Aukes & Waldo
[2024] FedCFamC1F 370
•28 March 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Aukes & Waldo [2024] FedCFamC1F 370
File number(s): BRC 467 2022 Judgment of: BAUMANN J Date of judgment: 28 March 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the parties presented interim consent orders to chambers which were not consistent with the history of the proceedings – Where the Court, upon having re-listed the proceedings, was informed of significant changes within the mother’s home –Interim orders made for the child to live with the father Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Cases cited: M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69; FLC 91-979 Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 38 Date of hearing: 28 March 2024 Place: Brisbane Solicitor for the Applicant: O’Hare Law Counsel for the Respondent: Mr S Casey Solicitor for the Respondent: HCM Legal Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Everett’s Family Law ORDERS
BRC 467 2022 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MR AUKES
Applicant
AND: MS WALDO
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
BAUMANN J
DATE OF ORDER:
28 MARCH 2024
THAT UPON THE UNDERTAKING OF THE FATHER FILED 28 FEBRUARY 2024:
A.That he will not personally be responsible for bathing of changing the child, X born 2021 (“the child”) whilst the child is in his care.
THE COURT ORDERS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER:
1.That the father collect the child from the mother or her representative at 9.00am on Friday, 29 March 2024 from McDonalds, Town B.
2.That the child live with the father in Brisbane in the home of the paternal great grandmother, and with the paternal grandmother, Ms C, being substantially present but always present between 6.00pm and 7.00am each day.
3.That the father facilitate the child communicating with the mother by facetime at least every second day, with such communication to be initiated by the father.
4.That pursuant to s 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Independent Children’s Lawyer be granted leave and is at liberty to provide a copy of the Reasons for Judgment delivered 28 March 2024 to any treating psychiatrist or health professional of the mother, and to any health professional for the father.
5.That by no later than 4.00pm on 26 April 2024, the mother file and serve an affidavit setting out her proposal for time between her and the child.
6.That these proceedings be adjourned for Case Management Hearing at 9.30am on 2 May 2024 in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) at Brisbane.
7.That the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer have leave to appear by telephone on 2 May 2024 by using the Microsoft Teams conferencing system as follows:
(a)They shall click the below link (if accessing this Order electronically) to join the Microsoft Teams conferencing system, by 9.25am on 2 May 2024; or
(b)They shall each telephone … by 9.25am on 2 May 2024;
(c)They shall each then enter the pass code …#; and
(d)Hold the line until the Court is ready to connect and proceed with the matter.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Aukes & Waldo has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Settled from the oral reasons delivered)BAUMANN J:
This is a very tragic case, as so many are. X (born 2021) is a much-loved child of a short relationship that ended in July 2021 between the father, Mr Aukes, who is now aged 41 years, and the mother, Ms Waldo, who is now aged 42 years.
It is not necessary for the purposes of today’s decision to deal with all the history. What can be said, however, is that shortly after X’s birth, there was an event between the mother and the father which, on the evidence, appears to have been alcohol fuelled, where the father was the beneficiary of a protection order against the mother. Shortly thereafter, when the child was less than six months of age, the parties separated.
They separated in circumstances where the mother asserted at the time and continues to assert that the father sexually abused the child while changing her nappy.
Whilst the Court should always be cautious about findings in relation to sexual abuse, at this stage, on the evidence that has been produced and supported by the submissions of the Independent Children's Lawyer, it would have to be one of the weakest cases of alleged sexual abuse I have seen. That might not be surprising when you hear about the age of the child, the failure of a child of that age to make disclosures but, more particularly, when you look at the mother's own direct evidence of what she was able to see and how she supports her view about the father from what seem to be unreliable, extraneous comments, hearsay and innuendo by other persons about the father’s character.
It is unbelievable to think that this father was prevented from having more significant time with this child for so long. But, more importantly, the mother's behaviour after the allegation was made and, it would seem, even before the police by late 2021 had advised her that there was not sufficient evidence to support any charges against the father, the mother chose to unilaterally relocate from the region where the child was living with the parents before separation, to Town D, a town over 1000 kilometres away, only readily accessible by a plane from Brisbane to City E and then driving from City E to Town D via Town B.
Again, the mother’s behaviour was reflective of, it seems to me, making it as difficult as possible for the father to maintain a relationship with his baby daughter.
I accept that the mother asserts and, to some degree, the father admits that he has had, previously, a significant use of marijuana. However, he says, and the evidence would suggest, that at least before a hair follicle test in April 2022 and since, that he has not used marijuana. In fact, the father says the last time he used marijuana was in January 2022. That is a matter for trial. Nonetheless, by 18 January 2022, the father, no doubt frustrated by his inability to be able to spend time with the child on a regular basis and the distance involved (and the allegations consistently made by the mother, it would seem, to anyone who would listen, that the father was “a paedophile”), filed an application in Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
There was an initial consent order made on 3 March 2022 that the father would spend supervised time for three months and then alternate weekends in Town B. Further hair follicle testing was ordered, and an Independent Children’s Lawyer was appointed.
The father became aware of the mother submitting to rehabilitative care for alcohol use. On 8 June 2022, he filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking a change of residence.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer obtained a preliminary assessment by family report writer Ms F, who, for the reasons she expressed, did not support an interim change of residence while the mother was in rehabilitation, a period that was to last for approximately 12 weeks. In the light of that situation and that advice, difficult as it was, on 22 July 2022, a Senior Judicial Registrar made Orders by consent that the child live with the mother while she was in rehabilitation and, upon her release, that the child would return to the home of the mother and the maternal grandparents in Town D.
The father was to continue to have supervised time, supervised by, it seems, one or other of the maternal grandparents, each alternate weekend between 8.00am and 2.00pm on a Saturday and Sunday. To his great credit, in my view, and that of his mother, Ms C, who accompanied him, he very rarely failed on making the expensive journey to City E from Brisbane and travelling then to Town D to spend limited supervised time with his daughter for what the Independent Children’s Lawyer says and submits, which seems to be consistent with the evidence, at least from about March 2022 to February 2024 , was only interrupted by periods where the mother was in rehabilitation or by severe weather events in the region.
I must say that the full family report prepared by Ms F on or about the 18 October 2022 is not a particularly helpful document. As to whether, with more information, Ms F is in a position to provide more helpful evidence than she already has, only time will tell. To the extent that it was suggested earlier that these proceedings would benefit from a family report from interviews from 4 April 2024, I disagree. It is far too early in view of the orders I proposed to make.
Sadly, from around about October 2022 to November 2023, officers of the Court thought it was a good idea to try and encourage these parties to engage in a Family Dispute Resolution Conference. I do not wish to be critical of those judicial officers who have been involved with this matter. I understand the intention to encourage parties to engage in resolution. However, with the mother having an entrenched, somewhat rigid and fixed view about the father's being a risk to the child, it was, in my view, overly optimistic to think that family dispute resolution was ever likely to help these parties resolve the matter.
As has become apparent, however, the delay in that being undertaken can now be seen within the context of a long period of escalating difficult behaviour and alcohol abuse by the mother. That is, whilst the Court has been apparently trying to get these parties to participate in a Family Dispute Resolution Conference, the mother’s mental health and/or alcohol use has greatly deteriorated, putting, in my view, the child’s wellbeing at risk. There needs to be greater attention before parties are sent to a Family Dispute Resolution Conference to make a realistic assessment of whether that event is likely, forensically, to assist the parties. Perhaps with the benefit of hindsight, which I accept I am now using, this was never a case where family dispute resolution was going to be helpful.
Nonetheless, on 7 March 2024, the matter came before a judge of Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in a compliance and readiness hearing and was transferred to Division 1. At that stage, the judge identified, as no doubt she was told at the compliance and readiness hearing, that the mother was seeking a “positive” finding of sexual abuse against the father. I do not know what discussion took place. I am not sure that anybody alerted themselves to the very clear statements by the High Court in cases like M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69. However, any rudimentary consideration of the best evidence of the mother reveals that position by the mother was totally unrealistic, something which her Counsel today, Mr Casey, who has taken the matter at short notice conceded.
This matter would not have been before the Court after the transfer on 7 March 2024, which was approximately three weeks ago, as early as it is. In accordance with the practice in Brisbane, once the matter is transferred, it is allocated to me as the case management judge for Queensland for Division 1 for a case management hearing. It was given such a date some time in the future. However, on or about 14 March 2024, my chambers received a minute of order signed by all parties, including the Independent Children’s Lawyer, which invited the Court to make orders said to be a “temporary variation of the existing interim orders” in these terms:
1.That the child [X] born […] 2021 (“the child”) be returned to the Mother, [Ms Waldo] at 8.00am on Saturday, 9 March 2024 at QPS, [Suburb G].
2.That the Father, [Mr Aukes] spend time with the child from 10.00am Friday, 29 March 2024 until 9.00am on Thursday, 4 April 2024 with the child to be returned to the mother following the interviews for the Family Report scheduled for 4 April 2024, provided that during such period the mother may speak to the child via FaceTime each day.
(As per the original)
As soon as I saw the proposed orders, I made directions that the matter be listed before me so that I could have some context as to why this order, seemingly so different from the current interim orders and the family report, was in the best interests of X. The transcript will reveal that when I had the matter again in the shadow of a busy Easter period listed before me urgently, the Independent Children’s Lawyer indicated that she was now in possession of much more information than she was when she consented to and executed the proposed consent order on 14 March 2024.
The transcript would reveal a number of issues were raised which were highly concerning, and rather than seek to deal with the matter on an arbitrary basis and although I appreciate that this has created some enormous time pressures on the litigants and their lawyers, I listed the matter urgently at 11.30am on Thursday 28 March, the day before the Easter break and have conducted an interim hearing today.
PROPOSALS
The father
The father relies upon an affidavit filed 27 March 2024 and seeks, in effect, that X live with him immediately, subject to his undertaking which he has offered to the Court that he “will not personally be responsible for bathing or changing [X] born […] 2021 while she is in my care.”
After further discussions with his representative, Mr O’Hare, the father’s proposition is that the child will live with him at the home of his grandmother, who is a 97-year-old lady, and that his mother, Ms C, will also reside there and be present as required. I will make some more comments about that. He proposed that the mother have time with the child in Brisbane. He talks about testing for CDT and other substances in the mother.
Concerned as I was in the urgency of this matter about a very young child about the lack of evidence by Ms C, the record will show that I caused Ms C, who, thankfully, was here today, to give evidence. I asked the questions. I am satisfied she is an appropriate person to spend time with the child and that she understands what her role will be if the Court decides, as it will, that the child live with the father but that she will be required to be reasonably present, bearing in mind her care responsibilities to her mother, but always present from 6.00pm until 7.00am. I say 7am because it as at least clear that that may be when the father has gone to work, but I cannot get into the details of how his house may operate when the child is living there. I am more concerned about the child having support at evening.
The mother
The mother, not surprisingly and understandably in terms of her circumstances, resists a change of residence, and is happy to submit, she says, to CDT testing and, subject to the undertaking, was even prepared to allow the child to remain in the father’s care as had been arranged under the so-called interim orders that were asked to be made between 29 March 2024 and 4 April 2024. In that respect, I understand from Mr O’Hare that the father and his mother have made arrangements to travel to City E tonight, no doubt consistent with the belief that the child would at least temporarily, if not, be in his care from tomorrow. The mother’s proposition is that, in effect, commencing 20 April 2024, the child will spend from 9.00am Saturday to 3.00pm Sunday each alternate weekend, with changeover at McDonald’s in Town B, that is, that the father will be required again to continue to travel to that region.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer
I think it is fair to say that the experienced Independent Children’s Lawyer may, on reflection, query why she signed and supported the interim order earlier referred to.
To the credit of Ms Everett, however, and in circumstances where she would not have been at least surprised by some of my comments which were criticisms on the last occasion, she has, in the best traditions of an Independent Children's Lawyer, gathered further evidence for the Court, considered that evidence and made a strong submission, as the record will reveal, in which she says that the child should live with the father immediately.
In support of her position, she relies upon the two family reports of Ms F and two tender bundles. The first tender bundle, being marked as Exhibit 1, contains a range of documents mostly associated with the mother's and father's criminal history, court briefs and documents relating to reports by the police of incidents in which they were involved, to which I will refer shortly. That second tender bundle involves 66 pages (marked Exhibit 2), which I have read. I note that there was no real evidence about the context for the allegation made by the mother in mid-2021 about sexual abuse, a further range of documents were produced. I have read those documents. They helped me to be as robust as I have been about the lack of any real evidence to support a finding that the mother apparently still wishes the Court to make.
WHERE SHOULD THE CHILD LIVE ON AN INTERIM BASIS?
It is, of course, a matter well known in this jurisdiction that interim hearings are truncated, and that there are limits to the capacity for the Court to make findings on evidence before the Court which are in dispute. The Court is well aware that a change of residence, as the father proposes and is supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, will be a significant, at least medium-term change for this child, which will require significant adjustment.
However, in my view, it is plainly obvious that the mother currently is not functioning well; has the capacity to again deteriorate in a very concerning manner, and that the child in that home is potentially at risk until the mother is able to deal with the demons of her misuse of alcohol. I am able to make such statement almost entirely based on the mother’s own evidence. Some of the events to which I refer include as follows:
(a)The mother has had a difficult relationship with alcohol since 2008, when she was 27 years of age. The evidence reveals that there were some 12 admissions in the six years to 2014. There are other short admissions to seek to assist her to deal with her alcohol misuse issues in 2014 and 2016, and she acknowledges some relapses;
(b)She told the family report writer in or about September 2022 that she had remained abstinent since going back into rehabilitation in mid-2022. As we know, there has been no forensic analysis by a family report writer of the events since then. However, since September 2022, the evidence of the mother and the allegations of the father are that the following alcohol misuse has occurred, at least, and I say at least, because I am left sadly with a strong impression that not only has full disclosure not been made by the mother or her family unit, but that to the extent that her own affidavit reveals it, she seeks to minimise, and I think unreasonably explain, her behaviour.
The events to which I refer from the evidence include:
(a)between October 2022 to April 2023, the mother did not continue with much of her therapeutic support or services after rehabilitation for alcoholism (paragraph 18).;
(b)on 14 November 2022, the mother objected to access to subpoena records regarding her medical information, in particular counselling notes. In her affidavit filed 27 March 2023, the mother recounts that upon becoming aware that access to this clearly relevant information had been given, she “fell into a drunken blinder” (see paragraph 30) and a few days after, when an argument with her parents occurred, and they blocked her accessing a local cab to go to the hotel to buy more alcohol, after becoming verbally abusive to her parents who have been her greatest supporters, the Queensland Police Service attended upon the home;
(c)the mother admitted at paragraph 40 of her affidavit filed 27 March 2023 that she had not kept her appointments “because I was so overloaded, felt misunderstood and not believed,” and “relapsed from being drunk in order to cope, or in order to sleep” (paragraph 40). It is clear in the mother’s case that her return to abusing alcohol, not maintaining her therapeutic support post-release from rehabilitation, combined with her mental health challenges which are not fully documented before the Court at this stage, was creating a significant tension in the household she shared with her parents and where X was a permanently lived;
(d)by mid-2023, the mother was consuming excessive alcohol, drove whilst under the influence (with a high range reading); was apprehended, charged and convicted, losing her licence ultimately for a period. The extent to which she disclosed not so much the conviction but the events leading up to the conviction is unclear, but my view is she did not make full disclosure. As I say, from earlier comments, the case history shows that whilst this was all happening, a Family Dispute Resolution Conference was ordered to occur around October 2022 and was consistently delayed and adjourned. It is possible the mother did so to disguise the fact that she had returned to using excessive alcohol. Her parents, who supervised the father’s regular time (the father says at times not empathetically because of how they believed the mother's story about sexual abuse, it seems), did not advise the father or the Independent Children’s Lawyer, or anyone, it seems, of the mother’s return to excessive drinking. It must have been a very difficult situation for the mother’s parents;
(e)sometime after the DUI incident in mid-2023, the mother “made a decision to go back to [a rehabilitation service] in [City H]” (see paragraph 48). The extent to which she informed the full circumstances of her decision to the father is unclear, although she acknowledges that she was “fearful” that if the father knew everything, he would use this information to seek residence of X “through the Court”. Such a comment shows an enormous lack of insight in what is in the child’s best interest, but, again, the mother was in an unhealthy position at the time, it seems, on her own admission. Sadly, again, however, the mother’s parents never told the father, even though they were supervising on almost a fortnightly basis the time he was spending with the child. It is a little unclear how long the mother was in rehabilitation on this occasion, although, at paragraph 53, the mother said she came out of that treatment centre in late 2023;
(f)it is clear that that period of rehabilitation did not effect a long-term change in the mother's behaviour. In fact, the mother acknowledges as much by saying at paragraph 53 “I came out of the treatment centre in [late] 2023; however, my mental health and attitude hadn’t changed much”. After leaving rehabilitation, tensions in the household she shared with her parents clearly increased, causing the police to make and seek and obtain a protection order under the good behaviour provisions, to protect the elderly and, perhaps at that stage, terminally ill grandmother. The application was made as a result of an acceptance by the mother of such order (see paragraph 62 to 67) in late 2023. There is no clear disclosure of this very significant outcome having been made in a timely way by the mother for her household;
(g)on 31 October 2023, the father says that the mother called him “a big pedo” in front of the child. It may well be that the child does not have an understanding of that term. However, it is not clear if the mother was intoxicated at the time. This, however, is not a new attempt by the mother to denigrate the father. She made similar comments, as recorded by the Family Report writer at paragraph 91 of the Family Report dated 18 October 2022. It seems, sadly, that her father (the maternal grandfather) has adopted a similar position about the biological father of X;
(h)during the months of late 2023 and early 2024, the mother's drinking and aggressive behaviour seems to have escalated, even on the mother’s own evidence. In late 2023 (that is 12 days after the good behaviour orders), her parents were forced to ask police to remove her from their home, which she did briefly, before returning with "a carton of beer" (see paragraph 69 of mother’s affidavit filed 27 March 2023).
(i)the following month, a further drinking and aggressive incident with her parents occurred such that she then decided to stay in a motel for three days with X. This, apparently, was to take account of the fact that the paternal grandmother was “getting sicker” (see paragraph 74);
(j)during a stay at the motel in late 2023, the father had FaceTime communication with X. He says, and it is easy to accept the accuracy of this comment, although it is still to be tested, that the mother appeared affected by alcohol. The father was concerned, and it was clear, that the maternal grandparents were not with the mother. He rang the maternal grandmother. He may not have known how sick the maternal grandmother was, but, nonetheless, the maternal grandfather took action to collect the child. The mother, seemingly still affected by alcohol, rang the father to abuse him for having her father protect the child from her by collecting X;
(k)in early 2024, the mother pleaded guilty to breaches of the good behaviour bond involving the maternal grandmother in the incidents referred to again in Exhibit 1 in late 2024. Around one week later, the mother consumed alcohol. It is not clear if the child was in her care, but it is reasonable to infer the child was, as the mother says that her parents were in City E that day so that the maternal grandmother could have scans for her, sadly, serious medical conditions. The mother’s alcohol-fuelled aggression, likely to be in the presence of the child, is acknowledged at paragraph 90. She describes herself as having “completely lost it” and being “hysterical”. As I say, it seems likely, even if the maternal grandparents tried to shield the child from the mother’s appalling behaviour, that the child witnessed some of this behaviour and the conflict with the much-loved paternal grandfather. The mother was collected by police and placed in custody (paragraph 91);
(l)the following month, whilst the father was having a supervised visit with X, the mother again was intoxicated when, she says at paragraph 99, the maternal grandfather “rang the police on me”, which prompted an argument, some aggression and inappropriate conflict between the mother and her father. The mother was arrested, taken to City E and released after two days;
(m)there is evidence that the mother has threatened serious harm of her own father, one of her most important supporters and sympathetic to her. Her actions could only be described as utterly disgraceful. In what must have been a very, very difficult decision for the maternal grandfather, shaped by what must be an awareness of the limited life left for his most loved partner, the maternal grandmother, the grandfather took advantage of the opportunity that the father and Ms C were in the region, having finished the supervised visit, to sensibly ask the father to collect X. The father did so. He returned to Brisbane shortly thereafter with the child, who remained in his care until 9 March 2024. I have read some of the exchanges and correspondence in relation to these events. It is clear from the tenor of some of the correspondence that the solicitors for the mother could not have been aware of the extent of her inappropriate behaviour. How any solicitor could, in the circumstances I have just indicated, if they knew of it, be so demanding for the return of the child under various orders is astounding to me. Nonetheless, as I say, I think there is every prospect that the mother was not informing her solicitors accurately about events;
(n)be that as it is may, and in what I regard as one highly important event that shows enormous insight by the father after becoming aware of the physical condition of the grandmother, the father, notwithstanding some information about the mother’s lack of capacity and the problems in the household of the maternal family, allowed the child to return to the mother's home to spend time with the grandmother before her death, something which it seems occurred, sadly, in early 2024.
In my view, with this history, it is in the best interest of this child to live with the father on an interim basis, and I make such order. I am satisfied that the father is able, today, to collect the child from McDonald’s Town B. I will direct that the father shall inform the solicitors for the mother before Court rises today as to the likely time when he will be able to be there, subject, of course, to the planes running on time, which is always a challenge, and the day before Easter might be a bigger challenge. Nonetheless, he can only do what he can do.
I point out at this stage that not only have I given credit to the father and his mother for the costs they have incurred and the inconvenience, if you like, in travelling so readily in the region, which demonstrates an enormous statement in his commitment to his daughter. There is no evidence that would show any capacity for the mother, financially or maybe even emotionally, to come to Brisbane to see her daughter. I would not, on an interim basis at this stage, make any orders that the father bring the child to the mother in her region.
The mother will need some time to reflect on this very significant change in the circumstances for X. I have identified in exchanges with Mr Casey of Counsel today, an advocate who could have said nothing more to advance his client's position on the evidence before the Court, that it may well be in the mother's best interest if she begins a course of treatment where there are greater services available in another region, but that will be a matter for the mother. I say that in circumstances where the change of residence will have an effect on this child. There is evidence that she is bonded to the mother, and when she is not with the mother, including during the period when she was in the father's care in early 2024, that she expressed her desire to be with her mother. That is hardly surprising.
The father will need probably more than just the support of a loving grandmother (his mother). He may need to consider getting some further support from a therapeutic service or social worker to help him understand how to deal with the child’s distress. Whether, on a temporary basis, daycare will assist the child to develop other skills and be distracted from the pain she is likely to feel by not seeing her mother.
I cannot comfortably be satisfied by what the mother says at paragraphs 129 to 141 of her affidavit filed 27 March 2024 that she is doing all she can do to deal with this very significant alcohol abuse issue. Whether or not she is committed to dealing with it in a way which creates absolute abstinence long-term only time will tell.
The mother says, almost on the way to Damascus, that the steps she is taking include three online AA sessions (paragraph 129), which are ongoing (paragraph 135), one session with a psychologist recently (paragraph 134), support from J Organisation (an organisation with which I am not familiar and have no knowledge of what their skills or expertise to provide support is).
She says that this has been ongoing since July 2023 (see annexure MW2), but if the mother’s behaviour is any indication, on her own evidence, the support has not been particularly helpful. She says she has downloaded some resources from a rural alcohol support network (paragraph 138). As to whether some self-help resource is the level of intense therapeutic support she needs is a matter for experts.
Importantly, and only recently, she gives evidence at paragraph 141 that she has been referred by a General Practitioner to a psychiatrist so as to look at a medication review. Frankly, that psychiatrist should have much more information than a General Practitioner’s reiteration of what the mother might have told her doctor such as, my reasons. Now, I say “my reasons” because I have tried to identify the balancing up of the various issues at this critical time of the child’s development. In my view, because of my reservations about the earlier family reports, the data available to create them, and the age of the last one, I think my reasons is a more helpful document.
The mother says, almost in an aim at last hope, that the child remaining with the father was “a wake-up call” and that she has not relapsed for a few weeks, despite, no doubt, the great pressures in the household, this litigation and, I do not underestimate, the sad passing of her mother. However, this lady is now approaching 42 years of age. She has had an alcohol problem at least since she was 27. It is destructive of who she is. It creates a potential long‑term risk to her daughter. I am prepared to consider, when I have more information, how the child's relationship with the mother can be maintained whilst the mother continues to deal with her alcohol abuse issues, her social issues and her mental health.
Really, this mother needs to get the message. She needs to deal with her issues. The child needs to get the message that she is living with her father. I propose to list this matter before me at a future date with the legal representatives to consider any prescribed orders for time other than FaceTime between the mother and the child. Frankly, at the moment, without an understanding of how the mother’s treatment might affect her availability and what is her capacity is to travel to Brisbane to see the child, making orders would be made more out of hope than out of any evidentiary foundation. I am not prepared to do so, at this time.
I certify that the preceding thirty-eight (38) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Baumann. Associate:
Dated: 29 May 2024
0