Bamford and Bamford
[2010] FamCA 244
•26 March 2010
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BAMFORD & BAMFORD | [2010] FamCA 244 |
| FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – with whom a child spends time – capacity to parent - inappropriate materials and language – violence – capacity of parents to facilitate relationship |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) |
| APPLICANT: | Ms Bamford |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Bamford |
| INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Ann Connor |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYF | 3230 | of | 2004 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 26 March 2010 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Watts J |
| HEARING DATE: | 2 - 4 November 2009 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Ms Messner |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Moira Ryan Lawyers |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Litigant in person |
| COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Mr Stewart |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Legal Aid NSW |
Orders
Previous parenting orders made 26 March 2008 be discharged.
The children Y and Z both born … April 1997 (“the children”) live with the mother and the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children.
The mother keep the father advised of any school attended by the children and authorise and request the school to forward to the father copies of all school reports and all other school documents issued by the schools in respect of either child.
The mother keep the father advised of any medical treatment obtained by either child, as soon as practicable, upon the treatment being provided or arrangements made for the treatment to take place.
Each of the children spend time with their father as follows:-
5.1.From 10am to 4pm on the first and third Sunday in each calendar month;
5.2.Subject to any other order, from 10am Saturday to 4pm Sunday on the second weekend in each New South Wales school vacation commencing in the school holidays at the end of term 2 in 2010;
5.3.From 2pm to 8pm Christmas Day;
5.4.For such further or alternate periods as agreed upon between the father and the children and the father will inform the mother about the agreement which has been reached;
5.5.In the event Father’s Day falls on a non-contact weekend, the father to spend time with the children on that weekend in substitution for his scheduled weekend. In the event Mother’s Day falls on a contact weekend, the father to spend time with the children on a different weekend in substitution for his scheduled weekend.
5.6.In relation to the father’s birthday on … January, the father to spend time with the children on the weekend closest to his birthday in substitution for his scheduled weekend.
5.7.In relation to the children’s birthdays on … April, the father to spend time with the children on the weekend closest to their birthdays in substitution for his scheduled weekend.
Changeover for 12 months to take place at the Children’s Contact Service with the mother to deliver the children to the Centre at the beginning of the contact period and collect them from the Centre at the conclusion of the contact period and the father to collect the children from the Centre at the beginning of the contact period and return them to the Centre at the conclusion of the contact period. Thereafter the father to pick the children up from the corner of … and … and drop them off to that location.
The mother purchase a book (the “communication book”) into which each parent is to write in a timely manner, significant information relating to the welfare of the children or any of their activities. The communication book is to pass between the parents, by placing it in a bag to be carried by one of the children at each changeover.
The mother do all things within her power to ensure that the children are available to take telephone calls from their father between the hours of 6pm and 7pm on Tuesdays and Thursdays and the father telephone the children at these times.
Each party to keep the other party and the children advised as to the mobile telephone numbers and emails of themselves and the children, so that the children can contact and be contacted by each of their parents at any reasonable time.
The mother provide to the father a telephone number at which he can contact her in the event that there is some emergency involving the children during periods of time when the children are with him or in relation to a period of time when the children are due to be with him.
Both parties are restrained from denigrating the other or using obscene language to or in the presence or hearing of either child, or causing or permitting anyone else to do so.
Both parties are restrained from physically chastising or disciplining either child.
The father be restrained and remain restrained from attending the mother’s residence.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer see the children and explain to them the effect of the orders that have been made.
The orders in relation to the children’s time with their father will expire on … April 2012 when the children turn 15 and thereafter the children will spend time with their father as they may wish from time to time for such periods as may be agreed between the children and their father.
The mother do everything she can to encourage the children to telephone their father on his birthday and the children be available between 6pm and 7pm on their birthdays to take a telephone call from their father if they do not otherwise see him on that day.
The mother provide to Dr J a copy of the four reports prepared by Dr L.
The father be at liberty to attend school events (including concerts and sports carnivals) in the event that he has first discussed his attendance at those events with the children, or if the event only relates to one child, that child.
Pursuant to s.65DA(2) and s.62B, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.
Costs application
By consent, both parties pay one half of the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer as agreed or assessed.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Bamford & Bamford is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
FILE NUMBER: SYF 3230 of 2004
| MS BAMFORD |
Applicant
And
| MR BAMFORD |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
I start these Reasons by recording the sudden and sad passing of Mr Stephen Stewart of counsel, who appeared on behalf of the Independent Children's Lawyer in this case. He displayed all the finest characteristics of what one would hope a family lawyer would possess - empathy, compassion, diligence and a commitment to presenting a case to the court which had the best interests of the children as its paramount focus.
This case is about parenting arrangements for the twin children of the parties, Y and Z, currently aged 12 years. The children currently reside with the mother.
The father has a child from a previous relationship, A Bamford, who was born in 1990 and resides with the father. The father has now remarried and resides with his new partner Ms G.
The primary issues in dispute in this case relate to the father’s allegedly violent behaviour towards the children, his provision to the children of inappropriate materials, his use of inappropriate language around the children and his history of violence towards the mother during the relationship. I also note that the mother has been diagnosed as suffering from a post traumatic stress disorder, which has some bearing on the issues in this case.
The mother is seeking sole parental responsibility for the children. Rather than specifying scheduled contact times, the practical effect of the orders that she is seeking will be to place the responsibility in the hands of the children of deciding when they will see their father.
The father is seeking shared parental responsibility, as well as daytime contact with the children every second weekend progressing after three months to overnight contact every second weekend.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer is seeking orders that the mother be granted sole parental responsibility and that the father have daytime contact with the children every second weekend, with overnight contact on the second weekend in each school holiday period as well as any further time as agreed between the parties and the children.
APPLICATIONS
The mother seeks orders in the following terms:
1.That the previous Parenting Orders made on 26 March 2008 be discharged.
2.That the children [Z] (born on […]/4/97) and [Y] (born on […]/4/97) live with the mother.
3.That the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children.
4.That the children spend time with their father as they may wish from time to time for such periods as may be agreed between the children and their father provided that such time is supervised by the Father’s wife, [Ms G].
5.That upon being requested by the children to be returned to their residence with the mother that the father forthwith take all practical steps to ensure the children’s immediate return to their usual residence and further that the children be free to communicate with the mother by telephone, SMS message or email during time that they are spending with the father.
6.That for the purposes of collection and return of the children to their residence with the mother that the father is restrained and remain restrained from personally attending the mother’s residence.
7.That the father be at liberty to communicate with the children via email or by SMS message provided such communication is instigated by the children.
8.That the father be restrained and remain restrained from denigrating the mother in the presence of the children.
9.That the father be restrained and remain restrained from physically disciplining the children or from intimidating, threatening, abusing or harassing either of the children.
10.That the mother be permitted to seek such specialist medical attention as she may from time to time consider necessary for the children of the marriage.
During the hearing the mother clarified that in relation to Order 4, the children themselves would be capable of organising that contact with their father via text messages or emails but that they would discuss those arrangements with the mother before actually making them. The mother stated that she believes that the children would come to her and inform her when they wish to see their father, despite the fact that she has a negative opinion of the father and the children are aware of the mother’s opinion in that regard.
I note that in terms of parental responsibility, the mother stated during the hearing that she believes that she and the father have “zero” chance of being able to make joint decisions in relation to the children in the future. She stated that any future communication between them in relation to the children would best be achieved via a communication book.
On the final day of the hearing the father handed up a document that became Exhibit M, setting out the orders that he is seeking. Those orders are in the following terms:
1.Existing orders to be discharged.
2.The children to live with their mother.
3.Shared parental responsibility.
4.The father to be provided with school reports and invitations to concerts and sport carnivals. Attendance at any further related school activities to be encouraged.
5.The father to be advised by the mother of any medical treatment.
6.Both parties to be restrained from denigrating the other in the presence of the children.
7.Both parties be restrained from physically disciplining the children.
8.The children be able to contact the father by email, telephone and SMS as they wish. The father able to contact the children by similar methods. Each party to keep the other informed of all current contact details.
9.The children to spend time with the father:
(a) Initially for 3 months from 10am to 7.30pm the first and third Sunday of each month.
(b) Thereafter from 10am Saturday to 7.30pm Sunday the first and third weekend of each month.
10.If the children have other activities the contact to take place the following weekend.
11.Father’s Day 10am to 6.30pm.
12.Christmas Day 9am to 12pm.
13.[Father’s birthday] January 11am to 6.30pm.
14.[Children’s birthday] April 3pm to 6.30pm.
15.As otherwise agreed.
16.If children unable to attend for any reason at least 12 hours notice to be given to the father.
17.Changeover by father picking up and dropping off outside the children’s house without getting out of his car.
At the beginning of the hearing the Independent Children’s Lawyer handed up short minutes of order in the following terms:
1.That all current parenting orders in these proceedings are discharged.
2.That [Z] born […] April 1997 and [Y] born […] April 1997 live with the mother.
3.That the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children.
4.That the mother keep the father advised of any school attended by the children and authorise and request the school to forward to the father copies of all school reports and other school documents issued by the school(s) in respect of either child.
5.That the mother keep the father advised of any medical treatment obtained by either child, forthwith upon the treatment being provided or arrangements made for the treatment taking place.
6.That each of the children spend time with the father:
a. from 10am to 4pm on the first and third Saturday in each calendar month;
b. from 10am Saturday to 4pm Sunday on the second weekend in each NSW school vacation commencing the mid-year vacation in 2010;
c. for such further or alternative periods as agreed upon between the parties and the children.
7.That both parties keep the other and children advised of a postal address, telephone number and an e-mail address at which each party can contact the other.
8.That both parties enable the other to make contact with either child when that child is in their care.
9.That both parties are restrained from denigrating the other to, or in the presence or hearing of the children or either of them or causing or permitting anyone else to do so.
10.That both parties are restrained from physically chastising/disciplining either child.
11.Liberty to apply on 14 days notice in relation to the implementation of these orders.
Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer submitted that there is no need for supervision to be put in place in respect of the father’s time with the children.
DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON
The mother relied upon the following documents:
14.1.Affidavit of the mother sworn 9 July 2009;
14.2.Affidavit of the mother sworn 12 December 2008;
14.3.Affidavit of MR sworn 20 January 2006;
14.4.Affidavit of the mother sworn 10 August 2007; and
14.5.Affidavit of the mother sworn 1 August 2007.
The father relied upon the following documents:
15.1.Affidavit of the father sworn 5 August 2009;
15.2.Affidavit of Ms G sworn 20 July 2009;
15.3.Affidavit of the father sworn 11 December 2008; and
15.4.Affidavit of the father sworn 11 September 2007.
Expert evidence was provided as follows:
16.1.Report of Dr. L dated 5 March 2008;
16.2.Report of Dr. L dated 13 March 2008;
16.3.Report of Dr. L dated 22 June 2009;
16.4.Report of Dr. L dated 25 October 2009; and
16.5.Report of Dr. J dated 10 February 2009.
PREVIOUS ORDERS
On 26 March 2008 I made orders in accordance with a document entitled Short Minute of Order. Those orders were in place up until the final hearing of this matter. The orders were in the following terms:
1.That the father initially, and then the mother and the father’s current partner [Ms G] attend upon Dr. [M] on Wednesday 2 April 2008 at 12.15pm.
2.That the court notes that the father’s attendance upon Dr. [M] is to discuss the previous issues that the children [Y] and [Z] had in relation to spending time with their father, and that the mother’s and [Ms G’s] attendance is to discuss with the assistance of Dr. [M] [Ms G’s] role as a supervisor of the time that the children are to spend with their father, the concerns of the mother and to exchange contact information between them.
3.That all previous orders for the children to spend time with the father are discharged.
4.That the father spend time with the children [Y] and [Z] born […] April 1997 as follows:
a.On the [children’s birthday in] April 2008 from 11.00am to 2.00pm.
b.Thereafter every second Sunday commencing on 13 April 2008 from 12 noon to 4.00pm.
c.That such time with the father is to be supervised by the father’s partner [Ms G].
d.That [Ms G] attend at the mother’s residence to collect and deliver the children before and after their time with the father, and the father not be present at that changeover.
e.On Father’s Day from 12 noon to 4.00pm.
f.That if the father’s time occurs on Mother’s Day then it is suspended for that day.
g.Such other time and on such conditions as are agreed in writing between the parties.
5.That during August 2008 the mother and the father make an appointment for the parties and the children [Y] and [Z] to attend upon Dr. [M] for the purpose of reviewing the above time that the children spend with their father.
6.That after the review both parties have liberty to relist the matter on 7 days notice to the other party to vary the above time that the father spends with the children.
7.That the Independent Children’s Lawyer will liaise with Dr. [M] after the August review and if necessary will arrange to have the matter relisted if a further updated report is required to be prepared by the Court appointed expert Dr. [L].
8.That the matter is adjourned for mention to 15 October 2008 at 9.30am.
9.That the parties provide a copy of these orders to Dr. [M].
10.That the Court notes the written undertaking given by [Ms G] in respect of supervision.
11.The costs of attendance upon Dr. [M] be shared equally by the parties.
12.That leave be granted to the Independent Children’s Lawyer to forward a copy of Dr. [L’s] report dated 13 March 2008 to Dr. [M].
13.That both parties authorise the Independent Children’s Lawyer to contact Dr. [M] at any time that she considers necessary.
SHORT HISTORY
The father was born in 1957 and is 53 years of age.
The mother was born in 1962 and is 47 years of age.
The parties commenced cohabitation on 1 October 1993.
The parties married in 1994.
The children Z and Y were born in April 1997 and are 12 years of age.
The parties separated under the one roof in April 2004 and the father left the former matrimonial home on 28 May 2004.
CREDIT
The mother
The mother gave her evidence in a relatively withdrawn and quiet manner. On several occasions she became visibly upset and emotional. I note that the mother has been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder which was probably a factor in her presentation in the witness box. However I do not think that the mother attempted to tell me things that she did not believe were true. Rather, I think that her mental status has led her on occasions in the past to be overly sensitive to incidents that have taken place. Her disorder has had an impact on her perception of certain behaviour on the part of the father.
The father
The father gave his evidence in a fairly calm and relaxed manner most of the time. However on several occasions he responded to questions from counsel with questions of his own. He also had a tendency to ask counsel to repeat questions, which seemed to me to have more to do with his incredulity than his inability to hear the questions. On occasion he was unwilling to answer questions and seemed reluctant to make concessions against his interests. However, the overall impression that I gained was that he was not attempting to be untruthful in his evidence.
Ms G
Counsel for the mother submitted that I would not place a great deal of weight on Ms G’s evidence. The basis of this submission was that at the commencement of her evidence Ms G freely admitted to using the word “cunt” to her husband. It was put that that piece of evidence was very similar to evidence the father had given earlier in the day. I was invited to find that this evidence was discussed between Ms G and the father over the luncheon adjournment. Even if that was so, it is not a matter that causes me a great deal of concern.
Overall Ms G was as an impressive witness who gave her evidence without guile and in a forthright manner.
Ms G’s frankness was also noted by Dr L at paragraph 42 of his report dated 5 March 2008, where he states that “despite [the mother] saying that she felt that [Ms G] would lack the independence to act in any kind of supervisory role it was not evident to me. In fact [Ms G] appears to be quite capable of putting forward her views and seems to be very clear about those and presents as a person who was quite invested in being pretty straight about the whole situation”.
CHRONOLOGY
Many of the allegations made by one party against the other were denied and there was little testing of them. They are recorded simply as allegations unless indicated otherwise in the judgment.
After the parties commenced cohabitation in 1993 the father obtained full time care of his daughter from a previous relationship, A, who was born in June 1990. At paragraph 3 of his affidavit filed 11 September 2007 the father states that during the marriage, the mother was aggressive and abusive towards A.
The father states that on one occasion in 1996 the mother accidentally slammed the car door on A’s hand and was unconcerned and unapologetic.
The father states that on one occasion in 1997 the mother accidentally burnt A with a cigarette and was similarly unapologetic.
The mother states that in approximately September 1998 when she was four weeks pregnant the father pinched her hard on the stomach and she later had a miscarriage. In truth, the mother underwent a curette when it was found, two weeks later, that the baby had no heartbeat.
The father states that in 2002 A’s biological mother resumed contact with her and the mother ceased washing A’s clothes, instead sending them with A for A’s mother to wash. The father states that this occurred for a period of approximately six months.
On 1 August 2004 the children returned from spending time with the father and the mother discovered a large red lump on the back of Y’s ankle, which resulted from the father banging a trolley into the back of Y’s foot. The mother states that both children told her that the father had done this intentionally. The mother states that she took Y to a doctor the following day, who prescribed analgesics and Dencorub. The matter was reported to DOCS by the doctor. This matter is discussed in more detail later.
On 28 August 2004 while spending time with the father, Z spilled some milk which went on the father’s shirt. According to the mother, Z stated that the father called her “a stupid fuckhead”. I deal further with this matter later.
In September 2004 the mother obtained an Apprehended Violence Order against the father which he immediately breached by calling the mother on the telephone.
On 21 September 2004 the father filed an Application in a Case seeking parenting orders on an interim basis. Specifically, the father sought contact with the children each alternate weekend from 10.00am Saturday to 5.00pm Sunday and on every other weekend from 7.00pm Friday to 10.00am Saturday.
Following the making of orders on 30 September 2004, Z would regularly refuse to leave the car at the changeover point to go and spend time with her father. Y would usually go, although with some reluctance.
In April 2005 the father purchased an electric gun shooting game for the children, which the mother subsequently confiscated due to her concern over the appropriateness of the gift (discussed below).
On 27 April 2005 the mother found a picture on her dressing table that had apparently been drawn by Y, depicting the words “fuck”, “bitch” and “suck” and a drawing of a person holding up two middle fingers.
On 14 January 2006 there was an incident at a changeover in a McDonald’s carpark, during which the children were reluctant to go with their father and the father grabbed Y’s arm and squeezed it. He also grabbed the mother’s arm and squeezed it when she tried to free Y from his grip. The mother called the police, who subsequently arrived and spoke to both parties and the children.
On 16 June 2006 the father purchased for Y a “Mad” magazine which was later confiscated by the mother due to her concern that it contained age inappropriate material (discussed below).
On 3 August 2006 at 10.35pm the father sent the mother a text message stating “You know I often think about you, us in bed together. Do you?” The mother did not reply to this message as she found it very intimidating. The father stated in oral evidence that he did not send the message in order to intimidate the mother and that he sent the message after having had too much to drink.
The mother states that on 18 August 2006 the children came home from spending time with the father and Y had scribbled all over his arms and hands and in some places had scribbled so hard that the skin was broken.
The mother states that on 25 August 2006 she went into Y’s room on a Friday on which he was due to see his father and he had tied the curtain tie into a noose and placed it around his neck.
The mother states that following the orders that were made on 30 May 2006, which provided for the children to be collected by the father from school on Friday afternoons, the children became reluctant to attend school on Fridays. The mother states that on Friday 2 February 2007 the father was not there when the final bell rang, and as a result she collected the children. The father arrived after this time and said to the mother “I want the children and you are a bitch”. This confrontation occurred at the school and necessitated the intervention of a teacher.
On 10 November 2006 Z returned from spending time with the father and told the mother that the father had squeezed her arm with his thumb and fingers while they were crossing the road. The mother states that that night Z was crying and complaining of the pain and there were red marks on her arm consistent with Z’s description of what had happened.
On 8 December 2006 the children spent time with the father and Z inhaled a small glass bead. The mother took Z to North Shore Hospital and also to her General Practitioner. There is no evidence that Z was harmed as a result of this incident.
On 20 April 2007 the father arrived at the mother’s house to collect the children and Y refused to go with him. The mother had a friend and her children over to visit. The mother states that Y seemed to be hiding from his father.
On 20 April 2007 the father purchased for Z a book entitled “ttyl” which the mother later confiscated due to her concern that it contained age inappropriate material (discussed below).
On 20 July 2007 the father smacked Y on the leg in response to Y saying to the father “Shut up, you loser” or words to that effect. As a result of this incident the children did not see the father from 20 July 2007 until 5 April 2008. The mother states that the children’s behaviour improved significantly during this period and worsened again once contact resumed.
On 14 August 2007 the wife filed an Application for Final Orders in respect of children.
On 11 September 2007 the father filed a Response to an Application for Final Orders.
In October 2007 the father married Ms G.
On 27 November 2007 orders were made suspending the father’s contact with the children prescribed in Order 2 of the Consent Orders of 30 May 2005. This suspension was lifted when further orders were made on 26 March 2008.
On 27 April 2008 Y returned from a contact visit with the father with inappropriate music on his iPod. The father stated in oral evidence that the music had been downloaded by Y from A’s computer without his knowledge or consent. The mother raised this issue with Ms G and the music was subsequently deleted from Y’s iPod.
On 26 August 2008 the children were interviewed by Dr M and told him, in the presence of the mother, that they did not want to spend more time with the father or stay overnight.
On 9 September 2008 the children were scheduled for another interview with Dr M, this time including the father and Ms G. Y refused to get out of the car to attend the interview and refused to respond when Dr M came down to try to engage him in conversation. The mother states that following this interview the children again said to her that they did not want to spend more time with the father or stay overnight.
In July 2009 Z came home from school with a note relating to a father/daughter pizza night, which Z said she did not want the father to attend. Z ripped the note in half and threw it in the bin.
The mother states that there was a father/son event at Y’s school around the time of Father’s Day in 2009, which she asked Y whether he would like the father to attend. The mother states that Y replied in the negative.
Shortly prior to the commencement of this hearing the father contacted the mother via her lawyers and requested that his contact weekend be swapped due to the fact that his partner was participating in an art exhibition. The mother said she did not want the children to be returned to her upset and angry on the eve of the commencement of the court case, so she declined to respond to that request.
SPECIFIC AREAS OF EVIDENCE
There were a number of incidents raised during the hearing that the mother says should cause me some concern vis-à-vis the father’s parenting capacity and his attitude towards the children. Each of those incidents will be discussed individually below.
The father’s provision to the children of inappropriate material
It is part of the mother’s case that the father has provided inappropriate materials to the children and that his provision of those materials suggests a lack of parental capacity on his part and a recklessness as to what is age appropriate for them. Exhibits G, H and I were tendered by the mother to demonstrate the father’s inability to gauge what is appropriate for the children to read or experience.
The book “ttyl”
Exhibit G is a book entitled “ttyl” that the father purchased for Z on 20 April 2007 (Z was just 10). The book is a novel that takes the form of several fictional female year ten students discussing various aspects of high school social life via instant messages. At paragraph 92 of her affidavit filed 12 December 2008 the mother details some of the language used in the book, including “shaving pubes”, “summer sausage”, “bitch slapper”, “total stiffy”, “being in the sack with Mr H”, “psycho slut”, “ménage a tois”, “penis head”, “holy fuck”, “lesbo slut” and “whore”. At paragraph 56 of his affidavit field 11 September 2007 the father states that Z selected the book from her age group’s area, and that he quickly looked at the cover to see if it was suitable. He states that “it seemed a little old for her but thought it was good that she was wanting to read a book so bought it for her”. In oral evidence the father stated that he took a quick look at the book and nothing alerted him to the fact that the book may contain inappropriate material. The father acknowledged, after being made aware in cross examination of the specific content of the book, that it was not appropriate for Z and the mother was likely to be upset by the book, particularly in light of her suffering post traumatic stress disorder.
I note that one of the central characters shares one of the children’s names. This fact was not mentioned in the evidence before me but I suspect that it had some influence on Z’s decision to want to purchase the book. From even a cursory perusal of the book it is clear that it deals with issues inappropriate for a child of Z’s age. The back cover of the book states that “tenth grade will be a roller-coaster ride of boy temptation” and states that “good girl [character] gets in over her head with a flirty teacher”. While I accept the father’s evidence that he was unaware of the inappropriate content of the book and I do not believe that he deliberately purchased inappropriate material, I find that he failed to exercise sufficient supervision in allowing Z to purchase the book.
The “Mad” magazine
Exhibit H is a “Mad” magazine that the father purchased for Y on 16 June 2006, when Y was 9 years old. Pages 60 and 61 of the magazine contain satirical cartoons of women in bikinis. The mother regarded the content of the magazine as inappropriate for a child of Y’s age. In oral evidence the father conceded that it was probably “borderline” however he did not think that it was highly inappropriate.
Dr L states in his report dated 5 March 2008 that the father said that “he is not into censorship”, although he did flick through the Mad magazine before he bought it and did not see anything particularly offensive in it.
The content of the magazine appears to be more suited to an adolescent than a nine year old child. As with Exhibit G, I am not of the view that the father deliberately purchased inappropriate material but it is unfortunate that he did not exercise a greater deal of judgment and restraint. Probably he did not look at it closely enough. Ideally, being conscious of the mother’s sensitivity to his behaviour and her concern for the welfare of the children, the father would have erred on the side of caution with respect to the purchase of materials for the children. However it is clear that he has a far more relaxed parenting style than the mother.
“Mummy Laid an Egg!”
Exhibit I in the hearing is a children’s sexual education book entitled “Mummy Laid an Egg!” The mother took the view that although this book is intended for children, it contained material that the children were not ready to experience at the time the father gave them the book. The father was not shown the book in cross examination and he was not asked any questions about it. I do not regard this book as troubling in any sense and I do not regard the father’s provision of the book to the children as inappropriate. It is a sexual education book containing very simple material and cartoonish illustrations that is clearly intended for children of a young age.
The electric gun game
In April 2005 the father purchased a game for the children for their birthday which involves the players shooting each other with guns that administer mild electric shocks. The mother confiscated the game and did not allow the children to use it. At paragraph 23 of his affidavit filed 11 September 2007 the father states that he was assured by the salesman that the game was safe for everyone except people who had a heart condition. The father also states that he assumed the game was safe to use, given that it was on sale in New South Wales. I note that the packaging on the game contains the warnings “Keep out of reach of children” and “This is not a toy”. The father stated in oral evidence that the children seemed to enjoy the game so he bought it for them, although he acknowledged that he did not think it through at the time and in retrospect it was not appropriate.
This particular gift from the father to the children is the one that I find most troubling. It is something that is clearly inappropriate for children of a young age. I note that Y and Z were turning eight at that time. The mother’s alarm was quite justified. Even taking into account the father’s more relaxed approach to parenting I find that his purchase of this item for the children was clearly inappropriate.
Swiss army knife
The father also purchased for Y a Swiss army knife when he was eight years of age. The mother’s position is that that was an inappropriate gift for a boy of Y’s age. The mother was unaware that the father had purchased that knife for Y until she discovered it in Y’s schoolbag. The father stated that he did not think the purchase of the knife was a ‘big deal’ however he conceded that it was probably not appropriate for Y to take to school. Although I do not regard the purchase of the knife as inappropriate per se, I do think that the father erred in failing to impress upon Y that the knife was solely for home use and should not be taken to school. It would have also been preferable if the father had alerted the mother to the fact that Y was in possession of the knife, although I accept discussing the matter with the mother, face to face, before the purchase is not currently possible given there is no communication between the parents.
Other matters
Annexure J to the mother’s affidavit filed 14 August 2007 is a letter from her solicitors to the father’s solicitors detailing a number of incidents of concern to the mother. At paragraph 27 of his affidavit filed 11 September 2007 the father refers to that letter as containing “some very petty things, which I believed did not warrant a reply”. Among the matters raised by the letter was the fact that the children had told the mother that the father had described her as “evil”; that the father had left the children alone in his flat on six occasions and on another occasion alone in a video shop; and that the father had purchased an electric shooting game and a knife for Y. In oral evidence the father acknowledged that if he had left the children alone, that would not be a petty matter, however he stated that at that time he was tired of receiving letters from the mother’s solicitors containing false allegations and chose not to reply. That was an unfortunate attitude to adopt, but is symptomatic of the inability of the parties to communicate.
Another issue was raised by the mother during the hearing in relation to inappropriate communication by A with the children. Annexure A to the mother’s affidavit filed 20 July 2009 is a printout of an instant messaging program used by the children. A is one of the children’s contacts. Next to her icon is the message “apparently the cost to go to the movies is not an arm and a leg but my uterus. ily nick”. In oral evidence the father stated that he thought that that was an inappropriate message for A to be sharing with the children, and he spoke to her about it. He stated that if the children are using the computer at his house he monitors them to ensure that they are not accessing inappropriate content. That is an appropriate attitude to take, given that the father is responsible for the material accessed by the children while they are in his home. Although A is now an adult, given that she resides with the father it is appropriate that he speak to her and ensure that she does not communicate inappropriate material to the children. I note that the material with which the mother has an issue is available online and is therefore accessible in the mother’s home as well. There is therefore a similar obligation on the part of the mother to ensure that the children do not access inappropriate material online, including via instant messaging programs.
At paragraph 96 of her affidavit filed 12 December 2008 the mother asserts that the father allows the children to be exposed to inappropriate computer material. Specifically, the mother states that Y returned from a contact visit on 27 April 2008 with inappropriate music on his iPod. In oral evidence the father stated that the music had been downloaded by Y from A’s computer without the father’s authorisation. The mother raised the issue with Ms G and the next time that Y went to visit the father the inappropriate music was deleted from his iPod. I note that the music obtained by Y was clearly inappropriate for a child of his age, however I accept the father’s evidence that Y obtained the music from A’s computer without his knowledge or consent and I note that the music was deleted immediately at the mother’s request.
At paragraph 95 of her affidavit filed 12 December 2008 the mother states that when Y was seven years of age he returned from visiting his father and informed the mother that he had played the computer game “Halo”, which the mother asserts is rated MA 15+. In oral evidence the father conceded that that game contained simulated violence and was probably not appropriate for a child of Y’s age.
I note that at paragraph 46 of her affidavit filed 30 July 2009 Ms G states that Z had requested that Ms G and the father buy her a video game for her birthday, but that they could not as the game was rated “R” and would cause distress. In oral evidence Ms G clarified that distress would be caused to Z if Ms G and the father purchased the game for her and it was subsequently confiscated. Ms G also amended her evidence in this regard by stating that the game was not in fact rated “R” but was simply rated at an age higher than Z’s age at that time. I do not regard this change in evidence as of any great importance. I accept Ms G’s evidence about this game and I note it suggests that Ms G exercises something of a moderating influence on the father’s parenting style.
Conclusion in respect of the father’s provision to the children of inappropriate material
In oral evidence Dr L expressed some concern over the electric gun game, and stated that that was an inappropriate gift. In terms of Exhibits G and H, Dr L expressed the view that while those materials would be more suitable for adolescents, they would not have an impact on the recommendations in his report and may simply reflect the “Disneyland Dad” situation, whereby the father has limited time with the children and is therefore more inclined to accede to their requests. Dr L acknowledged that the mother would be more likely to experience elevated anxiety levels as a result of these gifts by virtue of her post traumatic stress disorder.
Counsel for the mother submitted that the father’s purchase of the above materials for the children indicates a lack of parental capacity on his part and recklessness on his part as to what is appropriate for them.
Apart from the electric gun game, none of the other matters concern me seriously enough for me to find that the father poses an unacceptable risk to the children in the future. The electric gun game was an inappropriate gift and the father acknowledged as much in his oral evidence. What the evidence on this issue as a whole highlights is that the unfortunate friction between the father’s more relaxed and accommodating parenting style and the mother’s elevated anxiety. The provision by the father to the children of gifts that may perhaps be regarded as borderline in terms of age appropriateness are reacted to by the mother in a more sensitive manner than might be expected of a person without post traumatic stress disorder. This friction between the father’s parenting on the one hand and the mother’s condition on the other is an important factor in this case and its consequences are evident in the history of this matter since separation. Accordingly, I do not regard the father’s provision of material to the children as sufficiently troubling to warrant an adverse finding against him in terms of parenting capacity or attitude towards the responsibilities of parenthood.
The father’s use of inappropriate language
At paragraphs 77 to 84 of her affidavit filed 12 December 2008 the mother asserts that the father has used inappropriate language around the children. She also states that she was informed by Z after a contact visit on 21 July 2006 that the father listens to music containing inappropriate lyrics while driving with the children in his car. During cross examination the father acknowledged that he did listen to such music in the past, however did not believe the children had been frightened by it. He stated that he no longer listened to such music with the children in the car.
In terms of the father’s use of language, Dr L notes at paragraph 36 of his report dated 5 March 2008 that “It does seem to me that it is probable that [the father] either is probably somewhat unaware of a characteristic pattern of being fairly demonstrative in his language and that this can have some impact on the children. Indeed when I put this to him as a hypothesis towards the end of my session with him he seemed to be a [sic] resistant to it but also agreed that if that was the issue that he would attempt as much as he possibly could to modify his language around the children”.
Dr L states at paragraph 35 of his report dated 5 March 2008 that “[Ms G] said that [the father] does swear and can get expressive in his language. Both of them denied any expressive violence i.e. slamming doors, smashing things or those kinds of things although [A] and [the father] separately did make comment about that kind of behaviour of [Ms G] although she denies this”.
At paragraph 42 Dr L notes that the father denies using obscene language or swear words.
In terms of the father’s use of inappropriate language to the mother, the father stated that he could not recall having said “shut the fuck up” to the mother, nor could he recall having called her a “stupid whinging bitch”.
In oral evidence the father denied that he has sworn at the children, but conceded that he “probably” swore in front of them. He stated that he tried not to swear around the children. The father conceded in cross examination that he sometimes uses words such as “fuck” and “cunt”, however he stated that he tries not to and does not use those words around the children. He acknowledged using swear words in the presence of people who he knows will not be offended by that language. He stated that he and Ms G sometimes swear in normal conversation with each other, but not around the children. He acknowledged that he and Ms G sometimes use the words “fuck” and “cunt”.
In cross examination Ms G was questioned about the issue of swearing. She stated that she swears regularly. She also stated that the father swears and shouts on occasion. She stated that she and the father do not yell at each other in the presence of the children. She stated that she has not heard the father swear in the presence of the children.
In oral evidence Dr L expressed the view that use of swear words was relatively common in Australian society and I gained the impression that he would not regard that as particularly troubling. He did note that the mother may be more sensitive to things of that nature and it would be nice if her sensibilities could be respected. However Dr L drew a clear distinction between the use of an expletive when a person hits their finger with a hammer, for example, and the use of language to actually denigrate someone, which he considers a form of abuse. It seems clear that the father and Ms G use florid language in their normal speech patterns when talking to one another. I accept Ms G’s evidence that they restrain themselves from using such language in the presence of the children.
The spilled milk incident
At paragraph 10 of her affidavit filed 14 August 2007 the mother states that following a contact visit on 28 August 2004, Z told her that she had spilled some milk on the father’s new shirt and he had said to her that she always ruins special occasions and she was a “stupid fuckhead”.
In his affidavit filed 11 September 2007 at paragraph 18 the father acknowledges that he did become agitated on that occasion but did not call Z a “fuckhead”. He states that he apologised to Z later and told her that he realised that he overreacted. I accept the father’s evidence in relation to this incident.
Conclusion in relation to the father’s use of inappropriate language
It is fairly clear from the evidence that the father has a predilection for using swear words and I find that he has used that language in the past and continues to do so. Although I accept the evidence of the father and Ms G that the father tries not to use swear words in the presence of the children, I find that he has done so on occasion and that those instances have been relayed to the mother who by virtue of her elevated anxiety is sensitive to things of that nature. I accept the evidence of Dr L that in reality there is an important distinction between the casual use of expletives and the use of language by one person to denigrate another.
There is nothing in the evidence to convince me that the father’s use of language has an impact on his capacity as a parent or that it should limit the time he spends with the children. I accept that the father has not used swear words in an abusive manner.
Calling Z fat
There was an occasion in about November 2008 when the father lifted up Z and said to her words to the effect that she was heavy and was his second heaviest girl. Z later reported that incident to the mother and was upset that the father had inferred that she was fat. I was told by the Independent Children's Lawyer on 28 November 2008 that Y had raised with her that the father had referred to Z as “fat” and Z had become tearful. The father’s evidence is that he said these words in a light-hearted manner and that Z exhibited no signs of distress at the time. Ms G, who was present, told me that on 28 November 2008 the father had made a relatively innocent playful comment. The father believes that this incident was blown out of proportion and elevated in Z’s mind after it was reported back to the mother.
I accept the father’s evidence that that comment was intended light-heartedly but he showed a lack of sensitivity about the effect that even “playful” words about weight can have on a child, particularly of Z’s age.
Discussing litigation with the children
At paragraph 64 of her affidavit filed 12 December 2008 the mother states that following a contact visit on 8 December 2006, Z reported to the mother that the father had said to her that “[the] mother sits on her arse and she has a rich lawyer and he can’t afford to go to Court anymore because he can’t afford a lawyer and he is stuck with the 4 hour thing and it’s really inconvenient, he can’t afford to go to Court”. In cross examination the father acknowledged that that was an inappropriate thing to say to the children.
The father holds the view that the children try to tell the mother the things that they believe she wants to hear.
The father’s use of violence towards the children
In her affidavit material the mother makes reference to a number of incidents that she alleges indicate violent and inappropriate behaviour by the father towards the children. Each of those incidents will be discussed in detail below.
I note at the outset Dr L’s view in relation to this issue. At paragraph 65 of his report dated 5 March 2008 Dr L stated that the father told him “that he does hit the children from time to time although he doesn’t believe in smacking children”. At paragraph 101 Dr L states “It is not my view, despite the injuries that have occurred to the children, that the father is typically aggressive or violent towards them”.
The shopping trolley incident
At paragraph 8 of her affidavit filed 14 August 2007 the mother refers to an incident that took place on 1 August 2004 in which she alleges the father pushed a shopping trolley into the back of Y’s foot, causing a red, raised lump. The mother took Y to the doctor who reported the matter to DOCS. The medical records (Exhibit K) describe Y’s injury as “tender firm 1.5cm diameter swelling in Achilles tendon 3 cm above it insertion”. The records do not indicate the prescription of any drugs, however they do contain a note stating “management – deep heat”. I take that to be a reference to Dencorub or a similar product. The records note that both children told the mother that the father had struck Y with the trolley deliberately.
At paragraph 16 of his affidavit filed 11 September 2007 the father states that while shopping with the children, Y kept stopping in front of the trolley in what the father believes was attention-seeking behaviour. The father states that he told Y to stop, however Y did it again when the father was not looking and the father accidentally bumped into him with the trolley. The father states that Y cried for 15 seconds and the father apologised, and the incident was not mentioned again for the rest of the weekend. He states that he was not contacted by DOCS about this incident, however the mother did obtain an Apprehended Violence Order against him which he immediately breached by telephoning her to ask why she had obtained the order. The records subpoenaed from DOCS which became Exhibit L do not indicate that the father was interviewed about this incident.
Dr L asked the father about the incident in which he allegedly deliberately ran over Y’s foot with a trolley because he was in the way. The father conceded that this did happen, but told Dr L it was accidental and unintentional. At paragraph 16 of his report dated 5 March 2008 Dr L notes that the children spontaneously told him about this incident and stated that the father had pushed the trolley into Y’s foot deliberately.
In oral evidence the father adhered to the version of this incident that he gave in his affidavit. He was asked by counsel for the mother why it was that he thought that Y was exhibiting attention-seeking behaviour, to which the father replied that it was his opinion as Y’s father, knowing Y as he then did.
On balance I accept the father’s version of this incident. It appears that the mother reacted in a fairly proactive way to what was essentially a very minor injury to Y’s foot, and the doctor felt compelled, based on the mother’s information, to report the matter to DOCS. I note the children’s assertion that the father did this deliberately, however that needs to be considered in the context of Dr L’s opinion that the children were not afraid in the presence of the father. I find that the father did not deliberately run over Y’s foot with a trolley.
The smacking incident
The mother refers to an incident at paragraph 58 of her affidavit filed 14 August 2007 where the father smacked Y while in the car on 20 July 2007. The mother states that Z told her that the father had bought Y a chocolate (the father says it was an ice cream), and while stopped at a light turned around and said to Y “did you thank me for the chocolate?” to which Y replied “Yes. Well thank you anyway”. The father then hit Y on the leg.
At paragraph 64 of his affidavit filed 11 September 2007 the father states that after buying each of the children an ice cream, he was driving them in the car when Z said “Thank you Dad”. The father said “What about you [Y]?” to which Y replied “Get lost you loser”. In response to this the father turned around and gave him “a light slap on the thigh” and said “Any more of that and it’ll go in the bin”.
Dr L asked the father about the incident in which the father smacked Y on the thigh. The father stated that that came about because he asked the children to thank him for an ice cream that he had bought each of them, to which Y responded by calling him a “loser”. The father stated that in reaction to this “he had instinctively smacked his son on the thigh. He said he did so not very hard. He said there was no bruising or mark and [Y] didn’t cry and it was simply because of [Y] said inappropriate language and he wanted his son to know that” (paragraph 40).
In oral evidence the father stated that he thought his actions on that occasion had been appropriate. He acknowledged that he told Dr L that “he does feel that it was necessary to smack his son to give him a ‘wake up’ call” (paragraph 65 of Dr L’s report dated 5 March 2008). He expanded on this by saying that his actions had been intended to get Y’s attention and let him know that he was displeased with his behaviour.
I accept the father’s version as to what happened. Much was made of this incident by the mother during the hearing. It was emphasised by the mother that this was a breach of orders not to discipline the children physically. Whilst that is true, it was a minor breach and not one which justified what then happened. Most unfortunately this incident led to the father not seeing the children for a period of approximately nine months. I note that there was some suggestion that the father might see the children at a supervised contact centre during that period, but the father was resistant to that idea, stating in oral evidence that he found seeing the children under those conditions disrespectful to him because it implied he had done something wrong. Both adults behaved inappropriately and the children suffered as a result.
The McDonald’s incident
At paragraph 9 of her affidavit filed 12 December 2008 the mother describes an incident that occurred at a McDonald’s. On Saturday 14 January 2006 the mother took the children to the McDonald’s to hand them over to their father in accordance with the orders then in place. She was accompanied by the maternal grandmother. The mother states that both children refused to leave the car, and the father became angry and aggressive in his manner of speech. He refused to leave the McDonald’s car park. The mother states that Y got out of the car, at which point the father grabbed Y by the arm and squeezed it so hard that Y was crying out “ouch, ouch”. The mother states that she tried to prise the father’s fingers from Y’s arm, whereupon the father grabbed the mother’s arm and squeezed it very hard, causing her pain in her right arm. The father dug his thumb into the underside of the mother’s wrist. The police subsequently arrived and spoke to both parents as well as the children. According to the mother, the children were very distressed following this incident and complained of being scared and having nightmares. The mother states that she continues to suffer pain in her wrist as a result of the father’s treatment of her. The week following this incident the mother attended the police station and unsuccessfully attempted to obtain an Apprehended Violence Order against the father.
In her affidavit the maternal grandmother gives a version of this incident that is largely concordant with that of the mother. She states at paragraph 21 “I had not seen [the father] behave like this previously and I was very concerned for my grandchildren who were obviously very distressed by this incident”. During her oral evidence the maternal grandmother stated that she has not seen the father with the children since that incident.
The father deals with this incident at paragraph 12 of his affidavit filed 11 September 2007. He states that he had driven three and a half hours from the North Coast in order to pick the children up and take them to the holiday apartment near the beach where he was staying at that time. He states that the mother and the maternal grandmother informed him that the children did not want to go with him. The father states that when he asked the children why they did not want to go with him, Y replied “it’s too far”. The father states that the mother became quite agitated and got out of the car to confront him, aggressively pushing the car door into him repeatedly. While the father was asking the children why they no longer wanted to go with him, the mother and maternal grandmother started screaming abuse at him. They then took the children out of the car at which point the father took Y by the arm and pulled him towards his car. The father states that the mother bent his finger back almost breaking it, at which point the father let go of Y who was unhurt. The police subsequently arrived and shortly thereafter the father returned to the North Coast without the children.
During cross examination the father put to the mother that the injury she says she sustained during this incident actually came about when the mother attacked the father and the father grabbed Y. The mother stated that that was untrue.
This was clearly a distressing incident for the mother and the children. Probably the truth of what happened lies somewhere between the respective versions. Both parents played a part in escalating the incident. It is an example of the dysfunctional relationship between the mother and father as parents.
Conclusion in relation to the father’s violence against the children
On 25 November 2004 the father’s solicitors provided to the mother’s solicitors written proof of the father’s attendance of “1-2-3 Magic”, a parenting skills course about managing children’s behaviour, as well as “Pit Stop Anger Workshop”, a course to assist people understand the underlying causes of their anger. At paragraph 20 of his affidavit filed 11 September 2007, the father states that “I agreed to attend the parenting and anger management courses on advice from my then lawyer as it was proposed as a condition to seeing the twins. I thought as well perhaps I could learn something about improving my reactions to stressful situations”. The father gave oral evidence that although he did not believe he had a problem with anger management, he nevertheless went along with an open mind and a willingness to learn.
I note Dr L’s opinion that that “The father presents as a person who minimises or lacks insight into the volatility of his expression when he is frustrated which is somewhat at odds with his otherwise quiet demeanour on interview” (paragraph 92 of report dated 5 March 2008). Dr L also notes that the father “can be a person who gets frustrated. I think he can be a person whose frustrations sometimes lose sight of the need to always consider the interests of the children. I think that he is not characteristically aggressive towards the children. I think that he may well be a person who simply gives into his feelings from time to time. I do not believe that the children are in any substantial risk of harm from the father. I do not believe that the father is vindictive towards the children and I do think the father is concerned not to harm his children” (paragraph 95 of report dated 5 March 2008). As I have said, it is Dr L’s view that despite the injuries that have occurred to the children, the father is not typically aggressive or violent towards the children.
I accept Dr L’s opinion. This characterisation of the father as someone who on occasion has trouble moderating both his temper and his reactions to certain frustrating situations is consistent with the evidence I have heard. Although the various incidents discussed above suggest a certain lack of restraint on the father’s part, I am not of the view that his behaviour places the children at risk of physical harm and I do not regard the evidence on this issue as sufficient to justify a reduction in the time that he spends with them. I accept that the trolley incident was accidental.
An additional factor that must be taken into account in relation to this area of the evidence is the effect of the mother’s psychological condition on her perception and reporting of the father’s behaviour. This was something that was alluded to by Dr L in his earliest report of 5 March 2008, prior to the release of Dr J’s report of 10 February 2009 which disclosed the mother’s post traumatic stress disorder. At paragraph 93 Dr L notes that “[the mother] is clearly very sensitive to the situation and at least one hypothesis that has to be considered is that she is oversensitive to the situation and has created in the children’s mind a fear of the father”.
The father’s use of violence towards the mother
At paragraph 124 of her affidavit filed 12 December 2008 the mother details a number of incidents of violence that she alleges took place during the relationship. These include the father on numerous occasions using his shoulder to push the mother out of the way; the father pinching the mother’s stomach when she was pregnant and the children were approximately 17 months of age (the mother states that she later suffered a miscarriage); the father flicking his fingers onto the areas where the mother had been receiving treatment for sunspots in 2003; an incident on 24 April 2004 when the father forced sexual intercourse without the mother’s consent; and squeezing the mother’s hand so hard in 2004 that she was in pain for a week.
In oral evidence the father denied pushing the mother out of the way with his shoulder, and stated that if he accidentally brushed the mother in the hallway he would apologise, however because the mother “would see an accidental brush as a deliberate insult”. The father denied flicking the mother on the skin where she had received treatment.
In relation to the mother’s implication that the father caused her to have a miscarriage by pinching her stomach, the mother acknowledged in cross examination that during the IVF treatment for that pregnancy she was smoking five cigarettes a day. The mother stated that she was approximately four weeks pregnant at the time of that incident. She stated that two weeks later, she went and had an ultrasound after which it was discovered that the baby had no heartbeat. It became clear during the mother’s cross examination that the actual procedure that occurred was a curette as opposed to a spontaneous miscarriage.
The father gave evidence that he could not remember the mother having undergone a curette. He acknowledged that he had not wanted another child at that time, but denied that he was happy that the mother had lost the baby or that he had caused her to have a miscarriage. The father initially denied that he had pinched the mother’s stomach, however subsequently changed his position by saying that he could not remember whether he had or not.
The father denied having forced sexual intercourse on the mother during the relationship and stated that “for the great proportion of the marriage, we had a healthy, mutually satisfying sexual relationship”. I am unable to find that the father forced sexual intercourse.
At paragraph 54 of his report dated 5 March 2008 Dr L states that “It is [the father’s] view that he was a victim of aggression on the part of his wife for the twin disappointments of not having another child and being over involved with a business that was only limping along. [The father] defined the aggression in his wife as a passive aggressive nagging to which he would eventually snap. The rage attacks he says took the form of his swearing were a product of what he saw as [the mother’s] incessant negativity and nagging”.
The issue of violence towards the wife was not addressed in any significant way in final submissions by counsel for the mother. I note also that there has been no instance of violence towards the wife on the father’s part since the parties separated in 2004.
I am of the view that the father has no current problem with anger management.
Whilst it may not be objectively or reasonably thought to be the father’s “fault”, the dynamics of the relationship between the parties seems to have been the trigger for the mother developing a post traumatic stress disorder.
As I have said, that disorder is an important consideration when determining an outcome which is in the children’s best interests.
THE EVIDENCE OF DR L
Report dated 5 March 2008
Dr L produced a report dated 5 March 2008. That report was based on his interviewing of the parties on 21 February 2008, as well as various documentation with which he had been provided.
Dr L saw the children on two occasions as part of the interview. He states:
“On this second occasion the children told me they definitely did want to see their father because they wanted to see him but they were also concerned that if they didn’t see him the father would get angry. Nonetheless there appeared to be genuine quality of wanting to remain involved at some level with their father. In terms of periodicity they said they wanted the occasions they saw their father to be around about every second week. When I gave them a number of options including more distant options they seemed to feel that every second or third week would be an appropriate level of contact but they were very clear on both occasions that I saw them that they wished the contact to be supervised. I was surprised at that as such a wish in [sic] usual I [sic] children of their age and either reflects the impact of prior discussions (usually with he [sic] alternate parent) or a genuine fear” (paragraph 12).
Dr L stated at paragraph 15 that the children “did say that the father yells at them at lot, uses swear words and that he is very tall and very scary and there seemed to be genuine emotion in reporting how scary the father appeared to them”.
Dr L states at paragraph 16 that the children told him spontaneously about an occasion on which the father intentionally pushed a trolley into Y’s foot because he was in the way. Dr L states that they also told him of witnessing the father hurting the mother at McDonalds when there was a tussle over Y.
At paragraph 18 of his Dr L states that the children told him that “they used to stay overnight at the Dad’s place but he got too mean. They gave me an example of one time when [Z] spilled a cup of milk on a table and the father called her an ‘f……this’ [sic] and she said she felt really scared by him”. The mother reports in her affidavit that the father called Z a “stupid fuckhead”. The father denies he said this.
Dr L notes at paragraph 32 that “although the father presents as an intelligent person who has the best interests of the children at heart, he does have some difficulty in being able to separate his frustrations at what he sees as the situation and his communication with his children”.
Dr L states at paragraph 34 that A told him that “her father is a nice man, is caring and loving, strongly involved in the care of the children when she was living with [the mother] as well as now but she does agree that her father is a person who can swear and can get cranky but she says not at people”.
Dr L notes at paragraph 37 that “although [the mother] said that she had cared for [A] like a daughter some of her other comments indicated that she felt quite angry towards [A]”. A herself expressed the view that “whilst she had a perception of [the mother] as being caring and loving towards her until the children were born, once the children were born she felt that [the mother’s] approach to her was far more ambivalent. Indeed she felt blamed by [the mother] for the things that happened in the house which had nothing to do with her. She felt blamed by [the mother] for the existence of her [A’s] mother. She saw [the mother] as quite bitter without knowing why”. Dr K goes on to note that “there does appear to be a general lack of insight by [the mother] of the way that her behaviour towards [A] reflects some of the criticisms that she has made of [the father’s] attitude towards her and towards [Z] and to [Y]”.
At paragraph 39 Dr L notes the father’s view that “the children have been encouraged by the mother to misperceive his behaviour as being aggressive or demeaning of them and also they have been encouraged to see him as having been horrible towards their mother. He does however admit to some occasions in which his behaviour may well have been perceived by the children as problematic”. The father was asked about this paragraph during cross examination. He stated that he did not know what Dr L may have been referring to.
The father told Dr L that “he does discipline [the children] but generally speaking he does not smack them and said he did not see there was much use in smacking a child of their age” (paragraph 41).
Dr L states at paragraph 41 that the fact that the children did not have telephone contact with the father on his birthday “does suggest that there probably is some reluctance on the part of the mother to encourage contact between the children and their father”.
Dr L states at paragraphs 78 and 79 that it is obvious the mother has a genuine fear of the father and was experiencing a sense of traumatisation.
At paragraph 84 Dr L states that the mother told him that she “was involved for a while in the therapy that the children had with Dr [M]. She said at that stage, about 2005, she took the children to see Dr [M] because of what she saw as the intense anxiety and the sibling rivalry that was occurring between them. It seems that the children were at that stage telling her that they hated going to see the father. Although this sentiment is reflected in Dr. [M’s] notes, it is not clear if this is a direct quote from the children, or second hand through his interviews with the mother. The children are not however receiving any counselling support at the moment”.
Dr L’s conclusions are stated at paragraphs 92 to 101 of his report.
Dr L states at paragraph 92 that the children appear to be reasonably happy and appear to have a very similar style of relationship to both their parents.
Dr L notes at paragraph 92 that in his view the father “may well be a person who can be impulsively cranky but is not a person who seems to inspire fear in the people around him other than his former wife”. Notwithstanding this, as I have said, the mother is clearly very sensitive to the father’s behaviour and as I have already noted, Dr L says at least one hypothesis is that the mother is oversensitive to the situation and has created in the children’s mind a fear of the father.
At paragraph 94 Dr L states that “there is a lack of insight on the part of both parents in relation to how their behaviours and communication styles impact upon the children. For the moment I do not believe the children are demonstrating any significant psychological problems but clearly they have been in the past and it is going to be impossible for them not to experience a degree of agitation and anxiety given the ongoing acrimony between the parents if it does not stop. Whilst I believe that if this acrimony could be resolved there would be a good adjustment on the part of the children, I think realistically a pattern has developed that makes it very difficult for such acrimony to be resolved”.
I note Dr L’s statement at paragraph 95 that the father’s plan for increasing contact “appears to be reasonable in that he is seeking to not immerse the children immediately and seems to be sensitive to the need of the children to have some kind of graduated increase”, however Dr L qualifies that by saying that if that was to occur, “the father has to make some changes in the way in which he responds”. Dr L also notes that it is “reasonably obvious” that the father swears in front of the children who are sensitive to the father’s swearing.
At paragraph 96 Dr L states his opinion that the mother “needs to reduce the level of intensity in which she primes the children about the father. I know she told me that she thought she didn’t do that but in talking to the children it is pretty obvious that they talk to the mother about the father and the mother then tells them of her fears. I think it will be in the children’s interests for them to have contact with their father. I do not think there is a significant risk of harm to the children in such contact”. Dr L places particular emphasis on the importance of the children having contact with A, the most appropriate place for that contact being the father’s home.
Dr L notes that given the children’s age, supervised contact at a contact centre appears to be unreasonable, and that the children are capable of raising with the mother or an independent person any complaint that they may have about the father. Dr L states despite the mother’s opinion, he thinks that Ms G would be a suitable supervisor and it would be good if A could be in attendance from time to time as well.
I note Dr L’s comment at paragraph 98 that “It will be very difficult I think for the children to broach with the mother their desire to spend more time with the father. Indeed I think the children’s sensitivity to their mother’s agitation would prevent them from so doing”. This comment is obviously relevant to Order 4 as sought by the mother, which places the responsibility on the children of deciding when they want to have contact with the father. I accept Dr L’s opinion that in view of the mother’s attitude towards the father and the children’s consciousness of that attitude, such an arrangement would not be appropriate.
In relation to the best way for contact to be implemented, Dr L states at paragraph 99 that “it would be appropriate to organise contact in such a way that the children have an afternoon contact with their father on either a Saturday or a Sunday afternoon and this could go on for the first couple of months with overnight contact being possible from say the third month on although I think that in the first instance overnight contact should occur once a month only”.
Report dated 13 March 2008
Dr L notes at paragraph 2 of this report that the mother’s self-reporting of the children’s behaviour indicates a high level of distress, anxiety and depression on their part. The mother’s responses indicate that the children experience intense fears to stimuli associated with the father. Significantly, Dr L notes that “it was not that easy to see such disturbed behaviours in the children”. Dr L notes further:
For instance the children do not show stiltedness, hyper vigilance or extreme wariness with the father but quite the opposite. They appeared relaxed and were able to play a game which included some teasing of the father. On the whole whilst the mother’s report of the children’s behaviour indicates the children to have been significantly traumatised by the current situation, I think some degree of filtering has to take place to partial out the mother’s intense degree of anxiety as well as her traumatisation experiences from within the relationship”.
Report dated 22 June 2009
Dr L notes in this report his belief that the children were not particularly fearful of the father when they saw him: “Whilst acknowledging the gruffness and somewhat lacking in insight behaviour of the father, there seems no reason to believe the children are likely to be at risk of harm from the father”.
Report dated 25 October 2009
At paragraph 14 of his most recent report Dr L notes the mother’s view of the relationship between the children and their father:
She says the children now have a relationship with their father but she thinks it is to her detriment and to the children’s detriment, and viewed the behavioural problems of the children as due to this contact. She reports a deteriorating relationship with her children and she made it plain as the interview progressed that she views the children’s behaviour as aggressive and intimidating towards her and positions such behaviour as the legacy of the interactions the children observed from their father.
During cross examination the mother gave some examples of what she regards as the children’s deteriorating behaviour. She stated that on one occasion she told Y to wait for her to pick him up after school, however he disregarded her instructions and walked home by himself. When she later confronted him, he said to her “Oh, shut up, I’m not listening to you”. Y then went into his room and kicked a table and broke his desk. The mother also states that Y has exhibited other violent behaviour such as stabbing a tissue box and a can. The mother disagreed with Dr L’s view that such behaviour may be more related to adolescence and developmental trends than what the mother alleges was the violent behaviour of the father.
In relation to Z, the mother states that she has been rude, and has been slamming doors and stomping around. The mother stated in evidence that she believes that the children have acted that way because they have observed such behaviour on the part of the father in the past.
In relation to the mother’s proposal that contact times be placed at the discretion of the children, I note Dr L’s concern at paragraph 25 that “if spending time with the father was left solely up to the children, there would be an increasing attenuation of contact between them and the father”. Dr L also notes at paragraph 26 his concern that “the children are currently making all the running in this matter, and to some extent they remain immature and unable to foresee the consequences of their decisions and some measure of external support will be necessary for them lest their relationship with their father simply erode due to lack of interest on their part and lack of support for it by the mother”. Dr L recommends a full day of contact every second weekend with the option of increasing that if the children so wish, as well as overnight contact for one weekend per school holiday period.
Counsel for the mother submitted that it is not ill will on the part of the mother that renders her communication with the father difficult, but rather the fact that any such communication operates as a trigger for her post traumatic stress disorder, which consequently causes her considerable problems and leads her to be over-vigilant or over-sensitive in certain situations. Dr J’s diagnosis was not in issue in this case and I accept the submission of counsel for the mother that it has an impact on the mother’s ability to communicate.
Dr L states at paragraph 63 of his report dated 5 March 2008 that “[the father] did express some concerns that even if the decision was made that he could have some contact with his children the wife [sic] would continue to undermine any such orders by first encouraging the children to misperceive or to exaggeratedly respond to things that he did and secondly to simply find reasons to prevent the orders from taking affect [sic]”.
I accept Dr L’s opinion that the mother needs to reduce the level of intensity at which she primes the children about the father.
I will make an order that the Independent Children’s Lawyer see the children and explain to them the effect of the orders that have been made.
When asked by counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer, the mother stated that she would not be willing to facilitate orders made by the Court in transporting the children to their father for scheduled contact, because she is scared of the father. She stated that if she did need to arrange transport for the children to visit their father, it would need to be by taxi or bus.
The mother stated, in response to a question from counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer, that although she feels that she had done all she can to encourage the children to have a good relationship with their father, she does not think that she has succeeded.
During cross examination it became clear that the children had not seen their father as scheduled on 16 August 2009, 30 August 2009 and 13 September 2009. The mother was asked why she had not informed the father or Ms G that the children would not be available on those days, rather than forcing the father or Ms G to attend the mother’s house in the expectation that the children would be available. The mother replied that there was no point in communicating to the father that the children did not want to see him, as on other occasions when she has done that the father has turned up at her house anyway. This was a less than convincing explanation.
I note with some concern Dr L’s statement at paragraph 41 of his report dated 5 March 2008 that “Given that the children appear to have had a reasonably pleasant relationship with the father I was surprised that there had been no contact with the children for his birthday. It does suggest that there probably is some reluctance on the part of the mother to encourage contact between the children and their father”. In a similar vein was the mother’s failure to facilitate the children attending the father’s wedding to Ms G. A series of correspondence on that issue was tendered during the hearing and became Exhibit N. That correspondence illustrates that the reason the mother was resistant to the children’s attendance at the wedding was because of her reservations about the quality of the supervision to be provided. While I accept that the mother may have held genuine concerns for the safety of the children in light of what she perceives as the father’s violent behaviour, it is extremely unfortunate that those fears led to the children being withheld from participating in what was clearly an important event in the father’s life. Even given the mother’s fears, I have some difficulty accepting that the mother genuinely felt that the children might be at risk from their father on his wedding day.
It is clear that the father has some degree of concern about the children reporting things that he had said back to the mother. At paragraph 111 of her affidavit filed 12 December 2008 the mother states that following a contact visit on 16 March 2007 Z told her that “Dad was calling me the dob master and calling us idiots. He was calling me the dob master and picking on me for about half an hour or it felt like it. [Y] did a fluffy (our words for passing wind) and Dad said ‘Oh you going to report that.’ Dad said ‘It won’t be any fun having you here if you are going to dob on everything I do’”. Dr L notes at paragraph 63 of his report dated 5 March 2008 the father’s concern that “even if the decision was made that he could have some contact with his children his wife would continue to undermine any such orders by…encouraging the children to misperceive or to exaggeratedly respond to things that he did”. In oral evidence the father stated that he said that to Z because “I was frustrated with everything I said or did being reported straight back to their mother and then coming back in the form of legal documents”. The father denied that he was trying to convey to Z that it was wrong to tell people about things that were bothering her. I accept the father’s evidence in this regard.
The father submitted that the mother has not been willing in the past to facilitate his relationship with the children.
Counsel for the mother submitted that the fact that the children still express some desire to see their father in circumstances where they have been residing with the mother and did not see him at all for a nine month period goes some way towards illustrating that the mother has taken steps to facilitate and encourage a continuing relationship between the children and the father. That submission needs to be considered in the context of the mother’s psychiatric condition. I accept that within the confines of her disorder the mother has done all she can to encourage a relationship between the children and the father. The mother’s disorder however has a significant deleterious affect upon her willingness and ability to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the children and their father.
The likely effect of any changes in the children’s circumstances
This factor ties in to a certain extent with the issue of the children’s views. Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer submitted that while the children themselves have expressed a wish to be in control of when they see their father, a fixed regime will have the effect of removing the potential for uncertainty and contact in relation to contact arrangements which will be in the children’s best interests. I accept that submission.
Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer submitted that no form of supervision is necessary in this case. That submission accords with the evidence of Dr L which I accept. I do not think that the removal of the supervision requirement will have any effect on the children’s circumstances sufficient to dissuade me from making such an order.
The increase of daytime contact from four hours to six hours as sought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer is not a significant change. Counsel for the mother did however submit that the increase to overnight contact twice a month after a three month introductory period as sought by the father would be a significant change that would have a detrimental effect on the children. Taking into account the children’s expressed views and the evidence of Dr L, I am inclined to agree with that submission and I do not intend making that order as sought by the father.
The practical difficulty and expense of the children spending time with and communicating with a parent
Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer submitted that this is not a factor that I need to take into account in this case. There is certainly nothing that was raised in evidence that would suggest that this is a relevant issue.
The maturity, sex, lifestyle and background of the children and the children’s parents
This is not a factor of any particular relevance in this case.
The attitude to the children and to the responsibilities of parenthood demonstrated by the children’s parents and the capacity of the parents
Counsel for the mother criticises the father’s attitude in respect of the mother’s attempts to involve the children in counselling with Dr M. At paragraph 18 of her affidavit filed 14 August 2007 the mother states that although the father eventually gave his permission for the children to see Dr M in 2005, the children were reluctant to speak with Dr M. When the mother asked them why, they said “Dad said not to dob on him as no one likes a dobber” and Y said “Dr [M] only sees mental people”. I accept the father’s evidence that he did not think there was anything wrong with the children sufficient to warrant their involvement with Dr M.
The father’s involvement in the children’s attendance upon Dr M was less than optimal but was to a large degree, simply a symptom of the dysfunction that currently exists between the two parents cooperating in the management of the children.
Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer submitted that as residence is not in issue in this case and there is no dispute that the father should spend time with the children, this is not a factor of any great relevance. He submitted that in relation to the various incidents about which the father was cross examined, including the shopping trolley incident and the provision of inappropriate materials to the children, those are not matters on which I should place a great deal of weight. I have outlined above my view on those aspects of the evidence and I accept the submission of Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer in this regard.
Counsel for the mother submitted that the father’s provision to the children of what the mother asserts were inappropriate gifts should cause me concern as to the father’s attitude to the children and to the responsibilities of parenthood. While I accept that the father could have exercised a greater degree of caution in selecting gifts for the children, particularly in light of the mother’s psychiatric condition and her sensitivity to the father’s behaviour, I do not regard any of the gifts themselves as particularly troubling with the notable exception of the electric gun game. That gift was clearly inappropriate for children of Y and Z’s age and demonstrated poor judgment on the father’s part. Dr L also took the view that the electric gun game was of particular concern. However, I do not regard the giving of that gift as such a serious lapse that it would lead me to doubt the father’s attitude to the children and to the responsibilities of parenthood. I do not hold any serious doubts in this regard.
Counsel for the mother submitted that the mother demonstrated her attitude towards parenthood in the way that she cared for A as a child. I acknowledge that contribution although I do note that that relationship seems to have broken down somewhat after the birth of the children and even more so after the reappearance of A’s biological mother.
Any family violence involving the children or a member of the children’s family
The history of violence that the mother alleges against the father during the relationship was not the subject of any detailed cross examination and was certainly not the focus of any submission on the part of counsel for the mother. I note that for the purposes of her report and her diagnosis, Dr J has presumed the accuracy of the mother’s reporting of the violence that the mother says took place during the relationship. I find the mother’s fears are genuine, but I am unable to find that they are objectively reasonable. There has been no reporting of any violence since the parties separated five years ago.
Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer made no submission on the issue of family violence.
During the hearing the mother was asked about past decisions in relation to the children’s schooling. She stated that she had communicated her proposal in relation to the children’s high schools to the father, but that she had not received any relevant response. In particular, she stated that she had initially informed the father that she had enrolled the children to attend S School, but that he had sworn at her and hung up.
During cross examination the father asked the mother why she had not consulted with him in relation to what high schools the children were to attend. The mother replied that she had sent letters to the father and attempted to discuss the issue with him over the telephone. It is clear that some consultation must have taken place, because Exhibit F, which is an affidavit filed by the father on 11 September 2007 in relation to interim parenting orders, states on page eight that “For their secondary schooling, the children may attend Mosman Public School, Chatswood Public School, SCEGGS Redlands at Neutral Bay, Marist Bros at North Sydney or Wenona at North Sydney depending on agreement between the parties and each school’s offer to the children”.
The mother stated that communication is virtually non-existent between the parties. She stated that in the past, when she has contacted the father on the telephone to discuss things with him, he has abused her and said things such as “Oh, you’ve got plenty of time. Get your lawyer to do it”, or called her a “fucking bitch”. The mother also stated that in the past she sent a letter to the father informing him, in relation to Y’s broken arm, that Y needed to take Panadol and not get the cast wet, but she did not receive a response to her letter.
I note that the father did not see the children for a nine month period when the only option available to him was to see the children at a supervised contact centre. The father gave evidence that he elected not to take that option as he felt that it was disrespectful to him. Counsel for the mother criticised the father for taking this course, submitting that seeing the children at a contact centre would have been better than nothing. It is unfortunate that the children did not see their father for such an extended period but I do not judge the father too harshly for acting the way he did. I do not think that it militates against his ability to fulfil his responsibilities as a parent.
Any family violence order that applies to the children or a member of the children’s family
There are no family violence orders currently in place in relation to the children or the parties.
Whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the children
Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer submitted that the making of final defined orders was necessary in this case in order to maximise the chances of bringing this lengthy legal process to an end and provide some finality in respect to what time the children will spend with their father.
In terms of the potential future impact of the individual orders themselves, I feel it prudent to note in this context the issue of how the children should be delivered to and returned from contact visits. Counsel for the mother submitted that having the father pick up and drop off the children will be a strain on the mother’s psychiatric condition and will cause her anxiety. She submitted that the mother would have no confidence in an order that the father not exit his car while picking up and dropping off the children, in light of past events, particularly the incident when the father banged on the mother’s door and called out for Y. I accept those submissions. I suspect that a situation in which the father attend the mother’s residence to collect and return the children will be particularly onerous for the mother, and in light of her sensitivity to the father’s behaviour will be likely to lead to further conflict and potentially a return to this court. That is something that is clearly not in the children’s best interests. As a result I am inclined to accept the submission of counsel for the mother that for the first year of these orders, changeovers take place at the Children’s Contact Centre.
SHARED PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
It is clear from the evidence before me as well as the parties’ own admissions that there is little hope of any meaningful communication taking place between the mother and father sufficient to merit an order for shared parental responsibility. I note Dr L’s comment in oral evidence that “given the extreme level of conflict between the two parents, it’s impossible to imagine a shared parenting agreement working”. In all the circumstances and given that the children reside with the mother and have done so since separation I find that it is appropriate to make an order that the mother be granted sole parental responsibility. Counsel for the mother submitted that the lack of communication between the parties is sufficient to rebut the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, pursuant to s 61DA(4) FLA and I accept that submission.
There is a need however for the parents to have some means to be able to communicate to give one another significant information relating to the children’s welfare and any of their activities. For that purpose I will make an order that the parents keep a communication book.
CONCLUSION
I find that it is in Y and Z’s best interests that I make an order which defines a period of time during the day that Y and Z spend with their father on two occasions each month. The Independent Children's Lawyer suggested to Dr L, and Dr L expressed some support for the idea, that the time the children spend with their father should be devised so that they could share an evening meal with him. Whilst the idea of a meal is attractive, I do not have an indication as to what hours the Children’s Contact Service finishes on a Sunday. The order I intend to make will enable the father to share a Sunday lunch with the children if he so desires.
There will further be an opportunity for the children to have one period of overnight time during each school holidays. I accept the evidence of Dr L that there is no need, based on the children’s current attitude towards the father, for any supervision in respect of the time that the father spends with them.
I will make a further order that will allow for the children to agree on spending further time with their father and in those circumstances their father is to inform their mother of the agreement he has reached with the children. I will make orders to cover special days.
As indicated, changeover for twelve months should take place at the Children’s Contact Service and I will make orders defining transport arrangements.
In terms of telephone contact between the father and the children, the mother’s position was that she did not want any order allowing the father to telephone the children; however, if I was minded to make such an order, then between 6pm and 7pm on a Tuesday night would be the most appropriate time. Given that face to face time will only be occurring on two days out of every month I think that it is important for an expectation to be created that the father will speak with the children over the telephone regularly. I propose making an order that the father speak to the children between 6pm and 7pm on Tuesdays and Thursdays. In addition, a facility should be made available to allow the children to contact their father and the father to contact the children by mobile telephone and other electronic means at any reasonable time.
I will continue existing orders restraining the use of denigrating and profane language and a formal order restraining both parties from physically chastising or disciplining the children. The father should stay away from the mother’s residence.
I will order that the Independent Children's Lawyer see the children to explain the effect of the orders.
Dr L was not supportive of a sunset clause for the reason that it would create a self fulfilling prophesy. I, however, believe it is in the children’s best interests for orders not to bind them once they have turned 15. Any order in force at that age, in the circumstances of this case, is likely to be counter productive. Hopefully the period between now and then will create a history which will mean that the children will be able to have an ongoing relationship with their father after that age.
Dr J should also be provided a copy of Dr L’s reports.
I certify that the preceding two hundred and thirty-six (236) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Watts.
Associate:
Date: 26 March 2010
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Equity & Trusts
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
0
0
1