Farrington & Belkis (Interim Change of Residence)
[2023] FedCFamC2F 1076
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Farrington & Belkis (Interim Change of Residence) [2023] FedCFamC2F 1076
File number(s): CAC 924 of 2021 Judgment of: JUDGE W J NEVILLE Date of judgment: 4 August 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Parenting – interim change of residence – detailed and highly concerning report from Care & Protection authorities about the alienation of the children from the Mother and the coercive control of the Father – Court’s protective responsibilities to the children take pre-eminent focus – previously when in the Mother’s care, the children forage for information including from the Mother’s laptop to provide to the Father – on an interim basis a change in residence from the Father’s care to the Mother ordered together with the children to spend no time with the Father – Independent Children’s Lawyer together with the Director-General of Care & Protection support Mother’s Application, on an interim basis, for immediate change in residence and a “no time with” Order. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975(Cth) Cases cited: Eaby & Speelman (2015) FLC 93-654
Goode v Goode (2006) 206 FLR 212; (2007) 36 Fam LR 422
Marvel v Marvel (2010) 43 Fam LR 348
Mulvany & Lane (2009) 41 Fam LR 418
Phillips & Hansford (2019) 60 Fam LR 160
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 78 Date of hearing: 3 August 2023 Place: Canberra Applicant Self-represented Solicitor for the Respondent Bevan & Co Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer Dr S Leslie Independent Children’s Lawyer Legal Aid ORDERS
CAC 924 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR FARRINGTON
Applicant
AND: MS BELKIS
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE W J NEVILLE
DATE OF ORDER:
4 AUGUST 2023
UNTIL FURTHER ORDER, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Father’s Application for leave to issue a further subpoena to B Organisation (Order 3 of the Application in a Proceeding filed 3rd August 2023) is refused.
2.The Father’s Application in a Proceeding filed 3rd August 2023 is otherwise dismissed.
3.Leave is confirmed granting the Mother leave to file the Application in a Proceeding of 26th July 2023.
4.The Mother, Ms Belkis, hold sole parental responsibility for X (born in 2011) and Y (born in 2012) (‘the children’).
5.The children shall live with the Mother.
6.The Father’s contact and time with the children is suspended immediately.
7.A Recovery Order will issue immediately from Chambers and lay in the Registry pending compliance with Orders
75 and 6 herein and/or if any other circumstance whereby the children are not in the sole care of the Mother and still with no contact from the Father pending Final Orders. Upon notification to the Court that Orders75 and 6hashave not been complied with, or that the children have removed themselves from the Mother’s care, the Recovery Order will issue immediately.8.Both parents are restrained from communicating with one another until further Order and may only communicate with the other parent through the legal representatives, the Independent Children’s Lawyer (once appointed) and Region U Child and Youth Protection Services.
9.Both parents are restrained from discussing these Court proceedings with the children, or doing so in their presence, or allowing any other person to do so.
AND IT IS NOTED THAT these Orders have been amended pursuant to Rule 10.13(1)(g) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021.
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).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish 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 s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE W J NEVILLE
Introduction
The following reasons, which were delivered on 4th August 2023, have been revised from the transcript. They deal with the principal Application before the Court, filed 27th July 2023, by which the Mother seeks, on an interim basis, to have the children of the relationship change residence from their Father’s “primary care” to live with her and for them to spend no time with the Father. Among other things, the children had recently “self-placed” with the Father.
Conversely, the reasons also deal with the Father’s Application, filed 3rd August 2023, which has multiple parts, one of which is that the Mother’s Application be dismissed.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer (“the ICL”), and the Director-General, support the Mother’s Application. They do so on an urgent basis and seek that Orders be made immediately for the children be placed in the Mother’s care for fear of them being placed at greater and ongoing risk.
Amongst other things, the Director-General’s support for the Mother’s Application comes particularly via a very large Report (“the CYPS Report” or “the Report”), being an assessment of 211 pages. It is the second Report of this kind so far this year. Summarily stated, this Report concludes that the children are at a very significant risk of psychological risk and other, related, harm if they remain in the Father’s primary care. It also concludes that there is an ongoing and very significant risk that the children have been, and are at ongoing risk of being, alienated from their Mother. Further still, as willing as the Father is to provide physical care for the children, the assessment refers to (with very significant evidence), the lack of insight and capacity of the Father regarding the psychological and emotional care and needs of the children.
Before proceeding I note formally that unless otherwise specified, because of the interim nature of the Applications before the Court, in accordance with longstanding authority, such as Goode v Goode and many decisions in the decades since, and having due regard to the upcoming resumed or part-heard final hearing, I make no formal findings unless otherwise specified.[1] My primary point of reference and evidence, as I have said, is the very large amount of detail that is contained in the CYPS Report, which has been admitted as Exhibit CYPS 2 (upon checking Exhibit records, I note that the first Report from CYPS had earlier become Exhibit 2). Unless otherwise required, all references should be taken to be only to the recently released second Report.
[1] Goode v Goode (2006) 206 FLR 212; (2007) 36 Fam LR 422 especially at [81] and [82].See also similar, and also slightly qualified, comments by the Full Court regarding (a) the conduct of interim matters, and (b) the Court’s ability to make “findings” on such occasions in Marvel v Marvel (2010) 43 Fam LR 348 at [122] and [123]; and Eaby & Speelman (2015) FLC 93-654 at [18].
For the reasons that follow, most particularly in reliance upon the extremely detailed assessment by CYPS, the Mother’s Orders sought should be granted, and in general terms, subject to other matters discussed below, the Father’s Response/Application, should be dismissed.
Some preliminary matters
One discrete matter should be noted and dealt with at the outset. In certain respects, it also goes to the question of the Father’s insight. I note also the importance of recognising that the Father is a self-represented litigant. This said, the matter to consider immediately concerns the Father seeking that a further subpoena issue, directed to the organisation, “B Organisation”, to secure further (he says) psychological evidence regarding the Mother. During the hearing yesterday the Father referred to what he described as, in effect, “determinative new evidence” from the B Organisation material already produced under subpoena.
When asked to summarise the material from B Organisation from page 80 he said: “The psychologist has no confidence in Ms Belkis’ reporting. She is manipulating the Report.” Accepting, in a manner of speaking, that this was a summary by a non-lawyer, this was misleading on multiple levels.
First, after outlining at some length the context and multiple mitigating circumstances, not least the ongoing litigation, history of alleged domestic violence, and “risk of harm”, what the material actually says is as follows. Although much earlier parts of the material could be cited, this is firstly from page 76 of this collection from B Organisation:
[Ms Belkis] has a documented history of having had to Report her ex-husband [Mr Farrington] to the police the domestic violence perpetrated against [Ms Belkis] in their relationship, last noted post separation 2019/2020. [Ms Belkis] reports a history of having lived in a domestic violence relationship with [Mr Farrington] and her previous husband [Mr C]. And while there has been no recent behaviour, it is important to note that [Ms Belkis] has been at risk of harm from others in the domestic situation. [Ms Belkis] has raised concerns that her ex-husband [Mr Farrington] is emotionally and psychologically manipulating and abusing their two children and her older daughter from her previous relationship.
The material goes on and states (the following is taken directly from the specific page referred to by Mr Farrington: p.80 of the material):
While I have confidence in the level of engagement from [Ms Belkis] and her willingness to provide me with information and reports of incidences – of domestic and family abuse she has suffered from both of her ex-husbands, particularly descriptions of the current situation with her second ex-husband [Mr Farrington], I do not have complete confidence in [Ms Belkis]’ reporting giving the full extent of the events and incidents. Therefore, I have a lower level of confidence in my accuracy and reporting of previous events and incident details as there is the likelihood of information may be incomplete.
It goes on further importantly to record (in the same place):
[Ms Belkis] is involved in a complex situation and currently she is before the Family Court in a custody battle for the children and this has made [Ms Belkis] extremely cautious, guarded, anxious and stressed with regard to what she reports to me, what gets documented about her –
Then, at p.81, the document goes on to state the Mother’s concern about:
…what could be either misinterpreted by the Court if documents and reports get subpoenaed or used against her by her ex-husband as part of the current process.
Secondly, a number of things flow from what the Father said in support of his Application to issue a further subpoena, and what the actual material from B Organisation in the pages to which I have referred (set out above), means. Mr N, on before of the Director-General, confirmed that:
(a)he had read all the material from B Organisation and that nothing in it had caused the Director-General to change the views expressed in the CYPS Report in support of the Mother, and adversely to the Father, and;
(b)he had re-read the material from B Organisation (quite a herculean feat, I suggest) and his views remain unchanged regarding the parents.
Thus, while the Father takes the view that material will be, or should be, determinative (among other things, presumably that supports the Father remaining the primary carer of the children), the Director-General takes a very different view of the material from B Organisation. Secondly, the Father’s assessment of this material has an almost laser-like focus upon the actions of the Mother, which he considers to be almost malevolent, and certainly misleading. He regularly straddles the supremely difficult line between contending, on the one hand, that he can and does support the children’s relationship with the Mother, seeking her cooperation, but on the other hand, his views, proposals and conduct all the while, in a significant number of respects, undermining, if not in various forms gas-lighting her, understood as a regular attempt, conscious or otherwise, to undermine the Mother’s perception and understanding of reality, notably in particular in relation to the children and their relationship with her and the Father. At the same time, the Father also contends, or assumes, that the purported co-parenting relationship between the parents continues to go well. In reality, however, this so-called co-parenting relationship does not exist. On all the evidence, especially the second CYPS Report, the co-parenting relationship, and the children’s relationship with the Mother since earlier in the year and the first CYPS Report has deteriorated significantly and alarmingly.
This is also to say that the focus, if not preoccupation, of the Father with the Mother is awry and appears to be somewhat unbalanced, indeed almost fixated to show the multiple flaws in the Mother’s character and her evidence. His assessment of the B Organisation evidence is, respectfully, likewise inaccurate and inapt for the reasons that I have mentioned, especially when read in context. In all of the circumstances, the material, and the cautions it records, makes perfect sense. It seems that there is a degree of a lack of appreciation of the qualifications that are set out in this material (noted above in the sections quoted), as well as the context and understandable caution and guardedness which surrounds what the Mother says in any therapeutic or other situation for fear of it being used in the current litigation, such as it has been used here.
Thirdly, the Father confirmed that he had not had the time or opportunity to read the detailed assessment by Care and Protection (a usual short-hand expression for CYPS – “Child and Youth Protection Services”) that is now Exhibit CYPS2. Again accepting the non-lawyer status of the Father, it remains a matter of some concern that so much time and effort was obviously expended by him in examining the large amount of B Organisation’ subpoena material (which focussed upon the Mother) in preference to reading the detailed Report of CYPS, whose focus was primarily upon the children, as well as upon the parent capacities of the parents. This is also to note nothing more at this stage that the CYPS Report, in my view, accepting that it is not formally tested, is typically balanced, if I may respectfully say, in its consideration of all the relevant parties: children and parents. This is especially important given the seriousness of the safety and other concerns raised regarding the children, which the B Organisation material, understandably, sheds no light on.
The Father’s focus in pursuing the B Organisation’ material was, according to his comments in Court, primarily focused upon (a) finding fault with the Mother, (b) discrediting her, and (c) plainly challenging the reliability of the Mother, both as a parent and/or in her other evidence.
Simply as a statement of fact, and accepting that the CYPS Report is of significant length and is equally of very recent origin, the Father chose to pursue material that focused upon the Mother and her alleged parental and other shortcomings, as opposed to reading and considering the very recent and immensely detailed Report by CYPS with its focus upon the safety and well-being of the children. Respectfully, in these circumstances, properly advised, I suggest that most lawyers would strongly counsel their client to read the CYPS material first and foremost before all else. That should be, and should have been, the priority. It might not unreasonably be said that his priorities in these circumstances were awry, indeed misplaced. His focus upon a single entry from B Organisation, which on its face and properly read in context was heavily qualified, as somehow decisive was unfortunate and showed a misplaced priority upon the Mother rather than the children. Moreover, because the entry relied upon was so heavily qualified, the emphasis given to it by the Father was certainly misplaced and inaccurate.
Fourthly, as already noted, the Father sought leave to issue a further subpoena to B Organisation because, in his view, there was, indeed there must be, earlier material that was not produced; that is, material prior to January 2023. Regrettably, this overlooks certain facts. Those facts include that there has been production of material from B Organisation on three occasions: 14th October 2021, 14th March 2023, and 20th July 2023. Moreover, the material produced on 14th October 2021, which is more than 300 pages long, includes documentation from as long ago as 2014 as well as material from 2020, among much else. The information, for example, in correspondence by the Father to one Ms D on 7th May 2020, referred back then to contentions of self-harm by one or both children. Obviously, such matters are troubling whenever they arise, as they did then, and as they have done more recently. In any event, in the light of the extensive production of material from B Organisation on multiple occasions, and over a significant period and which includes material prior to 2023 (the material the Father seeks), leads to the inevitable conclusion that the submission that there was no production of material or records prior to 2023 is simply incorrect.
Fifthly, because there has been now three responses from B Organisation to subpoenæ issued by the Father, including significant material prior to January 2023, in my view, it now borders on – again no finding – possible abuse of process to issue a further subpoena to the same organisation on the putative basis that there is, “Other material prior to January 2023 that has not been disclosed.” Moreover, the constant drain on resources, especially upon B Organisation by having to answer each subpoena, should not be overlooked. Accordingly, the specific Order sought by the Father for leave to issue a further subpoena to B Organisation must be, and is, refused.
The CYPS Report
I turn now to the material set out in the CYPS Report, exhibit CYPS2. Given how extensive the material contained in it is, necessarily I note the following both summarily and essentially as exemplars of information contained in it. Conversely, what follows is not meant to be comprehensive. In addition to the material in this Report, as I have already alluded to, the Court has before it an affidavit of the CYPS worker, Ms E, dated and filed 2nd August 2023, which strongly supports the Mother’s Application. The substantive parts of that Affidavit are annexed to these reasons at Annexure A. There are a number of matters in that Affidavit that are very concerning, some of which were canvassed yesterday in Court but which I will not address further now.
The first matter to record is a discussion that took place on 12th July 2023 between the Father and the Case worker, Ms E. The question is asked about compliance with the Court Orders. The Father asks (p.156):
Now, what happens to me if they do not go?
[Meaning the children. The Case workers says:]
You will be in contravention of orders.
And what happens to me.
[Case worker:]
We are not police. We cannot answer that.
[The Father says:]
I know. The judge has said I would go to jail. You don’t know what is going to happen. If it is all about telling me – of me telling them to do stuff, they have so much time away from me, how can I do that.
It needs no immediate comment about, as it were, some sort of “threat” purportedly made by me, or some predetermination that the Father will go to jail if the children are not compliant or the parties are not compliant with the Orders.
In the middle of page 157, there is this comment by the Case worker:
At the moment I believe these kids are stuck in a flight or fight mode and they have been for the past four years. These kids are so emotionally devastated and that rewiring is going to take time and therapy. It is wrap-around supports who will be the ones to provide them with opportunity to figure out why they felt this way or that way.
Then the Father commented:
“When the family report came out and [Mr F] recommended they go to therapy. [Ms Belkis] did nothing, I organised it.”
The Father’s following remarks were summarised:
[Mr Farrington] then explained that when one of the professionals he attempted to link made a mandated report regarding [X]’s thoughts of self-harm, everything changed. [Mr Farrington] commented that these supports being taken from the children was devastating to them, particularly [Ms G] who made big break throughs with [Y]. “One counsellor, one psychologist, and one psychiatrist [gone] on a claim that I was trying to build a paper trail to use against [Ms Belkis].”
The next question or comment from the Case manager says (p.157):
I think from a professional stand point it is one thing to book an appointment. The problem we have is when a parent speaks to the counsellor or whatever support before the child does. They are no longer impartial.
The Father responded, beginning (p.157):
I didn’t speak to anyone. This is a claim with no evidence. Anytime I make a decision or tell [Ms Belkis] or let her know, she doesn’t say anything and gives it to her lawyer, the lawyer makes a judgment that best suits [Ms Belkis]. How can I provide support to the kids that excludes me? ICL and [Ms Belkis]’ lawyer conspired to organise support for X. I only found out because I asked [H]. I was happy to keep doing the counselling with [Ms G]. [Ms Belkis] has not started the [J Program]. She told the Court that she had paid for it and getting ready to start it. When CYPS/ [Ms Belkis] takes the kids, what happens then?
Next follows a concerning matter raised with the Father in Court during the hearing; after some comments about the almost inevitability of the children being removed from his care, the Father says (p.157):
I have changed my opinion on the Court. Whoever lies the most, wins.
He was then asked (p.157):
Are you worried about the judge?
“Yes, he hates me. Don’t know what I did to him. He thinks I am a bad dad, then ok I accept. How do I convince him I’m not? Rhetorical question. But I don’t know.”
At the end of p.157, there is the following exchange with the Father:
Are you worried about what the kids have said, about [Ms Belkis], isn’t true?
I don’t know, I’ve avoided giving them that opinion so many times. In the last year and a half, I have changed that to the point that I try to ground truth. When I went and looked in [Ms Belkis]’ bin, it was so I could ground truth about what the kids have told me. It was full of [wine and spirit bottles].” [Mr Farrington] then expressed that he isn’t sure if the wine bottle incident in particular is true. [Mr Farrington] suggested there was an incident once where [Ms Belkis] threw a wine bottle at him and he queried if maybe [X] thought of this incident.
Although in Court [yesterday] the Father qualified the comments directed to the Court and me in particular, including that he was not seeking a recusal “at this time”, in my view, the qualification that he made was quite discrete, with him essentially maintaining that “whoever lies the most, wins.” Leaving aside any questions of contempt, that is a very concerning view that any litigant would have of the Court system in any proceedings, but especially perhaps involving children.
Next, on p.159 of the Report, which concern events/discussion still on 12th July this year, entitled “Event and Case Note”, records discussions regarding allegations of physical abuse involving the children and how, for example, the children’s two statements regarding the abuse vary greatly from New South Wales to Region U. It notes that their recollections on three occasions are described as being “very vague”. Other inconsistencies in the children’s evidence are also noted but which need not be canvassed further here. It is sufficient to note that the Report confirms the Director-General’s serious concerns about the vulnerabilities of the children and their susceptibility, particularly from the Father, to influence from him.[2]
[2] See p.159 – 160 of the CYPS Report.
At p.185 of the Report there is another “Event and Case Note” from 17th July 2023. In this extended Note there is recorded “text” correspondence with Y, as well as a telephone conversation between the Case worker and Y. Those parts from that conversation should also be taken to be part of these reasons, especially from pp.185 and 186. Among other things, these records provide confirmation from Y that she asked her Father various questions about the litigation and he had answered them. This is one of a number of instances which highlight the involvement of the children in the litigation and the gathering of evidence by them to provide to the Father against the Mother.
On pp.186/187, this is an email from the Father to Ms E, copied to everyone else. The activity type is headed “Event and Case Note”, 17th July 2023. This is the Father’s account of a certain event of trying to obtain clothes and other things from the Mother’s household. It begins:
[X] and [Y] and me, I guess, were punished because [Y] didn’t feel safe returning to [Ms Belkis] last Friday, 14 July.
A little further down, it says:
There was no requirement for [Ms Belkis] to be anywhere near my car at any time. It came down to, “If [Y] won’t come inside and get them, you’re not having them.”
Comments then appear about Y being too upset. Four paragraphs from the bottom of p.187 there is this:
The weekend after, I had to promise to take them [sports activities] so that they would return.
As an observation and, in many ways, not surprising in family law proceedings, there is a significant divergence in views by parties of the same event. Also not surprising in family law litigation, especially with slightly older children as we have here, subtly and sometimes not so, sometimes without realising it, sometimes acquiescing in it, not only does one parent provide a quite sanitised view, almost a sanctified view, of the other parent which ameliorates that parent, but which condemns the other. It also suggests – I do not put it any higher, but it does seem to suggest, a not insignificant degree of the children driving the “parenting bus”. It is really quite unclear where the bus is heading.
Moving to pp.192 and 193, this is an email from the Mother, again, to Ms E. This is again on 17th July. It begins this way from the Mother:
The more I think about it, I’m very worried that the kids are effectively learning to influence things by making false disclosures. While I was waiting in the hospital with [Y], [Mr Farrington] sent me this text.
There is a very long text that goes on for the whole of the next page and a little bit of the previous page sent by the Father to the Mother while she was waiting at the hospital with Y. In the course of this, I simply highlight a couple of parts of this long text:
It might be your dad’s style [i.e the maternal Grandfather] or the way he interacts, but it’s not the way I do it and it’s not the way you do it, and they don’t want him to be their Father.
This was a matter that has been raised multiple times, even yesterday, by Mr Farrington. But then he goes on:
Your childhood had difficulties –
The constant reference by the Father to the Mother’s alleged “childhood difficulties”, which were refuted by her and her Father during the earlier parts of the final hearing, just keeps being repeated and repeated and repeated –
that are being replicated since neither your mum or your dad know how to parent in any other way. I accept that, but they shouldn’t be parenting, they should be grandparenting, and that’s not happening.
The Father goes on, as recorded in the Report (p.193):
The solution to that problem would be for you to move out. However, I’m acutely aware of how that worries you. It’s part of your lack of self-confidence, and I get that.
Respectfully, these comments and similar are classic forms of undermining, and equally so of subtle, coercive control of the other parent. The sub-text is akin to: “I get this. I’m caring for you. I’m supportive of you, but really, you don’t understand.” Then this further curious description (which was noted yesterday in Court) of reference to “the bigger kid” and “provide a bridge” and “take the big kid and the little kid for bra shopping”, and then (still p.193):
It will be something as simple as me dropping both brats at [Suburb K].
Maybe this is some sort of familiar way of speaking, but in circumstances where, I suggest, that any observer to these proceedings would plainly see the utterly strained relationship between the parents, such a comment is, in my view, alarming. On the one hand, there is a very unusual, bordering on disturbing, presumptuous familiarity in the material that the Father sends to the Mother, which bears no relationship to how strained and fraught the relationship is. The Mother ends this Note to Ms E, saying:[3]
I am not lying when I say I fear for my safety, wellbeing and freedom with this man. Everything feels like a giant trap.
[3] See at the end of p.193 and top of p.194.
At p.195, at the beginning of another extensive and extended “Event and Case Note” dated 25th July, the last paragraph on this page states:
The children were interviewed separately on four occasions throughout the duration of the appraisal. The interviews largely cover the children’s alleged experience of physical abuse from the Mother and also cover the impacts they continue to experience at the mercy of the ongoing court battle between their parents. The stark difference noticed in the children between the previous appraisal (early this year) and the current appraisal is the children’s rapidly deteriorating mental health, particularly [Y], and the impacts this continues to have on their everyday functioning. In addition to this, the children’s view of the Mother appears to have worsened since the prior appraisal.
There are a range of other sections from pp.196 and 197, which need not be set out here, but otherwise should be taken to add to the Court’s considerable concern about the safety and well-being of these children. Comments from an interview with X, which include what are considered to be a rehearsed account of the abuse allegations, are extremely concerning. I note too comments from Y, in which she confirmed that (p.197):
I read some of her documents and she is saying untrue things about my dad. I do this on her laptop –
…
Yeah, she gets up, leaves, and doesn’t lock her computer.
She went on to indicate (the penultimate paragraph on p.197):
She goes looking through her mum’s court documents without her knowing. When asked if she would look for Dad, she said she wouldn’t because she trusts him and that she hoped to find things that would give proof to Dad.
The matters collated here, on their face, confirm strongly the alignment of the children with the Father solely, and their determination to assist him by foraging for material whenever they are in the Mother’s care. To say that such actions by the children are disturbing is an understatement.
Regarding matters set out at pp.202 – 206 of the CYPS Report, I note the following. Some matters have been canvassed previously in the course of the trial, such as the Father rummaging through the Mother’s garbage bins, in his words, to try and “ground truth” in relation to certain conduct. There follows a series of comments, such as the following, which is in a section headed “Attitude to the Abuse and/or Neglect”. The Report says this:
At this time, the appraising Case manager believes that on a balance of probability, the Father continues to inflict a level of emotional abuse that contributes to the children’s poor relationship with their Mother, their fear of their Mother and also places a pressure on them to please him in every way they can. In addition to this, the Father’s continued emotional abuse is also contributing to the children’s experiences of cumulative harm. As such, it has been determined that [Mr Farrington] is the person believed responsible for the infliction of emotional abuse causing significant harm towards [X] and [Y].
The next paragraph, in a section headed “Relationship with Children”, there is the following:
[Mr Farrington] continues to covertly inflict emotional abuse and use family violence and this is seen to have an enduring impact on the children and their relationship with their Mother. The appraising Case management can acknowledge that this has not been [Mr Farrington]’s intention, but it is critical that he begins to take accountability for his part in the children’s experiences and ceases scapegoating [Ms Belkis] in the context of the current proceedings. Not doing so will have ongoing consequences for the children and their wellbeing.
There are more comments in a similar vein at the bottom of the paragraph just cited.
Then at p.203, at the second paragraph from the top of the page, there are the following comments:
The appraising Case manager holds concern for [Mr Farrington]’s use of family violence. The information gathered holds concern for [Mr Farrington]’s use of coercion, control and manipulation as means of family violence and an observed systems abuse through CYPS, the court and through police. The Father’s previous admissions to cyberstalking and going through the Mother’s bins and previous allegations of physical violence, emotional violence and alleged financial violence are cause for concern with CYPS. The appraising Case manager referred [Mr Farrington] to the [L] group program so as to allow him the opportunity to better understand family violence, its impact on the whole family and how better to communicate with [Ms Belkis].
Under the heading of “Functioning”, the last line says:
Currently, [Mr Farrington]’s functioning as a parent is inhibited by his approach to the litigation in the FLC proceedings and this is impacting his ability to meet the emotional needs of his children.
Under the next heading in relation to capacity, there is the following comment (p.203) emphasis added):
With all of the previous factors considered, the appraising Case manager is of the belief that [Mr Farrington] does have the capacity to meet the basic needs of his children. Specifically, [Mr Farrington] lacks any identifiable accountability or insight into his [sic: “the”] impact of his behaviour on the children and it was evident during this appraisal that he was unable to distance the children from the custody dispute. [Mr Farrington]’s capacity is such that he can meet the basis needs of the children and he has a positive relationship with the children, but he cannot meet their emotional needs or keep them safe from emotional abuse due to his behaviours surrounding the custody dispute.
There follows a discussion of the Mother, and her attitude to the abuse or neglect noted in the CYPS Report. I simply refer the reader to the rest of this section in the Report.
Again under the heading “Relationship with Children”, the following comments are made by the Case manager (p.204):[4]
[Ms Belkis]’ relationship with her children continues to appear very strained. …confident [Ms Belkis] has taken this feedback on board and is constantly looking for ways in which she can better improve her relationship with the children, which was also evidenced in the recording –
The prior appraisal also highlighted: “CYPS otherwise hold no concerns for [Ms Belkis]’s ability to care and protect for her children and hypothesised that if the court matters and the suspected use of family violence by [Mr Farrington] were taken out of the current circumstances, [Ms Belkis]’s ability to care and protect the children will be unhindered.”
The appraising Case manager holds this hypothesis still and are more inclined to believe this is true. This is on the basis that the appraising Case manager has seen [Mr Farrington]’s increased systems abuse and parental alienation, which is innately hindering [Ms Belkis]’ capacity to care and protect her children and hindering her relationship with them.
[4] The “recording” referred to in the following extracts is one that was taken by [X] in the course of a discussion with his Mother but without her knowing that he was doing so.
In the penultimate paragraph on p.205, there is this comment:
At this time, the appraising Case manager believes that on the balance of probability, the Father continues to inflict a level of emotional abuse that contributes to the children’s poor relationship with their Mother, their fear of their Mother and also places a pressure on them to please him in every way they can. In addition to this, the Father’s continued emotional abuse is also contributing to the children’s experiences of community harm.
These comments simply reflect what is set out earlier in the Report.
Further, starting at the very bottom of p.205 and going over the page (emphasis added):
Both [Mr Farrington] and [Ms Belkis] are willing to provide care and protection and [Ms Belkis] has been identified as able to provide care and protection. At this time, until [Mr Farrington] is able to develop a level of accountability and insight into the current circumstances and impact he has on them, it is not believed [Mr Farrington] is able to provide care and protection. At this juncture, it is suggested that [X] and [Y] are not in need of care and protection. However, it has been highlighted that they continue to experience a level of emotional abuse deemed a risk to their safety and wellbeing. This emotional abuse is deemed to be inflicted by [Mr Farrington] and, as such, he has been deemed the person believed responsible for the infliction of emotional abuse causing significant harm towards [X] and [Y], also contributing to the cumulative harm they are experiencing.
Without setting it out here, the parties are simply referred to the Appraisal Outcome in the Report in its entirety, which begins on p.206 of the Report.
For completeness, I should also note the regular reference in the CYPS material, and likewise in the Father’s material, to the Mother’s older daughter from an earlier relationship, Ms M. To put it as neutrally as possible, Ms M and her Mother have a strained relationship. Ms M lives in Adelaide when she is not visiting City V. The Father acknowledges that he and Ms M are quite close, as she is to the children here.
At almost every opportunity, the Father uses the Mother’s relationship with Ms M as a lens through which to view everything else. At times, and noting that the Court has earlier made rulings about the utility of any evidence regarding Ms M (including its admissibility), it could be seen as bordering on something of an obsession to use and involve, or even to inveigle Ms M into something of a stalking horse (a metaphorical term only, of course) in the current litigation. It is a concerning fixation primarily because of all of the other moving pieces on the chessboard. It is not said tritely, or overly alarmingly, and certainly not lightly, that the quite destructive way the matter has unfolded, in my view, as referenced in the CYPS Report, ever since January, has been alarming. Nor is it meant either offensively or glibly to liken the corrosive and unrelenting litigation as a real-life form of the destructive game of Wizard’s Chess in Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, where one only wins by destroying other pieces on the board. I am not suggesting that this is anyone’s intention at all in the current matter, but the analogy is not completely inapt.
I turn next to matters of principle and Orders that I consider to be in the children’s best interests on an interim basis.
Outline of principle, consideration & interim determination
Pursuant to section 60CA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”), the Court’s primary, overriding and paramount focus is, and must be, on the children’s best interests. A determination of those best interests is a function of the Court’s consideration of the matters set out in s.60CB, especially s.60CB(1)(b) and s.60CC(2) and (3). In the primary considerations under s.60CC(2), subsection (2A) requires the Court, in very specific terms, to prioritise the protective provisions in s.60CC(2)(b), which provides, among other things, for the need:
…to protect the child from physical or psychological harm…
The matters then referred to include – and necessarily in a nonexclusive list – the risk of a child being exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence. I need not detail the extensive but similarly expansive and not exclusive definition of “family violence” in s.4AB of the Act. That section provides:
“Family violence” means violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person’s family or causes the family member to be fearful.
I note those sections not in any accusatory way. It may be that, after the close of evidence, such matters will be addressed in final submissions and the Court may end up being called upon to make formal findings one way or the other. We shall see. I raise them here because of (a) the context of the current interim Application, (b) the educative role they serve, and (c) as a reminder (including to the Court) of the statutory matters the Court must have regard to in determining and formulating Orders that are in the children’s best interests, including, as here, on an interim basis.
I note, too, that the Court’s focus must be on the benefit to the children of the Orders made, as opposed to particular benefit to any parent or other person. This is not to say the interests of the children’s relationship with both parents is not a consideration. Under the same and other related sections of the Act, such matters are critically important. I simply note a couple of comments from Full Court decisions which are critical in terms of the way the Court approaches its protective responsibilities in making Orders that are in the best interests of the children. For example, in Mulvany & Lane, at [76] and [77], May and Thackray JJ said:[5]
It is important to recognise that the miscellany of considerations contained in section 60CC(2) and (3) is no more than a means to an end. Self-evidently, they are only matters to be considered. They must be applied in a manner consistent with the overarching imperative of securing the outcome most likely to promote the children’s best interests.
[5] Mulvany & Lane (2009) 41 Fam LR 418.
Much more recently, and, in fact, a decade after the Full Court’s comments in Mulvany & Lane, in Phillips & Hansford, at [43], the Full Court said:[6]
The various considerations under section 60 CC(3) of the Act are not a mantra to be recited in every Case. Only those that are in issue in the proceedings require detailed consideration. This is particularly so in interim proceedings.
[6] Phillips & Hansford, (2019) 60 Fam LR 160.
As I have already recorded, it is the protective responsibilities of the Court towards the children that are pre-eminently at the forefront of the Court’s considerations here.
Accepting that the CYPS material has not formally been tested at a final hearing, nonetheless the comprehensiveness of it, the clear evidence across the board from everyone else involved in the litigation, with only the Father basically refuting or denying it, together with the abbreviated but still detailed affidavit of the CYPS Case worker, Ms E, the following matters, in my view, are clear. In fact, they are undeniable:
(a)The children’s relationship with the Mother has deteriorated significantly and alarmingly since the first CYPS appraisal earlier this year.
(b)The children have been actively and increasingly embroiled in the litigation and, very concerningly, on Ms E’s evidence (but there is other evidence as well to similar effect) especially while in the Father’s care. Indeed, there is significant evidence, including from the children, that they actively seek out evidence to support their Father in the various litigious contests involving the Mother in this Court and in other courts.
(c)The children have become increasingly hostile to the Mother. The CYPS material details the ongoing risk of further alienation from her should they remain in the Father’s primary care.
(d)Again, by reference to the CYPS material, some of it noted earlier in these reasons, the Father’s perception and insight into the dynamic between his relationship with the children, on the one hand, and on the other, the increasingly compromised relationship between the children and the Mother, and his failure and/or inability to perceive any aspect of this, including his own actions and lack of responsibility for them, remains troubling at all levels.
(e)In a similar vein, the Father’s lack of insight into his conduct and its impact on the Mother, to speak somewhat colloquially, borders on the schizophrenic, not in any diagnosable form or clinical sense, of course, but in the sense that, again, on the one hand, he often acts and seeks to engage the Mother as if they have a good and close co-parenting relationship, yet, on the other hand, his conduct and engagement regularly seeks to compromise the Mother and to undercut her various day-to-day capacities, especially parenting. His recent focus on the need to pursue material from B Organisation relating to the Mother’s discussion with therapists is a graphic Case in point.
(f)Rhetorically, I ask whether or why it is any wonder that the Mother is guarded and seemed to be so with any therapist for fear of her comments being used against her in Court? That is exactly what happened yesterday. Further, the Father’s lack of insight into the various and delicate dynamics on display here are evident. For example, the Father regularly says in open Court (I accept his genuineness, albeit that it is invariably on his terms) in seeking to promote some resolution, in some way. However, in correspondence with the Mother, where he states that he can, or “we can”, settle this matter, even on a cursory examination, this invariably involves the Father being the primary caregiver and the Mother agreeing to his proposals. The dynamic between the parents, in my view, is regularly one of dominance by the Father, sometimes subtle, sometimes less so, invariably with his assertions holding sway. The levels of control, overt or otherwise, are increasingly obvious. Whether this is deliberate, coercive, and manipulative or something ever so much less grave, is something for future and further consideration and determination. Again, I make no formal findings. The comments above are, primarily, just that – comments. They may also be taken as “cautions” for everyone to consider, especially in circumstances where the evidence has still not concluded and the final hearing is likewise a “work in progress” until the close of evidence and final submissions.
In my view, again, to speak somewhat colloquially, everyone, parents and children, needs some “time out”, to reflect and to consider the detailed report from Care and Protection. The Orders are not, in any way, intended to be punitive. The Court’s Orders today are also not intended to be a punishment to anyone. They are intended to be therapeutic.
In my view, with only a little tweaking, the Mother’s Application provides that therapeutic “time out” and breathing space that is sorely needed by all.
On an interim basis, the Orders proposed by the Mother, which are supported by the ICL and the Director-General, in my view, are clearly in the children’s best interests. There is no doubt there will likely be some difficulty and adjustment on all sides for some period of time arising from them. On behalf of the Director-General, Mr N has kindly assured the Court of the ongoing support and assistance from Care and Protection services, including in particular the Caseworker/Case Manager, Ms E, who is well known to the children. It is very likely that everyone will need careful, diligent support in the coming days and weeks. I stress that the Orders today are interim only and do not reflect any final view of the Court in relation to parenting matters.
I make, therefore, Orders 1, 2, 3 and 6 set out in the Mother’s Application filed on 27th July this year. In addition, on the Court’s own motion, and for the same or similar protective responsibilities noted above, the Court restrains both parties from communicating with the other parent until further Order. Any communication can only be through lawyers and the new ICL, once appointed, plus CYPS.
Also by way of formal restraint, there is to be no discussion with the children about this litigation. The children have to stop, and be prevented from, driving the parenting bus. They need to be completely removed and quarantined from the litigation, in which they have been actively and dangerously embroiled. They need to be allowed to be children. They do not need to be involved in, and should be removed from, an increasingly destructive parental war between their parents. They should not, and must not, be required to choose one parent over the other, which is what they have effectively been forced to do for an alarmingly long time, and increasingly so. Only with modest hyperbole, the current parental “war games”, or some version of the destructive Hunger Games – the allusional reference to the movies and books on which they are based is deliberate – must cease. It is either a new beginning for everyone, especially the children, or potentially – one hopes not, but to quote Churchill – it is the beginning of the end.
The only other Order that I propose making, which is ever so much a precautionary one, is that a Recovery Order will lay in the Registry, lest in any absolutely worst case scenario, which I earnestly hope will not arise and would be alarmed if anything untoward were to happen, whereby if the children somehow or other left, or were taken from, the Mother’s care.
I accept that these are difficult reasons for everyone. They are likely going to be difficult for the children and difficult for the parents. Time and significant effort, plus all relevant assistance, will surely be required.
As noted at the outset of these reasons, in addition to making the Orders sought by the Mother (supported by the ICL and the Director-General), the Father’s Application, effectively in response to that of the Mother, must be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding seventy-eight (78) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge W J Neville. Associate:
Dated: 4 August 2023
ANNEXURE A
12.OBSERVATIONS AND CONCERNS THAT HAVE INFORMED BY POSITION OF THE APPLICATIONS FILED
13.While I have been responsible for the case management of [X] and [Y], I have observed a high level of conflict between [Mr Farrington] and [Ms Belkis] that continues to have a negative impact on [X] and [Y]'s everyday functioning.
14.I hold growing concerns for the children's apparent drive to appease [Mr Farrington]. My most recent appraisal observed this dynamic, where [X] and [Y] both stated their wish to gain "evidence" or "proof' for [Mr Farrington] to assist in the current proceedings. Whether intentional or not from [Mr Farrington], it is apparent that [X] and [Y] face a pressure to fulfill duties for him, and also feel a need to alienate [Ms Belkis]. Such pressure have led to the children having adverse reactions to the presence of [Ms Belkis], or having to spend time with her, and this has led to an difficulty in [X] and [Y]'s relationship with [Ms Belkis].
15.RESPONSE TO [MR FARRINGTON’S] APPLICATION IN THE FCFCOA FILED ON 13 JULY 2023
16.While I note my belief that [X] and [Y] should have a meaningful relationship with both parents, I do not believe that [X] and [Y] should return to 'week about' arrangements. My appraisals have outlined concerns for emotional abuse, particularly in [Mr Farrington]'s care. I believe [X] and [Y] need a relationship of some form with [Mr Farrington], but I also believe that the behaviour of [Mr Farrington] appears to have had influence on [Ms Belkis]' relationship with [X] and [Y]. It is my assessment that [Mr Farrington]'s influence over the children and their relationship with [Ms Belkis] has a significant and negative impact on their emotional and mental wellbeing. I believe that the children need a period with [Ms Belkis] in which they do not have time or contact with [Mr Farrington], to allow for relationship rebuilding without [Mr Farrington]'s influence.
17.RESPONSE TO [MS BELKIS’] APPLICATION IN THE FCFCOA FILED ON 9 FEBRUARY 2023.
18.I support [Ms Belkis]' application where she seeks sole parental responsibility. Within both of my appraisals, I assessed that [Ms Belkis] has a developed and increasing level of insight into her parenting deficits and the subsequent requirements needed in order to improve her parenting. Within my most recent appraisal, I concluded that co-parenting is not something that is achievable between [Mr Farrington] and [Ms Belkis], namely due to [Mr Farrington]'s apparent high expectations of [Ms Belkis]. As such, due to [Ms Belkis] being assessed as both willing and able, sole parental responsibility being ordered to her would allow for sound decision making in regard to [X] and [Y], that is not hindered by an inability to reach agreement with [Mr Farrington].
19.Within both of my appraisals, namely the most recent one, I acknowledge that [X] and [Y] were both asked what their views and wishes are, and they both strongly indicated their wish to be in the fulltime care of [Mr Farrington]. [Y] expressed her wish to not see [Ms Belkis]. I do, however, agree with the positions of both [Mr F] and [Ms O], in that the children remain heavily influenced by whichever parent is placing pressure upon them, and that [X] and [Y] are observed to often say and do things that are likely to appease that parent. My most recent appraisal highlighted the children's efforts to appease [Mr Farrington]. Noting the observed impact of [Mr Farrington]'s behaviour on [X] and [Y]'s relationship with [Ms Belkis], I support [Ms Belkis]' application. Ordering [Ms Belkis], [X], and [Y] a period in which they can rebuild their relationship with one another, without the behaviours of [Mr Farrington] to influence this relationship and the views of [X] and [Y] is likely to have longer term benefits for [X] and [Y]'s emotional and mental wellbeing.
20.I believe there could be an opportunity for [X] and [Y]'s time with [Mr Farrington] to be reinstated in the future however this would have to occur on the recommendations of any therapeutic support services working with the children at the time and any time between [X] and [Y] and their father would have to be guided by the therapeutic service.
21.I acknowledge that such an order is likely to lead to a strong and adverse reaction from both [X] and [Y] towards [Ms Belkis]. My suggested actions towards supporting [X] and [Y] in this transition is outlined below.
22.I believe that [X] and [Y]'s relationship with [Mr Farrington] is important to them and their identity, and that severing them from [Mr Farrington] permanently will likely negatively their relationships with both parents.
23.Discussions relating to Court
24. [Ms Belkis] has shown a high level of insight into what she can and cannot say about [Mr Farrington] in front of the children, and how her children may perceive the things she says. [Ms Belkis] has evidenced her insight into this throughout both appraisals. In addition, I am aware the children look for information about legal proceedings at [Ms Belkis]' residence without [Ms Belkis]' knowledge. I recommend this information is kept as secure as possible.
25.I continue to hold concerns in relation to the high level of understanding and knowledge that the children have regarding the proceedings that are before the Court. Both parents indicate that they do not speak to the children directly about the proceedings, however in my last appraisal the children made a series of comments that raised concern to me that conversations are still occurring in their presence. These included [Y] expressing to me that she hoped her and [X] speaking to Police would get "dad some more proof in court". [Y] told me this the day she returned to [Ms Belkis]' care. [Y] would also recite dates in which she thought Court was occurring, and when asked how she knew this she stated "Dad told me. I know he is allowed to tell me that." In addition to this, [X] expressed taking photos of his alleged injury from [Ms Belkis] and the audio recording of the conversation between [X] and [Ms Belkis] being "brought up in court". [X] told me this whilst in the care of [Mr Farrington]. Finally, whilst on a home visit to [Mr Farrington]'s home, I observed a whiteboard next to his desk, which is in a central part of the open plan home. The whiteboard, which can be read from the walkway between the bedroom's and the loungeroom, kitchen and dining area, was seen to have numerous phrases and lists directly related to the matter before the Court, such as "ICL — Bias" and "Coercive of [Ms M]". I believe this is accessible to [X] and [Y], and when I raised this with [Mr Farrington], he explained to me it was information regarding his work. I pointed out what I could read from where' I sat at the dining table, to which he explained these were "thoughts from 4am this morning". The children were in [Mr Farrington]'s care at the time of the home visit. Another example was during a meeting [in mid-2023 with [Y], the Child and Adolescent Mental Health (CAMHS) Team, CYPS (being myself and [Ms P]) and [Mr Farrington]. The meeting did not include [Mr Farrington] initially however once [Mr Farrington] joined the meeting, he begun discussing the custody proceedings and [Ms Belkis] directly in front of [Y]. Examples of comments from [Mr Farrington] included words to the effect of ‘[Ms Belkis] not being willing to assist in [Y]'s mental health' and ' [Ms Belkis] not wanting to facilitate anything to do with [Y]'s mental health". As [Mr Farrington] spoke openly about the proceedings [Y] was observed by [Ms P] to take out an iPad and open the 'Notes App'. [Y] proceeded to scroll through what seemed to be an extensive document, before she began typing at the bottom of the note and looking to [Mr Farrington] and CYPS as she typed. It seemed that she was adding notes to the existing document based on the conversation around the custody proceedings. [Ms P] was unable to see the exact contents of the document.
26.Alcohol use
27.It is my view that [Ms Belkis]' alcohol consumption is not at a level of concern, noting the results of the hair strand tests provided to me within the context of the most recent appraisal. However, I note [X] and [Y]'s apparent hyper-vigilance to [Ms Belkis]' alcohol intake, in addition to the allegations made regarding her consuming alcohol excessively. I agree that [Ms Belkis] should not drink to excess with the children in her care.
28.Mental health support for [Ms Belkis]
29.I agree that [Ms Belkis] will need to continue to prioritise her mental health by way of regular clinical appointments. [Ms Belkis] has displayed her willingness to seek and utilise supports, and I assess that [Ms Belkis] should, and will, continue to do this.
30.Mental health support for the children
31.It is of utmost importance, noting the emotional abuse [X] and [Y] have endured in the context of the current proceedings, that their therapeutic support is a priority. While the children have been referred to [J Program] through [Q Counsellors] and [R Families], it is noted that the children's mental health, and particularly [Y]'s , has deteriorated rapidly. As a result of [Y]'s current mental health issues, the referral for [J Program] has been paused for [Y] by [R Families] and [Q Counsellors]. This is to allow clinical care and supports to be implemented with [Y] to address her mental health issues. It is critical that [Ms Belkis] ensure that [Y] receives all recommended clinical care and support Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS), and any associated referred services by CAMHS.
32.There has been a delay in [Ms Belkis] beginning [S Program] a pre-cursor to the children beginning [J Program]. It is critical that [Ms Belkis] prioritises this, so that both children can begin [J Program] as soon as is recommended. I am informed by [Q Counsellors] and [R Families] that additional therapeutic supports are not recommended concurrently to [J Program].
33.CARE AND PROTECTION’S VIEWS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
34.As a delegate of the Director General, I support [Ms Belkis]' application. My assessment, however, is that in the future when recommended by the children's therapeutic supports (and presumably when [Mr Farrington] develops insight into the impact of his behaviours and conversations on the children's emotional wellbeing) that time with the children and [Mr Farrington] should occur to as to rebuild a safe relationship with the children. I do not believe it is in the children's best interest to resume week about arrangements and instead believe that it is in the children's best interests to live with [Ms Belkis] on a full time basis.
35.I recommend the family continue to engage with CYPS by way of a family preservation period to assist in the transition of [X] and [Y] to their mother's care.
36.CYPS will assist in connecting therapeutic supports to the children and [Ms Belkis]. From here I recommend that [Y] will continue engagement with CAMHS (and any referrals offered by CAMHS), until she is able to have her referral to [J Program] resumed. [X] will begin [J Program] as guided by [Q Counsellors] and [R Families] with the assistance of [Ms Belkis]. Any suggested services at the conclusion of [J Program] are to be considered and followed up by [Ms Belkis]. If no further referrals are made by [Q Counsellors] and [R Families], I recommend therapeutic support for each child be sought by [Ms Belkis].
37.I recommend that [Ms Belkis] complete the Youth Mental Health First Aid Course and the Domestic Violence Education Program alongside any other programs that can assist her in caring for her children during this period of conflict and litigation.
38.I recommend that [Mr Farrington] engages meaningfully in the [L] program he has been referred to and anticipates beginning in September 2023. The program is aimed at educating people around family violence and focusing on lasting change, while stressing accountability and responsibility. I acknowledge [Mr Farrington]'s completion of the Youth Mental Health First Aid Course. I also acknowledge his engagement in [S Program] and [T Program] with [Q Counsellors] and [R Families] so far.
1
0