BABIC & TAKALA
[2017] FCCA 1631
•14 July 2017
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BABIC & TAKALA | [2017] FCCA 1631 |
| Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Children – where mother sought an order restraining father from facilitating time with maternal grandparents – where mother is in conflict with the father and maternal grandparents – where mother perceived father’s involvement of maternal grandparents as controlling – where Family Consultant indicated it would be preferable for the mother to facilitate time with her parents – where conflict remained unabated – injunction order made pursuant to section 68B to provide mother and maternal grandparents an opportunity to engage in family therapy to resolve their differences – injunction limited to closed period to enable the mother and her parents to re-establish their relationship – injunction determined to be appropriate to the children’s welfare and in their best interests long term. |
| Legislation: Family Law Act 1975, ss.64(1), 65E, 67L, 67ZC, 67ZC(1), 67ZC(2), 69ZM, 69ZN, 69ZQ, 69ZR, 69ZT, Division 9, ss.68A, 68B(1), 68B(2), 68B(3), 68B(4) Evidence Act 1995, s.56 |
| Cases cited: HML v The Queen; SB v The Queen; OAE v The Queen [2008] HCA 16 Bhatt & Sant [2016] FamCA 327 Scott & Scott (1994) FLC 92-457 |
| Applicant: | MR BABIC |
| Respondent: | MS TAKALA |
| File Number: | CAC 1880 of 2015 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Tonkin |
| Hearing dates: | 29 & 30 May 2017 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 30 May 2017 |
| Delivered at: | Canberra |
| Delivered on: | 14 July 2017 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Barker & Barker |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Stagg |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Capon & Hubert Lawyers |
ORDERS
Until 31 December 2018, the Father be and is hereby restrained from bringing [Y] born (omitted) 2011 and [X] born (omitted) 2010 (“the children”) into contact with the maternal grandparents Mr L Babic and Ms J Babic without the mother’s permission save that should either child request to communicate with one or either maternal grandparent by phone, Skype or Facetime the father shall facilitate that communication.
The mother shall take all necessary steps to organise family therapy and/or counselling with her parents to address any outstanding issues between the mother and her parents and towards re-establishing her relationship with her parents with a view to the mother facilitating the children spending time and communicating with the maternal grandparents.
The parties are hereby restrained from discussing with the children any limitation on the children spending time with their maternal grandparents.
The father be at liberty to forward to the children cards and gifts from the maternal grandparents.
By Consent:
Neither parent shall denigrate the other parent or any member of the other parents family or household in the presence or hearing of the children or allow any other person to do so.
Without admission, the Father be and is hereby restrained from discussing with the children any matter related to any of the following:
(a)The Mother's address and living circumstances;
(b)The vehicle driven by the Mother;
(c)The financial circumstances of the Father; and
(d)The financial circumstances of the Mother.
Within 28 days the parties provide written evidence to the other party of a post separation parenting program in which the party is enrolled to commence as soon as practicable.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Babic & Takala is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CANBERRA |
CAC 1880 of 2015
| MS BABIC |
Applicant
And
| MR TAKALA |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
There was one issue to be determined in this matter, whether the father should be restrained from bringing the children into contact with the maternal family specifically the maternal grandparents.
Regarding the substantive parenting arrangements these had been resolved between the parties prior to the commencement of the hearing. Orders were made on 8 September 2016 by Judge Hughes for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility and for the children to spend five nights a fortnight with their father and otherwise live with the mother. Those orders included arrangements for holidays and for the children to spend time on special days.
Both parties were represented during the hearing. Notwithstanding that the issue was a narrow one, the matter proceeded to hearing over two days. Though the mother was the respondent in the substantive matter, she was the applicant with respect to these proceedings. She relied on her amended response filed 1 May 2017 and affidavits filed by her on 22 May 2017 and 1 May 2017. In her case outline the mother indicated she relied on her affidavits of 5 September 2016 and 12 May 2016 when asked whether this was the case the mother’s solicitor indicated “primarily no…we effectively rely on in relation to this hearing the affidavit of 1 May 2017 and 22 May 2017.”
The father, who was the applicant in the substantive proceedings and the respondent with respect to this application, relied on an affidavit affirmed by him on 15 May 2017 and affidavits affirmed by the maternal grandparents Ms J Babic on 12 May 2017 and Mr L Babic on 15 May 2017. He opposed any order restraining him from bringing the children into contact with the maternal family but consented to the remainder of orders sought in the mother’s amended response. At the conclusion of the hearing I reserved my decision.
Allegations of family violence
The father’s Counsel objected to the mother’s reliance on evidence of family violence. The mother’s solicitor submitted that an important element of this case was “the entirely dysfunctional relationship between the mother and the father and also between the mother and her parents.” He indicated that the evidence of family violence as alleged by the mother should be admitted to give “context” to the nature of the relationship between the parties. Further he submitted that the father’s involvement of the maternal family was further evidence of the father’s controlling behaviour towards the mother.
In HML v The Queen; SB v The Queen; OAE v The Queen [2008] HCA 16 the High Court considered words and phrases such as “context”, “relationship evidence”, “relevance”, “propensity evidence” inter alia with respect to criminal conduct in relation to sexual offences. Chief Justice Gleeson commented as follows:
“Relevance and proof
[4] Evidence is information which, according to certain governing general principles and more detailed rules, will be received by a court for the purpose of deciding issues of fact that arise for its decision. The issues in civil cases are defined by the pleadings or other corresponding procedure. They are determined by the principles of substantive law that apply to the dispute, and by choices made by the parties within the boundaries set by those principles…....
[5] The basic principle of admissibility of evidence is that, unless there is some good reason for not receiving it, evidence that is relevant is admissible (see section 56 of the Evidence Act). Evidence that is not relevant is inadmissible; there is then no occasion to consider any more particular rule of exclusion. Reasons for not receiving relevant evidence may relate to its content, or to the form or circumstances in which it is tendered. Evidence is relevant if it could rationally affect, directly or indirectly, the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue in the proceedings (citation removed). That directs attention, in a criminal case, to the elements of the offence charged, the particulars of those elements, and any circumstances which bear upon the assessment of probability. The prosecution may set out to establish that an accused had a motive to commit an offence charged. Motive may rationally affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of one or more of the elements of an offence. Evidence that tends to establish motive, therefore, may rationally affect such assessment. If so, it is relevant…….
[6] Information may be relevant, and therefore potentially admissible as evidence, where it bears upon assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue by assisting in the evaluation of other evidence. It may explain a statement or an event that would otherwise appear curious or unlikely. It may cut down, or reinforce, the plausibility of something that a witness has said. It may provide a context helpful, or even necessary, for an understanding of a narrative. …….”
In HML (supra) Heydon J said at [423] “Evidence is relevant if it bears directly or indirectly on the probability of the existence of a fact in issue. The probability of the existence of a fact in issue is assessed according to common sense and the common course of events” and further at [491] “it is not possible to discuss the probative force of evidence without identifying the way in which it may be used and the issue to which it relates.”
The mother’s solicitor asserted that the mother has a belief, reasonably held, that the father is controlling and intimidating. This belief is based on her experience of the father during the relationship. She asserted he was controlling and intimidating and she was a victim of family violence perpetrated by him. The father denied he engaged in any conduct which constituted family violence. The mother alleged that the father’s involvement of the maternal family in the children’s lives in circumstances where the mother is in conflict with her family and had sought to limit their involvement was indicative of the father’s controlling behaviour. It was put through the mother’s solicitor that she perceived his motive for involving the mother’s family as a mechanism to undermine her and control her. His conduct in this regard impeded her ability to attempt to resolve issues she had outstanding with her family.
I determined that the history of the parties’ relationship was relevant to the issue raised by the mother. Having regard to the fact that these proceedings were child related proceedings pursuant to section 69ZM of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) I determined that the principles espoused in section 69ZN of the Act applied, that is:
“Principle 1
(3) The first principle is that the court is to consider the needs of the child concerned and the impact that the conduct of the proceedings may have on the child in determining the conduct of the proceedings.
Principle 2
(4) The second principle is that the court is to actively direct, control and manage the conduct of the proceedings.
Principle 3
(5) The third principle is that the proceedings are to be conducted in a way that will safeguard:
(a) the child concerned from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and
(b) the parties to the proceedings against family violence.
Principle 4
(6) The fourth principle is that the proceedings are, as far as possible, to be conducted in a way that will promote cooperative and child-focused parenting by the parties.
Principle 5
(7) The fifth principle is that the proceedings are to be conducted without undue delay and with as little formality, and legal technicality and form, as possible.”
In addition sections 69ZQ and 69ZR of the Act were taken into account.
Neither party contended that the evidence of family violence was a major issue in this case such that the Court was required to make findings. On the contrary, both legal representatives indicated that the Court was not required to make any findings about specific allegations of family violence. As Justice Coleman said in Maluka & Maluka [2012] FamCA 373 at [28] “as is not surprising, the High Court has made clear that serious findings such as sexual abuse and, by extension, domestic or family violence are not matters which can or should be lightly made.”
I determined to admit the evidence of the relationship including the evidence of family violence pursuant to section 69ZT of the Act. In my view the evidence was relevant to the issue whether the mother’s belief about the father was reasonable and rationally held and relevant to the central issue in this case whether an order should be made restraining the father from bringing the children into contact with the maternal grandparents. The evidence of family violence was admitted subject to a number of objections.
Conduct of the matter
The father’s Counsel did not cross examine the mother regarding her allegations that she was physically, verbally and sexually abused by the father. The mother’s solicitor briefly cross examined the father but did not raise the allegations of physical, verbal and sexual abuse as alleged by her but suggested his conduct towards her was controlling. The mother’s solicitor did not cross examine the maternal grandparents though each of them relied on affidavits filed in the proceedings and were available for cross examination.
Background
The parties commenced cohabitation in (omitted) 2007. There are two children on the relationship [X] born (omitted) 2010 (7 years (omitted)) and [Y] born (omitted) 2011 (5 years (omitted)). The parties dispute the date of separation with the father contending the parties separated in July 2012 and the mother nominating the date of final separation as January 2013.
On 3 March 2015 the mother obtained a Domestic Violence Order against the father. The father commenced proceedings on 30 November 2015. Final parenting orders were made on 8 September 2016. The children currently spend time with their father 5 nights a fortnight during term and for half of all school holidays. The remainder of the time is spent with their mother. The parties have equal shared parental responsibility.
Orders Sought
The mother is seeking an order that the father be restrained from bringing the children into contact by any means with members of the maternal family including the maternal grandparents Mr L Babic and Ms J Babic. The father opposed this order.
The father has without admission consented to a number of additional orders including orders restraining him from discussing matters relating to the mother and the parties’ financial matters with the children. The parties consent to an order being made for both parties to enrol in a post separation parenting course.
No application to spend time with the children was filed by the maternal grandparents.
Mother’s evidence
The mother deposed in her affidavit filed on 1 May 2017 that the parties’ relationship was initially long distance with the mother living in Sydney and the father living in (omitted). The parties moved to Canberra together in 2007 after both securing employment there.
Care of the children
[X] was born on (omitted) 2010. According to the mother his birth was very traumatic and due to complications with treatment during the birthing process he almost died and needed to be resuscitated. Some weeks after [X]'s birth he was hospitalised between Canberra and (omitted) Hospital for approximately 5 weeks. The mother alleged that during this time the father refused to engage with specialists to understand [X]'s condition.
The mother was the primary carer for [X] during the relationship. The mother deposed that after returning back from Sydney with [X] she began to recognise the father’s behaviour towards her as abusive and confronted him. She said he agreed there was a need for change and his behaviour improved for a period of time, but once she fell pregnant with [Y] the mother claimed that things got worse and they commenced having arguments again. They commenced counselling in this period and the father attended an anger management course.
[Y] was born on 23 August 2011. The mother deposed that the parties separated but reconciled just before [Y] was born. The mother continued as primary carer for the children. The father contends the parties separated in June 2012. [Y] was 10 months and [X] 2 and a half years old at that time. The father moved out of the property the parties shared in (omitted) in July 2012. The mother undertook all the caring responsibilities for the two children and attended to all their medical appointments following this period of separation. This was not disputed. The mother contends that the parties finally separated in January 2013.
Following separation the children spent time with their father in the mother’s home. By late 2013 the children were spending equal time with their parents. In January 2015 the children complained to their mother that “daddy tickles my penis” and the father’s time was suspended for about 6 weeks. The matter was investigated by the Office of Children, Youth and Family Support. Following the investigation the children recommenced spending each alternate weekend with their father.
The mother obtained a Domestic Violence Order on 3 March 2015. The father consented to an order for 24 months on a without admissions basis. On 8 September 2016 Orders were made on a final basis in relation to the children. The parties were able to come to an agreement. The mother said that notwithstanding this the father continues to be controlling of her.
Family Violence
The mother complained that throughout the relationship she was the victim of family violence in various forms including:
(a) Financial abuse in the form of preventing the mother from having or keeping a job, controlling the finances, ensuring that the mother be required to ask for money by only giving her “pocket money”, not advising the mother of the joint financial situation, insulting the mother about her inferior financial contribution to the relationship, making life decisions (regarding job changes and investments) without consulting the mother, telling the children “that mummy is snatching all our money”, hiding significant assets from the mother and refusing to separate due to the parties’ finances. The father denied these allegations.
(b) Physical abuse in the form of pinning the mother to the bed for half an hour while pregnant and breastfeeding [X], throwing objects at the mother’s body and face, standing over the mother and yelling, shoulder barging the mother, chasing the mother and yelling at her, trying to catch the mother to make physical contact, threatening the mother with “I need to teach you a lesson”, standing in the doorway to the room where the mother was and refusing to move. The father denied these allegations but complains that the mother was physically abusive towards him throwing objects and pushing him.
(c) Sexual abuse in the form of waking to find the father “raping” her, coercing the mother, “guilt tripping” her, manipulating her, lying and pressuring the mother to do acts which she did not want to do and humiliating her through words about her body and sexuality, collecting and watching violent and explicit pornographic material, sexualising the births of the children and breastfeeding them, verbally comparing the mother sexually to her friends and peers, using sex in the relationship to dominate and control. The father denied these allegations.
(d) Verbal abuse in the form of “years of hourly put downs”, negative comments, irrational complaints and personal insults, eroding the mother’s self-confidence through years of mind games, cruel comments, and insults towards her, for example, telling her no one would believe her and that her own family did not believe her, belittling the mother by saying that, “no one will want you”, calling the mother insulting names such as “bitch”, “slut”, “cunt”, and “dickhead”, “fucking shit mum” and “dole-bludger”. The father denied these allegations.
(e) Mental abuse in the form of threatening to commit suicide if the mother did not give the relationship another chance, threatening not to see the children again, not allowing the mother to see the children again, engaging in a social smear campaign, the father surrounding himself with the mother’s family, who he described “spent months encouraging me to hurt you in every possible way”, seeking to utilise the mother’s family as enablers or active participants in the abuse of the mother. The father denied these allegations.
The mother said in her affidavit filed 1 May 2017 that after final separation the father’s behaviour towards her got worse and he would stalk, threaten and intimidate the mother. She alleged:
(a) At times the father would follow her in his car, at times he would bang on her front door. When the parties made contact the father would yell at the mother and at other times break into her home and once inside follow the mother around yelling and physically standing over her or trying to get close to her. He would turn up outside her home and yell “‘[Ms Babic], [Ms Babic]! Open the door!’ over and over, and would try to push the door open. When the door was deadlocked this didn't work. Other times, when the key chain lock was on, he would quietly open the door with his key and open the key chain, which the father had installed loose enough to reach a hand through and open”. The father denied these allegations.
(b) The father would turn up at the house and surprise the mother and the children and start berating her by yelling about “the state of the garden” and the costs of separation. She said she would repeatedly ask him to leave and often tell him she would call the police unless he left the house. The mother alleged that several times the father broke into her home while the children and she slept and would wake them up by yelling. The father denied these allegations. He agreed however there were many verbal arguments between them which escalated post separation.
(c) According to the mother the father threatened to report the mother to external authorities like the Child Support Agency. He undertook shooting activities while subject to a Domestic Violence Order and told the children it was his, “target practice”.
The mother alleged that the father’s behaviour often occurred in front of the children and she observed the children to be visibly upset. She complained that he would tell the children untrue things about the mother each time they were in his care, he would repeatedly ask the children questions about the mother and refuse to allow the children to see or speak to the mother when upset or missing her telling the children “Mummy doesn't want to talk to you or see you.” The mother complained that the father denied [X] had allergies or intolerances and would feed him food which caused him eczema.
The mother alleged that the father involved the children in the dispute by questioning them about the mother’s routine, her personal life and finances. She said that the children told her “daddy says that you are snatching all his money” and that “mum is stealing our money” and that mum was “mean” and “Daddy says you don’t have a real job” and “daddy says mummy doesn’t work. But it’s not true. You do work.” According to the mother the children complained to her that their father was constantly questioning them about their mother. He attempted to find out through the children the mother’s address, the details of her car and where she spent her time. The mother alleged that the children have reported “daddy says he should still be living here. Daddy says it is his house and [Mr S] is mean.” The father agreed that he had involved the children and discussed matters concerning the mother with them however he said he had ceased questioning the children at the time of the interviews with the Family Consultant.
The mother complained that the father sent her frequent messages that were unnecessary, sent messages through the children, emailed her, and approached her in person at changeover.
I make no specific findings regarding the above allegations in circumstances where the parties legal representatives elected not to cross examine the witnesses however I am satisfied that physical, verbal and emotional abuse was a feature of the parties relationship with this conduct escalating towards separation and immediately after separation. I note that the father engaged in anger management counselling and the mother sought counselling regarding being a victim of domestic violence. I find that the mother perceived the father as abusive and controlling and her perception was based on her experience throughout the relationship. This is discussed further in my judgment.
Father’s involvement of the maternal family
The mother complained that the father’s involvement of her parents is another mechanism where he exerts control over her. She deposed in her affidavit “I feel that this is another way of [Mr Takala] controlling me. I am also worried that [Mr Takala] uses my family as a means of abusing me. I do not wish for my parents to be restrained in spending time with the children, but I would like to be the person who decides when and how my family spend time with the children.”
According to the mother prior to separation both parties attended counselling with a counsellor who had a background in domestic violence. The mother alleges that the father involved her parents in the parties’ separation as another form of controlling and manipulating her. She deposed that prior to final separation the father came to her and was apologetic and wanted to give things a go one last time saying words to the effect of “I admire your strength, let's have one last try at the relationship for the sake of baby [Y] and we will leave our families out of it.” The mother agreed and for a month the parties rarely had extended family visits. The mother indicated that this period of time was peaceful so the parties agreed to extend the time. However, she said eventually the father became irritable, angry and frustrated with baby [Y] as he became more alert and interactive and they did not reconcile.
The father admitted involving the mother’s family without consulting her. Prior to the parties separating he invited the maternal grandparents to the parties’ home without advising the mother. She became distressed over this and told him he had betrayed her. Both parties agree that after this time the mother’s relationship with her parents changed. Previously the mother, [X] and the maternal grandmother had spent time together less so the maternal grandfather.
The father alleged the mother deliberately isolated herself from members of her family. The mother denied this. She deposed that she was suffering from depression and the father was angry about the cost of counselling the parties were engaging with. According to the mother that father told her “there is no such thing as depression” and she needed to “toughen up.” The mother indicated that since cutting ties with her family she has not experienced any depression and is currently living a happy, positive life, attending the gym, meeting with friends and is involved in yoga, art, music and work.
The mother indicated that she was concerned that the father continued to involve the maternal grandmother in relation to [X]. The child has specific difficulties according to the mother and experienced a very traumatic birth where he needed resuscitation. She raised a concern that the father was seeking an opinion from the maternal grandmother in circumstances where the mother says “there is a long history of her interference with [X] and the father manipulating and involving her in damaging ‘power struggles’ that ultimately put [X]’s health at great risk.”
In her affidavit of 22 May 2017 the mother asserted that “the entirety of my relationship with the father I now realise was based on him having control over me.” She indicated that during the relationship the father “has gone out of his way to isolate and estrange myself from anyone who was close to me.” The mother said she formed the view that the father “has become so fixated on my relationship with my parents that he tries to ensure that the children see my parents more than his own parents, purely to have that level of control over my life.” In her view the father has done “indefinite damage to myself and my relationship with my parents and also impacted upon the children’s relationship with family members.” The mother said that it was her belief that the father was facilitating the relationship between the children and the maternal grandparents as a means of controlling her in an attempt to undermine and destabilise her.
The mother’s relationship with her parents
The mother deposed in her affidavit that she would often ring or visit her parents during the relationship and “cry about” the father’s behaviour towards her. On one occasion she requested to stay with her parents with [X] when pregnant with [Y]. She alleged both her parents refused to allow her to stay and her father told her “I am your father and you will do as I say.” Her father denied he made that comment. Both maternal grandparents denied they refused to allow the mother to stay with them.
The mother alleged that she found her parents’ behaviour upsetting and confronting. She deposed in her affidavit that since the birth of [X] she tried to establish healthy boundaries but gradually reduced contact with her parents when this failed. She indicated that she finds it extremely distressing that her parents have supported the father although being aware of her allegations of family violence against him. She said she is disappointed that they do not support her.
The mother said:
“Over the years I have attempted to set boundaries for my parents, however this has not proved useful and I found that for now the only way I can deal with their behaviour is to not spend time with them. I do not see my parents or my siblings at the moment. I do hope that in the future I will be able to restore those relationships……Since separation I have found my parents reactions and support of me concerning. Despite being aware of the family violence which has occurred between [Mr Takala] and I, I feel that they continue to support him through the separation process.”
She said she has engaged in counselling in order to deal with her relationship with her parents. Through this counselling she said that she recognised that her parent's behaviour, particularly her mother's behaviour, was strange. For example, her mother would become angry at her when she was pregnant or treat her newborn child as her own. According to the mother, the maternal grandmother spoke to her about lactating herself for the benefit of the children. Further the mother complained that the maternal grandmother continually undermined the mother’s concerns with regard to the children’s health. The maternal grandmother denied she made any reference to “lactating herself” and said the allegation was absurd and “impossible”.
With respect to the mother’s allegation that she was a victim of family violence at the hands of the father, she deposed that eventually her mother apologised to her and contacted her saying words to the effect of “I am so sorry you went through domestic violence. I can see what you were going through. I am worried about you, can I come there to help?” She arranged for her mother to come to the house to see her and the boys. She said this visit was pleasant. On this occasion her mother invited her to join other family members at (omitted) beach. The mother said she felt a level of apprehension but decided that she would go.
According to the mother the maternal grandmother has hepatitis and due to this the mother did not feel comfortable with the grandmother sharing drinks or straws with the children. She had previously told her mother this, but on the second day at the beach at (omitted) she observed her mother pass a milkshake she had been drinking to [X] for him to have a sip. She asked her mother to stop and only minutes later she again observed her mother sharing her drink with [X]. She was very upset by this and raised this issue with her mother. Her mother stated that she didn't think she had done anything wrong and that she was confused why the mother had reacted in the way she did. As a result the mother and children left early and returned to Canberra. The mother then decided to have some “time out” from her family. She said she felt at a loss and needed to focus on the children and their wellbeing.
The mother said that after separation her situation and involvement with her extended family and friends only worsened. She was very upset to discover that mutual friends and her siblings had become involved and she felt that her privacy had been violated. The mother alleged that the maternal grandparents and her siblings have accused her of “breaking up the family.” On one occasion she was receiving multiple phone calls from numerous family members all saying similar words to the effect of “your mother is heartbroken, she doesn't know what she has done wrong and she is in hospital with chest pains”.
Both the maternal grandparents alleged in their affidavits that the mother has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and her conduct with respect to them is irrational. The mother denied she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. She said she did suffer from antenatal depression, which in her view was related to the father’s emotional abuse of her. She sought treatment for this and managed well.
In January 2017 the mother spoke to her parents about attending family counselling. In recent weeks her father has agreed to attend family counselling and she sees this as a positive step in their relationship. The mother indicated that in order to move forward she would be willing in the future to attend family therapy with her parents so that they could attempt to resolve the damage caused. She wanted to be able to have the choice regarding what time the children spend with her parents moving forward. She indicated that without a restraint on the father he is likely “to continue to play games and manipulate circumstances” and she did not want the children to be involved in any extended family “dysfunction and drama.” She said she did not want the children to be exposed to any further family violence, in any form.
She indicated she did not wish for the children to spend time with her parents and her family, until she feels comfortable with it. She remained concerned that if the children do spend time with her family, her family will actively attempt to hurt the children emotionally and psychologically by denigrating the mother and telling them untrue stories. She is concerned that the father is part of that process.
Regarding the paternal family the mother deposed that she has never had opposition to the father’s involvement with his own family however the paternal grandmother had thrown things at her, yelled at her and maliciously gossiped about her. She said she is concerned that an accepted practice in the paternal household is to “beat the children, scream at them and wash their mouths out with soap.”
Cross examination of the mother
The mother confirmed in cross examination that she did not believe the father was genuine in wanting the children to spend time with her parents. She viewed his conduct as “a negative form of control.” She said she took out a Domestic Violence Order which limited the way he could contact her. His only means of contacting her now was through the children.
She did not believe the children received a benefit from spending time with her parents. She said when they return they ask her a lot of questions and are upset and withdrawn. She believed that the father was using the children “in a broader, very dysfunctional dynamic.” She said she did not see any benefit to the children “independently” of the father controlling how much time they spent with her parents. She said she did not think that “they’re hurting or anything but the overall situation is damaging.”
She said the children “love that kind of attention” (provided by extended family members) but in her view the children were noticing things were wrong on quite a few levels ([X] in particular). She said “I would like to have a more functional relationship with my parents moving forward and it’s simply not possible the way things are at the moment.” She said the children enjoy the attention and being lavished and showered with things. She said “I’m thinking about their life and their development as they grow up.”
In response to the father’s description of the children enjoying their time with him and the maternal grandparents the mother said they return to her with questions and are confused. She said she has been told “daddy says grandma and grandpa just want to love us but that you’re mean mummy. Why are you mean?”
It was suggested to the mother that [X] had told the report writer that his father had stopped saying mean things about his mother but his mother continues to say mean things and question the children when they return from their father. The mother denied she did this. The mother was adamant the children continue to report to her things the father has said. She said “they are being used.”
The mother said in her view “the family dysfunction was going to poison the children’s life.” She said she did not know if the children were enjoying spending time with her parents. She accepted that the children say they are enjoying their time. She said she was unaware how often the children spend with her parents.
The mother did not accept that if the children were enjoying the time with her parents it did not matter whether the father was facilitating this time for an ulterior motive (to hurt her or undermine her). She said in response “this was the cycle we broke..... it was what was happening when I was living with the father when he was poisoning my relationship with everyone around me, when he was isolating me from everyone around me. He’s doing that …but doing it to the children.”
She said “he’s poisoning their relationship with me by saying ‘see, mummy’s the problem here. Grandma’s nice… and he’s isolating me.” The mother commented to the father’s Counsel that she felt undermined by the litigation process. She said “(the father) took me to Court with these long affidavits bringing my family into it, trying to shame me in every possible way. I couldn’t afford a lawyer. ….it was just an attempt to kind of control but just negatively kind of impact my life when it was about one day, spending one extra day with the boys.” She indicated in her view she had attempted to protect the father and tried to move forward but she had been dragged through the adversarial process and said what do you expect me to do “it’s either raise my children or get lost in this madness.”
The mother was cross examined about offering counselling with her parents in April 2017. It was suggested to her in reply to her father’s inquiry regarding the counselling agency that she sent him 14 text messages attacking her father. She agreed she had sent the text messages, she said she was suspicious and thought her privacy may be violated. She thought he was maintaining communication logs to be used in evidence against her.
The mother agreed she had sent an email to a number of family members and family friends which contained a personal attack on her parents. She said she wanted to set the record straight “after years of pressure, social abuse and situational abuse mainly from her mother but also her father saying that she didn’t know what she had done wrong and cutting me off from my own support networks and I did it once…to say this is what really is going on.” When asked why she sent the email about her parents she said “I had people calling me…there was a smear campaign for years on behalf of my mother people exerting pressure on me, my brother yelling at me, my grandmother everyone being involved when I could have just had friendships separate from all this with my family and friends. They were all involved.” She said it started in 2011 when she tried to leave the relationship and the father involved her parents to try and make her stay. She said they “kind of reconciled.” She said she tried to let it go once [Y] was born however inappropriate things happened when she tried to set boundaries which were disrespected and over about two years she gradually reduced contact. She said she found a better and more peaceful life without these people in their lives and “as they lost control they involved other people.”
It was established in cross examination that the mother had difficulty with the father’s parents though she indicated it was none of her business if the children spent time with them. She said she was concerned about the paternal grandmother “grilling my sons for private information.” She interpreted the father’s involvement of his parents as provocation by the father that he was passing constant messages through the children and involving other people in what she described as “vexatious court action.”
Regarding the allegations that the children may have been sexually abused, she said she was confident that the allegations were thoroughly investigated and accepts that no further action was taken.
The report writer questioned the mother about whether a psychiatrist had diagnosed her with bipolar disorder. She denied the doctor she saw was a psychiatrist. She said she was a friend of her mother. She described the doctor as a sex therapist who gave her a medical termination of a pregnancy. She said she was provided with anti-psychotic medication and anti-depressants which affected her mental health. She said she was advised by a doctor she consulted that she did not have bipolar disorder. The father’s Counsel was asked to explain to the Court why cross examination of the mother regarding her having a “bipolar disorder” as alleged by her parents was relevant given that the parties had agreed for the mother to be primary carer for the children. The father’s Counsel indicated that it was not suggested that the mother had a mental illness rendering her from being unable to be the primary carer of the boys. He indicated that “the mother’s paranoid beliefs about the father may be a mental illness.”
There was no evidence before the Court to suggest that the mother suffered from any mental illness. Any previous diagnosis of the mother (if it was a diagnosis) had been in the context of the mother suffering an extremely traumatic incident many years previously which apparently ended in a termination of a pregnancy. It was of concern that this issue was raised in an attempt to impugn the mother in circumstances where there was no evidence that she was suffering from any mental illness. In my view this reflected extremely poorly against the father and maternal grandparents and informed my decision regarding their attitude towards the mother.
The mother was asked about the benefits to the children in having a relationship with the father and the maternal family. She said the children have a strong bond with their father and look forward to going to their dad’s house. She could not articulate any benefit in the children spending time with her parents. She said “they were confused by the whole situation…as they get older this kind of dynamic that [Mr Takala] is still trying to perpetuate where I’m the scapegoat and everyone just heaps their kind of issues on me, they see themselves as half me and that’s going to hurt them…..I would love to move forward but just with a healthier dynamic and just some basic boundaries where I’m an adult and respected as their mum….they had said ‘mummy is to blame. They’re all lovely people and mummy is the odd one out’ and they internalise that and they feel shame about that.” The father’s Counsel acknowledged on behalf of the father that he was aware the mother’s relationship with her parents was “bad.” Having seen the mother give evidence I reached the conclusion that the mother had an “absolutely shocking relationship with both her parents.” According to the father the mother described her relationship with her parents as “toxic.” I am inclined to this view.
The mother indicated to the Court that not only did the father’s involvement of her parents undermine and destabilise her, “[Mr Takala] has involved them (her parents) in preventing me from kind of leaving the relationship” she had a very difficult relationship with her parents apart from the father’s involvement, with her parents (in her view) disrespecting her as the mother of the children and not accepting the boundaries she set with respect to the children.
The mother said she did not accept the conclusions of the Family Consultant. She said:
“the whole thing is poisonous…the boys are very young and they didn’t know – my father had never met [Y]. [Mr Takala] started bringing the children around the grandparents at the time when he was coming over and yelling at me about child support, and I didn’t know this. He had a $15,000 child support debt. And this is when he got really aggressive towards me in front of the children. All his messages through the children just got horrible….He was very intimidating and that is when he decided to escalate control and involve my parents….he has involved all these people and …overall children pick up on that, if it’s done this way it will hurt them… I would like the liberty to sit down with my parents and heal something but I can’t do that the more [Mr Takala] is involved, he has inserted himself into more and more family relationships not just my parents, this will affect the children because they will be asking why, why….”
She disagreed with the Family Consultant’s assessment that the children will suffer grief and loss should they discontinue their relationship with the maternal grandparents. She said “I would just really like a more healthy kind of framework to manage this relationship with the help of family therapy. I’m not suggesting cutting them off.” She said she did not have a problem with the children seeing their grandparents “per se.” She said she saw her parents being “under (the father’s) control”, “they feel helpless and they feel like this is their only option….they’re just so under his influence and they haven’t spoken to me in years and there’s no truth,”
The mother indicated in her view the relationship with her parents broke down when she said “All you have to do is please just acknowledge this (domestic violence) happened. You don’t even have to apologise... and this was the first time I ever stood up to them and didn’t take the blame.” In the mother’s view her parents actively tried to stop the mother leaving a relationship in which she had been the victim of domestic violence “because they kind of feel entitled enough and they feel that they are the experts on what was happening behind closed doors and they’re not.” She said her parents denial of the domestic violence “hurts me and the boys” and “perpetuates abuse...it’s social violence.”
She said she was aware that her parents believe she is being controlling, unreasonable and unfair. The mother indicated that she had outstanding issues with her mother that had not been addressed.
Father’s evidence
The father denied each and every allegation of physical, sexual and emotional abuse raised by the mother against him. He accepted that verbal arguments were a feature of the relationship and that the parties’ conflict escalated leading up to and after separation.
In his affidavit filed on 15 May 2017 the father said that since separation he has ensured that the children continue to have time with their maternal family including the maternal grandparents. He said he was of the view that Mr J Babic and Ms J Babic and their partners were “genuinely nice, decent people” and the children have a more positive experience with these people in their lives.
As to the history of their relationship, he said in his opinion the mother was having difficulty sleeping in 2011 and she would scream and yell at him for small things on his arrival home from work. He said during this period no one came to visit. Before May 2011 he said he contacted the maternal grandparents and advised them that the mother was having difficulty coping. They visited the home on a weekend. The mother was surprised to see them saying “What are you doing here?” They came in and sat at the dining table. The father deposed that Mr L Babic went into the garden with the father while Ms J Babic spoke to the mother. He heard the mother yell out “What are you two talking about? I don't think this is appropriate.” She then asked both Ms J Babic and Mr L Babic to leave. The father said she told him “Do not involve yourself in my family ….You have betrayed me involving my parents” The father said he told her “We are all trying to help you.”
The father indicated that prior to [Y]’ birth the parties had seen the maternal grandparents on about 4 or 5 occasions and had spent time with the maternal grandmother and her partner on holiday in 2009. The maternal grandparents had attended [X]’s first birthday and been involved in his care while they were visiting. The mother spent time with her family with [X] in Sydney and (omitted) prior to [Y]’ birth. The paternal grandfather was less involved with the parties according to the father.
The father contends that when [Y] was born the mother said she did not want visitors. He said he asked her “Can we have my mum or your mum for a week to help out”. The father says the mother refused. The mother disagreed that she refused. She said that as parents, they had discussed the involvement of the extended families and decided to have minimal input with them so they could focus on the children, the family and establishing a routine. The mother alleged that the father said to her in about 2012 “I don’t want anything to do with my family or yours anymore. Let’s do this with just our family.”
The father said that between [Y] being born and separation the maternal grandfather had no involvement with the children while the maternal grandmother saw the children once or twice during this period. According to the father the mother told him “My parents are toxic.” He said that at Easter 2012 the mother took both children to (omitted) and they spent time with the maternal grandmother and her partner. The mother reportedly told the father that her mother bought the children an ice cream and a milkshake and she said “They are trying to take over.” The father said this was the last occasion the mother spent time with the maternal grandmother for a long time. He indicated that the maternal grandfather did not see [Y] until he was about 2 and a half years of age. In early 2014 the maternal grandfather called the father and said “I have birthday and Christmas presents and cards for the children. I sent them to their mother. They were returned to sender .....Could I drop them off at your place?” The children were in their father’s care that week. The maternal grandfather delivered the gifts and saw the children. He said “there were bags of presents the children had not received.”
The father deposed in his affidavit that he contacted the maternal grandparents and said “if you are ever in Canberra you are welcome to see the children if they are with me.” He said that the maternal grandfather said he would make more of an effort to visit.
The father said that in about 2014 the maternal grandparents on separate occasions made regular visits to the children. They came on at least 5-6 occasions in each year from 2014. Initially they came to the father’s home and played with the children. After about a year about mid to late 2015 they took the children on outings to the zoo, (omitted), (omitted) and the (omitted) museum, and the circus without the father being present.
The father said that in about late 2014 he received a text from the mother to the effect that “If you involve my parents with the children you will hear from my lawyer.” He said on one occasion he took [X] and [Y] to (omitted) to visit the maternal grandmother. The maternal grandfather came over and they all had dinner together including their partners. When he returned he received another message from the mother to the effect “Don't you ever dare take the children to my parents or I will call the police.” He did not respond. The mother denied she threatened the father with either a lawyer or the police. She agreed that she raised her concern with the father about his conduct and how confusing this was likely to be for the children.
The father said in his affidavit that he did not tell the children until the evening or morning before the maternal grandparents arrived that they will be visiting. He said he was concerned that the mother would withhold the children. There was no evidence before the Court that the mother had knowingly withheld the children from the father on any occasion after becoming aware they were to spend time with their maternal grandparents.
The father said he observed that the children were excited to see their grandparents and interacted well with them. The children refer to their grandparents as Grandpa [Mr L Babic] and Grandma [Ms J Babic]. The children spend regular time with his parents who live in (omitted) seeing their paternal grandparents about three times a year.
The Domestic Violence Order taken out against the father expired on 3 March 2017. He denied acting in a controlling manner towards the mother and indicated he only sends text messages regarding the children when they are late to changeovers. He indicated that the mother has sent unnecessary messages to him particularly when the children were staying with his parents.
He denied following the mother. He said he had no knowledge of the mother’s residential address. He indicated that he sent emails to the mother in regard to the children's matters and she does not reply. He said that the mother has in the past responded to simple queries about sporting matters and responded to the effect in 1 March 2016 “Shove your (omitted), your (omitted0 , your constant emails and your abusive control issues where the sun don't shine matey.”
The father deposed in his affidavit that on 29th December 2016 he received a request from the mother to speak with the boys. He told her they were visiting their cousins and forwarded his mother's telephone number. He advised his mother that the mother would call to speak with the boys. The mother later sent him a text saying “She is not answering, I can tell something is not right, you had better check up on that.” He said he received a further text “She had better stop grilling my sons for private information too” and a further text “How is your father? Still a mason? He had better stay away from those children.” The father said he responded “Take up any concerns you have with my lawyer at your expense, I am not engaging with any further regarding the children while they are in my care.” She said “No expense to me mate, I will do that thanks.” He indicated that his mother texted him 50 minutes later saying “a call came up with a private number while I was outside watering the garden and the children were already asleep. I could not answer back.” The father told her not to stress about it. In response to this allegation the mother indicated she had concerns regarding the paternal grandfather and the father’s brother Mr P.
The father indicated that in his view if he did not arrange contact for the children with their grandparents, they would be denied a relationship with them. In his opinion the children are strongly bonded to both sets of grandparents and excited to see them and spend time with them.
He indicated that the maternal grandfather attended Grandparents Day in October 2016. The father deposed that Mr L Babic said “I will come but don't tell [X] in case”. He attended with his partner Ms B. According to the father the children showed Grandpa [Mr L Babic] and Ms B around the school. The maternal grandparents said they had a terrific time.
The father deposed that at changeover on Friday 6 January 2017 the mother said “I had a dream about the boys drowning ...Don't let them near water.” He said that the children have regular swimming lessons which the maternal grandfather pays for. He said he dropped off the children on the Saturday being [X]'s birthday on 7 January and stayed at the maternal grandfather’s 300 acre property the first night. He left the children with the maternal grandfather and his partner from 7 January until 12 January. He said “[Mr L Babic] asked me if I could arrange some one on one private swimming lessons for the boys and I said Yes that's a great idea they would love that. They had private swimming lessons for three days in a row at (omitted) pool on 9 January 2017 to 11 January 2017 for each day. On Thursday 12 January 2017 they all had a swim together including Grandpa [Mr L Babic].” The mother said she had spoken to both the father and maternal grandfather about her dream and her concerns and requested the children not be taken near water. When she discovered through the children they had gone swimming she became upset.
The father deposed in his affidavit that in his view the children’s interaction with their grandparents and family appears to be a positive part of their life and one the father wished to continue. He said he hoped the Babic family could resolve their differences in the future, “I have seen no evidence of such traits from the Babic grandparents and they have my full trust and confidence when the children are in their care.” The mother indicated she did not accept that the father was genuine in asserting that he hoped the family could resolve its issues. She contends that he has involved the mother’s parents as a way of exerting control over her.
In his view the children were at an important age to continue to learn and grow through meaningful relationships with important people in their family. The mother indicated she disagreed and said in her view the father has done “indefinite damage” to her and her relationship with her parents and also with respect to the impact upon the children’s relationship with family members.
Cross examination of the father
The father denied he had been controlling towards the mother. He agreed he inappropriately misused alcohol in particular in the three months leading up to separation he said his alcohol intake increased substantially. The father proposed the mother undertake two courses, one post separation parenting course for which he nominated the particular course he wanted her to undertake. He denied he chose the course for her as a further means of control he said “it was just a recommendation.” Further he requested the mother undertake a course to deal with her emotions. The mother’s solicitor suggested to the father that his conduct in this regard was “a continuation of the complaint she makes about you that you tell her what’s best for her. You just want to control what she does.” He disagreed.
The father agreed that the maternal grandparents were funding the whole of the current proceedings and they provided financial assistance to the father for the boys for example they pay for swimming lessons.
Assessment of the parties evidence
Both parties agree that a feature of their relationship was verbal abuse with verbal arguments escalating post separation. It is common ground that both had joined in denigrating the other in the presence of the children. According to the father’s account to the Family Consultant, he has now stopped this conduct. I accept that in circumstances where proceedings are on foot the father has ceased this conduct. I find however that the father has a very poor opinion of the mother. His past comments to the children reflect his opinion of her. Through his Counsel he alleged that she was “paranoid.” I am concerned about the father’s attitude towards the mother. This view of the mother appears to be inconsistent with his agreement that she should continue to be the primary carer for the children.
The mother alleged that the father was physically violent towards her, the father alleged the mother threw things and pushed him but not frequently. I am satisfied that the father was aggressive towards the mother “shoving her” as she reported to the maternal grandmother and throwing a bottle towards her during an incident as he admitted. It is likely there were other incidents of physical violence towards the mother. I cannot exclude that the mother did not retaliate occasionally. I accept that the father found it difficult to control his anger and undertook counselling with respect to preventing violence and managing anger. I find that the father consumed alcohol to excess during the last part of the relationship and immediately following separation and he hid this from the mother. I find that the conflict between the parties escalated after separation. Overall I accept that the parties had a turbulent and tempestuous relationship involving verbal and physical abuse and the children were exposed to that conflict. I am unable to make any specific findings however regarding the allegations of family violence.
I found the mother to be a credible witness. I accept that she has a belief reasonably held that the father is controlling which is based on her experience of the father during the relationship and post separation. I reject the assertion that the mother is any way delusional in her belief (inferred by the father). I accept that her belief is rationally based. I find that the parents’ relationship was highly conflictual. They have managed to co-operate in a business - like manner in reaching an agreement for the benefit of the children regarding parenting arrangements. However they have little respect for each other as individuals and parents and remain highly suspicious and mistrustful of each other.
The father acknowledged that the mother’s relationship with her parents is extremely poor at present. The mother is concerned as to why the father seeks to be involved with her family in the circumstances.
I find that the mother is currently alienated from her parents. This has not always been the case. She relied on her parents for support previously and they were engaged with the family when [X] was born until prior to [Y]’ birth. Difficulties arose after the father requested the mother’s parents to intervene without notice to the mother. I accept that the mother believes that whilst the father is facilitating the children’s relationship with her parents she will be unable to address issues she has with her parents. In particular I find that she believes that her family have taken sides against her and combined to support the father, a person the mother believes abused her during the relationship.
Maternal grandfather
The maternal grandfather filed an affidavit in support of the father. He deposed to being close to the mother while she was growing up and during early adulthood. He indicated that she phoned him for advice frequently when faced with big decisions, including challenges with colleagues when starting a new job. He said in her early 20's, she started behaving erratically and was “diagnosed with Bipolar by Dr S, Psychiatrist.” He said she started on medication. He said in hindsight, she was slowly becoming “less balanced and rational.” He said they continued to stay close, speaking often, including when the mother lived in (country omitted) for a year while taking a year off university. However, he said very gradually:
“it became more difficult in conversation to disagree with her. If you did, she would become very aggressive. Gradually over time, I would concentrate on listening and offering support when in conversation with her. If she said something that I thought was unbalanced, I decided it was not worth the aggression to try to put a counter view. I thought it was better to keep the peace. Unfortunately this trend towards a less balanced view kept getting stronger, and it worried me.”
He said there is some history of Bipolar on his side of the family, with his brother, cousin and uncle being sufferers. There is history of depression and schizophrenia (the mother’s brother and uncle) on the maternal side. The mother in her response affidavit indicated that she strongly disagreed with these statements made by her father and denied she had bipolar disorder.
The maternal grandfather alleged that when the mother started having problems in the relationship, she rang him often, and he was concerned. He said he offered whatever insight and support he could from his own experience. He alleged that she did not talk about physical violence but verbal exchanges. He said he noticed that, as the months and years passed, “she was becoming more and more agitated, less balanced and less able to cope with anyone disagreeing with her.” He said “We described it as ‘walking on eggshells’ around her.” The mother in response to these comments said that her father on one occasion following a conversation told her “that is abuse, stay strong, lie low, I will be there on the weekend.” She said that during the time following [X]’s birth she was becoming more stressed and anxious due to domestic violence she was subjected to but she was trying to focus on caring for a newborn baby and keeping the peace in a hostile environment.
The maternal grandfather said that when [X] was born there was concern due to the difficult delivery and [X] had to stay under observation in the baby intensive ward for some days. He said he stayed in Canberra to support the family at the time, and arranged for his daughter Ms H to come and visit. The mother said that she had asked if Ms H could hold off visiting until she returned home with the baby however her request was ignored.
The maternal grandfather claimed that the mother banned him, the maternal grandmother and the father from (omitted) hospital where [X] had been placed due to serious medical issues. The mother denied anyone was banned and indicated she was grateful for any support as it was an extremely stressful time for her as she nearly lost the baby. She indicated that she is “saddened her father had scrutinised her behaviour at that time.”
The maternal grandfather confirmed that he attended [X]’s first birthday in Canberra. He said there were occasions where he was concerned for the mother for example when she visited the maternal grandfather in Dubbo with [X] the mother “screamed at me when I took him in my pool saying ‘You are damaging his skin and making him cold’. She immediately took him from the house.” The mother said “I never screamed at my father.” She said on many occasions she has tried to have pleasant visits however she struggles to be able to get her father to understand her point of view as to how she wishes to raise her children.
The maternal grandfather said that when the mother was pregnant with [Y] on one evening the mother phoned him from a party, and began speaking in a threatening tone. He said “for the first time I stood up to her, and this unleashed a torrent of anger towards me.” She started talking about problems she was having with the father and then said something critical of him. He disagreed with her, she then yelled at him and he hung up the phone. He said he did not recall ever using the words “I am your father you will do what I say” or any request from her to come and stay with him.
The mother denied she yelled at her father. She said her father regularly accused her of feeling things that she wasn’t feeling. She agrees that at times she was emotionally upset, hurt and confused but said their conversations would go round in circles. She said she was the one who attempted to stand up when challenged by her father.
The maternal grandfather said that one day the father rang him out of the blue and spoke about his concerns about the mother’s behaviour. He spoke to Ms J Babic, Mr T and Ms B. We decided to come to Canberra together to intervene unannounced. He said “We were sure if we told [Ms Babic] we were coming she would have stopped us.” When they visited the mother in Canberra at her home at (omitted) on 27 March, 2011 she became “instantly very aggressive.” He said “she ordered me out of the house and I stayed outside.” She continued to speak with the maternal grandmother inside for about 45 minutes. He said “It was an awkward situation, I made nervous small talk with Matthew. Ms J Babic finished talking to [Ms Babic]. She came outside. Ms J Babic said ‘[Ms Babic] does not want to talk to you’ We left late morning.” He said that the mother refused to have contact with me “for the next 5 years.” He said “I never had the chance to say any of my concern for her.” The mother said that this incident led to her decision to take a break from her family. She had confided in her family regarding concerns she had about the father and their relationship. She formed the view that her parents had shown an inability to recognise the fact that the father was ill treating her and involving the children. She indicated that her father still does not acknowledge the violence she was subjected to. She believed her father was actively taking the father’s side against her and accepted the father’s account of the relationship rather than her account. She believes she is trying to take a stand against the years of domestic violence she suffered at the hands of the father. In her view the father is using her family as a “weapon” against her.
The maternal grandfather acknowledged that in the past the mother had frequently phoned him for support regarding her relationship with the father and he was “very concerned about that.” He said he was worried about the mother’s mental health and general wellbeing. He said “the step to intervene was significant and not done lightly. I have never taken sides against her in the conflict between her and [Mr Takala].”
The maternal grandfather claimed after this incident he was completely cut off and prevented from having any time with [X] or [Y] as a grandparent. Letters and presents were returned unopened. He said later in 2011 the mother sent him a long letter in which she outlined how he had failed her as a father. The mother said that after this incident she decided to “give herself a break” as she needed to leave a “damaging and dangerous relationship” and she wanted to protect herself and the children from any further abuse, return to work and “put a shelter over her head.”
The maternal grandfather deposed to many family and friends being aware of the situation through an email sent by the mother in April 2016. It appears that many relatives have become involved in the dispute. The maternal family appear to have taken a view that the mother is behaving irrationally and unreasonably in her conduct towards the maternal grandparents. I do not accept the mother’s conduct to be irrational or the result of any mental ill health.
The maternal grandfather indicated that “he would like nothing more than to be able to re-establish his relationship with the mother.” He did not accept they had any discussion about family therapy in January 2017. He said he had no confidence that the children will ever have time with their maternal family including grandparents if it is left to their mother following her email exchanges.
The mother indicated in response to the affidavit filed by her father that “my relationship breakdown with the father and in effect my estrangement from my parents has led to a greater cause of myself having lost my entire primary support network. I did not chose for this to be my circumstance …”
The maternal grandfather indicated he was contacted by the father in October 2014 regarding spending time with the children. He said he agreed, “despite knowing the anger this would bring from the mother, and the even deeper rift it could cause between us.” He indicated it was “important for the boys to have the opportunity of a relationship with their grandfather. I also believed it would be extra support to the young boys who could be somewhat traumatized by experiencing the volatile atmosphere of their parents' conflict.”
Since that time the maternal grandfather has seen the boys regularly through arrangements made with the father. He observed that he has a warm relationship with the children and they enjoy time with him and his partner. They enjoy many age appropriate activities together, special days including his 60th birthday he provides gifts and other items the children need from time to time.
Maternal grandmother
The maternal grandmother filed an affidavit on 12 May 2017 in support of the father. She indicated that for 30 years she enjoyed a close loving relationship with the mother, they spent a lot of time together at home as well as travelling in Australia and overseas. She said they remained close and supporting. The mother denied she had a close relationship with her mother. She said she had responsibility being the eldest child and was required to clean the house, make lunches and provide her parents with emotional support. The mother said her mother was in and out of hospital for treatment for depression. She described their relationship as a friendship rather than a mother daughter bond. The mother deposed to a number of issues she had with the mother including her causing several arguments between the mother and her siblings and “pitting us against one another in terms of perceived loyalties.”
The maternal grandmother annexed to her affidavit an email dated April 2016 sent by the mother to a number of family and friends in which she expressed her grief over her parent’s lack of support for her. In the email the mother accused her parents of having “secret conversations (with the father) in which he sought to make you complicit in his financial, emotional, mental abuse and most importantly, insidious gaslight tactics.” She expressed her grief to her parents regarding their denial that she was a victim of domestic violence and accused them of being “willing weapons of an abusive man against my children.” The maternal grandmother placed the responsibility for the current circumstances on the mother indicating that “I am unable to change [Ms Babic]’s wish for estrangement, as is the rest of my family, who remain hopeful that she will resume contact with us all in the future.”
The maternal grandmother indicated she has a close and loving relationship with her grandsons and sees them regularly. They apparently enjoy time with the maternal family and spend time during school holidays. The mother indicated that she did not wish the father to be able to dictate when the children spend time with her parents. She said “I would love to be able to afford the children a relationship with their grandparents but without the involvement of the father and further exposure to domestic violence.”
The maternal grandmother complained that the mother had restrained their access to the children since February 2012. She said the mother had repeatedly told her in the presence of her husband “you will never see my children again”. The mother denied this allegation.
The maternal grandmother deposed that the father contacted her by phone before [Y] was born saying he was worried about the mother, she is upset a lot and did not seem to be coping. He requested the maternal grandparents come to Canberra to see if they could help. The maternal grandmother said she contacted the maternal grandfather and they made arrangements to travel to Canberra. They arrived at the home in (omitted). The mother was not aware that they were coming. The mother said “What are you doing here? What is this? Is this an intervention!!” She appeared angry. After a period she allowed the maternal grandmother to come inside. She said “How dare you come here. How dare you talk to [Mr Takala] about me. This is what always happens. I am made out to have something wrong with me. It is you, [Mr Takala] and other people who are the problem. Why don't you support me? Why are you supporting [Mr Takala]?” The maternal grandmother told her she was here to support her and asked how she could help. The mother responded “I don't need or want your help....It's too late for that I don't trust you now.” The maternal grandmother indicated that in her opinion the mother was behaving irrationally.
The maternal grandmother indicated that when [Y] was about 8 weeks old in late 2011 she visited and enjoyed time with the boys. The mother had contacted her and invited her to stay. She said she visited Canberra for [X]’s second birthday. The mother complained that there was tension and arguments between her and the children’s father. She said to the maternal grandmother “I don't think you apologised fully about the intervention” and they spent considerable time discussing that.
She said in February 2012 she invited the mother and the children to stay with her at her husband’s family beach house at (omitted) in the (omitted). She said they agreed to a list of conditions to abide by during their stay relating to who was allowed to hold the children, how they should be spoken to and what foods they could eat among other things. By the end of the period (about 5 days) the maternal grandmother bought [X] a fruit smoothie from the beach cafe which contained ice cream. The mother yelled at the maternal grandmother on the beach saying “I told you not to do that. You don't respect me. Why can't you do what I say. I am leaving”. The maternal grandmother’s husband attempted to take the children towards the rocks to distract them. The mother yelled “Do not take [X] away, you have no right” She then took both children to the house, packed her belongings and said “You don't respect me, you have no right to see my children, you are selfish, you never cared about me, you were a bad parent, I am not going to repeat your mistakes.” She said after that the maternal grandmother had no further contact with the children. She said Birthday presents, Christmas presents, cards and letters were returned to sender. Attempts at phone calls were rebuffed. She said in late 2016 (about November) the mother phoned her and said “You have been a wonderful mother. Thank you.” The phone call was for an hour about lunch time. She then said “I want you to understand what I have been through with the abuse from [Mr Takala] and why you cannot see the children and how [Mr Takala] is using you against me.” Towards the end of the phone call the maternal grandmother said “I would very much like to see you” She replied “First you would need to see my counsellor.” The maternal grandmother replied “I would be prepared to do that.” At the end of the conversation the mother said “You don't get it” and then hung up. The mother said she tried to remind her mother of the damage done to her and the boys through their relationship with the father but formed the view that the maternal grandmother was incapable of accepting this.
The maternal grandmother said she contacted the father in early 2014 and asked if she could send the children's gifts to his home address and he agreed. She indicated that in mid - 2014 the father phoned to say “Would you like to visit the boys when they are with me? I think it is important for them to know you and have a relationship with you and their extended family”. Thereafter she commenced regular visits to Canberra to see [X] and [Y]. The maternal grandmother said she has seen the children about once each 2 months for 2014 and 2015 for weekends at the father’s home in Canberra. In 2016 and 2017 there were some longer visits where the children stayed with her at her home for up to 5 days. The mother said this was around the time the father was angry regarding child support.
The maternal grandmother denied that the father contacted her regarding their relationship, but rather to ask for help for the recognising she was highly distressed. She said the mother was very angry that we had come and misunderstood our intention as a conspiracy. The maternal grandmother deposed that she recalled when the mother was in her 20's she was diagnosed with Bipolar Affective Disorder. She had it under control then by medication. The maternal grandmother did not provide any context in her affidavit for this “diagnosis.”
She deposed that she heard from the mother about many arguments and disagreements between the mother and her partner, however she did not hear the mother refer to violence until she mentioned an occasion when she was shoved. She said that the mother “did refer to the father as controlling especially on financial matters.”
The maternal grandmother said that the mother came to stay with her during her second pregnancy and she did not recall ever refusing her accommodation. The mother said she was refused just prior to her parents visiting her without notice in 2011 before [Y] was born.
The maternal grandmother said she tried to re-establish contact and drove from (omitted) to Canberra and went to the mother’s house. She answered the door and became very angry and threatened to call the police if she did not leave. The mother said she was not angry on this occasion but told her mother she would call the police if she did not leave, after her mother had attempted to push past her. She said she told her mother she loved her but she had caused irreparable damage and it was not safe or possible for the mother to be around her. Her mother then left.
Section 68B is framed very broadly. In White & Green and Ors [2009] FamCA 237 at paragraph [125] Justice Cronin held with respect the injunctive power:
“The use of the word “including” (in section 68B) must be read as not limiting the Court to the matters set out in sub paras (a) to (d) which in turn leaves the Court with a very wide discretion. As such the fact that an injunction cannot be fashioned within the framework of the words in (a) to (d) does not matter.”
Justice Cronin’s approach in White & Green and Ors (supra) is consistent with accepted principles of statutory construction. In In the Marriage of Murkin (1980) 5 Fam LR 782 at 786 Justice Nygh said with respect to the comparable sub section 114(1):
“….. the second part of sub-s (1) is preceded by the word “including” which indicates that whatever follows is not an exhaustive definition.”
Thus it would appear that there is scope within section 68B of the Act to make the order sought by the mother.
The question remains whether section 68B is subject to “the best interests of the children being the paramount consideration.” In Kay & Jasper and Ors [2007] FamCA 1646 Justice O’Reilly considered the application of section 68B in the context of an application for a change of name. He noted that section 68B (1) provides that the Court may make such order or grant such injunction “as it considers appropriate for the welfare of the children.” He indicated at [261] that the term “welfare” is defined “in the Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary (relevantly) as ‘satisfactory state, health and prosperity.’ “Appropriate” is defined (relevantly) as ‘suitable or proper and “consider” (relevantly) as ‘contemplate mentally,’ ‘weigh merits of’ and ‘give mental attention to.’” He said at [262] “the statutory mandate in section 68B (1) thus would seem to require giving mental attention to and weighing up the merits as to what is suitable or proper for the children’s satisfactory state, health and prosperity.”
Justice O’Reilly considered the relevant authorities with respect to the provision. He said at [263] to [280]:
“[263] In Flanagan and Handcock [2000] FamCA 150; (2001) FLC 93-074 (Full Court) the majority, Kay and Holden JJ, observed that Monticelli v McTiernan [1995] FamCA 33; (1995) FLC 92-617 was decided when s 64(1) of the Act required the Court to consider the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration, whereas in 2001 (as is the case now) the relevant provision requires the Court to regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration so that, as is plain, there is no longer coincidence of expression between the paramountcy provision and the injunctive power provision. The majority observed further that nowhere in Division 9 does the expression “best interests of the child” occur, so that it would appear that Monticelli “no longer represents the law in respect to this question”. Nonetheless, their Honours went on to refer to “the constant shadow of the paramountcy principle” as discussed by the Full Court in CJ v VJ (1997) FLC 92-772; upheld by the High Court in CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172 at pars 87-88 per McHugh, Gummow and Callinan JJ and pars 191-2 per Kirby J (but on quite different reasoning from McHugh, Gummow and Callinan JJ).
[264] For my part, it is clear that their Honours McHugh, Gummow and Callinan JJ upheld the appeal only in the context of relevance of the principle in the appellate process in respect of cases where the principle was relevant at first instance, making clear I think its limitation otherwise. See at pars 87-88.
[265] Returning now to Flanagan and Handcock, in the result, their Honours in the Full Court said at par 18:
‘[18]We are inclined to the view that to the extent his Honour might have been considering the issue of name change pursuant to s68B his Honour was incorrect in indicating that the paramountcy principle applied. ...’
[266] Their Honours went on however to say:
‘... Even so, in light of the decision of CDJ v VAJ (supra), notwithstanding that there is no express reference to Division 9 in the balance of Part VII of the Act, as the orders sought to be made intimately concerned the welfare of the children, the best interests principle needed to be given careful consideration. However, given that this was not the subject of a ground of appeal and given that it was not a matter that was properly argued before us, we do not express a concluded view. (emphasis added)”
[267] In the same case, Finn J at pars 50-52 said that she was not persuaded that the trial judge’s reference to the “best interests” concept or test was wrong, but observed that the question was unsettled as to the extent to which (if any) the paramountcy principle applied to the injunctive power under s 68B (1).
[268] In Flanagan, the High Court granted, but then revoked, special leave to appeal. See Flanagan and Handcock (2001) 181 ALR 184.
[269] In Bennett v Bennett [2001] FamCA 462; (2001) FLC 93-088 the Full Court (Ellis, Finn and Guest JJ) said:
[30] ...[T]he current power in s 68B to grant an injunction in relation to a child is not subject to the express legislative requirement that the court must regard “the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration”, and in this regard is to be contrasted with the powers, for example in s 65E to make a parenting order, or in s 67ZC to make an order in relation to the welfare of a child. (emphasis added)
[270] Notably, however, their Honours said that s 68B is not subject to the express legislative requirement that the Court must have regard to the paramountcy principle, thus leaving open whether generally, in having regard to a child’s welfare, consideration of a child’s best interests may nonetheless be a relevant matter to consider. (In Flanagan Finn J at par 50 similarly had referred to the absence of express application in the legislation of the principle to s 68B(1)).
[271] In B v B (Re jurisdiction) [2003] FamCA 105; (2003) FLC 93-136, the Full Court (Holden, Coleman and Warnick JJ) observed (at par 30) that since the 1995 amendments there had been several cases in which the opportunity to find some pervasive general principle of the paramountcy of the child’s best interests in any decision about any matter involving a child’s interests had arisen, but not been taken up.
[272] In KN & SD & Secretary, Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FamCA 610; (2003) FLC 93-148, the Full Court (Nicholson CJ and O’Ryan J at par 37; Ellis J at par 121) referred to concessions by Counsel in that case that the trial judge’s finding that the paramountcy principle does not apply in relation to injunctions sought under s 68B(1) of the Act is “consistent” with the majority judgment of the High Court in CDJ v VAJ (above).
[273] In Johnson & Page (above), at par 109, the Full Court referred to the circumstance that the cases offer “little guidance” in the case law referring specifically to the general principles to be applied under s 68B (compared with s 114), but said:
‘The power to be exercised is a discretionary power only to be exercised in an appropriate case.’
[274] Section 67ZC (1) of the Act is a provision which confers jurisdiction on the Court to make orders concerning the welfare of children.
[275] Section 67ZC(2) expressly provides that in deciding whether to make an order under s 67ZC(1) in relation to a child the Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.
[276] There is an impediment to interpreting s 68B(1) as being governed by the paramountcy principle for the reason that, if that is what the legislature intended, it would have been easy to say so. (See also, eg, s 67L, relating to location orders, and other provisions expressly invoking the principle).”
As Justice O’Reilly indicated leaving aside the question whether under section 68B a child’s best interests are (1) not relevant; (2) relevant but not paramount; or (3) paramount, which is controversial the Court is required to be satisfied that any order restraining a party is appropriate for the welfare of the children, goes no further than is necessary to achieve the desired outcome and is just and convenient.
Justice Macmillan indicated in Bhatt & Sant [2016] FamCA 327 at [23] “where a court is required to make such an order or injunction it considers appropriate for the welfare of the child the best interests of the child in relation to which the order or injunction is sought is a relevant consideration.” I agree that the best interests of the child is a relevant consideration.
Discussion
I find that before the father involved the maternal grandparents without the mother’s consent prior to [Y]’ birth the mother had been able to maintain a functional relationship with her parents who were included as important and significant members of the child [X]’s extended family. Once the maternal grandparents became involved at the behest of the father, the mother reduced her time with her parents. She said she felt betrayed and unsupported. I accept that she did so.
The relationship between the parties ended sometime between June 2012 and early 2013. The mother continued her involvement with the maternal grandmother after the incident above and holidayed with her mother in 2012. She indicated that she felt frustrated and unsupported by her mother and that the boundaries she set for the children were disregarded. I accept the mother’s evidence in this regard. She was not cross examined regarding her evidence about her concern [X] was sharing a straw given the maternal grandmother’s health issue. She thereafter reduced her involvement.
The relationship between the parties had completely broken down by early 2013 and they finally separated. In 2014 the father involved the maternal grandparents. He did not advise or consult the mother of his intention to involve the mother’s parents. At the time of the hearing the mother remained unaware of the frequency of time the children spent with her parents reportedly receiving this information from the children.
The high level of conflict between the parties has continued unabated. The mother expressed her concern at the father’s involvement of the children in the dispute the children telling their mother that “mum is stealing our money” and mum was “mean.” The mother expressed the view that the children were being poisoned against her.
It is apparent from their involvement in the dispute between the parties and their involvement in the litigation that the maternal grandparents do not support the mother. They introduced into evidence of her past diagnosis of bipolar disorder as an explanation for the mother’s conduct towards them with respect to the grandchildren. That diagnosis (if it was a diagnosis) apparently was made many years ago, prior to the birth of the children and in circumstances where the mother had suffered trauma resulting in a termination of a pregnancy. It was suggested that the mother’s conduct towards the grandparents with respect to the children was unbalanced and irrational. Her “paranoia” (a term used by the father’s Counsel) about the father and maternal grandparents, was allegedly symptomatic of her irrational thinking. The grandparents inferred that the mother had no rational basis for excluding them from having a continuing relationship with the grandchildren.
I reject that the position the mother has taken with respect to her parents is based on any mental unwellness or irrational thinking on her part. There is no evidence before me that the mother suffers from any mental ill health. I find the attitude of the maternal grandparents concerning in this regard. It is apparent from the email dated April 2016 sent by the mother that she perceived her parents had taken the father’s side against her and she felt completely unsupported by them. In the email she accused her parents of having “secret conversations (with the father) in which he sought to make you complicit in his financial, emotional, mental abuse and most importantly, insidious gaslight tactics.” She expressed her grief to her parents regarding their denial that she was a victim of domestic violence and accused them of being “willing weapons of an abusive man against my children.” She indicated that family members had blamed the mother for “breaking up the family” and causing her mother chest pains resulting in her mother being hospitalised. Many members of the maternal family had also become involved in the dispute between the mother and the father.
The mother has formed the view that her parents do not currently support her and have taken the father’s side against her. She is currently in conflict with her parents. The mother has a high level of suspicion regarding the father’s conduct particularly with respect to involving her parents in the dispute. I accept that the mother at present finds her parents’ behaviour upsetting and confronting. She finds it extremely distressing that her parents have supported the father. She has formed the view that her parents’ behaviour enables the father’s behaviour towards her. She is disappointed that they did not support her. She herself has engaged in counselling in order to deal with her relationship with her parents.
She indicated that she did not wish for the children to spend time with her parents and her family, until she feels comfortable with it. She remains concerned that if the children do spend time with her family, her family will actively attempt to hurt the children emotionally and psychologically by denigrating her and telling them untrue stories. She is concerned that the father is part of that process.
The mother’s emotional distress regarding her relationship with the father and her parents was palpable during cross examination. I formed a view that she had a “shocking” (my word) relationship with her parents, she was angry and upset about having her entire support network undermined by the father (as she perceived it) and felt isolated and abandoned by her parents. She was firm in her belief that the father was manipulating her parents and their involvement with the children behind her back. The father through his Counsel confirmed to the Court that he was aware how “bad” the mother’s relationship was with her parents at present. The mother currently feels completely unsupported by her parents and abandoned by them.
I find that the father’s interaction and involvement of the mother’s parents is negatively impacting on the mother, undermining her confidence and is destabilising for her. I am concerned that if this continues unabated without providing the mother with an opportunity to reconcile with her parents, there will be consequences for the children. Should the mother continue to feel completely unsupported by her parents this is likely to undermine her emotionally and psychologically. I have formed the view that the mother and children will benefit from being supported by the maternal grandparents. In my view it is in the children’s best interests that they experience the maternal grandparents to be supportive of their mother and similarly experience their mother to be engaged and involved with the maternal grandparents. I accept that both the mother and maternal grandparents are prepared to engage in family therapy to this end.
I note that the Family Consultant indicated it would be preferable for the children to spend time with their maternal grandparents facilitated by the mother. I concur. In my view it will be beneficial long term for the children if the relationship between the mother and the maternal grandparents was repaired. The children are still young. Any interruption to their relationship with their grandparents should be short term. I am confident that the children have an established relationship with their maternal grandparents. I intend to give the mother and her parents an opportunity to reconcile their differences. I see this as a great benefit to the children. I accept that a complete severing of the relationship between the children and the grandparents through a permanent injunction would not be appropriate and may cause the children to experience grief and/or loss.
I note the Family Consultant indicated that a suspension of the current arrangements may assist until such time as the adults sort out their issues. She indicated that the children should be able to communicate with the grandparents during this period to maintain their relationship whilst the adult issues were sorted out. I agree.
I accept that the injunction sought by the mother in its terms would have the effect of preventing the children from having a continuing relationship with their maternal grandparents if made unconditionally. It would prevent the father from communicating with the maternal family and facilitating the children spending time with them. It is far too broad as drafted. There is no evidence before me that members of the mother’s family other than the maternal grandparents are directly involved with the children. I note that the mother commented she was not on speaking terms with her siblings. I do not have sufficient evidence to restrain the maternal family at large. I decline to make an order restraining members of the maternal family at large.
I have taken into account the current parenting orders. The parents share the children’s time. The children are aware they live in two houses. The parents communicate effectively according to the mother not so according to the father. I have taken into account the fact that the children appear to enjoy time with their grandparents though [Y] regards spending time with them as “boring.” I accept that there is a benefit to the children long term having a relationship with their maternal grandparents. I accept that if the children are advised that they are not permitted to spend time with their maternal grandparents ever again, they may suffer grief and loss. The parents will be restrained from discussing with the children any limitation upon the maternal grandparent’s time.
I have weighed the mother’s distress with respect to the father’s involvement of the maternal grandparents behind her back and against her wishes. I have weighed the ongoing impact on the children whilst the mother remains in conflict with her parents and what appears to be overwhelming feelings she has of being unsupported and undermined by the father.
In determining whether to exercise power under section 68B of the Act I am required to grant an injunction as I consider appropriate for the welfare of the children, by interlocutory order or otherwise in any case where I consider it just or convenient to do so. Any injunction may be granted unconditionally or on terms I consider appropriate and should be no more restrictive than is reasonably necessary to achieve the desired outcome.
I determine it is just and convenient to restrain the father for a discrete period of time to enable the mother and her parents to engage in family therapy to resolve the current conflict between them with a view to the mother facilitating the children spending time with their maternal grandparents. I accept that the mother and her parents are willing to engage in family therapy.
In my view it is proper to limit the terms of the injunction to give the mother an opportunity to resolve these outstanding issues with her parents. The best interests of the children would be better served by eliminating as far as possible conflict from their lives. As such the current situation where the mother is isolated from her family and the father facilitates the time between the children and the mother’s parents is likely to have a continuing negative impact on the mother and as a consequence on the children who must observe that the mother is the person who is ostracised and/or not accepted by other members of their family. In my view it is in the children’s best interests to provide their primary carer with an opportunity to reconcile with her parents so that each can provide mutual support for the other in the future. I am confident that once their differences are put to rest the mother will facilitate the children spending time with her parents.
I propose to make an order restraining the father from bringing the children into contact with the maternal grandparents conditional upon the mother engaging with her parents to resolve outstanding issues of conflict between them. I am of the view that a sufficient period of time should be imposed to allow the mother to engage in family therapy. In my view such order is in the children’s best interests. I propose to restrain the father from bringing the children into contact with the maternal grandparents for a period of about 18 months (until 31 December 2018). [X] will turn 9 on (omitted) 2019. This period of time will give the mother an opportunity to sort out her differences with her parents through family therapy. I am confident that by then, the mother will have reconnected with her parents on favourable terms. It is hoped that the grandparents will support the mother following family therapy and be in a position to re-establish their relationship with the grandchildren supported by the mother. [Y] will be 7 years and 4 months. If the mother and maternal family have not reconciled by then, the children will continue their relationship with the maternal grandparents through their father as the injunction will lapse. The father will be at liberty to facilitate the children communicating with their grandparents at the children’s request. In addition he will be at liberty to forward on to the children any cards and gifts from the maternal grandparents. The parents will be restrained from discussing any limitation on the time the children will spend with the grandparents. There will not be a permanent severing of the children’s relationship with their grandparents. I will make those orders accordingly.
I certify that the preceding two hundred and three (203) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Tonkin
Date: 14 July 2017
0
10
3