Dickens and Ventura
[2016] FamCA 1110
•21 December 2016
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| DICKENS & VENTURA | [2016] FamCA 1110 |
| FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Family Violence – Consideration of the Best Interests Principles – With whom the child spends time – Where there is impairment in parenting capacity – Consideration of long term supervision – Consideration of indefinite supervision – Change of name – Where the mother has influenced the views of the children – Where the father has diminished parenting capacity – Where the children are enmeshed in the conflict – Where the children have aligned with the mother – Where the mother to have sole parental responsibility – Where the children are to live with the mother – Where the children are to spend supervised time with the father. |
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61B, 61C, 61DA, 69ZX
| G & C [2006] FamCA 994 |
| APPLICANT: | Ms Dickens |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Ventura |
| INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Ms Adams |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 2949 | of | 2010 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 21 December 2016 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Parramatta |
| PLACE HEARD: | Parramatta |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Hannam J |
| HEARING DATE: | 19,20,21,22,23 October 2015 & 1 August & 21 December 2016 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Ms Beck |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Mahony Family Lawyers |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Ms Neville |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | G&D Lawyers |
| COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Ms Giacomo |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Hamish Cumming Family Lawyers |
Orders
That all previous parenting orders in relation to the children B (“B”) born … 2004 and C (“C”) born … 2007 (“the children”) are discharged.
That the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children except in relation to the children’s names.
That the children live with the mother.
That C spend time with the father on four (4) occasions each year supervised by a contact centre, a professional supervision service or a person agreed to by both parties, such time to occur for two hours on days and times nominated by the contact centre, supervision service or as agreed between the parties with:
(a) The first hour spent with the father alone; and
(b)The second hour spent with the father and other members of the father’s family (including his wife, their children and the paternal grandmother).
(c)When C reaches the age of 15, any such time with the father is in accordance with his wishes.
That B spend time with the father (if this is in accordance with her wishes on each occasion) on four (4) occasions each year supervised by a contact centre, a professional supervision service or a person agreed to by both parties, such time to occur at separate times to that of C, for two hours on days and times nominated by the contact centre supervision service or as agreed between the parties with:
(a) The first hour spent with the father alone: and
(b)The second hour spent with the father and other members of the father’s family (including his wife, their children and the paternal grandmother).
For the purposes of Orders 4 and 5:
(a)If a contact centre is to be utilised, each party shall within 14 days contact the centre and do all acts and things necessary, including signing all documents and completing any intake procedures, to enable supervised time to commence.
(b)If a professional supervision service is utilised, the father shall pay the cost of such service.
That the father is at liberty to send cards and gifts to the children, and that the mother be permitted to read such cards to ensure that they are appropriate before passing them on to the children.
That the mother is to notify the father as soon as practicable in the event that either of the children suffers a major illness or injury.
That the father is required to forthwith provide to the mother his email address.
That each party shall forthwith provide the other with their postal address and contact telephone number(s) and ensure that the other party is notified of any change to these details within 7 days of the change.
That the mother is to ensure that the children (or either of them) continue to attend therapy sessions with Dr D as requested by Dr D and until such time as Dr D recommends that the therapy cease.
That each party continue to attend therapy sessions with Dr D if requested by her to do so and until such time as Dr D recommends that the therapy cease.
That the Independent Children’s Lawyer has leave to provide a sealed copy of these orders to Dr D.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Dickens & Ventura has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA |
FILE NUMBER: SYC 2949 of 2010
| Ms Dickens |
Applicant
And
| Mr Ventura |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
B who is 12 and C who is eight (“the children”) are the children of Ms Dickens (“the mother”) and Mr Ventura (“the father”) who separated after an eight year relationship.
Although the parents initially agreed about the future parenting arrangement for the children, this agreement has subsequently broken down. The children who live with the mother have not seen their father since June 2013.
The mother is of the view that the children receive no benefit from having a meaningful relationship with their father or their extended paternal and maternal families. She seeks orders that she have sole parental responsibility for the children, that they live with her and that they have very limited time with their father for the purpose only of recognising his identity as their father.
The father initially proposed orders that would see him continue to play a role in both the children’s lives by sharing parental responsibility for them with the mother and spending defined time with them.
During a lengthy adjournment after the initial final hearing in 2015 efforts were to be made to rekindle the relationship between the father and the children. This was unsuccessful and the proceedings resumed in August 2016. At the resumed proceedings the father consented to the proposal of the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) that the mother have sole parental responsibility for B and that B live with the mother. The father maintains however, that it is in C’s best interest for him to spend time with the child which would over time amount to substantial and significant time and share parental responsibility for him with the mother.
The Independent children’s lawyer (ICL) proposes that the mother have sole parental responsibility for both children that they live with her and that the father spend limited supervised time with C and with B if she agrees that would maintain the children’s understanding of their father’s identity.
The question for me to determine is which of these proposed orders is in the best interests of the children.
Background
The mother, who is 37 and the father who is 42 commenced a relationship in about early 2002.
The mother had a son from a previous relationship, who was about five years old when the parties met. This child lived with his father and spent time with the mother under an informal arrangement. The father also has a child from a previous relationship, who was about five and lived with her mother when the parties commenced the relationship.
The parties’ first child, B who is now 12, was born in 2004.
In February 2005, there was an incident at the parties’ home resulting in the father being charged with assaulting the mother. The father subsequently pleaded guilty and was convicted of this offence.
The second child, C who is now nine, was born in 2007.
From at least 2004 the family lived with the paternal grandmother at her duplex home. The family lived upstairs and the grandmother and a paternal uncle lived downstairs and the children moved freely between the two households. The paternal grandmother was very close with the children and was involved in their care.
The parents separated on a final basis in December 2009 following an incident between the parties. At this stage B was five and C was two and a half. The children continued living with their mother in a new home and initially spent each weekend with their father. After a short time under this arrangement the children spent every alternate weekend and half the holidays with the father, by agreement between the parents.
The mother formed a relationship with a man named Mr E from the time of separation which continued until about mid-2012.
About three months after the parties separated, the father commenced a relationship with his current wife, Ms F.
In mid-2011, the mother did not make the children available to the father for a period of about 6-8 weeks. There is a dispute between the parties in relation to the reason for the mother withholding the children which is dealt with later in these Reasons.
The arrangements that the children spend time with their father each alternate weekend then recommenced and continued until mid-2013.
In about September 2012 the mother and maternal grandmother had a dispute and as a result the mother stopped all contact between the maternal grandmother and the children. The maternal grandmother began seeing the children at the father’s home.
In March 2013 the mother became aware that the maternal grandmother had been spending time with the children at the father’s home. The mother said that she would not permit the children to see the father unless he stopped this arrangement for the maternal grandmother’s contact with the children. As a result the maternal grandmother no longer saw the children after March 2013.
The father and his current wife Ms F were married in 2013.
On the weekend of 14 to 16 June 2013, the children spent time with their father. During an outing to G Park on 16 June, for a short period of time C went missing. When the child was located the father hit him. The children subsequently complained about this incident to their mother and the father was charged with assaulting C and an application made for an Apprehended Violence Order (“AVO”) for the children’s protection.
An interim AVO was made against the father for the protection of the children on 28 June 2013. Under the terms of the AVO, the father was prohibited from approaching or contacting the children by any means except through the father’s lawyer or, as permitted by a parenting order. There were no parenting orders in place at the time.
In August 2013 the mother commenced these proceedings seeking she have sole parental responsibility for the children and that the father spend no time or have any contact with them.
On 5 September 2013 the children and mother were at a Local Court for the hearing of the father’s assault charges. In the course of the morning adjournment the father saw the children standing outside a room which is specifically provided for victims at the court house and said hello to them which apparently caused the children some distress. The children quickly returned to the victim’s room. The father then looked at the children and said “I love you”. The father was charged and later pleaded guilty to breaching the AVO through this conduct.
The father was also found guilty in the Local Court in October 2013 of the assault charge following a defended hearing. On the same day, a final AVO was made for the protection of the children against the father for a period of 12 months, which prohibited the father from approaching or contacting the children, except as authorised under family law orders or in the course of family therapy. The AVO was extended for a further six months and ultimately expired in April 2015.
The father appealed against his conviction and sentence, but the appeal was dismissed in the District Court.
In March and April 2014 the family members were seen by an expert psychiatrist for the purposes of an assessment and report in these proceedings.
In 2014 the father’s son to his current relationship was born.
In July 2014 the expert’s report was released.
At the start of 2015 family members began seeing Dr C, a family therapist (“the therapist”). The father saw the therapist regularly throughout the year and the mother and children also had a number of sessions with her.
Following five days hearing in October 2015 the proceedings were adjourned. The parties consented to orders that would see all family members continue participating in therapy with the therapist with the goal of reintroducing the children to their father and if appropriate other members of the paternal and maternal extended family. As I understand it there were some hopes that family therapy would result in the children spending time with their father and that the proceedings may not need to be determined by a court.
The family therapy was unsuccessful in that it did not achieve its goal. The proceedings were relisted for further hearing in August 2016.
The Areas of Dispute
Has the father perpetrated family violence or physically abused the children?
It is the mother’s case that there is an unacceptable risk that the children will be physically and psychologically harmed by the father if they spend unsupervised time with him arising from being subjected to abuse and/or exposed to family violence. To a large extent the mother’s contentions about the unacceptable risk on this basis depend upon findings that the father has been violent and abusive towards herself and the children in the past.
Exposure to family violence
According to the mother the father has been violent towards her during virtually all of their relationship. In her affidavit she says that violent incidents occurred every two to four weeks and that after the children were born they were present on each occasion that the father was violent towards her.
The father denies that he was violent towards the mother except on one occasion. He specifically addresses most of the incidents raised by the mother in her affidavit and also contends that the mother was on occasions violent towards him or that it was her violence that precipitated his actions towards her.
The mother refers in her affidavit to two specific incidents of physical violence prior to the birth of the children. On one occasion she says in the course of a verbal argument the father pushed and hit her causing her to sprain an ankle and on another she says he “backhanded” her in the car while driving when she was pregnant with B. No other details are provided about either incident.
The first specific violent incident after the birth of B (March 2004) according to the mother occurred when the child was about one week old and in hospital. At that time the mother had been released from the hospital while the child remained in Intensive Care. The mother says that she and the father had a verbal argument which began at the hospital and then continued when they were at home. According to the mother the father pushed her and she hit her head on the wall and then he hit her “towards the back of [her] head”.
The mother outlines the next assault as occurring in 2006 in the course of a verbal argument when the father punched her while she was holding B. Police attended the incident and the father was charged and convicted for assaulting the mother. The mother also says that an AVO was made against the father for her protection.
The father contends that this event happened in 2005 and that it was the only occasion on which he hit the mother. According to him the parties engaged in a verbal argument after he had been out drinking. He says the mother picked up their daughter who was about one year old and that both adults continued arguing and yelling at each other with raised voices. He says that the mother came towards him and started poking him in the chest and slapping him on the face with an open palm. He then gave the mother a slap with an open palm to her face with moderate force. The father says that he pleaded guilty to the assault and at the time felt and still feels “terrible” about the incident. He says that aside from this occasion he has not ever hit the mother and her allegations that he regularly hit and punched her are simply not true.
Under cross-examination the father maintained his version of events and agreed that he did temporarily lose his temper on that occasion in 2005. He does not agree that an AVO was made following his conviction. The father remained adamant that this was the only occasion on which he hit the mother and did not recall any other occasions on which it was alleged that he had been violent towards the mother other than the incident which led to the parties’ separation.
According to the mother the father’s behaviour settled a little following the birth of their son in July 2007. She says that the first violent incident after his birth occurred when the child was[a few] months old and she was holding him. In the course of a verbal argument she says that the father pushed her and the child’s head narrowly missed hitting a pot plant.
The father contends that on occasions the mother was violent towards him. He says that on one occasion in 2008 following an argument the mother followed him down the stairs as he left the house and went to his work van. He says that after he jumped into the van the mother started thumping the windscreen with her fist causing it to crack and shatter. The father says this incident occurred in the presence of the paternal grandmother. The mother denies punching the windscreen and breaking it. According to her the father was sitting in the car when she received a telephone call from a woman who informed her that she was pregnant to the father. She says that she yelled at the father as she was upset by the call and the father reacted by abusing her and punching the windscreen. The mother disputes that the paternal grandmother was present at the incident.
The paternal grandmother says in her affidavit that she witnessed this event and saw the mother punch the car windscreen causing it to shatter. She was not challenged under cross-examination about her evidence concerning this event.
The final specific incident of violence which the mother alleges was perpetrated by the father occurred in December 2009 and resulted in the parties’ separation. The mother says that on this occasion when she arrived home after dropping a friend at the airport the father started screaming at her when she entered the gate. She says that she does not recall the specifics of the incident but the father started punching her all over her body. She recalls being in a crouched position with the children in her arms while the father continued hitting her. She said that during the incident she and the children were screaming and the paternal grandmother watched the entire incident. The paternal grandmother apparently intervened by screaming at the father and only then did the father stop hitting the mother. The mother says she then grabbed her car keys and clothes for herself and the children and took the children with her.
According to the father the incident in December 2009 was precipitated by the father examining the mother’s phone bill and observing that she had been calling a particular number up to seven times a night. The father called the number which was answered by a man named Mr E with whom the mother had previously had a relationship. The father says that Mr E confirmed that he and the mother were having an affair. The father says he then called the mother and told her he knew about her affair.
According to the father, later that day when he was in the front yard of their home on a ladder putting up Christmas decorations the mother pulled into the driveway and yelled at him. The father says the mother was denying that she was having an affair. He says that he yelled back at her words to the effect of “shut up, not in front of the kids, let’s go upstairs”. He says that the yelling went on for a few minutes and that his mother was trying to tell the mother to go upstairs as the children were upset by the argument. As the father started to climb down the ladder the mother screamed and grabbed hold of both the children and he said to her “the marriage is over. We’re done”. The father says that the mother went into the house and came out again with the children and some bags. She left in the car and that was the end of their relationship.
The paternal grandmother’s version of this incident is consistent with the father’s version.
Under cross-examination the father remained firm as to his version of events. He agreed that he felt hurt and angry as a result of becoming aware of the mother’s infidelity as he loved the mother. The father denied when put to him that he hit and punched the mother.
The mother also makes a general allegation that the father was verbally abusive and regularly made derogatory comments towards her. She also says that the father controlled the finances and that she was required to request money from him and he would question her spending.
The father denies that he was verbally abusive towards the mother but concedes that he has said some insulting things to her from time to time during heated arguments, including using the words “bitch” and “idiot”. The father also denies the mother’s allegation that he controlled the household finances and says that during the relationship the mother had two credit cards in her name as well as access to cash accounts and that she did the accounts for the business and paid all the bills. The mother’s sister who was close to the mother during the parents’ relationship says that she often went shopping with the mother who spent large amounts of money at a time she was not working. She said the mother never complained to her about not having access to money. This witness was not challenged as to this evidence.
Under cross-examination about the father’s violence generally the mother initially agreed that the violence was “all one way” but subsequently said when asked if she was ever physically violent that this occurred “only in defence”. The mother maintained that the pattern of physical violence was that incidents occurred between 12 and 24 times a year or on between 100 and 200 occasions throughout the relationship. She also maintained that the children were present for every incident except on one single occasion. The mother also maintained that this pattern of physical assault occurred over the two to three years that the family lived in the duplex home with the paternal grandmother and uncle living downstairs. She agreed that the incidents were noisy and involved yelling and screaming but says that the paternal grandmother “couldn’t” intervene.
The mother was cross-examined about her contention that the relationship was violent from the start. In particular she was asked about her reports of the father’s violence to officers of the Department of Community Services (“Community Services”). The mother said she had no recollection of a conversation with a Community Services caseworker in 2009 in which she said that the December [2009] incident was only the second occasion that the father had been violent, and that the first occasion was many years before. When the mother was shown the record of this conversation between herself and the caseworker the mother said she could not confirm whether she did or did not say those words.
The mother was also cross-examined about an affidavit she had previously filed in August 2013 in the proceedings and agreed that she did not allege at that time that the father assaulted her throughout the relationship one to two times per month and that she gave two examples only in that affidavit of the father’s violence. The mother also agreed that the Notice of Risk filed on her behalf in August 2013 did not suggest that the violence in the relationship had occurred with the regularity that that she now contends.
When cross-examined about her version of events which led to separation in December 2009 the mother remained firm in her account. The mother said that she did not report the incident to police at the time or apply for an AVO or take steps to stop the children coming in contact with the father. The mother agreed that the argument at the end of the relationship was about the father’s allegation of her unfaithfulness with her former partner.
The maternal grandmother, who had been at the time of the proceedings estranged from the mother for some time, gave evidence on behalf of the father. She said that prior to her falling out with her daughter which occurred after separation, she and the mother had a very close relationship. She said that although the mother made many complaints to her about aspects of the father’s character and behaviour, she never complained that the father was physically violent to her or towards the children. The mother had also not told the maternal grandmother that the father was convicted of assaulting her. When asked whether she believed that the father had been physically abusive to the mother the witness said that she believed they had a volatile relationship.
The mother’s sister who also swore an affidavit in the father’s case says that when the mother was in a relationship with the father, she was also close to the mother and that the mother did not ever complain that the father was violent to her or the children. The mother’s sister says she observed the parents arguing on many occasions and one time she saw the mother hit the father with her fist to his neck. The witness was not challenged under cross-examination about this evidence, though the mother denied it in her affidavit. The mother’s sister said that the mother only told her that she was the victim of family violence after separation.
The paternal grandmother also describes regular verbal arguments between the parents. She said she often heard the mother screaming and swearing and would telephone them or send her other son to check on them. On two occasions she says the arguments occurred in her home and in the course of one of these arguments she saw the mother slap the father in the face. The paternal grandmother was not cross-examined about her evidence that she had seen the mother slap the father’s face, though the mother denied it in her affidavit.
Physical abuse of the children allegedly perpetrated by the father
The mother’s contention about the alleged unacceptable risk of harm to the children in the care of their father also arises from allegations that she makes about his alleged assaults upon the children. However, the mother’s evidence as to the extent of the father’s violence toward the children is unclear. In one paragraph in her trial affidavit she says that while the father was “horribly violent” towards her he did not behave “directly” towards the children in a similar manner prior to separation.
Although the mother does not make any allegation of assault against B in the course of the assault in 2005 that led to the father’s conviction, she claims that in this incident B “received bruising on her face as well”. Under cross-examination, the mother clarified that the father punched her and the child’s head got in the way. I gained the impression that the mother accepted that the father did not deliberately harm the child on this occasion.
According to the balance of the mother’s affidavit the father’s abuse of the children commenced after separation. So far as physical abuse is concerned she makes a broad and unspecified allegation that “when the children have arrived home from spending time with [the father] I would observe them with bruises on their arms with imprint (sic) of a hand and bruises on their face and chest and [B] had bruises on her elbows”. The mother says that when she asked the children how they received the bruises they would report that their father had “poked” or “grabbed” them. She says that they have also disclosed at an unspecified time that the father “repeatedly grabbed them the shirt chest level and throws them on the floor if they do not do what he says”. (sic)
In her trial affidavit the mother outlines only two specific incidents in which she alleges that the father assaulted the children to which I shall return.
The mother also relies upon an alleged disclosure said to have been made by C to his child care worker that his father had punched him on his temple leaving a bruise in June 2011 (when C was three). Although the mother says that she contacted Community Services in relation to this incident and ceased the father’s contact with the children as a result, she does not set out in her affidavit her own observations of any injury to the child’s head or the child’s alleged complaint to her.
Records of Community Services indicate that the mother contacted the Department reporting that she observed a bruise to C’s forehead after the father spent time with the children in June 2011. She also reported that when questioned the child reported that his father had punched him. It is recorded that the child said to the mother that he had been hit as he had freed a possum which the father had captured in the course of his business. The records also indicate that the mother discussed the issue of making the children available for time with their father with Community Services staff. The Magellan Report provided by Community Services indicates that this allegation did not proceed to further investigation. Police records also indicate that the mother made complaint to police about this incident but did not want police to investigate it further at the time.
Community Services records also indicate that on 21 July 2011 the mother attended a police station with B seeking an AVO for B’s protection as a result of threatening email communications by the father and as the father attended B’s school during their lunch break to speak to her. It is recorded that the police did not regard the emails as threatening and were not of the view that an AVO was required in the circumstances and that the mother argued with police about their position.
The first incident of physical violence alleged by the mother in her affidavit is on 21 April 2013 when she says that in the course of driving the children she made “a random comment that C appeared to be concussed”. The mother says B replied by reporting that the father had “hit C in the head and he fell into wall (sic) and hit his head”. The mother says that she disclosed this information to B’s psychologist at her next appointment and that psychologist spoke with C and “took appropriate action” informing the police and Community Services. Community Services’ records also indicate that the mother herself reported and made follow up calls to Community Services concerning this complaint but the matter was not further investigated.
The mother also makes passing reference to an occasion when C broke his arm on 18 May 2015 but her main area of concern about this injury seemed to be that there were hospital visits by the father of which she was not aware. It came to light in the final hearing however, that the mother had previously alleged that she had suspicions relating to C breaking his arm and she appeared to then suggest that the father may have abused the child. Although a great deal of cross-examination of each parent concerned the broken arm incident, neither sought that I make any findings adverse to the father on this basis.
The June 2013 event
The only other specific incident in which the mother alleges that the father assaulted one of the children was the incident at G Park when the children last spent time with their father on 16 June 2013. This is not an event that was witnessed by the mother and the only account of it in the proceedings before me is that given by the father and the findings of the Magistrate in the Local Court proceedings related to it to which I will return.
The father’s version of events in relation to the 16 June incident is that on that day C disappeared from the group at the playground for approximately 15 minutes and the father was extremely concerned. He says that another family member found the child and when he saw them together he rode his bike over to meet them. He says that the following the occurred
When I reached them, I was very upset with [C], I believed that what he did was very dangerous.
With the bike still between my legs I reached across and grabbed [C] on his uninjured shoulder. I then gave a back-handed slap to [C] on his arm. [C] did not cry at this point. We were nowhere near any bins. I put my hand on [C’s] shoulder and sat him down on the ground. I then got off my bike.
I asked him words to the effect of “where have you been?” He did not reply he only lowered his face so as not to see me. I could see that he was ashamed at what he had done and at that moment he began to cry.
The father describes requiring the child to be in “time out for ten minutes” but after that was complete he says the child continued to play on his scooter and at the park. The father says that when they left the park, the children were taken home and had dinner as a family.
The first time the mother became aware that something of concern occurred on 16 June was on the following day when the mother was called to school to collect B who had also apparently hurt her arm the previous day.
According to the mother’s affidavit, on the journey to see a doctor in the car the mother asked B about the weekend with their father. B is said to have reported an incident in which “[C] ran away and when he came back dad choked [C]”.
The mother says that later that day when she picked C up from school and asked if he had something to report about the weekend C said
Daddy got very angry at me and started choking me. He then threw me on the floor and hit my broken arm and head.
The following day, 18 June 2013 the mother attended a medical appointment with her general practitioner and told the GP about the incident. Each child gave the doctor a version of the event and C demonstrated how the father had “choked him”. The doctor says in her police statement that C said that he had not hurt his head and that she could not see any sign of injury or mark to his body related to the incident to his head, neck or anywhere else.
On 19 June 2013 C was seen by his school counsellor and recounted the incident to her. C’s school councillor states the following in her police statement.
On 19 June 2013 I saw [C] following a referral from the Deputy Principal after [Ms Dickens] reported that [C’s] father had choked him. When I asked him about it he said they had been at a park on the weekend and he had got lost. After he’s been found, [C] reported that dad held his neck with his right hand pushing him on the ground. He said it hurt when dad choked him and a little bit afterwards but there were no marks on his neck. [C] said dad had tried to choke and kill him. I asked him how he knew that and he said that his mum had told him.
Nine days later, on 28 June, the mother attended a police station and made a statement to police about the matter. The substance of the children’s complaints to the mother about the father’s conduct in that statement are quite different to that set out in her trial affidavit of the same conversations. The police applied for an ADVO protecting the children against the father as a result of the mother’s complaint.
The father says that even though the parties were in email contact between 18 June and 26 June 2013 he did not hear anything about the incident until he was served with the AVO [on 29 June 2013]. In an email exchange on 25 June between the mother and the father’s wife, the mother complains about continued communication and “visitation” between the maternal grandmother and the children occurring at the father’s home. The mother says that she will be getting an “avow” (sic) to protect the children and will be attending a police station the next day. She added “I must advise that this will not reflect well on parenting should we enter a court room. A Judge seeing that I needed to go as far as to get a vow (sic) to protect the children despite numerous requests”.
Further email interchanges between the parties indicate that the father was at that time attempting to have the mother agree to him being permitted to take the children on a holiday to Queensland. She would not agree to the proposal unless the father signed a “parenting order”. The mother also made it clear that she would not negotiate about the term of the “parenting order” she wanted. In the email the father also told the mother that the children had not been seeing their maternal grandmother at his home and that any issue relating to the children’s contact with the maternal grandmother needed to be sorted out with the mother and he had nothing to do with it.
The father’s wife says that on Thursday 27 June she had a telephone conversation with the mother two days before the children were due to spend time with the father for the holidays. The father had originally planned to take the children to Queensland during this period but the mother had not agreed. The father’s wife says the mother said to her “I’m not dropping off the children this weekend unless the orders are signed or you’ll give me an undertaking to return the kids”. The father’s wife says that the mother also said in the course of the conversation “I’m doing you and [Mr Ventura] a favour by not taking you both to court. I know someone high up in the Family Court, they’ll make sure [Mr Ventura] never sees the kids again”. The father’s wife says that after further conversation she and the mother negotiated C spending an extra day with the father for his birthday. The father’s wife was not challenged about this evidence and the mother gives no account in her affidavit of any of the events between 18 June when she presented C to her GP that lead up to the father being charged and the AVO being issued.
On the day the children were due to start their holiday time with the father, June 29 2013 police attended the father’s home and served the interim AVO upon him. The AVO prohibited the father from having any contact with the children except in accordance with Family Law Orders but there were no such orders in place at the time. The father has not seen the children other than in the course of the family report assessments and therapy with Dr D since that date.
On 3 August 2013, the father was charged with assaulting C. He defended the charge of assault and each of the children gave evidence at the criminal proceedings.
The mother commenced these parenting proceedings on 14 August 2013 seeking sole parental responsibility for the children and that the father have no contact with them.
Following a defended hearing, the Magistrate made the following findings in relation to the assault charge arising from the incident at G Park on 16 June 2013:
·That the question to be determined in the proceedings was whether (the Magistrate) was satisfied that the father had assaulted C by holding him by the throat and pushing him to the ground.
·In support of the charge the Magistrate heard the evidence of the children who were cross-examined.
·The Magistrate did not have a doubt as to the veracity of the children’s account and accepted their evidence and on the basis of it found the offence proved.
The father then appealed against the finding of guilt to the District Court. His appeal was dismissed and the conviction confirmed.
Discussion – allegations of family violence and physical abuse
I am not satisfied that the father perpetrated family violence against the mother as she alleges and where the versions of each of the parties differ as to this issue I prefer the evidence of the father over the mother for the following reasons.
First, the mother’s reports and allegations of the extent of the father’s violence towards her has varied widely over time.
There is no evidence of any complaints to police about the father’s violence towards the mother prior to separation other than the single incident in 2005. According to the Magellan Report there have been no complaints to Community Services about the father’s violence prior to separation other than the single incident which resulted in the father being charged with assaulting the mother in 2005 which is not in dispute. The maternal grandmother and maternal aunt to whom the mother was close at the time of these alleged assaults did not hear complaints from the mother about the father’s violence at the time it was said to have occurred even though they report the mother complained about other aspects of the father’s conduct and were of the view that the relationship was volatile.
Although a failure to complain to authorities or family members at the time of the incidents does not necessarily indicate that a complaint is untrue the mother has not on other occasions been hesitant to make other complaints about the father’s conduct to police and Community Services and was not hesitant to complain about the father to her family members. Further, there is a record of the mother telling Community Services at the time of separation that the father had only ever been violent to her once many years ago and then at the time of separation. This record is more consistent with the father’s evidence about the level of his violence.
Next, I attach some weight to the fact that in August 2013 when the mother commenced these proceedings she did not make broad allegations about the father’s violent behaviour towards her and in the first affidavit she referred to only two examples of the father’s alleged violence.
Subsequently the mother came to contend and continued to allege in the final hearing that the father was violent towards her every two to four weeks throughout their entire relationship and that after their births the children they were exposed to each of these incidents of violence.
Initially following separation, the mother and father agreed that the father could spend time with the children every weekend which subsequently became an arrangement for this to occur every second weekend. It would appear inconsistent with the mother’s allegations of the children being regularly exposed to family violence throughout their lives that the mother agreed to such a significant level of contact between the children and their father.
Further, although the mother made broad allegations about the father’s persistent violence towards her to which the children were exposed, she only gave accounts of a few incidents in her affidavit. Also her evidence that the incident that resulted in the father being charged occurred in 2006 is not supported by police records.
The father has maintained a consistent version in relation to his violence towards the mother at all times. He has always agreed that he did hit the mother on one occasion in 2005 which was consistent with the court and police records as to that event. It is to the father’s credit in my view that although he was defensive and rigid in respect to many aspects of his evidence, at all times he openly admitted that he had assaulted the mother in 2005 and that he still feels regretful about his conduct.
The mother bears the onus of proof in relation to her allegations and I must be satisfied about these allegations on the balance of probabilities having regard to the matters set out in section 140 (2)(a)(c) of the Evidence Act 1995. For the foregoing reasons I am not satisfied that the father perpetrated violence against the mother as she alleges other than on the occasion in 2005 which resulted in his assault conviction.
In relation to the allegations of alleged abuse of the children, I am satisfied to the requisite standard that the father assaulted C on 16 June 2013 by grabbing him around the neck and throwing him to the ground as found by the Magistrate. I adopt the findings of the Magistrate pursuant to section 69ZX (3)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”), rather than make an assessment of the father’s evidence and the hearsay accounts of the children which have not been tested in these proceedings. I adopt those findings as the evidence of the children was tested in proceedings before a Magistrate and on appeal in the District Court and the charge of assault was found proved beyond reasonable doubt on both occasions.
I am not satisfied to the requisite standard however that on any other occasion the father assaulted either of the children, though some of his parenting practises may be regarded as abusive, a matter to which I will later return.
In assessing the veracity of each of the parents’ accounts concerning these incidents of alleged abuse by the father, it is important in my view to note the context and time at which they were made and the reliability of the source of the complaints.
Although the mother at one point in her affidavit suggests that B was injured by the father in the course of the assault upon her in 2005 (from which she resiled under cross-examination) the mother’s case otherwise is that the father did not begin physically abusing the children until after separation.
Although she makes broad allegations about what she “would observe” and what the children “would report” there is no context around these allegations.
As previously noted, the mother only outlines two specific incidents in which she alleges that the father assaulted the children in her affidavit. It also emerged that she had at earlier times in the proceedings alleged that the father punched C on his temple leaving a bruise in June 2011 and had suspicions about the circumstances in which C broke his arm in about mid-2013 while in the father’s care. However, neither of these incidents are outlined in her affidavit and it was not sought on the mother mother’s behalf that I make a finding that these events had occurred. Each of these allegations, particularly that the father punched his three year old child in the head with sufficient force to leave a bruise, is very serious. This latter incident also resulted in the mother making a complaint to both Community Services and police. Her failure to raise such a serious complaint in the proceedings before me when previously is has been her case that the incident occurred raises concerns about her reliability generally.
In my view, there are also concerns about the mother’s tendency to exaggerate the seriousness of the complaints in relation to the father’s conduct towards the children. For example she sought an AVO in July 2011 for B’s protection as a result of email communications which she regarded as threatening but police who examined them they were of the view that they were not threatening and an AVO was not necessary. More concerningly, the children have come to believe their mother’s belief that the choking incident in June 2013 was an attempt by the father to kill C. This appears to be an extremely exaggerated response to the incident. The father’s behaviour on that occasion was clearly unacceptable and excessive and although it is not suggested that the mother directly coached the children, both Dr D and Dr H were of the view that the mother had influenced the children in them forming an unrealistic impression about the level of dangerousness posed by the father.
The issue of the timing of the mother’s complaints is particularly relevant in relation to the events leading up to the father being charged and the children becoming estranged from their father. In late April 2013 there was an incident from which the mother formed the impression that C appeared to be concussed (though she does not say why she formed this impression) which led to B reporting that the father had hit C in the head causing him to fall into a wall and hit his head. Although the mother did not raise this serious allegation with the father, she reported it to B’s psychologist and Community Services but was aware that the matter was not further investigated by Community Services. At some point in the proceedings the mother also raised concerns about the circumstances in which C broke his arm in May 2016.
The mother first became aware of the incident on 16 June 2013 on the following day. She did not raise the matter with the father but did report it to a general practitioner and arranged for C to be seen by a school counsellor who records that the child said that his mother (even at that stage) told him that the father had tried to kill him.
Although the mother did not raise this incident with the father and seek any explanation from him she continued to communicate by email with him directly and through his wife and it is clear from the email exchange that she was attempting to have the father agree to a parenting plan proposed by her. She was also not prepared to negotiate any change in their parenting arrangements until the father signed her proposed plan which he was not prepared to do. The day before the children were next due to spend time with their father, 11 days after the choking incident, the mother made a complaint to police who obtained an AVO against the father for the protection of the children which prohibited any contact or communication with them.
A further element in relation to the context and timing of the mother’s allegations about child abuse and the June 2013 incident is the breakdown of the mother’s relationship with her own extended family and her belief that her family was aligned with the father against her.
It is also relevant to the mother’s allegations of the father’s physical abuse of the children generally that her account of the children’s reporting of the June 2013 incident has varied on occasions. For example, the content of the children’s complaint that the mother gave to police is quite different from the account contained in her affidavit.
The mother’s inconsistent reports, timing and context of complaints generally and in relation to the June 2013 incident do not assist me in relation to the facts of that incident itself as those facts are as found by the Magistrate hearing the criminal charge. However these matters are relevant to my findings concerning the mother’s allegations of the father’s abuse generally. In my view, the mother’s actions indicate an exaggerated response to the children’s complaints and a capacity to use their complaints strategically in her own dispute with the father. This gives rise to an adverse credit finding in relation to the mother generally.
Although I also have concerns about the father’s credit as he continues to dispute the findings in the criminal proceedings, these concerns relate in the main to the June 2013 incident itself and do not permeate his evidence generally as is the case with the mother.
As is the case when considering the allegations of family violence, the mother bears the onus of proof concerning her allegations of child abuse. Having regard to the matters set out in section 140(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 in relation to the allegations of physical abuse and for the foregoing reasons, I am not satisfied that the father assaulted the children as alleged by the mother other than on the occasion in June 2013 which led to his conviction.
The expert evidence
Dr H a child and family psychiatrist was appointed as the single expert witness in the proceedings. Dr H is an experienced psychiatrist with 26 years’ experience in clinical practice. She has been an authorised clinician in the children’s Court of New South Wales for 15 years and is involved in teaching and supervising trainee psychiatrists. Dr H had access to a range of sources of information for the purposes of her report including conversations with the therapist seen by the mother and children. Dr H saw family members alone and with the children including extended members of the paternal family such as the paternal grandmother and uncle, as well as the father’s wife.
Dr H gave evidence when the proceedings were resumed in August 2016 after there had been a lengthy adjournment and attempts had been made for the family relationships to be repaired through therapy with Dr D, an experienced psychologist and family therapist. Dr H had spoken with Dr D about the outcome of the family therapy and gave additional oral evidence and an updated opinion as a result of her conversations with the therapist. Dr H was cross-examined extensively by both parties and the ICL and did not change her final opinion. Having regard to Dr H’s expertise and the absence of challenge to the facts and observations upon which she formed her opinion, I accept the evidence of Dr H and attach significant weight to it.
In Dr H’s report of June 2014 she recommended that the children live with their mother and that the mother have parental responsibility for them. The doctor recommended that the family have ongoing family therapy aimed at monitoring the children’s responses to spending time with their father and addressing any anxiety and parenting issues that might arise. She recommended that the father and his wife and half- brother spend time with the children each month in a supervised setting for 6 to 12 months and thereafter in the paternal grandmother’s home if supported by the family therapist. She also recommended that the father have an adult forensic psychiatrist assess and if necessary manage his mental health and that orders be made that there be no physical punishment of the children.
Dr H described B in June 2014 as presenting as a thoughtful, sensitive mature child with obsessional and somewhat melodramatic features. The doctor was of the opinion that B was protective of her mother and seemed to believe she needed to choose between her parents. The doctor also said B appeared to hold some grief for the loss of her playful, non-abusive father and was of the opinion that some of the child’s complaints about her father seemed to contain exaggeration about the frequency of events and possibly also the extent of events. She felt however that other alleged behaviours of the father were undoubtedly poor parenting practices and some were abusive.
Dr H noted the reports of B’s psychological distress in 2010 and again in early 2013 when she had seemed anxious depressed and frightened at school. The expert felt that B’s fears would have been influenced by her mother’s anxieties, particularly as at times the mother did not protect the children from them or from negative comments about the father and the mother’s extended family. The doctor was of the opinion however that B would also have been affected by the presence of any significant conflict between the parents which was likely to have threatened her sense of security and safety. She felt that if the child had experienced the father as having been a threat to her mother or the children then her wishes not to see him any more were understandable. The doctor also believed that such views of the father would have been reinforced by the criminal proceedings and AVO proceedings.
In her report in 2014 the expert expressed the view that if the court finds that the father has perpetuated significant domestic violence and abuse that B’s wish for no contact with him is appropriate and should be supported by orders. She was also of the view that if the court finds that the father has not perpetuated such a level of abuse which would negate his right to have a parenting role she nonetheless did not support unsupervised contact at the time of her report because of B’s significant mental health disturbance and her ongoing anxiety about being in the father’s presence.
It was the opinion of the doctor in her report that therapeutic interventions needed to occur before the children were to spend time with their father and recommended that family therapy commence. Following therapy she recommended that the father and his family spend monthly time with the children at a contact centre for six to 12 months and that then the time occur in the paternal grandmother’s home.
Dr H also recommended that B’s wish to spend time with her paternal grandmother should be supported outside of arrangements with the father to ensure that the child does not only identify negatively with the paternal family.
Dr H described C in 2014 as presenting as an immature six and a half year old who was highly anxious about his father and had been seemingly traumatised by the “choking” incident.
The doctor opined that C’s aggression in 2012 and 2013 could have arisen from his father directing his anger at the children or mother and/or because he was feeling unsafe at home if the mother was in an abusive relationship at that time with her then partner.
The doctor also felt then that C was likely to be influenced by his sister’s melodramatic narratives about their father.
The expert felt that the father presented in 2014 with having significant mental health difficulties when stressed and that an underlying psychiatric disorder would be clarified with further evaluation by a forensic psychiatrist. She had concerns that he had significant aspects of his parenting style with which he needed assistance including rigidity, little psychological awareness of his children’s differing experiences and poor attunement to his children using an authoritarian blunt style of engaging with them. She also expressed that it was concerning that the father continued to take no responsibility for the events which resulted in the assault charge. In general she was concerned about the father’s failure to acknowledge his contribution to the poor relationship with the mother. The expert had no confidence that the father at that stage could restrain himself from at least making negative comments to the children and for this reason could not support unsupervised time with them in the short to medium term.
When the proceedings resumed in August 2016 Dr H provided an updated opinion with respect to the family. This was to a large extent based upon discussions she had with Dr D about the family therapy. Dr H relates that Dr D told her that the family therapy had been unsuccessful and that Dr D had noted that as the final hearing date for the proceedings became closer the children were hyper-alert and fearful that they would be taken away from their mother. Dr D said that during the sessions the father displayed limited insight and was at time defensive and that the mother remained committed to her version that the father is a dangerous man. Dr D told Dr H that the mother would demonstrate this [version] to the children covertly and overtly.
Dr D told Dr H that the session with the children and the father was not successful as B was very hostile to the father and C followed her lead and the father and B argued during the session about whether the father had choked C. Dr D said it was apparent from the therapy that the mother had given the children the impression that the father nearly killed C by choking him and both of the children had identified with this story.
Dr D described both children to Dr H as very hostile to the father, particularly B and said that B had projected onto the father all of the problems for the family. Dr D said C had not expressed a view that he did not want to see his father but she felt that C was following B’s lead and it would be very difficult for him to express a view that is different to B or his mother if he had such a view. Dr D felt that the children would benefit from several sessions to terminate the therapy after the final hearing.
As a result of the information given to her, Dr H was of the opinion that the children appeared to be more entrenched in their positions than when she had last saw them. Dr H felt that as B is 12 years old, any success of therapy aimed at modifying her perception of her father would require her willingness to participate and her desire to achieve a positive outcome. As B is highly resistant to seeing her father and had little interest in the therapy, any therapy aimed at repairing the relationship between B and her father or changing her perceptions of her father is in the opinion of Dr H unlikely to be successful or beneficial for B.
C is now nine years old and Dr H expressed the view that if he wishes to stay aligned with his mother and sister then he will “need” to remain compliant with their views about the father. Dr H is of the view that it would be very difficult for C to have an independent view given his age and that the dynamic between the mother and children is “enmeshed”.
When Dr H was asked about the father’ proposal for the parents to share parental responsibility for C she expressed the view that any situation in which the mother was required to communicate with the father would heighten her anxiety and resentment which would add fuel to the children’s fears. She was of the view that equal shared parental responsibility for C would be both impractical and harmful.
In my view it would be preferable to make an order least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings and this is a weighty factor in this matter.
Any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant
In addition to the orders proposed by the ICL to which the mother consents, the mother also seeks an order that she be permitted to change the children’s names to remove the father’s surname. Currently the children each have the surname Ventura-Dickens and the mother seeks an order to change their surnames to Dickens.
The mother says that both children have expressed to her that they wish to remove “Ventura” from their surname but B expresses this more than C. The mother says that B has damaged or destroyed documents where her current surname is written. The mother claims that the children identify with her surname only and that the inclusion of the father’s name within their surname is a reminder of the bad experiences the children have had with the father.
The views expressed by B are consistent with her narrative of wishing to eliminate her father from her life which has become more entrenched over time. However, I am concerned about the mother’s covert and overt influence over the children in forming the views that they voice to the mother about their surname.
When giving oral evidence, Dr H expressed the following view about this issue
…And I, again, for the reason why I was advocating that some contact should happen between and [C] is because I’m – I feel rather strongly about any message to [B] and [C] that the court supports this notion that their father should be expunged from their lives if you like. That the half – that half of them. And this is the reality. You know, they are [Ventura-Dickens]. They do have a father. And that to just – for the court to agree, you – you know, we – we know you don’t want to be a [Ventura]. We will support your efforts and drop the name I think is detrimental. It’s – there needs to be some indication to the – them, the children, and their mother that, as tragic as it is that they feel so strongly about, or [B] feels so strongly about not having anything to do with [Ventura], this is not reality. You know, the – the [Ventura] is part of her history. Two – two years ago when I saw her she was wanting to see her grandmother [Ventura]. She was wanting to see both grandmothers. I don’t know if she has ..... in touch with the [Dickens] grandmother and I – I think that [B] might still struggle with this and may – you know, she may when she is 18 decide, right, I’m fixing this myself but I wouldn’t be supporting her at this point in time. I think it would be – might be helpful if she is – if the school – there’s a secondary school that is sensitive to her and say, all right, well, you’re – you’re enrolled as [Ventura-Dickens] but, you know, if you get a certificate we will – we will put [Dickens] on it to – so that there’s a message we understand where you’re at right now and we’re hearing you but I think that’s quite different from the – the court saying, yes, you know, this – this person is – needs to be cut out of your life as well and cut out your name.
Dr H was not challenged about her opinion with respect to the name change and I accept it and attach significant weight to it.
Parental responsibility
Unless the Court makes an order changing the statutory conferral of joint parental responsibility, section 61C(1) of the Act provides that each of the parents of a child has parental responsibility for the child.
In Goode & Goode[7] the Full Court held that there is a difference between parental responsibility which exists as a result of s 61C of the Act and an order for shared parental responsibility, which has the effect set out in s 65DAC of the Act. The Court held that in the former, as there is no Court order in effect, the parties will exercise the responsibility either independently or jointly. On the other hand, once the Court has made an order allocating parental responsibility between two or more people, including an order for equal shared responsibility, the major decisions for long-term care and welfare of children must be made jointly, unless the Court provides otherwise. The father seeks that he and the mother equal share parental responsibility for C.
[7] (2006) FLC 93-286
The parties agree that the mother should have sole parental responsibility for B except that the ICL submitted that the issue of the children’s name should be excluded from the mother’s exercise of sole parental responsibility for reasons discussed elsewhere.
Although the expression “sole parental responsibility” is not defined in the Act, having regard to the definition of parental responsibility in s 61B the order sought by the mother must mean that she would have all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law parents have in relation to children and that the father would have none of the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority with respect to the children.
Where the Court is to determine parental responsibility, the starting point is section 61DA. This section provides that when making a parenting order in relation to a child, the Court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child. The presumption does not apply if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent or person who lives with a parent has engaged in abuse of the child, or another child, or family violence (subsection 61DA(2)), or may be rebutted by evidence satisfying the Court that it would not be in the child’s best interest for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for them (subsection 61DA(4)).
I am satisfied that the father has engaged in abuse of the child and family violence and accordingly the presumption does not apply. I must nonetheless consider his application for equal shared parental responsibility having regard to the best interest considerations.
There is no evidence to support a finding that the parents have the capacity to make joint decisions in the best interest of the children. Communication between them has been non-existent for some time and the mother maintains a position that the father is violent and abusive. I accept Dr H’s evidence that any situation in which the mother is required to communicate with the father would heighten her anxiety and resentment and would add fuel to the children’s fears. I attach weight to her opinion that equal shared parental responsibility for C would be both impractical and harmful and I am not satisfied that it is in C’s best interests.
For this reasons an order is made that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children other than in relation to a change in the children’s name. For the reasons given elsewhere in this judgment, I am of the view that it is not in the children’s best interests for their surname to be changed as proposed by the mother. However, as a child’s name falls within the definition of a major long term issue, the mother could potentially change their names in the future notwithstanding the findings of this court, without this additional order.
Conclusion
Having regard to each of the best interest considerations and the matters set out with respect to parental responsibility I am of the view that it is in the best interests of the children for the mother to have sole parental responsibility for them. The parties agree, and in my view it is clearly in the children’s best interests, that the children to live with the mother.
The most significant matter in dispute in these proceedings relates to the time the children are to spend with the father. Ultimately, the father agreed with the proposal of the ICL that any time he is to spend with B should be subject to her wishes and should occur separately from his time with C. In my view having regard to the best interests considerations and giving particular weight to parenting capacity and the nature of the children’s current relationships and to the opinion of Dr H, I am of the view that it is in B’s best interests for orders with respect to the father’s time with her to otherwise be made in the same terms as the orders relating to C.
For the reasons given I am of the view that it is in the children’s best interest for the father to spend time with them four times per year as recommended by Dr H and reflected in the orders proposed by the ICL. Relying in particular upon the opinion of Dr H, I am satisfied that this time should occur at the frequency recommended by Dr H and should be supervised. The father proposed that in the event that the time was required to be supervised this could be arranged either by agreement between the parties, through a private supervision agency or at a contact centre. The ICL agreed that this proposal was in the best interests of the children. The mother proposed that it be supervised at a contact centre unless it was unable to be accommodated by the contact centre then the time should occur through a private supervision service. She also proposed that it should be subject to C’s wishes when he turns 13. For all of the reasons discussed when considering the need for supervision I am of the view that the supervision should continue until C is 15 on the basis proposed by the father and agreed to by the ICL and that when C reaches the age of 15 he may make his own decision with respect to his future time with his father.
In relation to the additional orders sought by the mother, I am of the view that it would not be in the children’s best interest for orders to be made in relation to the children’s name as sought by her. I also propose making an additional order as suggested by the ICL that the issue of the children’s name be excluded from the mother’s exercise of parental responsibility for them so that she may not unilaterally change their names in the future.
The order in relation to the issue of passports for the children falls within the ambit of parental responsibility and for this reason is not necessary to be made.
I certify that the preceding two hundred and fifty one (251) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Hannam delivered on 21 December 2016
Legal Associate:
Date: 21 December 2016
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
0
3
0