Azizi & Hammoud

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Azizi & Hammoud [2021] FCCA 1087

File number(s): PAC 5263 of 2016

Judgment of: JUDGE NEWBRUN

Date of judgment: 2 June 2021

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW - parenting - best interests of children - orders made

Legislation:
Australian Passports Act 2005 s 11

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 68B, 60CC, 60B, 60CA, 61DA, 65DAA, 65D

Cases cited: Slater & Light [2013] FamCAFC 4

Number of paragraphs: 312

Date of last submission/s: 21 April 2021

Date of hearing: 14, 15, 16 and 17 October 2019, 19, 20 and 21 April 2021

Place: Parramatta

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Shroder

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Karagiannis

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Mezna
ORDERS

PAC 5263 of 2016

BETWEEN:
MR AZIZI

Applicant

AND:
MS HAMMOUD

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE NEWBRUN

DATE OF ORDER:

2 JUNE 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.That the Mother shall have sole parental responsibility for the children, X born in 2015 and Y born in 2014 ("the children").
2.That the children live with the Mother.
3.That the Father shall spend no time with the children, apart from supervised identity contact, referred to below.
4.The children shall spend supervised time with the Father at a contact centre for the purposes of identity contact only and being 3 occasions each year for up to 2 hours on each occasion. The Father shall pay the fees for such supervised identity contact.
5.That pursuant to Section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (the Act), the Father be and is hereby restrained by injunction from:
(a)Approaching or attempting to contact the Mother or the children except through a legal practitioner; and
(b)Coming within 200 metres of the Mother and/or the children, including but not limited to the Mother's residence and the children's school.
(c)Approaching the Mother at a temple or place of worship, in the event that both parents are present at the same time. However, the Father shall be at liberty to interact with the children in the event that they approach him while at the temple.

6.That the Mother provide to the Father, each three months, via his local Church, a package of information about the children, including, but not limited to:
(a)A recent photograph of the children;
(b)The latest school report of the children and any other correspondence or memoranda received from their school;
(c)All Medical reports received concerning the children's health and general wellbeing; and
(d)A short written statement outlining the children's current health, current personal interests and their general progression, without necessarily identifying addresses or contact details of the Mother or children.

7.That, by Consent, the Mother be and is authorised to change X’s Christian name to X.
8.That the Mother be at liberty to apply for the issue of an Australian Passport and the renewal of same for the children without the consent of the Father being obtained and for the purposes of section 11 of the Australian Passports Act:
9.The Mother is permitted without restriction to travel internationally with the children.
10.That the Mother be at liberty to apply to change the spelling of the child's name, X born in 2015, to "X" without the Father's signature being required.
11.That the Father have the leave of this Court to publish the Report of Ms B and the Court's Reasons For Judgment to all of the treating medical and allied health practitioners of the Father.
12.The Mother is forthwith directed to take all reasonable and necessary steps to engage a social worker, attached to the Domestic Violence Unit of Legal Aid NSW, to explain to the children the nature of the Court’s Orders relating to spending only supervised identity contact time with the Father.
13.That the Order for independent representation of the children be and is hereby discharged.
14.That there be no order as to costs of these proceedings.

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Azizi & Hammoud is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE NEWBRUN:
INTRODUCTION

This final parenting hearing relates to the children Y born in 2014 and X born in 2015.
The final hearing commenced on 14 October 2019 and proceeded for 2 days before the Father sought an adjournment to obtain evidence relating to his mental health. The adjournment was granted and the final hearing recommenced on 19 April 2021.
PROPOSALS
The Father’s proposals were set out in his Amended Case Outline filed 19 April 2021; inter alia, he sought orders that:
(a)the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the children;
(b)that the children live with the Mother;
(c)that the children spend time with the Father for a period of two months each Saturday between 9 AM and 4 PM, thence from after school Friday until 4 PM Sunday each alternate weekend during school terms and for one half the school holidays, and for each Father’s day from 9 AM until 5 PM.
The Mother’s proposals were set out in Exhibit O; inter alia, she sought orders that:
(a)the Mother have sole parental responsibility for the children;
(b)the children live with the Mother;
(c)the Father spend no time with the children;
(d)pursuant to section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (the Act) the Father be restrained from:
(i)approaching or contacting the Mother or children in any way except through a lawyer, save as provided in Order 6.3 herein (see (iii) below);
(ii)coming within 200 m of any place where the Mother or children live, work or study;
(iii)approaching the Mother at a temple or place of worship, in the event that both parents are present at the same time. However, the Father shall be at liberty to interact with the children in the event that they approach him while at the temple.
The ICL’s proposals were set out in Exhibit P and were in similar terms to the Mother’s proposed orders. The ICL also sought an order that the Father have leave of the Court to publish the (expert) report of Ms B and this Court’s Reasons for Judgment to all of the treating medical and allied health practitioners of the Father.
The Mother, during submissions, also sought an Order that a social worker, attached to the Domestic Violence Unit of Legal Aid NSW, explain to the children the nature of the Court’s Orders and consequences of those Orders.
The Mother relied upon the following documents:
(a)Child Dispute Conference Memorandum to Court dated 17 August 2017;
(b)Family Report released 22 October 2018;
(c)Affidavit of the Mother sworn 20 September 2019;
(d)Single Expert Report by Ms B released 27 March 2020;
(e)Affidavit of Mother sworn 26 March 2021.
The Father relied upon the following documents:
(a)Amended Initiating Application filed 3rd October 2019;
(b)Consolidated updating Affidavit of Mr Azizi filed 9 April 2021;
(c)Affidavit of Ms C filed 4th October 2019;
(d)Affidavit of Ms D filed 2 October 2019;
(e)Affidavit of Dr E filed 3rd October 2019;
(f)Affidavit of Dr F filed 16 April 2021;
(g)Tender bundle of documents.
The following Exhibits were relied upon:
(a)Exhibit A: Child support payment documents;
(b)Exhibit B: Family Report and Child dispute Conference Memorandum;
(c)Exhibit C: Application in a Case regarding Service of Divorce Application and email from solicitor;
(d)Exhibit D: Documents from Dr F; 5 pages from sleeve 6 of subpoena documents;
(e)Exhibit E: Report from Dr F;
(f)Exhibit F: Email from Dr F relating to the Father’s proposed treatment in a men’s behavioural change course dated 10 December 2017;
(g)Exhibit G: Email chain regarding contact centre, documents from sleeve 2 of subpoena material;
(h)Exhibit H: Immigration documents;
(i)Exhibit I: Sleeve 10 tag M 10.6, M 10.5, M 10.8 and M 10.9, from NSW Police, Documents from sleeve 2 of subpoenaed material;
(j)Exhibit J: Sleeve 5 documents from Region L Contact Service (Tabs 5.3, 5.5, 5.10);
(k)Exhibit K: Consent Orders;
(l)Exhibit L: Mother’s two Letters (including the Legal Aid Correspondence);
(m)Exhibit M: Mother’s Tender Bundle;
(n)Exhibit N: Father’s tender bundle of documents (except Father not relying on items 6 and 7 being the reports of Dr G);
(o)Exhibit O: Mother’s proposed Minute of Order;
(p)Exhibit P: ICL proposed Minute of Order.
EVIDENCE
The Court has considered all the parties’ material. It now refers to certain of that material.
The Mother’s Affidavits
The Father is aged 45 years and was born in Country H. The Mother is aged 44 years and was born in Country J.
The parties were married in Australia in 2013.
The eldest child is now in Year 2 and the youngest child is in Year 1.
The Mother is looking for a job. She continues to receive Centrelink allowance.
The Father is not presently working due to a work injury suffered at his last-place employment in 2015. He suffered injuries to his neck, right shoulder and back. His shoulder was operated on in 2018 and his back was operated on in 2020. He is due to have a further operation to his neck.
The parties separated on 9 March 2016 following an incident on that day. On that day the Mother left the family home with the children as she was afraid the Father was going to kill her. The Mother and the children lived with the maternal grandparents until about August 2016.
The Mother has been the primary carer for the children since birth to date.
During the parties relationship the Father did not assist the Mother with basic parenting tasks such as changing the children’s nappies or bathing them.
From separation until 13 January 2018 the Father did not spend any significant time with the children. During this period the Mother was very scared of the Father.
The Father was detained by the Department of Immigration and resided at Suburb K Detention Centre from 2016 until 2017.
On 22 September 2017, the parties agreed on interim parenting orders for the children to spend time with the Father supervised by the Region L Contact Service (the contact centre) for two hours each fortnight. The Mother agreed to contribute $50 per fortnight towards the cost of the service.
Between January 2018 and 5 May 2018, the Father attended about 5 visits with the children.
The contact centre declined to supervise further visits between the children and the Father following an incident on 5 May 2018 when the Father became angry, breached the contact centre rules and tried to exit from the wrong door.
The Court accepts the Mother’s evidence relating to the Father perpetrating family violence against her during their relationship, including physical abuse, and emotional and psychological abuse. Such physical abuse included the Father throwing a chair at the Mother; pushing and pulling the Mother when the Mother was pregnant with the youngest child; the Father choking the Mother when the Mother answered back to him during an argument; and the Father throwing a glass cup of water at the Mother when she was pregnant with the eldest child.
The Father was often suspicious, paranoid and accused the Mother of being unfaithful by having a relationship with their neighbour, who the Mother knew as Mr M; the Court accepts the Mother’s evidence in this regard.
On more than one occasion during the relationship, the Father became angry, verbally abused the Mother and screamed at her in front of the children.
During the parties’ relationship, there was an argument when the Mother was pregnant with the eldest child and the Father held a lighter in his hand and yelled at the Mother that he was going to kill her and that he would burn the house down. When the Father behaved like this, the Mother was extremely afraid for the safety of herself and the children. The Mother did not report such incidents to the police because she was afraid of the Father. The Father had threatened to harm the Mother and kidnap the children if she reported the violence to the police. The Father told the Mother that if she left him that he would kill one of the Mother’s brothers. He also told the Mother that he would take one of the children and the Mother would never see her again.
The Court accepts the Mother’s evidence relating to the Father’s controlling behaviour of her during the parties’ relationship. For example, on about two or three occasions during the relationship, the Father locked the Mother and the children inside their residence and took the Mother’s phone away to stop the Mother from calling anyone for help.
After the youngest child was born, the parties briefly separated. The children and the Mother lived at the residence of the maternal grandparents. The maternal grandparents were insistent that the parties reconcile their relationship. The Mother agreed to see a religious leader with the Father for some relationship guidance. On 10 September 2015, a religious leader prepared an agreement which the Father signed. The agreement was witnessed by a relative and the religious leader. One part of the agreement stated that the Father promised not to swear, verbally abuse, hit or threaten the Mother; the Court refers to Annexure A to the Mother’s Affidavit filed 26 March 2021. After this agreement was signed, the Mother agreed to reconcile with the Father. However, he never complied with the agreement and he continued to assault the Mother, throw things at her, threaten her and control her behaviour.
The Court does not accept the Father’s allegations that the Mother was violent or aggressive towards the Father.
On about 9 March 2016, the Mother was at home with the children. The Mother heard loud noises from outside their apartment. The Mother looked out the window and saw the Father and a crowd gathered outside. The Father came running into the apartment and grabbed a kitchen knife out of the drawer. It was a sharp knife used for cutting meat. The Father was very angry and he was running and yelling loudly. The Father told the Mother that he was going downstairs and that he would come back to “sort (the Mother) out”. He told the Mother at this time that he knew what she had been doing. When the Father said this to the Mother he was holding the knife in his hand and standing about 3 metres away from the Mother. The Father ran back outside. The Mother cried and called out loudly for the Father to stop. By this time the Mother was holding onto both children and they witnessed the Father behaving like this. The Mother then saw the Father on the street with the knife pointed at a man who she recognised as their neighbour Mr M. The Mother ran to her neighbour’s apartment to call the maternal grandparents for help. The Father returned to the parties’ apartment and the Father wiped the knife and then placed it back in the kitchen. The police attended and arrested and charged the Father with certain criminal offences including assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
The Court accepts the Mother’s evidence relating to the incident on 19 April 2016 at the Suburb N Shopping Mall when the Father picked up the eldest child out of the pram and yelled at and threatened the Mother. The Father then followed the Mother. The Mother went to a police station and the police spoke with the Father on the street.
After the incident of 9 March 2016 and 19 April 2016, the Mother sought an ADVO against the Father for her protection. The Father consented to an interim ADVO on 20 May 2016, without admissions.
On 20 September 2016, the Father consented to a final ADVO for the Mother’s protection for a period of 2 years.
On about 8 November 2016, the Mother’s sister told the Mother that the Father had called the Mother’s brother-in-law and said that if he cannot see the children he would kill the Mother on the street. He had stated at this time that he would make “Mr O’s wedding a funeral.” Mr O is the Mother’s younger brother. After the Mother heard this, she was terrified that the Father was going to try and kill her.
On 22 November 2016, the Father pleaded guilty to a breach of the above ADVO on 9 November 2016, and the sentence provided, “Fine: $1,000 bond s9: 3 years to comply with treatment plans-it is highly advised that (the Father) continue treatment for a period of no less than six months whereby the client will be seen on a fortnightly to monthly basis with the aim of reducing the frequency, duration and intensity (his anxiety, depressive and paranoia symptoms). Treatment will be in cooperation with other allied health providers, including his GP and psychiatrist. (The Father’s) referring GP… diagnosed him with major depression and anxiety. He has been prescribed with Mirtazapine 30 mg and Venlafaxine 75 mg and still currently under the supervision of his GP and his psychiatrist, Dr P.”
Also on 22 November 2016, in the Local Court the Father pleaded guilty to charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm; stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm; affray; common assault; and armed with intent to commit indictable offence; in relation to the incident on 9 March 2016. He was sentenced to a 2 year good behaviour bond for each of these offences. Again, he was required to comply with mental health treatment including for his anxiety, depressive and paranoia symptoms.
The Father consented to the above ADVO being extended for a further 2 years until 19 September 2020, on 11 January 2019.
In about March 2019, the Mother completed the 123 Magic program in Arabic.
On 15 October 2019, by consent, inter alia, interim parenting orders were made that the children spend time with the Father under the supervision of a contact centre. The children recommenced fortnightly visits with the Father at the contact centre in about December 2019. The children’s visits continued during February 2020. In about March 2020, the contact centre closed due to the Covid pandemic.
In about mid May 2020, the Mother agreed to supervised FaceTime calls between the children and the Father. This did not occur.
In about mid 2020, the children’s fortnightly visits at the contact centre were to resume. The Mother still had some concerns about travelling with the children on public transport during the pandemic.
The Father spent time with the children, supervised at the contact centre, on 4 July 2020.
The Father had back surgery in 2020 and was unable to spend supervised time with the children for a period.
In late 2020, the Mother had urgent and unplanned surgery on her abdomen. Her recovery was slow and she was unable to move around or leave her home for about two months. During this time the children missed about three supervised visits with the Father as the Mother was unable to catch the train and transport them to the visits.
In about November 2020, the Mother was informed by a staff member from the children’s school that the Father had attended there and had shown a copy of the previous ADVO which had expired on 19 September 2020. The Father requested to spend time with the children which was facilitated by the school. The Father spent about 5 to 10 minutes with the children and a teacher was present the whole time. On 2 December 2020, the Father again attended the school to spend time with the children which did not occur.

On 5 December 2020, supervised visits resumed at the Contact Centre each fortnight.
The Mother gave oral evidence through an Arabic interpreter on 19 and 20 April 2021. The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of such evidence.
The Mother stated that she seeks an Order that if she attends a particular church, she does not want the Father approaching her or the children at that church. She clarified by stating that the Father could attend that church but she did not want the Father talking to the children or approaching them (there). She stated that it would be okay if the children wanted to say hello to the Father. She stated that it would be okay if the children were with the Father for a minute supervised by her.
It was put to the Mother, on behalf of the Father, that from the children’s point of view, it cannot be a good thing that the Father was completely erased from their lives. The Mother agreed but stated that when the children reach 16 or 17 years, they could then make decisions about the Father.
The Mother was asked whether she had anything positive to say about the Father in relation to the children in the period pre-separation. She stated that she had nothing nice to say in this regard.
The Mother stated that the Father did not help her in relation to the children.
The Mother did not make any offer to the Father to spend supervised time with the children after he was released from the detention centre on 23 March 2017, and before interim parenting Orders were made on 22 September 2017, because she was concerned and scared that the Father was sick with his behaviour and she was concerned about the children.
The Mother was asked whether she thought that the children might have picked up on her fears regarding the Father. The Mother responded by stating that she did not say anything bad about the Father to the children and she did not ever show her fear to them.
The Mother was asked whether she was concerned that from 9 March 2016 to January 2018, the children were not asking about the Father. The Mother stated that she was not concerned because the children grew up with her family; they were used to being with her family, and they were given all the love that they needed. She further stated, in this context, that she was happy because the eldest child had had emotional issues as a result of the parties’ arguments, and following separation the Mother helped the eldest child to get out of these emotional issues.
The Mother’s attention was drawn to the observation session on 14 January 2020 between the children and the Father referred to in the Single Expert Report of Ms B, forensic and clinical psychologist, dated 14 February 2020. The Mother agreed that the children’s reported excitement in running to the Father, hugging and kissing him, with the Father hugging and kissing them in return, was a sign of love and affection between the children and the Father.
It was put to the Mother that she would want to do what was in the best interests of the children in their relationship with the Father. She replied by stating that what prevents her from these visits was that if there was no supervision the Father would kidnap the children and that was the only thing that worries the Mother, and so the Father could see the children under supervision. The Mother was then asked that if the Father wants to see the children under supervision whether he could see them, to which the Mother responded that yes he could, but that if the Father did not see the children at all, that would be better.
The Mother’s attention was drawn to various contact centre notes in the Father’s tender bundle, Exhibit N. For example, the Mother’s attention was drawn to a visit on 29 February 2020 where the notes record the children, inter alia, running into the waiting room and both screaming out “baba” and running towards the Father, with the children sharing a group hug and the Father giving the children a kiss on the cheek. The Mother agreed that the children did not appear to be showing any fear of seeing the Father.
The Mother was not cross-examined by the Father’s counsel in relation to the Mother’s allegations of family violence against the Father.
The Mother was cross-examined by the ICL.
The Mother agreed that all the contact reports between the children and the Father indicated the children enjoyed spending time with the Father.
The Mother stated that she did not know Ms C and she did not trust her. She had never seen her before her attendance at Court.
The Mother agreed that the Father was a regular churchgoer at a particular church.
The Mother was asked whether there was anyone she could suggest to the Court who could supervise the children spending time with the Father once final orders were made as the Father would not be able to go to a contact centre. She stated she did not trust anyone to supervise the children spending time with him.
It was suggested to the Mother that the children may experience a loss if they do not see the Father at all. The Mother agreed and stated that she was not preventing the children from seeing the Father but stated that when the children reach 15 or 16 years they can decide for themselves. She stated that she does not trust the Father.
The Mother was asked what she would tell the children if the children asked her when they could see the Father. The Mother replied by stating that she would tell the children that there was a dispute between the parents and that when they were older they could see the Father.
The Mother stated that she would have no problem with sending an information package in relation to the children to the Father, through his church, twice a year.
The Father’s Affidavit
The Father was educated in Country H up to Year 6, primary school. He then left school and worked in the family business. Some years later he trained professionally in sports.
The Father belongs to a minority Christian group known as Q Group which he asserts is akin to the Christian religion. He asserts that as a result of his beliefs, both members of his family and himself were persecuted. The Father arrived in Christmas Island in 2012. He travelled to Australia six months later and was granted a temporary protection Visa which is valid until 2022. At that time he intends to apply for permanent residency.
The Father met the Mother in Australia. The Mother is the daughter of his second cousin.
The Father admits that the parties argued a lot during their relationship and they swore at each other.
The Father was diagnosed with major depression and anxiety at the time of separation. He was treated for this condition by Dr E, psychiatrist.
The Father states that the Local Court, on 22 November 2016, when he pleaded guilty to all the charges brought against him by the police in relation to the incident on 9 March 2016, took into account that he had been diagnosed with major depression and anxiety.
The Father continues to take medications.
The consent parenting Orders of the Court of 22 September 2017 required the Father to enrol in a Men’s Behaviour Change Program or if that was not available, to engage in counselling which addresses anger management and family violence. Due to language difficulties of the Father, he was unable to attend the Men’s Behaviour Change Program being the Facing Up course run by R Counselling Centre and he was advised by the coordinator of that course that he would need to attend a one-on-one session through his counsellor.
The Father resides on his own in rental accommodation in Suburb S. It is a two-bedroom apartment. He has family that reside in the Suburb S area and with whom he has regular contact.
The Father regularly attends a Q Church at Suburb S.
In July 2019, at his church, the youngest child ran up to the Father and gave him a hug, smiling and laughing. She spent about 20 to 25 minutes with the Father at that time.
After Dr E, psychiatrist, retired in 2019, the Father was referred to Dr G on about 22 May 2020 by his GP, Dr T. There is no report by Dr G before the Court and nor was any evidence adduced from him at the final hearing.
At the contact centre, the children are happy to see the Father. They are physically affectionate to the Father. They enjoy their time together.
The Father completed an introductory course on parenting with psychologist, Dr F, in about mid-2018. He completed a course in anger management and received anger management counselling with Dr F at about the same time.
The Father gave oral evidence. His oral evidence in October 2019 was given through an interpreter in the Farsi language. His oral evidence in April 2021 was through an interpreter in the Arabic language. The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of his oral evidence.
The Father stated that the children were sometimes present in the car and in the parties’ home when the parties argued. He agreed that the children were probably scared when the parties were arguing at these times.
The Father stated that he has 100% good mental health.
The Father was asked whether he had been receiving mental health treatment since March 2014. The Father stated that he had had six sessions of electroconvulsive therapy in Country H.
The Father stated that he had never self-harmed and that he had never told anyone that he had self-harmed.
The Father was asked questions about documents from the Department of Immigration. He stated that he did not recall making certain statements to officers of that Department.
The Father denied the Mother’s allegations of family violence against him.
The Father was questioned as to him being suspicious of the Mother in about 2014. The Father stated that it was the Mother’s own actions that caused him to be suspicious. He stated that he did check the Mother’s phone and explained that when there were two children in the family, and you receive a phone call at midnight or 2 AM from an unknown number, you would also suspect. He agreed that he had obtained a copy of the Mother’s phone records. He agreed that he had been very suspicious that something was going on between the Mother and their neighbour Mr M.
The Father was questioned as to an incident involving himself and Mr M on 9 March 2016. The Father agreed that an argument had taken place between himself and this man near his home. The Father stated that he was hit on the nose which was bleeding. He also stated that he sustained injuries to his thigh and arm. The Father stated that the police came and he told everything to the police. He stated that the police arrested him. The Father stated that when he went down to talk with Mr M, that person started arguing with him.
It was put to the Father that the family report was released in Court and was read to him by an interpreter. Initially the Father disagreed that the family report had been read to him. The Father then stated that it may have been read to him but maybe he has forgotten now as he does not have a strong memory.
The Father was questioned as to certain previous concerns of the contact centre in relation to the Father. It was put to the Father that he had said that the contact centre cannot tell him what to say to the children. In response the Father stated that he had stated that he had freedom to speak to the children.
It was put to the Father that he had put sweets in the children’s bag at the contact centre and a contact centre worker had to remove them. The Father stated that maybe he had done that.
The Father stated that he had been told by a contact centre officer that it was his job to change the youngest child’s nappy. He agreed that he had previously asked the officer if the officer could change the nappy as he did not know how to do it.
The Father stated that $666 per fortnight was deducted from his account for child support.
The Father stated that he did not know why the Mother was scared of him.
The Father was questioned about his proposed supervisor Ms C. The Father stated that he would take his children to her place and they would play with her daughters. He stated that members of his family would be there. He stated that Ms C had only met the Mother once. He stated that the children do not know Ms C.
The Father stated that he had taken two reports to the Local Court in relation to the above incident, being one report from a psychologist and another from a psychiatrist.
The Father was questioned as to a report of Dr F dated 28 October 2016. The Father stated that he could not recall what was in that report.
It was put to the Father that in that report there was a reference to the Father’s lowered mood and concentration, energy and motivation, increased impulsivity, nightmares, hopelessness, disturbed sleep and appetite, and in relation to such symptoms the Father agreed. The Father agreed that he had serious mental health issues in 2016.
The ICL questioned the Father as to the incident involving Mr M. The Father stated that the Mother had been at fault in relation to the incident. Explaining, he stated that when the Mother was pregnant with the youngest child, she told the Father that she wanted an abortion and the Father wanted to know why. The Father stated that previously he had noticed someone coming quickly out of the parties’ residence who had closed the unit door in a rough way and entered another unit. He stated that when the Mother came he could see from her facial expression and the colour of her face that it was not normal and from then on the Father’s suspicion of the Mother grew. The Father stated that the parties moved from that residence to somewhere else. He stated that two years later he saw from his kitchen window Mr M on the other side of the street pointing to the parties’ unit.
The Father stated it was possible that his behaviour in relation to the incident in March 2016 with Mr M may have been a result of his mental health condition.
It was suggested to the Father, in relation to his behaviour, that he has increased irritability and impulsivity. In response, the Father stated that this was his nature and he did not know why this was so. He stated he speaks in a loud voice and moves his hands.
The Father stated, if he was able to spend unsupervised time with the children for three days each week, that his plan would be on Saturdays to take the children to his church where they would learn “our own language” and on Sundays he would take the children to church to learn prayer. He would take them to swim classes and other programs.
The Father gave further oral evidence on 19 April 2021.
The Father stated that he had been honest in what he had told his psychologist Dr F.
The Father stated that in 2016 he had had mental health issues due to his conflict with the Mother.
The Father stated that he had not had any mental health issues prior to 2014. The Father stated that he did not have any mental health conditions when living in Country H; he played sports, was a fit man and worked in a business.
The Father stated that he complied with the rules and regulations of the contact centre since the first final Court hearing in October 2019. He confirmed that he was a person who was good at following rules and regulations.
The Father stated that he may have taken a photo of the child’s shoes without asking the supervisor, overlooking the rule against this.
The Father stated that when he was reminded by contact centre staff of certain rules to be followed by him he complied.
The Father agreed that he had attended the children’s school on 1 December 2020 and had asked to see the children. He stated, in this context, that the Mother had deprived him of seeing the children by not bringing the children to the contact centre. He stated that he had not seen the children for four months and he loved the children.
The Father stated that he was unable to contribute financially to the children’s dental fees.
It was put to the Father that he acknowledged to his psychologist, Dr F, that he had problems with anger management. In response, the Father stated that he gets angered or upset by false claims and lies.
The Father stated that he could control his anger in 2017 and 2018. He stated that he undertook a six week one-on-one anger management treatment because it was required by the doctor and by the Court. He stated that every person goes through anger episodes.
The Father was asked what he had learned in his six week anger management course to help him control his anger. He replied that any complicated issue you can simplify so as not to make you feel angry.
The Father stated that last week, in relation to his medical condition, he was tired and angry but was alone at home.
It was put to the Father that he was now sensitive and had a feeling of being unjustly treated when dealing with authority figures, to which the Father agreed.
The Father stated that in relation to the contact centre rule regarding turning his phone off, and being asked by contact centre staff to turn off his phone, his actions were not deliberate and he forgot to comply with the rule or overlooked that.
The Father confirmed that prior to his work accident in 2015, he did not have any health problems including mental health problems.
The Father was questioned as to counselling that he had through the U Counselling in 2014. The Father stated he had no memory of that occurring.
He was asked whether he recalled an incident when he tried to assault the Mother and stab himself, to which the Father stated he did not recall such things.
The Father denied perpetrating any physical violence against the Mother stating that only verbal arguments occurred between them.
Ms C
Ms C’s Affidavit was filed on 4 October 2019. She is married to Mr V who is a cousin of the Father. She has three children the youngest of which is a daughter aged eight years (at the date of filing her Affidavit).
Ms C first met the Father in about 2012 when he arrived in Australia. She is aware that the parties have been separated. Since separation of the parties the Father has become close to her family and is a regular visitor to their home. Her daughters were baptised on the same date as the children. She is willing to assist the Father in any way to enable him to spend time with the children. If required she is prepared to supervise the Father’s visits with the children.
Ms C gave oral evidence. The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of such evidence.
Ms C stated that it has been a long time, “years”, and before 2015, since she has observed the Father with the children.
It was put to Ms C that she has no understanding of the allegations made against the Father in these proceedings. She stated that she knows “roughly” but not all the details. She stated in this context that she has a brief understanding but does not have a full understanding of the details (of such allegations). She stated that she has offered to be a supervisor as she has got a daughter of the children’s age and one of the children comes to play with her daughter. She was asked why supervision was required in this case to which she responded that she would just supervise, take notes and stated, “the Father wouldn’t hurt his children would he.”
Dr E, former treating psychiatrist of the Father
Dr E’s Affidavit filed 3 October 2019 annexed two medical reports of Dr E in relation to his treatment of the Father.
The first report, dated 15 May 2017, stated, inter alia, that the Father had seen Dr E since November 2016 for advice on treatment of major depression. The Father had told Dr E in April 2017 that he had spent five months at the detention centre, and during such detention he was prescribed medication. At this time, mental examination revealed the Father’s depression was in remission. Mental examination of the Father on 3 May 2017 revealed the Father was calm and composed and not harbouring any abnormal thoughts.
In the second report of Dr E dated 20 August 2019, Dr E referred to the Father’s two consultations with him in August 2019. The Father told Dr E he had been seeing a psychologist on a number of occasions in the past couple of years. He stated he was taking medication with benefit. Mental examination revealed he was calm and composed, and did not harbour any abnormal thoughts. No psychotic or paranoid symptoms were evidenced. Dr E counselled the Father and advised him to continue seeing his GP and that it would be advisable for him to continue to see a psychologist for support and advice. He stated that he was unaware of any psychiatric or psychological conditions that would bar the Father from visiting the children on a regular basis. The doctor stated that his mental condition (major depression) was now fully treated and stabilised.

Dr E gave oral evidence. The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of such evidence.
Dr E was referred to his report of 17 November 2016 in which the doctor confirmed that there was a reference to the Father’s major depression with paranoid tendencies. The doctor had thought that part of the Father’s paranoia was the suspicion of the Father that the Mother was unfaithful.
Dr E stated that his statement, in his report of 15 May 2017, that he was not aware of any adverse medical or psychological reasons to refuse the Father’s request to see the children, was based upon the two interviews he had with the Father in 2017.
Dr E stated that he was not aware of the Father’s criminal record. He stated that it would cause him some concern if the Father had convictions for crimes of violence.
Dr E stated that a person’s mental condition can fluctuate over time. He stated that during his two interviews with the Father in 2017 there was no problem, and that he was not aware of the Father’s criminal convictions at that time.
Dr E stated that if the Father was still quite fixated on what he perceived to be an affair that the Mother was having with another person, he would have cause for concern. He stated that he would have some concern if the Father was fixated on the Mother wanting to abort the child.
Dr E stated that if the Father’s belief that the Mother was having an extramarital affair was a fantasy then, after a lapse of time and with treatment, he may realise that it is a fantasy. However, he stated that fixed ideas can persist.
Dr E was asked whether the diagnoses of the Father’s psychologist Dr F, in September 2016, that the Father had a mental health condition including paranoia, impulsivity, and suicidal ideation was serious. Dr E stated that such a description in 2016 was of serious concern.
Dr E was asked that if the Father’s paranoia persisted whether that could affect his time with the children. The doctor stated that it depended on how strong the paranoia was, and whether the paranoia was linked up with other thoughts; for example, whether a person wishes revenge on the Mother for past unfaithfulness.
Dr E stated that the medication Efexor was a modern antidepressant and that 75 mg was a low dose. He stated that Avanza medication 15 mg was a low dose. He stated that these two medications were an average dose of antidepressants.
Dr E stated that the Father’s diagnosis in August 2019 was major depression in remission.
Ms W, the family report writer
The family report writer’s report is dated 22 October 2018.
The family report writer interviewed the parties and the eldest child on 12 October 2018. She conducted observations of the children with each of the parents.
The Father acknowledged use of psychotropic medication but denied mental health problems.
The Father stated that, apart from a brief observation session during interviews for a family report, he has not seen the children for six months.
The Mother stated that she wished the children to spend no time with the Father because she was very nervous about his aggression and violence. She stated that, if the Court orders that the children see the Father, she would want this to occur in a contact centre where the children would be safe.
The Mother stated that the children became more motivated and interested in spending time with the Father after four supervised visits. She stated that the children then appeared to enjoy the time and seemed to be doing well with him.
The family report writer stated that when the Father was asked about an incident which resulted in a charge of assault, he said that a former neighbour Mr M used to “have us under observation” and the Father was suspicious of him. The Father stated that he saw this man in a car outside his home with another man and they started insulting him. The Father approached them. The Father maintained he acted to defend himself. The Father stated that, after he was found guilty of assault, he was taken to Suburb K Detention Centre for 6 months.
The Father denied ever making the Mother or the children feel unsafe and said that the Mother was telling lies if she indicated otherwise.
The Mother said that in March 2016, the Father threatened, with a knife, a man who lived in a flat at their previous address. The Mother alleges that the Father accused her of having a relationship with this man and that she witnessed him grabbing a knife from the kitchen and rushing down to the street outside their apartment when he saw the man there. She said that the Father then pointed a knife at him on the street outside their apartment. The Mother reported that after this, the Father came into their apartment with a knife and locked her and the children in the apartment with him.
The Mother recounted other allegations of violent behaviour and reported that the Father tried to choke her on one occasion, and would beat her with his hands and throw objects, such as chairs, at her. She alleged that, while she was pregnant with the eldest child, the Father beat her severely. The Mother also alleged controlling behaviour, in that the Father insisted on investigating her phone contacts and would not allow her to attend TAFE to continue her studies. She stated that the Father also threatened to kill her family members if she left him and that he terrorised her life.
The family report writer noted that Dr E, Psychiatrist at Z Hospital (Sleeve 8), diagnosed Mr Azizi with Major Depressive Disorder with psychotic features, Anxiety and Panic Disorder in May 2017. Dr AA, Consultant Psychiatrist at Suburb K Detention Centre (Sleeve 1), also made a similar diagnosis in December 2016. Both psychiatrists noted that Mr Azizi suffered from Major Depression “around ten years ago” in Country H and was treated with Electro Convulsive Therapy. Dr E stated that he did not believe that Mr Azizi’s mental illness should preclude him from seeing his children, however he could not advise regarding how this should occur.
The family report writer further noted that Mr Azizi had consulted with Dr F of BB Psychology including six times between February 2018 and May 2018. Dr F also documented on 1 June 2018 that Mr Azizi completed an Anger Management Course at BB Psychology and received anger management counselling.
The family report writer conducted observations of the children with each parent.
Under the heading “Evaluation”, the family report writer stated that the children appeared, during observations, to have a positive relationship with each parent, readily engaging with them and seeking their attention. They seemed to enjoy the interactions with both parents and did not exhibit signs of fearfulness or wariness. It was noted, however, that the children had only engaged with the Father on a supervised basis since their parents’ separation and only for limited periods of time.
The family report writer stated that the young age of the children and the use of interpreters presented challenges in establishing their views. It was not possible to indicate with any degree of certainty what their views were, and it was therefore recommended that no determinative weight be given to their views.
The family report writer stated that it appeared, during the observation, that the children primarily regard the Father as a purveyor of material goods to them, and the Father also seemed to set great store by the gifts he has given them. The conversations he had with the children also appeared to be mostly about what he has bought them, and what he plans to buy them. The family report writer stated that while it is understandable that the Father may want to give presents to the children after seeing them so irregularly, it is important that a relationship is not built, or maintained, on the provision of material goods. The Father displayed a playfulness, and capacity to enter into their world, which was clearly appealing to the children and this may form a foundation on which a relationship could be built, in time.
The family report writer stated that during interview, the Mother displayed some insight into the children’s personalities, their likes and dislikes and their needs. The Father did not seem to offer the same insights. It was recognised that he has spent only occasional times with the children since March 2016, however, he appeared to have little understanding about the challenges of caring for them if they were to spend substantial time with him. The family report writer stated that his idea, for example, that one would “give advice” if a child was to misbehave, may be misguided and unlikely to be successful. Children of this age require clear instructions with appropriate approbation for desired behaviour and consequences for undesirable behaviour.
The family report writer stated that the Mother’s account of violence is most consistent with the typology of ‘coercive controlling family violence’ which is characterised by a pattern of control and dominance by a primary perpetrator that results in fear, intimidation or submission through the use of threats, emotional abuse, restriction of contacts, actual harm and/or other tactics.
The family report writer stated that exposure to coercive and controlling family violence is known to have a detrimental impact on children, including their physical safety and psychological wellbeing. Family violence of this nature can be associated with parenting deficits in the perpetrating parent including inappropriate use of authority and/or coercive discipline methods which can escalate to physical abuse, a limited capacity to separate a child’s needs from the perpetrator’s own needs and a limited capacity to tolerate age appropriate behaviour, including individuation during adolescence.
The family report writer stated that if the Court determines that the Father has perpetrated coercive and controlling violence, it may assist if he completes a recognised program that meets the minimum standards for men’s domestic and family violence behaviour change programs. It is noted that Mr Azizi has attended an ‘anger management’ program, however, it is recognised that such programs are not appropriate if family violence has occurred.
The family report writer stated that if the Court determines that the Father has perpetrated coercive-controlling type family violence against the Mother, it would be recommended that the Mother have sole parental responsibility and that the children primarily live with her. It would also be recommended that the risk of harm to the children in the Father’s care be considered. In addition to possible parenting deficits mentioned above, risk of harm may also include the Father undermining the Mother’s role as a parent and her relationship with the children and an increased risk of psychological abuse or manipulation of the children in the Father’s care.
The family report writer stated that if, as alleged by the Mother, police and contact centre staff, the Father has behaved in ways which are violent or rule breaking, then the Father’s continued apparent lack of remorse or capacity to take responsibility may have implications for his ability to change his behaviour in the future. The family report writer stated that the Father’s stated belief in his innocence in all alleged situations, and his apparent lack of concern or empathy for any of the alleged victims, may lend significant concern to the possibility that the Father would be able to manage his behaviour in a more considered fashion in the future.
The family report writer stated that if the Court holds concerns regarding the Father’s mental health and its effects on the children, it would be recommended that the Father continues to attend a suitably qualified therapist to develop stress management and emotion regulation strategies, if these have not already been addressed as part of the psychiatric/psychological treatment. It may also be necessary for time spent with the children to be supervised.
The family report writer stated that it appeared that the Mother has been able to support the children in attending supervised contact with the Father. She stated that if the Court finds that there is veracity to the allegations regarding the Father’s perpetration of family violence, then it would be recommended that he spend only limited time with the children in a supervised setting. She stated that if it is found that he is able to manage his behaviour in a supervised setting, then consideration may be given, in the future, to unsupervised contact, however, the Mother’s capacity to tolerate this may need to be taken into account.
The family report writer stated that the Father’s time with the children at the contact centre is currently suspended. It was not known whether the centre would reconsider this or whether another centre would be prepared to offer supervision. She stated that if the account of the contact centre has veracity, and the Father was unable to follow instructions and contact centre rules, then this may present risks to the children in that the Father may exhibit a disregard for rules and for any Court Orders, which may be made. This may then represent an anxiety provoking situation for the Mother such that her own parenting may be affected.
The family report writer recommended, inter alia, that the Mother hold sole parental responsibility; that the children live with the Mother; and that if the Court holds concerns about the safety and well-being of the children spending time with the Father, that he spends no time with them.
There was no cross examination of the family report writer.
Subject to the Court’s views discussed below under the s60CC considerations, the Court accepts the evidence of the family report writer.
Ms B, single expert, forensic and clinical psychologist
Ms B, forensic and clinical psychologist, hereinafter referred to as the “single expert”, prepared a single expert report which is dated 14 February 2020.
The single expert interviewed the parties and the children on 14 January 2020 and made observations of the children with each parent on the same date.
The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of the single expert report.
The Father was interviewed by the single expert.
The Father stated, inter alia, that the Mother lies about the (alleged) family violence. He stated that the Mother and her family have caused him many problems in life and in the marriage. Although he could not state why they were causing problems, the Father stated he had been set up by the Mother and her family and they have treated him like a fool. The single expert stated that throughout the interview the Father was focused on the Mother and the problems he stated she was causing him and he spoke about the Mother as the centre of his difficulties.
The Father denied there should be an apprehended violence order. He accepted that he agreed to the AVO without making admissions and he continued to assert there was no family violence. He stated that he agreed to the AVO on legal advice.
In relation to the current proceedings, criminal matters in 2016, and the ADVO orders and related breach, the Father stressed that all claims, charges and proceedings are incorrect and false, even those where he pleaded guilty, and he repeatedly stressed he had done nothing wrong.
The Father acknowledged that he did not know how to change nappies or bath children and he had not undertaken these or other parenting tasks when the children were little. He said that nappy changing and other childcare tasks were the responsibility of the Mother.
Although the Father had reported he had completed a parenting course, he was not able to talk about the course content except in vague and undefined ways and he did not demonstrate any substantial knowledge about child development, child behaviour, or appropriate management. He stated he was confident that he had no parenting weaknesses.
The Father strongly denied there was ever any family violence, physical assault, threats or control of the Mother by him in any way, either during the marriage or since they separated and he denied he assaulted the Mother while she was pregnant and denies a knife was ever used to assault or threaten.
The single expert referred to Immigration/U Counselling information notes that the Father had contacted his U Counselling caseworker in about March 2014 asking for help. He was reported to have said he became angry and out of control and tried to assault the Mother with a knife and had stabbed himself in the hand. (The Court, in this context, also refers to the Mother’s tender bundle, Exhibit M, page 2, being an incident report of 25 March 2014 from the subpoenaed records of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, referring to these matters.)
The Father denied any assault of a man named Mr M on 9 March 2016 and he asserted he had not committed any offences because everything was false claims including documented offences, guilty pleas and convictions. The Father strongly denied any responsibility for the offences, to which he pleaded guilty in November 2016, of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, common assault, and affray, and armed with intent to commit an indictable offence, which all related to the incident on 9 March 2016.
The Father stated that he had experienced a deep depression after the events of 2016, caused by the Mother and her family, and the loss of the children, but was now feeling well again.
The single expert stated that according to Immigration health and other medical records, the Father has a complex mental health history with onset dating back at least 10 years. The Father was reported to have said he experienced severe depression for over one year in Country H and was treated with six sessions of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The single expert stated that a course of ECT is usually given for the treatment of resistant major depressive disorder and the Father has been diagnosed with this disorder in Australia. She stated that reports by psychiatrist Dr E and psychologist Dr F each found depression to be stable and in remission in late 2019.
The single expert referred to the Father’s previous mental health diagnoses, according to medical records and reports. Such conditions included major depressive disorder and psychotic features, with a long history of depression noted. Dr AA also noted certain conditions whilst the Father was in the Suburb K Detention Centre in 2016/2017 including: major depression, melancholic type (disorder); Adjustment disorder with depressed mood (disorder); major depressive disorder and made a finding of a vulnerable personality, prone to experience psychosis with paranoid irrational thoughts when under stress. The single expert observed that U Counselling immigration casework notes state the Father made requests for help following two self-reports of suicidality and self-harm in 2014 and 2015.
The single expert observed that the Father repeatedly denied the reality of his situation when refusing to acknowledge documented factual information. She stated that without insight into his comments, the Father expressed a lack of trust of others, and blamed others for his situation. He did not accept the dangerousness of his actions as reported in the documented aspect of the alleged family violence and during the criminal offences. He also underreported, or did not mention, and was dismissive of, many documented and dangerous events that apply to risk of harm for the children.
The Mother was interviewed by the single expert.
The Mother stated that, although young at the time, the eldest child was often present during the reported family violence.
The Mother stated that she has been upset for the youngest child that the Father had said that she was not his biological child and had seemed to dislike the youngest child because of this belief and did not pay the youngest child the same attention as he paid to the eldest child. The Mother stated that this seemed to occur as a result of the Father’s belief that a man named Mr M had been involved in their marriage and was watching and following them. The Mother strongly denied having an affair with this man.

The Mother stated that on about the third or fourth visit with the Father at the contact centre, both children attended, settled well, and engaged well with the Father.
The children were observed with each of the parents by the single expert.
The single expert observed that the children enjoyed the time spent with both parents and there was a calm and enjoyable atmosphere on both occasions. She observed that the focus with the Father was about fun and games and gifts the Father was bringing them or would bring in the future.
The single expert interviewed both children in the English language.
The single expert carried out a Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) in relation to the family. At paragraph 75 of her report, applying the SARA to risk for the Mother and for the children in the Father’s care, she referred to certain factors associated with an increased risk of spousal assault found to be present in this case. She stated that the presence of these factors yielded a high risk of repeat victimisation and placed the children at a high risk of victimisation in the Father’s care unless there was a significant change to the risk issues. She stated that while not all factors in the risk assessment relate directly to the Mother, they relate to a pattern of behaviour associated with risk of repeat victimisation of others which carries a high risk.
Under the heading “Emotional/Mental Health”, in relation to the Father, the single expert stated the Father has long-term complex diagnosed and serious mental health problems. She observed that the Father reported he is currently mentally well and his psychiatrist states he is taking medication and depression is stable and in remission. She stated that further psychiatric opinion suggests the Father is vulnerable to experience psychosis with paranoid and irrational thoughts when under stress. She stated that there appeared to be antisocial traits with a preparedness to break the law and consistent denial and refusal to accept responsibility.
The single expert stated that the family violence allegations and related information was suggestive of the Father exposing the children to dangerous family violence and the Mother’s ability to parent has been affected by her exposure to domestic violence. The single expert stated there was no demonstrated insight into the impact of family violence on the children and the Father appears to lack empathy about the children’s experience of family violence. She stated that the Father’s parenting experience is significantly limited and he was unable to demonstrate adequate parenting knowledge and skills.
The single expert stated that based on information available for her assessment the risk of harm of the children in the Father’s care was high.
Under the heading “Summary formulation”, the single expert stated, inter alia, that the children were unborn infants, and then young infants, when the Mother was allegedly exposed to severe and reportedly often life-threatening physical violence and violent threats, as well as emotional, verbal and psychological abuse during the alleged family violence.
The single expert stated that the Mother reports she remains fearful for herself and the children despite the protective order and her attempts to maintain a privacy buffer around them.
The single expert stated that by the Father’s denials of the alleged family violence occurring he has denied any impact or effect on the children which severely impairs his parenting capacity. She stated that the Father did not demonstrate any insight into the children’s experiences, during her assessment, and therefore no regret or remorse, and without these he cannot make parenting changes needed nor make the changes needed to ensure no further reported family violence occurs. She stated that based on information available for her assessment, the likelihood of the Father making the necessary changes to address the alleged family violence needed to meet the children’s safety needs is assessed, at best, as low and the risk of harm in his care is assessed as high. She stated that the children’s risk is increased given the Father’s inadequate parenting and lack of developmental knowledge.
The single expert stated that additionally, the Father has a long history of mental health problems that likely contribute to his propensity to incorrectly perceive others’ behaviours and misperceive situations which also likely contributes to the propensity for family violence. She observed that the Father has not demonstrated any change in his denial of family violence or of other documented violent behaviour. She stated that the Father has firmly held these denials over an extended period of time. She stated that there are no indications of any change in the future which is reflective of both a parenting failure and an inability to develop insight into the impact of his actions and behaviours on the children and a failure to understand their safety and protection needs.
The single expert stated that while it is likely that the Father’s depression may remain assessed as stable if he continues to consult with his mental health professionals and complies with treatment recommendations, adverse situations and life challenges that are significant stressors are likely risk factors for mental health relapse, or at least there is a likelihood of eliciting problem mental health symptomatology.
The single expert stated that whilst the literature is clear about the benefits to children of having both parents involved with them, the reported family violence is a limitation to the benefits of the children having a meaningful relationship with the Father. She stated that based on the Father’s consistent denial of the family violence and his repeated blame for others for his violent offending history, and the SARA and FSNA risk assessment, the risk of harm to the children is considered to outweigh the potential benefits to them in the short term. In the longer term, the potential for a meaningful relationship might be expected to emerge during supervised time while a parent commits to recommendations for change with the expectation of unsupervised time in the future. However, the single expert stated that the Father’s consistent denial of all of the risk factors and his view that he is satisfied with his parenting limit the potential for change and for the development of a meaningful relationship with the children who need protection.
The single expert stated that there is a high need to protect the children from any family violence and its impact. She stated that there was independent information about the risk of family violence, including police information about the Father acting on his threats to kill the Mother and her family members, apprehended violence orders in relation to this, and the Father’s 2014 self-report about attempting to assault the Mother with a knife while she was pregnant with the eldest child.
The single expert stated that whilst the children were observed to have a very close and affectionate relationship with the Mother and in their sibling relationship, the nature of the relationship with the Father was less clear. The single expert stated that the children’s relationship with the Father was not in the nature of a parenting or carer relationship. She stated that the children enjoy seeing the Father and the focus of their time together is playing and having fun with a significant focus on the gifts the children have come to expect from the Father. The single expert stated that the connection seen between them is not in the nature of a meaningful or parenting relationship.
The single expert stated that based on the police record, apprehended violence orders and related breach, as well as the information contained in the marital reconciliation document the Father agreed with his church leaders, plus his 2014 self-report of an attempt to assault the Mother with a knife, the Mother’s family violence allegations, and the police information about taking the Father into custody because they feared he would act on his threats to kill the Mother and family members, there is information available to suggest the marital relationship was characterised by long term severe and often dangerous family violence, like that seen in coercive and controlling violence. She stated that the pervasive effect of the threats has continued since separation.
The single expert stated that whilst it is always of benefit for children to have both parents involved in their life, based on the information available it was considered the children having contact with the Father carries significant risks considered to potentially outweigh the benefits of contact. She stated that supervised time was usually a staged process toward unsupervised time while a parent attends to recommendations for change and in relation to improving safety. In the children’s situation, supervised time was considered unlikely to lead to safe unsupervised time and was not considered realistic, or in the children’s best interests, to have fortnightly supervised time into the foreseeable future.
The single expert stated that the children have no assessed continuity of contact with the Father and no continuity of attachment relationship with him that would be adversely affected by no contact.
The single expert stated that identity only contact would provide the children the opportunity to extend their sense of personal identity especially as they grow into older childhood. However, she stated that there are alternatives to manage the cultural identity issues other than identity contact such as family members providing information. She stated that the risk of identity contact was about concerns that the Father could use the contact to undermine the Mother’s parenting and give the children unhelpful and negative comments. Further, the Mother would be required to cope with the anxiety and fear related to the contact which she may find a psychological burden and difficult to manage, especially in the longer term, and the concern is that this could impact on her parenting.
The single expert stated that it was her concluded opinion that the impact on the children of having no contact with the Father would not adversely impact them as long as each child was given age-appropriate and accurate information about why the Father was no longer able to live with them, why they do not see him and directly addresses any confusion about their feelings that their Father is not with them, as well as providing appropriate information about the positives and negatives of his capacity to parent them. Provision of this information could be staged in accordance with each child’s development stage.
The single expert stated that if identity only contact occurs, constant vigilance and close supervision of the Father’s comments to the children would be needed by the interpreter including that all of his comments can be interpreted and that he does not talk to the children in dialect that the interpreter cannot understand.
The single expert recommended, inter alia, that the children live with the Mother; the Mother have sole parental responsibility for the children; and the children spend no time with the Father.
The single expert gave oral evidence. The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of such evidence.
The ICL asked the single expert about the possible benefits of the Mother sending the Father, at intervals throughout the year, information packages in relation to the children and the single expert gave this evidence:
And if the Mother were to send to their Father packages – it was suggested twice a year – of reports, photographs, how they’re getting on, that is a beneficial thing to do for the Father?   It is a beneficial thing. I’m not sure about twice a year, why that interval has been arrived at.
Nothing arbitrary?   Arbitrary. Yeah.
What would be your suggestion?   Well, certainly as children of X and Y’s age are growing quite quickly, it would be really, I think, very helpful for Mr Azizi, if this is the decision to be made, to have that information about them as frequently as could be agreed. Probably three to four times a year. I would think that would be an appropriate – but that’s something to be brokered out and agreed upon.
During cross examination of the single expert by the Father’s counsel, it was suggested to the single expert that her report may well be flawed in giving an opinion as to the nature of the attachment between each of the parties and the children notwithstanding that the single expert did not have the qualifications to give that opinion, and she did not conduct an assessment of that opinion. The single expert did not agree. The following evidence was given prior to and after this suggestion to the single expert, in this context:
And that’s because you don’t have the qualifications, at the present time, to conduct that assessment according to what you’ve just said; correct?   Correct.
Thank you. So – but then you’ve gone to – on – on to assume that the Mother has had a secured attachment with the children in some of the answers you’ve just given; correct?   Yes.
All right. That can’t be based on any qualifications that you have; correct?   It’s not based on formal attachment training qualifications.
All right?   It is based on the knowledge of a clinical psychology assessment
Right?        of parent and child over a long period of time in a number of areas.
Right. Not based on anything that you assessed during the – the course of the preparation of your report; correct?   The Strange Situation is the gold standard and I did not use the gold standard.
Sure. Yes. Do you think your report may well be flawed in you giving an opinion as an expert in relation to what you think is the nature of the attachment between the mother and the children, notwithstanding the fact that: (a) you did not have the qualifications to form that view, and (b) you did not conduct an assessment of that view during the course of the preparation of your report?   No, I don’t agree.
…..
HIS HONOUR:   Well, could – and why don’t you agree?   There isn’t – in Australia it’s very difficult to gain those qualifications. I have other qualifications of parent/child interaction evaluation and risk assessment at which I can draw on and as a clinical psychologist having worked with children in child and family and child development areas I am well aware of what constitutes attachment behaviours and how those attachment behaviours might be seen in a parent/child interaction.
MR SHRODER:   Why didn’t you include that as part of a limitation on – in relation to the preparation of your report?   I don’t consider it to be a limitation to the preparation of the report.
So you don’t consider it to be a limitation in the preparation of your report where you don’t have the qualifications and you don’t assess an attachment during the course of a – a preparation of the report to then opine on the nature of an attachment. You don’t think that that should be a limitation stated in your report, do you?   No, I don’t agree and I
All right?        I would say I do have the qualifications. They are not the formal Strange Situation procedure qualifications.
Thank you?   I do have other qualifications and other expertise and experience in that area.
The single expert was asked what were the long-term impacts on the children of the cessation of the relationship with the Father that they now have and this evidence was given:
What are the long term impacts on the children of the cessation of the relationship with their Father that they now have? So the relationship that they have with their Father now is not a relationship that is significant to their daily lives and on that basis in the longer term, the impact of the loss of the relationship with their Father would not be the loss of a parenting relationship because there has been – as far as I’m aware, there hasn’t been a parenting relationship of significance for the children. And in terms of the attachment relationship, although I acknowledge I’m not formally qualified, I am qualified to speak about attachment. The relationship in terms of their attachment for the Father would not be able to develop. I think the overall loss for the children would not be significant except for the loss that they have no Father in their lives, which some of their school friends may have a Father, they may need information about “There is no Father, why is there no Father?” But otherwise, it – it’s not, at this stage, considered to be – I don’t consider it to be a significant loss.
The single expert stated that the most recent reports from the contact centre indicate the children have a positive relationship with the Father in a supervised environment.
The single expert agreed that the 13 supervised visits since 2016 is a very limited number of times the Father has seen the children.
The single expert gave the following evidence in relation to the Court possibly ordering some form of supervised time between the children and the Father:
The Mother gave some evidence that, in relation to attending a church, that if the Father was present when the Mother and the children attended the same church, she would not wish the Father to approach the children; however, if the children sought to and wished to approach the Father, she would not oppose that occurring; do you understand that was her evidence?   Yes.
All right. And given that type of evidence that was given by the Mother, and given what you’ve agreed to in relation to supervised time between the Father and the children, even though it’s not part of my case presenting it to his Honour, if his Honour was minded to order some form of supervised time at the conclusion of these proceedings between the Father and the children, perhaps at the expense of the Father, perhaps by an outside agency, that would, would it not, be a better outcome for these children rather than no time, as proposed by you?   The
MS KARAGIANNIS:   Well, I think you better rephrase the question, “Would that be a better outcome?”
MR SHRODER:   Sorry, I – sorry
MS KARAGIANNIS:   “Would that be a better outcome?”
MR SHRODER:   Yes. Would that be a better outcome for the children rather than proposed by you, that is, no time?   It would be a better outcome for the children. I just don’t know what would be the long-term outcome of that given the – some of the issues remain unresolved in terms of the Father’s risk factors.
Yes?   And that would mean that that supervised time would be for the foreseeable future.
The Court accepts the evidence of the single expert, subject to any discussion below in relation to her evidence, under the need to protect primary consideration.
Dr F, treating psychologist for the Father
Dr F’s Affidavit was filed on 19 April 2021. He attached to his Affidavit his reports of 23 October 2018, 10 October 2019, and 4 April 2021. In his Affidavit he stated that he first saw the Father on 27 June 2016, the Father having been referred by his GP on 14 March 2016 for assessment of his anxiety, depression, panic, low self-esteem, and family issues.
In the first report of 23 October 2018, the psychologist stated, inter alia, under the heading “Psychological and psychiatric history”, that the Father states that he had never previously been diagnosed with the psychological or psychiatric illness, and that there was no previous history of mental health concerns, prior to his workplace accident (in 2015) and subsequent separation from the Mother.
The psychologist stated that in his initial consultations with the Father, the Father presented with ruminations and symptoms of heightened worry and paranoia about not being able to see the children.
The psychologist stated that the Father has not had any suicidal ideations/thoughts, and has not made any suicidal attempts nor presents with suicidal tendencies. His suicide risk appears low.

There is force to the submission of the ICL that by reason of the Father’s inadequate and incomplete mental health related evidence (e.g. the evidence of Dr E and Dr F), noting that the Father did not give a fulsome history of his previous mental health related problems and treatment to these practitioners, there is a significant question mark as to why the Father perpetrated the significant family violence against the Mother, including coercive and controlling family violence.
The Court is of the view that the Mother would likely experience significant stress and anxiety if the children were to spend unsupervised time with the Father by reason of her beliefs that the Father would harm and/or kidnap the children. In the view of the Court, the Mother’s such beliefs are not unreasonably held by reason of the Father’s perpetration of family violence. Such stress and anxiety would carry the significant risk of the Mother’s parenting capacity for the children being adversely compromised.
There is also an unacceptable risk of harm posed to the children in spending regular supervised time with the Father on a long-term basis, other than supervised identity contact for 3 occasions each year. (The Court observes the Father submitted, in the alternative, that the Court could consider regular supervised time until the children turned 14 years, and the Mother proposed, in the alternative, regular supervised time until the children turn 15 years). The Court now discusses why it is of this view.
Again, the Court refers to the Father’s above discussed mental health problems and related vulnerabilities, including previously observed and discussed psychosis with paranoid irrational thoughts when under stress. The Court would assess that there is a real risk, if it was to order long-term regular supervised time between the children and the Father, that the Father may exhibit adverse mental health behaviour in the presence of the children and which may lead to the children experiencing psychological harm. If this occurs, there is a real risk that the Mother may experience not insignificant anxiety which may affect her parenting capacity for the children.
It is relevant in this context that the Father’s treating psychologist observed, in his report dated 4 April 2021, that the severity of the Father’s psychological illness and symptoms had fluctuated over the course of treatment depending on life events. The treating psychologist stated that the Father had also reported increased anger and frustration since his surgery that took place in 2020, due to the lack of improvement to his pain and mobility post operation, as well as not being able to see the children until visits recommenced in December 2020.
The report of the Father’s GP Dr T dated 22 May 2020 refers to the Father’s known history of depression and anxiety being noted to have got “a bit worse lately. He’s got background history of same for a number of years highly related to his rather ongoing work-related chronic neck upper and lower back pain and associated right shoulder pain…Currently been getting nil significant improvement of his pain still which resulted in further exacerbation of his depression and anxiety status.” Accordingly, for example, the Father’s experience of increased anger and frustration by reason of his physical ill-health may lead to an increase in his stress in turn leading to the exhibiting of adverse mental health behaviour if spending long-term supervised time with the children.
Further, the Court would assess that there is a real risk, if it was to order long-term regular supervised time between the children and the Father, in circumstances where the Father has perpetrated family violence including coercive and controlling family violence against the Mother, in the presence of the children, and not acknowledged by him, that the Father may denigrate the Mother with potential adverse emotional consequences to the children, and possibly the Mother (see the contact centre notes of the visit on 27 February 2021 relating to the Father’s denigratory comment of the Mother in front of the children).
Further, the Court has a significant concern that if it was to order long-term regular supervision, there is a real risk that the Father may not be able to comply with the supervisory rules relating to his conduct during supervised time which may lead, as it has in the past, to a suspension of supervised time by the supervising authority. The Court refers to the evidence before it relating to the Father’s failure, on occasion, to comply with contact centre rules. The Court refers to the evidence before it relating to the need, on occasion, for the supervisor to intervene and prevent the Father from acting in a certain manner in the presence of the children. Should the Father’s supervised time be suspended, the children may experience psychological harm by having their supervised time with the Father cancelled. The Court refers to the evidence before it relating to the Father’s previous aggressive behaviour towards supervisory staff, his being argumentative, and his ignoring of instructions. The Court also takes into account, in this context, that the Father’s previous negative behaviour towards supervisory staff occurred at a time when he was having anger management counselling through his psychologist.
There is force to the view of the single expert that supervised time is usually a staged process toward unsupervised time while a parent attends to recommendations for change and in relation to improving safety. There is force to her view that in the children’s situation supervised time is considered unlikely to lead to safe unsupervised time. Again, the Father fails to acknowledge his perpetration of family violence and he has not adduced adequate mental health evidence that his mental health problems have been adequately treated and addressed, discussed previously.
On the evidence before the Court, there is a real doubt as to whether the Father could afford to pay for regular supervised time, whether through an external supervisory agency or at a contact centre. His payment of child support to the Mother in relation to the children has been inconsistent. Exhibit A, a letter from Child Support to the Mother dated 28 July 2019, informed the Mother that the current assessment for the child support to be paid by the Father for the children from 1 September 2019 to 30 June 2020 was $460.83 per month. As at the final hearing in April 2021, the Mother was only receiving about $360 per month from the Father.
The Court has not overlooked, and has taken into account, that the Father received anger management counselling from psychologist Dr F, has continued to receive psychological treatment for his depression from Dr F, and has not come to the attention of the police between 1 June 2018 and 26 March 2021. The Court has not overlooked the Father’s positive time spent with the children during supervised visits to date, albeit revolving not insignificantly around the provision of gifts. Nevertheless, the Court’s above concerns still remain.
The Court has not overlooked, and has taken into account, the Mother’s previous preparedness to facilitate supervised time between the children and the Father, nor her oral evidence, in cross examination by the Father, that the only thing that worries her in relation to there being unsupervised time between the children and the Father is that the Father will kidnap them. She had stated that the Father could see the children under supervision, however she had concluded this statement by stating, “but if he doesn’t see them at all, that’s better”. In any event, whilst the Mother’s evidence in this regard has been taken into account in relation to assessment of risk, the Court’s views remain that long-term regular supervised time carries unacceptable risks of psychological harm to the children and is not in their best interests, as discussed above.
The Court has not overlooked, and has taken into account, the oral evidence of the single expert, when cross-examined by the Father, that it may be a better outcome for the children to have some form of supervised time with the Father. However, in this context, the single expert had qualified this oral evidence by stating that she did not know the long-term outcome of such supervised time, “given the Father’s risk factors” and her statement that such supervised time would be long-term. This oral evidence of the single expert is not inconsistent with the Court’s above views that long-term regular supervised time carries unacceptable risks of psychological harm to the children and is not in the best interests of the children, as discussed above.
The evidence of the Father’s proposed supervisor, Ms C, indicated that this person was unknown to the Mother and children, and had a very limited understanding of the Mother’s allegations against the Father in these proceedings, including family violence allegations. Even if there was no unacceptable risk of harm posed to the children in spending regular supervised time with the Father, the Court would assess this person as not being a potential supervisor of the children’s time with the Father who could provide adequate protection to the children. In this context, the Mother stated that she did not know nor trust Ms C. In the view of the Court, in addition, there would be a real risk that the Mother would experience stress and anxiety, with adverse effects upon her parenting capacity, if the children were to spend time with the Father supervised by Ms C.
The Father contended that, given the ages of the children, there were serious potential adverse effects upon them if they spent no face-to-face time with the Father, in terms of difficulty forming relationships, the loss of identity in relation to the Father, and an adverse reaction against the Mother in blaming her for not having a relationship with the Father. In the view of the Court, the oral evidence of the single expert did not clearly support these contentions and the family report did not support such contentions, with the Court again observing that the family report writer was not cross-examined. In any event, even accepting the potential for some adverse effect upon the children as contended by the Father in these respects, the Court would assess that such potential is significantly outweighed by the significant risks that the children would be subjected to unacceptable harm if spending regular face-to-face time with the Father, whether supervised or not, as previously discussed.
The Court recognizes that Orders facilitating identity only contact between the children and the Father are draconian. Nevertheless, in circumstances where the Father has perpetrated serious family violence, including coercive and controlling family violence, and where he refuses to acknowledge this adverse behaviour, in conjunction with his mental health problems and vulnerabilities, as discussed above, the Court is of the view that such Orders are required to protect the children.
The above views of the Court in relation to the risks of harm posed to the children in spending regular time with the Father, whether supervised or unsupervised, are consistent with the evidence of the single expert and family report writer.
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
The Court does not attach any significant weight to the views of the children. These young children lack sufficient maturity to understand the risk of harm posed by the Father to them. The evidence of the single expert and family report writer is consistent with this view.
(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)
The Court refers to its discussions above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration. The children have a close relationship with the Mother’s extended family, including the maternal grandmother and aunts and uncles.
(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
The Mother has taken such opportunities.
The Father’s ability to take such opportunities has been limited by, inter alia, the terms of an AVO, the Mother’s unwillingness to facilitate time between the children and the Father when acting protectively towards them in relation to the Father, the Orders for supervised time and related restrictions, and the suspension (for a period) of such Orders by reason of the Father’s behaviour at the contact centre.
(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
The Mother has maintained the children satisfactorily in her care. The Father’s payment of child support to the Mother in relation to the children has been inconsistent. The Mother receives about $360 per month from the Father for child support.
(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
The Court refers to its discussion above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration in relation to the nature of the children’s relationship with the Father. The Court observes that the children have only spent quite limited supervised time with the Father since separation. The Court is of the view that there is a significant prospect that the children will not experience significant emotional harm if they only spend identity contact time with the Father, as discussed under the meaningful relationship primary consideration, having previously spent, during certain periods, regular supervised time with him. In this context, the Court proposes to make the following order to assist the children in transitioning from regular supervised time to only supervised identity contact time:
The Mother is forthwith directed to take all reasonable and necessary steps to engage a social worker, attached to the Domestic Violence Unit of Legal Aid NSW, to explain to the children the nature of the Court’s Orders relating to spending only supervised identity contact time with the Father, noting that the children have previously spent, over certain periods, regular supervised time with the Father.
The evidence of the single expert is consistent with the above views.
(e) The practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with the parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis
Not applicable.
(f) The capacity of:
(i) each of the child’s parents; and
(ii) 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
The Mother has such capacities.
In relation to the Father, the Court refers to its discussions above under the need to protect primary consideration; the Father has perpetrated family violence against the Mother, including in the presence of the children, and he refuses to acknowledge such adverse behaviour by him. The Father has significant mental health problems and vulnerabilities. The Father has limited parenting skills and does not acknowledge his lack of such skills. The Father has, during his supervised time with the children, played with the children in an affectionate and appropriate manner, albeit that such play has often revolved around the provision of gifts for the children by the Father.
(g) The maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child’s parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the Court thinks are relevant
The children are developing well in the Mother’s primary care.
(h) If the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child: the child’s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture); and the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right
Not applicable.
(i) The attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents
The Mother has demonstrated such responsibilities and attitudes towards the children in a very satisfactory manner.
In relation to the Father, the Court refers to its discussion above under the need to protect primary consideration, and under s60CC(3)(f) above.
(j) Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family
The Court refers to its discussions above under the need to protect primary consideration.
(k) If a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child’s family – any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following: the nature of the order; the circumstances in which the order was made; any findings made by the Court in, or in proceedings for, the order; any other relevant matter
There was a previous AVO in place against the Father for the protection of the Mother. There was a breach of that AVO by the Father.
(l) Whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child
The Court refers to its discussions above under the primary considerations. Orders providing for the children to spend only supervised identity contact time with the Father, together with the Mother’s proposed Order 6.3, and the ICL’s proposed Order 6, would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the children, compared to the Father’s proposed Orders, including his proposed orders in the alternative relating to regular supervised time.
m) Any other fact or circumstance that the Court thinks is relevant
The Mother and ICL propose restraining orders against the Father under section 68B of the Act. The Court is of the view that it will be in the best interests of the children and proper to make such proposed restraining orders because, in particular, the Father has perpetrated significant family violence against the Mother, including in the presence of the children, or one of them, the Mother is fearful of the Father accordingly, and he has failed to acknowledge such family violence demonstrating a lack of insight into such adverse behaviour. The Court also observes in this context that the Father has significant mental health related problems, as previously discussed, and has attended the children’s school to spend time with them.
The Mother seeks Orders in relation to the Australian passports for the children and in relation to international travel with them. It will be in the best interests of the children to make such Orders. It is reasonable to infer that prospectively the Mother may wish to travel overseas with the children on a holiday, particularly noting the Mother’s birth in Country J. The Mother is an Australian citizen, and has significant ties to Australia, including the children’s schooling and the presence of her near relatives. There is no persuasive significant evidence before the Court that the Mother is likely to leave Australia with the children and not return in a timely fashion. There is no significant evidence before the Court that the Mother is intending to relocate with the children out of Sydney. Such Orders will minimise the risk of conflict occurring between the parties through their need to communicate in relation to such passports.

The Father consents to the Mother’s proposed order relating to the Mother changing the spelling of the child’s name, X, to X. This order will be in the best interests of this child.
The ICL’s proposed Order 7 provides as follows:
That the Father have the leave of this court to publish the report of Ms B and His Honours Reasons for Judgement to all of the treating medical and allied health practitioners of the Father.
There is force to the ICL’s submission that such above proposed Order, if taken up by the Father, will significantly assist the Father to realistically address his mental health problems and perpetration of family violence.
PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
The Court accepts the submissions of the Mother and ICL in this context. By reason of past family violence perpetrated by the Father against the Mother, the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility is rebutted. The Mother has been the children’s primary carer from birth to date. The Mother has been making major decisions for the children since separation and satisfactorily so. The parties do not communicate and have not for some considerable time. Whilst the Father continues to deny the perpetration of family violence against the Mother, the Mother remaining fearful of the Father, his mental health related problems, and the parties’ inability to communicate with each other, there is a significant risk that the parties will not be able to reach agreement in a timely fashion in relation to major issues affecting the children without conflict. It will be in the best interests of the children that the Mother have sole parental responsibility for them.
SUMMARY
Evaluating the above discussed considerations under section 60CC of the Act, it will be in the best interests of the children to make the following Orders:
1.That the Mother shall have sole parental responsibility for the children, X born in 2015 and Y born in 2014 ("the children").
2.That the children live with the Mother.
3.That the Father shall spend no time with the children, apart from supervised identity contact, referred to below.
4.The children shall spend supervised time with the Father at a contact centre for the purposes of identity contact only and being 3 occasions each year for up to 2 hours on each occasion. The Father shall pay the fees for such supervised identity contact.
5.That pursuant to Section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (the Act), the Father be and is hereby restrained by injunction from:
(a)Approaching or attempting to contact the Mother or the children except through a legal practitioner; and
(b)Coming within 200 metres of the Mother and/or the children, including but not limited to the Mother's residence and the children's school.
(c)Approaching the Mother at a temple or place of worship, in the event that both parents are present at the same time. However, the Father shall be at liberty to interact with the children in the event that they approach him while at the temple.
6.That the Mother provide to the Father, each three months, via his local Church, a package of information about the children, including, but not limited to:
(a)A recent photograph of the children;
(b)The latest school report of the children and any other correspondence or memoranda received from their school;
(c)All Medical reports received concerning the children's health and general wellbeing; and
(d)A short written statement outlining the children's current health, current personal interests and their general progression, without necessarily identifying addresses or contact details of the Mother or children.
7.That, by Consent, the Mother be and is authorised to change X‘s Christian name to X.
8.That the Mother be at liberty to apply for the issue of an Australian Passport and the renewal of same for the children without the consent of the Father being obtained and for the purposes of section 11 of the Australian Passports Act:
9.The Mother is permitted without restriction to travel internationally with the children.
10.That the Mother be at liberty to apply to change the spelling of the child's name, X born in 2015, to "X" without the Father's signature being required.
11.That the Father have the leave of this Court to publish the Report of Ms B and the Court's Reasons For Judgment to all of the treating medical and allied health practitioners of the Father.
12.The Mother is forthwith directed to take all reasonable and necessary steps to engage a social worker, attached to the Domestic Violence Unit of Legal Aid NSW, to explain to the children the nature of the Court’s Orders relating to spending only supervised identity contact time with the Father, noting that the children have previously spent, over certain periods, regular supervised time with the Father.
13.That the Order for independent representation of the children be and is hereby discharged.
14.That there be no order as to costs of these proceedings.

I certify that the preceding three hundred and twelve (312) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Newbrun.
Associate:
Dated: 2 June 2021

[2021] FCCA 1087

2 June 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Legal Concepts

Consent

Injunction

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Remedies

File number(s):	PAC 5263 of 2016
Judgment of:	JUDGE NEWBRUN
Date of judgment:	2 June 2021
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW - parenting - best interests of children - orders made
Legislation:	Australian Passports Act 2005 s 11 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 68B, 60CC, 60B, 60CA, 61DA, 65DAA, 65D
Cases cited:	Slater & Light [2013] FamCAFC 4
Number of paragraphs:	312
Date of last submission/s:	21 April 2021
Date of hearing:	14, 15, 16 and 17 October 2019, 19, 20 and 21 April 2021
Place:	Parramatta
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Shroder
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ms Karagiannis
Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Ms Mezna

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE NEWBRUN
DATE OF ORDER:	2 JUNE 2021