CHURCHILL & WILEMAN (No.2)

Case

[2016] FCCA 107

9 January 2016


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Churchill and Wileman (No.2) [2016] FCCA 107 [2016] FCCA 107 9 January 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned parenting orders for a four-year-old child, X. The mother sought orders for X to spend no time with and have no communication with the father, while the father sought limited Skype communication and supervised time after completing twelve months of therapy for family violence, anger management, and alcohol abuse. The child had had virtually no contact with the father since he was eight months old.

The court was required to determine whether to make orders for the father to spend time with X, considering the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents against the need to protect X from harm. Specifically, the court had to assess the risk of X being re-traumatised if he saw the father, the impact of any orders on the mother, and the implications of the father minimising or denying his responsibility for past family violence. The court also considered whether to order the mother to facilitate contact between X and the paternal grandparents, who supported the father's version of events.

In its reasoning, the court applied section 60CC(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), which mandates giving greater weight to the need to protect a child from harm. The court found that it could not be satisfied that X would be safe from abuse or family violence in the father's unsupervised care, given the father's refusal to admit the extent of his violence, his denial of responsibility, and his approval of smacking as discipline. The court concluded there was an unacceptable risk of X being abused or exposed to family violence, which would cause profound damage. While the father sought limited supervised contact and communication, the court also considered expert concerns that X might be re-traumatised by seeing the father. The court questioned the utility of supervised time if it was unlikely to ever become unsupervised, noting X did not remember the father and the father showed no current indication of productively engaging with therapy.

The court ordered that the mother have sole parental responsibility for X, that X live with the mother, and that X spend no time with and have no communication with the father.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

  • Negligence & Tort

Legal Concepts

  • Abuse of Process

  • Causation

  • Duty of Care

  • Negligence

  • Remedies

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

2

Wileman and Churchill (No.4) [2017] FCCA 2555
Hargraves and Ivory [2017] FCCA 816
Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

2

CHURCHILL & WILEMAN [2014] FCCA 1047