FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
ROTHMAN & ROTHMAN	[2015] FCCA 80	

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Whether wife should return children to Victoria – whether husband’s negativity towards wife means relationship with the children is possible – whether wife should have sole parental responsibility.	

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.4B, 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAC	

Applicant:	MR ROTHMAN	

Respondent:	MS ROTHMAN	

File Number:	DGC 1390 of 2011	

Judgment of:	Judge Phipps	

Hearing dates:	15, 16 & 17 December 2014	

Date of Last Submission:	17 December 2014	

Delivered at:	Dandenong 	

Delivered on:	16 January 2015	

REPRESENTATION
The Applicant: 	Appearing on their own behalf	

The Respondent:	Appearing on their own behalf	

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:	Mr O’Connell	

Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:	McCormack & Co	

ORDERS
(1)	That the wife have sole parental responsibility for the children X born (omitted) 2001 and Y born (omitted) 2011.
(2)	That the children live with the wife in the State of Queensland.
(3)	Upon the husband obtaining a report from a psychiatrist or duly qualified clinical psychologist (“the therapist”) certifying as to the following:
(a)	that the therapist is satisfied that the husband has followed sufficiently all lawful directions of such therapist in relation to treatment, including attendance upon the therapist;
(b)	that the therapist is satisfied that the husband has gained sufficient insight so as not to telephone or write to the children, including but not limited to, sharing with the children or either of them directly or by implication his negative views of the wife or involving the children or either of them in any issues or conflict he may have with the wife;
(c)	that the therapist prior to any therapy commencing has been provided with a copy of the family report of Ms D and this judgment (and the husband is hereby at liberty to provide such documents to the therapist or any referring general practitioner);
The husband must provide such report to the wife.
(4)	Upon the provision of the report to the wife by the husband the wife shall sign all documents and do all things necessary to arrange mediation in Brisbane at a suitable Family Relationship Centre to discuss the husband’s time with the children or either of them.
(5)	That pending the provision of the report provided in paragraph 3 the husband shall spend time with the child Y as follows:
(a)	in Brisbane on at least three occasions per year nominated by the husband (and as soon as practicable) provided such time can be supervised at a Child Contact Centre;
(b)	in Melbourne on at least three occasions per year and as soon as practicable as agreed between the husband and the wife (such spend time not to be unreasonably withheld) and shall be supervised at a Child Contact Centre nominated by the husband;
(c)	the wife shall sign all documents and do all things necessary on the request of the husband to arrange the supervision of the husband’s time with the child Y as provided for in paragraphs 5(a) &(b).
(6)	The husband shall spend time with X as agreed between the parties with reference to X’s wishes.
(7)	The order appointing the Independent Children’s Lawyer is discharged.
(8)	Otherwise all extant applications are dismissed.

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

(1)	
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DANDENONG	
DGC 1390 of 2011
MR ROTHMAN	
Applicant

And

MS ROTHMAN	
Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1.	In February 2013 the wife, Ms Rothman, moved to live in Queensland with the parties children X born (omitted) 2001 and Y born (omitted) 2011.  The husband proposes orders that the wife return to live in Victoria with the children, that the children live with the wife and spend time with him on an increasing basis.
2.	The wife and the Independent Children’s Lawyer propose orders as follows:
a)	that the wife have sole parental responsibility for the children X born (omitted) 2001 and Y born (omitted) 2011;
b)	that the children live with the wife in the State of Queensland;
c)	upon the husband obtaining a report from a psychiatrist or duly qualified clinical psychologist (“the therapist”) certifying as to the following:
i)	that the therapist is satisfied that the husband has followed sufficiently all lawful directions of such therapist in relation to treatment, including attendance upon the therapist;
ii)	that the therapist is satisfied that the husband has gained sufficient insight so as not to telephone or write to the children, including but not limited to, sharing with the children or either of them directly or by implication his negative views of the wife or involving the children or either of them in any issues or conflict he may have with the wife;
iii)	that the therapist prior to any therapy commencing has been provided with a copy of the family report of Ms D and this judgment (and the husband is hereby at liberty to provide such documents to the therapist or any referring general practitioner).
The husband must provide such report to the wife.
d)	upon the provision of the report to the wife by the husband the wife shall sign all documents and do all things necessary to arrange mediation in Brisbane at a suitable Family Relationship Centre to discuss the husband’s time with the children or either of them;
e)	that pending the provision of the report provided in paragraph 3 the husband shall spend time with the child Y as follows;
i)	in Brisbane on at least three occasions per year nominated by the husband (and as soon as practicable) provided such time can be supervised at a Child Contact Centre;
ii)	in Melbourne on at least three occasions per year and as soon as practicable as agreed between the husband and the wife (such spend time not to be unreasonably withheld) and shall be supervised at a Child Contact Centre nominated by the husband;
f)	the wife shall sign all documents and do all things necessary on the request of the father to arrange the supervision of the husband’s time with the child Y as provided for in paragraphs 5(a) &(b);
g)	the husband shall spend time with X as agreed between the parties with reference to X’s wishes.
3.	A significant issue is the husband’s criticism and negativity towards the wife and its effect on the children.
4.	The parties commenced their relationship in 1995 and married in 1997.  They separated on 12 February 2011.  They had separated for a time in 2010, reconciled for a period and then finally separated.  During this period of reconciliation the child Y was conceived.  Except for a two hour period on 7 April 2014, Y has not spent any time with the husband.  X has not spent time with the husband since April 2012.
5.	Both parties say that in the early years of the marriage the relationship was good but then deteriorated.  The wife alleged to the family report writer, Ms D that the husband engaged in aggressive, argumentative and physically abusive behaviour.  The husband alleges that the wife was the aggressor.
6.	Following separation X spent every weekend with her father until about April 2012.  At that time the wife was working at weekends.  The husband works four nights a week as a (occupation omitted) and stays with his mother on those four nights.  He has re-partnered and has a child by the new relationship.  His partner lives in (omitted) and generally he spends three nights there.  X spent at least some of the weekends with her father at (omitted).  The wife says that X complained that when staying at (omitted) she would be left in the care of the husbands partner’s 19-year-old daughter who smokes, drinks and swears.
7.	The wife says that the husband became increasingly aggressive and abusive at changeovers and sent her threatening messages.
8.	The wife says she has always wanted to live in Queensland ever since she was a child and went there on holidays and that the husband knew of this.  She gave an example of a threatening voicemail as “if you leave the state I’ll call DHS and the children will be taken off you”.
9.	Early in 2012 the wife arranged for X to spend three weeks with the husband.  She says she needed a break.  The wife says that when X returned after three weeks she said she could not take the criticism and negativity towards her mother at the husband’s place anymore and so she stopped seeing her father.
10.	On 7 May 2012 the husband left the wife a number of abusive and intimidating voice messages.  These included that if the wife did not leave the house he would get a locksmith and change the locks so she could not get back in.  He left the voice message for X that said “I’m going to be waiting for you in the morning and after school and it’s going to get very embarrassing for you”.
11.	On 8 May 2012 at about 6.30am the husband parked in his car outside the wife’s house and waited there.  There is some dispute whether he was two or three houses down or directly outside.  The wife knew he was there and she says X did too and there is no reason to doubt this.  The wife called police who told the husband to leave.  A police force member applied for a family violence interim intervention order against the husband naming the wife as the affected family member.  The Outline of Incident on the application prepared by the police officer says this:
	On the police arrival the AFM and the daughter were scared to leave the house.  Police have requested the RESP to leave and to sort it out civilly but he refused to leave it until he had seen the kids.  The RESP continually refused to leave and was extremely agitated.  Police apply for this order to prevent the RESP from intimidating and stalking the AFM and to allow her to carry out her daily tasks without the interference of the RESP
12.	The voice messages are not disputed, they were played in court.  The husband’s attitude to his waiting outside the house is an illustration of his lack of understanding of the effect of his behaviour on his daughter.  He saw nothing wrong with what he did.  He considers he was entitled to do so.
13.	The wife moved to Queensland with the children in February 2013.  Solicitors for the husband wrote to the wife’s solicitors in January 2013 who replied that the wife did not intend moving to Queensland.  The wife says this was so but then the husband’s threats and abuse continued and she decided she could take it no longer.
14.	Ms D prepared the family report.  She interviewed X on 15 March 2014.  X told Ms D that she feels happier living in Queensland; that she has made friends at school and has lost weight.  She described feeling “very close” to her mother adding “I have got one of the best mums”, X stated she felt “scared” when her father calls on the telephone adding “it is all based about him, he never asks how I am, talks about himself, he won’t come up to Queensland and see us, he says he has no time off from work.”  X described to Ms D not knowing what to expect when her father calls adding “last time it was like hi darling”, he acted happy, normally he is not like this, most times he talks about how all of this is mum’s fault, puts her down, I tell to stop, that I don’t want to hear the stuff but it doesn’t stop, sometimes I run away from the phone when Mum says call your dad”. 
15.	X described her father as “changing” post separation adding “he used to be happier, it feels like I don’t know him now he has changed, he gets mad all the time”.
16.	In her evaluation Ms D describes the husband as highly frustrated by the current circumstances.  She says this:
	Mr Rothman expressed significant reluctance to consider other options including travelling to Queensland to spend time with the children; utilising the services of a Children’s Contact Centre or engaging in written Skype communication with Y and X.  He appears to believe that his frustrated behavioural responses are in direct response to Ms Rothman’s actions, influence and decisions post separation.  It is considered that Mr Rothman lacks personal insight into his behaviour and responses, lacking the ability to focus on the needs of each child.  His views are expressed in an emotive manner with a high level of frustration, as expressed in a manner that could be described as threatening and aggressive in nature.  It it is further considered that Mr Rothman’s communication with Ms Rothman and X reflects this tendency at the present time
17.	Ms D says X describes personal conflict in terms of being open to and wanting communication with her father, however feels fear and reluctance to engage with him when he is engaging in a negative, critical and self-focused manner.  She expressed significant reluctance to travel to Victoria in order to spend unsupervised time with the husband.  She remained open to receiving telephone calls and communication with her father however requested they be modified and cease to reflect paternal frustration and anger.
18.	On 7 April 2014 orders were made by consent for Y to spend time with the husband for two hours on 7 April 2014 and 8 April 2014 at a play centre.  On 7 April 2014 the wife and Y with the wife’s father arrived outside the centre.  The husband was there with his sister and mother.  His sister suggested that she take Y into the centre and this happened.
19.	The time went well and at the conclusion the wife and her father were outside the centre and the husband his sister, mother and Y came out.  Despite, it seems, efforts by his sister to restrain him, the husband said to the wife’s father words to the effect of do you believe in God and suggested he would be judged.  The wife says that this was in quite an aggressive fashion.  She did not bring Y back to the centre the following day.
20.	The husband continued making telephone calls.  On 10 December 2014, the week before the hearing, he left a lengthy message for the wife in which he said he was going to make a civil claim against her for $100,000 and take her house. X heard the recording of that message.
21.	The husband and the wife were self-represented at the hearing.  Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer described the husband’s attitude to the wife as one of unrelenting negativity.  The description is apt.  I made statements at the commencement of the hearing and during the hearing that I could take into account a party’s behaviour in court.  The husband took no heed.  In his cross examination of the wife the husband was aggressive and bullying.  The wife said that his behaviour in cross examining her was the way he had behaved towards her during the marriage.
22.	Ms D’s evidence is that X does not want to see her father or communicate with him while his expressed attitude to her mother continues.
23.	The husband’s unremitting denigration of the wife including to X is significant to the best interest considerations.  He has no insight into his behaviour.  He has no insight into how his behaviour has affected X.  He places the blame on the wife.  He considers that she should return to Victoria with the children and says he has no intention of going to Queensland to visit.  He says he cannot afford to do it.  Final submissions by Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer concluded just before the lunch adjournment.  The wife said she did not want to make any submission.  She accepted what Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer had said.  I said to the husband I would hear his final submissions after lunch.  He said that wasn’t necessary it wouldn’t take long and then said “I resign as a parent”.  He was in an agitated state.  His sister, who had acted as his Mackenzie friend, could not calm him.
24.	The husband did make submissions following lunch. He said at the end that if the children remain in Queensland he would not see them.  
25.	The wife wants the children to have a relationship with the husband as long as he can change his attitude.  X wants a relationship with her father but only if he changes his attitude.  The husband’s attitude towards the wife of unrelenting negativity means he cannot have a meaningful relationship with his children.
26.	The husband’s sister gave evidence.  She is married with three children and impressed as a sensible and rational person.  She clearly had a good relationship with X while X was in Victoria.  She describes her brother as “ranting” on occasions.
27.	The paternal grandmother gave evidence.  In particular she described attending at the wife’s house after Y’s birth.  She says that the wife told her the husband and his family would never have a relationship with Y.  The wife disputes this.  Whatever happened on this occasion it adds little to the assessment of the major issue, the husband’s attitude towards the wife.
Children’s provisions
28.	Children’s provisions are contained in part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).  The objects of the part and principles underlying it are s.60B.
	1)  The objects of this Part are to ensure that the best interests of children are met by:
	                     (a)  ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child; and
	                     (b) protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and
	                     (c)  ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and
	                     (d)  ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.
	(2)  The principles underlying these objects are that (except when it is or would be contrary to a child's best interests):
	                     (a)  children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together; and
	                     (b)  children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development (such as grandparents and other relatives); and
	                     (c)  parents jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and
	                     (d)  parents should agree about the future parenting of their children; and
	                     (e)  children have a right to enjoy their culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture).
29.	Each of these objects and principles has relevance in this dispute.
30.	Section 61DA provides that the court when making a parenting order in relation to a child must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for parents to have equal shared parental responsibility.  The presumption does not apply if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent of the child (or a person who lives with a parent of the child) has engaged in abuse of the child or another child, a member of the parent's family or family violence.  The findings I have made mean that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the husband has engaged in family violence and so the presumption does not apply.  This does not of itself mean that there should not be an order for equal shared parental responsibility.  The husband applies for such an order and the mother opposes it.  I must consider whether it is in the best interests of the children to make an order for equal shared parental responsibility, but without applying the presumption.
31.	Section 60CA provides that in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, the court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.  In determining what is in the child’s best interest the court must consider the matters set out in s.60CC(2) & (3).
Best interest considerations
32.	The relevant best interest considerations from s.60CC(2) and (3) are:
a)	Both primary considerations:
	(a)  the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents; and
	(b)  the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
b)	The additional considerations:
	(a)  any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child's maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child's views;
	(b)  the nature of the relationship of the child with:
(i)  each of the child's parents; and
	 (ii)  other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
	 (c)  the extent to which each of the child's parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity:
	(i)  to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and
	(ii)  to spend time with the child; and
	(iii)  to communicate with the child;
	(ca)  the extent to which each of the child's parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent's obligations to maintain the child;
	(d)  the likely effect of any changes in the child's circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:
	(i)  either of his or her parents; or
	(ii)  any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living;
	 (f)  the capacity of:
	each of the child's parents; and
	 (ii)  any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
	to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs;
	 (g)  the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child's parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant;
 (i)  the attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents;
 (j)  any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family;
	(k)  if a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child's family--any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following:
	 (i)  the nature of the order;
 the circumstances in which the order was made;
	(iii)  any evidence admitted in proceedings for the order;
	 (iv) any findings made by the court in, or in proceedings for, the order.
33.	I will deal with the additional considerations first.
34.	The first is the views of the children.  X wants a relationship with her father but only if he changes his attitude.  At present she does not want to spend time with him or even talk on the telephone.  This is clear from Ms D’s report and evidence.  X is at an age where her views must be taken into account.  The husband’s behaviour shows that X’s view is soundly based.  Her mother is her primary carer and she is close to her mother.  She does not like her father’s unrelenting criticism of her mother.  Extreme examples are the telephone calls where the husband has said that he will lock the mother out of the home or take her home.  To X this obviously meant that she would be without a home as well.
35.	I accept that X does not want to return to Victoria.  According to her mother she is reluctant to even visit Victoria at the moment because the father is here.  I accept that X wants to remain living in Queensland because she likes living there, likes her school and friends, and does not want to return to Victoria where her father lives.  Y is too young to have any views and has only met the husband once.
36.	The next of the additional considerations is the relationship of the child with each parent and other people in her life.  The wife is X’s primary carer.  She has a close and affectionate relationship with her.  Currently she has no relationship with her father, this being her choice.  I accept that X’s reasons for not wanting to have a relationship with her father at present are soundly based.
37.	The wife is Y’s primary carer.  Y has no relationship with the husband.
38.	X has had a relationship with her paternal family.  This includes the grandmother and aunts, uncles and cousins.  If she remains in Queensland this relationship will be restricted if it exists at all.
39.	The next consideration is parents’ participation in decision-making, spending time and maintaining the children.  The evidence about this consideration is set out earlier in these reasons.
40.	The next best interest consideration is the effect on the children of any change in their living arrangements.  If the children were to return to Victoria to live at an address which made it easy for them to spend time with their father, their mother, their primary carer, would be apprehensive about being in even that much proximity to the husband.  Her well-being would be affected and this might have an adverse effect on the children.  X would leave Queensland where she likes living and where she wants to stay.
41.	The next consideration is the difficulty and expense of the children spending time with a parent.  If the children remain in Queensland expense and difficulty is obvious.
42.	The next consideration is the ability to provide for the children’s needs including intellectual and emotional needs.  The wife has this ability.  The husband’s attitude to the wife and his constant expression of that attitude to X shows that he has little ability to provide for X’s emotional needs.  Should Y spend time with the husband I am satisfied that at present the husband would do the same with Y.
43.	The next consideration is the attitude to parenthood.  The wife provides well for the children.  The husband’s attitude is dominated by his unremitting negativity to the wife.  He appears to have no understanding of how this affects X and how it might affect Y.
44.	The next consideration is the children’s ages and stages of development.  These have been described.
45.	The next consideration is family violence and family violence orders.  The husband’s behaviour towards the wife amounts to family violence.
46.	The first of the primary considerations is the benefit to the children of a meaningful relationship with each parent.  The husband’s attitude to the wife and its effect on X and effect on Y if he does spend time with the husband means that at present the children cannot have a meaningful relationship with the husband.  His contact with them would be dominated by his unrelenting negativity towards the wife.  This is the reason for X not wanting to spend any time or communicate with her father although she would like to.  She cannot have a meaningful relationship with him while his attitude persists and the same applies to Y.
47.	The children do have and will continue to have a meaningful relationship with their mother.
48.	The second primary consideration is the need to protect the children from family violence and harm including psychological harm.  The husband’s unrelenting negativity to the wife and its expression to X and probable expression to Y means that there is a risk of psychological harm to the children if they spend time or have communication with the husband.  Ms D’s evidence shows this.
Family violence
49.	Section 4B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) defines family violence:
For the purposes of this Act, family violence means violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family (the family member ), or causes the family member to be fearful
50.	The telephone messages left by the husband for the wife and acknowledged by him corroborate the wife’s evidence about his behaviour to her during and after the relationship as does the husband’s conduct during the hearing of the case.  The telephone messages in themselves caused the wife to be fearful.  There are ample grounds for finding that the husband has committed family violence.
Parental responsibility
51.	The presumption that it is in the best interests of the children for their parents to have equal shared parental responsibility does not apply in this case.  There are reasonable grounds to believe that the husband has committed family violence and in addition it is not in the best interests of the children for the presumption to apply.
52.	An order for equal shared parental responsibility imposes obligations on each parent.  Section 65DAC provides:
	This section applies if, under a parenting order:
	                     (a)  2 or more persons are to share parental responsibility for a child; and
	                     (b)  the exercise of that parental responsibility involves making a decision about a major long-term issue in relation to the child.
	             (2)  The order is taken to require the decision to be made jointly by those persons.
	             (3)  The order is taken to require each of those persons:
	                     (a)  to consult the other person in relation to the decision to be made about that issue; and
	                   (b)  to make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision about that issue.
53.	Major long-term issues are defined in s.4:
	" major long-term issues" , in relation to a child, means issues about the care, welfare and development of the child of a long-term nature and includes (but is not limited to) issues of that nature about:
	                     (a)  the child's education (both current and future); and
	                     (b)  the child's religious and cultural upbringing; and
	                     (c)  the child's health; and
	                     (d)  the child's name; and
	(e)  changes to the child's living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with a parent.
54.	The parties do not communicate and have no ability to communicate.  Any attempt at communication would probably result in abuse of the wife by the husband.  The children’s best interests are not served by placing on the parties a requirement that they consult and make a genuine attempt to reach agreement when they have no ability to do this.  In particular, placing this requirement upon the wife would affect her ability to care for the children.  In practice, she will have to make decisions about major long-term matters because she will not get cooperation from the husband.  For instance, in decisions about schools, the probable approach of the husband would be that the children must attend school in Victoria.  For reasons I will give later, I have determined that it is in the best interests of the children to remain living with the mother in Queensland. 
55.	The children’s best interests are served by the mother having sole parental responsibility for making decisions about major long-term matters. 
 Place of residence
56.	The authorities show that the best interests of the children is the paramount consideration in determining relocation disputes.  I must consider the parties proposals and then assess them taking into account best interest considerations.  In this case, because I have determined that there should be an order that the mother have sole parental responsibility, I do not have to consider the requirement of reasonable practicality contained in s.60CA.
57.	The wife has always wanted to live in Queensland.  I accept that she had no immediate intention to move in January 2013 but decided to do so because of the husband’s constant negativity towards her.  Significant in the best interest considerations is X’s view that she wants to remain living in Queensland.  She has sound reasons for this and in addition, she does not want to return to Victoria while her father has his negative attitude towards her mother.  She does not want to be where her father is.
58.	The wife and the children are well established in Queensland.  The wife has purchased a house using the money she received from the parties’ property settlement plus a mortgage.  The mortgage is $100 a week.  At present, she lives on social services payments and the child-support she receives from the husband.
59.	While I must take into account that the wife purchased the house and established herself in Queensland knowing that the husband opposed her doing this, I must take into account that the children are settled and well cared for in Queensland.  Returning to Victoria would not mean that they would then have a relationship with the husband.  A meaningful relationship with the husband is not possible unless the husband changes.  I accept the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s submission that this will only be possible if the husband undertakes the type of treatment in the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s proposal.  I consider it unlikely that the husband will, but if he does, the treatment will only be successful if the husband accepts that the wife had a valid reason for wanting to remove herself from proximity to him and that she and the children are now successfully and comfortably established in Queensland.
60.	These considerations mean that the children’s best interests are met by remaining living with the wife in Queensland and not having time with the husband and communication with him until the husband shows that he has changed.
I certify that the preceding sixty (60) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Phipps

Date:  16 January 2015