ZOLA & ZOLA

[2014] FamCA 1178

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ZOLA & ZOLA [2014] FamCA 1178

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim parenting arrangements – Where there has been upset but where the matter does not fall within the definition of family violence – Where the Court has a duty to consider substantial and significant time – Where orders are made pending further order for the parties to have equal shared parental responsibility – Where pending further order the children live with their mother and spend time with and communicate with their father – Where an Independent Children’s Lawyer is appointed for the three children

FAMILY LAW – EXCLUSIVE OCCUPANCY – Where each of the parents agree that it would not be sensible for them to continue to live together in the former matrimonial home – Where the father seeks a nesting arrangement whereby each of the parents move in and out of the former matrimonial home on an alternate basis when the children are to live with each of them – Where the mother says the parents have such poor communication that such an arrangement would not work – Where such an arrangement would provide potential for ongoing disputation between the parents – Where the preferred arrangement would be for the children to spend a larger part of their time in their own home with the mother who is the person under the orders the children will be spending more of their time.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Zola

RESPONDENT: Mr Zola

FILE NUMBER: PAC 761 of 2014

DATE DELIVERED: 16 June 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Parramatta

PLACE HEARD: Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF: Johnston J

HEARING DATE: 16 June 2014

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Sansom

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: McPhee Kelshaw

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Richards

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Simone Legal

Orders

1. That an Independent Children’s Lawyer be appointed for the children B born on … 2006, C born on … 2007 and D born on … 2009 and the Court requests the Director of Legal Aid NSW to make the appropriate arrangements.

1. That each party forward forthwith to the said Director a copy of all documents filed by them in these proceedings.

1. That orders are made in accordance with the hand-written Minute of Orders filed in Court today signed by Johnston J and placed with the Court papers as set out hereunder:-

PENDING FURTHER ORDER:

1.That the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the children:-

(a)B (b) …06

(b)C (b) …; and

(c)D (b) ….09

“the children”.

2.That the children live with the mother.

3.That the children spend time with and communicate with the father as agreed, or failing agreement as follows:-

(i)Each alternate weekend from after school or pre-school on a Friday afternoon until before school or pre-school on the following Monday morning commencing on the 2^nd weekend after the order for the wife to have occupancy commences; and

(ii)Each Wednesday from after school or pre-school overnight until before school or pre-school Thursday morning, commencing when the husband moves from the home pursuant to the occupancy order provided for herein; and

(iii)on the weekend of Father’s Day and not on the weekend of Mother’s Day;

(iv)On alternate Christmas Days;

(v)For one half of all school holidays upon a week about basis;

(vi)by telephone at all reasonable times, and for this purpose on days when the children are not in his care between 6.00 pm and 7.00 pm

4.That in relation to the exclusive use and occupation of the former matrimonial home known as and situate at E Street, Suburb F, NSW (“the premises”):

(a)the husband vacate the premises within 14 days and thereafter the wife have exclusive occupation thereof;

(b)the husband cause his plumbing equipment to be removed from the shed and garage attached to the premises within 28 days, and for this purpose he may attend the premises to collect the same.

5.That without admissions:-

(a)Each party shall encourage the children to sleep in their own bed; and

(b)Order in the terms of paragraphs 9(a), (b) and (c) of the wife’s Minute of Order [as set out hereunder:

9.That the parties be restrained from doing the following:-

(a)Denigrating the other party or their family in the presence of hearing of the children;

(b)Discussing financial settlement, child support or any other financial issues between the parties or their families in the presence or hearing of the children;

(c)Discussing these proceedings with the children or in their presence or hearing;].

6.That further there be orders in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 7 of the husband’s Minute of Order handed to the Court this day [as set out hereunder:

5.The parties shall both be entitled to attend all events involving the children including:

5.1Sporting functions;

5.2Extra curricula activities that allow for parental attendances;

5.3But not limited to concerts, school assemblies, sports days, parent-teacher interviews, certain duties and social functions and the parent who has the children in their care on the day of such activity will be responsible for the day to day care at such an event and transportation to and from that event.

…

7.That each party takes all reasonable steps to keep the other party informed of any significant developments in relation to the health and education of the children.].

7.Reserve all costs.

1. That the Court notes the written undertakings to the Court by each of the children’s grandparents as set out hereunder:

MR G. 
H Street, Suburb I, NSW …
I undertake to the Court that without admission that I shall not physically discipline or chastise the children or any of them and shall not denigrate any party or member of the family in the presence of the children or hearing of the children or discuss these proceedings or issues arising from them with the children or any of them.

MS G
H Street, Suburb I, NSW …
I undertake to the Court that without admission that I shall not physically discipline or chastise the children or any of them and shall not denigrate any party or member of the family in the presence of the children or hearing of the children or discuss these proceedings or issues arising from them with the children or any of them.

MR K ZOLA
M Street, Suburb N, NSW …
I undertake to the Court that without admission that I shall not physically discipline or chastise the children or any of them and shall not denigrate any party or member of the family in the presence of the children or hearing of the children or discuss these proceedings or issues arising from them with the children or any of them.

MS L ZOLA
M Street, Suburb N, NSW …
I undertake to the Court that without admission that I shall not physically discipline or chastise the children or any of them and shall not denigrate any party or member of the family in the presence of the children or hearing of the children or discuss these proceedings or issues arising from them with the children or any of them.

1. That the Case Assessment Conference at 9:15 am on 26 June 2014 is vacated.

1. That a further Case Assessment Conference is appointed for 11:00 am on 20 August 2014.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Zola & Zola has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 761 of 2014

Ms Zola

Applicant

And

Mr Zola

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. There are two aspects to these defended proceedings which are before the Court today.  Firstly, there is an aspect which relates to interim parenting arrangements which the Court is being asked to put into place to assist the parenting of the parties’ three children. 

2. The parents are Mr Zola and Ms Zola.  For convenience, I shall refer to them as “the father” and “the mother” respectively. 

3. There are three children of the marriage B born in 2006, C born in 2007 and D born in 2009.  The children are 8 years, 6 years, and about 4½ years of age respectively.

Background

1. The father was born in 1977.  The mother was born in 1978. 

2. They married in 2003 and separated under the same roof, either on 6 or 9 January 2013.  There is some minor dispute between the parents about that, and that is not a matter which is important for today. 

3. Since the parents separated in January 2013, they have endeavoured to run their lives, and attend to their parenting responsibilities for the children, under the same roof.  Sadly, there have been a lot of problems associated with this.  There have been real difficulties in the parents having been able to finally accept that their marriage had broken down and to the point where they were unable to co‑operate in managing their family.  And particularly, managing their children.  And it took a long time for them to come to the realisation that they were facing the reality of an irretrievable breakdown of marriage. 

4. It should be said to the credit of both parents that they struggled with that.  Each of them would have really preferred circumstances in which they would have been able to resolve their differences.  But sadly, that has not been able to be the case.  In the course of them remaining under the same roof, and in the course of the progression of the breakdown of their relationship, unfortunately, there has been some behaviour by each of them which has not been useful or of assistance to these still quite young children.

5. Notwithstanding an endeavour by the parents today to resolve some of their differences about their parenting dispute, they have been unable to do that.  They ask the Court to put in place, at least on an interim basis, some parenting arrangements for the three children.  And I will come to that in a few moments. 

6. The other area of an unresolved dispute between them relates to occupancy of the former matrimonial home.  The mother asks the Court to make orders which in effect, would give her exclusive occupancy of the home, at least on an interim basis.  This would require the children’s father to remove himself from the home and to live at another place.

7. The father opposes such a course.  He says that the best and the fairest arrangement in all the circumstances would be one in which each of the parents moves into, and moves out of, the former matrimonial home in accordance with the parenting responsibilities which the Court would put in place in relation to their children.

8. That would mean for occasions when the children are to reside with their mother, the mother would move into the home, spend those periods with the children, and then at the end of the each of those periods, move out of the home.  Upon which event, the father would move into the home, and stay in the home during periods when under the Court orders the children would be resident with him.  And that has been, perhaps, somewhat colloquially referred to as a “nesting arrangement”.

Parenting Arrangements

1. Firstly, I turn to the parenting application by each of the parents.  The mother asks the Court to put in place on an interim basis, orders which would involve the children living with her, except at times when they were living with their father.  And those times when they are living with the father, on the application of the mother, would be each alternate weekend from after school on Friday until before school the following Monday. 

2. And I presume there will be something in respect of school holidays.  We shall need to talk about that.  But the arrangement probably would be something like half of each of the school holiday periods. 

3. On the other hand, the father would agree to the children being resident with him from after school on Fridays to before school on the following Monday, each alternate weekend.  But in addition, he is asking the Court to make an order for the children to be resident with him from after school Tuesday to before school on the Thursday in the intervening week between those alternate weekends.

4. The matters which the Court must direct its attention to in respect of parenting applications is set out in Part VII of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). The objects are set out in section 60B, and I note those objects and the principles behind those objects.

5. The Court has been asked to make a parenting order.  And in those circumstances, the Court is to apply a presumption that it is in the interests of the children for their parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for them. 

6. I just pause to note that the children’s mother seeks an order that on an interim basis, she have the sole parental responsibility for the children.  And that is really on the basis that there has been so much disputation and argument between the parents, that their level of communication has been poor, that their level of cooperation as parents, notwithstanding that they still remained living in the same residence, has been such that they could not be relied on to be able to take equal responsibility for making the parenting decisions. 

7. I must say, as I have indicated to learned counsel for the children’s mother during the course of his submissions, that is not a course which I propose to take in these proceedings.  In my view, it is a serious matter to remove from a parent their parental responsibility.  True it is that there has been distress, disruption, some disorder, and certainly, a lot of stress for the children by the behaviour of each of the parents under the same roof.  One would expect this would almost certainly emanate from their frustration about their immediate circumstances.  But I am not persuaded that on an interim basis, notwithstanding the very strong submissions which were put to me by learned counsel for the mother, referring to her allegations about the father’s behaviour, it would be appropriate to change parental responsibility.

8. The mother alleges that the father has been expressing his frustration and concern to her about payments which have been made in respect of the Q Town property.   He is upset during the course of discussions between the parties about money.  He was said to have had some loss of temper reflected in his admission that at one point, he cut up the wife’s credit card.  There is a dispute about whether that behaviour occurred in the presence of the children. 

9. The wife alleges that he threatened to kill her.  That is not a matter in respect of which this Court could make any finding at this point.  Whatever the context in which that occurred might well become clear if there is ever a final hearing in respect of these proceedings. The high point in terms of his frustrated, and perhaps, ill-tempered behaviour seems to have been that the father broke a kitchen cutting board.  And it is common ground also, that he tore up some photos of the wife.  It was said in support of the wife’s application that these behaviours were not conducive to a continuation of shared parental responsibility. 

10. It would appear that there have been some manifestations of real frustration.  Whether the father’s behaviour has been something more serious than that is not clear to me at this point.  That is not to suggest that such behaviour would be condoned by this Court.  And it would certainly not be behaviour which would be in the best interests of these young children.  But in any event, I am not persuaded to a position where the Court would not apply the presumption.  The presumption would not be applied in circumstances of family violence.  The presumption can be set aside by evidence which is before the Court which would establish that it is not in the interests of children for the presumption to be applied.  But I am not persuaded to that position.  So the presumption remains in place. 

11. That then leads to a situation under the legislation where the Court needs first, to consider whether it would be appropriate for there to be an equal time arrangement for these children.  Neither of the parents is seeking such an arrangement.  So there seems to be a difference of view about whether it is in the interests of the children for there to be substantial and significant time between them and each of their parents.  And I would have thought this is a case where the Court should respect what the legislation tells us about significant and substantial time. 

12. But in any event, the matters which the Court needs to direct its mind to, in accordance with the well-known authorities, are the considerations both primary and additional considerations which are set out in s60CC(2)(3) of the Act.

13. The first of the primary considerations is the benefit to children of having a meaningful relationship with both of the children’s parents.  The second is the need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.

14. What each of the parents proposes I would have thought might provide for the children to have a meaningful relationship with each parent. 

15. So far as the need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm, each of the children’s parents makes some complaint of the other in respect of this.  There are really two broad areas of complaint.  The first is that the mother says that the father is involving the children in the parents’ dispute by denigrating her, and members of her family to the children.  The father makes some complaint along these lines also, in relation to the mother.  And I think also her parents. 

16. By way of an example, the mother alleges that on 15 February 2014, as the father was about to leave for his family O Town farm he said to C and to D, “Daddy, did nothing wrong.  Mummy did everything.”  The father denied that he said that. 

17. The mother says that on 20 February 2014, the father said to B, “I have to work very hard.  We would be in a bigger home on acres if mum did not spend all the money.”  Again, the father denied that he said that. 

18. The mother says that on 3 March 2014, she was taking the children to visit their maternal grandparents when B said to her, “You’re on the bad team with nanna.”  And the child used a name which the children customarily used towards their paternal grandfather, which I will not pronounce, and I will just say paternal grandfather.  “Grandfather stole all daddy’s money.”  The mother says that when she arrived back home, B said to the father in her presence, “I stood up for daddy in front of grandfather.”

19. Quite rightly it has been pointed out today by both learned counsel that in an interim hearing where there cannot be a testing of the evidence through cross-examination, the Court is not in a position to be able to determine whose version is correct about these matters.  And that is a different situation from a final hearing where we would have the benefit of some days to rake through these matters and hear the totality of the available evidence.  So at the end of the day, all the Court can really do is to take a cautious approach and look at the available objective evidence.  And there is a tiny bit of objective evidence. 

20. On 6 March 2014 two police officers arrived at the matrimonial home.  They informed the mother that the father had made a complaint against her claiming that she had hurt C by hitting him.  The police said that there was no evidence of abuse.  The mother said that the police also said to her that they were concerned about the father who appeared to be trying to turn the children against her.  That is a matter which is contained in the police records.  I pause to say that the father makes similar complaints against the mother.  The mother had certainly made a complaint to the police which then involved the police turning up at the home at a time when the father was bathing the children.  The children were put through the indignity of the police knocking on the bathroom door and then checking whether the children were okay.  And the police have made certain comments about that.  

1. But in any event, the police records for 6 March indicate that the police spoke to the children separately, from each of their parents.  The police noted that neither of the children had bruising.  The police note said that the children did not appear timid or afraid of either parent.  The police records noted that C and B were calling their mother “evil” and referred to their maternal grandparents as “the bad people”.  When the police asked the children why their grandparents were “the bad people”?  The children replied, “Dad told us.”  The police record also noted that it was extremely transparent that the father had been manipulating the children to speak ill and dislike their mother.  It also recorded that there was no evidence of an assault on that occasion. 

2. I said I was not going to line up one parent as against the other, specifically.  But it would be unusual, indeed, if the only criticism could be directed towards the children’s father.  I have made it pretty clear that, in my view, all of the adults involved, not only the parents, but also the grandparents need to be very careful indeed, about what they say to the children and about the way that they act towards the children so that they do not involve the children in this dispute.  Because the children do not have the psychological and emotional maturity to be able to deal in an appropriate way with such behaviour. 

3. The second general area where there is criticism is that the father says that the children are not safe with the grandparents.  And there has been quite some evidence about this matter.  In short, it relates to what appears to have been some bruising on D’s legs.  We might not have seen the totality of the evidence about this matter.  There are at least three relevant affidavits before the Court and I am not going to go through those in detail immediately. 

4. B has been behaving in a way in recent times which is really quite unusual and atypical for the young boy who seemed to be doing quite well.  But he has been manifesting some difficult behaviours at school which are quite troubling.  In any event, his father arranged for B to see a psychologist.  I should pause to say that it is also another example of the parents not being able to bring a common approach to parenting the children.  That is, that one of the parents saw the need to take the child to a psychologist.  The Court will also have to try and put some constraints on the parents about this because we just cannot have the parents taking the children around to a variety of specialists. 

5. The father arranged for B to see a psychologist called Ms P.  And B met with her on 12 June 2014.  Ms P informed the father that she would be making a report to the Department of Family and Community Services because B had said to her that his paternal grandfather had tied up each of the children by their hands and feet, and tied them to chairs, tables and a tree.  This is a matter which obviously caused the father concern.  He did not come to Court on time today because he considered it more important to prepare an affidavit setting out these matters. 

6. When one has seen a lot of these sorts of cases, one is somewhat cautious about believing things that children are said to have said.  I have no reason to think that the children did not say it because Ms P is presumably a confident, professional person, and I say that respectfully.  But when one reads something like this, one immediately thinks well, perhaps, what the children were saying was somewhat fanciful.  On the other hand, of course, when one has also seen a lot of children’s cases, one cannot necessarily dismiss matters such as this which on first view might seem somewhat fanciful.  So that causes some difficulty. 

7. In circumstances where the Court is not in a position to be able to make any finding about this particular matter and in circumstances where there is evidence before the Court of a whole plethora of things which it is said that the children have said which are denied, it seems to me that the Court should look for a practical way to try and deal with this taking a fairly cautious approach.  To the credit of the parties, both of them, and the grandparents, would be prepared to put into place some injunctions on a without admissions basis designed to ensure that there would not be a possibility for allegations of the kind that I have referred to in these brief reasons to be made in the future.  And I would regard that as being very sensible approach.  And certainly something which would serve the best interests of the children. 

8. In terms of the second primary consideration, the need to protect children from physical or psychological harm, it seems to me that some appropriate undertakings will be able to be given to ensure that the children are not exposed to an unacceptable risk.  And also, I have in mind, orders which will be able to ensure the children have opportunity to have a meaningful relationship with each of their parents. 

9. Coming to the matters that I need to consider in terms of the additional considerations.  Firstly, any views expressed by the children.  The children are still young.  In any event, there has not been opportunity for any sort of objective expression of views. 

10. The next matter to consider is the nature of the relationship of the children with each of their parents.  Again, there has been no assessment of the children’s relationships with each of their parents.  There is nothing to indicate the children have other than a close and loving relationship with each of their parents. 

11. It is submitted on behalf of the children’s mother that it would be more likely, than not, that she would be the children’s primary parent.  This would be on the basis that she took time off work, went on maternity leave at the time after the children’s births for a period of something like six months.  It is the case that she, at the current time, works less than a full week. 

12. On the other hand the children’s father has been the primary bread winner for the family because the parties have always arranged their affairs in this manner.  In all the circumstances at this interim stage, it looks to me as though the mother would be the children’s primary care giver. 

13. The next matter is the likely effect of any changes in the children’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the children of separation from either of his or her parents or any other child.  It is not a matter which looms large in my view at the present time.  These children, given the closeness of their relationship and the depths of their relationship with each of their parents because it is not really suggested otherwise, would be expected to be able to move between each of their parents in the absence of them never having had to do so without too much difficulty.  There is some evidence, I think, that B went off to the farm with his father.  And the mother was happy for that to happen.  There was a negative aspect to that as I said, but I did not see that as being a circumstance in which there was any particular difficulty with B moving away from his mother and then coming back to his mother.  So that consideration, as I say, does not loom large. 

14. The capacity of each of the children’s parents to provide for the needs of the children.  That is not something in respect of which there has been any assessment by a professional.  There appears to be some criticism of the children’s father for embroiling the children in the dispute, but the extent of that is not clear at this point.  In any event there is some basis for some criticism of each of the parents in respect of that matter.  The mother is critical of the father’s capacity to meet the children’s emotional needs.  I would anticipate that each of the parents, after having heard some of the things that have been said today, would make a shift in relation to involving the children in the dispute.  So I would not mark down either parent as against the other in respect of that matter.

15. The next matter is the attitude to the children and to the responsibilities of parenthood demonstrated by each of the child’s parents.  In respect of those matters, I cannot really add to the comments that I have made about their respective capacities.  Each of them to some extent appears to have put their own needs ahead of the needs of the children.  I am hoping that there will be some turnaround in respect of that. 

16. This is not a matter where, in my view, there has been family violence, there has been some upset.  There have been those occasions to which I have already referred.  I do not think those matters fall fairly and squarely within the definition of family violence.  But in any event, upon injunctions being put in place, I would not regard these children as being at any risk in the care of either of their parents. 

17. Under the legislation, the Court has a duty to consider substantial and significant time.  And substantial and significant time is given a particular meaning under the legislation.  It means, for example, that the children have to spend time, not only on weekends, but also on holidays and times that are not weekends.  And the program of time between the children and each of their parents is to be such that the parent can be involved with the children, in the parenting of the children, in a full way, rather than some token way.

18. What, in my view, the mother proposes, does not amount in the circumstances of the relationships which these children have with each of their parents as being substantial and significant.  Sub-section 65DAA(3) provides in effect that a child will be taken to spend substantial and significant time with a parent only if the time the child spends with the parent includes both days that fall on weekends and holidays, days that do not fall on weekends or holidays; and the time the child spends with the parent allows the parent to be involved in the child’s daily routine, occasions and events that are of particular significance to the child and the time the child spends with the parent allows the child to be involved in occasions and events that are of special significance to the parent.

19. In my view, in those circumstances, what the children’s mother proposes is not appropriate.  What I propose to put in place, pending further orders, is an arrangement which involves in addition to the agreed alternate weekends, after school Wednesdays to before school Thursdays.  And I would regard such an arrangement as reasonably practicable.

Exclusive Occupancy

1. I turn now to consider the matter of exclusive occupancy of the former matrimonial home.  Both parents agree that it would not be sensible for them to continue to live in the former matrimonial home together.   And as I have said, what they do not agree about is the mother’s application that she have the exclusive occupancy of that home, that the father move out of that home and accommodate himself and the children elsewhere at times when the children will be in his care.

2. The children’s father says that the least disruptive course for the children would be for them to remain living full time in the home, as I have said, but for each of the parents to move in and out of the home so that each of them would live there for the period that they would have for the care of the children for. 

3. The mother says firstly that this would not be fair.  She says it would not work because the parents have such poor communication with one another and have not been able to find an agreed manner of parenting the children.  She says it would all be just too disruptive for the children. 

4. The father says in addition to the fairness argument, that the children would be able to have the benefit of each of their parents continuing to live with them in the home during the periods that each of the parents would be with them.  In addition to that benefit, he says he needs the use of the property in order to store materials and equipment for his business as a plumbing contractor.  And for that reason, he would need an order which would enable him to have access to the property not only during the periods when he would be living in the home with the children, but I think probably every day of the working week. 

5. In my view, it would be expecting too much of the parents to be able to move in and out of the same home without significant disruption to them, and to the children.  It would be a very poor arrangement because it would almost certainly continue to provide the potential for ongoing disputation and arguments between the parents.  That arrangement might work in a household where the parents have a track record for cooperation and good communication but that is not this case.  These parents have shown by their past behaviour that there is little trust between them.  They have been unable to communicate without upset and distress. 

6. It was said by learned counsel for the father that there has been in their behaviour a demonstration of at least an ability to be able to attend to fundamental matters.  That is, that they have managed to feed the children.  That they have managed to be able to arrange for the children to go to school and to leave school.  And to be able to come and go from home to school.  That they have been able to facilitate a whole lot of practical aspects of parenting, and the responsibilities that they have for their children. 

7. It is said that both of the parents are seeking orders to retain the matrimonial home.  That is that each of them wants an order, ultimately, in the substantive proceedings to retain the matrimonial home.  It is said that both have been contributing to the mortgage.  And in circumstances where they have been able to attend to a basic level of practical aspects of parenting, it was submitted that this Court should leave them in the home.

8. In my view, it would not be sensible to do so, and particularly, it would not facilitate good parenting for the children.  In my view, what needs to be done is to bring about an arrangement which will settle these children down in the care of each of their parents.  And the arrangement which will best enable that to occur will be the arrangement in which the children can spend a larger part of their time in their own home.  That would have to be with their mother because she is the person who under the orders I propose will be spending more time with them.

9. One of the difficulties about this is that the children’s father is going to have to reaccommodate himself outside the home.  There are, I suppose, a number of possibilities.  He has indicated in his evidence that his parents live in a five-bedroomed home.  He would be able to avail himself of a room in their home.  I suppose that is one possibility.  Another possibility would be that the father would simply have to do what many people in the community do and that is rent himself a suitable home for himself and the children. 

10. That would carry with it obvious financial implications.  So we might have to have some discussion about whether it is appropriate in the circumstances where the children’s mother is going to have the exclusive occupancy of the home that she pays the outgoings on the home. 

I certify that the preceding sixty (60) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Johnston delivered on 16 June 2014.

Associate: