Cage & Cage and Ors

[2008] FamCA 842

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CAGE & CAGE AND ORS [2008] FamCA 842

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child lives – Urgent interim proceedings – In March 2006 final parenting orders were made providing for the children to live half the time with each parent with changeovers to occur weekly – Those arrangements were not implemented insofar as the children did not spend the time with their father that the orders provided – Mother has been unable to facilitate shared care although she consented to an order for that arrangement – Mother’s attitude is that she wishes to minimise the time the children spend with their father and she is developing an enmeshed relationship with the children which will inhibit their emotional and social development – Interim orders are made for the children to live with the father

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child spends time with – Orders are made for the parties to contact Rainbows Contact Centre within 48 hours and the children are to spend such time with the mother as the contact centre agrees to supervise and no other time

FAMILY LAW – CHILD ABUSE – Emotional abuse – The children are being subjected to emotional abuse in the mother’s household

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Joinder – Maternal grandmother and maternal grandfather are joined as second and third respondents to these proceedings

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Cage

RESPONDENT: Mr Cage

SECOND RESPONDENT Mrs F

THIRD RESPONDENT Mr F

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Allan Scally

FILE NUMBER: NCC 1991 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 26 August 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Newcastle

PLACE HEARD: Newcastle

JUDGMENT OF: JUSTICE MULLANE

HEARING DATES: 23 July 2008

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: In person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr E. Craney of Craney Family Solicitors

THE SECOND & THIRD RESPONDENTS: There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Second and Third Respondents

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Allan Scally, Legal Aid Commission of NSW

Orders

1. Pending further order all previous parenting orders regarding the parties’ children M born … May 1996 and C born … February 2001 are suspended.

2. Pending further order the children are to live with the father.

3. Pending further order the father must ensure that:

   3.1      each child continues to attend his or her present school;

   3.2each child continues to attend their dancing classes, practices, events and competitions;

   3.3each child continues to attend their music classes, practices, concerts and competitions;  and

   3.4      he pays any relevant fees or expenses for this to happen.

4. The mother by 4pm tomorrow, 24 July 2008, cause the children’s clothing, school requisites and personal belongings to be delivered to Security Staff at the ground floor of the Family Court of Australia at Newcastle and the father must arrange collection of those items with the Security Staff.

5. Each party must within 48 hours contact “[…]”, the contact Centre operated by Relationships Australia at B and arrange an initial interview for the purpose of seeking weekly time to be spent by the children with the mother with supervision by the Centre.

6. Pending further order the children are to spend such time with the mother as the contact Centre agrees to supervise.

7. Pending further order the children are to spend no other time with the mother.

8. The maternal grandmother Mrs F and the maternal grandfather Mr F are joined as Second and Third Respondents.

9. Pending further order the mother and the second and third respondents are restrained from:

   9.1      attending the school of either child;

   9.2except for the mother spending time with the children at the contact Centre, attending any dancing or other activity of either child;

   9.3communicating with either child except that the mother may commencing Sunday, 10 August 2008 telephone the children at the father’s home between 7pm and 7.30pm each Sunday and speak to each child for up to 5 minutes;

   9.4approaching either child except for the mother spending time with them at the contact Centre.

10. So far as Order 9 relates to either grandparent, such matters may be argued by either maternal grandparent on 11 August at 4pm and they each have permission to file and serve any affidavit they wish to rely upon on the issue of whether such order should continue.

11. The staff of the Child Dispute Services at Newcastle Registry and the parties are to ensure M and C are made available to speak to the Judge this evening by telephone so that the orders and reasons can be briefly explained to the children.

12. The Director General of the Department of Community Services is requested to take M into care if he does not cooperate with his father in implementing these orders.

13. To assist M to accept and implement these orders the father is to arrange for M to have ongoing counselling with a counsellor approved or nominated by the Manager of Child Dispute Services of the Newcastle Registry of the Court and meet any reasonable costs of such counselling.

14. To assist him in parenting the children and having them adjust to these orders the father is to attend ongoing parenting counselling with a counsellor approved or nominated by the Manager of Child Dispute Services of the Newcastle Registry of the Court and meet any reasonable costs of such counselling.

15. The father is to provide such counsellors under Orders 13 and 14 before the first appointment with copies of the reports of Professor Q and Dr T.

16. The Independent Lawyer for the Children must provide copies of the reports of Professor Q and Dr T to the Department of Community Services.

17. Pursuant to Section 65L of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth):

    17.1compliance with these parenting orders is to be supervised by a family consultant nominated by the Manager of Child Dispute Services of the Newcastle Registry of the Court; and

    17.2 the supervisor must give any party to the parenting orders such assistance as is reasonably requested by that party in relation to compliance with , and the carrying out of, the parenting orders.

18. The proceedings are adjourned to 11 August 2008 at 4pm to:

    18.1    hear submissions under Order 10;

    18.2    decide the issues to be determined in the last stage of the trial;

    18.3    decide what witnesses will give evidence;

    18.4    make orders for filing of affidavits and issues of subpoenas;

    18.5    make any other orders for preparation for trial; and

    18.6    fix a date to assess readiness for trial

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Cage & Cage is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT NEWCASTLE

FILE NUMBER:  NCC1991 of 2007.

MS CAGE

Applicant Mother

And

MR CAGE

Respondent Father

And

MRS F

Second Respondent

And

MR F

Third Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. These are orders that were made from an urgent Interim hearing on 23 July 2008 by videolink.  The orders relate to the parties two children:  M aged 12 and C aged 7.

2. The parties cohabited from April 1993 till October 2003.  The father still resides in the children’s former home at L and the mother resides with her parents about 5 minutes away from there.

3. In March 2006 final parenting orders were made providing for the children to live half the time with each parent with change-overs to occur weekly.  Those arrangements were not implemented insofar as the children did not spend the time with their father that the Orders provided.  There were subsequent disputes between the parties about the time the children spent with their father and eventually on 28 April 2008 there were Consent Orders made on an interim basis for the children to live with the mother and spend time with the father every second weekend from Friday afternoon until Monday morning. 

4. The orders also restrained the mother and maternal grandmother from removing the children from school on any Friday that the children were to spend time with the father, and for that purpose the grandmother was a signatory to the Terms.  In addition, there were orders restraining the parties from discussing the Court proceedings with either child or denigrating the other party to the children or in the presence or hearing of either child.

5. The change-overs were generally to be effected by the father collecting the children from school and returning them there or collecting them from the McDonald’s Family Restaurant at L and returning them there.

THE EVIDENCE

1. The evidence in the proceedings was:

   a)evidence taken on the first day of the LAT hearing on 28 April 2008;

   b)the relevant Orders made in the proceedings since then;

   c)the report of Dr Q released on 8 July 2008;

   d)the Application of the  father filed on 10 July 2008 seeking an interim order that the children reside with him and spend time with the mother every second weekend in school terms, for half each school vacation, and on special occasions;

   e)the Response of the mother filed 22 July 2008 proposing interim orders for the children to live with her 11 days of every fortnight and spend Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights with their father;

   f)the affidavit of the father sworn 10 July 2008;

   g)the affidavit of the mother’s solicitor, Mr U, sworn 10 July 2008,

   h)the affidavit of the mother sworn 22 July 2008.

BRIEF HISTORY

1. Despite the Orders of 6 March 2006, the mother (and the children when with her) has continued residing with the maternal grandparents. 

2. It appears to be common ground that the consent order for the mother to cease residing with the maternal grandparents was made in response to the recommendation of a single expert psychologist, Dr T who prepared a report that resulted in the Orders of 6 March 2006. 

3. The proceedings before me were commenced by the mother and first came before me for the first day of a Less Adversarial Trial on 28 April 2008.

4. When they first came before me on 28 April 2008 the mother was relying upon her Amended Application filed 23 August 2007, which sought among other things orders that the children reside with her and spend time with the father as agreed between the parties, and otherwise every second Thursday from after school to start of school on the following Monday, for half school holidays and for some special occasions.

5. The maternal grandmother attended on the first day of the hearing.  Orders were made by consent as previously discussed.

6. On the first day the father’s evidence was that he wanted the children “to reach adulthood with functional behaviour.  I want the physically healthy, and to be able to form functional relationships – and what happens now will affect that”.  He expressed his belief that with the mother and maternal family the children were learning dysfunctional behaviour.  He said he wanted for his children “loving and supportive relationships that respect the views of others, as distinct from a relationship that has abuse, criticism, arguments and fighting, which is dysfunctional”.  He complained that the children were subject to pressure in the mother’s care and “her behaviour is over-bearing and dominant with regards to my rights or feelings”. 

7. He said, “She does not have an understanding of the effects of her behaviour on the children”.  He said that for five years the parents had been in conflict and the children had been exposed to this.   At the time, he said that the children’s time with him had been reduced to 3 hours on a Monday whereas previously he had a close relationship with them.  He said, “The children will try and please her.  I don’t think she can encourage contact.” 

8. He said that in relation to his proposal that the children reside with him, it would be difficult for them in the short term, and, “They will need help and I will provide it.  It would be in their best interests.  There will be discomfort for 3-6 months and I propose to get them help.  The children want continuity, they want what they have now, but I have to look at short, medium and long term.”

9. He said that the difficulty was that when the parties reached agreement the mother was not complying with it.  He considered she was unable to facilitate the time the children were to spend with him pursuant to the Consent Orders of 2006.  He said he saw the mother as a victim of her family’s behaviour and was concerned that “it will flow on to my children”.

10. He spoke of relationship problems that the mother has in the work place, with her sister, and with her brother and sister-in-law.  Similarly, he spoke of relationship problems the maternal grandmother has.

11. The father’s evidence was that M was suffering from anxiety and he had taken him to a General Practitioner about his health.  He said that the mother had been placed on a good behaviour bond as a result of her contravening the Court’s Orders.  The parties had attended the program “Keep in Contact” pursuant to orders made by a Magistrate in respect of a contravention by the mother.  But, the contraventions continued.

12. The father said the 2006 orders did not work from “3 months after the orders were put in place”.

13. The father conceded that shared care of the type ordered in 2006 was always destined to have difficulties.  He said that with hindsight he did not think that the shared care arrangement was in the best interests of the children and it would have been better for him to take the matter to a full hearing.

14. His evidence was that on 11 August 2006 the maternal grandmother went to the children’s school and removed them from the school when the father was to collect them that afternoon for them to be with him pursuant to orders.

15. He said, “There are no existing arrangements.  The children ring sometimes asking if they can come for dinner.  Last Friday when I was to have them, the mother dropped them, but instead of leaving, parked a few houses up and the children would not come inside.  They would come to my front door and would not come inside.  [M] was adamant that they would not come inside.  The children then left my home and walked back to their mother’s car.”

16. The mother on the first day testified, “The children are refusing to go back with their father.”  She said it was in their best interests that they live with her.  She claimed that at the time they were living with her and seeing their father for “3 hours per week”.  She said, “I think seeing their father 3-6 hours per fortnight will work.  I have been advised that is not the best thing to apply for.” 

17. She said it was not a decision of C that she not go.  She said, “I’ve relied more upon [M]’s opinion.”  She said that M was suffering from depression which had been dealt with with the support of a medical practitioner and he had also had a “range of minor medical issues since week about and the father has not dealt with them.  I have and they could have had a cumulative effect”. 

18. She said, “I could not say I have a relationship with the father.  There is nothing I can say to (him) that he will agree with”. 

19. The mother claimed that the General Practitioner had said to the father that M “needed space to make a decision as to where he lived”.  She said that the relationship of the children and their father was bad enough for the children to be able to decide to stop seeing one of their parents.  She said that M had various problems.  One was that he needed to be “more in tune with reality”.  Another was he “has started adolescence and has problems”.  She said, “He has the mind of a child”. 

20. When she was asked whether M needed some free time for himself instead of the very extensive extra curricular activities she had organised for him, she said, “I would like to wind back some of the timetable.  I implemented the timetable … because the children were in a disorientated state with their father, which I felt could spiral into depression.”   She said she was thinking about “reducing the timetable” that week “if [M] is comfortable with it”.

21. The mother said she thought C is “very dependent” upon M, especially emotionally.  “She does not want to share him with anyone.”  She said that C has “trouble with her bowel which has recently stabilised.  She tends to over-eat and I have to watch her diet.”  She said that M “tends to under-eat”.  She also said, “I have to keep track of their fluid intake”.  She said, “If he had a few more pounds on him he would not get so many colds in winter.”  She said the father “was not supportive about any measure about the children’s health.  When [M] was at his father’s place, he would not eat.  He used to come back hungry.  The father put food on the plate for him and there was a lack of social communication and [M] used to come home hungry and eat.”  She then claimed that M “under-eats” at his father’s house because M said, “The food was repetitive and boring”, and he was not inclined to eat it.

22. She described the father in terms of his role as a male role model for M as “very ineffective”.  She said that M’s violin teacher “is an excellent role model”.  She said that she wanted M to have “only minimal contact with his father”.

23. When she was asked whether the relationship between the parents was threatening the children’s self-respect, she said, “No.  My leaving their father has given them the only opportunity they will get to rise above the undermining influence of his poor relationship with me.  His relationship with me was extremely undermining to me and the children.”

24. At the end of the first day of the hearing, Orders were made for the appointment of a Single Expert and preparation of a report.

25. Professor Q, a Consultant Psychiatrist with considerable expertise in relation to family and marital relationships and dysfunctional families, read material and interviewed the parties, the children and the maternal grandmother.  Her report was released on 8 July 2008.  

26. In her report Professor Q reached the following conclusions regarding the psychiatric state of the parties:

    [The mother] has a Personality Disorder, Cluster B type, with Borderline, Narcissistic and Histrionic features. This is very apparent in her unusual cognitive processes, lack of empathy, troubled interpersonal relationships, exaggerated affective responses and histrionic presentation, particularly regarding medical matters. This is a fixed characteralogical structure and is unlikely to be ameliorated by treatment particularly since there is also a marked lack of insight and a strong externalising focus so that [the mother] characteristically sees problems as located outside herself.

    [The mother] has an enmeshed relationship with her mother who is highly intrusive and who also has a strong externalising focus, constantly locating problems outside of herself in spite of a history of what appears to have been quite turbulent relationships, including estrangement from her own children at times. The way in which the maternal grandmother characterises other people, including the children's father, is of great concern. There is little doubt that the children are exposed to if not indoctrinated with such views.

    The psychological fusion between the mother and maternal grandmother is quite marked and it is apparent that over time the children will be drawn into this fusion and already have been to some extent so there has developed a form of group mentality in that household. This includes a perception of difference as potential threat and a vilification of such threat; at present [the father] is regarded as the source of threat.

    The father impresses as perhaps having some avoidant personality traits or at least an introverted and introspective character but this is not sufficient to constitute a personality disorder. He is inward focused and does not have a good capacity for empathic attunement. Nevertheless overall his adjustment is adequate. Of particular importance is the impression that he would be relatively open to considering any own contribution of his own to problems and therefore likely to be amenable to counselling regarding the children.

1. She reached the following conclusions regarding the benefit to the children of having a meaningful relationship with each of the parties:

   In my view the relationships in the maternal household are quite dysfunctional and this will impact pathologically on both children in the long term. It is critical therefore that they sustain a meaningful relationship with their father in order to assist in neutralising the effects of the mother and the maternal household.

   It would be difficult to limit the relationship between the children and their mother at this time since she has been their primary carer throughout their lives and also because of [M]'s age. [The mother] is intensely invested in the children and in promoting their talents and all their activities but this is not an entirely healthy orientation. The benefit to the children of having their mother so devoted is offset by the fact that the cost of this is likely to be that they become part of the group mentality or psychological fusion of the maternal family.

2. She expressed concerns about the psychological harm to the children within the mother’s household and emotional violence in that household.  She said, “The maternal grandmother in particular is emotionally extraordinarily hostile and the children are not at all sheltered from her views”.

3. In relation to the children’s views she reported:

   The children are more aligned with their mother and the maternal grandparents. This is inevitable at their age since the mother has been their primary carer and it is very clear that an attachment to her requires a commitment to the group mentality and that there is little room for individuation from that group. To some extent this has brought some benefits to the children in their very early years as their mother has been intensely focused on them and their activities. However, as the children begin to mature and individuate this becomes a psychologically unhealthy environment and they may be limited developmentally by having to remain part of the psychological fusion within the maternal household.

   [M] expresses a willingness to continue the same residence arrangement as he obtains at present. The impression is that he is actually quite conflicted and anxious but is defending against this with an almost haughty indifference; that is a defensive reaction and one that is strongly determined by the maternal household. It is psychologically damaging to [M] to be exposed to such vilification of his father as appears to take place there.

   [C] is very loyal to her mother but it is apparent that she is actually more comfortable in the care of her father.

4. As regards the children’s relationships, she said:

   As described there is an enmeshment in the maternal household and the children will inevitably become drawn into this; the only alternative with this kind of psychology is to become alienated or estranged. Any break with the group is seen as profound disloyalty and threat and leads to vilification or expulsion; this appears to have happened already with certain members of the maternal family and certainly with [the father].

   [C] has a very warm and comfortable relationship with her father. [M] maintains a kind of studied indifference but this is almost certainly at least in part a defence against any disloyalty to his mother.

5. She considered that the mother was seeking to limit the father’s contact with the children “to as great an extent as is possible”, and her attitude was unlikely to change.  She said that the father did not appear to seek to limit the mother’s relationship with the children.  She concluded regarding the likely effect of the change of residence that the children would be unhappy about a move from their mother’s care and may protest in the short term:

   ... but it is my view that the psychological environment there is so unhealthy that it is not in the children's best interests to remain in the primary care of their mother. At the very least the children should be spending half their time with their father and perhaps it would be preferable if the current situation were reversed so that they spend more than half their time with the father and have briefer periods with their mother.

   The psychology of the maternal household is such that a change of this nature is likely to precipitate intense hostilities and may lead to quite serious responses from the maternal family. This is not to suggest that there is a risk of physical violence but certainly there will be emotional violence.

6. As to the parenting capacities of the parties, Professor Q concluded:

   The mother appears to provide well for the children in all respects but as explicated there is a significant psychological cost they pay for this. The father is well able to meet their physical and intellectual needs but is somewhat limited in terms of emotional attunement, however, that may be less of a problem for the children than the enmeshment with their mother.

7. Professor Q concluded that the mother “is not a mature character.  She has a pathological dependence on her own mother, her lifestyle is restricted, she is intensely focussed on the children to the exclusion of appropriate peer relationships.  This adjustment seems to have been a response to having grown up in a household where she was dominated by and enmeshed with her own mother.  It is likely that this will be replicated in her relationships with one or both of her children.”

8. She said of the father:  

   The father’s lifestyle appears a little limited or perhaps quiet. He is an inward looking person and rather introverted but otherwise seems to be a stable person from a stable background; his Irish heritage will enrich the lives of his children.

9. Professor Q elaborated the general criteria for the personality disorder from which she says the mother suffers:

   A. An enduring pattern of inner experience and behaviour that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual's culture. This pattern is manifested in two (or more) of the following areas:

   cognition (perception and interpretation of self, others and events) affectivity (the range, intensity, lability, and appropriateness of emotional response)

   interpersonal functioning

   impulse control

   B.The enduring pattern is inflexible and pervasive across a broad range of personal and social situations.

   C.The enduring pattern leads to clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

   D.The pattern is stable and of long duration and its onset can be traced back at least to adolescence or early adulthood.

   E.The enduring pattern is not better accounted for as a manifestation or consequence of another mental disorder.

   F. The enduring pattern is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance or a general medical condition such as head injury.

10. When the report of the Expert was released, the proceedings were listed on Friday, 11 July 2008 at 9am to hear any interim application, review the recommendations of Dr Q, define the issues for the last stage of the hearing, and make orders for preparation for trial.  The mother had taken the children to the Snowy Mountains for a week of the school holidays and could not be contacted, so on 11 July Orders were made for the proceedings to be listed for the same purpose on Wednesday 23 July at 4.30pm at Newcastle Registry, for the mother to bring the children with her to the Newcastle Registry and deliver them to the children’s room of the Child Dispute Services by 4.20pm, and for the mother to file and serve any Response and affidavits by 4pm on Tuesday, 22 July. 

11. The hearing on 23 July was conducted by videolink as I was in Sydney at the time. 

12. Those orders are set out at the start of this Judgment.

13. I spoke to M and C in accordance with Order 11 by telelink that evening.

14. For convenience the reasons for the orders made are set out in sequence according to the order.

    1)       The Children to live with their father.

    The opinion of the Expert, which was not contradicted by other evidence, but supported by evidence of the father and the history of the mother’s inability to facilitate the children spending time with their father in accordance with orders she has consented to, is that the children are being subjected to emotional abuse in the mother’s household by the mother and the maternal grandmother, and possibly the maternal grandfather.  The mother has been unable to facilitate shared care although she consented to an order for that arrangement.  The mother’s attitude is that she wishes to minimise the time the children spend with their father.   The mother is developing an enmeshed relationship with the children which will inhibit their emotional and social development.

    All of these propositions are supported by evidence before the Court. But because the proceedings were interim proceedings, there was no cross-examination of the Single Expert or either of the parties.  Also, when the matter is more fully prepared for a final hearing, there is likely to be much more extensive evidence from different sources.

    On the evidence such as it is, it appears that the children are being emotionally abused in their mother’s care and it appears that this is the likely cause for M suffering depression and stress problems.

    2)       Order 3 - School, Dancing and Music

    It is important for the children to maintain as much stability as can be maintained in the circumstances and an order was therefore made for the father to ensure they each continue to attend his or her present school, that they continue to attend their dancing classes, practices, events and competitions, and they also attend their music classes, practices, and any competitions.

    In order that this happen, it was also ordered that the father pay any relevant fees or expenses to facilitate it.

    3)       Order 4 – the Children’s belongings

    The Court on the evidence could not be satisfied that the mother would voluntarily provide the father with the children’s belongings, and therefore an order needed to be made for this to happen.

    4)       Orders 5 and 7 – Supervised Contact

    There is evidence that the mother presents a danger to the children by way of emotional abuse.  The children need to be protected from this.  Her time with the children needs to be supervised by some person who can protect the children in relation to emotional abuse.  There was no other arrangement proposed by either party than the use of the Contact Centre operated by Relationships Australia.  Accordingly, those orders were made.

    5)       Orders 9 and 10

    There was evidence that the maternal grandparents had previously acted to frustrate operation of Court Orders for the children to spend time with their father.  That evidence was that they collected the children early from school so that the Father could not collect the children pursuant to existing Orders for the children to spend time with him.

    There is also a danger in terms of emotional abuse that although the mother’s time with the children would be supervised, the maternal grandparents might pursue further emotional abuse of the children.  There was therefore a need to protect the children against this and Orders 8 and 9 as urgent interim orders with provision in order 10 for the grandparents to have the issue determined after they had the opportunity to file evidence. 

    6)       Order 11 – Judge to speak with the children

    M is 12 years of age and C is 7.  It is important, particularly for M, that he have some objective explanation for interim orders proposed and the disruption to the lives of both children. Accordingly, this order was made and was implemented that night before the children left the Court building with the father.

    7)Order 12 and 16 - Department of Community Services

    There was a real risk that M, as he is loyal to his mother and wishes to continue residing with her, would not cooperate in implementing the Court’s Orders.  It was likely that he might abscond or return to his mother’s home.  Given the issues of emotional abuse in his mother’s home and the problems it has caused M, it was appropriate that an Order be made requesting the assistance of the Department of Community Services if M did not cooperate with his father to implement the Orders.

    Order 16 is in the children’s interests, as it will provide background information to the Department.

    8)Order 13 – Counselling for M

    It is likely that M will suffer considerable disruption and unhappiness about a change of residence.  Given his difficulties already experienced by suffering depression and stress as a result of the parental conflict and litigation, it is in his interests that he have counselling. 

    9)Order 14 and 15 – Parenting Counselling for the Father

    The father has not undertaken the role of a full time parent of the children in the past.  He has also experienced considerable difficulty in the context of what appears to have been considerable conduct of the mother undermining him and his role as the children’s father.  The mother also alleges that the father does not care for the children as well as she would like, does not provide them with interesting food, and provides activities for the children which they consider “boring”. Professor Q also found that he had limitations concerning introspection and empathy.  It is in the children’s best interests that the father has good parenting skills, particularly to cope with the Orders changing the living arrangements and the negative views that the children have expressed about him in the past.  Accordingly, the order was made for the children’s benefit and his for him to have the assistance of parenting counselling to try and improve his skills in that area and the children’s experience of his parenting.

    The counsellor should have the benefit of being able to read the reports of Dr T and Professor Q.

    10)Order 17 – Supervision of the Parents’ Compliance with the Interim Orders

    It is in the children’s best interest and also the parents’ interests that the parents have the support that can be provided by a supervisor of their compliance with the Orders, particularly in order to minimise the possibility of further exposure of the children to the adult conflict and possible added stress and insecurity from adult misbehaviour.  In addition, it is clear that the parents are unable to communicate directly and a supervisor could assist them in that regard.

I certify that the preceding forty-six (46) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Mullane

Associate: …

Date:  26 August 2008