Hickson & Gregg [2009]

FAMILY LAW – Children – relocation – parental responsibility – the father’s threats to mother’s partner – father’s use of coarse language about the mother – credit – conflict between parents causing stress to child – family violence – harm to child – communication by mobile telephone causing stress to child.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REPRESENTATION

ORDERS

(1) That all previous parenting orders are discharged.
(2) That MS HICKSON (“the mother”) is to have sole parental responsibility for [X] born in 1997 (“the child”).
(3) That the child is to live with the mother.
(4) That the mother is permitted to relocate with the child to Queensland.
(5) That the child is to spend time and communicate with MR GREGG (“the father”) as follows:

• (a) each alternate year commencing in 2009 for the entirety of the first term Queensland school holiday period;
• (b) for a minimum of ten days in each of the second and third term Queensland school holiday periods each year;
• (c) for one half of each Queensland summer school holiday, such to include Christmas Day in each even numbered year commencing in 2010;
• (d) at such other times as may be agreed when the father is in Queensland; and
• (e) by landline telephone only twice per week on Mondays and Thursdays at 6.30 p.m. with each call to be initiated from the mother’s telephone.

(6) That for the purposes of the preceding order hereof, the parties are to share the costs of air travel for the child between Queensland and Tasmania and return, on the basis of the father booking and paying for each Queensland to Tasmania trip and the mother booking and paying for each Tasmania to Queensland trip.
(7) That the father must not communicate with child by mobile telephone unless such communication is agreed to in writing by the mother.
(8) That the mother must keep the father informed at all times of the child’s residential address and of the school that he is attending.
(9) That the mother must authorise any school that the child is attending to provide the father with any reports, notices, photographs and other information that an enrolling parent would normally be entitled to receive.
(10) That should the child require any medical treatment while he is with either parent, the parent with whom he is at that time must advise the other parent of full particulars of that medical treatment at the first available opportunity.
(11) That the Application and Response in this matter are otherwise dismissed.

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

LNC 408 OF 2007

Applicant

And

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The proceedings

1. The Applicant in this matter is MS HICKSON (“the mother”) and the Respondent is MR GREGG (“the father”). They are the parents of [X] in 1997.
2. The father and mother have been involved in litigation about [X] for many years. The first Application was filed by the father as long ago as June 1999 in the Family Court of Australia and those proceedings continued in that Court until they were resolved by consent orders at the end of August 2001.
3. In 2005 the father commenced further proceedings in relation to [X] in this Court and those were resolved by consent orders in September 2006 (“the 2006 orders”). In short, the 2006 orders provide for the following:
   • (a) That the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for [X].
   • (b) That [X] live with the mother.
   • (c) That [X] spend time with and communicate with his father for 3 out of every 4 weekends during school terms and during a proportion of [X]’s school holidays.
4. In June 2007 the mother commenced the current proceedings in the Family Court of Australia. They were transferred to this Court in May 2008. The mother seeks a discharge of the 2006 orders and other orders that can be summarised as follows:
   1. That [X] live with her.
   2. That the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for him.
   1. That the mother be permitted to relocate with [X] to Queensland.
   1. That [X] spend time and communicate with his father as follows:
      1. Every second year for the entirety of the first term school holiday period.
      2. For 10 days in each of the second and third term school holiday periods.
      3. For one half of the Christmas school holidays to include Christmas Day in each second year.
      4. At such other times as may be agreed when the father is in Queensland.
      5. By telephone each Monday at 6.30 p.m. with [X] to initiate the call.
   2. That the parties share the costs of air travel for [X] between Queensland and Tasmania and return.
   3. That there orders relating to the provision of information to the father about schooling, medical matters and whereabouts of [X].
5. In a Response filed on his behalf at a time when he was represented by a lawyer, the father sought orders that the mother’s Application be dismissed and that, in the event that the mother relocates from the Devonport area of Tasmania, [X] should live with him and spend time and communicate with the mother as agreed between the parties from time to time or as ordered by a Court. He also sought an order that neither party be able to remove [X] from Tasmania. (However, at the hearing the mother's position was clearly that she will not be leaving Tasmania if she is not allowed to relocate with [X].)
6. When the matter was in the Family Court of Australia these latest proceedings were dealt with under the Child Responsive Program and the parties met with Ms Fowler, a Family Consultant who is now employed by this Court. On 29 November 2007 she provided a feedback summary in writing to the parents (“the feedback summary”) and that summary was received into evidence at the hearing of this matter.
7. On 3 September 2008 Ms Fowler provided a more detailed Family Report (“the Family Report”) and that was also received into evidence at the hearing.

The evidence

1. The mother relied on two Affidavits sworn by herself and one by her partner, Mr W.
2. The father relied on two Affidavits sworn by himself, one by his mother and a further short Affidavit from a friend.
3. Those deponents and Ms Fowler were all cross-examined.

Relevant law

1. Proceedings for parenting orders are governed by the provisions of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”). The court must consider the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration[1].
2. Section 60B sets out the objects of Part VII of the Act and the principles underlying those objects. The objects of Part VII are to ensure that the best interests of children are met by:
   • 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
   • protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and
   • ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and
   • ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children. [2]
3. Except when it would be contrary to a child’s best interests, some of the principles underlying those objects are that:
   • children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents; and
   • children have a right to spend time and communicate on a regular basis with both their parents and with other people significant to their care, welfare and development; and
   • parents jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and
   • parents should agree about the future parenting of their children[3].
4. In determining what is in a child’s best interests I must consider the matters set out in section 60CC. It refers to “primary considerations” and “additional considerations”.
5. There are two “primary considerations”. The first is the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents, and the second is the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence[4].
6. The court must also take into account those of the “additional considerations” that are relevant[5].
7. The court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of children for their parents to have “equal shared parental responsibility” unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent has engaged in abuse of a child of that parent’s family or in family violence[6]. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that satisfies the court that it would not be in the best interests of the child for the child's parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child[7].
8. However, if that presumption does not apply, it does not necessarily follow that sole parental responsibility will be ordered. The court may make such parenting orders that it considers proper in the particular circumstances of the case.
9. If a parenting order is to provide that the parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, the court must:
   • consider whether spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child and is reasonably practicable; and
   • if it is, consider making an order to provide for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents.[8]
10. However, if an order is to provide that the parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility but the court does not propose to order that the child is to spend equal time with each of the parents, then the court must consider whether it would be in the child’s best interests to spend “substantial and significant time” with each of the parents and whether that is reasonably practicable.[9]
11. The law in relation to relocation of children is very fully set out by Boland J in Morgan & Miles[10]. I do not propose to restate all of what her Honour said. However, I think that it is worth restating what she said at paragraphs 80 and 81:
    • It follows from my exposition of the legislation, that earlier core principles:
      • - that the child’s best interests remain the paramount but not sole consideration;
      • - that a parent wishing to move does not need to demonstrate “compelling” reasons;
      • - that a judicial officer must consider all proposals, and may himself or herself be required to formulate proposals in the child’s best interests; and
      • - the child’s best interests must be weighed and balanced with the “right” of the proposed relocating parent’s freedom of movement,
    • remain valid.
    • What the legislation now requires is:
      • - consideration of the competing proposals against the criteria now in s 60CC informed by s 60B;
      • - if a parenting order is made (or proposed to be made) and the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility applies the consequences of an order for equal shared parental responsibility
    • but there is no specific legislative requirement which proscribes a requirement that matters under s 60CC or s 65DAA be determined in any priority. It appears to me, however, as a matter of practical utility, that the structured exercise can be effectively carried out by examining the issues in dispute against the relevant s 60CC factors, and then applying those findings to a consideration of the criteria of s 65DAA to craft appropriate orders.
12. Those “earlier core principles” to which her Honour referred come from decisions such as AMS v AIF; AIF v AMS[11], A v A; Relocation Approach[12] and U v U[13].
13. In a recent paper, Professor Patrick Parkinson said[14]:
    • The best interests of the child remain, of course, paramount, but they are not at large. The decision about the future of a child in a parenting matter is not a personal decision of the judge but a judicial decision. There is not a hierarchy of considerations, paramount, primary and additional. Rather, the assessment of the best interests of the child in a given case relies upon a reasoned assessment of the primary and additional considerations in s.60CC, and the other considerations such as in s.65DAA, taking into account the objects and principles of Part VII of the Act.
14. In my view, that is a succinct statement of the law in relation to relocation applications.
15. It is not surprising that relocation cases often cause significant anguish for the litigating parents and are difficult for courts to decide. The difficulties were succinctly put by his Honour Brown FM as follows[15]:
    • Relocation cases are invariably very difficult for all concerned, involving as they do two competing and irreconcilable claims of right. These claims of right arise when the parents of a child have separated and for legitimate reasons wish to take different directions as to where they will live in future. On the one hand, there is the right of a parent to live how and where he or she wishes and to get on with life as he or she sees fit, both as a parent and as an individual, separate from the other parent concerned. On the other hand, it is the right of a child to maintain a meaningful relationship with both his or her parents, in the now changed circumstances of his or her parents’ separation.
16. His Honour had also said earlier in his Reasons at paragraph 21:
    • ...there is no satisfactory outcome in this case. The various options available cannot be manipulated like the surface of a Rubik’s Cube to reach a perfect result.
17. As Professor Parkinson said in another paper on relocation:
    • Relocation cases cause considerable conflict between parents and the nature of long-distance relocation cases is that there is little room for compromise. Those conflicts inevitably have deleterious effects on children. Relocation cases also cause significant financial stress, not only in terms of the cost of litigation but also, if the relocation goes ahead, the costs of travel.[16]
18. However, it is clear that the court is not bound by either of the parents’ proposals. See Bolitho and Cohen[17].

Reopening on 17 December 2008

1. After the conclusion of the hearing on 7 November 2008, it occurred to me that I had not been properly addressed about the issue of parental responsibility. I do not criticise the lawyers or the father for that, because neither party nor the Independent Child's Lawyer was seeking anything other than equal shared parental responsibility and the dominant issue before the court was clearly relocation. However, I considered that I needed further submissions about the allocation of parental responsibility, so I had my Associate make arrangements for them to be made by telephone. Unfortunately, the father was working away from home for some time in a location where telephone reception was either poor or non-existent, so it was not until 17 December that those further submissions could be heard.
2. In general, the submissions from the mother's counsel and the Independent Child's Lawyer at that time were that the mother should have sole parental responsibility because of the continuing disputes between the parties and their inability to negotiate between themselves. The father submitted that there should be no change and that equal shared parental responsibility should continue.

Credit

1. Although credit was not a major issue during the hearing of this matter, there is one aspect of the hearing upon which I feel I need to make some comment in relation to credit.
2. It was alleged that the father had threatened to kill Mr W and that he had at times make abusive comments about the mother. He denied those allegations.
3. Having heard the evidence, I conclude that on the day that the interviews for the Family Report took place, the father was threatening towards Mr W and I have little doubt that he often uses abusive and disparaging language about the mother.
4. In relation to the former allegation, the father’s evidence was that, when he had seen Mr W and [X] sitting on a bench outside the court building in August 2008, he had simply told Mr W that he was not very happy about how he (Mr W) had upset [X] and the paternal grandmother at a motocross meeting in February. He conceded that
   Mr W had told him to calm down but consistently denied any threat to Mr W.
5. The father was cross-examined at some length about the incident by the mother’s counsel and, while he conceded that his behaviour had been inappropriate, he could not explain why his behaviour was inappropriate.
6. Mr W’s evidence was quite different. He said that the father approached him outside the Court building and threatened to kill him. He added that this did not come as a surprise because the father had often spoken to him in such a manner. He added:
   • I was concerned however because [X] was present on this occasion. I recommended to [X]’s father that he settle down and stop making such threats towards me, to which [X]’s father responded “I don’t give a fuck. I’m going to get you.”
7. The consistencies between the evidence of the father and Mr W are that a conversation took place outside the Court building and that Mr W suggested to the father that he should calm down. Having heard the evidence of both parties, I am satisfied that the father was threatening and abusive in his language and that was why Mr W felt it necessary to suggest to him that he should calm down.
8. In relation to the father’s use of abusive language about the mother, it was quite clear from the evidence of the father’s own mother that it is her view that calling the mother “a bitch” is quite acceptable, and further, because her son is a man, it is acceptable for him to use language that is even worse.
9. Having also heard the oral evidence of the father’s friend, it is quite clear to me that the father uses terms like “bitch” or worse regularly when referring to the mother. Indeed, when he was asked when he had last heard the father use such language about her, the father’s friend said the father had done so in the foyer of the Court that day.
10. I conclude that the father exercises very little restraint in his language when talking about the mother and, because [X] spends a lot of time with him, it is not at all surprising to me that Ms Fowler reported:
    • It upsets [X] that his father says so many horrible things about his mother, this makes him angry.

Conflict between the parties

1. Throughout the hearing, the father queried how the mother could assert that there is conflict between them when he has had virtually no direct contact with her since an incident involving the police in mid 2006. However, it is clear that the father’s definition of “conflict” is somewhat narrow.
2. The parties appeared to have reached an agreement at a meeting that the father would direct all his communication with the mother through her solicitor. It is perfectly clear from the constant reference during the hearing to correspondence that went back and forth between the father and the mother’s solicitor that there has been a steady stream of that correspondence, and it is also clear that the sheer volume and constancy of that correspondence has been particularly tiring for the mother and, most unfortunately, for [X].
3. The father has also provided [X] with a mobile telephone and it is clear that the father uses the mobile telephone to communicate with [X], both verbally and by SMS text message on a very frequent basis, sometimes at inappropriate times of the day. It is also clear to me that [X] is being placed under particular stress by his father in relation to that mobile telephone. In this regard, Ms Fowler reported as follows:
   • [X] is aware that his parents fight about his mobile phone. [X] expressed the importance of having his mobile phone with him at all times. In the event that he forgets his mobile phone, it is turned off, not charged or lost, he is aware that his father may become very angry. This angry (sic) is primarily directed towards his mother as his father believes that his mother is stopping him from contacting [X]. [X] shared his distress and guilt over his mother facing his father's wrath over something which may have been his fault, such as forgetting to charge the phone. Also [X] is aware that his mother becomes agitated when his phone receives text messages all the time. [X] believes that not all of his text messages from his father but some of them are also from his friends. [X] said that he had told his mother this; however his mother does not believe him.
4. When he was cross-examined by the father, Mr W referred to [X] as being “an eleven year old kid who is paranoid about having his phone charged all the time”.
5. The conflict is clearly having an adverse affect upon [X]. In the Family Report Ms Fowler said:
   • [X] is acutely aware of the conflict between his parents and he believes that this has become worse since the last time he met with me. [X] not only describes his parents at the centre of the conflict but also his paternal grandmother ... and his stepfather.... [X] was quite distressed as he attempted to explain how his words sometimes became weapons "I tell dad something and then he writes letters to lawyers and more letters come back and then I get into trouble about things I didn't say... I don't know... something like that".
6. The conflict is also having an adverse affect upon the mother. In relation to that, Ms Fowler said the following about the mother:
   • (The mother) presented as tired, stressed and emotional. Her presentation appeared much flatter than when she was first interviewed in November 2007....(She) disclosed that she has been finding the ongoing parental conflict particularly difficult as the intensity of this dispute has increased since she was last interviewed. (She) identified a number of aspects of the conflict she has been finding especially stressful including, direct and indirect harassment from (the father), the need to continually respond to legal correspondence, issues relating to [X]'s mobile phone, [X]'s deteriorating emotional wellbeing and most of all her feelings of powerlessness at not being able to address any of the above issues.
7. I turn now to a consideration of the section 60CC factors.

Primary considerations

The benefit to the child of having meaningful relationships with both parents

1. In her written feedback summary in November 2007 Ms Fowler stated that it was evident that [X] has a close and loving relationship with each of his parents. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that his relationship with either parent has diminished in any way since then.
2. Ms Fowler also stated that [X] expressed a desire to maintain a relationship with each of his parents.
3. It is important to note that the legislation refers to “the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents” and not to having a perfect relationship.
4. In M & S[18], Dessau J said at paragraph 45:
   • I am conscious that a long-distance relationship, with longer but less frequent times spent together, is inevitably different from a relationship where people live closer together with regular face to face contact. But it does not in itself mean it cannot be meaningful.
5. In a similar vein, in the relocation case of Godfrey & Sanders[19], Kay J (sitting as the Full Court) said:
   • Even if the move results in a diminution of quality of the relationship, what the legislation aspires to promote is a meaningful relationship, not an optimal relationship.
6. [X] is now 11 years old and his relationship with his father is well established. Despite his concern or fear that he may lose a parental relationship, I am satisfied that his relationship with his father is sufficiently strong to withstand a separation interstate, provided that sufficient visits and forms of communication are put in place.

The need to protect the child from harm from abuse, neglect or family violence

1. It is clear that [X] has not been subjected to "abuse" as that is defined in section 4 of the Act, nor has he been the subject of neglect.
2. However, he has been subjected to "family violence" as that is defined in section 4. The relevant definition is as follows:
   • family violence means conduct, whether actual or threatened, by a person towards, or towards the property of, a member of the person's family that causes that or any other member of the person's family reasonably to fear for, or reasonably to be apprehensive about, his or her personal wellbeing or safety.
3. While [X] may not have experienced actual violence, he is extremely aware of his mother's fear and apprehension about his father's conduct. It is also clear that this is having a stressful effect on him, and consequently, it is "harm" for the purposes of section 60CC.

Relevant additional considerations

The child’s views

1. [X] clearly has mixed feelings about any move to Queensland.
   Ms Fowler reported that his greatest fear is being separated from either parent. She added:
   • This is a very natural and normal fear for a child, however this is exacerbated for [X] as he has experienced this trauma when he was living with his father and prevented from communicating with his mother for many months.
2. Elsewhere in her report, Ms Fowler stated:
   • [X] has been told that if he leaves the State with his mother that he would never be able to see his father again. Despite his mother telling him that she would also ensure that he spends time with his father, [X] remains fearful that his past trauma and grief would be revisited.
3. It is clear to me that [X] could only have got the impression that he may never see his father again from comments that his father must have made. While one may sympathise with any parent who faces a reduction in time with a child, it is very disheartening to hear that a parent may say something that would cause a child such distress. One can only hope that with the father's comments may have been made unwittingly or been misunderstood by [X].
4. Ms Fowler also reported that:
   • [X] spent significant time during his interview discussing his presenting dilemma whereby he does not wish to lose his relationship with either of his parents; however he finds the conflict surrounding his current parenting arrangements between them unbearable. Even with significant effort [X] was unable to identify a solution to his predicament.

The child’s relationships with the parents and other people

1. As mentioned above, [X] has close and loving relationships with each of his parents.
2. I am satisfied that [X] also has good relationships with his paternal grandmother, and with his two half siblings on his mother's side and her partner.

The willingness and ability of the parents to facilitate and encourage the child’s relationship with the other parent

1. Notwithstanding the clearly hostile attitude that the father has towards the mother, it is pleasing to see that the mother has facilitated frequent and regular contact between [X] and his father. This has not just been in accordance with court orders, because the mother has been flexible in relation to the time that [X] has spent with his father (usually to permit [X] to participate in a motorcycling event at a time that is not in accordance with the court orders).
2. The mother proposes that if she is allowed to take [X] to Queensland, he should be able to spend time and communicate with his father:
   1. each second year for the entirety of the first term school holiday period;
   2. for 10 days in each of the second and third term school holiday periods;
   1. for one half of the Christmas school; and
   1. by telephone once per week.
3. I am confident therefore that the mother will facilitate and encourage [X]’s relationship with his father, even if she is allowed to relocate with him to Queensland.
4. On the other hand, I do not have such confidence that the father will encourage [X]'s relationship with his mother. This is because he is clearly content to use coarse language in his descriptions of the mother, even in the presence of [X]. I repeat that that Ms Fowler reported:
   • It upsets [X] that his father says so many horrible things about his mother, this makes him angry.

The likely effect of any change in the child’s circumstances

1. If [X] learns that he is moving to Queensland it will cause him some initial concern. However, that concern will be lessened if he is reassured from the start that he will be returning to see his father in the next school holiday and that he will be able to communicate with his father by telephone regularly. (However, I will make more comments about telephone communication below.)
2. The main positive consequence of a move to Queensland would be a reduction in opportunities for conflict. That could only be of significant benefit to [X] by reducing the high levels of stress that he is currently experiencing.

The practical difficulty and expense of the child spending time with and/or communicating with a parent

1. Clearly, a move to Queensland would significantly increase the expense of [X] spending time with his father. However, I note that both parties are employed, and at least two budget airlines offer very competitive fares between Queensland and Tasmania. I am therefore confident that the parties would be able to afford to share the costs of [X]'s airfares.
2. In my view, it would make sense for the father to book and pay for [X]'s air travel to him and for the mother to book and pay for [X]'s return to her.
3. In this day and age, telephone communication is both reliable and relatively inexpensive.

The capacity of the parents to provide for the child’s needs

1. I have no concerns about the mother's capacity to provide [X]'s physical, intellectual and emotional needs. I note that she states that she is willing to obtain counselling for [X] to assist him with the distress that he has been suffering (as recommended by Ms Fowler).
2. Mr W has already been working as a diesel fitter in Queensland and he and the mother have formed a view that living in the Hervey Bay area is “on the top of their list”. The mother has made enquiries of schools in that area and has been sent information packs.
3. On the other hand, the father's attitude towards the mother gives me some concern that he lacks the capacity to provide properly for [X]'s emotional needs. Whether the father likes it or not, [X] needs his relationship with his mother and the father's current attitude is undermining of that. He needs to realise that, by promoting and encouraging [X]’s relationship with his mother, he will in fact improve his own relationship with [X].
4. Ms Fowler commented as follows in relation to the issue of relocation:
   • Given that (the father) does not appear to have the capacity to identify the various forms of conflict [X] is regularly exposed to, it is recommended that [X] be permitted to relocate interstate with his mother and spend regular holiday time in Tasmania with his father. [X] is now old enough to fly as an unaccompanied minor and this may prevent the parents from coming into direct contact with each other. It is recommended that [X] communicate with his father via a landline number twice a week at a specific date and time ... ...

The attitudes of the parents to the child and parental responsibilities

1. In some respects there is some overlapping between this factor and the factor referred to immediately above and I do not really need to say any more.

Any family violence and family violence orders

1. I have referred to family violence above and need not comment much further. I note that there have been family violence orders in the past but they do not appear to be current.

Conclusions

Parental responsibility

1. I am of the view that equal shared parental responsibility is neither practical nor desirable, even if the mother and [X] are to remain in Tasmania. This is because of an almost total lack of any reasonable relationship between the father and mother.
2. Shared parental responsibility would require each of the parties to consult the other about decisions to be made about [X] and to make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision.[20] I have no confidence that the parties would be able to do that, so it is my view that the mother should have sole parental responsibility. However, she must keep the father informed of important issues relating to [X]'s welfare.

Relocation

1. Given what I have said above, I am of the view that it is in [X]'s best interests to be allowed to move to Queensland with his mother. I have confidence that she will be very attentive to his needs in relation to the move, especially his emotional needs, including his need to maintain a meaningful relationship with his father.
2. I will make orders that are essentially in accordance with what the mother seeks, save that there will be:
   1. the order for sole parental responsibility that I have referred to above; and
   2. there will be two telephone calls per week as recommended by Ms Fowler.
3. There will also be an order that the father not communicate with [X] by mobile telephone unless agreed to in writing by the mother. The evidence is quite clear that mobile telephone use is having a very stressful effect upon [X] and that needs to stop. I hope that eventually, that stress will lessen and the father will learn not to abuse the privilege of mobile phone communication. However, it will be for the mother to decide if and when that can occur.

I certify that the preceding eighty-two (82) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Roberts FM

Associate:

Date: