CHARTER & CHARTER

[2013] FCCA 1000

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CHARTER & CHARTER [2013] FCCA 1000

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Final arrangements for care of children aged 10, 8 and 7 – family violence – whether children have been exposed to family violence – meaningful relationship between father and children – father has failed to attend many periods of court ordered supervised time with children – attitude to responsibilities of being a parent – best interests.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, s.60CC

Applicant: MS CHARTER

Respondent: MR CHARTER

File Number: ADC 2085 of 2011

Judgment of: Judge Brown

Hearing date: 12 April 2013

Date of Last Submission: 12 April 2013

Delivered at: Adelaide

Delivered on: 12 April 2013

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Clarke

Solicitors for the Applicant: Daryl Clarke

Counsel for the Respondent: In person

UNTIL FURTHER OR OTHER ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The children X born (omitted) 2002 and Y born (omitted) 2006 and Z born (omitted) 2006 live with the mother and she have sole parental responsibility for them.

2. All orders for the children to spend time with the father are discharged.

3. The father be authorised to release the family report of Ms N dated 18 February 2013 to his psychologist Dr H to ascertain whether:

   (a)Dr H is able to provide the one on one therapy recommended by Ms N to assist the father to re-engage with the children in future and particularly to assist him to understand the possible emotional implications of his past behaviour directed toward the children as discussed in paragraph 62 of Ms N’s report.

   (b)Whether Dr H is willing to provide a report or reports to the court following the conclusion of his treatment of the father as envisaged in paragraph 65 of Ms N’s report.

   (c)If Dr H is not willing to provide such therapy if he is in a position to refer the father to a qualified person who is either directly or through a GP mental health program.

4. The father complete a “Kids Are First” program through Anglicare or similar parenting program within 6 months of the date of these orders.

5. The father complete an anger management course as may recommended to him by Dr H or a counselor at Anglicare via the Kids Are First program within 6 months of the date of these orders.

6. The father be permitted to write to the children via the mother’s postal address at (omitted) on their birthdays and other such special occasions such as Christmas and Father’s Day and to send appropriate gifts on these occasions with the mother to forward such letters and gifts onto the children subject to her right to vet such correspondence for suitability.

7. That further consideration of this matter is adjourned to 17 May 2013 at 9:30am to aserttain the position of Dr H and whatever other steps the father has taken to implement the recommendations of Ms N and to give effect to orders 4 and 5 hereof.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT ADELAIDE

ADC 2085 of 2011

MS CHARTER

Applicant

And

MR CHARTER

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These reasons for judgment were delivered orally immediately following the hearing concerned.  Given the significance of the case to each of the parties, it is appropriate that the reasons be transcribed.  The reasons have been corrected from the transcript.

2. This afternoon and this morning, I have been dealing with the matter of Charter.  The parties to the proceedings are Ms Charter and Mr Charter.  I will refer to them respectively as “the mother” and “the father” in these orally delivered reasons for judgment.

3. They are the parents of three children – X, who was born on (omitted) 2002; Y, who was born on (omitted) 2005; and Z, who was born on (omitted) 2006.

4. The proceedings have been listed for final hearing today and relate to parenting arrangements for the three children concerned.  Particularly whether it is likely to be in the best interests of the three children concerned to spend time with their father and if so, what conditions should attach to that time and long it should be.

5. The proceedings have had a long history in the court.  Ms Charter commenced them around about two years ago now, on 6 June of 2011.  In the period since, they have been much delayed, invariably as a result of delays or omissions referrable to Mr Charter.

6. At the initial stage it was Ms Charter’s position that the parties should have equal shared parental responsibility for the three children and, on both a final and an interim basis, the three children should live with her and spend time with their father on each Saturday from 10 o’clock until midday and at other times to be agreed between the parties.

7. Significantly, she also wanted orders that any time the children spent with their father should be subject to the condition it be supervised by anyone of Mr S, Ms S, Ms T or Mr N.  These are all persons who share a connection more with the mother than the father.

8. In addition, she wished injunctions made that would stop the father consuming alcohol for a period of 12 hours prior to him coming into contact with the children and from accessing pornographic material, when the children were in his care.

9. By way of background, the parties live in (omitted), in rural South Australia, although I understand that they live on opposite sides of the (omitted), which of course, divides the town.  The mother is not currently employed.  The father does not enjoy regular employment.

10. The parties have been involved with one another for a significant period of time.  They began a relationship in 2001 and married on (omitted) 2002.  They separated a few months prior to the mother commencing these proceedings.

11. The mother’s original application was given a return date of 12 July 2011.  With her application, she also filed a document called a Notice of Child Abuse or Family Violence. 

12. In this document she alleged that the father yelled and swore at the child and, more particularly, she alleged that about twelve months prior to the issue of proceedings, the father had picked up X and thrown her onto a mattress and gouged, and this is the words she used, gouged her back with his fingernails, leaving two and a half inch long injuries on the child’s body.

13. When the matter came on before me on 12 July, the mother appeared in court with her solicitor, Mr Clarke and there was no appearance by Mr Charter.  An affidavit of service had been filed, which indicates that a person by the name of Mr N had served the applicable documents at an address on the (address omitted).

14. The affidavit goes on to indicate that they were handed in to Mr Charter at (address omitted), and that service occurred on 24 June 2011.

15. It is now, I think, Mr Charter’s position that he was not personally provided with the documents in question.  He asserts that they went to a person, who was managing the console of the service station, where he was living at the time and he did not know of the proceedings when they first came into court.

16. Anyway, on 12 July, I made orders essentially in terms of those sought by the mother and the proceedings were adjourned until later that year in August.  That is I was satisfied, on the basis of the material available to me that it was appropriate that the father’s time, with the children, be subject to supervision.  I was satisfied as to service and that it was appropriate to make orders providing for supervised time between the children and their father, until the matter could return to court in a few weeks time.

17. It was the mother’s position, at this early stage, that the relationship between the parties, particularly in its latter stages, had been a violent one.  She alleges that an incidence of violence in December of 2010 had been the final straw so far as she was concerned, in precipitating the final separation.  In the absence of an appearance from the father, I did not feel inclined to overlook these allegations of family violence.

18. It was also her case that the father had issues to do with his consumption of alcohol.  In particular she asserted that he was deceitful about how much alcohol he was consuming and significantly his use of alcohol had triggered his violent and disparaging behaviour towards her.

19. She alleged that, leading up to the parties’ separation, she had been shoved and slapped by the father, grabbed around the neck and subjected to name-calling and abuse.  Essentially, it is her case that the father had subjected her to coercive and controlling violence.

20. In addition, she had concerns that the father had been physically rough toward the children concerned.  As indicated earlier, she raised a significant incidence of violence involving X.  Finally, it was her allegation, which has not been examined in any detail in these proceedings, that the father had had an addiction to pornography.

21. Anyway, the proceedings were adjourned and ex parte orders were made.  The matter returned to court on 26 August 2011 and by that stage, Mr Charter had legal representation and his solicitor appeared on his behalf. 

22. A formal response and supporting evidence was filed.  Essentially it was the father’s position that the children should spend weekend time with him from 10 o’clock on Saturday until 5 pm the following Sunday on each second weekend being exchanged at a local McDonalds Restaurant.  However, the most significant factor of his response was that he asserted that the need for supervision was unnecessary. 

23. Against this difficult background, the parties were able to agree to some orders, including in respect of supervision.  It was agreed that the requirement of supervision would continue other than the supervision was changed to include other potential supervisors, including the father’s sister, Ms M and his brother-in-law, Mr M.  The rationale being that there would, in effect, be a supervisor from the mother’s camp and one from the father’s camp.

24. The parties were referred to one of the court counsellors to see if that would be of assistance to them moving forward.  I was provided with a report from Family Consultant Ms H, who saw the parties on 14 August. 

25. At that stage, the parties reiterated their respective concerns in the case to Ms H.  The mother’s position was that, “at all costs”, she wanted to see the children “protected” in whatever arrangements were made for the children.  It was her view that Mr Charter needed extensive therapy to deal with problems to do with alcohol and anger.  It was also her case that Mr Charter was not sorry or insightful about what she saw was his poor behaviour, which had led to the end of the relationship between the parties. 

26. From the father’s point of view, he thought that the mother’s parents, the (name omitted), were too involved in matters, which were more properly the responsibility of the parents.  In effect, he asserted that he considered they were inflaming the already difficult relationship between the parties.  It was Mr Charter’s position that he may have made some “mistakes” during the marriage, but it was his perception that the supervision was causing more problems than it was solving.

27. The matter has taken a period of time to get to the point of being fixed for final hearing.  The reason for that is that, from the mother’s perspective, although orders were made for Mr Charter to spend time with the children, in a supervised context, Mr Charter has not availed himself of those opportunities provided to him.  This resulted in her bringing an application to the court to change the time the children spent with their father.  She did that in June of 2012.

28. The father’s perspective was that, during much of 2012, his own father had been unwell, seriously so and regrettably and sadly that the gentleman concerned has passed away, which must of course be very sad and difficult for Mr Charter.  It is also his position that his mother has been unwell – I think she is currently in an aged care facility.  In these circumstances, the father’s position is that he has had very many other pressing family commitments.

29. From the mother’s perspective, it was unsatisfactory that the father was late, cut short visits, or did not attend at all to spend time with the children.  In her view, this was further example of Mr Charter trying to control and manipulate the situation, which she said he had done in the past.

30. From her point of view, she wanted the proceedings brought to an end and she was concerned that it was hurtful for the children that an unsatisfactory situation was maintained.  She was particularly concerned that she built up the children to see their dad and then he did not attend, without explanation, leaving them emotionally let down.

31. Ultimately, on 28 November 2012, I set the proceedings down for trial today and I ordered that a family report be prepared.  The report was prepared by a social worker, Ms N.  I also made orders for the parties to file their trial affidavits.  The mother has filed her trial material.  The father has not. 

32. Recently Mr Charter’s previous solicitors have withdrawn from the matter.  Mr Charter appeared at court today and asked for the proceedings to be adjourned.  He made this application at the very last minute and after he had a history of being unreliable in respect of filing material and attending at court.

33. In these circumstances, I was not prepared to adjourn the proceedings.  However, to Mr Charter’s credit he had taken part in the family report writing process but I note that he was delayed in respect of one of the initial interviews with Ms N.  As I say, he has not otherwise filed any affidavit material for trial.

34. The most germane aspect of the mother’s material, filed for today’s hearing, is that she deposes of approximately 50 visits, which have been ordered to take place, between the father and the children, Mr Charter has failed to attend on about 46 of them.  Mr Charter, in his oral evidence, concedes that that is the case.

35. He asked for an adjournment, as I say.  I was not prepared to grant it.  Accordingly the matter has proceeded and it has proceeded in an unusual way in the sense that Mr Charter has given his evidence first.  I have taken a fairly pro-active role in gathering evidence from him.

36. Mr Charter has elected not to cross-examine the mother.  So she has not given any additional oral evidence.  In those circumstances, her affidavit evidence is unchallenged.  In my assessment, her case has been thoroughly and professionally prepared.  In these circumstances, I accept her evidence.

37. In addition, I have arranged for the family report writer, Ms N to give evidence.  She gave evidence from about a quarter past two until about a quarter past three.  Again the parties themselves did not choose to cross-examine her at any great length.

38. Mr Charter has been courteous and respectful to me, for which I am grateful.  He is a person, I think who is not without intelligence but he is not emotionally robust at the present time.  In my estimation, he has at times a difficult manner. 

39. He describes himself as a person who is a “leader not a sheep”.  He says he does not mince his words.  My impression of him is of a person who wants to be perceived as “telling it as it is”.  That is he presented his evidence in a way which was very much unvarnished.  As such, he did not seem to me to be a dishonest person in any significant way.  Indeed he answered quite a few questions, which I put to him, in a way which was not in his interests. 

40. He conceded that he had been verbally abusive to his former wife.  He conceded that he had been violent towards her.  He conceded that he could be intimidating.  He accepted that he had been unreliable in respect of his interactions with the children.

41. In addition, although I do not doubt that he loves all three children very much indeed, he conceded that he had thrown X on the mattress, as complained of, and acknowledged that he had injured her back.  He also conceded that, on a past occasion, he had punched the fridge.  In the context of this case, these are all very significant concessions.

42. As a result of concerns raised by the wife, he has been ordered, in the past, to undertake a number of courses including an anger management course, alcohol and drug counselling and to do a Kids R First course.

43. He has seen a drug and alcohol counsellor and his previous solicitor, Ms G has, with an affidavit deposed to by herself, filed a copy of a report from a Ms B, who is a clinical nurse at (omitted). 

44. Ms B saw Mr Charter on four occasions in her capacity as a drug and alcohol clinical nurse.  Ms B’s report does not say anything about what she did with Mr Charter or what therapy she engaged in with him, other than that she recommended that he seek marriage counselling.  The report says nothing about Mr Charter’s drinking patterns or the like.  So, with respect, her report was not particularly illuminating. 

45. Mr Charter says that he did what he could in respect of the direction, from the court, that he seek counselling.  He points out that he lives in a relatively remote rural area and is not particularly well versed in such matters.  He says he relied on the expertise Ms B and assumed that she would provide whatever was necessary for him to comply with the orders made.  No doubt there is a certain amount of truth in what he says – Mr Charter did hope Ms B would help him. 

46. However, Mr Charter does not strike me as being particularly amendable to helping himself.  Certainly he has not been, in my view, particularly proactive in engaging in the process or intent of the court’s orders.  He has not done anything about anger management.  He has not done anything about the Kids R First course.  My impression is that he has been passively resistant to these interventions.  Certainly, it is not helpful for him to blame Ms B.

47. In my view, the evidence available to me in this case clearly indicates that the three children have been exposed to family violence.  This conclusion is supported not only by the evidence of Ms Charter and the concessions of Mr Charter.  It is also supported by Ms N and her interviews with the children.  It is also apparent that Mr Charter has done little, if anything, to address his problems.

48. The family report of Ms N is one of sixty five paragraphs.  She interviewed the children in detail.  It is her assessment that the three children are delightfully engaging children and she agrees that they are a credit to the parenting being provided to them by their mother.  Ms N was satisfied that the children had been exposed to violence and had been upset about it, as a result of what they individually told her.

49. X said that her parents had separated because her parents fought.  She remembered being witness to her father yelling and becoming angry and punching everything.  She said that “there’s a big dent in the fridge” which caused her to feel sad and scared.  The clear implication being that her father had caused the damage and this had frightened her.

50. X also said that sometimes her father hurt her and her brother and sister when he grabbed them.  She also said that she had seen her “father drink a lot because there were beer bottles all over the house”.  When Ms N saw X she reported that “it was good that she hadn’t seen her father and that [she] didn’t like him”.

51. Y said that her parents are separated because her father had got angry and hurt her mother.  She was upset about that and she indicated that she too did not want to see her father again “not at all”.  Z reported similar concerns.  He was worried about his father becoming angry and saying a rude word. 

52. In my view, these are poignant and concerning observations, coming as they do from children of the ages of X, Y and Z.  In particular, it seems evident that the incident in which Mr Charter punched the fridge continues to reverberate in X’s mind.  Comments of this kind are clearly supportive of the mother’s allegation that the children have been exposed to family violence emanating from their father.

1. Ms N has written around 400 family reports during her career to date.  It was not her view that the children had been coached or primed in any way by the mother in respect of what they reported to her.  In this context, she agreed with my assessment that the most important consideration in this matter was how to protect the children in future from being exposed to family violence and harm.

2. She also agreed with my assessment that the current orders for lay supervision were not working.  It is, I think, the case that it was perhaps naive to think that having two supervisors, one from each camp as it were, would both allay the mother’s concerns about the father’s unpredictable behaviour and allow the father, from his perspective, to engage easily with the children, without unreasonable suspicion attaching to him.

3. Mr Charter is a somewhat stubborn person.  I mean him no disrespect but he bristles with attitude at times, even in this formal environment of the court room.  However, as I say, he has been respectful and decent to me, for which I am grateful.

4. But clearly he does not take kindly to any suggestion that his interaction with the children needs to be supervised, in any way whatever.  He is not of a disposition to bite his tongue and put up with what he thinks is an indignity or a slur on his character in the short term for the sake of a greater goal or greater good in due course.  It seems he has no affinity for the wife or capacity to placate her concerns or fears.

5. No doubt there is a lot of tension between Mr Charter and the mother’s parents because, from their perspective, he has been violent towards their daughter and grandchildren and as a result there is no love lost.  Clearly there is a very significant level of tension and suspicion between the respective aspects of these children’s family

6. But it cannot be said that Mr Charter has not been offered direction as to how he can ameliorate his relationship with the children.  He has been offered a mechanism through which he can engage with them.  However, regrettably, since August of 2011, there has been no advance at all in this matter and in fact it has gone backwards.  This in my view is solely attributable to Mr Charter and his attitude and past behaviour.

7. So at this stage, as a result largely of her impression of the children and her finding that they are likely to have exposed to family violence and are somewhat apprehensive about their father, Ms N recommends that the children should spend only time with their father, as they wish, and that the case should be revisited in 12 months, but only if the father is able to demonstrate that he can change his behaviour and commit to spending time with them regularly.

The legal principles applicable

1. In this case as in all cases to do with children, I have to make the orders that I think are calculated to be in the children’s best interests.  The matters which the court must take into account in deciding how a child’s best interests are to be served is set out in the Family Law Act [see section 60CC].

2. Section 60CC creates two classes of considerations which apply to the court’s determination of how a child’s best interests will be determined in proceedings before it – primary considerations and additional considerations. There are two primary considerations, which are set out in section 60CC(2)(a)(b) namely:

   (a)  the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents; and

   (b)  the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.

3. Prior to recent legislative amendments, these considerations were not formally ranked in regards to one another.  They have been referred to, in a number of decisions of the Family Court, as “twin pillars”, the importance of which depends on the circumstance of the case concerned. 

4. However, as a result of the insertion of section 60CC(2A) into the Act, the court is now directed, in applying the primary considerations “to give greater weight” to the primary consideration relating to the need to protect children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence.”

5. Other specific criteria, relating to how the court is directed to consider how the best interests of any children concerned may be served, by any order which is made, are set out in section 60CC(3). There are fourteen such criteria, which are categorised as being additional considerations. 

6. Pursuant to section 60CC(3)(m) the court is empowered to have regard to any other fact or circumstance, which it considers relevant. This ensures that the infinite variety of individual children’s circumstances may be addressed in any order which the court makes.

7. This case raises difficult issues towards which the two primary considerations set out in section 60CC(2) are directed. Firstly, on the mother’s case, supported by the evidence of Ms N, the case raised very serious issues of family violence. Secondly, on the other hand, the children have only one father.

8. Clearly X, Y and Z know him well, having shared a household with him for the larger proportions of their lives to date.  If I accede to the Ms Charter’s position, it is likely to mean that the children’s relationship with their father will be severely curtailed in future and, as such, is not likely to be meaningful, from either their or the father’s perspective.

9. Children gain a sense of personal identity by interacting with their parents – their biological instigators with whom they share a genetic inheritance – in a variety of settings and circumstances.  As such it is a significant thing to deprive a child, of any age, of the opportunity to know a parent at first-hand.

10. A child’s parents are also likely to be a source of unconditional love and approval for the child concerned.  Parents provide children with knowledge and information about their wider family and forebears.  Parents endow their children with warmth and approval and, as such, children feel a sense that they are unique and special to their parents.  For these central and self apparent reasons, children benefit from having a “meaningful” relationship with both their parents. 

11. The parental bond, involving nurture and support, is central to a child’s ongoing development.  Children need both paternal and maternal role models to assist them to move appropriately towards maturity and become competent and insightful parents in their own turn.  For these reasons, it is a very significant thing indeed, for a court to order that a child spend no time whatsoever with a parent and, in effect, sever a parental relationship for a child.

12. Family violence is defined by section 4AB(1) of the Family Law Act.  It means:

    “violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the persons family, or causes the family member to be fearful.”

13. Interestingly, the legislature has provided a list of examples of behaviour which may constitute family violence in section 4AB(2) of the Act.  Some of these examples are:

    ·An assault;

    ·Repeated derogatory taunts;

    ·Intentionally damaging or destroying property.

14. Accordingly, family violence means not only violence which causes a family member to be fearful, such as a direct assault to the person, but also encompasses behaviour that unreasonably coerces or controls that person. 

15. Pursuant to section 4AB(3) of the Act, a child is exposed to family violence if he or she “sees or hears family violence or otherwise experiences the effects of family violence”.  Again, the legislature has provided examples which may fit within this definition.  They include seeing or hearing an assault.

16. Exposure to family violence represents a multi-faceted danger to children.  At its most obvious level, it may represent a direct risk of injury to the child concerned.  However, more often, it may cause a child to be at risk of living with fear, insecurity and vigilance because of a fear that a parent perpetrating violence will abuse their other parent, whom they love. 

Conclusions

1. I am satisfied, on the basis of what the children have reported to Ms N that each of them has been exposed to family violence.  It is also clear to me they each of them, perhaps in different ways, has experienced some psychological harm as a result.

2. Having said that, I do not doubt and nor does the expert, that Mr Charter cares about the children.  He loves them.  Because of his love for them, Y, X and Z are likely to have some potential long term benefits from knowing and relating with their father.  I accept that the children only have one father.

3. I have to think about this very important relationship for these children, not only now but for the next 10 to 12 years at least, given that Z is still not yet seven years of age.  Children get meaning from parental relationships in a variety of ways.  Firstly parents are usually the only source that a child has of quite unconditional love and approval.  Secondly, parents provide history and context of the child’s place in his or her family.  In this regard, the children now have no exposure to the paternal side of their family.

4. Thirdly, of course, these children have inherited characteristics from both their father and their mother all mixed up together to make each of a unique individual.  So for those reasons, children of course are curious about their parents and want to know them.  At this point in time we are at a point where it is likely be problematic as to whether these children will know their father at all. 

5. The additional considerations are more numerous.  I have to consider the wishes and views of the children concerned.  From what Ms N reports it is clear that those children, at the present time, do not want to see their father and have no wish to spend time with him.  I accept that the children have not been coached by their mother in this regard and have valid reasons, as a result of their historical experience of their father, for expressing these wishes.

6. However, they are young children.  They are not mature children obviously and they may have a different view when they are older in their later teenage years.  It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that they will regret, when they are either young adults or older again, that they lost the opportunity to have an easy and comfortable relationship with their father, based on long term and shared experiences with him.

7. I have to consider the capacity and insight that each of the parents has demonstrated into the responsibilities of being a parent.  It is Ms N’s view, which is confirmed by my impression of Mr Charter in answering of quite a few questions put to him by me, at close quarters today, that he lacks some insight into the consequences of his admittedly aggressive behaviour in the children’s presence.  Although, to his credit, he does concede that he is likely to have upset the children through his conduct in the past.

8. In this context, Ms N recommends that Mr Charter engage in a long process with a therapist, on a one on one basis, to develop strategies to deal with his emotional management and how to deal with resolution of conflict without being violent.

9. Today Mr Charter has told me that he has been seeing a psychologist in (omitted).  The psychologist is Dr H.  I have not been provided with any material from him.  However, Mr Charter asserts that he has been diagnosed with anxiety and been prescribed some medication to deal with it, which he is no longer taking.  In addition, as I have said already, it seems clearly to be the case that last year was a difficult year for Mr Charter for all sorts of reasons.

10. Accordingly, Ms N recommends that the case should be adjourned for a lengthy period of time in order for Mr Charter to demonstrate to the court that he is able to make the necessary changes in his life to ensure that the children are safe in his care and he can commit to seeing them regularly.  Ms N recommends that this change needs to be documented by professional reportage before the court moves to a regime of the children spending time with the children.

11. As I say Ms N is of the view that to continue with the current arrangements is detrimental to the children.  To his credit, Mr Charter agrees with that.  So whatever happens today, I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of the children that I do not make any orders for the children to spend time with their father.

12. But it is, I think, premature, particularly given the ages of the children, for me to close potentially the door on the children having a relationship with their father.  Ms N agreed with my assessment that to make an order for the children to spend time with their father subject to their wishes at this stage is tantamount to there being no time at all.

13. The case now needs, I think, to be carefully managed but the first step involves Mr Charter demonstrating his bona fides and seeing what he is willing to do about Ms N’s recommendation, given that he says he is  currently seeking appropriate professional help.

14. In today’s proceedings, Mr Charter has portrayed himself as the victim of an injustice in two ways. Firstly, that he is the subject of a conspiracy by his former wife and her family.  Secondly, that the system is weighted against him because he is a man.  I do not accept either such assertion.

15. This may currently be his perception but I will give him time to show that, if he is given the opportunity, he can do what is necessary to prioritise his children’s emotional needs over his own.  In these circumstances, I propose giving Mr Charter the opportunity to engage with Dr H or a person recommended by him, to see if he is willing to embark about the course of therapy recommended by Ms N.

16. The best long term prospect of the children being reunited with their father envisages at some stage in the future the children spending professionally supervised time with the father at a children’s contact centre.  However, I accept Ms N’s recommendation that it is a sine qua non of that that the father be able to demonstrate that he has made the required changes in his life to ensure he can be both reliable and the children safe.

17. The process involving Dr H or his surrogate is likely to be a lengthy one but I am not prepared to adjourn the proceedings for a long time at this stage until I have seen some signs that Mr Charter is willing to engage in the process along the lines encapsulated in the orders which I will make.

18. For that reason the proceedings will be adjourned for a comparatively short period of time of around a month.  It is likely to be the position that, if the father has nothing to show for his endeavours in the next week or so, I will come to the view that it is fruitless to go any further, notwithstanding that it may mean that the children’s relationship with their father will be severed.

19. Mr Charter needs to understand that he may feel that this system is unfair, that he is the victim of a conspiracy and everything is weighted against him but at this stage I leave the ball in his court as to whether he is willing to engage with a process, which I concede he may find unpalatable. 

20. So on the adjourned date if Mr Charter has nothing to show from Dr H or somebody else, if he can’t convince me that he has put in place some steps to go to Kids Are First and to do some anger management, I am likely not to adjourn the proceedings any further to work towards the process of reunification at the children’s contact centre.  Rather, I will dismiss the matter and confirm the effective orders that I have made about the children and their on going living arrangements.

21. For all these reasons the orders of the court will be as set out at the commencement of these reasons for judgement.

I certify that the preceding ninety-six (96) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Brown

Date:  12 April 2013