Dating exclusive nair shaila video
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Lindsay & Baker has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Fam CAFC 189 Reasons Page 1 Appeal Number: NA 135 of 2010 File Number: BRF 11130 of 2003 Ms Lindsay Appellant And Mr Baker Respondent And Damien Carter Independent Children’s Lawyer REASONS FOR JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION 1.This is an appeal by Ms Lindsay (“the mother”) against parenting orders made by Bell J on and 1 December 2010 in relation to the child, B, who was born in October 2002 and is the child of the mother’s short relationship with Mr Baker (“the father”). His Honour’s orders of in effect provided that the child should live with the father, that the father should have sole parental responsibility for the child, and that the mother should spend time with the child on a supervised basis pending a report in respect of that supervised time and a review by his Honour at the end of 2010. His Honour’s order of 1 December 2010 in effect provided for the mother’s time with the child to be supervised on an indefinite basis. The father who, like the mother, was unrepresented before us, opposed the appeal as also, importantly, did the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“the ICL”) who was represented by Counsel before us.At 20 sites in marshes, the researchers found layers of white sand about 4 inches thick alternating with layers of black peaty soil.Witnesses confirmed that the top sand layer, just below the surface, was laid down by the 2004 tsunami, which ran 20 to 30 feet deep across much of the island. They also noted signs of two earlier tsunamis during the last 2,500 to 2,800 years.
 Fam CAFC 189 Coversheet and Orders Page 1 FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA LINDSAY & BAKER  Fam CAFC 189 FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – CHILDREN – where the trial judge was found not to have erred in refusing to accept the evidence of one expert as to whether the child was at risk of abuse when living with the father, when a number of other experts were of the opinion that the child was not at risk of abuse from the father – where the trial judge was found not to have erred in ordering that the mother’s time with the child to be supervised on an indefinite basis – appeal dismissed.Details of the disclosures made by the child and the investigations which followed are detailed by Bell J in his reasons for judgment of at  to  and need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that a trial took place before Carmody J on 27 and 28 February 2007, with judgment being delivered on 15 March 2007.At that trial both the mother and the father appeared without legal representation and the ICL was represented by Counsel. Carmody J ordered that the child continue to live with the mother and spend unsupervised time with the father on a gradually increasing basis. In his reasons for judgment delivered on 15 March 2007 Carmody J summarised this case as it had come before him in the following way: 2.Those orders were subsequently varied by Carmody J on to provide for the child to stay overnight with the mother on one night each week. According to Bell J at  of his reasons of , the father had to apply for a location order on 11 August 2008 because the mother had disappeared with the child and then kept herself and the child hidden until November 2008 when the child was recovered – a recovery order having been issued by Murphy J on 8 September 2008 which provided for the child to be delivered to the father. On 21 November 2008 Murphy J made orders suspending all face-to-face time between the mother and the child for a period of six weeks to be followed by supervised time once a week at a contact centre. During the course of 20 various expert investigations were carried out and reports written in relation to this case and to which we will later refer. There was then a four day trial before Bell J on 15 to 18 March 2010. (3) That the father have sole parental responsibility for the long-term and short-term care, welfare and development of child.Again at that trial each of the parents was self-represented and the ICL was represented by Counsel. His Honour delivered his reasons for judgment on and made the following orders: (1) The Applicant’s application is dismissed. (4) That pursuant to Section 65L of the Family Law Act 1975:  Fam CAFC 189 Reasons Page 6 (a) the mother spend time with the child on a week day to be nominated by the Senior Family Consultant of the Family Court of Australia Brisbane Registry, once a fortnight for two hours after school in the Court precincts; (b) such time and compliance with these parenting orders is to be supervised by Ms [B] or another Family Consultant as nominated by the Senior Family Consultant, with the father to deliver and collect the child; (c) the parties shall do all things, sign all such documents, attend all such appointments and ensure the child attend all such appointments as are reasonably necessary for such supervision; (d) the Family Consultant shall prepare a report, in respect of the supervision, and contact with the parties and child and it is requested that such report be available prior to November 2010; and (e) the Family Consultant is at liberty to consider any or all documents in this matter which the Family Consultant considers would be of assistance in preparing the report.
Search for dating exclusive nair shaila video:
The parents’ relationship broke down in October 2002.