ANTHONY & HAIGH

[2017] FCCA 245

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ANTHONY & HAIGH [2017] FCCA 245

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Interim parenting orders – best interests of children.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA, 65D

Cases cited:

Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286
Marvel v Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101; (2010) 43 Fam LR 348
SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13
Eaby & Speelman (2015) FLC 93-654

Banks v Banks (2015) FamCAFC 36

Applicant: MR ANTHONY

Respondent: MS HAIGH

File Number: PAC 4182 of 2016

Judgment of: Judge Newbrun

Hearing date: 2 February 2017

Date of Last Submission: 2 February 2017

Delivered at: Parramatta

Delivered on: 17 February 2017

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Farah Lawyers

Solicitors for the Respondent: Kheir Lawyers

ORDERS PENDING FINAL ORDER

1. The Mother have sole parental responsibility for major decisions affecting the care, welfare and development of X born (omitted) 2005, Y born (omitted) 2011, and Z born (omitted) 2014 (“the Children”).

2. The Children live the Mother.

3. Within 14 days of the making of these orders, both parties attend on the intake procedure at an agreed Contact Centre that provides (country omitted) speaking services for the purposes of the children Y and Z spending supervised time with the Father at such Contact Centre.

4. Subject to the parties and the two youngest children being deemed suitable by the said Contact Centre for supervised time, then the children shall spend a minimum of 2 hours supervised time with the Father every fortnight, and such time shall commence in accordance with the availability of the said Contact Centre. The cost of such supervised time shall be borne by the Father.

5. The Father be, and hereby is, restrained from posting or otherwise publishing any information, document or photograph concerning the children or the Mother on the internet, including but not limited to any document, photograph or information connected with these proceedings.

6. That pursuant to section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975, the Father be, and hereby is, injuncted from:

   (a)Approaching within 250 metres of:

   (i)The Mother’s home; and/or

   (ii)Any school and/or day care centre attended by the children or any of them from time to time.

7. That the injunctions provided for in Order 6 are made for the personal protection of the children and the Mother.

8. That pursuant to section 68C of the Family Law Act 1975, if a Police Officer believes on reasonable grounds that the Father has breached any of the injunctions provided for in Order 6 by:

   (a)Causing, or threatening to cause, bodily harm to the Mother or the children (or any of them); or

   (b)Harassing, molesting or stalking the Mother or the children (or any of them;

   the Police Officer may arrest the Father without warrant.

9. Neither parent is to use physical discipline on the Children.

10. Neither parent is to denigrate the other parent whilst the Children are in their respective care.

11. Both parents shall forthwith take all necessary steps to enrol in and complete the parenting programme ‘Keeping Kids in Mind’ at CatholicCare ((omitted)). (CatholicCare has access to free interpreter services, and each parent should complete the programme, one-on-one, with a parent educator and an (language omitted) speaking interpreter).

12. Liberty to the Independent Children’s Lawyer to relist the proceedings on 7 days’ notice in relation to any difficulty arising in respect to the implementation of these orders.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

PAC 4182 of 2016

MR ANTHONY

Applicant

And

MS HAIGH

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This interim hearing relates to the nature and extent of any time to be spent by the children with the Father.

2. The Children are a son, X born (omitted) 2005, a daughter Y born (omitted) 2011, and another daughter Z born (omitted) 2014.

3. The Father is aged 42 years, and was born in (country omitted) from (nationality omitted) parents. The Mother is aged 34 years, she was born in (country omitted) with her parents being (nationality omitted) who had moved to (country omitted) after the exodus in (country omitted).

4. The parties married in 2003 and their cohabitation commenced in 2004.

5. The parties came to Australia by boat as refugees, arriving on Christmas Island in (omitted) 2012. They separated on 6 March 2016.

The Competing proposals of the parties

1. The Father’s proposal is set out in his proposed Amended Orders document, sent to the Court by email on 2 February 2017 following the interim hearing; he seeks an interim order that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the children; the children live with the Mother; and interim orders effectively providing for the two youngest children to spend time with him supervised at a contact centre, for a minimum of 2 hours every fortnight.

2. The Mother’s proposals are set out in her case outline document dated 1 February 2017; she seeks, inter-alia, a sole parental responsibility order for the children that the children live with her, that the Father obtain a comprehensive psychiatric assessment, and that there be no order for time between the children and the Father.

3. The Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) proposes that the two youngest children spend time with the Father supervised at a contact centre, and that there be no time with order in relation to the eldest child.

Material relied upon by parties

1. The Father relied upon his Initiating Application filed 6 September 2016, his Affidavit filed 6 September 2016, Notice of Risk filed the same date and case outline undated.

2. The Mother relied upon her Response filed 13 October 2016, Affidavit filed 13 October 2016, Notice of Risk filed the same date, Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum dated 27 January 2017 (CIC Memorandum), and case outline document dated 1 February 2017.

3. The Independent Children’s Lawyer relied upon her case outline dated 31 January 2017.

Chronology

1. The Court respectfully adopts the chronology set out in the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s case outline.

Agreed or undisputed relevant facts

1. The Mother has been the children’s primary carer since birth to date.

2. There was an incident in a car involving the parties on 6 March 2016, with the children passengers in the car. The parties and the children returned home and a short time later the Mother and children left the residence. The Father was requested to attend the police station with the police. He was charged with assault upon the Mother and a final AVO was placed for the protection of the Mother on 10 June 2016, by consent.

3. From the evening of 6 March 2016, the Father did not spend time with the children or speak to them. However he was seen with the children at the Child Inclusive Conference on 27 January 2017.

4. The Mother has relocated the children to (omitted).

5. During the relationship, the Father cared for the children on weekends whilst the Mother attended (omitted) school to learn and teach.

6. The parties’ son was in Year Six in 2016. He is receiving counselling from a mental health clinician, and he is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder with low mood. The clinician conducted an initial assessment of this child on 26 March 2016. Counselling has been on a monthly basis. The child reports experiencing excessive worries and has had difficulty controlling those worries which has affected his academic performance.

Relevant legal principles

1. The relevant principles in relation to parenting proceedings, including interim proceedings, are well settled: see Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286.

2. In Marvel v Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101; (2010) 43 Fam LR 348 the Full Court (Faulks DCJ, Boland and Stevenson JJ), discussed the problems associated with making findings on disputed evidence as follows:

   [120] As has frequently been emphasised interim parenting proceedings, and orders made as a consequence, are a necessary but temporary measure until all the evidence can be tested, evaluated and weighed at a final hearing by the making of final parenting orders. Decisions judicial officers have to make in interim proceedings are difficult and, often for very good reason, a conservative approach, or one which is likely to avoid harm to a child is adopted. This is often to the understandable distress of a party who may not achieve the outcome he or she desires, or thinks to be in the best interests of their child or children. Interim parenting orders are frequently modified or changed after a final hearing, and any allocation of parental responsibility made at an interim hearing is disregarded at the final hearing (s 61DB).

   [122] In SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13 the majority (Boland and Thackray JJ) discussed at paragraph [88] of their reasons the care necessary to be exercised in making findings in interim parenting proceedings. Their Honours said:

   In our view, findings made at an interim hearing should be couched with great circumspection, no matter how firmly a judge’s intuition may suggest that the finding will be borne out after a full testing of the evidence.

   [123] Later, at [100] their Honours amplified their comments and said:

   The intuition involved in decision-making concerning children is arguably of even greater importance when a judge is obliged to make interim decisions following a hearing at which time constraints prevent the evidence being tested. Apart from relying upon the uncontroversial or agreed facts, a judge will sometimes have little alternative than to weigh the probabilities of competing claims and the likely impact on children in the event that a controversial assertion is acted upon or rejected. It is not always feasible when dealing with the immediate welfare of children simply to ignore an assertion because its accuracy has been put in issue.”

3. Of this, the Full Court in Eaby & Speelman (2015) FLC 93-654 said at 80, 332:

   [80] As would be immediately apparent, this approach enables the Court to appropriately and carefully deal with contentious issues relevant to the welfare of the child, and for those issues to not be ignored.

4. The Court also refers to the recent decision of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Banks v Banks (2015) FamCAFC 36, especially at paragraph 46 to 52.

5. Section 60B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) sets out the objects of Part VII of the Act relating to children that inform the making of parenting orders.

6. In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration: section 60CA of the Act.

7. Section 60CC of the Act provides that in determining what is in the child’s best interests, the Court must consider the matters set out in subsections (2) and (3).

8. 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: section 61DA of the Act. When the Court is making an interim order, the presumption applies unless the Court considers that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for the presumption to be applied when making that order: section 61DA (3).

9. If the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in relation to the child applies, and is not rebutted, the Court must firstly consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child and reasonably practicable.

10. If equal time is found not to be in the child’s best interests, or impracticable, as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in section 60CC, the Court must consider making an order that the child spends substantial and significant time (as defined in section 65DAA (3)) with the parents, unless contrary to the child’s best interests as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in section 60CC, or impracticable.

11. If neither equal time nor substantial and significant time is considered to be in the best interests of the child, or impracticable, then the Court may make such orders in the discretion of the Court that it thinks proper, being orders that are in the best interests of the child, as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in section 60CC: sections 60CA, 60CC, 65D.

The Best Interests of the Children

Section 60CC Considerations

Subsection (2a) - the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents:  a primary consideration.

1. The children have a meaningful relationship with the Mother and would benefit from a continuance of that relationship.

2. The two youngest children appear to also have a meaningful relationship with the Father, although the parties’ son’s relationship with the Father appears to be strained, and the two eldest children have been expressing some fear of the Father by reason of past family conflict and experiences.

3. The Father seeks no order to spend time with the parties’ son. It is clear from the CIC Memorandum of 27 January 2017 that this child does not want to spend time with the Father, by reason of his assertions that he has been the subject of family violence from the Father. The Court refers to its discussion below, under the need to protect primary consideration, in relation to the parties’ son; the court does not propose to make any interim parenting order for this child to spend time with the father.

4. The Court refers to its discussion below under the need to protect primary consideration; provided the two youngest children are not at risk of harm in spending time with the Father, whether by being potentially exposed to the significant risk of physical abuse or psychological damage, they would likely benefit from a continuance of their meaningful relationship with the Father.

5. The two youngest children have not spent time with the Father for some significant time. There is a significant risk that these children’s meaningful relationship with the Father will be detrimentally affected if they do not presently begin to spend supervised time with the Father. Their meaningful relationship with the Father can likely be maintained and enhanced through spending time with the Father supervised at a contact centre.

6. The Court gives significant weight to this meaningful relationship primary consideration.

Subsection (2b) - the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.

1. The Mother alleges in her Affidavit that during the relationship she was the subject of physical and emotional abuse by the Father. However, at the Child Inclusive Conference, she stated to the Consultant that the Father had not been directly physically violent towards her during their relationship, except on the day of separation.

2. On 6 March 2016, the date of separation, when in the family car in the presence of the children, the mother alleges that the Father had slapped her on the face and then had attempted to choke her by placing his arm and hand across her throat. The Mother asserts that the parties’ son tried to stop the Father hurting the Mother. The Mother asserts that the children were crying and very upset. The Father denies this allegation, asserting that the Mother, during an argument between the parties in the car, was becoming physically violent towards him in the car.

3. There is supportive evidence to the mother’s allegations from the parties’ eldest son and daughter through their statements to the CIC family consultant.

4. At this interim stage, without proceeding to make any findings of fact, it would appear that there is a strong suggestion that the mother’s allegations relating to this incident on 6 March 2016 may well have merit.

5. In the Father’s Affidavit and in his statements to the CIC family consultant, he denies ever being violent towards the children. The Mother, to the contrary, in her Affidavit alleges that in February 2015 the Father dragged the parties’ eldest son out into the backyard where there was a chicken coop that the son was terrified of going anywhere near. The mother alleges that the Father requested the son to take off his clothes and get into the henhouse and the son complied. The Mother immediately opened the door and comforted the son, who was shaking and crying.

6. The Mother told the Consultant at the Child Inclusive Conference that the Father had used inappropriate discipline on the children throughout their relationship. She stated that the Father had hit the children, in particular the parties’ son, across the face and head, with his shoe, and by hitting him with a stick on the heels of his feet. She related the above chicken coop incident. The Mother claimed to the Consultant that the children were fearful of the Father. 

7. The parties’ son at the Child Inclusive Conference made statements to the family consultant supportive of the mother’s allegations in relation to the chicken coop incident and having been the subject otherwise of inappropriate physical discipline from the father during the relationship.

8. There is a mental health clinician’s report dated 1 October 2016, in relation to the parties’ elder son, which states, inter alia, that this child reported to the clinician that the Father had been verbally and physically abusive to him on multiple occasions. In particular, the child stated that the Father had humiliated him and forced him once to take off his clothes and get into a chicken coop, despite his fears of chickens. At this time, the Mother, it is reported, physically stopped the Father from getting this child into the cage after the child was naked. In addition, the child stated to the clinician that the Father used to threaten him and hit him with the thongs when he misbehaved. The child stated that he didn’t want to go back with the Father. The clinician stated, inter alia, that

   “it does appear likely that (the child’s) condition would be responsive to a change of circumstances, and living with (the Father) will exacerbate his level of stress and behavioural problems.”

9. The child Y, who will commence Year One in 2017, told the Family Consultant at the Child Inclusive Conference that the Father was a grumpy Father because he had been hitting her brother. She stated that the Father had also choked the Mother twice and that she had observed it. This child claimed to the Consultant that she had felt scared when this had occurred. She claimed that she had always been scared of the Father because “he hits and he’s grumpy and lots of things”. She stated that the Father should desist from hitting the children, screaming at them, and saying negative things about the Mother and her family. She stated that, however, that even if the Father changed these things she would not spend time with him. She told the Consultant that she found the playroom observation with the Father “was a bit nice and a bit scared.” She stated that her enthusiastic kiss at the end of the playroom observation with the Father was due to her being “excited that it was over.” She said that she would consider spending time with the Father in the future if he made positive changes, and if another adult could be present. She stated that she would not want to stay overnight with the Father.

10. The child Z was not interviewed due to her young age. She participated in a playroom observation with her siblings and each parent.

11. The Consultant stated that in the playroom observation between the children and the Father, they had allowed the Father to hug them, although, the child Y’s body was observed to remain stiff. The child Z appeared to warm to the Father during the playroom observation. As to the child Y’s interactions with the Father in the playroom observation, the Consultant stated that she presented as reserved, particularly on occasions when the Father pressed her for hugs. On other occasions, this child was observed to smile at the Father and answer his questions cheerfully. Both children separated easily from the Father.

1. The Consultant observed that the Father, during the playroom observation, gave the impression that he was not skilled at reading the children’s cues for physical space.

2. At this interim stage, without proceeding to make any findings of fact, it would appear that there is a strong suggestion that the mother’s allegations relating to the chicken coop incident relating to the parties’ son, and inappropriate physical discipline having been perpetrated by the father to at least the parties’ two eldest children, may well have merit.

3. Accordingly, at this interim stage, the Court is of the view, acting cautiously, that there is an unacceptable risk of the children being exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence if spending unsupervised time with the Father; there is a need to protect the children from the risk of abuse, neglect or family violence in spending unsupervised time with him. The Mother told the Family Consultant at the Child Inclusive Conference on 27 January 2017, inter alia, that she would give consideration to the children commencing spending time with the Father at a Contact Centre to see if he was able to spend time with the children without causing them harm.

4. The Mother submits that no interim order should be made for the two youngest children to spend supervised time with the Father at a Contact Centre. The Court refers to her submissions both in her case outline document and at the interim hearing.

5. The Mother submits that the Father has not demonstrated any insight or responsibility for his conduct, including his violence towards the Mother and the son. She submitted that the Court would need to be confident, before making any order for supervised time at a Contact Centre, that there would likely be some progression of the children’s time with the Father following the conclusion of time at a Contact Centre. In this context, the Mother submitted that Contact Centres usually impose a limited duration of supervised time; the Court should state at this point that there is no evidence before the Court to support this latter submission.

6. Further, the Mother submitted, in the above context, it would be potentially psychologically damaging to the children to effectively reintroduce the children to the Father during supervised time at a Contact Centre, when following the conclusion of such supervised time they may well not be permitted to spend Court ordered unsupervised time with him; it was submitted that there was presently insufficient evidence to indicate a real prospect of the Court ultimately ordering the children spending unsupervised time with the Father following any supervised time.

7. Whilst the Court notes the Father’s present denials of having been physically violent towards the Mother or children, in the view of the Court, at this interim stage, it is speculative for the Court to predict the likelihood or otherwise, that ultimately, following any period of time spent by the two youngest children with the Father supervised at a Contact Centre, the Court will not make parenting orders facilitating the children spending time with the Father outside the confines of a Contact Centre. In this context, the court notes the submission of the ICL that the father could well develop insight into his past behaviours involving the family through participating in a parenting program such as the Keeping Kids in Mind course run by CatholicCare which course was recommended to be completed by the parties by the family consultant at the Child Inclusive Conference.

8. The Mother submitted that the Father had shown a lack of skill in engaging with the children at the Child Inclusive Conference. The Court notes, in this context, that perhaps understandably the Father not having spent time with the children for a significant period of time, was not at his best in playing with the children at the Child Inclusive Conference. 

9. The Mother submitted that the two youngest children would be impacted negatively emotionally if required to spend supervised time with the Father at a Contact Centre. The children were fearful and they would not have their older brother with them.

10. The Court refers to the statements of the child Y to the Child Inclusive Conference Family Consultant, including the Child Inclusive Conference Consultants’ observations of this child with the Father at the Child Inclusive Conference; the Court notes that certain of the interactions between this child and the Father were positive. The Court notes that Z’s time spent with the Father at the Child Inclusive Conference was fairly positive.

11. The court observes, at this interim stage, that there is presently no expert psychological evidence to suggest that there is a real risk of the two youngest children experiencing psychological harm if spending supervised time with the father at a contact centre. To the contrary, the family consultant at the Child Inclusive Conference recommends that, “until the Court determines that the children are not at risk of physical harm in (the father’s) care, they spend time with him, supervised, at a contact centre.”

12. At this interim stage, the Court is not persuaded that these children would be exposed to an unacceptable risk of psychological damage were they to spend supervised time with the Father at a contact centre; in the view of the Court there is no need to protect these children from the risk of psychological harm were they to spend time with the Father supervised at a Contact Centre.

13. The mother submitted that the father should first undergo a mental health assessment before the court considered the father’s interim parenting proposal for the two youngest children. The Child Inclusive Conference Consultant stated, inter alia, in her Memorandum dated 27 January 2017, that, “both parents confirmed that drug and/or alcohol and mental health are not an issue in this matter.” At this interim stage, and again noting the recommendations of the Child Inclusive Conference family consultant relating to the children spending supervised time with the father at a contact centre, and having spoken to and observed the father during that conference, the court does not accept the mother’s submission in this context.

14. The Father does not seek an interim parenting order that he be permitted to spend time with the parties’ son supervised at a Contact Centre. Clearly, in view of this child’s wishes and age, his present diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder and associated treatment, and arguably (again, without the court proceeding to make findings of fact) related to, at least in part, the family violence issues discussed immediately above, there would appear to be a significant risk of psychological damage to this child were he to be required to spend even supervised time with the Father.

15. The Court gives significant weight to this need to protect primary consideration.

Section 60CC(3) - Additional Considerations

(a) Any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child maturity or level of understanding) that the Court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views

1. The Court refers to its discussion above under the meaningful relationship and need to protect primary considerations.

(b) The nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child’s parents; and other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child)

1. The Court refers to its discussion above under the meaningful relationship and need to protect primary considerations.

(c) The extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken or failed to take the opportunity; to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and to spend time with the child; and to communicate with the child

1. Both parties have taken such opportunities, in all the circumstances.

(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

1. There is little evidence before the Court to meaningfully consider this additional consideration.

(d) The likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either of his or her parents; or any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living

1. At this interim stage, the Court is of the view that there should be no detrimental effect upon the two youngest children’s meaningful relationship with the Mother if they were to spend supervised time with the Father at a Contact Centre. Again, the Court refers to its discussion under the need to protect consideration.

3(f) The capacity of each of the child’s parents; and 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

1. Subject to the Court’s discussion above, under the need to protect primary consideration, both parties would appear to have such capacities.

(i) The attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents

1. The Court refers to its discussion above under the need to protect primary consideration; subject to this discussion, the parents would appear to have demonstrated appropriate attitudes.

m) Any other fact or circumstance that the Court thinks is relevant.

1. The Mother seeks restraining Orders against the Father as set out in paragraphs 5 to 8 of her proposed interim orders sought, as referred to in her case outline document. There is evidence in the Mother’s Affidavit (paragraphs 20-24, 28-31, 48, 49, 50, 51), which lends support to the making of these proposed interim restraining Orders, noting that the Mother’s Affidavit has not been expressly responded to by the Father in a later Affidavit by himself.

Equal shared parental responsibility: section 61DA(1) and (2)

1. The parties reported to the Consultant at the Child Inclusive Conference that they are unable to communicate or cooperate at present. The Consultant stated that there appears to be little trust between the parties. It appears unlikely that presently the parties could reach agreement on major decisions affecting the children’s care, welfare and development. The Court proposes to order that the two youngest children only spend time with the Father supervised at a contact centre, with the children remaining in the primary care of the Mother, and in this context the Court refers to its discussion above under the primary considerations.  In the circumstances, pending further Order, the Court is of the view that it will be in the best interests of the children to order that the Mother have sole parental responsibility for major decisions affecting their care, welfare and development.

Equal time and Substantial and significant time

1. As the Court proposes to order that the two youngest children only spend time with the Father supervised at a contact centre, with the children remaining in the primary care of the Mother, it will not be in the children’s best interests to spend time with the parties in an equal time arrangement nor to spend substantial and significant time with the Father, and the Court again refers to its discussion above under the need to protect primary consideration.

Summary

1. Evaluating the above considerations under section 60CC of the Family Law Act1975, the Court is of the view at this interim stage that it will be in the best interests of the children to make interim orders as follows:

   (1)   The Mother have sole parental responsibility for major decisions affecting the care, welfare and development of X born (omitted) 2005, Y born (omitted) 2011, and Z born (omitted) 2014 (“the Children”).

   (2)   The Children live the Mother.

   (3)   Within 14 days of the making of these orders, both parties attend on the intake procedure at an agreed Contact Centre that provides (language omitted) speaking services for the purposes of the children Y and Z spending supervised time with the Father at such Contact Centre.

   (4)   Subject to the parties and the two youngest children being deemed suitable by the said Contact Centre for supervised time, then the children shall spend a minimum of 2 hours supervised time with the Father every fortnight, and such time shall commence in accordance with the availability of the said Contact Centre. The cost of such supervised time shall be borne by the Father.

   (5)   The Father be, and hereby is, restrained from posting or otherwise publishing any information, document or photograph concerning the children or the Mother on the internet, including but not limited to any document, photograph or information connected with these proceedings.

   (6) That pursuant to section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975, the Father be, and hereby is, injuncted from:

   (a)   Approaching within 250 metres of:

   (i) The Mother’s home; and/or

   (ii)Any school and/or day care centre attended by the children or any of them from time to time.

   (7)   That the injunctions provided for in Order 6 are made for the personal protection of the children and the Mother.

   (8) That pursuant to section 68C of the Family Law Act 1975, if a Police Officer believes on reasonable grounds that the Father has breached any of the injunctions provided for in Order 6 by:

   (a)   Causing, or threatening to cause, bodily harm to the Mother or the children (or any of them); or

   (b)   Harassing, molesting or stalking the Mother or the children (or any of them;

   the Police Officer may arrest the Father without warrant.

   (9)   Neither parent is to use physical discipline on the Children.

   (10)     Neither parent is to denigrate the other parent whilst the Children are in their respective care.

   (11)     Both parents shall forthwith take all necessary steps to enrol in and complete the parenting programme ‘Keeping Kids in Mind’ at CatholicCare ((omitted)). (CatholicCare has access to free interpreter services, and each parent should complete the programme, one-on-one, with a parent educator and an (language omitted) speaking interpreter).     

   (12)     Liberty to the Independent Children’s Lawyer to relist the proceedings on 7 days’ notice in relation to any difficulty arising in respect to the implementation of these orders.

I certify that the preceding seventy-two (72) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Newbrun

Date:  17 February 2017