Zerbis and Vicks
[2014] FCCA 1626
•10 October 2014
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| ZERBIS & VICKS | [2014] FCCA 1626 |
| Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Parenting – parental responsibility – considerations in making equal time orders – what school the child is to attend. |
| Legislation: Family Law Act 1975, s.65DAA |
| Cases cited: Re G: Children’s Schooling (2000) FLC 93-025 |
| Applicant: | MR ZERBIS |
| Respondent: | MS VICKS |
| File Number: | SYC 6741 of 2010 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Dunkley |
| Hearing dates: | 22 and 23 July 2014 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 23 July 2014 |
| Delivered at: | Parramatta |
| Delivered on: | 10 October 2014 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Heazlewood |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Shepherds The Family Law & Mediation Specialists |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Jackson |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Anne Day & Associates |
ORDERS
The parties shall have equal shared parental responsibility for X (hereinafter X) born (omitted) 2010.
X shall live with his mother.
Until 25 December 2014 X shall spend time with his father:
(a)For two out of each three weekends commencing at 5.30pm on Friday to 5.30pm on Sunday commencing the first Friday after the making of these Orders; and
(b)From 5.30pm on 24 December 2014 until 5.30pm on 25 December 2014.
From 1 January 2015 X shall spend time with the father:
(a)From 5.30pm on 3 January 2015 until 5.30pm on 7 January 2015;
(b)From 5.30pm on 17 January 2015 until 5.30pm on 22 January 2015;
(c)From after school Wednesday to before school Monday each alternate week commencing the second Wednesday of each school term;
(d)Commencing at the end of term one in 2015 for half of each school holiday period being the first half in years ending in an even number and the second half in years ending in an odd number; and
(e)At such other times as the parties agree.
X shall be enrolled to commence school at the beginning of the 2015 school year at the nearest Public School to the mother’s home in (omitted) that will enrol X and thereafter he is to attend that school unless the parties otherwise agree.
To facilitate any periods in Orders 3 and 4 that do not begin or end at school the mother is on those occasions at the beginning of the period to deliver X to the father at the ticket gate at (omitted) Railway Station and the mother is to collect X at the end of such periods from the father at the father’s home on any occasion that the periods do not end at school.
Any periods provided for in Order 4(d):
(a)Is to commence at 9am on the first day of the period and end at 5pm on the last of the period; and
(b)To calculate the length of school holidays those holidays shall be deemed to start on the day after the term ends and end on the day before the next term begins.
Each party is to keep the other advised of their residential address, mobile telephone number and email address (if any) and notify the other of any change to these details within 24 hours of such change occurring.
Each party shall keep the other advised of any medical or allied health care treatment received by X whilst in that parties care within 2 hours of such treatment being received including the name and address of the treating professional and details of the treatment.
Neither party shall denigrate the other party or a member of that party’s family or household in the presence or hearing of X nor permit X to remain in the presence or hearing of any person who engages in such denigrative behaviour.
Each party is to ensure X is known by and uses only the surname “Vicks-Zerbis”.
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.
Remove all outstanding Applications and Responses from the list of cases awaiting finalisation.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Zerbis & Vicks is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA |
SYC 6741 of 2010
| MR ZERBIS |
Applicant
And
| MS VICKS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
At the date of the final hearing the child X was aged four years having been born on (omitted) 2010.
X’s parents, Mr Zerbis (hereinafter the father) and Ms Vicks (hereinafter the mother) have not lived together post X’s birth.
The father and mother have been engaged in litigation relating to X since early 2011.
The Court has made declarations as to X’s paternity.
The Court has made orders as to X’s name. For a long period of time prior to those orders the child had been known by different forenames and last names in each of the parents’ households and they stubbornly refused any compromise.
X's General Practitioner Dr M as a result of a consultation with X on 5 March 2014 described X as a very stubborn child[1].
[1] See Exhibit ‘G’
This hearing is about what order is to be made for parental responsibility. Is it to be sole parental responsibility in favour of the mother as sought by her or equal shared parental responsibility as sought by the father.
The case is also about the parenting arrangements for X. Is X to live with his parents at some time in the near future on an equal time basis as sought by the father or is X to live with his mother and spend time with his father four nights out of fourteen nights as sought by the mother.
The Court is also being asked to decide whether X starts school at the beginning of the academic year in 2015 as sought by the father or at the beginning of the academic year in 2016 as sought by the mother.
The Court is also being asked to decide which school X is to attend, is to be (omitted) School at (omitted) which has an alignment with the (religion omitted) Church as sought by the father or the nearest public school to the mother’s home in (omitted) which will enrol X as sought by her.
Finally, the Court is being asked to make orders as to the venue at which X is to leave the care of each parent - what is known as the changeover location.
Given the breadth of issues above, it might be reasonable to conclude that if X is a stubborn child that it is a trait he has inherited from each of his parents, as again there has been no compromise from either parent.
Documents relied on
Father
Affidavit of Mr Zerbis sworn 28 March 2014;
Affidavit of Ms P sworn 28 March 2014;
Affidavit of Mr Zerbis sworn 18 July 2014; and
Affidavit of Mr R sworn 26 March 2014.
Mother
Affidavit of Ms Vicks sworn 1 April 2014;
Affidavit of Ms Vicks sworn 18 July 2014;
Affidavit of Mr F sworn 3 April 2014; and
Affidavit of Ms M sworn 23 July 2014.
Other documents
Mr N prepared two Family Reports the first dated 16 November 2011 and the second dated 27 March 2014.
Those two reports together formed Exhibit ‘I’.
Orders sought
The final orders sought by the father have been summarised in the introduction to this Judgment but are fully set out in an Amended Case Outline handed to the Court by his Counsel on the first day of the hearing.
The orders sought by the mother have been summarised in the introduction to this Judgment but are more completely set out in a Short Minute of Order handed to the Court by her Counsel on the first day of the hearing.
Consent orders
At the conclusion of the final hearing the parents had reached some compromise and the Court, by consent at the request of the parties made the following orders:
a. That each party do all things necessary to cause X to attend pre-school at (omitted) Kindergarten at least three days per week subject to availability until he commences Kindergarten in primary school.
b. That each party pay one half of the costs for all days on which X attends pre-school.
c. That each party do all things necessary for X to attend on a speech therapist (agreed pursuant to sub order (d)) and to continue with speech therapy as recommended by the speech therapist.
d. That within seven days of these orders the father shall provide details of a speech therapist located within 10kms of the mother’s home upon whom the child shall then attend pursuant to sub order (c).
e. That each parent pay one half of the costs of X attending on the speech therapist pursuant to this Order.
Chronology
(omitted) 1964
Father born
(omitted) 1974
Mother born
2009
Parties become engaged but never marry
15 July 2009
Mother says the parties separated
February 2010
Father says that the parties separated
(omitted) 2010
X born
February 2011
Court makes parenting declaration – the father is a parent of X
(omitted) 2011
Mother arranges for X to be Baptised at (omitted) Church in (omitted). Ceremony was attended by the mother, the maternal grandmother, the maternal grandfather, the maternal aunt, the maternal aunt’s son and a friend of the mothers visiting from (country omitted). The mother did not inform the father of the Baptism nor invite him to the Baptism.
18 August 2011
Interim parenting orders – child to live with mother and spend time with father for periods on three days each week. Order for equal shared parental responsibility
25 May 2012
The Court orders that the child be known as X. Pending further order, X is to commence spending overnight time with the father from 9am Saturday to 5pm Sunday first such period to commence 6 October 2012
20 December 2012
Pending further order, X is ordered to spend two weekends out of each three with the father from 5.30pm Friday to 5.30pm Sunday
17 January 2014
X commences attendance at (omitted) Kindergarten
March 2014
Mother receives advice to obtain speech pathology treatment for X
The parties do not dispute any of the above chronology, although they do not agree as to the date they separated. That date has no real relevance to the outcome of this case.
Issues
a)What order for parental responsibility is to be made;
b)What parenting orders are to be made that are in X’s best interest and reasonably practicable;
c)What year is X to commence school;
d)What school is X to be enrolled at; and
e)Where should changeovers occur relevant to the parenting orders.
Conduct of the case
Each of the parties was cross examined.
Mr N was cross examined.
Ms M was cross examined.
The deponents of the other Affidavits listed in the “Documents relied on” were not cross examined and their evidence is unchallenged.
Evidence
Father
The father was given permission to lead some oral evidence which he did about the steps he was taking to toilet train X, which indicated that he was having some success with that training.
It was the father’s view that X would gain greater involvement with his (country omitted) culture if he attends the private school (omitted) School that he proposes.
The father said that he teaches X some (language omitted) and has taken him to Church on about six occasions in the last year.
During his cross examination he confirmed his proposal to live at a home owned by his mother at (omitted), as soon as the tenants moved out. He confirmed he hoped to move in about October 2014. Until then he would remain living in (omitted).
He said that a bus trip from (omitted) to (omitted) if X attended (omitted) School would take about half an hour having regard to the bus timetables that became Exhibit ‘A’.
The father gave evidence that he had had the mother surveilled. He said his intention was to prove she had access to a motor vehicle. He said that he trusts the mother’s care of X.
He works currently at (omitted). His normal work hours are 9am to 5pm but he described his employer as “very flexible” with respect to his work hours.
Mother
The mother does not work in paid employment. She lives at (omitted).
She could offer no explanation why her name was on a past Compulsory Third Party Insurance Green Slip for the car that she drives which is owned by Mr F.
Nor could she explain why on some occasions her mother had insured the motor vehicle other than by saying that at some stage and times her mother also uses the same car.
With respect to the suggestion made by X’s pre-school teacher that he undergo speech pathology, she said that she was not surprised as her general practitioner had previously made such a recommendation.
She said during cross examination that she was prepared for the father to find a speech therapist for X if it was within 10 kilometres of her home.
It was this concession that led to orders being made by consent for speech pathology.
When being cross examined she explained her preference for changeovers being away from her home as:
I don’t want Mr Zerbis coming to my home. I feel threatened by him, he was abusive towards me in the past but not for a while now.
During cross examination she said that she wanted X to spend time with the father and wanted to encourage their relationship.
She said that she had tried to enrol X in a (religion omitted) School but had been unsuccessful and now wanted him to attend a nearby Public School.
She said her house was in the catchment area for (omitted) Public School which is about a fifteen minute walk from her home.
She says she has sought assistance from a psychologist for X and agrees that the strategies recommended to manage X’s separation anxiety and social skills have resulted in improvement in those areas of X’s behaviour.
Ms M
She expressed a tentative opinion in her Affidavit sworn 23 July 2014 that X may benefit from another year at pre-school.
She formed that opinion in July 2014 having been X’s teacher since January 2014.
During cross examination she said that children at her pre-school usually average three days a week in the year before they start school.
When cross examined she said “if X got speech pathology now he may be ready for school by the end of this year”.
When cross examined she said that “X was able to follow rules when asked”.
She said that X manages his toileting issues at school himself, mostly without incident.
Mr N
In paragraph 39 of his Report dated 27 March 2014, Mr N wrote:
[X] appeared to have met expected physical milestones, and his language although at times difficult to comprehend, included sentences of up to five or six words, which is consistent with his age.
In paragraph 42 of his second report Mr N wrote:
When he was handed over to the father by the mother at my office, the boy did not protest, yet it took him a while to settle with Mr Zerbis. As well as the sleep issue, other pertinent factors could have been the child’s young age, the unfamiliarity of the surroundings, the mother’s seeming reluctance to part and the tense atmosphere between the parents.
In paragraph 43 of his second report Mr N wrote:
This assessment reinforced the conclusion in the previous report that Ms Vicks and Mr Zerbis are competent parents, who offer X similar good care when he is with either.
In paragraph 48 of his second report Mr N wrote:
Both parents are well disposed towards X’s present and future needs, and as he gets older he will benefit from their continued individual encouragement and support.
Each can be expected to consult the other person about major issues (even if they disagree). Hence, shared parental responsibility is thought appropriate.
In paragraph 50 of his second report Mr N expressed the following opinion:
It is thought by term one next year, X will be more able to deal with parental separation issues and this would be the time to gradually extend his nights with the father.
In paragraph 51 of that report Mr N expressed the following opinion:
Further, once he starts school, he should be able [to] commence periods of school holiday contact with his father building to shared holidays by the end of the year.
In paragraph 52 of that report Mr N recommended:
It is important that as preparation for school next year, X attend pre-school as soon as possible, at least on a part time basis. This should assist both the child and the mother to separate, and likely lessen any separation anxiety associated with changeovers.
When cross examined Mr N said:
X’s speech development wouldn’t prevent school attendance in 2015 as his expressive speech was within normal limits although difficult at times to understand.
Mr N further said:
Starting or not starting school is not clear cut although what the pre-school teacher observes could be consistent with delaying X’s school starting.
Mr N also said when cross examined:
Longer travel time to school for young children affects them, it limits their time that they can have with friends made at school.
Determination
What order is to be made for parental responsibility?
The parties’ ability to communicate with each other about issues relating to X is significantly less than optimal.
For a long time the father did not know of the mother’s residential address nor have any details about medical practitioners consulted by X.
For a long time the mother did not have details as to the father’s working hours.
The parties have however been able to implement the parenting orders that have from time to time been made over the course of the litigation.
The parties have a functional although not ideal method of communication through mobile phone text message.
The mother has been less than diligent in following up the obtaining of speech pathology for X having a first recommendation for such therapy from a psychologist consulted by X in March 2014.
It was only during her cross examination that her consent to X attending speech pathology was “dragged from her at the eleventh hour”.
She has not been diligent in having X known by the name that he was ordered to be registered at with the Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages. X is known to the medical General Practitioner the mother has him consult by the surname of Vicks[2]. The report relating to X attached to Ms M's Affidavit shows that X is known by the surname Vicks at his preschool. His paediatrician knows him by the surname Vicks-Zerbis[3].
[2] See Exhibit ‘G’
[3] See the Report of Dr P dated 30 April 2014 in Exhibit ‘G’
The mother acted unilaterally with respect to X's Baptism although she was well aware that it was an important issue for the father.
I am not convinced that an order for sole parental responsibility in her favour will mean that X will always get timely treatment or support. An order for sole parental responsibility is likely to encourage her to continue to act unilaterally with respect to important issues as they relate to X.
Neither of the above would be in X’s best interests.
For this reason notwithstanding the parties’ less than optimal communication, an order for equal shared parental responsibility is in X’s best interest.
Such will be the order notwithstanding that there are three principle pieces of evidence relevant to family violence.
In 2012 after being served with Court documents filed by the mother, the father telephoned the mother and then attended at her home and during the course of that visit threw her mobile telephone. No one was injured. There is no evidence that the phone was damaged. The mother says that she felt apprehensive and remains with a feeling of apprehension with respect to the father.
I am satisfied that the above incident can be described as situational family violence. It has not been repeated although the mother’s feeling of apprehension remains.
The second incident involved an altercation between the father and the maternal grandfather at a changeover in (omitted). As a result of that altercation the father was charged with assaulting the maternal grandfather and was subject to an interim Apprehended Violence Order. A hearing in the Local Court occurred as the father entered a plea of not guilty. The father was convicted. On appeal, a District Court Judge quashed the conviction on condition that the father enter into a Bond pursuant to section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedures) Act.
The maternal grandfather is a member of the mother’s family although they do not live together and were not living together at the time.
The third aspect of family violence is the mother’s continued feeling of apprehension with respect to the father.
As a consequence the presumption in favour of equal shared parental responsibility would not apply because there are reasonable grounds to believe that the father has engaged in family violence.
Nevertheless it remains in X’s best interest for the reasons previously discussed that there be an order for equal shared parental responsibility and such an order for those reasons is to be made.
What parenting orders are to be made?
The Court must then consider whether X should spend equal time with each parent and if so whether such order is reasonably practicable. If the answer to either of those questions is no then the Court must consider whether significant and substantial time is in X’s best interest and if such time is reasonably practicable.
The time sought by the mother for X to spend with the father would meet the definition of substantial and significant time as set out in section 65DAA(3). The father seeks equal time.
Is X to spend equal time with his parents or to live with his mother and spend significant and substantial time with his father
Mr N considered that at the time of the initial Family Report X’s primary attachment was with his mother.
By the time of his second report Mr N considered that although X probably likely had a marginally more primary attachment to his mother he had a significant relationship with his father.
Mr N’s recommendation was for X to spend significant and substantial time with his father of about five days per fortnight and live otherwise with his mother.
Mr N’s evidence was the only expert evidence available to the Court.
X is not old enough nor did he have the verbal expression to have or make known a view as to his living arrangements.
I accept Mr N’s evidence that X has important relationships with each of his parents, and find accordingly.
The mother has not taken every opportunity to engage the father in major long term decision making with respect to X. She acted unilaterally with respect to X's Baptism. She has not until the final hearing engaged with the father with respect to the need for X’s speech pathology.
The father pays child support in excess of the amount assessed by the Child Support Agency although it was necessary to obtain a parenting declaration so the mother could obtain a Child Support Assessment.
X’s time with the father has been gradually extended over the course of the litigation and for some time now has been for two nights’ duration on two weekends out of each three.
The mother thought that X’s stubborn or difficult behaviour was attributable to the increased time that he spent with his father. I am satisfied that that is an entirely uninformed view of a non-expert. It is possible that X is acting to his mother’s anxiety or more likely he is just a difficult child to manage. The mother has more difficulty managing X’s behaviours than the father. Nevertheless she has sought out professional assistance through her General Practitioner, from a Psychologist and a Paediatrician, with success.
The mother lives at (omitted) and the father lives at (omitted) but will shortly move to (omitted). The mother’s ready access to a car overcomes most of the practical difficulties in X spending time with the father. I accept the father’s evidence that he has a flexible arrangement with his employer and although his nominal work hours are 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday he is seemingly able to vary those as needed to care for X.
The father is more able to manage X’s difficult behaviours than the mother. He has had more success with having X become toilet trained than has the mother.
X is a young boy both of whose parents are of (country omitted)/Australian heritage. X has some developmental delay. His speech is not yet fully formed. He is not fully toilet trained.
Each of the parents is less than a perfect communicator with the other and does not try as hard as they might to communicate with the other and this is indicative of a poor attitude to the responsibilities of parenthood.
The family violence that has occurred were situations that have not been replicated. There has been no family violence since the incident at changeover in (omitted).
It is likely given the parents history that whatever orders are made they will come back to this Court for further orders into the future. To date they have largely been unable to compromise.
It is, however, to the parties’ credit that they have over time enabled X to build a relationship with each of them to an extent where he is now comfortable in each of their care and to an extent where the father is now able to capably and quickly deal with any separation anxiety that X feels on leaving the mother.
Nevertheless the parties have less than optimal communication. Their continued disputation and reliance on the Court to solve these disputations and their mistrust of each other means that it would not be in X’s best interest to live with each parent in an equal time arrangement.
The Court expert thinks X should live with the mother and spend significant and substantial time with the father. His expert opinion is important, in that it shows X to have significant and important relationships with each parent. It also shows, as does other evidence, that each parent can manage X’s personality and temperament. I am satisfied that both are functionally capable parents, indeed the father is slightly more capable that the mother but by a very small margin.
Significant and substantial time is in X’s best interest. An extension of that time so that it is three nights for two weekends out of three for the remainder of this year plus time at Christmas with, two block holiday periods in January, and by February a five out of fourteen night period commencing on a Wednesday night and ending on a Monday morning in each alternate week is in X’s best interest as it will enable optimal development of X’s relationship with his father and retention of his maternal relationship. It will enable the father to have significant input into X’s life. It will also mean that the father who is the slightly more capable parent than the mother in dealing with the developmental issues that confront X will have more time with X to help X more easily overcome the problems of those developmental issues.
The parents’ inability to compromise is the prime mitigating factor against equal time.
What year is X to commence school?
Each of the parents is a first time parent with very little experience of children’s schooling.
Ms M is X’s current pre-school teacher who has a bachelor of teaching degree in early childhood. Hers is the only expert evidence relevant to this decision. Her conclusion is tentative, that is:
X may benefit from another year at pre-school.
The tentative opinion is based upon X’s language and comprehension skills, some separation anxiety he displays and what I describe as temperament issues and Ms M says relates to his difficulty departing the Centre unless it is on his terms.
The parties are now obtaining speech pathology assistance for X which should improve his speech. I am satisfied that X’s other development delay with toilet training is now in hand.
X turns five in (omitted) 2015, early in the academic year.
Given the difficulties that the mother experiences in managing some of X’s behaviours a set routine by a trained kindergarten teacher five days a week is likely to benefit X. Ms M says he needs routine.
It is these factors that tip the balance in rejecting the tentative opinion of the pre-school teacher and lead to the decision it will be best for X to start school in 2015.
What school is X to attend?
The parents are unable to compromise this decision.
X has always lived with his mother. He will as a result of this case live for longer periods with his mother than he does with his father. Attending a school close to his mother’s home will enable him to develop friendships in his local area and will reduce his travel time to school on the days he is with his mother.
These two factors are more likely to ease his transition into school than attending a school much further away, as proposed by the father, even if that school has a lot of (country omitted)/Australian school students.
By virtue of the orders to be made, X will be in his mother’s care for a longer period each fortnight than he is in his father’s care. His mother has more difficulty in managing X’s behaviours than his father. A school closer to the mother’s home will make it easier for her to get X to school if his challenging behaviours make time a problem in the mornings.
X has not expressed any view as to the school he will attend, appropriately so given his age and level of maturity.
The decision as to school attendance must have as its paramount consideration the best interest of X.
The decision is not to be determined or made by having regard to what the ‘live with’ parent wants.[4]
[4] See Re G: Children’s Schooling (2000) FLC 93-025
Both parents practise the rites of the (religion omitted) Church and whilst a Church affiliated school might support the parents’ practice of those rites there is no evidence that the practice of those rites is incredibly important to either parent so as to necessitate advancement of the child’s Anglo-(country omitted) culture by attendance at such a school.
For the above reasons, attendance at the nearest Public School that will enrol X is in his best interest. The reduced travel time and distance to such a school given that the mother will do most of the transportation to and from school makes such an order reasonably practicable.
The private school sought by the father would have required travel that is not too much less than will be involved on school days that he needs to transport X. His flexible work hours and his access to a motor vehicle makes such an order also reasonably practicable for him.
Where are changeovers to take place?
The evidence as to whether or not the mother owns or has access to a car was strange.
I am satisfied having regard to the concession made by Counsel for the father that there is no motor vehicle registered in the mother’s name.
I am satisfied having regard to the evidence of Mr R and Mr F that the mother has access to a motor vehicle owned by Mr F. I am also satisfied having regard to the evidence that the maternal grandmother has for the last three years paid insurance for that vehicle.
I am satisfied that the mother has access to that car at will, notwithstanding Mr F’s evidence that he lets another friend use the car. There is no evidence as to when he has ever allowed that other friend to use the car in preference to the mother.
Given the way that the mother drove the car to a friend’s home some 700 metres from the changeover at (omitted), I am satisfied that she did so in an attempt to disguise her use of the car from the father. Likely for the reason that she could maintain that she did not have access to a car. She likely did so in order to obtain an advantage in the litigation making it more difficult for Mr Zerbis to have an order for the sharing of transportation of X.
She did this because at the time of the hearing Mr Zerbis lived at (omitted) and Ms Vicks lived at (omitted).
Indeed Counsel for the mother made submissions with respect to changeover and transportation on the basis that it was not reasonably practicable for the mother to travel by public transport to the father’s home, which I agree would be impracticable by public transport, but not by private vehicle. As I am satisfied the mother has unlimited and preferential use to a car the parties will share in the transportation of X.
The mother does not wish the father to come to her home. She has no objection in collection from his home although it is not her preferred outcome.
Most changeovers from the beginning of the school year in 2015 can occur at X’s school.
The changeovers during holiday periods or on weekends can best be done by the mother delivering X to the father at the ticket barrier at (omitted) Railway Station at the beginning of such periods as the public aspect of that place will lessen her apprehension that she feels from interactions with the father. This should reduce her anxiety and make changeovers smoother and less confronting for X which will be to his benefit.
For reasons already expressed I am satisfied that the mother has ready and preferential access to a motor vehicle which makes changeover at the end of some periods reasonably practicable for her to conduct at the father’s home. Although there is no public aspect to that location it does provide flexibility if the mother does choose to travel by public transport and if she were running late through public transport delays X will have a safe secure and familiar location at which to wait for his mother to collect him at the end of each period.
These reasons make it both in X’s best interests and reasonably practicable for these changeover orders to be made.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and thirty-six (136) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Dunkley
Associate:
Date: 10 October 2014
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Procedural Fairness
0
0
2