Drew & Mason
[2025] FedCFamC2F 851
•21 May 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Drew & Mason [2025] FedCFamC2F 851
File number(s): MLC 10078 of 2023 Judgment of: JUDGE GLASS Date of judgment: 21 May 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – where there is no immediate prospect of the children’s time with the father progressing beyond supervised time - where time with the father would negatively impact the mother’s parenting capacity - where it is in the children’s best interest to live with the mother and spend no time with the father Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) 60B, 60CA, 60CC Cases cited: Lainhart & Ellinson (2023) FLC 94-166 Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 37 Date of hearing: 20 May 2025 Place: Morwell Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr Connley of Connley McInnes Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Jackson Solicitor for the Respondent: Tyler Tipping and Woods Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Taylor of Taylor Barnes Solicitors ORDERS
MLC 10078 of 2023 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR DREW
Applicant
AND: MS MASON
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE GLASS
DATE OF ORDER:
21 MAY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The mother have sole decision-making responsibility in respect to all short term and long-term issues in respect to the children X and Y both born in 2013 (“the children”).
2.The children live with the mother.
3.There be no order for time spent between the father and the children.
4.The appointment of the Independent Children’s Lawyer be discharged.
5.All extant applications be dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX-TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE GLASS:
These proceedings concern X and Y, currently 12 years old.
X and Y live with their mother, Ms Mason. The children have not spent time with their father, Mr Drew since April 2016, when they were two years old.
Ms Mason and the Independent Children’s Lawyer now propose that Ms Mason have sole parental responsibility for the children, that the children live with her and continue to spend no time with Mr Drew.
Mr Drew proposes that he commence spending supervised time with the children. He filed no documents for the hearing and for reasons previously given, was refused leave to give viva voce evidence in support of his application. He nevertheless made submissions through his Counsel in relation to the making of orders.
Ms Mason and the Independent Children’s Lawyer rely on the documents identified in their Outlines of Case. Mr Drew did not challenge any of the evidence relied on by way of cross-examination. I find no reason to reject it.
The applications fall to be determined by reference to Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). I am guided by the objects of that Part.[1] X and Y’s best interests are the paramount consideration.[2] In determining those best interests, I am to consider the matters prescribed by section 60CC of the Act.
What arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of X and Y and each person who has the care of them (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child)
[1] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 60B.
[2] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 60CA.
Ms Mason and Mr Drew’s relationship was characterised by significant family violence in the form of emotional, psychological and physical abuse perpetrated by Mr Drew. He threatened to commit suicide when Ms Mason went to work or said something he did not like. He was aggressive and volatile. He verbally abused and belittled her for how she washed the dishes, how much noise she made and other minor matters. He pushed and shoved her. He punched walls, furniture and fences. He threw objects in Ms Mason’s direction. He grabbed and tried to punch Ms Mason’s dog. The children were exposed to his behaviour.
In 2016, Mr Drew yelled at Ms Mason, grabbed her, shook her and threw her to the ground, causing bruising to her arms and legs. The children observed the incident.
Mr Drew thereafter threatened to take the children from Ms Mason’s care.
After Ms Mason sought medical attention for her injuries, Victoria Police obtained an Intervention Order on her behalf, protecting her and the children from Mr Drew. Final Intervention Orders were ultimately made by consent, protecting Ms Mason and the children from Mr Drew, in early 2016, mid-2017 and late 2019. Those Orders appear to all have been made by consent without admission.
Mr Drew was charged for the assault in 2016 and sentenced to a good behaviour bond. He was also convicted of breaching the Intervention Orders.
Although Mr Drew is now said to have completed a Men’s Behaviour Change Program, he has filed no material in support of his application that would demonstrate what insight he has gained from doing so. Contrary to the development of any insight into his behaviour and his criminal convictions, he denied in Family Report interviews that he had perpetrated family violence. Inconsistent with that denial, he did however acknowledge the use of verbal violence and that he had kicked a fence in frustration.
Mr Drew has a history of illicit substance abuse. Through solicitors in October 2021, he admitted that he had previously abused drugs, but he was confident that he had ceased using.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer proposed, in December 2023 and February 2024, that Mr Drew undertake hair follicle drug testing. He failed to respond to those requests and did not then undertake the tests. He has provided no explanation for those failures.
Mr Drew did undertake hair follicle testing in August and November 2024. Both tests were positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. The August test detected methamphetamine at 88 times the screening cut off level. Through his Counsel, Mr Drew advises that there is no current utility in providing a hair follicle test as it would also be positive for methamphetamine.
It is trite to observe that exposing the children to a carer who is affected by methamphetamine is unsafe. It leaves them at unacceptable risk of exposure to family violence and neglect.
Any views expressed by X and Y
In interviews with Consultant Ms B, Y has expressed no interest in meeting Mr Drew. X was non-committal about whether she wanted to meet him. They had previously expressed to the Independent Children’s lawyer that they do not wish to see their father.
I accept Consultant Ms B’s unchallenged opinion that the children’s views about whether they should spend time with Mr Drew should carry significant weight. She considers there to be a likelihood the children will refuse and resist spending time with Mr Drew, if it was ordered. She also considers they would be unlikely to engage in any process of reintroduction without significant distress.
The developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of X and Y
The children were negatively impacted by their exposure to family violence as infants. Y received psychological treatment from C Hospital to manage her behaviour. Both children received three years of play therapy from D Service.
Despite the issues from their infancy, and to Ms Mason’s significant credit, the children are bright and are being assessed for an advanced school learning program. They are in good health and progressing well.
The capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for X and Y to provide for their developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs
As a result of Mr Drew’s violence towards her, Ms Mason is diagnosed with complex post-traumatic stress disorder. Although she has historically been hospitalised for mental health issues, her mental health is currently well-treated, maintained and managed with the support of her long-term psychologist, whom she speaks to regularly.
I accept Consultant Ms B’s opinion that Ms Mason’s parenting capacity may be negatively impacted by any requirement to engage with Mr Drew given her post traumatic stress disorder.
It is clear from Mr Drew’s solicitor’s letter in October 2021 that his drug use would be a central issue in any attempts made by him to be reunified with the children. Regrettably, he has been unable to address his drug misuse in over the following three and a half years. So much reflects poorly on his capacity to provide for his children’s needs in all respects.
Consultant Ms B assessed Mr Drew to lack attunement to the children’s current needs and parental reflective capacity about how his lack of emotional regulation might negatively impact the children.
The benefit to X and Y of being able to have a relationship with their parents, and other people who are significant to them, where it is safe to do so
The children presently have no relationship with their father. They have no direct memory of him.
The children are primarily attached to Ms Mason. Consultant Ms B assesses her as being loving, caring, attentive and generally attuned to the children.
The children have close and loving relationships with their maternal grandfather and his partner, who live proximately to Ms Mason. They have provided significant support and assistance to Ms Mason and the children at times when Ms Mason’s mental health has deteriorated. The children have strong connections with further members of their extended maternal family.
Anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of X and Y
Mr Drew does not pay regular child support for the children.
CONCLUSIONS
The introduction of professionally supervised time between the children and their father is unlikely to pose a direct physical risk to them. However, that does not mean it is in their best interests. While clearly there may be benefits to the children in terms of their identity formation to be reintroduced to their father, there are a number of factors that cause me to conclude that such a reintroduction is not now in their best interests.
Mr Drew continues to misuse illicit substances. He has failed to properly engage with these proceedings. His capacity to properly engage with a period of supervised time is thereby called into question.
Further, there is no immediate prospect of spend time progressing beyond supervised time in circumstances where Mr Drew continues to misuse illicit substances. Orders for long-term or indefinite supervision are generally undesirable.[3]
[3] Lainhart & Ellinson (2023) FLC 94-166 at [36] and the cases there cited.
Mr Drew now proposes no therapy to assist in any reunification process. As Consultant Ms B opines, the children are, in any event, unlikely to engage with it.
Ordering a reunification contrary to the children’s wishes is not supported by the unchallenged expert evidence of Consultant Ms B. I conclude the impact upon them is likely to be negative and significant.
Ordering the commencement of supervised time is also likely to negatively impact upon Ms Mason’s parenting capacity. Given she is the parent solely responsible for meeting the children’s needs, any reduction in that parenting capacity will negatively impact on the children.
I accordingly conclude that it is not now in the children’s bests interests to commence supervised time with Mr Drew.
I am satisfied that it remains in the children’s best interests to live with Ms Mason and spend no time with Mr Drew.
I am also satisfied that the children’s best interests are served by Ms Mason’s role as sole decision-maker for them be formalised by way of Court Order.
I certify that the preceding thirty-seven (37) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Glass. Associate:
Dated: 21 May 2025
0
0
1