Bentley & Deleo
[2025] FedCFamC2F 10
•20 January 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Bentley & Deleo [2025] FedCFamC2F 10
File number(s): BRC 12227 of 2019 Judgment of: JUDGE BERTONE Date of judgment: 20 January 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW –Parenting - Where the child, now 5, has lived with the Mother all her life and spent only sporadic time with the Father largely on a supervised basis - Where multiple orders have been made for child’s supervised time with Father to move to unsupervised time – Where the Mother initially sought an order for the child to spend no time with the Father and have no contact with him whatsoever – Where the Mother changed her position mid-way through the trial to child spend increasing time with Father – Where the Father’s case now seeks a change in residence to ensure the child has a relationship with both parents – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer supports child moving to live with Father - Where the Mother is unable or unwilling to support the child’s relationship with her Father – Where the evidence supports orders for the child to immediately move to the Father’s care Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 63
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), Part VII, ss 4, 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60CG, 61D, 65LA, 68P, 69ZT, 91B, 114Q
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021, Chapter 7
Cases cited: Baghti & Baghti and Ors [2015] FamCAFC 71
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34;
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67;
Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97
Whisprun Pty Ltd & Dixon [2003] HCA 48
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 311 Date of last submission/s: 11 November 2024 Date of hearing: 19 September 2024, 20 September 2024 Place: Brisbane Counsel for the Applicant: Ms R Barron Solicitor for the Applicant: McCormick Family Law Counsel for the Respondent: Mr A Arnold Solicitor for the Respondent: AGP Lawyers Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms R Mannering - Northside Family Law Centre ORDERS
BRC 12227 of 2019 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR BENTLEY
Applicant
AND: MS DELEO
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE BERTONE
DATE OF ORDER:
20 JANUARY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS:
1.All previous orders are discharged.
2.The Father have sole decision making power for the major long term decisions for X born in 2019 and in the exercise of this parental responsibility, the Father will:
(a)Communicate by parenting app or email with the Mother about a decision to be made and the options, if any;
(b)Consider any feedback provided by the Mother via the parenting app or email, should this feedback be given to him within a reasonable time; and
(c)Inform the Mother via the parenting app or email of the decision he has made.
3.The child live with the Father.
4.Commencing Friday 31 January 2025, the child shall spend time with the Mother as agreed, and failing agreement, during the school term, from Friday after school or 3:00pm until Monday before school or 9:00am each alternate week, commencing in the first week of each school term.
5.Commencing in 2025 and in each year thereafter during the April, June/July, and September/October school holiday periods the child shall spend time with each parent as follows, unless otherwise agreed in writing:
(a)In odd numbered years, the child shall spend the first half of each school holiday period with the Father and the second half with the Mother; and
(b)In even numbered years, the child shall spend the first half of each school holiday period with the Mother and the second half with the Father.
6.Commencing in 2025, and each year thereafter in the December/January school holiday period, the child spend time with each parent as follows, unless otherwise agreed:
(a)In odd numbered years, the first, third and fifth week with the Father and the second, fourth and sixth week with the Mother; and
(b)In even numbered years, the first, third and fifth week with the Mother and the second, fourth and sixth week with the Father;
(c)The time during the December/January school holiday period is to be suspended to ensure that the child spends time with each parent at Christmas in accordance with these Orders.
SPECIAL DAYS
Child’s birthday
7.Unless otherwise agreed, on the child’s birthday the child will spend time with the parent with whom she does not wake up on that birthday:
(a)If a school day, from after school, until 5:00pm; and
(b)If a non-school day, from 12:00pm until 5:00pm.
Mother’s birthday
8.On the Mother’s birthday, if the child is not in the Mother’s care, then the child will spend time with the Mother as follows, unless otherwise agreed:
(a)If on a school day, from after school, until 5:00pm; and
(b)If on a non-school day, from 9:00am until 5:00pm.
Father’s birthday
9.On the Father’s birthday, if the child is not in the Father’s care, then the child will spend time with the Father as follows, unless otherwise agreed:
(a)If on a school day, from after school, until 5:00pm; and
(b)If on a non-school day, from 9:00am until 5:00pm.
Mother’s Day and Father’s Day
10.Notwithstanding any other order, unless otherwise agreed, the orders for time shall be suspended so as to ensure that the child spends:
(a)Mother’s day with the Mother, from 10:00am until 5:00pm; and
(b)Father’s day with the Father, from 10:00am until 5:00pm.
Christmas
11.Notwithstanding any other order, unless otherwise agreed, the child shall spend time with each parent during the Christmas period as follows:
(a)In odd numbered years, with the Father from 4:00pm on 22 December until 4:00pm on 26 December and with the Mother from 4:00pm 26 December until 4:00pm 30 December; and
(b)In even numbered years, with the Mother from 4:00pm on 22 December until 4:00pm on 26 December and with the Father from 4:00pm on 26 December until 4:00pm on 30 December.
CHILD’S COMMUNICATION WITH THE PARENTS
12.Commencing Tuesday 28 January 2025, the child will communicate with the parent with whom she is not living each Tuesday and Thursday between 6:00pm and 6:30pm, unless otherwise agreed, and in relation to such communication:
(a)The parent who is due to communicate with the child shall initiate and end the call;
(b)The parents shall ensure that the child is available to receive the telephone/video call;
(c)The parents shall ensure that the child has privacy; and
(d)The parents shall ensure that the telephone/video call is not recorded.
13.The child is at liberty to communicate with each of her parents at any reasonable time and the parent with whom the child is with at that time shall facilitate the child communicating with the other parent via telephone or electronic means such as Skype or Facetime.
CHANGEOVER
14.Unless otherwise agreed, all changeovers occurring on a school day are to take place at the child’s school.
15.Unless otherwise agreed, all changeovers occurring on a non-school day shall occur at Suburb C McDonalds, B Street, Suburb C, with changeover to be effected inside the McDonalds restaurant.
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PARENTS
16.Except in an emergency, the parents shall communicate all issues in relation to the care, welfare and development of the child by way of the ‘Talking Parents’ app.
17.Each parent upon receiving a message via the ‘Talking Parents’ app from the other parent is to acknowledge receipt of the message within 48 hours of the message being sent.
ENGAGEMENT WITH POLICE OR STATE CHILD WELFARE AUTHORITIES
18.Each parent is to immediately notify the other parent in the event of the following:
(a)That parent, the child, or any person living in that parent’s household, has any engagement with any police service or any State child welfare agency;
(b)If that parent, or the child is a victim of family violence, or is exposed to family violence;
(c)If that parent is named as an aggrieved or the child is named as an aggrieved in any domestic or family violence or protection order; and
(d)If that parent is named as a respondent, or that parent’s partner is named as a respondent in any domestic or family violence or protection order.
19.In the event of a situation arising as set out in Order 18 hereof, then that parent shall immediately provide to the other parent details of the interaction with the Police service or State child welfare agency, together with a copy of any of the following documents:
(a)Any Protection order application that parent has made;
(b)Any Protection order containing the name of that parent or the child;
(c)Any witness statement made by that parent; and
(d)Any other document provided to that parent by any Police service or State child welfare agency about that parent, child, or that parent’s partner.
RESTRAINTS
20.The Mother is restrained by injunction from:
(a)Attending the child’s school on her first day of Prep; and
(b)Attending the child’s school on a day that X is not scheduled to be in her care, unless there is a special event at the school at which parents are usually invited.
21.The Mother is restrained by injunction from consuming any cannabis or medicinal marijuana 8 hours’ prior to or at any time whilst the child is in her care.
22.The Mother is restrained by injunction from allowing the child:
(a)To be transported in a vehicle driven by any person who has consumed any cannabis or medicinal marijuana; and
(b)Being in the presence of a person who is taking cannabis or medicinal marijuana.
23.Each parent is restrained by injunction from:
(a)Physically disciplining the child;
(b)Allowing any other person to physically discipline the child; and
(c)Consuming alcohol above the 0.05% blood alcohol limit whilst the child is in that parent’s care.
AUTHORITIES
24.This Order is sufficient authority for the child’s school to give each parent information about the child’s progress and other school related activities and supply each of them with a copy of school reports, photographs and certificates obtained by the child at the cost of the requesting parent.
25.Each parent is at liberty to attend any school event parents are usually invited to attend, including but not limited to, parent teacher interviews (but not together), sport carnivals, concerts or similar provided that the parents do not approach each other or communicate with each other at that school event.
26.This Order is sufficient authority for any treating medical practitioner, specialist, allied health practitioner or dentist to release the child’s medical information to each parent and for this purpose the parent shall, as soon as practicable, inform the other parent of the name and contact number of the medical practitioner upon whom the child has attended.
27.Pursuant to s114Q of the Act each parent is at liberty to provide a copy of these Orders to the child’s school and medical practitioners.
SPECIFIC ISSUES
28.In the event the terms of these Orders are inconsistent with the provisions contained in any Protection order or Family Violence Order, then pursuant to section 68P of the Act, these Orders shall prevail.
29.Each parent is to immediately notify the other of any major illness, accident or injury that the child or that parent has experienced, as soon as practicable and urgently in respect of a medical emergency.
30.Each parent shall keep the other informed of all extracurricular activities and events in which the child is involved, whether arranged through the child’s school or independently outside of school.
31.During the time the child is with either parent, that parent shall:
(a)Respect the privacy of the other parent and not question the child about the personal life of the other parent;
(b)Speak of the other parent respectfully and not denigrate the other parent or the other parent’s relatives, in the presence or hearing of the child; and
(c)Not discuss any adult issues or court proceedings with the child or with any other person in the presence or the hearing of the child.
32.Each parent will keep the other parent informed of their current residential address, mobile telephone number and email address and within 48 hours of any change, notify the other parent of such change.
ORDERS MADE BY CONSENT OF ALL PARTIES
Appointment of Parenting Coordinator
33.Subject to the availability of the service, waitlists and the family being assessed as suitable for the provision of its services, the parents agree to appoint Ms E of D Centre as Parenting Coordinator, or such other Parenting Coordinator as agreed, and for this purpose, each parent shall:
(a)Telephone D Centre within 7 days to arrange an appointment for an intake interview;
(b)Promptly supply all requested information, records, and a copy of this Order to the Parenting Coordinator;
(c)Attend appointments as requested by the Parenting Coordinator;
(d)Comply with the guidelines of the Parenting Coordinator’s process and abide by the Parenting Coordinator’s agreement;
(e)Comply with all reasonable requests and directives of the Parenting Coordinator; and
(f)Unless later agreed between the parents, they shall equally meet the fees of Parenting Coordination and pay all accounts rendered by D Centre for Parenting Coordination Services in a timely manner.
34.The parents are at liberty to provide to the Parenting Coordinator copies of any documents filed in these proceedings, any Court orders, and any relevant expert reports that the Parenting Coordinator reasonably requests, and only such documents as they request pursuant to section 114Q of the Act.
35.The parents authorise and consent to the Parenting Coordinator consulting and /or meeting with, or obtaining relevant information from, any relevant third parties, including the child, her school, and any health care professionals for the child or the parents, and will sign authorities to that effect if requested by the Parenting Coordinator.
36.That unless otherwise agreed, the parents will engage with the Parenting Coordinator for a period of eighteen months.
37.All applications otherwise be dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE BERTONE
These are parenting proceedings pursuant to part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) in respect of X born in 2019. X is now aged five.
X’s parents commenced their relationship at the end of 2018 and separated on 19 May 2019. Their relationship was quite brief and ended before X was born.
X has always lived with her Mother and has spent sporadic time with her Father since she was born.
The Father has three other children, namely:
(a)Mr F born in 2004, currently aged 20. The Father is not Mr F’s biological Father, but he is the only Father Mr F has ever known;
(b)Mr G born in 2006, currently aged 18; and
(c)H born in 2014. H is currently aged 10 years old and lives with his mother, Ms J. He spends time with the Father every second weekend and time during the school holidays pursuant to orders made by consent.[1]
[1] Exhibit 2.
The Mother has two other children, namely:
(a)K, born in 2014. K is now aged 10 and lives with his Mother. K’s Father is not known and accordingly K does not have any relationship with his Father; and
(b)L, born in 2020. L is aged 4 and her Father is Mr M. The Mother’s evidence is that L has no contact with her Father.
The Father has re-partnered with Ms N. Ms N has two children – O born in 2009 and P born in 2018.[2]
[2] Affidavit of Ms N filed 15 July 2024, paragraph 3.
O is aged 15 and P is aged 6. They live primarily with their father and spend 5 nights per fortnight and time during the school holidays with Ms N.
For reasons that I will go into later in this Judgment, Ms N is restrained by Court order from bringing O and P into contact with the Father. Consequently, the Father and Ms N now have separate residences but spend time together in each other’s homes.
The Mother says she is now in a relationship with Mr Q. Mr Q has two other children from previous relationships, namely, R born in 2020, aged 4, and S born in 2022, currently aged 2. The Mother’s evidence is that Mr Q’s children are with him each weekend.
Mr Q did not provide an affidavit in these proceedings, was not cross-examined before me and did not participate in any family report or child impact report process.
The Father commenced these proceedings in respect of X on 10 October 2019.
This matter has had a long and complicated litigation history which culminated in a two-day final hearing before me on 19 and 20 September 2024.
The matter was first allocated a final hearing date on 17 March 2022. On the morning of that trial, the Mother’s Solicitors and Counsel sought leave to withdraw. Leave was granted and consent orders were made on an interim basis for X to spend time with her Father.
Difficulties continued with X not spending the time with the Father as provided in the interim orders. Therefore, the Father filed a contravention application on 20 June 2023.
That contravention application itself was withdrawn on the basis that the Mother’s alleged failure to comply with orders would be ventilated at the next allocated trial dates.
On 11 October 2023, his Honour Judge Coates vacated the trial dates and made an order under section 91B of the Act for the Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety (as it is now known) to intervene. The Department did not intervene.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer in her Case Outline filed 18 September 2024, read the section 91B response document at part B. However, the section 91B response document itself was not tendered before me so I have no idea of the contents.
The matter was then listed before me for a three-day trial commencing 5 August 2024. On the first day of that trial, the Mother’s Counsel and Solicitors sought leave to withdraw. Leave was granted and the trial was once again adjourned.
Given that this was the second trial at which the Mother’s Counsel and Solicitors withdrew, and given the banning order made pursuant to section 102NA, I made clear to the Mother that on the next allocated trial dates I would proceed to hear the matter on a final basis whether or not she was legally represented.
The matter then came back before me on 19 and 20 September 2024 where the Mother was represented by Solicitors and Counsel for the duration of the two-day trial.
By the time the matter came for final hearing before me in September 2024, X had spent time with the Father on only a handful of occasions.
FATHER’S POSITION
The orders sought by the Father were set out in his Further Amended Initiating Application filed 16 September 2024 which set out two alternate proposed orders as follows:
Position one
(1)The parents to have joint decision making authority for all major long-term decisions;
(2)That X live with the Mother and spend time with the Father by agreement or failing agreement:
(a)From the date of the orders once per week at T Contact Centre, or another contact centre as agreed;
(b)Upon completion of the four-week period, the child spend unsupervised time with the Father for a further four week period each Saturday from 9:00am until 12:00pm;
(c)Thereafter, and until the child commences Prep, she would spend time with the Father each Saturday from 9:00am until 5:00pm;
(d)From 31 January 2025, the child spend time with the Father each alternate Friday from after school or 3:00pm until Saturday 5:00pm;
(e)From 25 April 2025, the child spend time with the Father from after school or 3:00pm until before school or 9:00am on Monday;
(f)For a block of three nights in the June/July 2025 school holidays;
(g)For a block of four nights in each alternate week for the September/October 2025 and December 2025/January 2026 school holiday period;
(h)For a block of five nights in the March/April 2026 and June/July 2026 school holiday period;
(i)For a block of six nights each alternate week in the September/October 2026 and December 2026/ January 2027 school holidays;
(j)Then commencing in 2027, for half the school holidays, including on a week about basis in the December / January school holiday period; and
(k)Time on special occasions such as on the child’s birthday, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day and Christmas, etc.
(3)Changeovers to be in the first instance at T Contact Centre, and thereafter at the child’s school or kindergarten and McDonalds at Suburb C.
(4)Telephone time each Wednesday until the child commences prep from 5:30pm until 6:00pm;
(5)After the child commences Prep then telephone communication each Tuesday and Friday evening between 6:00pm and 6:30pm;
(6)Restraints as to:
(a)Moving more than 50km from the Suburb U area;
(b)Using illicit substances;
(c)Consuming alcohol above the legal driving limit; and
(d)Physical discipline.
(7)Non-denigration;
(8)The usual suite of authorities; and
(9)The appointment of a parenting coordinator.
Position two
In the event the Mother is unable to support the child’s relationship with her Father, the Father’s alternate position is as follows:
(1)The Father have sole decision making authority for long term decisions;
(2)The child live with the Father;
(3)The child spend time with the Mother each alternate Friday from after school or 3:00pm until before school or 9:00am Monday;
(4)Half the school holidays including on a week about basis commencing in the December/January school holiday period;
(5)Time with the Mother on special occasions such as the child’s birthday, Mother’s Day and Christmas; and
(6)Similar orders as his first position in respect of changeovers, telephone time, restraints, authorities and the appointment of a parenting coordinator.
After the evidence concluded, the Father’s Counsel, Ms Barron, submitted on behalf of the Father that he sought orders in accordance with his alternate position two. That is, that X should immediately come to live with the Father and that he would have sole decision-making authority for X.
MOTHER’S POSITION
The Mother’s orders sought at the commencement of the trial were set out in her Amended Response to Initiating Application filed 1 August 2024, which are written out as follows:
(1)That the child, X, born in 2019, live permanently with the Mother;
(2)The Mother have full parental responsibility for X, with permission granted to change her last name; and
(3)That the child, X have no exposure or contact with the Father.
At the commencement of the hearing, I asked the Mother’s Counsel, Mr Arnold, if the Mother pressed her order sought to change X’s name, given that there was no evidence before me about that issue. On instructions, Mr Arnold informed me that the change of name was not being pursued.
At the conclusion of the Father’s case, Mr Arnold, asked for the matter to be stood down so that he could take instructions. I granted that leave and upon the trial resuming, Counsel for the Mother tendered the Mother’s amended orders sought dated 19 September 2024.[3]
[3] Exhibit 6.
Those orders were largely in line with the Independent Children’s Lawyers preliminary position as set out in the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s Case Outline filed 18 September 2024.
The Mother’s orders sought at the end of the trial were as follows:
(1)The Mother have sole decision-making authority for major long term issues;
(2)The child live with the Mother;
(3)The child spend time with the Father as agreed, or failing agreement, as follows:
(a)For a period of eight weeks from the date of orders supervised at T Contact Centre once a week;
(b)The parents will each pay their own intake costs but the Father will pay for the costs of supervision;
(c)After eight weeks of supervised time, the child will then spend unsupervised time with the Father from 9:00am to 12:00pm noon each alternate Saturday and that Saturday is to coincide with the weekend that H spends with the Father;
(d)From eight weeks to twelve weeks from the date of these orders and until 31 January 2025 [4], the child will spend unsupervised time with the Father each Saturday from 9:00am until 5:00pm;
[4] Exhibit 6, paragraph 3(c) says ‘until 31 January 2025’ but 3(d) makes clear that it should be 31 January 2026, not 31 January 2025.
(e)From Friday 31 January 2026, the child will spend time with the Father each alternate Friday from after school or 3:00pm until Saturday 5:00pm;
(f)From 25 April 2026, the child will spend time with the Father each alternate Friday from after school or 3:00pm until before school or 9:00am Monday or Tuesday if Monday is not a school day;
(g)The child will spend a block of three nights with the Father during the school holidays commencing in the June/July school holiday period in 2026;
(h)Then from the September/October 2026 and December 2026/January 2027 school holiday periods, the child will spend time with the Father for a block of four nights each alternate week;
(i)In the March/April 2027 and June/July 2027 school holiday periods, the child will spend time with the Father for a block of five nights;
(j)In September/October 2027 and December 2027/ January 2028 school holiday period the child spend time with the Father for a block of six nights;
(k)Then commencing in 2028 and each year thereafter, during the school holidays in April, June/July and September/October the child spend time with the parents for half the holidays;
(l)Commencing in 2028, and in each year thereafter in the December/January school holiday period, the child spend time with the parents on a week about basis during the school holiday period; and
(m)The child spend time with the Father on special occasions such as on the child’s birthday, Father’s Day, Father’s birthday and Christmas.
(4)Orders for therapeutic support for the Father such that the child’s time with the Father is strictly conditional on the Father doing the following:
(a)Enrolling within seven days of the date of these orders, and completing in a reasonable time, the V Men’s Program, an in-person parenting orders program that addresses inter-parental conflict, and a Circle of Security Program; and
(b)Attend his general practitioner within seven days to seek a referral to a clinical psychologist and continue to engage with that clinical psychologist at their direction and the Father has leave to provide his general practitioner and his clinical psychologist with a copy of these Orders and the report of Ms W.
(5)Orders for therapeutic support for the Mother such that the child’s time with the Mother is strictly conditional on the Mother doing the following:
(a)Within seven days, enrolling in, and completing in a reasonable time, an in-person parenting orders program that addresses inter-parental conflict, and a Circle of Security Program;
(b)Attend upon her general practitioner within seven days to seek a referral to a clinical psychologist and continue to engage at their direction and the Mother will provide her health care providers with a copy of these Orders and the report of Ms W.
(6)The parents to communicate via the Talking Parents app;
(7)Restraints in respect of:
(a)Not exposing the child to family violence;
(b)Not consuming alcohol beyond the legal driving limit;
(c)Removing the child from the presence of a third party to ensure that the child is not exposed to anyone affected by alcohol or illicit drugs; and
(d)Not committing acts of family violence or denigrating the parents.
(8)An injunction restraining the parents from changing the child’s residence further than 50km of Suburb Y;
(9)The usual suite of authorities; and
(10)The appointment of a parenting coordinator.
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER’S POSITION
The Independent Children's Lawyer’s orders sought on a preliminary basis were set out in her Case Outline filed 18 September 2024 and provided for the following:
(1)The Mother have sole decision-making authority for major long-term issues;
(2)The child live with the Mother;
(3)The child spend time with the Father as agreed or failing agreement as follows:
(a)For a period of four weeks from the date of orders supervised at T Contact Centre once a week;
(b)The parents will each pay their own intake costs but the Father will pay for the costs of supervision;
(c)After four weeks of supervised time, the child will then spend unsupervised time with the Father from 9:00am to 12:00pm noon each alternate Saturday and that Saturday is to coincide with the weekend that H spends with the Father;
(d)From four weeks to eight weeks from the date of these orders and until 31 January 2025, the child will spend unsupervised time with the Father each Saturday from 9:00am until 5:00pm;
(e)From Friday 31 January 2025, the child will spend time with the Father each alternate Friday from after school or 3:00pm until Saturday 5:00pm;
(f)From 25 April 2025, the child will spend time with the Father each alternate Friday from after school or 3:00pm until before school or 9:00am Monday or Tuesday if Monday is not a school day;
(g)The child will spend a block of three nights with the Father during the June/July school holiday period in 2025;
(h)Then from September/October 2025 and December 2025/ January 2026 school holiday periods, the child will spend time with the Father for a block of four nights each alternate week;
(i)In the March/April 2026 and June/July 2026 school holiday periods, the child will spend time with the Father for a block of five nights;
(j)In the September/October 2026 and December 2026/ January 2027 school holiday period the child spend time with the Father for a block of six nights;
(k)Then commencing in 2027 and each year thereafter, during the school holidays in April, June/July and September/October the child spend time with the parents for half the holidays;
(l)Commencing in 2027, and each year thereafter, in the December/January school holiday period, the child spend time with the parents on a week about basis during the school holiday period; and
(m)The child spend time with the Father on special occasions such as on the child’s birthday, Father’s Day, Father’s birthday and Christmas.
(4)Orders for therapeutic support for the Father such that the child’s time with the Father is strictly conditional on the Father doing the following:
(a)Enrolling within seven days of the date of these orders, and completing in a reasonable time, the V Men’s Program, an in-person parenting orders program that addresses inter-parental conflict, and a Circle of Security Program; and
(b)Attend his general practitioner within seven days to seek a referral to a clinical psychologist and continue to engage with that clinical psychologist at their direction and the Father has leave to provide his general practitioner and his clinical psychologist with a copy of these Orders and the report of Ms W.
(5)Orders for therapeutic support for the Mother such that the child’s time with the Mother is strictly conditional on the Mother doing the following:
(a)Within seven days, enrolling in completing in a reasonable time an in-person parenting orders program that addresses inter-parental conflict, and a Circle of Security Program; and
(b)Attend upon her general practitioner within seven days to seek a referral to a clinical psychologist and continue to engage at their direction and the Mother will provide her health care providers a copy of these orders and the report of Ms W.
(6)The parents to communicate via the Talking Parents app;
(7)Restraints in respect of:
(a)Not exposing the child to family violence;
(b)Not consuming alcohol beyond the legal driving limit;
(c)Removing the child from the presence of a third party to ensure that the child is not exposed to anyone effected by alcohol or illicit drugs; and
(d)Not committing acts of family violence or denigrating any of the parties.
(8)An injunction restraining the parents from changing the child’s residence further than 50km of Suburb Y;
(9)The usual suite of authorities; and
(10)The appointment of a parenting coordinator.
At the close of the evidence, the Independent Children’s Lawyer advised the Court that she had changed her position to the following:
(1)The child live with the Father;
(2)The Father have sole decision-making authority for X’s long-term decisions with an obligation upon him to consult with the Mother and take on board her views;
(3)The child spend time with her Mother each alternate weekend from Friday after school until Monday before school and half the school holidays; and
(4)Changeover to occur at school or at a contact centre.
ISSUES FOR MY DETERMINATION
Each of the parties has changed their position from the position they held at the commencement of the trial. I consider that the following issues for my determination:
(1)The risk to X in the Father’s care;
(2)The Mother’s ability to support X’s relationship with her Father;
(3)The risk to X in the Mother’s care; and
(4)The impact on X of changing her primary place of residence.
THE MATERIAL READ AND RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES
I have read and considered the material relied upon by each party, and exhibits tendered at trial, which includes:
(1)The Father’s Further Amended Initiating Application for Final Orders filed 16 September 2024;
(2)The Father’s Case Outline filed 31 July 2024;
(3)Affidavit of the Father filed 16 July 2024;
(4)Affidavit of Ms N filed 15 July 2024;
(5)Affidavit of Ms N filed 19 August 2024;
(6)The Mother’s Amended Response to Final Order filed 1 August 2024;
(7)The Mother’s Case Outline filed 2 August 2024;
(8)Affidavit of the Mother filed 1 August 2024;
(9)Case Outline of the Independent Children’s Lawyer filed 18 September 2024;
(10)Affidavit of Ms W filed 26 July 2024;
(11)Child Inclusive Memorandum by Ms Z filed 6 February 2020;
(12)The Child Impact Report of Mr AA dated 7 December 2022;
(13)Exhibits 1 to 15;
(14)Mother’s written submissions dated 14 October 2024;
(15)Father’s written submissions filed 28 October 2024; and
(16)The Independent Children’s Lawyer’s written submissions filed 11 November 2024.
I have considered the evidence and submissions made on behalf of the parties. I am not required to mention every fact or argument put forward by a party, and I do not propose to address every submission made. [5]
[5] Whisprun Pty Ltd & Dixon [2003] HCA 48; Baghti & Baghti and Ors [2015] FamCAFC 71.
Where in the reasons that follow I make statements of fact, these should be regarded as findings of fact.
THE RISK TO X IN THE FATHER’S CARE
At the outset of the trial, the Mother sought orders for X to continue to live with her and spend no time nor communicate with the Father at all.
Mr Arnold, the Mother’s Counsel, confirmed that the Affidavit filed by the Mother on 1 August 2024 was prepared by herself.
The Mother relies on her Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk filed by her on 2 August 2024. It seems the Mother also prepared the Notice of Risk.
At the conclusion of the Father’s case, and prior to the Mother herself being cross-examined, the Mother’s Counsel, on instructions from the Mother, tendered a new set of orders showing the Mother had changed her case.
Exhibit 6 contains the orders now sought by the Mother which includes provision for X to start spending supervised time with the Father immediately, with that time then moving to unsupervised time after an eight-week period.
The progression of time in Exhibit 6 then increased so that X would spend substantial and significant time with her Father during the school term and during the school holidays.
This suggested to me that the Mother was no longer asserting that X was at unacceptable risk of harm in the Father’s care.
However, it became very clear early on in her cross-examination that the Mother had not changed her views in respect of the risk posed, she says, to X by the Father.
The Mother in cross-examination repeatedly said that she would support X spending time with her Father provided it was safe.
In the Mother’s Affidavit [6], the Mother said, ‘I hold high regard and respect for the Court and all they do but I will not put my daughter in the path of destruction in order to appease a mans [sic] wishes when he holds no regard or respect for the Court himself’.
[6] Mother’s affidavit filed 1 August 2024, page 15 of 72, last paragraph.
Despite the Mother submitting to me, through her Counsel, that she now sought orders for X to start spending time with the Father, it became apparent to me during her cross-examination that Mother still maintained that X is at risk in her Father’s care.
Therefore, I will identify the risks I discern that the Mother still asserts, and I will make findings.
At part G, under the heading ‘abduction or threats of harm’, indicates that the Father chose not to return H to H’s Mother. I take that to mean that the Mother is asserting that X is at risk of being abducted by the Father.
The Mother indicates in the Notice that the particulars of these asserted risks are set out in her Affidavit filed 1 August 2024.
Child abuse or neglect
At part C, paragraph 6, the Mother asserts the Father is the person responsible for child abuse or neglect or risk of child abuse or neglect.
Later on the same page, the Mother asserts that she has reported those allegations to the police, child safety and BB Hospital.
The Mother does not particularise the allegations she makes in respect of the Father’s neglect or child abuse.
The Mother made a complaint to Queensland Police in mid-2022 of an incident she said occurred a week earlier [7]. The note indicates that the informant (being the Mother) states that she saw a red mark on the named child’s back (the child being X). The informant states the following day that the named child stated that the named person also hit her on her “gina” (by pointing to her vagina).
[7] Exhibit 7, pages 17 -19.
The Father was contacted by police and denied the allegations. The Father was not cross-examined about this issue by Counsel for the Mother.
The Mother complained to Queensland Police in late 2022[8]. The note indicates that the Mother asserts that she has observed changes in X’s behaviour before and after visits with her Father. The Mother is noted as claiming that X presents as scared of her Father and is very reluctant to go to visit the Father despite the Mother’s encouragement.
[8] Exhibit 7, page 22.
The note further states that the Mother has been quoted as saying that, ‘gina means vagina’. The note states further that the Mother stated that she does not want to make any false complaint but also wants to ensure the safety of her daughter whilst in the care of the Father.
The Father was not cross-examined about these allegations.
I do not accept that there is any cogent evidence that the Father has either neglected, abused or assaulted X.
Neither do I accept that there is any cogent evidence whatsoever that the Father has sexually abused X.
Accordingly, I find that X is not at risk in the Father’s care of any physical or sexual abuse or neglect.
Family Violence
Alleged against the Mother
At paragraph 11 at part C the Mother has placed an “X” in the boxes provided to indicate the of abuse she alleges the Father has perpetrated against X. She has indicated physical abuse, emotional/psychological abuse, sexual abuse, neglect and exposure to family violence.
At part D, the Mother has indicated that both she and the child have experienced family violence perpetrated by the Father.
At paragraph 17 on page 6, the Mother has indicated that she herself has suffered family violence including sexual, financial, property damage and threatening comments perpetrated by the Father.
In respect to X, the Mother has indicated that X has experienced physical, emotional/psychological and sexual family violence perpetrated by the Father.
The Mother has made very serious allegations of family violence perpetrated against her, she says, by the Father during their brief relationship.
These allegations include the Father drugging her and sexually assaulting the Mother during their relationship.
The Mother did not report any such allegation to the police.
The Mother did not make these allegations when she met with Ms Z on 6 February 2020.
The child inclusive conference memorandum prepared by Ms Z dated 6 February 2020 is before me. On page 2, under risk factors, paragraph 9, under the heading family violence, Ms Z notes, ‘not assessed as a risk factor’.
At that time the parents had already been separated more than 6 months.
The Mother attended an interview with Dr CC for the purposes of the preparation of a psychiatric assessment.
Dr CC’s Affidavit filed 9 March 2022 is tendered before me at Exhibit 12.
The Mother’s interview took place on 20 May 2021. In her interview with Dr CC, the Mother claimed that the Father had drugged her and sexually assaulted her through their relationship.[9]
[9] Exhibit 12, page 37 of 50, lines 45-51, page 38 of 50, lines 1-7.
Dr CC asked the Mother if this information has been written about in statements before the Court. The Mother said no.
The child impact report prepared by Mr AA on 7 December 2022 is also before me.
On page 2, at paragraph 9 of that report, Mr AA states that he does not assess family violence as a current risk factor in this matter.
I understood the Mother’s case to be that she considered X was at unacceptable risk of harm in her Father’s care due, in part no doubt, to the very serious allegations of family violence she says was perpetrated against her by the Father.
The Father was not cross-examined by the Mother’s Counsel about any of these allegations. This was in the context of the Father’s case going first, and thus he was cross-examined prior to the Mother changing her case.
Therefore, it was incumbent on the Mother’s Counsel to cross-examine the Father about these allegations and his failure to do so raises the principles emerging from Browne v Dunn.[10]
[10] Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 at 70, 76.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied there is any cogent evidence to support the Mother’s very serious allegations.[11]
[11] Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34 - 60 CLR 336. The more serious the allegation, the more cogent the evidence required for a finding to be made.
Park incident mid-2020
An incident occurred between the parents in mid-2020. The orders that were operative at the time were made by his Honour Judge Vasta on 28 February 2020. Pursuant to those orders, the child was due to have contact with her Father each alternate Saturday from 9:30am to 12:00pm commencing 29 February 2020.
Order 2(b) specifically states that the time shall occur at the Father’s home and the Mother shall facilitate changeover at the Father’s home.
The Father’s evidence, which was accepted by the Mother, was that X was not spending time with the Father regularly in accordance with the orders.
The Father’s evidence[12] is that at a Court event before his Honour Judge Vasta on 3 July 2020, the Mother said she wanted time between X and her Father to occur at a park and not at the Father’s house, as was provided for in the orders dated 28 February 2020.
[12] Affidavit of the Father filed 15 July 2024, paragraph 79.
The Father’s evidence is that his Honour nonetheless made the order for the contact to occur at his house. Therefore, in mid-2020, X was due to spend time with the Father from 9:30am to 12:00pm at his house.
However, the Mother refused to allow the visit to happen at the house and requested the Father to see X at DD Park.
The Father arrived at DD Park and at 9:30am met with the Mother who put X into his care. After the changeover, the Father noticed that the Mother had not left the park. She says because she was setting up for a party at that same location.
The Father’s evidence is that he then sent a message that if she (the Mother) was not going to leave the park that he would take X back to his house which is what the orders provided for.
It was admitted by the Mother in cross-examination she had moved her vehicle in such a way as to prevent the Father from driving away from the park with X.[13]
[13] Transcript of proceedings day 2, page 137, lines 19-28.
The Father’s evidence in cross-examination was that the Mother then:
‘stormed over to me, ripped [X] out of the pram abruptly, stormed back to the park, didn’t even move her car, left me with the pram, everything’.[14]
[14] Transcript of Proceedings Day 1, page 35, lines 1-9.
The Mother took X even though X was scheduled to spend time with her Father pursuant to orders made in this Court.
The Father then admits to getting into the Mother’s car and moving it out of his way, and he did so even though there were no keys left in the car.
Once he had moved the car, the Father then lifted the bonnet and pulled spark plugs out of the Mother’s car, knowing that this would mean that her car would not start.
The Father pled guilty to an offence and was fined and was ordered to pay compensation.
The Father had no right whatsoever to get into the Mother’s vehicle, move the vehicle and then remove the spark plugs to disable the car.
I find that the Father’s actions in disabling the Mother’s car amounts to property damage within the definition of Family Violence within section 4AB of the Act.
That said, I find the Mother’s actions in deliberately moving her car as to block the Father from leaving the park with X outrageous.
The Father had the right, pursuant to orders made in this Court, to have X in his care from 9:30am to 12:00pm.
Leaving aside the fact the orders dated 28 February 2020 enabled X to spend time with her Father at his residence, the Mother unilaterally dictated to the Father a change in location and contrary to the orders.
The Mother, by her actions, deprived X of the right to spend time with her Father. The Mother also deprived the Father of his liberty of movement in being unable to move his car and leave the park area whenever it was he wished.
I find on this occasion, both parents behaved appallingly and neither showed any regard for X being exposed to family violence and high parental conflict.
However, this incident was the catalyst for the Mother withholding X from spending any time with her Father in an unsupervised capacity after mid-2020, contrary to orders made in this Court.
I am not satisfied that the Father’s dreadful behaviour that day justified the Mother withholding X from spending time with her Father.
That incident clearly shows these parents are unable to civilly arrange a changeover for X.
Assault on Mr F
The Father accepted in his evidence that he slapped his son Mr F at a time when Mr F was around 15 years old in late 2019.
The Father described this as an act of discipline gone wrong.[15]
[15] Transcript of proceedings day 1, page 24 line 46 – page 25 line 47.
By the time of this incident, the parents had already separated and X was living with her Mother. There is no evidence to suggest that X was exposed to this incident.
The Father pled guilty to offences in early 2020. No conviction was recorded and he received a recognisance and a good behaviour bond.
I find that this act by the Father was an act of family violence.
The Father accepted that his actions were inappropriate and he apologised to Mr F.
Mr F is now an adult and I accept the Father’s evidence that he and Mr F are on good terms. This was corroborated by evidence of Ms N.[16]
[16] Ibid page 102 lines 26-29.
Given the Father has described this incident as the wrong kind of discipline, I intend to make an order that each parent is restrained from using physical discipline on X, or allowing any other person to physically discipline her.
Christmas 2022 incident
It is common ground that X was not spending time with the Father on Christmas Day 2022, therefore she was not present during the incident that followed.
The Father’s evidence is that he and Ms N were spending Christmas Day with her extended family, firstly at her father’s place and then later on back at the Father’s home.
The Father and Ms N were both cross-examined about this incident and accepted that they had each had alcohol on that day to the extent that they had a household full of fairly intoxicated adults.[17]
[17] Ibid page 48, lines 31-32. ‘[…]’ is noted as the name for Ms N’s son but her son’s name is actually O.
The Father accepts that an altercation occurred between himself, Ms N and her son O who at that stage was 14, and that that altercation culminated in the Father:
(a)Assaulting O;
(b)Assaulting Ms N; and
(c)Slapped a glass out of O’s hand which smashed.
As a result, the Father was charged with offences and he pled guilty to both. The Father was ordered to pay a fine for each charge.
As a result of this assault, a family violence order was made naming Ms N as the aggrieved including her children O and P on the order. The family violence order also included an ouster provision.
Both the Father and Ms N gave evidence of having had a brief separation and then having reconciled and remain in a current relationship albeit separate residences. Ms N was very emotional whilst giving her evidence about this issue. She said that she had never seen the Father like the way he was on Christmas Day.[18]
[18] Transcript of proceedings day 1, page 96, lines 15-17.
The Father was cross-examined about the Christmas incident, by both Mr Arnold and the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
The Father accepted that he had behaved inappropriately. However, he still maintained he did not intend to hurt either O or Ms N. He said that the assault on O came about because of O going into the Father’s personal space.
It struck me that the Father, by maintaining his position that he was acting in self-defence, was being truthful about the event, because this was a statement against his interests.
As a result of the Christmas incident, P and O moved out of Ms N’s primary care and went to live with their father.
By virtue of consent orders made as between Ms N and her former partner, P and O now live with their and spend five nights per fortnight with Ms N. It is a condition of those orders that the children are not to come into contact with the Father (Mr Bentley).
I was able to observe Ms N during her cross-examination. She became emotional answering questions about the impact of the Christmas incident on her family situation, and also the impact it has had on her relationship with the Father. (Mr Bentley)
I was impressed by Ms N – she struck me as a mother who acted protectively of her son.
I was also impressed by the child-focussed way that Ms N handled the care arrangements for P and O with her former partner. Once her two boys went to live with their father after the Christmas incident, Ms N said she did not want to move them again because they had settled in with their dad and did not want to upset their life again.[19]
[19] Transcript of proceedings day 1, page 101, lines 1-11.
I formed a positive view of Ms N. The Christmas incident took a great toll on her personally – both with the change in parenting arrangements for her two boys and with difficulties with her wider extended family.
Ms N said she and the Father have worked on their relationship by going to counselling. She has maintained her relationship with the Father whilst also managing to keep her children separate from him for nearly two years as required by the court orders made in respect of O and P.
This shows me that Ms N:
(1)Will act to protect her children;
(2)Is child focussed; and
(3)Is willing and able to comply with Court orders.
I accept Ms N’s evidence that the Father has been, ‘very helpful and supportive of my kids’.[20] I accept her evidence that she has never seen the Father lose his anger with H and he has never seen the Father mistreat H or X.
[20] Ibid page 102, line 19.
I accept Ms N’s evidence that she is going to assist the Father of his care of X.
I find that the incident that took place at Christmas in 2022 was a one-off incident arising from too many adults drinking too much alcohol over the course of the day where tensions escalated and culminated in the Father assaulting Ms N and O.
I accept the evidence of Ms N and the Father that there have been no further instances of family violence between them and this is supported by the absence of any Queensland Police Service documents indicating any further incidents.
Substance misuse/abuse
At part E of the Notice of Risk, the Mother indicates that the Father has misused drugs and alcohol and harmed a minor child, but not X. The Father was cross-examined about his drinking alcohol, but there was no evidence of his misuse of any other substances.
Given that alcohol played such a significant role in the Christmas incident, I intend to make an order that each parent is restrained from drinking alcohol beyond the legal driving limit of 0.05% whilst they have the child in their care.
Mental Health issues
At part F of the Notice of Risk, under the heading ‘Mental health issues’, the Mother indicates that the Father suffers mental health issues that pose a serious risk to the child.
As a result of the Mother’s allegations about the Father’s mental health, despite the fact they lacked any specificity, an appointment was made for the parents to attend on Dr CC for the preparation of a psychiatric assessment.
At the time of the hearing before me, Dr CC had retired from practice, so he was not available for cross-examination.
Dr CC’s psychiatric assessments of both the Mother and the Father dated 3 March 2022 are contained in his Affidavit filed 9 March 2022.
I am satisfied that when Dr CC did his assessment, he had all relevant evidence at that time, which included documents produced under subpoena.[21]
[21] Dr CC referenced Chapter 7 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 in relation to the obligations upon him as an expert.
I note that Dr CC also had the benefit of the Child impact Report prepared by Ms Z and also the Family Report prepared by Mr EE.
I am satisfied that Dr CC had the benefit of personally assessing both the Mother and the Father in the context of also having been provided with collateral information from the abovementioned documents.
There was no objection to me accepting into evidence Dr CC’s report which is Exhibit 12. I did so on the basis of section 63 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), which enables his evidence to be accepted by the Court even though he is not available for cross-examination.
I also rely on section 69ZT of the Act, which enables me to accept Dr CC’s evidence without him being cross-examined.
In his assessment of the Father, Dr CC did not find evidence of anxiety, depressed mood or of psychotic features. He concluded that there is not an active mental illness or psychiatric disorder or history of substance use from the Father now (being at that time) that could increase the risk of dysfunction for parenting tasks.[22]
[22] Exhibit 12 page 21 of 50.
Exhibit 3 contains two letters prepared by Ms FF from GG Centre. The first is dated 8 September 2023 and states that the Father:
(1)Had been attending on her since late 2021;
(2)Had attended with his partner for couple’s counselling;
(3)Had been very consistent in attending counselling sessions and was committed to weekly and fortnightly sessions;
(4)Has come a very long way, working tirelessly in learning new skills and behaviours to assist him in understanding and regulating his emotions;
(5)Was also seeing Mr HH, a therapist in Suburb JJ, which has been a huge benefit; and
(6)Is working heavily on his mental health, nutrition and fitness and fostering positive relationships with friends and family.
In the letter dated 8 July 2024, Ms FF provides an update stating that the Father:
(1)Has been very consistent in attending counselling sessions and has put in a significant amount of time, effort and financials into his personal growth; and
(2)Is a very resolute father to H. She met H on multiple occasions and he presents to be an incredibly happy and well-adjusted child who has a special bond with his father.
On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the Father does not have any current mental health condition that would impede his ability to care for X.
I am satisfied that the Father has accessed appropriate mental health support, and that he will continue to do so as needed.
Abduction or threats of harm
The Mother fails to articulate any specific incident that would suggest the Father has abducted X, attempted to abduct her or has threatened her harm.
I am satisfied that the Father has complied with all orders made for him to return X to the Mother’s care.
Steps the Father has taken
I accept the Father’s evidence that he has taken steps to improve his behaviour by:
(1)In 2019 engaging with psychologist, Ms KK at LL Centre, between mid-2019 and late 2019;[23]
[23] Exhibit 14.
(2)Engaging in counselling with Ms MM at the LL Centre in between mid-2020 and late 2020 for multiple sessions;
(3)Engaging in relationship counselling with Ms FF since late 2021;[24]
(4)Engaging in fifteen group sessions with V Men’s Program in 2023, and he is committed to continuous improvement;[25]
(5)Completing a parenting order’s program in which he says he learned a lot about co-parenting and working together as a team for the child. The Father says this has assisted him in co-parenting with the mothers of his other children;[26]
(6)Maintaining consistent contact with his son H, and remaining on good terms with his sons Mr F and Mr G;
(7)Maintaining communication and a good co-parenting relationship with the mothers of Mr G, Mr F and H;
(8)Complying with the terms of the protection order naming Ms N as the aggrieved;
(9)Having no further police interaction since being dealt with for the assault on O and Ms N;
(10)Remaining in stable employment for eleven and a half years. This includes working as a professional in a team of approximately ten staff, who age in range from early twenties to early thirties. His son, Mr G, is one of his employees; and
(11)Obtaining a separate residence for himself in Suburb U and complying with the requirement that he not be in contact with Ms N’s children.
[24] Exhibit 3.
[25] Transcript of Proceedings Day 1 page 58 Lines 44-48.
[26] Ibid page 55, lines 40-46 - page 56, lines 1-2.
I find that the child has not suffered harm in the Father’s care.
I find that the child is not at unacceptable risk of harm in the Father’s care.
I am satisfied that it is safe for X to see her Father and have a relationship with him.
THE MOTHER’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT X’S RELATIONSHIP WITH HER FATHER
X is now aged five. It was accepted by the Mother in cross-examination that since orders have been made in this Court for the child to spend time with her Father, there have been a number of occasions where she has not. [27]
[27] Transcript of Proceedings Day 1, page 106 lines 36-39.
The Mother has maintained her various allegations against the Father for the entirety of these proceedings, which has resulted in multiple orders being made for the child’s time with her Father to be supervised.
Despite orders for supervised time, X has not spent regular and consistent time with her Father because of her Mother’s stated concerns.
In the Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum prepared by Ms Z on 6 February 2020, it is indicated that family violence, mental health and drugs and alcohol were not assessed as risk factors at that time by Ms Z.
Despite X being only an infant at the time, Ms Z observed that for a short period that X and her Father spent together, X remained settled and happy in his care.[28]
[28] Ms Z Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum, page 3, paragraph 26.
Prior to the preparation of the Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum Report, X was spending time with her Father, in accordance with interim orders made by his Honour Judge Vasta, that provided for X to spend time with him each Monday and Thursday from 3:00pm to 5:00pm at the paternal grandmother’s house, in addition to each alternate Saturday between 9:30am and 12:00pm midday.
Subsequent to the publication of the report by Ms Z, Orders were made on 28 February 2020 by his Honour Judge Vasta which provided for X to spend time with her Father each Monday and Thursday from 2:15pm to 4:30pm and each alternate Saturday between 9:30am and 12:00pm, which was to commence 29 February 2020.
I note that these orders did not require this contact to be supervised.
It is accepted by the Mother that she did not comply with the terms of the Orders dated 28 February 2020 for X to spend time with her Father.
A Child Impact Report was prepared by Mr AA, dated 7 December 2022.
Mr AA opined,[29] that he got the impression that the Mother places little, if any, importance on X maintaining a relationship with the Father.
[29] Child Impact Report of Mr AA, page 7, paragraph 22
Mr AA set out,[30] if what the Mother alleges is not accurate and valid, then his view was that there are “worrying indications” that she is strongly opposed to X maintaining a relationship with her Father.
[30] Child Impact Report of Mr AA, page 8, paragraph 29
Some of the supervised contact occurred at NN Contact Centre. Despite a subpoena to NN Contact Centre issued by the Independent Children’s Lawyer for the contact notes, those notes were not provided.
It was common ground between the parents and the Independent Children’s Lawyer that the last time the child spent time with the Father at NN Contact Centre was in November 2023, after which they withdrew their service as a supervised contact centre.
I do not have the benefit of the supervision notes. However, it is apparent to me that if the Father had behaved in an inappropriate way with the child during those supervised contact sessions at NN Contact Centre, someone at NN Contact Centre would have contacted the Mother, or the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
If a serious incident had occurred it is likely that a notification to the Department of Child Safety would have been made.
I have no evidence of any inappropriate behaviour by the Father towards the child during supervised contact sessions at NN Contact Centre.
Ms W prepared the most recent Family Report, which is annexed to her Affidavit filed 26 July 2024.
The earlier Family Report prepared by Mr EE dated 10 February 2021, which is not before me, was considered by Ms W in addition to the other Court documents and collateral information as set out in her report.
The Mother made it very clear to Ms W [31] that she will not support X to have a relationship with her Father. When asked if she could identify some benefits of X spending time with her Father, she was not able to do so.
[31] Family Report of Ms W, page 19, paragraph 75.
The Mother’s presentation to Ms W is consistent with the way in which she presented whilst being cross-examined before me. During her cross-examination, the Mother kept repeating that X could spend time with her Father “provided it was safe”.
This Court has made multiple orders on various dates for supervised time to occur between X and her Father so that X would be kept safe.
The Mother has failed to comply with these orders on a consistent basis. X therefore has been denied the opportunity of spending time with her Father and having a relationship with him.
When attending the Family Report interviews, X referred to her Mother’s partner Mr M as her dad. When asked by Ms W if she knew someone named Mr Bentley, X said no.[32] This would likely have been hard for the Father to read.
[32] Family Report of Ms W, page 16, paragraph 61.
It seems probable that the Mother had promoted Mr M as a father figure for X, which is why X referred to him as her dad.
I am fortified in this view by the enrolment form at Exhibit 9. On page 8 of Exhibit 9 is the name Mr M and his date of birth. In the box labelled “relationship to child” the word “father” has been placed there.
On the second last page of Exhibit 9, both the Mother and Mr M have signed as parent/guardian. The Mother admitted in cross-examination that she had put Mr M’s name down on the enrolment form.
I find that the Mother’s actions in having Mr M named in the enrolment form at Exhibit 9 was part of a course of action embarked upon by the Mother to replace Mr Bentley as X’s Father.
This course of action was further exemplified by the Mother sending a photograph of X sitting with Mr M to the Father.
This photograph was sent by the Mother to the Father in response to his in June 2024. He asked the Mother to provide him with some photographs of X.
The photographs were not tendered before me but the Mother accepted that one of the photographs that she sent to the Father was of X sitting with Mr M.
The Mother claimed that she sent that particular photo because X was smiling so beautifully. I do not accept her evidence. I find that she sent that photograph to the Father to emphasise to him that X was with somebody else acting as her father.
The Mother admitted to telling X that her Father had made bad choices and that she (the Mother) is keeping her safe.
The Mother told Ms W that there are no benefits to X spending time with her Father.[33] During the Mother’s cross-examination, I asked if the Father’s bad decisions, all of them, mean he cannot have, or should not have a relationship with X. The Mother replied, “I did have those views.”[34]
[33] Family Report of Ms W, page 11, paragraph 39.
[34] Transcript of Proceedings, Day 2, page 175, lines 17-18.
At the end of the trial, the Mother had changed from her “no time case,” to her seeking orders that would allow X to start spending supervised time with the Father and then moving gradually to unsupervised time. With the consent of all the parties I ordered two periods of time with the Father to be supervised by a Child Cout Expert pursuant to section 65L of the Act.
These two occasions occurred on 15 October 2024 and 22 October 2024 and by consent the report of Mr AA dated 1 November 2024, issued pursuant to my order was tendered as Exhibit 15.
Mr AA notes that in the initial contact session, X had not been prepared by her Mother in any way and so Mr AA asked the Mother to explain to X that the Father was in another room and that he would see X.
Unsurprisingly, the session did not last long and X did not engage with the Father, and after a short time X whispered to Mr AA that she wanted to go back to her Mother.
Mr AA notes in Exhibit 15 that he spoke to the Mother and strongly encouraged her to prepare X for the next visit. He told her that it is unfair for X to not be aware of why she is coming to see him and that it is unreasonable to expect X to do something she is not used to doing without her mother’s support.
On the next contact session on 22 October 2024, the Mother told Mr AA “I’ve been preparing [X] for today. I’ve told her, her Dad would be here. After last week she had two nightmares and on the way here she dry-vomited.”[35]
[35] Exhibit 15 paragraph 12.
When going in to meet with her Father Mr AA notes that the Father interacted with X in a calm and appropriate manner. With time, X became increasingly verbally responsive with the Father and the interaction between them became more reciprocal in nature. Mr AA notes that the overall tone of the interaction between X and her Father was positive.[36]
[36] Ibid, paragraph 15.
Mr AA’s opinion is that the significant shift in X’s reaction to her Father between the two sessions being only a week apart, is probably best explained by her Mother’s validation and support.[37]
[37] Ibid, paragraph 18.
Mr AA states clearly that he wants the Mother to understand how important it is for her (the Mother) to support and encourage X to have a relationship with her Father.
Having considered the material, the long history of this litigation, and having had the opportunity to observe the Mother during her cross-examination, it seems to me that whilst the Mother has agreed to orders for time (whether supervised or not) she has no real intention of promoting X’s relationship with her Father.
I believe the Mother when she told Ms W that she does not support X having a relationship with her Father and that there are no benefits to X spending time with him.
Mr M is L’s biological father and the Mother’s evidence is that L, who is now four, is not currently seeing her father Mr M. The Mother says this is his choice as he has made no contact with her (the Mother).
K’s father is unknown and therefore K does not know his father or have any relationship with him.
I find the Mother is unwilling to support X’s relationship with her Father. If X remains living with her Mother, she will have no relationship with her Father. X will also have no relationship with her brothers Mr F, Mr G and H.
THE RISK TO X IN THE MOTHER’S CARE
Family Violence
As I indicated earlier in these reasons the incident in mid-2020 at the park resulted in X being exposed to family violence and high conflict between her Mother and her Father.
By her own evidence, the Mother admitted that Mr M had made a threat to self-harm and the police were involved. I am satisfied that X, who has always lived in the Mother’s care, would have been exposed to Mr M’s actions and interventions by the police.
I also accept the Mother’s evidence in cross-examination that she and Mr M were “fighting a lot in regards to spending way too much time together.”[38]
[38] Transcript of Proceedings, Day 2, page 173, lines 41-45.
Living with her Mother, I am satisfied that X would have been exposed to the arguments and conflict as between the Mother and Mr M.
Despite the Mother being in a relationship with Mr M during the time these proceedings have been on foot, Mr M has not filed any affidavits nor has he attended any interviews with Ms Z or Ms W.
Exhibit 7 contains a list of court outcomes for Mr M, who is also known, it seems, as Mr OO. I note there are multiple convictions for criminal offences. I note that the last recorded court outcome was in 2016. I do not know if there are any more recent convictions.
The Mother said that she and Mr M had separated, reconciled and then separated again, the last occasion being in around 2022.
Mr M has an extensive criminal history which is contained in Exhibit 7. The Mother gave evidence for the first time in cross-examination that Mr M has been removed from her home following an incident where she said she called the police to do a welfare check because he had threatened self-harm.[39]
[39] Ibid page 174 Lines 10-43.
I note at this time that X was a baby and L had not yet been conceived.
This means that after Mr M had threatened to self-harm, and after the police had been engaged to do a welfare check, the Mother decided to reconcile with Mr M which then resulted in L’s conception and subsequent birth.
As I suggested to the Mother during her cross-examination, it seems to me that she is holding the Father to a much higher standard than that to which she holds Mr M.
In any event, the Mother has ended her relationship with Mr M and L spends no time with him.
The Mother, in her Affidavit for trial, deposes to now being in a relationship with Mr Q. Mr Q has two other children from a previous relationship who seem to spend time with him every weekend, being R aged 4 and S aged two.
There is no affidavit before me from Mr Q and it seems that until I raised it with Mr Arnold, Counsel for the Mother, on the first day of the trial, no thought had been given to the need for an affidavit from Mr Q.
I have no evidence of any protection orders naming the Mother as the aggrieved, nor naming the Mother as a respondent in respect of Mr Q.
X will commence school in January 2024, and will she therefore be more visible in the community with teachers and other education officials being mandatory reporters.
I intend to make the order by consent the parents were asking me to make which is the appointment of a parenting coordinator. I make that order to reduce the parental conflict to which X will be exposed to as between her own parents, and also with the expectation that the Mother and Father will learn skills to apply in their new relationships with their new partners.
Mental Health and Drug Use
The Mother was assessed by Dr CC as contained in Exhibit 12. Dr CC does not accept the Mother’s assertion that she suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Dr CC diagnosed the Mother as having Generalised Anxiety Disorder, with associated personality and identity dysfunction linked to adversity in her development.[40]
[40] Exhibit 12, page 12, lines 15-16.
Dr CC’s opinion was that at the time of the mental state examination, it was marked by mild anxiety.
Dr CC found the Mother had Substance Use Disorder for cannabis. This was on the basis of her having used cannabis since the age of fifteen, which was some fourteen years (at the time of the interview). Based on information given by the Mother, Dr CC found that this issue created:
(1)A powerful exacerbating and perpetuating factor for chronic anxiety; and
(2)Creates an increased vulnerability for the development of personal relationship problems and mental health disorders.[41]
[41] Exhibt 12, pages 12-23.
Dr CC considered this to be low risk as the Mother claimed not to have used the substance for some time and had ceased its use. As became apparent in cross-examination before me the Mother continues cannabis use but she says it was in compliance with a prescription for medicinal cannabis.
The Mother does not depose in her Affidavit to having a cannabis prescription. In cross-examination, she did not clearly articulate the reason for which she was prescribed medicinal cannabis, other than to say, “menstruation”.[42]
[42] Transcript of Proceedings Day 2, page 156, lines 35-36.
The Mother said she takes the cannabis at night and does not drive because of the effect it has on her.
The Mother did not answer a call to produce a prescription from her General Practitioner.
In this regard, the Mother also gave evidence her current partner takes medicinal marijuana as well. This means that the two responsible adults in her house with children under the age of five are under the influence of medicinal marijuana (even though the script has not been tendered) and both responsible adults are unable to drive once affected.
Dr CC opined that “the recurrence of cannabis use was a problem because the substance poses a severe fluctuating and unpredictable risk of altered mental functions from intoxication and or withdrawal, which affects mood, attention, concentration, for problem-solving and for rational thinking. Lack of awareness and attentiveness is a serious concern in this regard.”[43]
[43] Exhibit 12, page 16, lines 3-6.
Dr CC says that the risk is best ameliorated if the Mother accesses regular GP reviews, uses effective anxiety management techniques, monitors the impulse to use alcohol to excess and for illicit substance use.[44]
[44] Page 16, lines 34-37.
The Mother had engaged with Dr PP, clinical psychologist, in 2018 and 2019.[45]
[45] Exhibit 13.
In cross-examination before me, the Mother said that since seeing Dr QQ, she has linked in with her son’s therapist, Mr RR, and now has been linked in with SS Centre. She said that she had been waiting a number of months on their waiting list.[46]
[46] Transcript of Proceedings, Day 2, page 169, lines 8-33.
I find that the Mother has not engaged in a consistent way with therapeutic support. I find that the Mother has re-commenced using cannabis, despite Dr CC’s opinion that she ought never to do so.
I do not have evidence to support her assertion that it is pursuant to a prescription.
Given the opinions expressed by Dr CC, and the impact on her mental health by use of cannabis, I intend to make an order that the Mother is restrained from using any cannabis or medicinal marijuana prior to or during the times she has X in her care.
I also intend to make an order that the Mother is restrained from allowing X to be transported in a vehicle driven by any person who is taking medicinal marijuana. This will prevent X being placed in a situation of risk with the Mother’s current partner who, on the Mother’s evidence, also takes medicinal marijuana.
Emotional Harm
By the Mother’s own admission, she has failed to facilitate X spending time with her Father in accordance with orders made in this court.
The Mother has failed to recognise the importance of X spending time with her Father and having a relationship with him.
The Mother has had the benefit of the Child Inclusive Conference Report by Ms Z, the Family Report by Ms W and the Child Impact Report by Mr AA.
The Mother has recently had the benefit of the section 65L report prepared by Mr AA which is Exhibit 15.
The Mother has been told for many years now that X has a right to spend time with her Father, and that she would benefit from having a relationship with him.
The Mother has made serious allegations against the Father during litigation which she says are obstacles to X being safe in her Father’s care.
Having found that the Father has not physically, sexually or emotionally abused X, I do not accept the Mother’s allegations.
I find that the Mother had no reasonable basis upon which to prevent X from spending time with her Father.
I find the Mother’s actions in stopping and starting X’s time with her Father, and substituting not just one father figure, but two, over the years showed a wilful disregard for X’s emotional wellbeing.
As Ms W said, [47] X “didn’t identify her father to be her father, which is sad for [X] and the father..”.
[47] Transcript of Proceedings, day 2 page 53, lines 30-34.
I find that the Mother has caused X emotional harm. I find the Mother’s actions over the whole of X’s young life, have caused X cumulative emotional harm.
I find that X will continue to be exposed to emotional harm if she remains living in her Mother’s care.
THE IMPACT ON X OF CHANGING HER PRIMARY PLACE OF RESIDENCE
X has lived with her Mother for her entire life. She does not really know her Father. She has also had the confusion in her young life of having two other men, Mr M and Mr Q, living in her household and acting in place of her Father.
X has had the opportunity of living in the household with her Mother and her siblings K and L. However, she also has siblings Mr F, Mr G and H with whom she is entitled to have a relationship.
Ms W in her Family Report says that the concern for her now is that the Mother does appear to be preventing X from spending any time with her Father, and that unfortunately this appears to be a pattern whereby the Mother’s three children have spent no time with their respective fathers.
I accept that X is primarily attached to her Mother. X living with her Mother is where she no doubt feels most comfortable. I accept Ms W’s opinion that if I order X to live with her Father, this change of residence for X would cause a significant disruption to her whole world as she knows it.
However, if X remains living with her Mother, I find that she will not have a relationship with her Father and her extended paternal family, including her three brothers. Ms W further says in the future X could be resentful towards her Mother if she thinks her Mother has obstructed her relationship with her paternal family.
I accept Ms W’s opinion that in the future X could feel abandoned and rejected by her Father and her extended paternal family if she continues to spend no time with them.[48]
[48] Family Report Paragraph 78
Ms W reiterated in cross-examination before me that a change in residence would be placing X in the unknown and her whole world would change. I accept this opinion.
However, I must balance the need to protect X from further harm in the Mother’s care against the upheaval to X caused by moving to live with her Father.
By living with her Father, X will no longer be exposed to the emotional harm and confusion caused by her Mother failing to facilitate X’s relationship with her Father and trying to substitute Mr M and Mr Q as fathers for X.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
In considering what parenting orders, I am required to consider the objects of Part VII of the Act.
Section 60B Objects of Part
The objects of this Part are;
(a)To ensure that the best interests of children are met, including by ensuring their safety; and
(b)To give effect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New York on 20 November 1989.
In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order, I am required by section 60CA to regard the best interests of the children as the paramount consideration.
Section 60CC sets out how a court determines is in a child’s best interests:
Section 60CC
Determining child’s best interests
(1)Subject to subsection (4), in determining what is in the child’s best interests, the court must:
(a)Consider the matters set out in subsection (2); and
(b)If the child is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child – also consider the matters set out in subsection (3).
General considerations
(2)For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the court must consider the following matters:
(a)What arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of:
(i)The child; and
(ii)Each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child);
(b)Any views expressed by the child;
(c)The developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child;
(d)The capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child’s developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs;
(e)The benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child’s parents, and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so;
(f)Anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child.
(2A) In considering the matters set out in paragraph (2)(a), the court must include consideration of;
(a)Any history of family violence, abuse, or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for the child); and
(b)Any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child’s family.
Consideration of safety
In considering what parenting orders to make, I am obligated by s60CC and s60CG of the Act to consider any family violence.
I have found that the Father has engaged in family violence with respect to two of his children and his current partner. However, I am satisfied that he has taken appropriate steps to address his problematic behaviours. I am satisfied that the protection order as between him and Ms N has not been breached and that they have maintained their relationship through engaging in couples counselling.
In her cross-examination before me, the Mother repeated her mantra that she will support a relationship between X and the Father if she, the Mother, considers that X is safe.
I have found many of the Mother’s allegations against the Father to lack any substance, but the Mother is unshaken in her negative beliefs about him. The Mother will continue to hold a negative, and largely false, narrative of the Father. I find that X will be exposed to this negative narrative which I find will cause her harm.
The Mother will continue to obstruct the child’s relationship with her Father. The Mother’s attempts to replace the Father with Mr M and Mr Q have caused confusion for X.
I find that the Mother’s actions have caused X cumulative emotional harm.
I find that the only way to protect X from the risk of harm in her Mother’s household is to immediately order X to live with her Father.[49]
[49] Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97.
Moving X to live with her Father will ensure she has a relationship with her Father and her brothers. She will have the opportunity to get to know her Father, her brothers and her extended paternal family in a way that she has been deprived of since her birth.
X will have the opportunity to understand her place in the world by understanding her place in the family.
I am satisfied, that the Father will ensure that X will continue to have a relationship with her Mother and her siblings in the Mother’s household. This ongoing relationship between X and her Mother and siblings will help to minimise the impact on X of changing her primary place of residence.
Whilst I accept that X moving to live with her Father will be a very significant change for this little girl, I am satisfied that the Father will obtain appropriate supports for X to assist her during this difficult time.
Given the fact that both the Mother and the Father, separately, have had involvement with police in respect of themselves, their partners and their partner’s children, I find that it is necessary to promote X’s safety for me to make an order that if either parent or X or any of their other children in their household, has any engagement with any police service or any state child welfare agency, then that parent needs to notify the other parent of that involvement.
In an effort to protect X from harm arising from her Mother’s substance use of cannabis or medicinal marijuana, I intend to make an order that will restrain the Mother from using cannabis or medicinal marijuana in the 8 hours prior to X coming into her care, and at any time that X is in her care.
I also intend to make an order that the Mother is not allowed to have X in the presence of, or in a vehicle driven by, a person who is using cannabis or medicinal marijuana.
X is about to start Prep. By my Orders, she will be living with her Father. He will choose which school she is to attend. To ensure that X has a smooth start to her school life, I will make an Order that the Mother is not to attend the school on her first day of Prep.
This is because I have no confidence that the Mother will be able to contain her own emotions.
I am satisfied that the Orders I intend to make will promote the child’s safety, and that of her parents, and will prevent X from being exposed to further emotional harm from her Mother.
Views expressed by the child
X is five. I accept that, sadly, she has little understanding of who her Father is.
Given X’s young age and given the fact that the Mother has actively prevented X from spending any time with her Father so as to develop that relationship, I place no weight on any wishes expressed by X.
Capacity of each parent
I am satisfied on all the evidence that the Father does not pose a risk of harm to X. I am satisfied that he has taken appropriate steps to improve his behaviour and to learn from his past mistakes.
I am satisfied that the Father has the capacity to care for X in an appropriate way. I am also satisfied that the Father understands the importance of X’s relationship with her Mother, and that he will take all steps necessary to ensure the continuation of X's relationship with her Mother and her (maternal) siblings.
I am confident the Father will comply with the Orders I make for X to spend time with her Mother.
The Mother has had five years over the course of this litigation, essentially the whole of X’s life, to ensure X had a relationship with her Father and brothers.
The Mother has chosen to ignore those orders and has pursued a course of conduct that has allowed X to see her Father for brief periods over a sporadic time, only to have that time stop abruptly.
I accept the Mother has no intention of supporting X to have a relationship with her Father. I do not accept the Mother will abide by orders specifying X to spend time with her Father.
The Mother has shown no insight into her actions and has shown scant regard for X’s emotional wellbeing.
The Mother has not met X’s need for emotional stability. The Mother has tried to remove X’s Father from her life and has tried to replace the Father in X’s life with no regard for the confusion X has suffered.
I find that the Mother is unable to meet all of X’s needs, particularly her emotional needs, unless those needs exactly align with the Mother’s needs.
Relationships with significant people
I accept that X has a meaningful relationship with her Mother and her Mother’s children K and L. I do not know if X has a relationship with her extended maternal family.
X does not have currently have any relationship with her Father.
The Mother’s actions in preventing X from having a relationship with her Father are consistent with her belief that she does not see there is any benefit to X having a relationship with her Father.
X does not have a relationship with her brothers Mr F, Mr G and H.
I find that the Mother is unwilling to accept the importance of X having a relationship with her Father and her brothers. This belief is replicated for the Mother’s other children, K and L, who also have no relationship with their respective fathers.
I find that X would greatly benefit from having a relationship with her Father, and her brothers, Mr F, H and Mr G.
I also accept that X would benefit from getting to know her larger extended paternal family.
By living with her Father, X will be supported to have relationships with all her relatives and she will learn her place in her wider family, which is so important to her identity.
Decision making authority
These parents do not trust each other and they have not shown the ability to co-parent since X was born.
The parents have not made any decisions together for X’s major long term issues and I have no confidence that they will be able to work together in the near future.
In accordance with section 61D(3), I consider it is in X’s best interests for the Father to have sole decision making authority for her major long term issues.
I will make an Order that the Father is to advise the Mother, via a parenting app, of a decision to be made, and to consider her views.
The Father will ultimately decide the major long term issue and will then inform the Mother of that decision.
Orders in the child’s best interests
I am satisfied that X’s best interests are served by living with her Father and spending substantial and significant time with her Mother during the school term and school holidays.
I will make Orders for X to spend time with each of her parents on special occasions.
I will make an Order that the Mother is not to attend X’s first day of Prep and that she is not to attend school on a day that X is not scheduled to be in her care, unless there is a special event at the school to which parents are usually invited.
I consider it is in X’s best interests for both of her parents to be able to attend special school events, provided that they do not approach each other or communicate with each other at that event.
Despite the Order I have made for the Father to have sole decision making power, I consider it is in X’s best interests for both of her parents to be able to access information and documents from her school and medical practitioners.
The parents and the Independent Children’s Lawyer all agreed to the appointment of a parenting coordinator, and I consider that Order is in X’s best interests.
I consider that it is appropriate for there to be restraints on the parents in respect of discipline and excessive use of alcohol as these will promote X’s safety.
I am satisfied on all the evidence that the Orders that I have set out at the commencement of these Reasons are in X’s best interests.
I certify that the preceding three hundred and eleven numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Bertone. Associate:
Dated: 20 January 2025
0
4
3