H J AMES J OHNSON

B A R R I S T E R A N D S O L I C I TO R
O F T H E F E D E R A L C O U RT S A N D T H E H I G H C O U RT O F A U S T R A L I A
w w w. j a m e s j o h n s o n 2 0 2 0 . c o m

Wednesday 27 July 2010 *** IMPORTANT COMMUNICATION

Federal Magistrate Macbeth

C/- Associate to Federal Magistrate Macbeth
Federal Magistrates Court of Australia
Capital City GOTHAM 911
By Facsimile: #### #### (8 pages)

Dear Your Honour

FAMILY LAW PROCEEDINGS – THURSDAY ADAMS (AN INFANT), ADAM ADAMS AND HAI KON YU
1. I refer to my facsimile letter to the Court of Thursday 21 July 2009.
2. Thank you for understanding Mr Adams's legitimate reasons for not being able attend the impromptu
mention hearing which I understand took place on 22 July 2009. Thank you for also understanding my
legitimate reasons for not being available either. And thank you for confirming the Final Hearing of this
custody matter is to proceed this morning.

Notice of Address
3. I enclose a copy Notice of Address for service which I shall arrange to have filed with the Court later today,
largely as a matter of record only. Briefly, I only formally accepted instructions from Mr Adams on Saturday
afternoon (3 ½ days ago). Since then Mr Adams and I have worked around the clock to prepare for the
Final Hearing today. As I am lodging with Mr Adams for the duration of the preparation and presentation of
his case, I would be grateful if the Court would endeavour to communicate with me/Mr Adams by email at
my above given email address. I would be grateful to receive any and all documents from the Court via
email, with delivery of hard copies of documents to me by being marked to my attention and delivered to me
at Mr Adams's address previously on the record (namely 123 Sesame Street Capital City 911) and not my
S###### address. I have made the same request of the mother's lawyer and the ICL. This is of course
much the much a continuation of the arrangements already being observed up until this point (only now all
email and hard copies of documents are to be addressed to me and not to Mr Adams directly).

De facto couple – not a solemised marriage recognised under Australian laws

4. I also attach for Your Honour's information a copy of Certificate issued under seal by the Acting Registrar-
General, Registry of Birth's Deaths and Marriages confirming, as I suspected, that Mr Adams and the mother
have never at any time been married as a matter of Australian law (My preliminary inquiries, also strongly

Page 1 of 8
 suggest that Mr Adams and Ms Yu have never at any time been married under South ASEAN law, either.)
From the materials I have perused I have not been made aware of any indication that the mother's lawyer or
the ICL have investigated this aspect of the relationship between Mr Adams and Ms Yu. On the basis of my
investigations (Mr Adams making the inquiries and obtaining this Certificate on my suggestion) I am of the
view that under relevant federal (and State) matrimonal and relationship laws Mr Ater and Ms Yu were never
more than a de facto couple. And therefore, I am of the view that any claims for division of assets must be
determined under relevant State property laws and not under federal matrimonial laws (eg Family Law Act).
5. From the materials I have perused I have not been made aware of any proper application by either of the
parties in this federal jurisdiction (assuming Your Honour's Court might have federal jurisdiction to rule on
such an application). Nor from my perusal of materials have I been made aware of any application by either
of the parties in the Gotham State jurisdiction.
6. Apart from jurisdictional and procedural issues, from my perusal of the materials I am aware that substantial
work needs to be done to identify and quantify the alleged assets of the relationship. This includes because
the substantial assets of the relationship appear to be located in South ASEAN (namely, a material
shareholding in the Seoul listed entity Samsung, a property in South ASEAN (query, unencumbered) and
possibly cash proceeds Ms Yu may have had and received from the business #### #### which Mr Adams
ran (and in which Mr Adams employed Ms Yu) from 2002 up to 2007 (when, as I am instructed, the business
failed with substantial ATO and other debts as a direct result of their relationship problems). More work
needs to be done, including properly drafted and filed applications, more investigations, and more discovery,
and done in the proper forum, before any property division claims are ready to for trial and determination.
7. In my opinion these jurisdictional, procedural and substantive concerns are singularly and cumulatively fatal
to any suggestion (Eg the suggestion made in the mother's lawyers 'Outline of Case' dated 21 July 2010)
that Your Honour might entertain and determine division of property matters at this Final Hearing
commencing today.
8. Therefore, as a preliminary matter, I shall be seeking rulings that:
 Your Honour to confine the hearing today to “living with” issues for the child of the relationship; and
either
 Defer consideration of property division (should Your Honour prefer to decline to make a determination
on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction to allow the parties further time to research these issues for
themselves); or
 Dismiss any consideration of property division claims (should Your Honour be of the same view as
myself that the absence of marriage recognised under federal matrimonial laws, means that any such
claims as might be put must be put in the relevant Gotham State Courts under Gotham state laws and
not Australian federal matrimonial laws (Eg Family Law Act).

Equal Parenting

Page 2 of 8
9. I note from my preliminary review of the 'Case Outline' provided by the mother's lawyers that the parties are
in heated agreement with the dad's lawyer (ie myself) as to the appropriateness of 'equal parenting'.
However the mother's lawyers and dad's lawyers seem to be relying on different dictionaries as to the
meaning of the word 'equal'.
10. I discount the 'Case Outline' issued by the ICL on numerous grounds which I have raised directly with the
ICL with the hope that I need not have to raise any of them in Your Honour's Court.
11. I also have grave concerns that the mother's lawyers and the ICL have in the past expended substantial
energy raising many things that are of no relevance whatsoever to the issues of equal parenting, namely
whether there is any basis for departing from the true 'equal parenting' rules. As I indicated in my letter the
Court of 21 July 2010 (and in my separate letters directly to the mother's lawyer and the ICL) such energies
have been hugely damaging to the entire Adams family, including Thursday Adams, both her parents and
the extended Adams family.
12. There has been no opportunity for the parties to discuss their 'proposed orders' since I commenced acting
for Mr Adams 3 ½ days ago. Therefore, I will be suggesting to the mother's lawyer that the parties agree to
have the matter stood down at first, to facilitate discussions between the parties legal representatives which,
depending how fruitful, may assist the Court by avoiding the the parties raising these unhelpful, irrelevant
issues on which much energy has previously been spent (elements of which loom large in both the mother's
lawyers 'Case Outline' dated 21 July 2010 and in the ICL's 'Case Outline' dated the same date.

Outline of Case for Mr Adams, Chronology, Parenting Plan and Proposed Orders
13. In the 3 ½ days that I have been formally engaged I have not had sufficient time to prepare a Case Outine
for Mr Adams, nor a relevant chronology (which if it is necessary for Mr Adams to raise 'domestic violence'
concerns over Ms Yu's conduct pre- and post-separation, must necessarily be more elaborate than
discrepencies in dates and especially in content compared to what Mr Adams's chronology [and supporting
evidence] would highlight.
14. I also have not had sufficient time to prepare a revised Parenting Plan for Mr Adams that would do justice.
15. Indeed it has been something of an effort just to peruse even in preliminary fashion, the many letters that Mr
Adams has received from the mother's lawyer and from the ICL during the past week – including several on
Monday of this week, one received yesterday (Tuesday) morning and, it would seem, others that should
have been sent to Mr Adams but perhaps have not arrived yet. [Not all of these communications being sent,
or being less than fully sent, to Mr Adams by email in advance of postal delivery.]
16. However, I can speak briefly both as to relevant chronologies, orders sought and parenting plans, from the
bar table if need be today, with the possibility (fatigue permitting) of putting some of these in writing
overnight, tonight.

Page 3 of 8
17. The Orders that Mr Adams will be seeking tomorrow (and I would hope that these might be substantially
agreed prior to hearing, should the matter be stood down for an hour or so first thing tomorrow – whether by
consent or by ruling from Your Honour) can be summarised rather simply for present purposes.

Orders sought by Mr Adams

18. Mr Adams is seeking, with a few provisos (justification for which is amply borne out by the independent
evidence), that Mr Adams and Ms Yu have equal parenting of Thursday .
19. Mr Adams's proposal is that Thursday spend time with Mr Adams and Ms Yu on a 'fortnight about basis'
(subject to the provisos). This would divide each year into 26 fortnights.
20. Mr Adams proposes that there be no adjustments for Easter and school holidays, but leave them as they fall
within the fortnightly rotations (Easter being of course variable according to the lunar cycle not fixed by the
julian calendar).
21. Mr Adams proposes that Thursday have the benefit of alternate Christmases and New Years with her mother
and with her father, plus the benefit of 4 weeks continuous time living with each of her parents, every
Summer. These would be achieved by the parents reversing fortnights 25 and 26 each alternate year. This
way, Thursday would spend fortnights 24 and 25 with one parent and fortnights 26 and 1 (of the new year)
with the other parent, with the parents 'swapping' these 4 week blocs each alternate year. This would result
in only 24 changeovers each year – much better than the 52 x 2 plus 26 x 2 = 156 per year under the
current unequal arrangements.
22. Mr Adams proposes that the Thursday attend ### Childcare Centre in Capital City commencing asap for
2010 (number of days each fortnight to be discussed) and attend ### Primary School in Cappital City for
2011 onwards. Changeovers would occur each Friday, with mum (or dad) taking Thursday to
Childcare/Primary School in the morning and dady (or mum) collecting Thursday from Childcare/Primary
School at the end of the Childcare/School day. Where the Friday changeover day is not a pre-schoold (or
school etc) day the changeover would occur parent to parent at 5 pm that Friday at the McDonalds
Restaurant at Capital City (as per current changeover arrangements).
23. The first proviso to these arrangements is that if either parent were planning to go interstate or otherwise
plan to be apart from Thursday for 'any significant period' [viz: 'overnight'], then the other parent should be
notified a reasonable period in advance and should be given first option for Thursday to spend that (extra)
time in her other parent's home with no adjustment up or down to the normal fortnightly cycle.
24. There is no need to set Thursday 's secondary schooling at the present time. However the rules set in place
should empower and encourage Mr Adams and Ms Yu to make decisions by agreement – decision making
in the “familyroom” rather than in the “courtroom”. All day care centres, pre-schools, schools, medical
doctors etc are to be informed by the parents of these arrangements and both Mr Adams and Ms Yu are to
be directly informed as to Thursday 's progress and any concerns, treatment, illnesses, injuries etc.

Page 4 of 8
25. Mr Adams proposes that all decisions affecting Thursday should be made by he and Ms Yu by agreement.
In the absence of an agreement, Mr Adams suggests that he be given a casting vote – there is ample
independent evidence to support Mr Adams's claims to have been, even taking in the recent difficult and
'high mileage' period, the primary caregiver for Thursday for most of her life. Any 'tie breaker' that involves
recourse to a court appointed person is hardly conducive to effective decision making in the “familyroom(s)”
and on past experience of these parties is likely to become the norm with family room decisions being
instead cast back time and time again into the courtroom.
26. Mr Adams is concerned that Ms Yu be encouraged to undertake some parenting and other skills training,
having regard to her past record in these regards. These include Ms Yu undertaking a (PPP) parenting
program, undertaking an anger management program, and undertaking a remedial driving program. The
reasons for these can be articulated and substantiated by independent evidence at the Hearing, if need be.
A reasonable timeframe should be set for Ms Yu to satisfactorily complete these skills courses. Should Ms
Yu not meet this timeframe, then there should be some adjustment to Thursday 's 'live with' time (eg a
halving of her live with time and Mr Adams absorbing the additional week in 4). This would be only
temporary, that is, until Ms Yu satisfactorily completes those courses.
27. Mr Adams is concerned that Ms Yu is a potentially serious returning to ASEAN with Thursday in tow. If it
needs to be ventilated, independent evident from Police and other organisation's records shows that Ms Yu
has expressed such desires in the past. The PACE alert it is therefore vital, from the point of view of
protecting Thursday's constitutional human rights to enjoy the benefits of being a citizen of this nation
(including the right to know and grow up with her extended Aussie family. Therefore it is vital that Thursday's
passport continues to be surrendered and that the PACE airport watch continue.

Conclusion
28. I shall put my these proposals to the mother's lawyer and to the ICL tomorrow morning, hopefully prior to
Court. I shall also voice my concerns with each of them directly to, with a view to (at the very least)
confining the numbers and types of issues that might need to be articulated before Your Honour should we
not reach agreement on all basis. An initial standing down of this matter, and Your Honour's encouragement
to attempt to reach agreements this way on as much as possble might save substantially on the time that
the Court needs ito devote to resolving this matter.

Best wishes

JAMES JOHNSON

Page 5 of 8