mother acknowledges that the father plays well with the child, and also teaches him well.
I am satisfied that overall each parent has the capacity to provide for the child’s needs. Before considering the detail of issues they raise, I note four things.
First, in the minutiae of this case with its allegations and counter-allegations, the fact that the parents have been doing a wonderful job has not been given the prominence that it deserves. Sometimes it has been lost. These are two top quality people, excellent and caring parents, who have risen admirably to the challenges of the child’s developmental delay.
Secondly, the parents have different skills, and I am satisfied that it is the combination of those skills that can ensure the child’s needs are best met. Of the two, the mother is the more organised and structured, the father, the more spontaneous and playful. The child benefits from both.
Thirdly, there is no independent evidence to suggest that the child is not doing as well as he possibly can in terms of his day to day care and well-being. Dr M, his paediatrician, is happy with his general health and progress. The child is thriving
Fourthly, although the mother raises some concerns about the father’s care of the child, overall she must believe he can manage, as she still agrees that he should care for the child for substantial periods, so long as it is in the “[child] home”, or the grand-mother’s home, or in his own home if he moves closer to her home.
The mother worries in particular about the child’s safety in his father’s care. She believes the father’s home is untidy, disorganised and unsafe, and that at home and in the car the father allows the child access to items on which he could choke. She is concerned that he does not dress the child warmly enough, does not feed him the food - or at the regular times - prescribed by the dietician, and that he is unreliable and lacking punctuality when he returns the child to her after school.
The mother is right to complain about the father’s lack of punctuality. He consistently fails to return the child at the agreed time on the afternoons that he collects him from school. The father says that they play at the school and that is why they are late. The excuse is immaterial. It must be irritating for the mother not to have certainty as to when the child is coming home. It is high-handed of the father to turn up more or less at the time that suits him. His evidence was unsatisfactory about that. He is well aware of how it upsets the mother but he has done nothing to correct it.
The father’s high-handedness was shown in other regards. For example, in the middle of last year he stopped driving the mother to appointments with the child. He described that as part of drawing “boundaries”. I understand that he feels the need to do that, but the upshot has been that he has driven to the mother’s home, collected the child, and taken him to appointments, while the mother has had to make her own way to those same appointments by public transport. That could only fuel the mother’s frustrations with the father.
Even though the mother is more concerned than the father that the child should be warmly dressed, that did not strike me as a significant issue on the evidence of the experts or the child’s school. She also worries that the child should not play outside in cold or wet weather. The father may be more relaxed than she is when it comes to that, but the evidence does not suggest that he is uncaring, permissive or negligent about the child’s exposure to inclement weather.
The mother worries about the child’s diet, in particular that he must eat foods and at times recommended by the dietician. Again it is clear that she is more rigid about such details than the father, but the evidence does not persuade me that the father is uncaring or irresponsible or that his approach causes harm to the child’s health. Overall, he is respectful of the regime and diet suggested by the dietician.
The mother blames the father for the child suffering diarrhoea. That blame is not sustained on the evidence. The grandmother believes that the diarrhoea is as a result of the diet in the child’s mother’s home. I also cannot be certain about that. Mr A spent time in each home. On his observation (albeit limited), he noted no concern about either parent’s food preparation. I am satisfied that in each parent’s home the child has thrived, so although they may deal slightly differently with his diet, he is doing well.
The child’s safety is of course important. During the course of this case the issue of safety gained momentum as the most pressing from the mother’s perspective. In particular, she worries that the child can place objects in his mouth and that despite her concerns, the advice of doctors, and court orders, the father has continued to allow him to play with small objects like shells, stones, nuts, bolts, coins, and other things he could swallow. She worries that the father allows the child to have objects like that and others within easy reach in the car, and that he allows him to eat and drink so that he could choke while the car is moving or if it suddenly stops. She is also worried about a hole in the verandah at the back of his home and the metal grate structure that she says is inadequate to protect the child.
The father’s perspective is that he is loving and protective and does not allow the child to be put in danger. He disagrees with the mother that the child puts things in his mouth. He says he has long grown out of that, and the risks that the mother perceives are not reasonable.
The paternal grand-mother supports the father, saying that she has not noticed the child putting things in his mouth for a long time. Although sadly I think the grandmother has become less neutral and more aligned with her son in the course of this case, there is no question that she is a loving and responsible grand-mother, with the child’s safety and best interests very much to the fore, and I accept her evidence about him in this regard.
In regard to this safety issue, I am assisted by Mr A’s professional opinion, drawn not only from interviews, but also from his observations of the child in each parent’s home, in the paternal grand-mother’s home, and during a full day at X School. Mr A’s evidence is that the parents’ households are different. The mother’s is very tidy and organised. The father’s, whilst clean, is less tidy and organised. Although Mr A would like to see the hole in the back verandah fixed, overall he was not left with safety concerns in the father’s household. In this regard I also note that the child has been safely cared for by both parents at all times.
Despite all those reassurances, the mother is rigid in maintaining her view that the child is unsafe in his father’s care. She cannot see the irony that when she criticises the father for failing to accept professional advice, she is just as guilty of that, refusing to accept Mr A’s reassurances about the safety of the father’s home. She relies selectively on the experts, calling in aid her former GP, Dr C, who has not treated the child now for quite some time, and his current GP, Dr G, who has simply observed that if the mother’s account is correct, then it would be a concern. And she cannot see the paradox that although on the one hand she says that the danger for the child is so high in his father’s care that the time should be fully supervised by the paternal grand-mother, she has also proposed that if the father cares for the child in a shared home, or even if he moves closer to her, he can care for the child without supervision. There is no logic in that, and it seems to me that she has “worked herself into a state” and has lost sight of the rigidity she is showing on this issue.
I am satisfied that sadly the father has displayed a stubborn and pig-headed approach on the question of safety that has exacerbated the mother’s concerns, and contributed to the issue becoming disproportionately prominent in her mind. He knows she is worried about the hole in the verandah at the back of his home and the make-shift structure around it. He has done nothing to fix it. He knows she is concerned about small objects within the child’s reach, a natural concern when the paediatrician says the child has the maturity of a child only half of his age (so about 2½ years old). Even if the child is usually reliable about not putting things in his mouth, it is not prudent to allow a young child in a car-seat to travel while holding a stone and a small lump of wood, as the father concedes occurred on one occasion. The father said that if the child put an object into his mouth in the car, he could pull over and remove them. That is not a reasonable stance.
It strikes me that the more the mother has complained, the more intransigent the father has become. Unfortunately each blames the other for such intransigence. The overview I have is that each is contributing and they need professional help to gain insight into their respective roles in their disagreement.
I note the forensic assessment of the psychiatrist Dr J. He described the mother as having experienced a mild Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood after the separation, and as having an “obsessional personality”. He described the father as having a possible Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified with “schizoid, avoidant and obsessional characteristics”, but described the diagnosis as “provisional only”, requiring longitudinal assessment for confirmation. These assessments alone were of little assistance, but combined with all the evidence persuade me further that both parents need the on-going support of experts, to promote their own well-being and to improve their inter-action.
I must consider each party’s capacity to contribute to the major decisions about the child’s health and education. The father says that both parents should continue to share those decisions. The mother says that she should have the sole responsibility for them. I accept that she is genuine when she says that she would continue to discuss all the decisions with the father, but that she is concerned that when there is an impasse, there needs to be one decision-maker and that she should have that role, as of the two, she is the one who accepts and follows the advice of professionals.

Dealing first with the issue of health, I am not satisfied that the parents in fact face significant disagreement. To the contrary, throughout the child’s life, they have attended his medical appointments together. The various experts have spoken positively about them and their joint commitment to the child’s welfare.
Dr C is the one exception. She wrote in a report that the mother should have sole responsibility for the child’s health. Her opinion must be viewed in the light of her being the mother’s doctor, not being the child’s GP since 2005 (although the mother has occasionally taken the child to see her since), and that most of what Dr C knows of the father and the issues in this case comes from the mother. The reality is that major aspects of the child’s health care have been conducted without dispute.
The mother criticises the father for not taking the advice of professionals. She referred to an incident (in August 2004) when Dr C recommended Panadol for the treatment of fever, and the father did not administer it. She referred to the father in the past having questioned the need for the child to wear AFOs (callipers). She again referred to the father not following the dietician’s advice, and to the issue of allowing the child access to small objects. In addition, she pointed to recent disagreements about some medical appointments.
I put to one side the issue about recent appointments. The disagreements were uncharacteristic, and as they occurred immediately before the final part of the hearing, they strike me as symptomatic of the stress the parents were experiencing. Similarly, what appeared in the written material to be substantial disagreement between the parties about whether or not to use the communication teaching techniques of an organisation called “DEAL”, dissipated in the course of the hearing, the school agreeing that the DEAL methods did not clash with their teaching methods, and the parents agreeing that DEAL had something to offer, and that they would take the child to DEAL from time to time.
I am satisfied that the father is more questioning of professional advice than the mother. I am not sure whether that is a personality or a cultural difference. Either way, the mother does not appreciate that there is often nothing wrong with the father’s questioning approach. For example, so far as the Panadol incident is concerned, I am left with the impression that the father simply waited to see if Panadol was necessary in the particular circumstances, and in any event it is historical. So far as the AFOs are concerned, the parents did reach an agreement. The father was just trying to explore the issue before he agreed. I have already dealt with the issues around the small items, and diet.
With the rigidity that each parent displays, it is not surprising that there are sometimes differences in their approaches to various health issues. However, they have worked co-operatively in relation to the major decisions and I do not believe there is a breakdown between them when it comes to this topic.
The issue around education is more complicated. Interestingly, although they currently have different opinions as to how aspects of the child’s education should be approached, each was very complimentary of the other’s capacity to teach the child and to help him with every aspect of learning. They have shared values as to the importance of doing all that is necessary to help him realise his full potential. They have the shared vision that communication skills are a high priority for him. They just do not have a shared a vision as to how their goals can best be achieved.
From my perspective, neither parent’s proposal is unequivocally good, neither without any merit. The mother’s approach, in line with the school’s preference, is to keep the child at X School five days’ per week, with the benefits of consistency, a well-balanced program, specialist services, and socialisation with other children and teachers. It is her view that between herself, the father, and the paternal grand-mother, they can engage the child in up to two hours’ per day of other teaching in accordance with a particular program to which they are all committed, to give him the extra help that he needs.
The father’s perspective is that the child is only just five. He is young for his first year of school. He can profit from the program at X School on three days per week but he needs one-on-one teaching on another two days in an effort to develop the capacity to communicate, as the fundamental building-block for other learning and socialisation. And to add several hours of teaching each day before and/or after school is not reasonable.
I am satisfied that the father has developed appropriate skills and has the capacity to usefully teach the child. The mother agrees with that. I am satisfied too that he will co-operatively involve the mother and the grand-mother in his teaching program. That is something that has always occurred and the parents work together very well in that respect. I am satisfied that the DEAL communication teaching methods and equipment favoured by the father are compatible with the methods taught at X School. Both parents and the grandmother have experienced some frustration with the school’s approach to the child’s communication and each agrees he needs more teaching in that respect. I am also satisfied that the father understands the need for the child’s socialisation and that if he engages in any home-schooling it would include playtime with the child’s cousins, and activities in the community.
Mr A spent a full day observing at X School. He was extremely impressed with the program, the staff, the atmosphere, and how the child enjoyed and participated in what was on offer. He was equally appreciative of how the child could fare well from some home-schooling. He was confident that his father could provide for him well, but he preferred the idea of one day not two, so the child could continue to develop his peer relationships at his school.
The mother relies on the child’s doctors’ opinions, saying they support her point of view that he needs to be at X five days’ per week. In fact, on 5 January 2007 Dr G, the GP, wrote:
Next year [the child] will be required to attend school. While the potential gains are small it is my opinion at this stage that he would most benefit from structured environment such as [X] school where he would also gain social contact and have an enriched experience. I understand the school has gained a special grant for his education which will be helpful. As this is a contentious area in his care plan I hope to find time to drop into the school to see him when the school resumes in 2007, so I may better form an opinion of the benefits or otherwise of structured schooling for [the child].
The paediatrician, M, wrote in her report on 26 February 2007:
Given [the child’s] severe global developmental delays it would be of paramount importance that he continues with his early intervention program consisting of physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy within a setting where he meets other children. As [the child] functions at a much younger level than his chronological age, he needs ongoing 24 hour care as he is unable to follow definite instructions, feed himself and requires full assistance as he is incontinent of both faeces and urine.
For [the child] to continue progressing a consistent and stable environment both within a domestic as well as educational setting will be of utmost importance to his well being.
I respect the doctors’ opinions but they do not help me significantly, being broad in approach, neither doctor having the benefit of the detailed evidence I have before me.
I heard from Ms W, the Principal of X School. She emphasised that it was important for a child to attend the full five-day program at school but she agreed that some children attend only parts of the program, spending part of the week in a mainstream school. She has no other students who are home-schooled. She emphasised the importance of participating fully in the program and of the socialisation opportunities. If the child were to miss any part of the program she would prefer it be for one day rather than two, as it would enable him to develop his peer relationships. She would also prefer that he missed the program on Thursday, as it does not involve any of the specialist services. It is a day based on community activities which he could otherwise participate in with his family. She recognised the importance of parents as a teaching resource for their children.
The mother is complimentary of the father for how actively and enthusiastically he pursues the child’s education. She recognises that he is the one who found X School. And he is the one who, with research and investigation, discovered DEAL. But she is frustrated by what she sees as the father’s chopping and changing, and a search for what may be an elusive solution to the child’s problems. The child started at a special development school near B (when the mother lived in that area) and although his father had helped select the school, he shortly wanted to book the child into a childcare centre. Then the father was enthusiastic about a move to X School but soon after the child started there, he wanted to book him into another form of day-care. Once enrolled in X School, he wanted to home-school him in part.
The father shows little sensitivity to the fact that his frequent changes in approach have frustrated the mother and undermined her confidence in him. I do understand though that he has felt that while the child has been young, there has been an element of trial and error in testing out what best meets his particular needs.
At present, the parents agree that the child needs more teaching than provided at school. The mother overlooks the fact that two hours of training each day on top of the school day is a great deal for a child of five, and she is black-and-white in her approach that if he is at X School that is where he must be all day every day. The father is equally black-and-white that the child will not have appropriate learning opportunities without two days at home.
Both parents approach the child’s education with commitment and rigour. It is admirable, and helpful to him. It is also problematic as their commitment and rigour tips into zeal and inflexibility.
In fact both parents have strengths and weaknesses as to how they approach the child’s education. Their joint determination that if he can learn to communicate, then other educational and socialisation opportunities will be unlocked, is outstanding. For the father, although it is a strength that he questions professionals and continues his search for ways to help the child’s development, it is a weakness that he can be argumentative and can get them off side. That is what happened at X School, where at one point he was banned from proceeding beyond the front office. A strength of the mother’s is that she is able to diplomatically negotiate with the professionals and she has helped the father by smoothing over conflict from time to time. But she is less likely than he is to explore new opportunities, and she has had to admit that he has found useful techniques and equipment for teaching the child. This is a good example of where their skills compliment each other and why I would prefer to see them both retaining the decision-making power for the child’s education.
(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;
The child is half Chinese and half Australian. There was nothing in the evidence to suggest that the parents are other than mutually respectful of each other’s culture and traditions and that the child has the benefit of exposure to both.
(h)if the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child:
(i) the child’s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture); and
(ii) the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right;
This is not relevant.
(j)any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family;
(k)any family violence order that applies to the child or a member of the child’s family, if:
(i) the order is a final order; or
(ii) the making of the order was contested by a person;
These are not relevant considerations in this case.
(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;
This factor is a consideration for me in how I structure the orders. I will deal with it below.

CONCLUSION

I must first consider the question of equal shared parental responsibility. I conclude that it should be retained. The child’s developmental delay is substantial. He is a child with very special needs, and he requires the fullest involvement and commitment of both his loving and devoted parents.
The mother is right that there are presently difficulties in arriving at decisions particularly in relation to schooling. Both parents contribute to those difficulties. They are both rigid by nature. The zeal and intensity that they bring to their parenting has an up-side in helping the child realise his full potential. But the down-side is that each is inflexible, and each fails to recognise their own contribution to communication difficulties.
The father can be high-handed in his approach to the mother, refusing to respond to her concerns, for example not showing basic politeness in even returning the child to her at agreed times. He can be difficult and bombastic with the professionals, for example getting the Principal and staff at X School off-side.
The mother can be obsessive, and frustrating for the father, for example, nagging him to effectively do everything her way, and failing to recognise that he can do things just as well for the child even if he does them slightly differently to her.
Ironically, the mother accuses the father of ignoring professional advice, but she fails to see that she does that too. Her insistence that a child-centred house is the only way to provide optimum care for their son ignores the fact that none of the experts advise that it is the only way to provide good care and consistency for him, and Mr A has expressed his expert opinion that at present it is simply not feasible.
With the combination of his parents’ respective strengths and weaknesses, the child would benefit most from the on-going involvement of both of them in all major decisions. He is very young. He may be dependant on them for a very long time, possibly throughout his life. Neither parent’s decision-making capacity should be elevated above or subordinated to that of the other parent. That would not be in the child’s best interests. However, the parents need help in how they resolve differences that arise between them.
In his written report, Mr A suggested that a case manager from DHS could be used to assist with decisions. He departed from that in his evidence, explaining that a case manager would either need to impose a decision, or the parties would at least need to agree to comply with a suggested decision. He suggested a preferable and an extremely attractive alternative. He proposed that the parents attend family counselling at B Centre, a setting that caters for the most complex family needs, and in which on-going therapy can be offered. If referred by their GP, there is either no cost or minimal cost for the service. An s 65L supervision order would enable a Family Consultant to be available to help the parties, and to facilitate the B Centre therapy.
I am satisfied that these parents are ideal candidates for that sort of therapy. On many levels they communicate and co-operate very well. There is a good basis for them, with professional help, to work on that part of their relationship that is presently inhibiting the major decision-making. This opportunity should be afforded to them for the child’s sake.
The ICL sought an order restraining the parties from returning to court until the B Centre therapy is completed. I do not propose such a proscriptive order, but I urge the parties to genuinely engage in and take advantage of what the B Centre therapy can offer them. They cannot and must not return to court each time a new issue arises. Any unnecessary recourse to the court will be censured, and it will not advance the child’s best interests for his parents to litigate rather than to negotiate.
I am satisfied that the child should spend time in each parent’s household. I accept that the child-centred home proposed by his mother, although a good concept, is simply not feasible when the parties have different approaches to home-making. The mother is the more fastidious, but I am confident, based on Mr A’s expert evidence, and on the paternal grand-mother’s evidence, that the father’s home, though different, is still adequate for the child. Consistency is important for the child and seeing each parent in their own respective home is part of the consistent landscape for him. It should continue.
The mother’s changing proposals seemed confused. Near the end of case, she clasped onto the evidence of the paternal grandmother, that if the court ordered that the father’s time with the child should be spent in her home, then she could accommodate that. The mother then suggested that course as her second preferred option. Earlier, she had already suggested that the father’s time with the child be supervised by the grandmother, but then she had also said it could be unsupervised provided he moved closer to her home. In my view the changing nature of the mother’s case reflected the lack of guidance of legal representation, and was largely driven by her concerns about the father’s untidy home.
I am satisfied that the mother was not trying to be difficult and was not trying to cut the father from the child’s life. She does not recognise the inherent flaws in her logic, or her own inflexibility, in saying that unless it is in a child-centred home, or within walking distance of her home, the father’s time with the child must be supervised. There is no reason at all that it should be. For several years the child has spent every week-end in his father’s home. He is thriving. That is a credit to both parents.
There is also no reason to reduce the father’s time with the child. He contributes enormously to his son’s well-being, in daily care, education and fun. The grandmother, Mr A and Dr M all referred to the father’s capacity to care for, play with, and share affection with the child. Of course that in no way detracts from the considerable skills the mother also brings to her parenting of him.
I am satisfied that at the child’s age and stage, when both parents have been such an integral part of his everyday life, it is reasonable for his father to collect him from school each Wednesday and to return him to his mother on Saturday at 6.00pm. That accords with the father’s proposal and the proposal of the ICL, and there was nothing in Mr A’s evidence to suggest it was contrary to the child’s best interests. It increases the time with his father from two nights to three nights’ per week, an appropriate increase now that the child is older. It will also enable the father to retain involvement at X School. It will give the mother some week-end time with the child. And it will enable the father to home-school the child one day per week.
I conclude that home-schooling one day per week is appropriate. It recognises that the child can profit from one on one work outside school hours, but not necessarily with the onus of two hours in addition to formal schooling each day. It also recognises the child’s need to be a part of the X School program on a consistent basis of four days’ per week and to benefit from its educational and socialisation opportunities. One day out of the program can be satisfactorily accommodated by X School. Ideally, it would be the Friday so that his week is not interrupted, but I am satisfied that this year Thursday is the appropriate day. That may or may not be different next year. It will need to be discussed with the school.

The ICL proposed that the home-schooling provision remain until 2010 when the parents can re-consider the child’s needs. The father agrees that home-schooling may not be relevant as the child grows and develops, and decisions may need to change from time to time according to the child’s needs. I am not prepared to guess at a time-frame nor am I prepared to impose a time-frame that suggests to the parents that the issue must then be re-visited. In reality, it may be sooner or later. Hopefully, in the course of their work at the B Centre, the parents will both acquire the flexibility and the capacity to make changes as needed for the child. Home-education is just one of many issues that will need to be regularly re-visited. I will leave that to them. Mr A supported the idea of structuring the orders that way.
The father wants the child with him for half school holiday periods. The mother proposed substantially less. The ICL has suggested one week at a time. The evidence on the topic was fairly slight. I have decided to leave in place the usual term time sequence in the course of school holidays. It is not substantially less than half. It will be the child’s familiar routine. That consistency is important, and his parents can organise their working lives around that set pattern.
The ICL proposes various specific restraints in relation to small objects being within the child’s reach and whether or not he can eat or drink in the car, and so on. I am conscious that the father does not disagree, and such orders might offer a level of comfort to the mother. Nevertheless, I will not make those orders. I am concerned that in this case it is the detail of orders that has caused and will cause problems between the parents. If he did not understand it before, the father must understand that safety is a genuine concern to the mother. A pressing issue for the parties to work on at the B Centre is the father’s appreciation and respect towards the mother’s views, and possible ways of assuaging her concerns. But I have had a glimpse of the complications of detailed orders, with the way the mother has clung to the detail, and I see potential heart-ache for the child if compliance and/or contravention issues are at the centre of parenting. That also accords with Mr A’s view.
It is my hope that the parents will now go forward focussing their considerable skill and energy on their care of the child and enjoying his achievements to which they both are so central. It is essential that they use this opportunity to refine their capacities to be open to each-other’s perspectives as they will be parenting the child for many years.

THE ORDERS

The orders I propose are as follows:
1.All current parenting orders shall be discharged.
2.The husband and wife shall have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, a son, born … April 2002.
3.Subject to paragraph 4 of these orders:
(a)    The child shall live with the husband during school term and holiday time, each week from immediately after school Wednesday, or from 12.00 noon Wednesday when it is a non school day, to 6.00pm Saturday; and
(b)    The child shall live with the wife at all other times.
4.For the purposes of Christmas and Father’s Day:
(a)    The child shall live with the husband:
(i)From 6.00pm on 24 December 2007 to 3.00pm on 25 December 2007 and each alternate year thereafter;
(ii)From 3.00pm on 25 December 2008 to 6.00pm on 26 December 2008 and each alternate year thereafter;
(iii)On the Father’s Day week-end in each year from 6.00pm Saturday to 6.00pm Sunday:
(b)    The child shall live with the wife:
(i)From 3.00pm on 25 December 2007 to 6.00pm 26 December 2007 and each alternate year thereafter; and
(ii)From 6.00pm 24 December 2008 to 3.00pm 25 December 2008 and each alternate year thereafter.
5.For the purpose of change-overs in these orders the husband or his nominee shall punctually collect the child from and return him to:
(a)    School where such time commences or concludes on a school day; and
(b)    The wife’s residence when such time commences or concludes on a non school day.
6.The husband and wife shall:
(a)    Keep the other advised at all times of the child’s current residential address and landline telephone number;
(b)    Advise the other immediately in the event that the child suffers any serious illness or injury;
(c)    Authorise any medical practitioner upon whom the child may attend from time to time, to communicate with the other in respect to his medial condition and/or requirements; and
(d)    Authorise all schools at which the child may attend from time to time to:
(i)Provide the other at the expense of the other, copies of all school reports, school notices and school photographs in relation to The child;
(ii)Communicate with the other either by telephone, in writing or by personal attendance, in respect to the child’s progress at his school; and
(iii)Permit the other to attend all school functions to which parents are normally invited.
7.The husband shall be permitted to remove the child from school for the purpose of home-schooling on each Thursday in 2007 and thereafter:
(a)    On one day per week;
(b)    On a day when the child is living with him pursuant to these orders;
(c)    On the same day each week;
(d)    On a day that does not co-incide with formal therapy programmed for the child within the school environment; and
(e)    The husband shall provide to the wife written details on a monthly basis of the home education activities.
8.Pursuant to s 65L of the Family Law Act these orders shall be supervised by a Family Consultant appointed by the Director of Child Dispute Services at the Family Court of Australia Melbourne Registry for a period of two years and the Family Consultant shall be at liberty to report to the Court at the request of the Court or of a party in any future proceedings.
9.That:
(a)    As soon as practicable the parties shall do all acts and things necessary to obtain a referral from Dr G to attend the B Centre or in default of acceptance by the B Centre such therapeutic counselling service as may be recommended by the Family Consultant;
(b)    Subject to such referral the husband and wife shall co-operate with the requirements to attend and to take the child to attend when required, and to complete such family therapeutic program or such other programs as the B Centre or the Family Consultant may recommend, and the husband and the wife shall comply with all directions of the Manager or like Officer of the relevant program.
10.The Independent Children’s Lawyer shall be at liberty to provide a copy of these orders to the following:
(a)    The Principal of the child’s school;
(b)    Any medical practitioner and/or allied health professional attending upon the child; and
(c)    The B Centre and/or any other therapeutic counselling service as referred to in sub-paragraph 9(a) hereof, with a copy of my Reasons for Judgment in this case;
and thereafter the order of the court appointing the Independent Children’s Lawyer shall be discharged.
11.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.
12.That all applications in relation to parenting orders shall be otherwise dismissed and the case removed from the list of cases awaiting finalisation.
13.That pursuant to the Family Law Rules this matter reasonably required the attendance of counsel.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and eleven (111) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Dessau

Associate:

Date: 5 June 2007

IT IS NOTED that this judgment for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as XIU & HODGES

[2007] FamCA 636

5 June 2007

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Legal Concepts

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Costs