For those of you who wish to use the Appeal Court Judgement [referred to below], the reference is CIV2006-404-3522.

1998. Met mother (purely business related). Atr the time I was happily married.

Then wife wanted a grandchild. Neither of our adult children were interested in providing.

Six months after meeting mother, I met the child. Told wife about child. Wife met child. One thing led to another and we found ourselves able to dote on a dot (aged 3.5 years).

1999. The relationship between child and wife and I developed into a quasi-grand-parent/child thing. Not by design, it just happened.

2000. It became apparent the mother had neither the time, nor money, nor interest in providing the child with all those things a child deserves…The list is too long to record here. We could, we wanted to, the mother was happy to have us do so.

2000 till now. Got separated in 2000. Assumed the mother would not allow me to continue relationship. Wrong. Mother quite happy. Child developing really well.

Over the years since I have been almost entirely responsible for all aspects of the child’s development. I attend to all matters to do with school, sport, music, and much else. For risk of identifying the parties I am unable to explain why the mother has been unable to do any of this. Save to say, no person at the child’s school, her music teacher, her football or swimming coaches, would recognise the mother because she has never attended any meeting with such folk and has never attended ‘any’ event the child has attended. school included.

Various have asked, in past, why? Why do I do it? The fact is, I have never bothered to analyse my motives. In fact I don’t believe there is a motive. The relationship between myself and the child just grew from its own energy. We simply gravitated from a casual state to that of grand-parent/grandchild and neither have really ever asked why. We simply exist in this state and both are the happier for it.

2005. For reasons I cannot divulge…again for risk of identification of the child…I became concerned the mother may become incapable of caring for the child. So I applied for equal care giver status. This would give me legal primacy over CYFs intervention or that of the child’s father; who lives overseas, and has no interest in the child. And further, for him to assert care over the child would require her to move to a cocnut-palmed, fringe-dweller environment thus completely defrauding the child of all she seeks to attain. Moreover, the child does not want to come under tha care of this man…and that’s assuming he is actually her father….and that’s a debatable issue.

Christmas 2005 revealed some rather unpleasant goings on, and the relationship between myself and the mother sank to new depths.

BTW1: The ‘relationship’ between me and mother has only ever existed as two bookends, where the child is the book.

BTW2: The child has shuttled between my home and mothers, more or less on a weekends with me, and weekdays with her, for almost the entire period of the relationship. Other than those times when the mother was incommoded and demand the child would stay with me for weeks on end. In fact from late March I had both the child and her brother for nearly ten weeks while the mother was otherwise engaged.

In Feb 2006, and due to the mothers’ worsening attitude I called in CYFS and the Police. The two biggest mistakes I have ever made.

Naturally, the mother, as so many folk do when confronted with their ‘sins’, made a range of false allegations against me in a daft attempt to dislodge the glare on her.

It was about then when things turned really dirty.

CYFs became involved. The police quickly realised the allegations were false and lost interest. But not the Cyfsterhood. Thjey felt they had yet another man to gun down.

And so off to court we all went.

Within weeks of the FC process beginning the mother resiled from her allegations, leaving the Cysterhood trying to make gold from straw.

They damned near succeeded and probably would have had not Asher J entered the frey and asserted that hallucinations just don’t cut it as evidence. Whereas, in the FC, any imagined thing is acceptable, as so many of you know, in the real court reality holds sway.

I shall assert once more. The judgement handed down by Asher J is NOT about my case per se. My case was a test-case to determine what is and what is not acceptable as ‘evidence’ in the FC.

Asher J judged that ‘evidence’ must be substantiable. Mere uncorrobortaed testimony is NOT enough enable a FC judge to issue either interim or final orders.

You may be assured, Julie, that had such a judgement been in place when you were being accused of being an unfit mother, you nor your boys would never have had to endure what you have endured.

And in future, many children and parents will be saved the agony of suffering from the often irrational judgements and orders handed down by the FC.

For the record, at this very moment, the child is back at her mothers’ home, where she will reside for the rest of the week, as she has done EVERY week for yonks.

As I do, every day. I took her to school. Picked her up. Took her to footy practice (swimming tomorrow) and then home to her mother and siblings.

I have to confess to feeling somewhat aggrieved at Julie’s completely unsubstantiated attacks on me and my intentions.

It seems to me that Julie’s ‘way’ is exactly the ‘way’ of CYFs, the FC, and sundry deceitful parents in past.

The game being, say what you like and never let the truth get in the way of a good belief.

This is the last comment I will make on this issue. Take it or leave it.

David.