DAVIES & WEST - [2020] FamCA 802

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DAVIES & WEST

[2020] FamCA 802

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Request for intervention – Where the Department of Communities and Justice previously declined to intervene – Where there are serious concerns about the parenting capacity of both parents – Where there is a real possibility that the Court will find that both parents pose an unacceptable risk of harm to the child – Where Department is requested to intervene.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 91B
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 24.13

Tallant & Kelsey (No. 3) [2016] FamCA 933

APPLICANT:

Mr Davies

RESPONDENT:

Ms West

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ark Law Lawyers

FILE NUMBER:

PAC

1557

2019

DATE DELIVERED:

3 August 2020

PLACE DELIVERED:

Parramatta

PLACE HEARD:

Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF:

Hannam J

HEARING DATE:

10 July 2020

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr Gad

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ms Cheung

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Rutkowska

Orders

Pursuant to Section 91B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Secretary of the NSW Department of Family and Community Services is requested to intervene in these proceedings.
In the event that the Secretary intervenes, he/she is to file and serve a Notice of Intervention as soon as practicable.
Pursuant to Rule 24.13 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth), leave is granted to the Secretary of the NSW Department of Family and Community Services, or his/her delegate, to inspect and copy any documents on the Court file forming part of the Court record.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Davies & West has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 1557 of 2019

Mr Davies

Applicant

And

Ms West

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

These proceedings concern the long term parenting arrangements for X aged two (“the child”) the only child of Mr Davies (“the father”) and Ms West (“the mother”).
The evidence (although untested at this stage) indicates that each of the parents may have serious shortcomings in their parenting capacity and the circumstances in each household are such that significant risks of harm may be posed to the child by each of the parents.
In June 2020 the Secretary (“the Secretary”) of the Department of Communities and Justice (“the Department”) was invited to intervene in the proceedings due to the possibility that the Court may find that both parents pose an unacceptable risk of harm to the child.
At a court event on 10 July 2020 I made a further invitation to the Department to intervene in the proceedings as the Court had not received a response at that point to the previous invitation to intervene. These are the reasons for making such an order which I request that the Department treat as new information in deciding whether to intervene.

Background

Each of the parents was raised in households characterised by significant dysfunction. It appears that the father was removed as a child from his family and spent some time in foster care.
In mid 2010 when the father was 15 years old he was charged with aggravated indecent assault against his sister who was then nine. He was later found guilty of this offence and was directed to enter into a good behaviour bond for six months.
The mother who is now aged 27 also appears to have had some challenges and disruptions in her own upbringing. She has an intellectual disability and her first child (“the mother’s oldest child”) born in 2016 was removed from her care as an infant. According to departmental records this occurred because of “household safety concerns; the maternal great uncle’s criminal history; alcohol abuse, unhygienic state of home and emotional state/mental health”.
The mother was in a short relationship with the father who also has an intellectual disability from a short time after her oldest child was removed (February 2017) which ended towards the end of the same year. The only child of the relationship was born after the parties’ separation in February 2018. It is recorded in records produced by the Department that prior to the child’s birth there was a “High Risk Birth Alert” for the child as it had been alleged by the mother that the father stated that he was going to “take the child upon birth”.
The child has lived with the mother since birth in the home of the maternal grandmother though there was apparently an occasion when he also was removed by the Department. It appears, though it is not clear, that the child spent some time with the father after separation on an ad hoc basis.
Shortly after separation the mother attended a local police station with her support worker to make a report about the father’s behaviour following separation. The mother appeared to police to be visibly shaken when recalling various incidents but was unable to provide specific times and dates. The police later received an email from the mother outlining an incident that she says occurred earlier that month in which the father had approached her at her parenting class, attempted to kiss her and tried to prevent her from leaving.
On 22 November 2017 police obtained a provisional Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (“ADVO”) for the mother’s protection from the father restraining him from approaching or contacting the mother and going within 100 metres of any place where she lives or works. When the application came before a Local Court it appears that an interim order was made in similar terms.
In May 2018 the mother reported to police that she had been on the same bus at the father where he attempted to engage in conversation with her despite the conditions of the ADVO in place at the time preventing him from any contact. The father is reported to have said to her “How’s my son? He’s got my blood in him. Not just yours” and to have yelled to her as she was leaving the bus “You’ve got what you wanted”. The police later attended the father’s home. He agreed that he had spoken to the mother and was charged in relation to this contact. The father subsequently pleaded guilty to contravening the conditions of the ADVO.
In August 2018 the application for an ADVO for the mother’s protection from the father was withdrawn and dismissed.
At some unknown time the mother re-partnered and in February 2019 gave birth to a son to her current partner.
A further provisional ADVO was made against the father for the mother’s protection in March 2019 which was withdrawn and dismissed by a Local Court the following month.
In April 2019 the father commenced proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court seeking final orders for the child to spend time with him. It was the father’s proposal that his time with the child increase so that an equal shared care arrangement would be in place once the child turned seven. In the interim he proposed that his time with the child be limited and supervised.
On 28 May 2019 orders were made with the consent of the parties that the child live with the mother and spend supervised time with the father for two hours every Thursday and each alternate Saturday. A short time later the father started spending time with the child in accordance with these orders supervised by an independent supervisor using the mother’s National Disability Insurance Scheme funding.
In June 2019 neither party attended upon the family consultant for the Child Dispute Conference as had been ordered. The family consultant read the documents filed by each party in the proceedings including each party’s Notice of Risk and their affidavits and recommended that the Department be invited to intervene in the proceedings.
The mother asserts that in June 2019 while she was spending time with one of her friends she received a message from the father telling her that she could not hang out with her friends which caused her to feel threatened and intimidated.
The mother asserts that in July 2019 she started to facilitate video calls between the father and child each night. She deposes that this arrangement was short lived as on two occasions the father turned his phone during a video call towards his brother who was viewing pornography at the time.
The Department who had been working with the mother since August 2017 ceased that involvement in August 2019. At the time the case was closed the mother was reported as engaging with a range of support services including the Intellectual Disability Rights Service, Disability Service and Support and Women’s Domestic Violence Advocacy Service.
Since ceasing its involvement with the mother the Department has received twelve child protection reports in relation to the child with four notifications being classified as “risk of significant harm” reports. All notifications were closed without further investigation.
In August 2019 the mother reported to the police that the father had rubbed her on the leg while she was at the Family Court. The mother reported that she was with a support person at the time who told the father to stop which he did. It is recorded that the police spoke to the father about his behaviour being inappropriate and unwanted but it appeared clear to the police that the father was “struggling to comprehend” their concern “due to his intellect”.
The father continued to spend time with the child as previously ordered until September 2019 when the mother unilaterally ceased the contact due to concerns for the child’s safety. The mother contends that her partner had been informed by a mutual friend of the parties that the father was planning to kidnap the child.
The mother asserts that after ceasing contact between the father and child the father attended her home. The mother called the police as she was concerned for the child’s safety.
The mother asserts that in mid-October 2019 she ran into the father and his siblings at the local shops. She contends that the father’s sister asked if she was pregnant and the father’s brother showed her “sexualised photos” on his mobile phone. The next day the mother saw the father at the shops again and had a conversation with him during which she asserts the father said he wanted a DNA test to prove that he is the biological father of the child. The mother asserts that following these interactions she wanted to “keep myself and my family safe” so she applied for a further AVO in October 2019 against the father which was dismissed by a Local Court in December 2019.
In December 2019 the mother met with her “support coordinator” (the person responsible for the implementation of supports funded by the NDIS) who made arrangements for funding under the mother’s NDIS plan to cover supervision by a private supervision service so that the child’s time with the father could recommence.
On a number of occasions in the first few months of 2020 the father cancelled or failed to attend contact events without notifying the mother which is documented in the contact centre records tendered in the proceedings. The mother’s solicitor wrote to the father’s solicitor advising him of the funds being wasted from the mother’s NDIS funding for the scheduled visits that the father was failing to attend.
The parties attended a Child Dispute Conference in February 2020. The family consultant held serious concerns about family violence, child safety, the child’s welfare and the mother’s parenting capacity arising from the parties’ presentation and information given. Each of the family consultant’s concerns will be outlined in these Reasons together with information from the documents produced on subpoena in the proceedings which is added where relevant.
On 3 March 2020 the proceedings were transferred to this Court after concerns were identified in the Memorandum prepared by the family consultant that neither parent may be suitable to care for the child. In accordance with the recommendation made by the family consultant the Department were invited to intervene in the proceedings.
The mother asserts that in March 2020 she received a phone call from the father’s sister at midnight who told her that the father wanted to speak to her. After telling the father’s sister to call back later and hanging up the phone, the father immediately called the mother. During this phone call the mother and her partner asked the father to call again in the morning and the father verbally abused the mother’s partner. The mother’s solicitor subsequently wrote to the father’s solicitor advising him that the mother had instructed that the father and paternal aunt had been making nuisance calls to the mother and making inappropriate comments. The mother’s solicitor proposed any future contact between the father and the child should occur at a contact centre which had been recommended by the family consultant in the Memorandum.
The father asserts that he received a call from his sister’s former partner in April 2020 telling him that the child was being mistreated by the mother’s partner in the presence of the mother including that he had been “throwing [the child] around the room”.
The mother asserts that in April 2020 she was told by a former friend of the paternal family that the father and paternal family were “threatening to bash [her] and kill [her] unborn son”. The mother reported this to police who applied for a further Provisional ADVO for the mother’s protection from the father. Later the same month an interim ADVO was made by a Local Court for the mother’s protection which appears to currently remain in place.
By 14 May 2020 the Court had not received any correspondence from the Department in relation to the earlier invitation to intervene in the proceedings. At a court event at that time the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) informed the court that the Department had not apparently been notified of the request from the Federal Circuit Court to intervene. A registrar of this Court made a further request that the Department intervene in the proceedings.
On 25 May 2020 the father filed an affidavit in which he alleged that the mother had sent him a message via a social media platform threatening that she would kill the child before allowing the father to see him. He annexed a copy of the message to his affidavit.
On 18 June 2020 a Registrar of this Court again invited the Department to intervene as there had been no response following the prior request.
At the interim hearing on 10 July 2020 alarming material produced by the Department, NSW Police and the contact supervision service on subpoena was tendered. As the court had not received a written response from the Department in relation to the previous invitations to intervene, a further invitation was made. It was also apparent at this court event that the mother is currently expecting another child to her current partner due in August 2020.
The mother’s current partner lives with his mother and the mother reported to the family consultant that he “only comes to spend time with his son and help out”. The mother reported that she and the children spend time at the partner’s residence on weekends.
On 14 July 2020 a casework manager advised the Court that the Department had decided not to intervene in the proceedings at this point in time. The Court was also advised that a child protection caseworker had been appointed to conduct a safety and risk assessment which will include a visit to the mother’s home, an interview with both parents and that information will be gathered from support services that were previously involved with the mother at the time the case was closed. The Court was advised that depending on the outcome of the risk assessment the matter may or may not remain open at the Community Services Centre engaged to conduct the assessment for ongoing child protection casework and the development of a Family Action Plan. The Department also advised that there is also a social worker involved with the mother in relation to her current pregnancy.

Risks posed by the mother

Risk of neglect

The mother’s past history of having the oldest child removed from her care and recent reports made to the Department raise concern about a risk of neglect for the child in her care.
In the letter written to the Court by the casework manager from the Department advising the Court of the Department’s decision not to intervene, reference is made to the Department having received 12 child protection reports in relation to the child since August 2019 with four being classified as risk of significant harm reports. It is stated that all reports were closed without further investigation yet no other details surrounding these reports have been provided to the Court.
In documents produced on subpoena by the Department and tendered for the purpose of the interim hearing there are details of an earlier report in April 2019 to the Department that the mother is unable to care for the child as he was “dressed inappropriately on a cold day, not fed and left in wet nappies”. This report is consistent with the father’s reports to the family consultant as to the standard of care provided by the mother. The father reported that he had observed the child to be “pretty dirty” on occasions he spent time with him and wearing the same clothes on two consecutive weeks. He reported that the mother told him that the child only had one set of clothes.

Risk of physical harm

The allegations made by the father about the mother’s partner’s alleged mistreatment of the child and her alleged threat to kill the child raise significant concern as to the mother’s parental capacity and risk of harm to the child if these allegations have any foundation. While the mother denies sending these messages, at this interim stage the dispute is not capable of resolution and the contentions of the parties need to be considered seriously.

The mother’s capacity

It is documented in departmental records that the mother has a history of mental health issues including a diagnosis of psychosis. Both the mother and maternal grandmother have an intellectual disability. The mother confirmed when interviewed by the family consultant that she had been diagnosed with an intellectual disability but said that it “doesn’t really” have any impact on her. She reported that her mother is her “carer” and that she receives support through the NDIS.
In records produced by the Department it is recorded in an “Intensive Family Based Service Summary Report” that as at January 2019 the caseworker from the Department held:
Current concerns are regarding safety, parental capabilities and whether the family will be able to support the developmental needs of the [child] as he grows.
In light of the allegations of risk of neglect and physical harm in the mother’s care and lack of evidence about the impact of her intellectual disability and mental condition on her parenting capacity, there are significant questions regarding whether the mother’s parenting capacity is impaired by reason of her intellectual disability. It is also of concern that the maternal grandmother is described as the mother’s carer yet she herself has an intellectual disability (and there is limited information available about this). It is also of concern that the mother had a third child following separation from the father and is pregnant with her fourth child in quite rapid succession following the birth of the child of these proceedings. All these factors call into question the mother’s parental capacity and whether she is suitable to care for the child.

Risks posed by the father

Risk of sexual abuse

As observed earlier in these Reasons the father was found guilty of sexually assaulting his nine year old sister when he was 15. As a result the father has been identified as a person causing harm by the Department.
It also became apparent when the father was interviewed by the family consultant that he had been removed from his family of origin by the Department and had spent time in his childhood in foster care. He told the family consultant that the claim concerning the sexual assault of his sister was nothing more than he had “touched” his sister when he was 12 -13 years old. This is at odds with the facts upon which he was found guilty (that he had “rubbed” his sister’s vagina with his penis).
The family consultant is of the view that the allegations the father perpetrated intra-familial sexual abuse are of significant concern and if valid may pose a risk to the child on this basis both in relation to sexual abuse and the child being exposed to poor role-modelling and inappropriate sexual boundaries. Given the material now before the Court that the father was in fact found guilty of indecent assault against his sister, this is a serious risk factor in this matter.
Also of concern is the report made by the mother to the family consultant that the father had been “making up rumours” that he had raped her.
In a similar vein the mother’s assertions that the father deliberately exposed the child to pornographic material and her complaints that the father’s brother showed her “sexualised photos” are relevant to risk of harm in the father’s care and by the paternal family.

Risk of family violence

The mother told the family consultant that the father was psychologically abusive during the parties’ relationship and following separation.
The mother also told the family consultant and reported to police in September 2019 that the father had told people that he wanted to kidnap the child. She also reported to the family consultant that the father had attempted to take the child from her when an infant. Relevantly in records produced by the Department prior to the child’s birth there was a “High Risk Birth Alert” for the child as the mother had reported the father having stated that he was going to “take the child upon birth”.
The father told the family consultant that he did not intend to kidnap the child as the mother had alleged. He said that he had told the mother that he would take the child from her if she did not look after him as he had concerns for the child’s welfare at the time.
There is also the concerning allegation made by the mother that she had been informed by a former friend of the paternal family that the father and paternal family had threatened to “bash” and kill the mother and her unborn son and there is currently an ADVO in place for the protection of the mother from the father as a result.
The father appears to take the position that for the most part the ADVOs issued for the mother’s protection from him were based on false allegations designed to prevent him from seeing or spending time with the child. He also seems to contend that the dismissal of the various ADVOs indicates that the mother’s claims were unfounded. This is despite the fact that in police material he is recorded as having pleaded guilty to a breach of the conditions of one of the ADVOs in the past. It is also concerning that in August 2019 when the father was spoken to by police for having rubbed the mother on her leg while she was at the Family Court it appeared clear to the police that the father struggled to understand that his actions were inappropriate.

Mental health concerns

The records produced by NSW Police contain several entries relating to the father’s mental health.
One police entry from July 2019 records the father having returned home after attending the mother’s home to see the child where the parties discussed their parenting arrangement which caused “some distress” to the father. It is documented that the father said to the paternal grandmother “I just can’t live with these thoughts any longer” and threatened to cause himself harm with some form of razor. On the suggestion of the paternal grandmother, the father called the police and an ambulance who subsequently attended the home. The father was voluntarily taken to hospital by ambulance and admitted.
In September 2019 the father contacted the police and called an ambulance as he had started to feel “anxious and as though he wanted to hurt himself” following an argument with a friend. When police attended the father told them that he was feeling suicidal and wanted to speak with someone at the hospital. He was taken to hospital in an ambulance where he was voluntarily admitted.
The father reported to the family consultant that he had spent time in hospital in January 2020 overnight because he was having suicidal thoughts due to the stress of co-parenting with the mother. This is consistent with police records tendered on the day of interim hearing which document an incident in January 2020 as follows:
The [father] has a history of severe depression and anxiety and is currently medicated…for this. The [father] has previously suffered from mental health episodes requiring police intervention. On 22nd of January 2020 at around 6pm the [father] has realised that the next day he has a visitation day with his daughter (sic) but due to the severe heat forecast for the next day it was likely that this visitation would have to be cancelled or rescheduled. This has caused the [father] to become agitated and he began punching his fence which caused an injury to his right hand. During this the [father] has begun to have thoughts a self-harm and has contacted Ambulance NSW…

Disability

It is recorded in departmental records that the father has autism and an intellectual disability. No further evidence as to the impact of his disability on his parental capacity is available at this stage.

Risks posed by the paternal family

Historical material produced by the Department relating to when the father was a young person raises significant concern about a potential risk of harm posed by the paternal family. It is recorded in departmental records that “the paternal grandparents have had sexual assault charges and serious sexual assault allegations made against them [and] the paternal family is well known to FACS [Family and Community Services- as the Department was then known] for this risk”.
Similar concerns are recorded in more recent Departmental documents including a report in April 2019 that the paternal grandmother has been a victim of domestic violence perpetrated by the paternal grandfather.
The mother reported concern that the child was likely to be exposed to violence within the paternal family which seemed to the family consultant to be based on the father’s history of physical altercations with family members. The mother later said that she had concerns about the child having contact with the paternal grandparents because of “what they’re capable of doing” but was unable to clarify what she meant by this. She also reported that the Department had told her that the paternal grandparents are not appropriate supervisors for any time between the child and father.
The father reported to the family consultant that the child had been removed by the Department when he was “going on one” as the mother couldn’t handle the child at the time. The father said that he had been “trying his hardest to get [the child]” but the Department would not place the child in his care as he did not consider his living arrangement with his mother to be “stable enough”. The mother does not provide any information about a one month period where the child was removed from her care nor is this matter referred to in departmental records available at the interim hearing. It is of relevance that according to the father the paternal family is not considered to be “stable enough” for the child to be placed in the father’s care.

Substance misuse

The father reported to the family consultant that he has used illicit drugs in the past. He also reported that he “smoked pot because of my anxiety” and that he had last used cannabis one week prior to the interview.
The family consultant considered that it may be of assistance if the father underwent drug testing.

Other matters of risk

The father told the family consultant that the child does not have an established relationship with him and said that “every time I pick him up, he’s always wanting Mum”.
The family consultant explained that the current arrangement for time between the child and father did not appear to be meeting the child’s needs and that it was of concern that the mother appeared to have assumed some responsibility for supervising the time the child spends with the father. The family consultant said that the mother presents as a vulnerable person and the father appears to have a history of breaching boundaries put in place by her and held concern as to the mother’s ability to effectively intervene and protect the child if he were to be placed at risk of harm while spending time with the father.

Matters to consider regarding intervention

When considering this request the Secretary’s attention is brought to paragraphs [264] and [270] – [276] in Tallant & Kelsey (No. 3)[1] which are in my view equally applicable in this case. These paragraphs are extracted as follows:
[1] [2016] FamCA 933.
As noted earlier in these Reasons the Department of Family and Community Services have been invited twice to intervene in these proceedings under section 91B of the Act. That section is set out as follows:
91B Intervention by child welfare officer
(1)In any proceedings under this Act that affect, or may affect, the welfare of a child, the court may request the intervention in the proceedings of an officer of a State, of a Territory or of the Commonwealth, being the officer who is responsible for the administration of the laws of the State or Territory in which the proceedings are being heard that relate to child welfare.
(2)Where the court has, under subsection (1), requested an officer to intervene in proceedings:
(a)the officer may intervene in those proceedings; and
(b)where the officer so intervenes, the officer shall be deemed to be a party to the proceedings with all the rights, duties and liabilities of a party.
Against this background it was noted in the November 2016 judgment that when the proceedings resumed on 5 December 2016 the court may be asked to make a finding that there is an unacceptable risk of harm to the children in both of the parent’s households and in these circumstances the Department was invited to intervene in the proceedings.
The Department declined the court’s invitation to intervene and gave the following reasons:
·The information reported is not such as would warrant the prioritisation of these children over other children who have already been assessed as at risk of significant harm.
·The reported information does not raise any new risk of significant harm concerns for the children which has not already been reported to the Department. The last risk of significant harm report for the children was received by the Department in 2014, and as such there is no capacity to allocate this matter compared against other priority work requiring casework intervention.
In my view the manner in which the Department appears to have considered this invitation to intervene in proceedings gives rise to some issues of concern.
Although I have been unable to identify any authority in relation to appropriate matters to which the Department may have consideration in deciding whether to intervene, the reasons given by the Department in this case are difficult to understand in light of the reasons for the invitation. In circumstances where both parents may be found to pose a risk of significant harm to the children, a judicial officer in the Family Court or any other person associated with the Family Court is of course unable to investigate alternate options for care of the children beyond the parties or provide any intervention itself.
I am concerned that the judgment delivered on 4 November 2016 setting out the reasons for the invitation to intervene may not have been given appropriate consideration by a relevant officer in the Department, and that appropriate weight may not have been given to the view of a judge of a superior court with expertise relating to matters concerning the welfare of children.
I am also concerned that the response from the Department includes that the “reported information” raised no “new risk of significant harm concerns”. According to the Department’s response no risk of significant harm concerns in relation to these children had been raised since 2014. In writing this the author of the response appears to miss the point that the judgment itself included new risk of significant harm matters. That this judgment was not considered to raise new risk of significant harm concerns raises serious questions about whether it was actually read by someone of appropriate authority in the Department and the process generally within the Department for consideration of invitations to intervene made by this court under section 91B.
It does not follow that intervention in the proceedings by the Department should only occur where the circumstances are such that the Secretary of the Department may seek an order that parental responsibility for the children be allocated to the Minister. There are many other ways in which the Department could become involved, in particular in investigating alternate options for the care of the children other than those proposed by the parties and in providing other forms of intervention.
As can be seen from these Reasons the Department’s intervention is requested in this matter in circumstances where there are serious concerns held for the wellbeing of child. The family consultant opined that the matter appears to be complex involving a number of parental vulnerabilities and risk issues. She concluded on the basis of the information available to her at the time of the assessment that it is possible that neither parent is a suitable carer for the child and/or that the mother has a significantly limited understanding of any risks posed by the father and therefore has a significantly limited ability to protect the child.
It is a real possibility given the assessment by the family consultant and evidence produced by the Department and NSW Police that I will find that both parents pose an unacceptable risk of harm to the child. Real concerns arise about the parenting capacity of both parents and the impact of their intellectual disabilities and mental health issues on their parenting capacity. Concerns also arise in relation to the father’s ability to engage with the child in a child focussed manner, his propensity to engage in family violence as alleged by the mother and risks of harm posed by the paternal family generally. There are also real concerns about the standard of care provided by the mother in light of recent reports received by the Department and the removal of a child previously from her care, her understanding of any risks posed by the father to the child and her ability to protect the child from harm.
A risk of sexual harm posed by the father to the child also arises from his history of involvement with the Department when he was an adolescent.
In these circumstances it is requested that the Department intervene so that alternate options for care of the child beyond the parties and other forms of intervention available uniquely to the Department may be considered.

I certify that the preceding seventy four (74) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Hannam delivered on 3 August 2020.

Associate:

Date: 3 August 2020.