ABBOUD & ADJANI
[2019] FamCA 525
•8 August 2019
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| ABBOUD & ADJANI | [2019] FamCA 525 |
| FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Undefended final parenting hearing – where the father has perpetrated family violence against the mother – where the father has a history of drug use – where the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children on the basis of exposing them to family violence and drug use – where there are risk factors associated with both parents – where orders are made for the children to live with the mother and spend no time with the father. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 69ZN |
| G & C [2006] FamCA 994 Jarrah & Fadel [2014] FamCAFC 14 Mazorski & Albright (2007) Fam LR 518 |
| APPLICANT: | Mr Abboud |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Adjani |
| INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Shedden & Associates |
| FILE NUMBER: | PAC | 986 | of | 2012 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 8 August 2019 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Parramatta |
| PLACE HEARD: | Parramatta |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Hannam J |
| HEARING DATE: | 16 April 2019 |
REPRESENTATION
| THE APPLICANT: | No appearance |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Sanford Legal |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Shedden & Associates |
Orders
That the mother have sole parental responsibility for Z, born …2007, X, born … 2009 and Y, born … 2010 (“the children”);
That the children live with the mother;
That the children spend no time with the father.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Abboud & Adjani has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA |
FILE NUMBER: PAC986/2012
| Mr Abboud |
Applicant
And
| Ms Adjani |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
These proceedings concern the long term parenting arrangements for the parties’ three children, Z, aged 11, X, aged nine and Y aged eight (“the children”).
The parties were married in 2004. Their relationship was characterised by domestic violence with the mother being subjected to physical and psychological abuse by the father. On a number of occasions the mother separated from the father but after a short period of time the parties reconciled. They separated on a final basis in around 2010.
The parties have been involved in lengthy litigation since 2012 when the father commenced proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court as it was then known.
In April 2019 the matter proceeded on an undefended basis as against the father, who did not make an appearance. On this occasion orders were made for the mother to have sole parental responsibility of the children, for the children to live with her and spend no time with the father. Reasons for the decision were then reserved. These are those reasons.
History of proceedings
The father first commenced proceedings in 2012. Shortly thereafter, in April 2012 the parties were able to reach agreement as to the parenting arrangements for their children and final orders were made with their consent. These orders provided that the parties equally share parental responsibility for the children and that the children to live with the mother and spend a period of seven hours each Saturday with the father.
In November 2014 the father commenced proceedings again and sought to revisit the parenting arrangement. He proposed orders that would see the children live with him and spend no time with the mother.
In August 2015 the proceedings were transferred to this court and allocated to the Magellan protocol as allegations had been made about serious physical abuse and alleged sexual abuse perpetrated by the father and allegations of physical abuse said to have been perpetrated by the mother.
At various stages throughout the proceedings due to risk factors in each of the parent’s household the children have had varying living arrangements. At one stage the Department of Family and Community Services (“Community Services”) was invited to intervene in the proceedings but declined to do so.
By early 2018 as the parties had not reached any agreement in relation to the parenting arrangements for the children the matter was readied for final hearing. Both parents were however, inconsistent with their engagement with the court and did not comply with trial directions.
By November 2018 at a compliance check the mother had complied with all trial directions but the father had not done so and was by that stage disengaged with the proceedings.
In January 2019 when the application was fixed for an undefended hearing, the father was present in court but had not filed any material in compliance with court orders. He was given a final opportunity to do so but once again did not comply.
On 16 April 2019 on application of the mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) the parenting dispute was determined on an undefended basis as against the father who was not present.
Background
The mother who is 37 and the father who is 38 were married in 2004.
The mother deposes to a number of events throughout the relationship in which the father behaved in a manner that falls within the definition of family violence. She also deposes to the father’s use of drugs particularly of crystal methamphetamine, commonly known as “ice” since around 2007 which caused him to sleep for long periods of time and engage in erratic behaviour.
The parties’ first child, a son, was born in 2007. The following month a report was made to Community Services of a recent incident in which the father was violent towards the mother. Community Service records indicate that the police attended but no offence was detected.
In 2008 the mother left the family home taking the parties’ child with her and lived in a homeless shelter. A report was made to Community Services that the mother and child were homeless and in financial distress as they had left the family home due to the father’s drug use and violent behaviour.
The mother subsequently returned to live with the father and became pregnant with the parties’ second child. She makes a broad allegation in her affidavit that during this pregnancy the father was physically and psychologically abusive which caused her to move from the family home again and live with the maternal grandmother. At one stage the father also moved into the maternal grandmother’s home but was verbally abusive and on one occasion punched a hole in a wall at those premises.
In early 2009 Community Services provided support to the mother including arranging for accommodation but the parties subsequently reconciled once again and resumed living together.
In 2009 the parties’ second son was born. Around the time of this child’s birth the father began using ice once again. The mother deposes the father’s violence and emotional abuse generally to her but provides no further details.
In early 2010 the parties became involved in an argument when the father demanded money for drugs which the mother refused. The argument escalated and the father threw furniture and household items around the house with an item hitting the mother who was pregnant with the parties’ third child. Police who had been called to the home sought an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (“ADVO”) for the mother’s protection.
The mother she did not attend the court hearing for the ADVO and the application was dismissed. The mother deposes that she did not attend court due to the father’s threats towards her.
Following this incident the mother made contact with a women’s refuge and crisis accommodation was arranged for her and the children. The parties’ relationship appears to have ended on a final basis at around this time.
In 2010 the parties’ third child, a daughter was born.
In 2011 various reports were made to Community Services in relation to the father’s ongoing ice use and alleged drug dealing and allegations that he had hit the two youngest children. The father also continued to live at the mother’s home from time to time and on occasions police attended the family home at the request of the mother but no further action was taken by them.
In March 2012 the mother was charged with two counts of assault. It was reported to police that the mother slapped and pinched the father in the course of an argument. Nothing further is known about this incident other than that the charge was subsequently dismissed. The mother denies that this incident occurred and alleged that the father made this accusation in order to deny her access to the children. Initially the father retained the children in his care following the incident but they were returned by police to the mother.
In 2014 the mother remarried and subsequently had three children to this relationship now aged four, three and two.
Various reports were made to Community Services in 2014 in relation to the conduct of each of the parents.
There was one particularly serious event in September 2014 where the parties and various family members became embroiled in violence in the course of changeover of the children’s care. The mother was charged with affray but the charge against her was dismissed following a hearing. Community Services who were also informed of the allegations against the mother did not find those complaints substantiated. Nothing further is known about this incident.
Complaints made by each parent against the other to police and requests for police to carry out welfare checks on the children and complaints to Community Services about each parent’s conduct continued throughout 2015.
In June 2015 a report was made to Community Services in which concerns were expressed for the children in the care of both parties. It was reported that the oldest child had disclosed that he and his younger sister were physically assaulted by the father for expressing a wish to live with the mother. It also reported that the mother had little control over the children and that they were calmer in the father’s care. It was reported that the mother was not properly medicating the oldest child for his asthma and that the oldest child was very depressed.
In July 2015 a report was received by Community Services in relation to alleged sexual abuse by the father of the youngest child. The child was interviewed by JIRT[1] but the allegation was not substantiated.
[1] The Joint Investigation and Response Team, made up of officers from police and Community Services investigates allegations of serious child abuse.
In July 2017 the father was convicted of possession of a prohibited drug and sentenced by way of a good behaviour bond. He also has a historic drug related criminal conviction for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in 2000.
On 30 July 2015 a further report was made to Community Services alleging physical abuse and sexual misconduct by the father against the youngest child and behavioural problems in that child. There was a further JIRT investigation in relation to these allegations in which all of the children were interviewed. They each disclosed harsh physical punishment by the father. The allegations of sexual abuse were not substantiated by JIRT but it was found that the children were at risk of excessive physical discipline in the father’s care.
At this stage the proceedings were transferred to the Family Court and allocated to the Magellan protocol.
In November 2016 the father presented the youngest child to the Emergency Department of a hospital complaining that the child had been hit by the mother on the bottom. The hospital were unconcerned about the child’s presentation but noted unusual behaviour in the father who had presented all of the children at various times to emergency and waited for many hours to be seen without there being any matters of concern. He was noted as anxious that the incident was reported to Community Services.
In November 2016 the mother was charged with two counts of assault in relation to the father’s allegations that she had hit the youngest child.
After the mother was charged interim orders were made for the children to live with the father and spend supervised time with the mother once a week.
The mother’s charges were heard in a Local Court in December 2016 and she was found not guilty after a hearing.
In January 2017 the parenting arrangements were changed again and the children resumed living in a roughly equal time arrangement with each parent.
From around mid-2017 the mother became concerned about the father’s illicit drug use and care of the children. She deposes that in August 2017 the middle child returned from time in the father’s care with some cannabis that the child indicated he had taken from the father’s home.
The mother stopped making this child available to the father in October 2017 due to concerns about the father’s drug use. The middle child also reported that the father had pinched her on the arm and refused to take the children to school, which raised concerns for the mother about the father’s care.
Throughout 2017 when the children lived in a shared care arrangement they had a substantial number of unexplained absences from school. It appears that the father did not send them on occasions. The mother quite regularly withheld the children from school on Thursdays and Fridays from October 2017 so that the father would be unable to collect them. From about this time the children ceased spending any time with the father.
In November 2017 the father presented at a hospital with back pain. He is described in the clinical notes as “very upset and concerned”, “upsetting other patients and staff with his loud and repetitive conversation” and “demanding morphine and becoming increasingly agitated when it was refused”. It was noted that for the previous three years the father regularly had presented to the Emergency Department of a hospital complaining of pain and seeking pain relief particularly intravenous morphine. His presentations were regarded by hospital staff as drug seeking presentations.
The mother, father, children and the maternal half-siblings attended upon a family consultant for the purposes of the preparation of a Family Report in December 2017.
The mother reported concern regarding the father’s drug use and history of abusive behaviour. She told the family consultant that the children were scared of the father and much happier now they weren’t spending time with him.
The father told the family consultant that he then sought orders that the children live with him and spend supervised time with the mother. Both parties reported to the family consultant that the other had been physically and psychologically abusive towards the other. Both parties deny that they were a perpetrator of any abuse.
The father also complained to the family consultant about alleged neglect by the mother of the children.
In the family report to which I will return in detail, the family consultant observed that each of the children provided strongly held negative views about the father and presented as rejecting him. In general the family consultant opined that the father was unable to focus on the children and their needs. She was of the view that the mother demonstrated some, albeit limited ability to focus on the children though her interactions with the children in observations appeared to the family consultant to be child-focused. The family consultant held serious concerns in relation to the father’s drug use as alleged by the mother.
In January 2018 the children resumed a regular pattern of attending school. During 2018 the children continued to live with the mother and spent no time with the father.
In February 2018 when it was clear that the mother would not return the children to the father’s care the father initiated contravention proceedings. At a hearing of that application in May 2018 the father was granted a short adjournment to seek legal advice but did not return to the court room and his application was dismissed.
In March 2018 the father was ordered to undertake hair follicle and urinalysis drug testing at the request of the ICL and trial directions were made to prepare the matter for final hearing. The father failed to comply with the orders in relation to monitoring his drug use and has not provided any explanation for his disengagement.
The proceedings were determined on an undefended basis against the father on 16 April 2019.
The Law & Discussion
The objects of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) and the principles underlying it set out in s 60B, form the framework for the part of the Act dealing with parenting.
The objects 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.
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).
According to s 60CA of the Act, in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a Court must regard the best interests of a child as the paramount consideration.
Section 60CC sets out the primary considerations and additional considerations to be considered by a Court in determining what is in a child’s best interests.
Primary considerations: s 60CC(2)
The primary considerations (under s 60CC(2)) are:-
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.
I am required to give greater weight to the need to protect the children from harm than to the benefit to the children of having a meaningful relationship with both parents.
The meaning of the phrase “meaningful relationship” is not defined in the Act. The Full Court in McCall & Clark[2] has approved the interpretation of the phrase by Brown J in Mazorski & Albright[3] and has also agreed with the reasoning of Bennett J in G & C[4].
[2] (2009) FLC 93-405; 41 Fam LR 483; [2009] FamCAFC 92
[3] (2007) Fam LR 518
[4] [2006] FamCA 994
Brown J in Mazorski & Albright (supra) said at [26], after setting out the definition of “meaningful” and “meaning”:
What these definitions convey is that “meaningful”, when used in the context of “meaningful relationship”, is synonymous with “significant” which, in turn, is generally used as a synonym for “important” or “of consequence”.
The Full Court said in McCall & Clark (supra) at [117]:
Bennett J discussed the terminology in G & C [2006] FamCA 994 and said the enquiry was a “prospective” one which requires a court to evaluate the extent to which a meaningful or significant relationship with both parents is going to be of advantage a child (sic).
The orders proposed by the mother and supported by the ICL provide for the mother to have sole parental responsibility for the children and for the children to live with her and spend no time with the father. Accordingly, these orders will not foster the children having any relationship with the father.
The children have not spent time with their father since October 2017 and currently have no relationship with him. The mother stopped making them available to the father following the children’s reports of the father’s drug use during their time with him and that he was not taking them to school. After the mother unilaterally retained the children, the father filed a Contravention Application but when that application was listed for hearing the father did not pursue it. The father has not sought a recovery order at any time and has not taken any active steps for over 18 months to pursue a relationship with his children. He failed to comply with trial directions and has withdrawn from the proceedings. The father’s disengagement in the proceedings can be taken as his acceptance that he does not wish to pursue a relationship with his children.
I am satisfied that the father has been violent towards the mother during the course of their relationship especially when affected by illicit substances as she has alleged. The father has not filed any evidence to contradict the mother’s allegations and the available records support the mother’s allegations of violence. For example hospital records indicate that the father exhibited drug seeking behaviour and when refused drugs became aggressive and abusive.
Further, at various times during the relationship the mother fled from the family home and resided in a homeless shelter. Although I am satisfied that the father has committed acts of violence to which the children have been exposed, I am unable to make any further factual findings in relation to that violence as the mother’s affidavit is very broad and non-specific.
However, the family consultant confirms that the allegations made by both parents to her about the actions of the other are “most consistent with coercive controlling type family violence” and that exposure to violence of this nature “is known to have a detrimental impact on children, their physical safety and psychological wellbeing”.
The mother’s evidence, is that the father’s violence was often fuelled by his drug taking. I accept her assertions as to this drug use as it is consistent with the hospital and police records and has not been contradicted by the father. Further, he failed to comply with court orders for detection and monitoring of his drug use from which an inference may be drawn that he is engaged in substance drug use. I am satisfied on the basis of the foregoing evidence that the father continues to use a range of substances including when the children are in his care.
The father’s drug use gives rise to a risk of harm to the children associated with exposure to family violence and also physical abuse and neglect. As opined by the family consultant:
If [the father] were to be determined to be using illicit substances, concerns would be raised regarding the children’s safety and wellbeing in his care. Parental substance misuse is known to have a detrimental impact on parenting. It reduces the likelihood that a parent would be able to identify a child’s needs, provide consistent sensitive and attuned care, and increases the risk of a child being exposed to physical abuse and neglect. A parent’s availability to their child also decreases with substance use and children can experience the parent as inconsistent, confusing or frightening. The parent is unlikely to recognise their child’s reaction to their behaviour and parenting deficits, and therefore fail to repair ruptures in the relationship, which can lead to distortions and disruptions in the parent-child relationship. If it is therefore determined that the children are at unacceptable risk of harm in [the father’s] care due to parental drug use, it would be recommended that the child spend no time with him.
The order sought by the mother and ICL that the children spend no time with the father is the most extreme order that can be made by the court, and will deny the children the opportunity to have a relationship with their father. However, I am satisfied that the children would be at a significant risk of harm from exposure to family violence and drug abuse in the father’s care which will not be ameliorated unless there is evidence of a cessation or reduction in that drug use.
Further, the father has shown no insight into the impact of these risk factors upon the welfare of his children. He has at no time proposed orders which promote his relationship with the children while recognising that he poses a risk of harm to them. He has at previous times sought orders that the children live with him and spend either no time or supervised time with their mother. The father has disengaged from the proceedings and accordingly there is no current proposal under consideration which may give the children the benefit of having a relationship with him in circumstances which also protects them from harm.
There have also been some real concerns in relation to the mother’s alleged violent behaviour which may give rise to a risk of harm to the children in her care of the type contemplated in this primary consideration.
The particular concern about the mother’s conduct arises from the fact that she has on three occasions faced criminal charges including assault, and in particular an assault of one of the children. It is of concern that she provides no other account of these incidents except denying her conduct though some weight may be attached to the fact that each of the charges were dismissed, in some cases following a hearing. Some weight may also be attached to the fact that Community Services have been well aware of the allegations of risk arising in relation to the mother and the father’s disengagement but have not sought to intervene in the proceedings. There is also no evidence to suggest that the mother has posed any risk of harm to the children on any basis since around November 2016 when she was last charged with those charges having been dismissed in December 2016. In these circumstances I am unable to make a positive finding that the mother poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children on this basis.
Additional considerations: s 60CC(3)
Section 60CC(3) then sets out additional considerations the Court must consider when determining a child’s best interests and I will refer to those which are relevant in this case.
When interviewed by the family consultant for the purposes of a family report in December 2017 the children were aged 10, nine and eight years old respectively. The oldest child expressed very negative views of the father stating:
He does not feel safe with the [father] attributing that to the [the father] using drugs… [The oldest child] spoke negatively about [the father], describing him as “mean”, “disgraceful”, and “non-loving”.
…
When asked about his views [the oldest child] expressed a preference to see [the mother] daily and not see [the father].
The middle child expressed a similarly negative view of the father to the family consultant and stated:
That he always wants to see [the mother] and does not want to see [the father]. He said he would feel “happy” if it was determined that he spend no time with [the father], so [the father] does not hurt him or blame him and his siblings for things.
The youngest child was interviewed by the family consultant and said that the father was not part of her family. The youngest child expressed a preference to live with the mother and spend time with the father “never”.
All the children spoke positively of the mother and stated that they felt safe with her. Having regard to the age of the children some weight may be attached to their views
The family consultant summarised her observations and views of the father’s relationships with the children as follows:
The children provided staunchly negative views regarding [the father] during interview and presented as rejecting towards him during observations. This was particularly of note in regards to [the oldest child], who refused to engage with [the father] and was overtly rejecting of [the father’s] attempts to interact with him. While [the middle child] and [the youngest child] appeared more ambivalent towards [the father] during observation than [the oldest child], they appeared to take cues from [the oldest child] in regards to their interactions and engagement with [the father]…
The children’s presentations during observation appeared different to the accounts given by both parents regarding the nature of the children’s relationships with [the father] and their interactions with him. This is suggestive that the ruptures in the children’s relationship with him have been exacerbated during the period the children have ceased spending time with him. This is possibly due to a number of factors including the children having previously positively engaged with [the father] in an unmonitored environment as a protective strategy and consequently to rejecting him in an environment in which they feel safer, or the children’s relationship with [the father] being overtly undermined by [the father] in the period preceding interview.
I attach significant weight to the observation by the family consultant that children’s relationships with the father were very fractured when interviewed. Those relationships are now non-existent and there are currently no proposals for the repair or rekindling of those relationships. Of note, the father has now abandoned any efforts to obtain orders to re-establish or promote his relationships with his children.
Each of the parents has demonstrated some deficiencies in parenting capacity and there have been risk factors present in both of their households.
There are allegations that the mother has at times behaved in an aggressive manner in the presence of the children, including in incidents in 2012 and 2014 which led to her being charged with affray and assault. The mother was also charged in relation to allegations that she had been abusive towards the children in 2016. On each of these occasions the charges were dismissed.
The mother denies that she behaved in an aggressive way towards the father or the children. As the father has disengaged with the proceedings there is no other version of the incidents before the court. The mother is the only parent available to care for the children and no other incidences of aggression have arisen in recent years. In these circumstances although such allegations are concerning I cannot attach significant weight to them.
For reasons previously given I accept the mother’s account that the father was violent to her at times in the presence of the children throughout their relationship.
The deficiencies in relation to the father’s parenting capacity arise principally from the documented history of his substance abuse and the opinion of the family consultant that such drug use would raise serious concerns for the children’s safety in the his care.
Both parents have demonstrated concerning behaviour in relation to withholding the children from school particularly during 2017 when there were a high number of unexplained absences.
The family consultant opined the following in relation to each party’s parenting capacity:
[The father] appeared unable to maintain focus and narrative regarding the children, instead appearing to focus on his own needs or his grievances regarding [the mother]. During interview, [the mother] demonstrated some, albeit limited, ability to focus on the children and her interactions with the children in observation appeared child-focused. This raises concerns regarding both parents’, particularly [the father’s], ability to appropriately identify the children’s needs and prioritise these above their own to ensure that they are consistently and appropriately met.
The father has not provided any financial support for the children since October 2017 demonstrating a poor attitude to the responsibilities of parenthood.
Since October 2017 the children have been in the sole care of the mother. Up until this time the children had lived in a roughly equal time arrangement with both parents and the father had actively sought orders for the children to live with him. However, since October 2017 the father has not sought to spend time with the children. Though he initially filed a contravention application he did not proceed with it and thereafter ceased engaging with court proceedings.
The father’s non participation in the proceedings is a determinative factor in these proceedings. By these actions he has effectively abdicated his role as a parent. Fortunately for the children the only other parent is ready, willing and able to take on the role as sole parent.
Parental responsibility
Unless the Court makes an order changing the statutory conferral of joint parental responsibility, s 61C(1) of the Act provides that each of the parents of a child has parental responsibility for the child.
Where the Court is to determine parental responsibility, the starting point is s 61DA. This section provides that when making a parenting order in relation to a child, the Court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child. The presumption does not apply if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent or person who lives with a parent has engaged in abuse of the child, or another child, or family violence (subsection 61DA(2)), or may be rebutted by evidence satisfying the Court that it would not be in the child’s best interest for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for them (subsection 61DA(4)).
The mother and ICL sought an order that the mother hold sole parental responsibility for the children.
The expression “sole parental responsibility” is not defined in the Act. Having regard to the definition of parental responsibility in s 61B, the order sought by the mother and the ICL must mean that she would have all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which, by law parents have in relation to the child and that the father would have none of the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority with respect to the children.
The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility does not apply as I am satisfied that the father has engaged in family violence.
Orders in relation to parental responsibility are also easily resolved through the failure of the father to engage in the proceedings and seek to have any role in the children’s lives. In circumstances where the children have not spent time with the father for some years, he has not engaged in the proceedings and does not actively seek orders in relation to the children I am easily satisfied that an order for sole parental responsibility is in the best interests of the children and the only order available.
Having regard to all the foregoing considerations I have accepted that the orders sought by the mother and the ICL are in the best interests of the children and such orders husband have been made accordingly.
I certify that the preceding ninety-seven (97) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Hannam.
Associate:
Date: 8 August 2019
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law