Fletcher & Henderson (No 3) - [2024] FedCFamC1F 843

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Fletcher & Henderson (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 843

File number(s): BRC 3235 of 2022

Judgment of: HOGAN J

Date of judgment: 6 December 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the father sought that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility and that the child spend time with him on a gradually increasing basis until she attains eight years of age, at which time she live in an equal time parenting regime – Where the mother sought sole parental responsibility and that the child live with her and spend no time with the father – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer supported the mother’s proposed orders – Where the child has not seen the father since October 2021 when she was an infant – Where the mother’s eldest daughter had made disclosures of sexual assault at the hands of the father – Where the eldest daughter has a fear of the father – Where orders are made for the child to live with the mother and spend no time with the father

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Cases cited:
Banks & Banks (2015) FLC 93-637; [2015] FamCAFC 36

CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172; [1998] HCA 67

Eastley & Eastley (2022) FLC 94-094; [2022] FedCFamC1A 101

Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-092; [2022] FedCFamC1A 97

Johnson & Page (2007) FLC 93-344; [2007] FamCA 1235

M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69; [1988] HCA 68

Morden & Coad [2019] FamCAFC 233

U v U (2002) 211 CLR 238; [2002] HCA 36

Division: First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 160

Date of last submission/s: 25 August 2023

Date of hearing: 17, 18, 19, & 20 July 2023; 25 August 2023

Place: Brisbane

Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr Hawkes, Hawkes Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Dodd of Counsel

Solicitor for the Respondent: Damien Greer Lawyers

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr Cameron of Counsel

Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: HM Lawyers
ORDERS

BRC 3235 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MR FLETCHER

Applicant

AND:
MS HENDERSON

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

HOGAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 DECEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS BY WAY OF FINAL ORDER THAT:
1.All parenting plans and previous parenting orders are discharged.
2.The child, X, born in 2021, live with the mother.
3.The mother have sole parental responsibility in respect of all major long-term issues (as that expression is defined in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)) relating to the child.
4.The child shall spend no time and have no communication with the father.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:
5.The mother parent and the Independent Children’s Lawyer have leave to provide a copy of the Order made 6 December 2024, the Reasons for Judgment published in support of the same and the Family Report authored by Ms D to the school at which the child attends, to any therapist upon whom the parents and/or the child attends for the purpose of therapy and to the Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety, the authority of any State or Territory responsible for child protection and, if necessary, to any member of the Queensland Police Service, the police service of another State or Territory and the Australian Federal Police.
6.Save as is otherwise ordered herein, no party is permitted to use the documents provided to them in the course of this proceeding for any purpose other than this proceeding or any appeal in respect of these Orders.
7.The Independent Children’s Lawyer is discharged unless a Notice of Appeal is filed by any party within the time prescribed or such other time as allowed by Order.
8.All outstanding parenting applications are otherwise dismissed and removed from the list of cases requiring finalisation.
9.Pursuant to s 65DA(2) and s 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders and details of who can assist parties to adjust to and comply with an Order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached and these particulars are included in these Orders.

IT IS NOTED THAT:
A.There is no Court known by the name “Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia”.
B.The design of the seal affixed to this order issued by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) has been determined by the Attorney-General pursuant to the undated Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Seal) Determination 2021 signed by the Attorney-General.

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 the pseudonym Fletcher & Henderson has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT[1]
HOGAN J:
[1]In finalising these proceedings I have had regard to the Transcript of the same and my contemporaneous notes of the evidence; I have reread the affidavits relied on by each of the parents and the Independent Children's Lawyer, as well as the Case Outline documents and the written submissions filed on behalf of each parent and the Independent Children's Lawyer; I have revisited the Exhibits.

These proceedings require the determination of those parenting orders which are in the best interests of three-year-old X, who was born in 2021. X lives with the mother and 10-year-old F,[2] the mother’s daughter from a previous relationship, who has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, ADHD and anxiety. X had not been born when her parents ended their approximately two year relationship in June 2021. After she was born, she spent time with the father (either in hospital or at the mother’s home) in the mother’s presence on a number of occasions. The last of these was on 10 October 2021.
[2] Who was born in 2014.
X has no relationship with the father; she does not know him and he does not know her. This situation has arisen because of the mother’s assertion that F initially made comments to her that the father had touched her “wee” and F later made a number of disclosures to her and others that he had behaved toward her in a manner that has caused both the mother and the child to be fearful of him and to worry about any future interactions he may have with X.
The mother does not suggest that the father has sexually abused X or has directly physically or emotionally abused her; however, the allegations about the father’s asserted conduct toward the mother and F are such that, if accepted, they would support a conclusion that X would be at an unacceptable risk of harm if she was required by order to spend time with him; if the father acted toward the mother and F as has been alleged, it is also difficult to identify the benefits to X of being afforded the opportunity to be introduced to him and to develop and maintain a meaningful relationship with him.
Whilst the father maintained that the mother had manufactured the allegations made about his behaviour toward her and that she had manufactured F’s allegations and used her as a tool or vehicle to implement her plan to exclude him from X’s life (including by conspiring with at least one of the psychologists upon whom F has attended), the reality is that the orders he sought would require X to continue to live primarily with the mother until she is eight years of age when, following a regime of gradually increasing time in his care, she would live in an equal time, week-about parenting arrangement. Given this, I consider it unnecessary to discuss matters such as the mother’s capacity to care appropriately for X,[3] other than in the context of assessing the likely impact on the mother’s ability to parent both of her children if orders are made for X to spend time with the father.
[3]As well as her involvement in X’s life and her attitude to X and the responsibilities of parenthood: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC(3)(b), (c), (ca), (f), (i) and (m).
I accept that X has a strong bond with her mother and that her primary attachment is to her. I also accept that it is much more likely than not that she has a strong bond and attachment to F; I accept that F has a very strong bond and relationship with X, although it may be that she has assumed something of an over-protective stance toward her younger sister.
Some general comments about these Reasons, including the Schedule to the same
So that there is no misunderstanding about how the information recounted chronologically in the Schedule (summarised from aspects of the evidence before the Court) which accompanies and forms part of these Reasons has been used in the determination of the parenting orders now in X’s best interests, I record that:
(a)I accept that the information recounted therein was provided by whomever is said to have provided it; and
(b)where indicated in the Schedule, I accept the opinions proffered by those who have proffered them; and
(c)the Schedule does not contain a summary of all of the evidence – whilst it outlines matters I consider to be particularly relevant to the determination of those parenting orders now in X’s best interests, the absence of any particular evidence from the chronological recitation of events should not be taken to indicate that the same has not also been the subject of consideration in the discharge of the obligation to make parenting orders which are now both in her best interests and proper; and
(d)unless otherwise indicated, I have accepted the account of events recorded in the various source documents referenced therein in preference to any contrary account provided by the parents.
Broad overview of the competing proposals and the bases for the same
The father
The father originally sought[4] that he and the mother have equal shared parental responsibility for the major long-term issues relating to X; that X live with the mother and spend time with him on a gradually increasing basis until, from when she attends school, such time occur on alternate weekends (from after school Friday until before school Monday). He also sought that orders be made for X to spend time with him on special occasions and otherwise as particularised in his application.
[4] Initiating Application filed 21 March 2022.
The father’s position at trial was that the orders which are in X’s best interests are orders which: accord her parents equal shared parental responsibility for the major long-term issues relating to her; provide that she live with her mother and spend time with him on a gradually increasing basis until, from when she is eight years of age, she is living in an equal-time parenting regime.[5] It also seemed to me that, during the submissions stage of the hearing, the father’s position included that any orders which would enable X to start to spend time with him should be preferred to the orders proposed by the mother.
[5] Amended Initiating Application filed 13 July 2023.
The father advanced that such orders are in X’s best interests because she will benefit from the opportunity to develop, and thereafter maintain, a relationship with him; he asserted that the allegations made by F about his alleged abusive behaviour toward her were the subject of coaching by the mother in furtherance of her desire to thwart any relationship between him and X; he advanced that the mother’s allegations of his alleged abusive behaviours toward her and about his alleged consumption of alcohol and drugs are, at best, exaggerations or, at worst, deliberate lies. He also advanced that the mother and various psychologists, including one of those supporting F, have engaged in a conspiracy to make, or have F make, false allegations that he abused her physically, sexually and/or emotionally during his cohabitation with her mother in furtherance of the mother’s position that it is not in X’s best interests to be introduced to him, develop a relationship with him and/or spend time with him.
The mother
In an overall sense, the mother’s position was that it was not in X’s best interests for the Court to create, via orders, a relationship between X and her father. Consistent with that, she sought that she be accorded sole parental responsibility for the major long-term issues relating to X; that X live with her and spend no time and have no communication with the father.[6]
[6] Amended Response to Initiating Application sealed 9 November 2022.
The mother asserted that because:
(a)the father perpetrated domestic violence against her and F both during the relationship and after the June 2021 separation; and
(b)F has made disclosures that the father sexually, physically, and emotionally abused her; and
(c)the father has a history of drug and alcohol abuse and misuse and mental health issues which he has failed to appropriately address; and
(d)the father lacks parenting skills and insight about the impact of his alleged abusive behaviour on the children,
X would be at an unacceptable risk of harm if she was required to spend any time and/or have any communication with the father.
In addition, the mother also asserted that because:
(a)any exposure to the father would likely cause F emotional and psychological trauma – which would, in turn, likely impact adversely on X and the sibling relationship; and
(b)a requirement to reintroduce X to the father and support her in spending time and communicating with him would adversely affect her (the mother’s) mental health and, consequently, her capacity to care for both X and F,
the Court would be persuaded, irrespective of any findings about whether X would be at an unacceptable risk of harm if she was to spend time with the father, that it is not in X’s best interests for her to have any time, or communication, with the father.
It was also submitted on behalf of the mother that the Court would be persuaded that there is no benefit to X of having a meaningful relationship with the father or, alternatively, if such benefit was found to exist, it needed to cede to the imperative of protecting her from harm.
The Independent Children's Lawyer
The Independent Children's Lawyer supported those orders sought by the mother and opposed the orders sought by the father. Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer submitted that the Court would be persuaded that it is not in X’s best interests for her to be introduced to or spend time (supervised or not) or communicate with the father.
Some general comments about credit and the evidence generally
I accept the submission made by Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer to the effect that little faith can be placed in the accuracy or truthfulness of the father’s evidence unless the same is corroborated.
Whilst the father initially denied the mother’s assertion that, in July 2021, he had returned to her home and entered it without her consent, he later accepted that this was correct. He also initially denied the suggestion that the relationship between he and F had, at times, been difficult before accepting – after being taken to paragraph 70 of Ms D’s report and her record that “[Mr Fletcher] reported a period of approximately six to eight weeks where her [being F] behaviour got nasty to me. She wouldn’t do as she was told, was defiant, made rude faces, disrespectful, especially if she had a friend over. [Ms Henderson] and her parents would brush it off. [Ms Henderson] had no discipline or punishments. It was time out, or withdrawal of something” – that, at times, there had been difficulties in their relationship.
When cross-examined, the father said, in essence, that despite his very negative views of the mother, he was a very respectful person and able to accept things for what they are; he also said that he was quite comfortable to form a co-parenting relationship with the mother moving forward. However, he then accepted the immediately made suggestion that it was complete nonsense to suggest that he could ever have any kind of co-parenting relationship with the mother.
I consider the father deliberately deceived Ms D when he provided her with the information that he did about his previous mental health history and use of illicit substances and that he failed to provide her with an accurate account of his knowledge about G.[7]
[7] His son from a previous relationship.
I also accept that, when interviewed on 10 August 2022, the father positively asserted to Ms D that he did not have any current or previous diagnosis for a mental health condition and had never engaged with a mental health service for support when this was simply untrue. I accept that he deliberately omitted to tell her that:
(a)he had been referred to a psychologist for anxiety and depression in 2014 and attended on that therapist; and
(b)he had been referred again to the same psychologist in 2016 for anxiety and mood disturbance, but did not take up that referral; and
(c)he was referred again to a psychologist in 2017, with the recommendation that he would benefit from some cognitive behaviour therapy or counselling, but he did not take up that referral; and
(d)in 2021, during the parental relationship, he had attended his general practitioner (with the mother) for anger issues and was prescribed anti-depressant medication, which he only took for a week or so; and
(e)the general practitioner on whom he attended in 2021 recommended that he undertake some therapy and referred him to a psychologist, but he did not take up this referral as he did not consider that he needed to see a psychologist.
I accept that, despite the above, the father did as Ms D set out in paragraph 31 of her report – namely, he “discussed no current or previous diagnosis for a mental health condition or mood disorder, such as depression, anxiety, bipolar and has never taken any medications for such. He reported his mood to be good, no feeling of suicide thoughts or self-harm, and he stated he has never engaged with a mental health service for support, therapy or counselling due to feelings of low mood, dysregulation, stress or not cope”. I also note that, when cross-examined, the father accepted that large parts of this was simply untrue; he also accepted that he deliberately decided not to tell Ms D the true information; whilst he denied that he did this in an attempt to paint himself in the best possible light, it seems to me that this was either the case or, as Ms D adverted to, he habitually deliberately fails to disclose information that may expose him to criticism by others.
Further, the father’s evidence that he had not had a formal diagnosis with a mental health condition or mood disorder which included but was not limited to depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation or bipolar disorder and that he had not been prescribed any medication for such condition was clearly, at best, misleading or, at worst, false.
Whilst I accept that the father told Ms D that the mother had not fulfilled his sexual desires during their relationship, his evidence when cross-examined was that she did.

I also accept that, when interviewed by Ms D, the father denied having current or previous use of alcohol other than on an occasional and social basis only; however, when interviewed about 10 weeks later for the purpose of the preparation of a sexual risk assessment, he told Mr E that, from the age of 17, he had a typical pattern of binge drinking with his mates and until six weeks before that interview, was drinking two to three glasses of alcohol each night, but would rarely get drunk.
I accept the father was also less than honest in his engagement with Mr E when interviewed on 31 October 2022 and consider that he deliberately failed to provide him with relevant information. For example, whilst the father told him that, about 10 years ago he had some depression and anxiety in coming to terms with his sexuality and had been referred to a psychologist and then had not had any need to see a psychologist until shortly before the assessment (and that this was because of the court process), he did not tell Mr E that:
(a)he had been referred again to the same psychologist in 2016 for anxiety and mood disturbance, but did not take up that referral; and
(b)he had been referred again to a psychologist in 2017, with the recommendation that he would benefit from some cognitive behaviour therapy or counselling, but did not take up that referral; and
(c)in 2021 he had attended on his general practitioner for anxiety, depression and some anger issues; and
(d)he had been prescribed any medication other than CBD oil or that he only took this prescribed medication for about one week.
Whilst Mr H (the psychologist seen by the father intermittently over the years) was not a witness in the father’s case, the contents of his 13 March 2023 report (noted in the Schedule) suggests that the father has been less than completely truthful with him as well – for example, whilst Mr H remarked in that document that “despite his sadness and frustration, he had demonstrated remarkable tolerance and goodwill towards the mother”, the father told Departmental officers when interviewed in mid-2022 that he believed the mother was “riddled with mental health issues” and was a “sociopath”; further, the father told Mr H that he had not be ordered to do a Men’s Behaviour Change Program despite the order made on 31 January 2023 having required him to do exactly that.
That the father lied about his mental health history was accepted by the submissions made on his behalf, albeit that such admission arose in the context of a broader submission that this fact does not, of itself, create a risk to X or, if it was considered to demonstrate such risk, that risk could be ameliorated by requiring the father’s time with X – at least initially – to occur under supervision.
In addition to those interactions with persons involved in these proceedings during which he was deliberately dishonest, the evidence establishes that the father should not be regarded as a reliable historian. For example, during his cross-examination, he said that he did not believe he had spoken to the Department about the mother’s mental health but, when it was pointed out to him that (as set out in the Schedule) the Department’s records of his interview include that he had said she was “riddled with mental health difficulties” and a “sociopath”, he said that he had just been a bit mistaken in his mind about whether he had spoken about the mother’s mental health in his family report interview or Departmental interview.
Given that the mother is the source of so much of the information relied upon by the psychologists who have provided reports and given evidence in the proceedings in her case, I have carefully considered whether she can be regarded as being a truthful, accurate and reliable witness or as someone whose evidence needs to be assessed very carefully before accepting it as a truthful, accurate and reliable recitation of facts, rather than a misrepresentation (deliberately or otherwise) of what occurred. Whilst not without issues, on balance I accept that the mother has given truthful evidence, although I also do not discount the possibility that, as her anxiety levels continued to increase (as is evident from the entries in the Schedule) she may, on occasion, have regarded all of F’s behaviours to have been causally related to the father’s conduct without attributing weight to other possible causes.
Given the father’s deliberate lies, unreliability as a historian and my acceptance of Ms D’s assessment of him as a person who seeks to apportion responsibility for events to others and divert responsibility for the same from himself, I accept the submissions made to the effect that, where the evidence given by the parents differs, I should accept the evidence given by the mother.
Whilst, given my focus on matters other than those which were particularly dealt with in the evidence given by the paternal grandparents, it is perhaps unnecessary to record this, I note that, where their evidence of events and the evidence given by the mother and the maternal grandmother differ, I prefer the evidence given by the mother and the maternal grandmother. I am simply unpersuaded that the mother and the maternal grandmother conspired to falsely assert the details of what they said was spoken of amongst the parents and grandparents. I am not persuaded, as the father contended, that the maternal grandmother lied to further the mother’s case when she said the paternal grandparents made comments suggesting that the father had previously attempted to harm himself or that she and the mother lied when they gave the evidence they did about what was spoken of, and by whom, during the Easter 2021 lunch. I am not persuaded the maternal grandmother lied when she gave evidence about seeing drug paraphernalia in the home.
The paternal grandmother’s evidence included that the father had never had issues with illicit substances and alcohol, and she would not accept a description of him having been a “binge drinker”. Whilst I accept she was honest when she gave this evidence, other aspects of the evidence discussed in the Schedule and these Reasons clearly demonstrate that it is not accurate.
I also note that the father’s account of what happened when he and the paternal grandmother visited X in hospital – and F and the maternal grandmother were also there – differed from that given by the paternal grandmother in that she said (consistently with the account provided by the mother and the maternal grandmother) that F became so upset when he went to change X’s nappy that she had to leave the room with the maternal grandmother, whereas he said that F had not been in the room at that time.
I am not persuaded that Ms J (the mother’s treating psychologist) and Ms K (a psychologist upon whom F has attended) conspired together when each objected to a subpoena served upon them. I accept that Ms J decided to object to the subpoena because she was concerned that information contained within her notes of the mother’s consultations was being “weaponised” against the mother by the father; I accept her evidence about the steps she took before making the objection and that, when asked, she provided Ms K with at least some of the documents she had drafted following her decision to file an objection to the subpoena; I accept she authored the document which she circulated.
Unless otherwise indicated, I generally accept the evidence given by Ms J, Ms K and Ms L about their observations of the mother and F; I also generally accept that the opinions proffered by each of these psychologists are the opinions they each formed in the exercise of their professional judgement. I am not persuaded that they, or any one of them, joined with the mother in a conspiracy to have F make the comments about the father that she has made (as set out in detail in the Schedule).
APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES
In these proceedings, being proceedings for a parenting order[8] in relation to X, I may, subject to s 61DA[9] and s 65DAB[10] and Division 6 of Part VII of the Act, make such parenting order as I think proper.[11] I must have regard to the Objects of Part VII of the Act and the principles which underpin those Objects.[12] In deciding whether to make a parenting order, I must regard X’s best interests as the paramount consideration.[13]
[8]           Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 64B.
[9]           Presumption of equal shared parental responsibility.
[10]          Parenting plans.
[11]          Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 65D.
[12]          Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60B.
[13]          Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CA and s 65AA.
The matters to which regard must be had in determining those parenting orders which are in X’s best interests are found in s 60CC of the Act. The requirement to “consider” each of these matters does not necessarily mean that each must be the subject of any particular discussion, particularly where the evidence leads inexorably to a particular conclusion.[14] It also seems to me, because the Act mandates that protecting children from harm is an imperative,[15] that it makes sense to reach conclusions about whether X will be at an unacceptable risk of harm if she spends time with the father before considering whether she will benefit from the opportunity to maintain a meaningful relationship with both parents.
[14]See: Banks & Banks (2015) FLC 93-637 (whilst said in the context of a consideration of interim proceedings, there is no reason why the underlying principle does not apply to the final disposition of proceedings).
[15] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC(2A.
I accept, as Ms D outlined, that:
(a)if the father acted as has been alleged by the mother, his behaviour would be regarded as extremely disturbing and concerning, highly manipulative, premediated and self-motivated, extremely harmful and abusive to F and there would be significant safety concerns for any children spending time in his care;[16] and
(b)if, as the father alleged, the mother had falsified the allegations made about his conduct toward her and F and had manipulated and coerced F to support her in providing false information in this respect, then such conduct would constitute emotionally abusive behaviour toward F and would give rise to significant concerns about the mother’s personality vulnerability: further, her capacity to prioritise the children’s needs over her own would be highly questionable, as would her level of insight as a parent and her capacity to make sound decisions and judgements. [17]
The imperative of protecting X from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence[18]
[16]          Family Report dated 15 September 2022, paragraph 99.
[17]          Family Report dated 15 September 2022, paragraph 97-98
[18]          Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC(2)(b) and 60CC(2A).
Authority makes it clear that the resolution of allegations of sexual and other abuse are “subservient and ancillary” to this Court’s determination of that parenting order which is in a child’s best interests.[19] However, an assessment of such allegations is clearly necessary when the prescribed statutory framework imposes an imperative of protecting children from harm.[20] Even in undertaking such assessment, this Court is not compelled to make a determination about whether the father sexually abused F; however, orders which would place X at an unacceptable risk of harm clearly could not be seen as being in her best interests.
[19] M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 and the numerous authorities which have followed it.
[20] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC(2)(b).
In determining whether X would be at an unacceptable risk of harm if she spends time with the father, the court undertakes a predictive exercise that requires the determination of whether, based on the evidence before it, it considers there to be a risk to X in the future – the predictive exercise involves an assessment of the magnitude of the risk and the harm that would be caused to her if the risk was manifest and the consideration of whether matters can be put in place to adequately mitigate that risk becoming manifest. It is unnecessary for a risk to be assessed as being “probable” before it is unacceptable; depending on the magnitude of the risk and the harm which X would suffer if it eventuated, the possibility of its occurrence may suffice for it to be regarded as “unacceptable”.
A conclusion that an unacceptable risk of harm exists may be based on matters such as: plausible but unproven allegations of abuse made by a subject child against the parent alleged to pose the unacceptable risk of harm; evidence of that parent’s sexual interest in a child or children other than the subject child; and/or evidence of that parent’s interest in material that demonstrates the sexual exploitation of children. Whilst conjecture about the future is based on historical facts and circumstances, only the relevant historical facts need to be proven on the balance of probabilities.[21] An accumulation or coalescence of factors, not individually proven on the balance of probabilities, can still be sufficient to demonstrate the existence of an unacceptable risk of harm to children.[22]
[21] Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-092.
[22]Eastley & Eastley (2022) FLC 94-094 and the inferential reference at [31] to Johnson & Page (2007) FLC 93-344 at [68]–[71].
Would spending time with the father place X at an unacceptable risk of harm?
Whilst Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer submitted that it was unnecessary for the Court to make a positive finding about the allegations that the father sexually abused F (noting that authority makes it clear that such a finding should only be made in the clearest of cases), he also submitted that, on the evidence before it, the Court could not exclude the possibility that the father had abused her.
The allegations made by F – sexual and physical abuse
The father denied behaving toward F as has been alleged. He denied pulling her pants down and touching her “wee”; he denied touching her “wee” on the outside of her clothing; he denied that she ever felt his testicles and he denied having ever made her lick his penis.
I consider that the following may be taken from the evidence summarised in the Schedule to these Reasons.
F had presented to a doctor with a red and irritated vulva (which the mother was told to treat as vulvovaginitis) before the parents began their relationship and she presented to a doctor with a suspected urinary tract infection after she ceased spending time with the father.
From about mid-2019 (about five months before the father moved to live with the mother and F): F’s behaviour was dysregulated and she struggled to manage her emotions. In late 2019, F was referred to Ms K (a clinical psychologist) whose assistance the mother sought to help F: improve her confidence; learn to sleep on her own consistently and manage her sleep issues; learn to better regulate her emotions and behaviours; learn to communicate better; and deal with being bullied at school.
After the father moved to live with her in early 2020, the mother left F alone in his care in early 2020 whilst she had dinner with his friends – after he contacted her to tell her that F was unwell, the mother arrived home to find her upset and that she had vomited.
By April 2020, F’s behaviour was increasingly dysregulated and the mother continued to take her to Ms K and to seek assistance from her about how to manage this. In about May 2020, F started saying that she hated her family and the mother. From about June 2020, the maternal grandmother noticed that F started to complain about having a sore “wee” – but neither she nor the mother really thought anything of this at the time. In August 2020, the mother told Ms K that F had spat at the father – she also noted that F was having problems communicating. In about mid-September 2020, Ms K reported that F’s overall anxiety levels had increased, and she was having problems regulating her emotions and behaviours.
In mid-November 2020, the mother (who then borrowed a book entitled “My Underpants Rule”) told Ms K that:
(a)a family friend had told her that F had asked “do you want to play with my private parts” and had said “but that’s what friends do”; and
(b)during a sleepover, an older brother of a friend had asked if he could see F’s boobies; and
(c)F had been trying to go into the bathroom and see the father in the shower; and
(d)before COVID that year, she had walked in and seen an older girl (nine years of age) trying to play “doctors” with a thermometer and undies pulled to the side – F had been screaming and upset and said that she did not want to be a girl anymore as it was scary.
When asked during the mid-November 2020 session with Ms K if anything had happened, F said “Yes” but, when prompted during the session to elaborate, she said that she did not remember and her body posture slumped, her arms were across her body in what Ms K described as a defensive position and she chewed her fingers.
In January 2021, the maternal grandmother told Ms K that F had said that the father made her mother happy but did not make her and the mother happy.
In February 2021:
(a)the mother (who I accept wanted her relationship with the father to continue) told Ms K that F had told the father that she hated him so much and wanted to stab him with a knife; and
(b)Ms K advised F’s paediatrician that the child’s anxiety had increased in recent months, and she had been angry and defiant at home.
In March 2021, the mother contacted Ms K to see if she and the father could attend on her to work out F’s hatred of him and advised, amongst other things, that:
(a)F was “stuck” in using hateful words toward the father and death staring him and he and F were constantly bickering to the point where everyone was at their breaking point; and
(b)she and the father were not on the same page and needed some intervention strategies to help make the home more harmonious – they needed way more support, strategies and help; and
(c)the father was feeling very unloved and that it was not like his home and had said F was acting like he was a new boyfriend, and she was 16 (“his words”).
In early 2021: during their holiday on Region M, the father called the mother a “fucking cunt” and later yelled at F to “stop being a fucking little shit” and raised his clenched fist toward her. Despite this, in April 2021, the mother told the father she saw him as F’s father and also made positive comments about the father on Facebook; further, in late May 2021, she investigated them jointly borrowing money.
On 2 June 2021 (the day after the parental separation): the mother asked Ms K to help F deal with the parental separation. On 21 June 2021, the mother allowed F to go for a bike ride with the father during which she accidentally told him the sex of the baby and he became angry (referred to as “the chilli incident” in the Schedule). On 26 June 2021, the mother emailed the father (as set out in the Schedule) in terms which made no reference to his aggressive behaviours or to the chilli incident.
In July 2021, the mother told Ms K that the father wanted “50/50”, she had got a lawyer, and she was worried about his demand. Later in July 2021, the mother told Ms K that F was being bullied at school and that she would like to find out how she felt about the father – she also advised that she had asked the father to spend time with F (as well as their baby when born) to try and keep F included.
In mid-2021, Ms K noted that the father and paternal grandmother had visited the mother and F and that F had said that he was not a friend and did not love them and that he was a bad, bad man and she did not want to see him and hated him and had asked “what if he hurts the baby?”.

In late 2021 (the last time F saw the father), during a visit by the father and the paternal grandmother to see baby X, and after she had given him a card which the mother had arranged, F became upset when the father went to change X’s nappy – she said she did not want him to do it and became so dysregulated that the maternal grandmother removed her from the room. After the hospital visit, F continued to tell the mother that she hated the father, he was not a friend and she did not want to talk about him.
In late 2021, the mother told Ms K that the father had caused F extreme anxiety and emotional trauma, and she (F) never wanted to see him.
On 4 October 2021, the mother emailed the father in the terms set out in the Schedule, which included her plan for his ongoing time with X (namely: fortnightly for up to an hour on Sunday mornings because that was all she could manage and which she would review once her health, and their relationship improved).
In October 2021, Ms K emailed the mother to advise that, as reported by the mother and as “visibly observed” by her, F’s anxiety levels were extremely high and she had clearly been impacted by the father leaving the family, had a lot of emotions to work through, had expressed that she did not want to see him or his mother – the therapist said she believed they needed to respect F’s wishes and that she thought, at that stage, that F having contact with the father would be detrimental to her mental health and overall wellbeing and so she recommended that F not have contact with him and not be present when he saw X.
In October 2021:
(a)the mother advised Ms K that:
(i)F was defiant and rude, answered back, could not pull herself back when she had gone too far and the school had said that she could not follow directions and just wanted to draw all the time, was toward the bottom of the class and had poor social skills; and
(ii)F had regressed and had been saying “I have secrets that I don’t want to tell”; and
(b)F crawled under the desk and table in Ms K’s room and tried to crawl under the couch – she told the therapist that she did not like her and did not like coming there and said “I have secrets but I can’t tell you”, “I can’t tell mum because she’ll tell you”; “I can’t tell [the maternal grandmother] because she’ll tell mum.”; she was unable to engage and was resistant to suggested activities and was rude to the mother in the waiting area; and
(c)Ms K recorded that the mother raised concerns about possible abuse – she said F would not wipe after toileting and she had found her with a vibrating massage tool; and
(d)the mother later emailed Ms K and advised that she and F had spoken and F had said that her “secret” was about being bullied and that no one would help her and she hated being dumb at school.
In October 2021, the mother filed a private application seeking a Protection Order.
In November 2021, the mother told Ms K that F had been saying that she did not have a dad; that the father was the only dad she had had and that she did not want to be here.
In January 2022, Ms K advised that F seemed calmer and more emotionally stable and opined that it seemed that not having contact with the father had allowed her to process her emotions around the separation and how she felt about him.
However, in February 2022, the mother told Ms K that F had been very dysregulated, and the therapist found her unable to engage, rude and destructive – she told the mother to “shut the fuck up” and the therapist recommended referring F to Ms L (another psychologist) for trauma‑based therapy.
In February 2022, Ms L’s notes of her session with F (in which the mother was present) include that the father is a trigger for F and there were concerns he had groomed her; it was noted that F had shared a secret with the mother, which was that the father had put her in a hole in the ground if she was naughty – the notes also record that the mother was relieved because F had shared more in this session than with the previous therapist.
In March 2022, the mother emailed Ms L to tell her that, after the session the day before, F had told her, in summary, that:
(a)during a bike ride with the father to a secret playground, he had dug a hole and told her to get in; and
(b)if she was rude, he would say “I’ll put you in a hole and bury you” and that she was rude like her mother.
In March 2022, Ms L noted that F told her, in essence, that the father had taken her to a park and made her dig a deep hole in the sand and had pushed her in and covered up her body until her body and hair were covered and this had happened twice and that, on one occasion, two teenage girls were there and she had dug herself out. The mother joined the session in the last 10 minutes, at which time F showed her the sandbox and re-enacted her memory of this.
Later in March 2022, the mother emailed Ms L to advise that the maternal grandmother would bring F to the session the following day – she also said that she thought F may want to discuss the father grooming her and how she did not want to keep secrets. On the following day, Ms L noted that F told her the father had hurt the mother – she said he had called her a bad dancer; she also provided more detail when asked by Ms L about what she had told her earlier in March 2022.
On the following day, the mother emailed Ms L to ask how the session the previous day had gone and advised that the father had asked to spend time with both children – she said she was gravely concerned about their safety “with everything coming to light recently”. The next day, the mother told Ms K that F had told Ms L that the father had buried her in a hole; she also said that F had told her that the father touched her through her clothes and had asked her to lay on top of him; she was sleeping with a knife under her pillow and had said that he would kill her for telling his secrets. A few days later, during a peer supervision, Ms K and Ms L discussed that F had told the mother that the father touched her through her clothes and that, if she let it happen, it would not happen to her sister. Such comment needs, I think, to be evaluated in light of the uncontroversial fact that the parental separation happened a few months before X was born.
The mother said that, in March 2022, F told her that the father would smack her shoulder, bottom and thigh when she was not there; she said she hadn’t told her mother because he would get her for being such a baby. On the same date, Ms K advised the referring doctor that the mother was concerned about her safety and that of the children and was fearful about what he may do.
The mother also said that, in March 2022, F told her that she had the father’s secrets and was ready to tell – she said F told her that he rubbed her head hard and then made his way down her boob and tummy and put his hand under her clothing and rubbed her “wee” really hard (using her hand in a circular motion to demonstrate); she said his pants were low and she could see his bum and he had a hand in his pants; the mother said F told her this happened on the couch and lots in the bedroom and that the father had said he would hurt her if she told anyone and he would hurt the mother and get her (F) a school. The mother said F also told her that when they played hide and seek, the father had tickled her on the couch and tried to take her pants off and then asked if she wanted to see his “wee” and she had said “no thanks”.
In April 2022, during a session with Ms L (at which the mother was present), F said that the father had come into her room when the mother was pregnant and at the hairdresser; he rubbed her head, chest and belly and her “wee” under her clothes and told her he would get her at school if she told; she said this had happened every day until the parents broke up. On the following day, Ms L contacted the police (and later, the Department) to report the information she noted in March and April 2022.
When F was interviewed by the police in April 2022, she told them, amongst other things, that:
(a)the father had smacked the top of her head kind of hard (like five times) when he walked past her – when she told him to stop, he said “No” and told her that if she told her mother about it, he would get her at school; and
(b)the father had smacked her on the bum twice and was a bad person; and
(c)the father wanted X, so she is telling people, so he does not get her; and
(d)she knows the father will smack X because he did it to her; and
(e)the father had slapped her leg at the dinner table; and
(f)the father had touched her “wee” (which she later motioned toward when asked what she was talking about and, when asked what she used it for, said going to the toilet) every time on her bed, the couch and the mother’s bed – she was playing an online game with a friend and laying on her bed and when she got up to get a drink of water the father pulled her down on her leg and did it; he did it again – he pulled her onto the bed; he pulled her pants down and touched her; when she said “hey, don’t you dare do that again”, he did it again and again; and
(g)the father’s favourite thing was to touch and hurt people – he was a horrible man; he hated them because they broke up and he was not the dad she wanted, and he was going to do stuff to her and X; and
(h)she knows that men just do things like that – things what bad people do – like the things he did to her; she had cut her foot when she jumped into the pool and glass was there but he had told her there was not glass; he had said that her mum was a bad dancer, singer and talker; and
(i)the father was a bad man because he had bad manners and sneezed on her once; and
(j)the father touched “it”; and
(k)the father touched her “wee” outside of her clothes and then went in with his hand – she was shaking; and
(l)when asked when the last time this happened was, she said it was 10 times per day; and
(m)she told the mother about the touching after the breakup – because she was angrier and her mother finally listened – she tells people she trusts; only the father said to not say anything: he said if she went to the police he would get her at school again and even in high school (although she could not say when he said this) – she said she had not told her mother this because she wanted to save it for the police; and
(n)she was worried at night and slept with her mother because she was worried the father would come and take X because he was mean, scary and rude; and
(o)a police officer called Mr N follows the father everywhere because they need to know what he does and because he is the grandmother’s friend and she told him; and
(p)the mother had said that if she told the truth she would get more iPad time – this was her reward for telling the truth.
The mother’s evidence when cross-examined included that she had offered F an incentive to tell the truth when she spoke to the police; she said that the truth was what came out of her daughter’s mouth; she also said that she thought F’s reference to the father being followed by a police officer called “[Mr N]” might have arisen because, after she spoke with a police officer called Mr N on the phone whilst F was at school and he suggested that she give F a bit of paper and tell her that they were watching the father and she was safe and that the piece of paper was to keep her safe, she had done as he suggested.
In April 2022, Ms L noted that, during the session, F said that “they will believe teenagers but won’t believe me”; she also said she wanted to go to heaven and become an angel and protect X because the police won’t help.
In May 2022, the mother told Ms L and Ms K that the police had said that, unless further evidence arose, the investigation would not go further; however, two days later, the mother told the Department that F’s disclosures were under investigation.
When interviewed by Ms D for the Family Report on 10 August 2022, F said that the father always smacked her and said that the mother was a bad dancer; she said he said “can I touch your wee” and grabbed and pulled her pants down and she could not stop him; she said he touched her wee just once and threatened her that if she told anyone he would kill someone – although she could not recall who but thought it may be her mother or sister. She also said she was naked in the shower, and he was clothed and he looked – but denied that he touched her; she said that during a bike ride, he dug a hole and she went in and he was digging her up to her ankles (she was laying horizontally). F also said that she was worried about running into the father as he lies and would do anything and say anything to get X and she did not trust him; she also said that he texted the mother bad stuff – “mum told me”.
In July 2022, the mother told the Department that she was worried the father had sexually offended against F and was obsessed with her; she also said that he chose women for their children.
When interviewed by the Department in July 2022, F said that she felt “minus zero” safe around the father; she said she did not like going to the shops because she did not want to see him and was scared and sad and a bit nervous when she saw him. When the mother was interviewed the same day, she told the Department, amongst other things, that F had said that the father told her she could have a penis and he would turn her into a boy; he said he would kill her and the mother and would bury her and he would be everywhere. She also said F had described his private parts and seeing pimples down his leg and that he had been abused.
In July 2022, Ms K noted that F regressed into anger when the father was mentioned; she said his friend was “mean” to her but could not elaborate.
In mid-October 2022, the mother said that, during a discussion about a YouTube clip which mentioned lollipop and ice-blocks, F told her that she did not want to lick anything; when asked why not, the child said that “he would say lick it like a lollipop”: when the mother asked, “what an ice block?”, F said “No, his wee”.
Ms K said that, during the session in December 2022, F discussed “secrets” and said that some were about the father, some were about school and some were about home; she also said that if she told, the mother would be “sad” and Ms K would be “shocked”. Later in December 2022, Ms L noted that the mother said F had said that the father was there and hurting her; she then cried for two hours and hid under a blanket; she also said “maybe I miss him; he told me he hated me but then did those bad things and said he hates me. I just want a dad”.
The mother said that, over the New Year in 2023, F became frustrated that the mother’s partner at the time was licking an ice cream instead of using a spoon – she stated “you know what I mean…lick, lick, lick” before throwing it down on the table.
The mother also said that, in February/March 2023, during a discussion about human anatomy, F asked her why some people have two or three balls; when she explained that men only have two, F said “No, [Mr Fletcher] had three balls, I felt them”. In April 2023, the mother said that F had been crying and said that she hated being sad all the time because of the father and wanted him out of her head.
The mother said that, in April 2023, when she was helping F with a shirt collar, F said it was tight and choked her like he did; when asked how, she put her hands around her mother’s neck and squeezed; she also said that when she was naughty, the father used a belt once too; when asked how tight he did it, she said he wrapped it around her neck and said he would tighten it if she was naughty.
The mother said that, in June 2023, F told her that she had seen the father at the shops; she later broke down and said she hated her life and hated what he had done to her and she asked why they could not just move.
Does the evidence persuade that the mother coached F to make the comments that she has about the father’s conduct toward her or that she engaged in a conspiracy with psychologists to have F make false allegations?
It was submitted on behalf of the father that the Court would be persuaded that the mother manufactured the allegations made against him and used F as a vehicle to carry out a pre‑determined plan to exclude him from X’s life. It was also part of the father’s case that the mother conspired with Ms K (the first clinical psychologist upon whom F attended)[23] and, possibly Ms L to cause F to make the disclosures that she has made.
[23] And who has been engaged in private practice since 2012.
When cross-examined, the mother denied coaching F in any way; she also said there was no chance that she had overheard her talk about matters relating to these proceedings. Her evidence included, in essence, that she had reported what F had told her in the way that she thought was right and that she had spoken to the Department and associated services and to psychologists to make sure that F was given a “safe pathway” within which to speak.
I accept that Ms K regards the mother as a reliable source of information about F and that she does not believe that she might have exaggerated her reporting of F’s dysregulated behaviours – she said, and I accept, that when, for example, the mother told her that F had been missing the father, she accepted that this was a truthful account and proceeded as if it was a fact.
I accept, as is clear from the content of the Schedule, that F has not made any direct disclosures to Ms K that the father sexually abused her or harmed her. I also accept her evidence to the effect that her observations were that F’s behaviours changed after the parental separation and she started to notice this directly in her sessions with her.
I accept Ms K’s evidence about her rationale for referring F to Ms L (who is a psychologist trained to work with people presenting with potential trauma) – namely, that, as F was presenting to her with increasingly concerning behaviours and in an increasingly heightened state during their sessions together (to the point of not being able to engage), she had become concerned that that there was something else other than her ASD, in respect of which she had originally been referred, underlying her presentation and had been concerned that there was some form of trauma. I accept her evidence to the effect that, at the time of making this referral, she had not been necessarily concerned about sexual abuse and that she made the referral to Ms L (after raising the idea of sending F to trauma sessions with the mother) because of her observations of F’s behaviours and her lack of engagement in their sessions and because she is not trained in the area of trauma and was not sure whether that was a contributing cause to F’s rapidly fluctuating emotions.
Whilst she accepted when cross-examined that it was possible that a reason for F’s observed behaviour was trauma associated with the severing of her relationship with the father, Ms K could not recall if, in referring F to Ms L, she had specifically identified that possibility. She said that she recalled informing Ms L that she had seen concerning behaviour from F in their sessions and that she felt like there was more than ASD going on for her.
Ms K agreed, and I accept, that from the time she referred F to Ms L, she, the mother and Ms L communicated closely with each other; she said she had been kept informed about the disclosures that F had made and that she and Ms L had each seen the reports the other had written about F that were relevant to her treatment and that she and Ms L may occasionally have discussed F during their peer supervision sessions.
I accept Ms K’s evidence about her motivations in objecting to the subpoena that was served on her; I accept she objected after expressing concerns to the Independent Children's Lawyer about the impact on F’s privacy and confidentiality of her complying with the subpoena and being advised that she would need to file a formal objection. I accept that she advised the mother that she was going to file an objection; I accept that, when the mother told her that her psychologist had been subpoenaed, Ms K contacted her and told her that she was going to object to answering the subpoena and asked her if she had any guidelines for the language to be used; I accept Ms J then sent Ms K an outline of what could be used, which Ms K assumed she had produced. I also accept that Ms K contacted Ms L and told her that she intended to object to the subpoena and that she gave her reasons for that decision.

I accept Ms K’s refutation of the suggestion that she, Ms L and Ms J all worked together to produce the objection to subpoena that each ultimately filed. I also accept that another of her reasons for objecting to the subpoena was her belief that, if a final protection order had been made (as was the case here), it meant that there was evidence of the existence of domestic violence.
I also accept Ms K’s evidence to the effect that she did not think it was true to say that she and Ms L compared notes and worked with each other to assist the mother in this proceeding; I accept, as she did, that, in forming the opinions she has expressed (as noted in the Schedule), she relied on information conveyed to her by the mother and had read reports prepared by Ms L and the Department. I accept Ms K’s evidence that, whilst she was duty bound to question and ponder the veracity of the information provided to her by the mother in order to maintain her professional objectivity, she did not have any indication that the mother was lying when she provided the information that she did.
I accept Ms K’s denial of the suggestion that the content of her report to F’s paediatrician was deliberately biased against the father; I accept that she recounted what she had observed during F’s sessions with her. I also accept that, whilst aware of cases in this jurisdiction where, if a primary parent is so affected psychologically about the prospect of a child spending time with the other parent that it seriously impedes that primary parent’s parenting capacity, the court has, on occasion, decided that the child’s best interests will be met by not having any contact with the non-primary parent, she had not had any experience with such matters and had not had any discussion with the mother about scenarios like that.
I accept that Ms K is concerned, based on her observations of F (including her reaction when the father was mentioned during their sessions), that it would be detrimental to F’s mental health if she had any exposure to him, even indirectly; she said that she imagined that, if orders were made for X to spend time with the father, F would remain in a really heightened state and experience significant anxiety – she also said, based on her sessions with F, that it was very difficult for her, when in that heightened state, to engage in normal activities and, consequently, her progress in therapy was limited.
I accept that Ms K had not found F to be a child who becomes fixated on a particular idea or event or about a particular behaviour that she finds difficult to put behind her.
I accept Ms K’s evidence that she did not:
(a)author her correspondence (as referred to in the Schedule) in such a way as to make it look bad for the father; or
(b)speak with the mother to assist her with her evidence for these proceedings; or
(c)join with the mother to plan to have F make the allegations that she has about the father (as noted in the Schedule); or
(d)have any discussion with the mother to assist her to have F make the allegations that she has about the father (as noted in the Schedule).
I am not persuaded that Ms K conspired with the mother to coach F to make false accusations about the father’s conduct – either at all or in furtherance of what was described on behalf of the father as the mother’s plan to exclude him from X’s life.
As set out in detail in the Schedule, Ms L (the clinical psychologist to whom Ms K referred F) provided a relatively detailed report about F’s engagement with her as at August 2022; she also provided, in that report, her opinion that:
(a)F had been exposed to situations that had made her physically and emotionally unsafe and, as a result, had developed an outward appearance of oppositional and defiant behaviour to protect herself, her mother and X from further harm; and
(b)as long as F believed that there was danger “out there”, she was likely to continue to react in a defensive/protective manner.
Ms L’s evidence at the trial included, in essence, that:
(a)the majority of her work over the previous eight or nine years had been in working with sexual abuse, either with children or with adult victims of childhood sexual abuse; and
(b)F had presented to her as someone who was highly traumatised and with a range of severe behavioural issues that she could not explain in any way other than trauma; and
(c)based on the reports made to her by F and the things she has told her in their sessions and the mother’s reports about F’s behaviours, F views the father as very scary and intimidating and is very scared of him; and
(d)whilst her role is not to determine the truth, she had no reason not to believe what F had told her and, I infer, this has influenced the way in which she has carried out her job to support F clinically and to assist her to deal with the symptoms with which she has presented; and
(e)whilst she completely accepted that children can reveal, misinterpret and read things in a certain way, she had no reason, based on the behaviours F had shown her, to doubt that what F has told her is her truth; and
(f)she thought that she would have been able to identify if the mother had coached F to make the allegations to her that she had because she considered that, whilst a child (or even an adult) can be coached to say certain things, it is very hard to coach a child to manifest certain behaviour and expression at the time they are saying whatever they say – she said that being terrified and being petrified are very hard emotions to fake; and
(g)she did not find it unusual that F made the disclosures to her that she did in April 2022 despite not having made disclosures to Ms K (whom she had been seeing since November 2019) because she had had clients whom she had been seeing for two years before they told her anything; and
(h)when she made the disclosures that she did:
(i)F was very distressed and avoidant and looked as if she did not want to disclose – she huddled in the corner of the couch with her knees against her chest and grabbed a pillow to cover her face; she was also very stressed and upset and crying and Ms L recalled writing “shame” in her notes as she said it was very common for children to tend to blame themselves; and
(ii)F did not present to her as having been coached because she saw too much fear, was clenching her fist and jaw and did not want to engage.
(i)she considered that F very strongly holds the view that the father is intimidating and scary and that this is fixed in the sense that she has no new information to go on, but is not rigid in the sense that she is holding on to that view for the sake of holding on to it because she continued to disclose bits and pieces of information – which suggested to her that F was not stuck in a loop; and
(j)based on F’s presentation to her, the child has a genuine fear of the father; and
(k)she thought that orders for X to spend time with the father would send F “further down the hill” (which I took to mean, would cause her to deteriorate) – she said F was very traumatised and that, if she believed what she said was true, she could not predict what would happen because her behaviour was so extreme and out of control already that there was the possibility that F could even harm herself.
I accept Ms D’s evidence to the effect that, during her interview of F, she saw no evidence at all that F had been coached to make the comments to her that she did or that she had been the subject of parental alienation; I also accept her evidence that her assessment was that F’s recounting to her was genuine and a reflection of her lived experiences.
The sexual risk assessment report prepared by Mr E
I consider that the cross-examination of Mr E by Counsel for the mother established that:
(a)because the assessment tool used by Mr E as the basis for his report relates in part to mental health issues, the father’s failure to accurately describe his mental health history caused Mr E some concern about his assessment generally; and
(b)the father’s failure to provide information relevant to Mr E’s assessment has adversely affected the reliability of his assessment.
Further discussion and conclusions
When cross-examined about the allegations that he had touched F’s “wee”, the father accepted the suggestion that she had been consistent with the idea that he had touched her wee on the outside of her clothing and that she had been consistent in saying that he touched her underneath her clothing.
I think there is much in the submission made by Counsel for the mother to the effect that, because of the accumulation or coalescence of:
(a)F’s sexual abuse allegations and presentation; and
(b)F’s allegations about being physically and emotionally abused by the father; and
(c)the mother’s evidence of the father’s conduct, which clearly constituted family violence; and
(d)the father’s unaddressed mental health and anger issues, failure to take any responsibility for any of his conduct and complete absence of credibility,
the Court would be persuaded that X would be at an unacceptable risk of harm if she spent time with the father.
Whilst not limited in the submissions to refer only to unsupervised time, I consider that the accumulation of these matters is such as to persuade me that X would be at an unacceptable risk of harm if she was to spend unsupervised time with the father.
The father: his involvement in X’s life; his capacity to meet X’s emotional, intellectual and other needs; his attitude to X and to the responsibilities of parenthood[24]
[24] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC(3)(b), (c), (ca), (f), (i) and (m).
I note that Ms D commented upon the father’s denials, victim-blaming and shifting of responsibility onto the mother; I also accept that his changing narrative caused her to question the reliability of the information provided and the credibility of the history he gave her. As already noted, Ms D was right to question the father’s truthfulness.
The father’s unwillingness – or inability – to be forthright about matters of his personal history and previous mental health struggles during his engagements with the various experts engaged for these proceedings has, I accept, done little but bolster the mother’s view about his level of insight into these issues. The same can be concluded about his evidence to the effect that he considered himself to have no reason to engage with therapeutic supports to address these issues.
The father’s evidence about how he approached the recommendations made in Ms D’s report included that:
(a)he had done an online course and an online anger management course; and
(b)he had attended upon his psychologist (Mr H) on five occasions with the last occurring in March 2023; and
(c)he made inquiries about the “Men’s Behavioural Change” programme but was told, on basis of the information he provided, that he did not fit the profile for the course – and so has not completed it; and
(d)he thought that he did not need counselling for anger management and did not need to participate in or attend any behavioural change programme.
Ms D agreed that this evidence further supported her assessment of the father’s absence of insight into his own functioning and the need for any change in his behaviours; she also agreed that it gave rise to the concern that, particularly when under stress, the father may again descend into episodes of mental ill health and experience depression and anxiety.
I accept the thrust of the submission made by Counsel for the mother to the effect that the father has never parented a child; I accept that he has previously rejected invitations to become part of G’s life. I suspect that, even absent F’s disclosures to her, the absence of any real experience as a parent has done little to reassure the mother about the father’s capacity to care safely for X. The manner in which the father has chosen to approach recommendations made by Ms D also suggests that he is unlikely in the future to adopt suggestions made for the purpose of assisting him to develop the skills necessary to care for a child.
Whilst I accept generally the mother’s evidence about the father’s drug and alcohol use, mental health issues and associated behaviours (which likely included being quicker to anger, more erratic and unpredictable) during their cohabitation, I also accept that this did not prevent her from allowing F to spend time with him after the breakdown of the relationship – albeit that this situation persisted for only a limited duration; I also accept, as the mother’s communications (referred to in the Schedule) make clear, that, despite these behaviours, she was prepared for him to have an ongoing relationship with X, albeit one that would accommodate their time together progressing in the manner she thought appropriate.
The mother’s beliefs and the impact on her functioning generally if orders for X to spend time with the father were made
The mother’s evidence included that she “1000” per cent believed that F had been inappropriately touched by the father and that she “1000” per cent believed her daughter when it came to the allegations she had made against him. She also said that she believed the father had ruined F’s life and had taken away her childhood and, consequently, the thought of him having any contact with X was terrifying to her. I accept this evidence.
The mother’s evidence when cross-examined included that she was unsure if the father had had penetrative sex with F as the child had not said that he put his fingers up her vagina – although she also said she thought that more would come out as F was only just starting to discuss things that had happened and she could not say what her daughter would say in the future about what had happened. The maternal grandmother’s evidence to the effect that she thought F still had secrets about which she had not spoken certainly suggests that she joins with the mother in the view that it is likely that F may well, in the future, provide more information about the father’s conduct toward her.
The mother also said that she thought that the father would abuse X as well because he had classed F as his step-daughter and so she queried the difference between the children; she said that, based on everything that she had dealt with in the previous few years watching F make her allegations, she believed that the term “paedophile” is a term that would be used to describe the father. She also said she thought that the father was definitely capable of hurting her and her family. Nothing in the other aspects of the evidence suggests that the mother was lying when she gave this evidence.
The mother’s evidence included that if orders were made for X to spend time with the father, she would comply with them. She said, in essence, that she thought it would be a very long and difficult road in relation to managing F’s likely reaction, but she had sourced psychologists to assist and had the support of her friends and family whom she would call on as needed and would do all that she could to try and keep F happy; she also said, in essence, that she thought that managing F’s concerns about X in such a scenario would be the most difficult thing she had ever encountered – she did not know how it would go and could not predict how F would react to learning that X was going to spend time with the father. She also said that she would seek professional assistance because she thought the family would need it as it would be an extremely confronting and difficult time for them and that coping with such a scenario would be very difficult for her. She also said she thought she would experience physical symptoms of anxiety – she said, in essence, that thoughts such as whether X was safe would be on her mind all the time and questions like “Am I picking between my two biological children? Can safety be provided for them? What happens if there is a [B Contact Centre] visit? How do I promise [F] that she’s [X] safe because I’m not there?” go through her head.
I accept that, if X was in the father’s company, the mother would worry about whether she was safe and that thoughts such as those set out above would infiltrate her mind.
The likely effect on X of any changes in her circumstances, including if the orders sought by the father are made[25]
[25] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC(3)(d).
The father accepted, when cross-examined, that:
(a)F has said those things about him recorded in the material before the Court – although his evidence later was that he did not accept that she had told the mother any of the things that the mother said she had; and
(b)F has an adverse and wholly negative view of him and any mention of his name causes her to become extremely dysregulated in her behaviours; and
(c)Ms K must be right in a sense when she said, in November 2022, that she believed that, if X commenced regular supervised visits with him, this would lead to a decline in F’s mental and emotional health and would put her at heightened risk of physical harm – although he later said that he did not accept Ms K’s assertion that F’s behaviour would deteriorate if he was introduced into X’s life; and
(d)F is traumatised and experiences heightened emotions – although he said that this was not causally related to anything he had done; and
(e)him being introduced into X’s life would impact – I infer, adversely – the close relationship between X and F; and
(f)F’s emotional and behavioural dysregulation spills over into the mother’s care of her.
Whilst he did not accept that F’s dysregulation would make it harder for the mother to care for X, such response is relevant only because of its illumination of the deficiencies in the father’s current parenting capacity and insight that have been adverted to by Ms D and which seem likely to have provided the impetus for her recommendation about his engagement in various parenting courses.
I am easily persuaded that, if orders were made for X to spend time with the father in any way, she will be required to endure further exposure to F’s dysregulated behaviours within her home; it is also inevitable that the mother’s parenting of her will be adversely impacted in some way because she will be required to manage her own reactions to such an arrangements, as well as to deal with F’s highly likely regression.
I am also easily persuaded that if X stared to spend time with the father, it is highly likely that, over time, she would be exposed, directly or indirectly, to his views of the mother which include that: she has coached F to make the allegations that she has about him; she has gaslighted F; she has manufactured evidence against him; she has used F as a weapon against him because she has sought power and control; she had sought the orders that she did in these proceedings because she wanted to maximise the parenting payments that she would receive from the government and was motivated by money; and her relationship with him was all a ploy to get a child and he was the person she chose to manipulate to get a child from (and he was nothing more than a sperm donor).
A further appreciation of the father’s overarching attitude toward the mother – an attitude to which it is highly likely X would be exposed if spending time with him – can be gleaned from the following aspects of his evidence:
(a)when it was suggested to him that the mother had been accommodating of him visiting X in circumstances where he knew she had had a difficult pregnancy, he said “I was told she had a difficult pregnancy, yes.”; when it was suggested that he did not accept that she had had a difficult pregnancy, he said “No different – no more difficult than other people I’ve known that have been pregnant”. This evidence seems to me to be at odds with the mother’s evidence about her pregnancy; it also seems to me to be a demonstration of his view, as expressed to Ms D, that the mother is a person who lies constantly, exaggerates, fabricates and dramatizes to make something sound more exciting – “it’s part of her personality”; and
(b)when asked if he thought the mother had been a good mother to F during their relationship, he said “for the most part, yes” but then said, when asked what bad traits he had seen her evidence, that he did not think she evidenced any and accepted that, from what he had seen, she had been a good mother to X; and
(c)he was concerned to learn that the mother had reached out to G’s mother to see if G was interested in establishing a relationship with X (who is his half-sister) and thought that, whilst he supported her attempts to create the opportunity for some kind of relationship between the children, he was concerned about the timing of her actions and thought there was some kind of conspiracy instigated by her; and
(d)he had persisted in his application for parenting orders to “protect [X]” from the mother and the environment to which she was being exposed whilst living with the mother – an environment which was one of manipulation and coercion; and
(e)he thought that, as well as being a “sociopath”, the mother had borderline personality disorder and was a narcissist and continued to present with serious mental health issues; and
(f)he believed the mother had deliberately alienated F from him and, in essence, nothing he had done during the relationship, or after it ended, contributed to F’s comments to others about him and her attitude toward him; and
(g)he agreed that he completely distrusted the mother and that he really had nothing good to say about her; and
(h)he considers that F did not say any of the things about him to the mother that the mother reported her as having said and said that the mother invented and concocted them and implanted these thoughts into F’s head.

Late October 2022 According to Ms L’s notes[283], F was reported to have a urinary tract infection at the time, which was being treated with natural remedies; she noted the Department had confirmed harm to F; she also noted reports of behavioural regression including wanting more cuddles, being clingy, sleeping on a mattress in the mother’s room, wanting the mother to wipe her bottom, nightly nightmares and there being cameras outside the house; further, she had been highly defiant (worse with the grandmother) and had said that the abuse had happened daily.
The notes also include the assertion of there being re-traumatisation because of the ongoing threat to X; F was said to be safe in bed with the mother or at school, but otherwise to be on edge and had asked why her mother did not save her.

Late October 2022 The father was interviewed by Mr E, a psychologist, for the preparation of a sexual risk assessment.

Early November 2022 According to Ms J’s notes of the mother’s session[284], the mother spoke about her recent break-up with her partner and his response; she also spoke about the ongoing impact on F of the sexual abuse.

Mid-November 2022 I accept that, in the Mental Health Care Plan Review[285] she authored, Ms J advised the mother’s referring GP, amongst other things, that:
after her intake session in September 2022, the mother had attended four of six sessions between September 2022 and November 2022; and
the intervention to date had included: psychological-education about domestic abuse, trauma and anxiety; the start of CBT to address emotional regulation; and the start of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR); and
the mother had engaged and responded well to the therapeutic intervention; and
it would benefit the mother to be able to access additional sessions so they could complete the CBT and EMDR to address her stress symptoms related to domestic abuse in the hope that this would enable her to heal and better regulate the impact of the same on her health.

Mid-November 2022 According to Ms J’s notes of the mother’s session[286], they worked on the mother’s memory of the father smirking after a bike ride with F after abusing her.
In a later session (undated)[287], they spoke about the court and the mother reported feeling very supported by friends and family; she also said she had been verbally abused by one of the father’s friends (who said “die bitch; you’re going to die bitch”) at a local shopping centre – she reported having a panic attack and then feeling very down about being in a community where she was targeted.

Mid-November 2022 According to Ms K’s notes of F’s session,[288] the mother reported that F was very angry and defiant toward her and the maternal grandmother; she said the child was triggered by anything out of her control, her nightmares had returned and she was sleeping with the mother; she could not say the father’s name and said things like “Can’t get him out of my head and he tells me to do it” – referring to her hitting her grandmother in the face.
The mother also reported that, when away from Region EE, F was a different child and was relaxed, not defiant, felt safe and wanted to go out; however, in Region EE she did not feel safe and did not want to go anywhere. The mother said F was angry at her and the maternal grandmother because they did not protect her and she was worried that the police would not believe her; the mother reported that there was an interim hearing in Brisbane on 22 December and the father had asked for two hours weekly supervised visits and then 50/50 and she had put in for no contact until after court; the mother reported that F filmed herself pretending to harm herself; she said F did not want to feel anything (not even positive feelings) and, whilst she apologised for her behaviour, she then did it again.
Ms K noted that F was extremely resistant to engaging in therapy – as soon as “feelings” were mentioned, she shut down, growled and sighed and demonstrated increased anger; the therapist noted that she was concerned that if she pushed things, F would have a meltdown. Ms K also opined that it seemed as though F was in a “constant state of fight/flight and cannot process/talk/think about anything to do with emotions/behaviour/what has happened.”

Mid-November 2022 The mother emailed Ms K and Ms L[289] to provide them with a copy of the “Case Consult” document (Behaviour Mapping from “Walking with Dads”/Child Safety) that she had received because it included some of F’s memories that triggered her. The mother also advised that F currently did not want “any feelings” because she was triggering constantly to the point where the father’s name could not be said – her anger had increased as she felt that he “ruined my life”. The mother said that, over the weekend, F had a big cry and told her some things he did so that she could understand why she acted as she did – matters which the mother said she could discuss in person with them. She also advised that she had an appointment with Dr R (the paediatrician) in two weeks to discuss F’s medication.

Late November 2022 I accept that Ms K authored a “To whom it may concern” report[290] in which she said, amongst other things, that:
she had been asked to provide a letter outlining her professional opinion regarding the potential impact on F if X was to commence supervised visits with her father; and
she had been working with F in her role as a clinical psychologist since November 2019; and
F continued to demonstrate many behaviours which suggested she was in a constantly heightened, 'fight or flight' state – these included regular nightmares, stating that she doesn't feel safe, increased defiance and oppositional behaviours and being easily triggered by anything outside of her control; and
she had seen F react very strongly and negatively to any mention of the father's name – after her attempts to discuss any emotions or behaviours associated with the father, F immediately became very angry, regressed to the use of non-verbal communication only (e.g., grunting and growling), and would try to hide herself away (e.g., tries to sit under the desk or table in the clinic room); and
given F's heightened state and strong negative reactions to any reminders of the father, she had serious concerns for the child’s emotional and mental wellbeing if X was to start supervised visits with the father; and
F had a lot of emotions to process around her disclosures – she would be unable to do this if she was continuously being triggered by ongoing exposure (even indirect exposure) to the person (the father) and situation that she deemed unsafe; and
whilst F had not explicitly expressed any suicidal ideation, the video recording of her pretending to harm herself (which the therapist had seen) highlighted the child’s significant distress and the need to prevent her mental health from deteriorating even further; and
she believed that X starting to spend regular supervised visits with the father would lead to a decline in F's mental and emotional health and would place her at heightened risk of physical harm; and
she did not believe that withholding the truth from F about potential visits between the father and X was a viable option because it was essential that F continued to feel that she could trust the important adults in her life.

Late November 2022 Ms L noted that F brought a home-made gift to their session[291]; someone in the session said that they were proud of F for speaking up at/about the court report - which caused the therapist to say that she encouraged always speaking the truth.

Early December 2022 According to the P Medical Centre records[292], F presented with a suspected urinary tract infection; the mother reported that she had noticed symptoms over the previous 24 hours although F was not systemically unwell.

Mid-December 2022 Ms K noted that F discussed that she had “secrets”, some of which were about the father, some about school and some about home; she said that if she told anyone, it would make her mother “sad” and Ms K “shocked”.[293]

Mid-December 2022 I accept that Ms J authored correspondence[294] in which she said, in essence, that:
the mother had sought support for the impact of the father’s physical, emotional, psychological and sexual abuse against her during their two year relationship and after their separation and the impact of sexual abuse disclosures made by F earlier in 2022; and
the trauma impact on the mother had been compounded by the protracted legal dispute and the possibility that the court may support the father spending time with X despite F’s discloses of being physically and sexually abused by him having been substantiated by the Department; and
the mother had realistic fears about the psychological and emotional impact on F of X spending time with the father and was concerned about the potential physical, psychological and emotional safety of X in such a scenario; and
the comments made by the father and his legal representative about the mother and her family during the course of the proceedings had also had a negative impact on the mother; and
the mother had engaged well with the therapeutic process she had demonstrated good self-reflective abilities in relation to her relationship with her children and supports, had displayed clear and cohesive communication (including when distressed) and had been able to moderate her emotional reactions so as to be able to remain psychologically present during the sessions; and
the mother’s responses to the assessment she administered were indicative of the likely presence of PTSD which evidenced the ongoing impact of the abuse on the mother’s physical, emotional and psychological wellbeing; and
any decision for X to have contact with the father would have detrimental and long-lasting negative psychological and emotional impacts on the mother.

Late December 2022 Ms L noted that, after F had a breakdown, she appeared to believe the father was there saying, “he’s here, he’s hurting me. Stop it!” The therapist was informed by the mother that F cried for two hours at home and hid under a blanket. F also expressed: “maybe I miss him. He told me he hated me, but then he did those bad things and said he hates me. I just want a dad”.
The notes include that F had been asking why the mother did not protect her and why the police did not do anything.[295]

Late December 2022 According to the P Medical Centre records[296], F looked well on attendance; they queried the resolution of the urinary tract infection and noted that she did not have symptoms but, on question, was worried it had not cleared.

New Year 2023 The mother’s evidence included that during a discussion about eating ice-cream with a spoon, F became angry and said “you know what I mean; lick, lick lick” before throwing her ice-cream down on the table and picking at the paint.

Early 2023 The father said he completed the Parenting After Separation, Breaking the Cycle of Conflict and the Anger Management Courses.[297]

Early February 2023 According to Ms K’s notes of F’s session,[298] F was calm and engaged during the session.

Late February 2023 Ms L’s notes of the parent session she had with the mother[299] included that the mother told her that the matter would go to trial – she broke down and was stressed and fearful for F’s safety. She also said F was sleeping in her bed, stressed, biting her nails, avoiding showers, having tantrums and screaming when she saw certain motor vehicles; she said she would duck to the ground, was angry and having nightmares. The mother reported that she felt hypervigilant, sweated when she went into the shops, was keeping the children close to her and was paranoid and worried that the father would take her children and kidnap X – they were living with the grandparents, who were not on the same page as she was in relation to parenting and who undermined her.

February/March 2023 The mother asserted that F was learning the human anatomy in class; when they were discussing the correct terms and what she found most interesting about the human body, F said "hey mum, why do some people have 2 or 3 balls?" The mother explained to F that men only have two balls; F turned and said “no, [Mr Fletcher] had 3 balls, I felt them” – the mother was taken back and stopped the conversation. [300]

Early March 2023 According to Ms J’s notes of the mother’s session[301], they spoke about the father’s appeal and its impact on her and F; the therapist noted that the mother presented as cohesive and articulate, with sound thought process and comprehension; she showed appropriate affect in relation to F’s disclosed trauma, the ongoing domestic violence and systems abuse she was experiencing as a result of the father’s behaviour.

Early March 2023 According to Ms K’s notes of F’s session,[302] the mother reported that F loved it when she was given a “reward” but screamed and was rude when she was given a “consequence”; she reported that F had regressed and could not wipe after toileting; she also told the therapist that a psychic had said in front of F that “you’re in danger and he’s out for revenge” - F was then on the floor in a mess, was scared and did not feel safe. The mother also advised that school had been going well and that F had a good group of friends.
Ms K noted that, when she tried to discuss the nervous system with F, she was very resistant – she denied that the mother had to ask her multiple times to do things or there were consequences (in contrast to what the mother told the therapist); they discussed that F was in control of whether there were consequences for her or not, based on her behaviours.

Early March 2023 According to Ms J’s notes of the mother’s session[303], they addressed the mother’s worst court memories - which included seeing the father at the interim hearing, when he blocked the door at the domestic violence court and threatened her and when he and a friend blocked her at the court carpark.

Mid-March 2023 I accept that Mr H (a psychologist) authored a report[304] about the father’s progress and that the same included, in essence, that:
the father had first attended in October 2022 to seek support for grief and loss issues arising from him being denied access to X and consistent with recommendations made by the Independent Children's Lawyer; and
the father had been prescribed medicinal cannabis to assist with pain management and sleep arising from a chronic injury and, since January 2023, had significantly reduced his use of the same to once per week on average – he was also conscious of the importance of not relying on alcohol to self-medicate and typically limited his consumption to a few alcoholic drinks on weekends with friends; and
the father reported having been respectful and compliant with the recommendations of the court and had recently completed an online anger management course – which he had said was challenging because he did not outwardly express anger and found it hard to relate to the subject matter, activities and questions posed in the course; and
the father presented as a calm natured person who was aware and accepting of his strengths and weaknesses: he was shocked and saddened the heinous and false accusations of sexual and physical abuse made against him and despaired about his absence of time with X – despite his sadness and frustration, he had demonstrated remarkable tolerance and goodwill towards the mother and had said that he was committed to maintaining an open and transparent relationship with her so they could co-operate in X’s best interests; and
the father had said he had been surprised and sadden by the allegations of threatening, aggressive and rude behaviours and noted there was an absence of evidence of the allegations about his reportedly negative, threating or aggressive communication toward the mother – he reported having completed online courses (Parenting after Separation; Breaking the cycle of conflict; Anger management) despite having no history of aggressive and inappropriate behaviours and regarded this as a demonstration of his commitment and willingness to work to regain and maintain access to X; and
the father had said that, despite two years of having a positive and supportive relationship with F, the mother had maligned him and alienated him to the extent that she had no positive memories of him – he also said F had been coached to make the unsubstantiated allegations against him; and
the father had said that, despite feeling that the protection order against him was unfair, unwarranted, contrived and vexatious, he was still willing to work with the mother to ensure that X had the right to equal access to both of her parents.

Mid-March 2023 According to Ms L’s notes[305] of her session with F, the child was excited about an upcoming event; they spoke about sleep and nightmares.

Late March 2022 According to Ms J’s notes of the mother’s session[306], the mother demonstrated significant distress during their work around the recent court appearance, but showed sound ability to use calming and grounding strategies - she presented with sound self-reflective capabilities and was cohesive and consistent in her account of her experiences.
The therapist noted that the mother reported that when she was recently in a store with the children, an unknown man approached them and said words to the effect of “your days are numbered [Ms Henderson]” in a menacing tone; she said she had felt very intimidated and fearful and F had been distressed and crying and had tried to hide whilst saying that the father was there to get her. The mother also reported that the stranger had followed her out of the store. Given this information, Ms J worked with the mother to develop a safety plan.

March 2023 The maternal grandmother said she was reading to F at bedtime and told her that she was going to have a wonderful life; F responded with “Don’t you know what’s happened to me?” and the grandmother said words to the effect that she did not know and was sorry about that, but they were there to love and support her and she would grow from this and life would get better. [307]

April 2023 The mother’s evidence included that one afternoon after school, F left playing with her and X and went to her bedroom, where she was later found crying; when asked why she was upset, she said "I hate that I am sad all the time because of him…want him out of my head..."; when asked if there was anything the mother could do to get those thoughts out of her head, F said “No”. The mother said she asked F to repeat things that made her happy and to focus on them.

Mid-April 2023 Ms L noted that F said, “I have all this anger in me… it’s not me when I do it”.[308] There is a record of severe nightmares and her screaming in her sleep; there is also a report that F had choked her mother and grandmother; the child was said to switch between anger and being angelic and the therapist recorded that she saw F’s mood swings play out.

Mid-April 2023 According to Ms J’s notes of the mother’s session[309], they spoke about parenting a child with trauma.

Mid-April 2023 The mother asserted that, while she was getting F dressed for school after the Easter holidays, the child complained that her school shirt collar was too tight; when asked why she felt uncomfortable with collars, F said "because they choke me like he did"; when the mother asked her how he choked her, F came face to face with her, put her hands around her mother’s neck, squeezed and said “See, it hurts!”; after the mother told her that no one was allowed to touch her body and not allowed to cause pain, F told her that "when I was naughty he used a belt once too"; when asked how tight, F said he would wrap it around her neck (but not tight) and would say he would tighten it if she was naughty. The mother said F told her that she would do what he asked because he was scary; when asked if anyone else had ever smacked or hurt her, she said “No.”

Late April 2023 According to Ms L’s notes[310] of her parent session with the mother, the mother reported F had regressed in her behaviours: she was aggressive; showed no remorse; had been telling lies and big stories, as well as small lies that were irrelevant; avoided touching her private parts and did not wipe her bottom (although she used to, but this had changed in November 2020 to February 2021); was very defiant; and was falling behind at school.

Late April 2023 The mother emailed Ms L[311] and advised her that F had had a tantrum, had locked her outside and pushed her over and called her names because she had not taken her to the basketball hoops – even thought she had not said that she would. The mother said she had captured some of it on camera and thought she would send it to the therapist so that she could hear how they spoke to each other and so that they could work on this; she said F had said she would run away if the mother told Ms L about what had happened.

Late April 2023 According to Ms J’s notes of the mother’s session[312], they discussed how F had reacted when she made a disclosure to her mother; they also spoke about trauma hyper-arousal and hypervigilance and the “anxiety contagion” effect.

Late April 2023 Ms K emailed Ms L[313] to advise, amongst other things, that: she had done a couple of therapy sessions at home with F and administered a cognitive assessment test to her whilst she was living with the maternal grandparents; she noticed the maternal grandmother was very firm with F (probably more so than the mother); she said she had seen hyper-reaction and constant fight/flight from F a lot (both at home and in the clinic) and felt this had become progressively worse (she guessed because it was kind of working for F). Ms K also said that, whilst the mother had tried to give F consequences for her behaviours, she had become so “scared” of F’s reaction to consequences that she now avoided that – which F was clearly aware of and which was a cycle that needed to be broken.
Ms K suggested that Ms L speak with the mother and tell her that, even if some of F’s behaviour was trauma-related, it was still not okay for her to hit, scream and speak rudely. She said that, whilst F previously engaged with a reward-based programme, this seemed to last for a limited time only before going out the window; she also said that any plan needed to be simple for the mother to implement and that she needed back-up from the maternal grandparents.

Early May 2023 I accept that Dr R informed that F had been assessed by him and a child psychologist and found to meet DSM-V criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder, ADHD, and Anxiety.[314]

Early May 2023 According to Ms L’s notes of her home visit,[315] F was okay when she arrived, but later became extremely angry and dysregulated; the therapist assessed the maternal grandfather as avoidant of conflict, whilst the maternal grandmother was supportive and realistic (she was aware that she sometimes undermined the mother and at other times backed her up).

Early May 2023 The mother emailed Ms L[316] to advise her of the two goals she had chosen for F for the week – namely, to have dinner with the whole family at 5.30 pm with no electronic devices and 15 minutes of quality time with F before bed after X was settled and bedtime care routine completed. She said these were to help F to sleep on her own and to help her feel connected and part of a loving, nurturing environment.
Ms L replied[317] to advise that she thought the goals looked great; she provided some additional input and suggestions, including that a tantrum from F would mean that she would miss out on the activity; she emphasized the mother should act as the parent and convey to F that she was the one who set the boundaries.

Early May 2023 According to Ms L’s notes[318] of the Zoom session, the mother advised that the paediatric review had gone okay and that F was going to be trialled on medication; they discussed picking battles and the therapist noted that F had not gone to school that week as the mother reported that she had “won”; there was discussion about the mother imposing boundaries, praising F and giving her limited choices – in essence, treating her as a much younger child.

Mid-May 2023 The mother’s evidence included that she contacted Ms O (the father’s former partner) via Facebook messenger, introduced herself and let her know that G had a half-sister, X. The mother also said, amongst other things, that, during their conversation, Ms O said:[319]
G often asked questions about the father and his family; and
when she was pregnant, Ms O invited the father to be a part of the child's life, but he had offered to meet half the costs of an abortion; and
she and her mother had reached out to the father on multiple occasions since G was born but he was not interested in a relationship with G; and
she had also attempted to contact the paternal grandmother but had not received a reply.
I accept the mother agreed that Ms O could tell G that he had a half-sister.

Mid-May 2023 According to the P Medical Centre records[320], F had a consultation with a dietician as she was concerned about her weight gain.

Mid-May 2023 The mother emailed Ms K and advised, amongst other things, that she was reducing F’s medication and was going to investigate going down the “natural path” for F as the medication was not working for her; she said she had not trialled another medication as yet because she was giving F’s body a break – they had had major school refusal and meltdowns “24/7” over sensory clothes, food, tone of voice; she had applied to the NDIS for a plan review as she had run out of funds and it was not due until November and, once she sorted this out, she would contact her for an appointment as she thought it would be beneficial.
Ms K responded to the mother that she thought exploring the natural path seemed like a good option for F; she said lots of parents had told her that medication could aggravate and make things worse and she was positive about the mother’s goal of having quality family time in the evenings.[321]

Late May 2023 According to Ms L’s notes of her home visit[322], F was hyper-aroused; the notes included that there were no clear rules, expectations or consequences (visual or audible): F got what she wanted and the adults placated her and avoided conflict; F spoke loudly and disrespectfully and was rude and grumpy; she moaned, scratched, threw things, was argumentative, defiant and oppositional – she was also hyper-focused on how much she had, what she could do and about being perceived as truthful.
The therapist noted the maternal grandmother was helpful and attentive and took up a parental role – however, whilst she included F, she then made passive-aggressive remarks to her, which made the therapist wonder if she was resentful.
Ms L noted that it was unclear which of the adults was in charge in relation to F - the mother was sharp, kind, attentive and very apologetic (and she wondered if she was embarrassed); X was very adaptable, highly attuned, obedient, strongly attached to the mother, social, upset when F was angry and looked to her mother for guidance.

June 2023 The mother’s evidence included that she was told by the mother of one of F’s friends that, when F was at the shops with her, the father's friend called out “hey [F]” to get her attention and then spat at her feet as he walked past.

Early June 2023 According to the P Medical Centre records[323], the mother reported concerns about F – she said that there had been rapid and dramatic change to her behaviour “overnight” (three weeks ago), that she had been physically violent in the home and had engaged in a dangerous behaviour that morning – she wanted F to have brain scans to rule out any physical anomalies.
When a practice nurse spoke with her by phone, the mother advised that she had spoken with a psychologist after the episode the day before and that person had suggested scans be done; the mother was at her wits’ end and extremely concerned for the whole family’s safety: she reported that F had pulled on the steering wheel whilst she was driving and they almost crashed; she said F was continually throwing crockery and beating her – she said she had previously tried medications prescribed by the paediatrician which just hyped F up more.
The doctor recorded that the information provided included that F’s return to school after Easter triggered behavioural changes (reduced medication had been discussed with psychologist): F had been physically aggressive and had been spitting at and punching adults (although not her siter or her grandfather); she used foul language, made comments like “I should be dead” and there had been some evidence of self-ham; she was emotionally and physically bullying toward the mother.
The notes also include that “suggestive of learnt behaviours from the father [Mr Fletcher]”.

Early June 2023 The mother’s evidence included that, after she saw the father at a local shopping centre, F broke down sobbing and said, “I hate my life, I hate what he’s done to me; why can’t we just move”.[324]

Early June 2023 According to Ms L’s notes of her parent session with the mother (conducted by phone),[325] the mother reported being at breaking point; she said F had choked her and said “now you know what its like to be the father”; the notes include that there was no discipline but positive reinforcement; the mother reported that her review of F’s NDIS plan had been accepted; she also reported that F had been showing severe aggression, defiance, school refusal – she had held a dangerous object at the mother.
The notes include the report that F had seen the father at a local shopping centre on the previous Tuesday and had broken down sobbing – she had said that she hated her life, that she hated what he had done to her and she had asked why they could not just move; the mother was highly stressed about the upcoming hearing.

Mid-June 2023 The mother’s evidence included that when she met with Ms O in person in Region EE, Ms O told her that G had suffered emotional trauma and abandonment issues as a result of the father’s choices and that she had suffered financial hardship as a result of receiving no financial support from the father.[326]

Late June 2023 Ms J authored a report in which she outlined, in addition to matters already discussed earlier in this chronology, that, in essence:
the mother’s trauma presentation had been further “exasperated”(sic) by the possibility that the court may support the father having access to X despite F’s disclosures of being physically and sexually abused by the father having been substantiated by the Department and her realistic fears about the psychological and emotional impact this would have on F; and
the comments made by or on behalf of the father during these proceedings about the mother’s functioning has had a negative effect on her; and
the mother had engaged well in the therapeutic process, demonstrated good self-reflective abilities, displayed clear and cohesive communication, and had moderated her emotional reactions despite appearing physically exhausted; and
the results of the mother’s responses to the administered testing were indicative of the likely presence of post-traumatic stress disorder; and
her opinion was that any decision for X to have contact with the father would have a detrimental and long lasting negative psychological and emotional impact on the mother as this would require her to be exposed in an ongoing way to the perpetrator of harm against her and her worries about X’s safety.

[33]Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 3; Affidavit of the father filed 26 June 2023, paragraph 3.
[34]          Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 2.
[35]          Affidavit of the father filed 26 June 2023, paragraph 23.
[36]          Exhibit 11, p 241.
[37]          Exhibit 11, p 241.
[38]          Exhibit 11, p 241.
[39]Affidavit of Ms D filed 18 September 2022, paragraph 7; Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 4; Affidavit of the father filed 26 June 2023, paragraph 10.
[40]          Exhibit 11, pp 114 to 117.
[41]          Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 35.
[42]          Affidavit of the father filed 26 June 2023, paragraph 97.
[43]          Exhibit 11, p 241.
[44]          Affidavit of the father filed 26 June 2023, paragraph 132.
[45]          Exhibit 11, p 240A.
[46]          Exhibit 11, pp 16-19.
[47]          Exhibit 11, pp 20-23.
[48]          Exhibit 11, p 26.
[49]Affidavit of Ms D filed 18 September 2022, paragraph 7; Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 4; Affidavit of the father filed 26 June 2023, paragraph 10.
[50]          Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 164.
[51]          Exhibit 11, p 27.
[52]          Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 35.
[53]          Exhibit 11, p 28.
[54]          Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraphs 225 – 227.
[55]          Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 178.
[56]          Affidavit of the father filed 27 June 2023, Exhibit “[MF]-45”.
[57]Exhibit 11, pp 29-30.
[58]          Exhibit 11, p 31.
[59]          Exhibit 11, p 240A.
[60]          Exhibit 11, pp 118 & 119.
[61]          Exhibit 11, p 32.
[62]          Exhibit 11, p 33.
[63]          Exhibit 11, pp 34-35.
[64]          Exhibit 11, p 36.
[65]          Affidavit of Ms S filed 26 June 2023, paragraphs 25-26.
[66]          Affidavit of the father filed 27 June 2023, Exhibit “[MF]-24”.
[67]          Exhibit 11, p 37.
[68]          Exhibit 11, p 38.
[69]          Exhibit 11, p 38A.
[70]          Exhibit 11, pp 88-91.
[71]          Exhibit 11, p 39.
[72]          Affidavit of the father filed 26 June 2023, paragraph 111.
[73]          Exhibit 11, p 40.
[74]          Exhibit 11, pp 41 & 42.
[75]          Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 63.
[76]          Exhibit 11, p 1.
[77]          Exhibit 11, pp 2 & 3.
[78]          Exhibit 11, pp 43 & 44.
[79]          Exhibit 11, p 45.
[80]          Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 64.
[81]          Exhibit 11, p 125.
[82]          Exhibit 11, p 46.
[83]          Exhibit 11, p 293.
[84]          Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 60.
[85]          Exhibit 11, p 47.
[86]          Exhibit 11, p 293.
[87]          Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 216.
[88]          Exhibit 11, p 4.
[89]          Affidavit of the father filed 26 June 2023, paragraph 115.
[90]          Independent Children’s Lawyer Tender Bundle, p 48.
[91]          Independent Children’s Lawyer Tender Bundle, p 49.
[92]          Exhibit 11, pp 48 & 49.
[93]          Exhibit 11, pp 92 & 93; pp 300 & 301.
[94]          Exhibit 11, p 126.
[95]          Exhibit 11, p 127.
[96]          Exhibit 11, pp 50 & 51; 293.
[97]          Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 57.
[98]          Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 58.
[99]          Affidavit of the father filed 26 June 2023, paragraph 28.
[100]        Affidavit of the father filed 26 June 2023, paragraph 29.
[101]        Affidavit of the father filed 26 June 2023, paragraph 30.
[102]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 219.
[103]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 220.
[104]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 223.
[105]        Affidavit of the father filed 27 June 2023, Exhibit “[MF]-25”.
[106]        Affidavit of the father filed 26 June 2023, paragraph 31.
[107]        Exhibit 11, pp 52 & 53.
[108]        Affidavit of the father filed 27 June 2023, Exhibit “[MF]-44”.
[109]        Affidavit of the father filed 26 June 2023, paragraph 163.
[110]        Affidavit of the father filed 27 June 2023, Exhibit “[MF]-11”.
[111]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 67.
[112]        Exhibit 11, pp 54 & 55.
[113]        Affidavit of the father filed 27 June 2023, Exhibit “[MF]-20”.
[114]Affidavit of Ms D filed 18 September 2022, paragraph 7; Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 4; Affidavit of the father filed 26 June 2023, paragraph 10.
[115]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 72.
[116]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 74.
[117]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 75.
[118]Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 78; Affidavit of the father filed 26 June 2023, paragraph 49; Affidavit of the father filed 27 June 2023, Exhibit “[MF]-5”.
[119]        Affidavit of the father filed 26 June 2023, paragraph 50.
[120]        Exhibit 11, p 6.
[121]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraphs 119 - 121.
[122]        Affidavit of the father filed 26 June 2023, paragraphs 137 - 141.
[123]        Exhibit 11, p 56.
[124]        Affidavit of the father filed 27 June 2023, Exhibit “[MF]-38”.
[125]        Exhibit 11, pages 396 – 401.
[126]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 80.
[127]        Exhibit 11, pp 396-401.
[128]        Affidavit of the father filed 27 June 2023, Exhibit “[MF]-8”.
[129]        Exhibit 11, pp 7 & 8.
[130]        Exhibit 11, p 14.
[131]        Exhibit 11, p 128.
[132]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 122.
[133]        Exhibit 11, pp 57; 293.
[134]        Exhibit 11, pp 58; 293.
[135]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 36.
[136]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 36.
[137]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraphs 123 – 124.
[138]        Affidavit of the father filed 26 June 2023, paragraph 67.
[139]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 91.
[140]        Affidavit of the mother filed 26 June 2023, paragraphs 124-126.
[141]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 126.
[142]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 127.
[143]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 128.
[144]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 36.
[145]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraphs 95 - 98.
[146]        Exhibit 11, p 9.
[147]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 99.
[148]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 36.
[149]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraphs 101- 104.
[150]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 36.
[151]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraphs 106 and 165.
[152]        Exhibit 11, p 129.
[153]        Affidavit of the father filed 27 June 2023, Exhibit “[MF]-9”.
[154]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 36.
[155]        Affidavit of the father filed 26 June 2023, paragraph 57.
[156]        Exhibit 11, p 10.
[157]        Exhibit 11, p 292.
[158]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 36.
[159]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 109.
[160]        Affidavit of Ms D filed 18 September 2022, paragraph 10.
[161]        Affidavit of the father filed 27 June 2023, Exhibit “[MF]-16”.
[162]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, Annexure “[MH]-9”; Exhibit 11, pp 94 to 97; 295-299.
[163]        Exhibit 11, pp 59 & 60.
[164]        Exhibit 11, p 131.
[165]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, Annexure “[MH]-9”; Exhibit 11, p 130.
[166]        Exhibit 11, pp 131 & 132.
[167]        Exhibit 11, p 131.
[168]        Exhibit 11, pp 252-272.
[169]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 44; Exhibit 11, pp 278 & 279.
[170]        Affidavit of the father filed 26 June 2023, paragraph 88.
[171]        Affidavit of the father filed 26 June 2023, paragraph 89.
[172]        Exhibit 11, pp 332 and 402.
[173]        Exhibit 11, p 133.
[174]        Exhibit 11, p 133.
[175]        Exhibit 11 pp 61 & 62.
[176]        Exhibit 11, p 134.
[177]        Exhibit 11, p 63.
[178]        Exhibit 11, p 275.
[179]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, Annexure “[MH]-10”; Exhibit 11, p 135.
[180]        Exhibit 11, p 11.
[181]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, Annexure “[MH]-7”.
[182]        Exhibit 11, pp 64 & 65.
[183]        Exhibit 11, p 136.
[184]Who is a registered psychologist, with relevant qualifications.
[185]        Exhibit 11, pp 136 & 137.
[186]        Affidavit of the father filed 27 June 2023, Exhibit “[MF]-43”.
[187]        Exhibit 11, pp 182 & 183.
[188]        Exhibit 11, p 168.
[189]        Exhibit 11, p 167.
[190]        Exhibit 11, p 183.
[191]        Exhibit 11, p 167.
[192]Independent Children’s Lawyer Tender Bundle, p 184; Exhibit 11, pp 183 & 184.
[193]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 135.
[194]        Exhibit 11, p 169.
[195]Exhibit 11, p 184; Independent Children’s Lawyer Tender Bundle, p 142 (email from Ms L to Police dated 5 April 2022).
[196]        Exhibit 11, p 169.
[197]        Exhibit 11, pp 12 & 13.
[198]        Exhibit 11, p 185.
[199]        Exhibit 11, p 15.
[200]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraphs 139 - 146.
[201]        Exhibit 11, p 246.
[202]        Independent Children’s Lawyer Tender Bundle, p 185; Exhibit 11, p 185.
[203]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraphs 148 - 150.
[204]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, Annexure “[MH]-13”; Exhibit 11, pp 142 & 143.
[205]        Exhibit 11, pp 303-313.
[206]        Exhibit 11, pp 280-284.
[207]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 152; Exhibit 11, p 141.
[208]        Exhibit 11, p 140.
[209]        Exhibit 11, pp 138 to 140.
[210]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 192.
[211]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 154.
[212]        Affidavit of Ms D filed 18 September 2022, paragraph 57.
[213]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraphs 155 – 157.
[214]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, detailed in chronology.
[215]        Exhibit 11, pp 285-290.
[216]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, 171.
[217]Independent Children’s Lawyer Tender Bundle, p 404 (Report of Ms L dated 24 August 2022, p 2); Exhibit 11, p 186.
[218]        Exhibit 11, p 240.
[219]        Exhibit 11, p 284.
[220]        Exhibit 11, pp 291-302.
[221]        Independent Children’s Lawyer Tender Bundle, p 187; Exhibit 11, p 187.
[222]        Exhibit 11, p 66.
[223]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 158.
[224]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 160.
[225]        Exhibit 11, pp 67 to 70.
[226]Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 8; Affidavit of the father filed 26 June 2023, paragraph 26; Exhibit 11, pp 273 & 274; pp 276 & 277; pp 394 & 395.
[227]        Exhibit 11, pp 98 to 110.
[228]        Exhibit 11, p 313.
[229]        Exhibit 11, p 144.
[230]        Exhibit 11, p 144.
[231]        Exhibit 11, pp 315 & 316.
[232]        Exhibit 11, p 187.
[233]        Exhibit 11, p 188.
[234]        Exhibit 11, p 71.
[235]        Exhibit 11, p 146.
[236]        Exhibit 11, pp 146 & 147.
[237]        Exhibit 11, p 72.
[238]        Exhibit 11, p 188.
[239]        Exhibit 11, p 188.
[240]        Exhibit 11, p 343.
[241]        Exhibit 11, p 343.
[242]        Exhibit 11, pp 336-340.
[243]        Independent Children’s Lawyer Tender Bundle, p 342.
[244]        Exhibit 11, p 73.
[245]        Exhibit 11, p 246.
[246]        Exhibit 11, pp 345-347.
[247]        Affidavit of the father filed 27 June 2023, Exhibit “[MF]-40”.
[248]        Exhibit 11, p 189.
[249]        Exhibit 11, p 148.
[250]        Exhibit 11, pp 148 & 149.
[251]        Affidavit of Ms D filed 18 September 2022, paragraphs 82 – 88.
[252]        Exhibit 11, p 74.
[253]        Exhibit 11, pp 150-152.
[254]        Exhibit 11, p 150.
[255]        Exhibit 11, pp 111 & 112.
[256]        Exhibit 11, pp 158-166.
[257]        Exhibit 11, pp 75 & 76.
[258]        Exhibit 11, pp 403-405.
[259]        Exhibit 11, p 391.
[260]        Independent Children’s Lawyer Tender Bundle, p 189; Exhibit 11, p 189.
[261]        Exhibit 11, p 77.
[262]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, chronology at p 24.
[263]        Exhibit 10.
[264]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, Annexure “[MH]-15”.
[265]        Exhibit 11, pp 153 & 170.
[266]        Exhibit 11, p 153.
[267]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, Annexure “[MH]-11”.
[268]        Exhibit 11, p 154.
[269]Independent Children’s Lawyer Tender Bundle, p 170 (email from mother to Ms L dated 15 September 2022).
[270]        Exhibit 11, p 171.
[271]        Exhibit 11, p 78.
[272]        Exhibit 11, p 204.
[273]        Exhibit 11, p 155.
[274]        Exhibit 11, pp 155 & 156.
[275]        Exhibit 11, p 77.
[276]        Exhibit 11, p 156.
[277]        Exhibit 11, pp 205 – 207.
[278]        Exhibit 11, pp 80 & 81.
[279]        Affidavit of the father filed 26 June 2023, paragraph 166.
[280]        Exhibit 11, p 251.
[281]        Exhibit 11, pp 208-212.
[282]        Exhibit 11, p 172.
[283]        Exhibit 11, pp 189 & 190.
[284]        Exhibit 11, pp 215 & 216.
[285]        Exhibit 11, pp 197 & 198.
[286]        Exhibit 11, p 204.
[287]        Exhibit 11, pp 217 & 218.
[288]        Exhibit 11, pp 82 & 83.
[289]        Exhibit 11, pp 173 & 174.
[290]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, Annexure “[MH]-16”; Exhibit 11, p 113.
[291]        Exhibit 11, pp 190 & 191.
[292]        Exhibit 11, p 239.
[293]        Independent Children’s Lawyer Tender Bundle, p 84; Exhibit 11, p 84.
[294]        Exhibit 11, pp 199 & 200.
[295]        Independent Children’s Lawyer Tender Bundle, p 191.
[296]        Exhibit 11, p 239.
[297]        Affidavit of the father filed 26 June 2023, paragraph 180.
[298]        Exhibit 11, p 85.
[299]        Exhibit 11, pp 191 & 192.
[300]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 164.
[301]        Exhibit 11, pp 224 & 225.
[302]        Exhibit 11, pp 86 & 87.
[303]        Exhibit 11, pp 226 & 227.
[304]        Affidavit of the father filed 27 June 2023, Exhibit “[MF]-46”.; Exhibit 11, pp 247-250.
[305]        Exhibit 11, p 192.
[306]        Exhibit 11, pp 228 – 230.
[307]        Affidavit of Ms S filed 26 June 2023, paragraph 49.
[308]        Independent Children’s Lawyer Tender Bundle, p 192; Exhibit 11, p 192.
[309]        Exhibit 11, pp 231 & 232.
[310]        Exhibit 11, pp 193 & 194.
[311]        Exhibit 11, p 175.
[312]        Exhibit 11, pp 233 – 235.
[313]        Exhibit 11, pp 176 & 177.
[314]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, Annexure “[MH]-2”; Exhibit 11, p 124.
[315]        Exhibit 11, p 195.
[316]        Exhibit 11, pp 180 & 181.
[317]        Exhibit 11, pp 178 & 179.
[318]        Exhibit 11, p 195.
[319]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 30.
[320]        Exhibit 11, p 238.
[321]        Exhibit 11, p 157.
[322]        Exhibit 11, p 194.
[323]        Exhibit 11, p 238.
[324]        Independent Children’s Lawyer Tender Bundle, p 196 (Ms L notes).
[325]        Exhibit 11, pp 195 & 196.
[326]        Affidavit of the mother filed 27 June 2023, paragraph 33.

File number(s):	BRC 3235 of 2022
Judgment of:	HOGAN J
Date of judgment:	6 December 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the father sought that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility and that the child spend time with him on a gradually increasing basis until she attains eight years of age, at which time she live in an equal time parenting regime – Where the mother sought sole parental responsibility and that the child live with her and spend no time with the father – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer supported the mother’s proposed orders – Where the child has not seen the father since October 2021 when she was an infant – Where the mother’s eldest daughter had made disclosures of sexual assault at the hands of the father – Where the eldest daughter has a fear of the father – Where orders are made for the child to live with the mother and spend no time with the father
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Cases cited:	Banks & Banks (2015) FLC 93-637; [2015] FamCAFC 36 CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172; [1998] HCA 67 Eastley & Eastley (2022) FLC 94-094; [2022] FedCFamC1A 101 Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-092; [2022] FedCFamC1A 97 Johnson & Page (2007) FLC 93-344; [2007] FamCA 1235 M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69; [1988] HCA 68 Morden & Coad [2019] FamCAFC 233 U v U (2002) 211 CLR 238; [2002] HCA 36
Division:	First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	160
Date of last submission/s:	25 August 2023
Date of hearing:	17, 18, 19, & 20 July 2023; 25 August 2023
Place:	Brisbane
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Mr Hawkes, Hawkes Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Dodd of Counsel
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Damien Greer Lawyers
Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Mr Cameron of Counsel
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	HM Lawyers

BRC 3235 of 2022
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MR FLETCHER Applicant
AND:	MS HENDERSON Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:	HOGAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	6 DECEMBER 2024