GARVIE & RONAGH
[2020] FamCA 508
•25 June 2020
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| GARVIE & RONAGH | [2020] FamCA 508 |
| FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child lives and spends time – Risk of harm – Where final parenting orders were made in May 2018 providing for the children to live with the mother, the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility and for them to spend five nights a fortnight plus holiday time with the father – Where the mother seeks that the children live with her, that she have sole parental responsibility, that the eldest child spend time with the father as agreed between the parents and that the younger two children spend fortnightly time with the father supervised at a contact centre – Where the father seeks that the children live with him, that he have sole parental responsibility and that the children spend no time nor communicate with the mother – Where the mother alleges that the children, particularly the eldest child, have disclosed to her that the father has engaged in inappropriate behaviour toward them – Where the father denies that he has ever behaved inappropriately toward the children – Where the Court accepts that the father has engaged in the inappropriate behaviour described by the children – Where the Court finds that the children would face a level of risk of exposure to sexual abuse, emotional harm and/or physical harm in the father’s unsupervised care – Where it is in the best interests of the younger two children for them to spend fortnightly time with the father, supervised at a contact centre, in addition to twice weekly telephone time – Where, given the eldest child’s expressed views, no order will be made requiring the eldest child to spend time with the father, with any time to be agreed between the parents in writing – Where the mother will have sole parental responsibility for the children with an obligation to consult the father. |
| Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) |
| M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 N & S and the Separate Representative (1996) FLC 92-655 W & W (Abuse allegations: unacceptable risk) (2005) FLC 93-235 |
| APPLICANT: | Ms Garvie |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Ronagh |
| INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Nigel Grainger |
| FILE NUMBER: | BRC | 4222 | of | 2017 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 25 June 2020 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Brisbane |
| PLACE HEARD: | Brisbane |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Forrest J |
| HEARING DATE: | 2, 3, 4 & 5 September 2019 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Mr Jordan |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Armstrong Legal |
| THE RESPONDENT: | Self-represented |
| COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Ms Christie |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Mr Grainger Legal Aid Queensland |
Orders
That all previous parenting Orders are discharged.
That the children, X born … 2008, Y born … 2011 and Z born … 2015 (“the children”), shall live with the mother.
That the mother shall have sole parental responsibility for all decisions to be made in respect of all “major long-term issues” (as that term is defined in s 4 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)) in relation to the children.
That in relation to any decision the mother is required to make exercising her sole parental responsibility (other than any such decision that must be made in an emergency situation), the mother is to undertake the following actions before making such decision:
(a)the mother is to provide the Father with no less than fourteen (14) days notice in writing (by email or text message) of any such proposed decision; and
(b)in that notice, the mother shall invite input from the father into the decision making process and she shall reasonably consider any written input the Father subsequently provides pursuant to that invitation; and thereafter
(c)the mother shall make the decision and, within fourteen (14) days of doing so, provide the father with written notice of the decision (by email or text message).
That the children, Y and Z, shall spend time and communicate with the father at all times as may be agreed between the parties in writing, but failing agreement:
(a)by telephone each Monday and Thursday at 4.00 pm with the mother to initiate the call to the father’s mobile telephone;
(b)for up to two (2) hours per fortnight at B Contact Centre, C Town (or such other children’s contact centre as might be agreed between the mother and the father from time to time) with all costs associated with supervised visits to be paid by the father.
That the child, X, shall spend time and communicate with the father as the mother and the father may agree in writing.
That if Y and Z are not otherwise seeing the father as agreed on the following days, the mother shall initiate a telephone call to the father’s mobile telephone to enable the children to speak with the father unless the father informs the mother that he does not want to speak with the children on any of those days:
(a) Father’s Day;
(b) the father’s birthday;
(c) each of Y and Z’s birthdays;
(d) Christmas Day;
(e) Easter Sunday.
That the mother shall keep the father informed from time to time but on a regular basis as to the educational, cultural and sporting development of all three children and she shall provide him with copies of the children’s school reports and annual school photographs as they come into her possession.
That the mother shall keep the father informed of any major developments in the health of the children, including any major illnesses or injuries they may suffer, as and when such developments occur.
That the Independent Children’s Lawyer is discharged.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Garvie & Ronagh has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE |
FILE NUMBER: BRC 4222 of 2017
| Ms Garvie |
Applicant
And
| Mr Ronagh |
Respondent
And
| Independent Children’s Lawyer |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
These are contested parenting orders proceedings commenced by the Applicant mother (“the mother”). They concern the three children of her marriage to the Respondent father (“the father”). Those children are X, who is 11, Y, who is nine, and Z, who is five.
The mother was born in Australia and is 47 years of age. The father is from Country G, has Australian citizenship, and is 43 years of age. He came to Australia in 2005 and met the mother in 2007. They commenced cohabitation very soon after they met and married the following year.
The parties separated in April 2016 and their marriage was dissolved in … 2017.
Parenting and property proceedings were finalised between the parties in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia in May 2018. Final Orders were made with the parties’ consent.
In respect of parenting matters, those Orders provided for the mother and the father to have equal shared parental responsibility for the three children; the children to live with the mother and to spend time with the father as agreed, or failing agreement, on a fortnightly cycle, allowing the children five overnight stays every fortnight with the father, as well as provision for school holidays and other special days throughout the year, such as the children’s birthdays, each of the parents’ birthdays, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day and Christmas Day. That outcome essentially accorded with the recommendations of the family report writer, Family Consultant and Social Worker, Ms H, in her September 2017 report.
In the property proceedings, the parties had consented to a 50/50 split of their total net assets and superannuation. The Orders provided for the mother to undertake some renovation of the house and required the parties to do all acts and such things as necessary to effect the sale of the house. The net sale proceeds were to be divided to effect the equal division having regard to the rest of the Orders, including a superannuation split from the mother’s superannuation interest to the father. I will return to the specifics of those Orders later in these reasons, as they have relevance to submissions made by the father in respect of the parenting Orders sought in these proceedings.
The parenting arrangements established by those May, 2018 consent Orders worked reasonably well, but, unfortunately, not for very long. Both parties told the family report writer in their interviews for her second report that they had a good co-parenting relationship up until the end of July 2018. They each confirmed that in their trial affidavits and in their oral evidence at the trial before me in September, last year. I accept that, but then things changed rather dramatically.
Allegations of Concern
The mother’s evidence was that on Friday night, 27 July 2018, after the children had come back into her care for the weekend, having spent two days and nights in the father’s care, she was putting the children to bed, when both of her daughters told her that they did not want to go to their father’s house anymore. She said she told them not to be silly as their father loves them. She said that both girls asserted to her that they were sick of having to massage their father and that they only continue to do it because that is how they get treats and rewards from their father such as time watching TV and on the computer.
To put that evidence into more context, the mother also gave evidence that when living with the father she had observed some behaviours on the part of the father that she “did not believe were appropriate”. She listed those as:
(a)Asking the children to massage him;
(b)Going into the girls’ beds at night to sleep;
(c)Getting into the bath with the girls; and
(d)Calling the girls to come into the bathroom to wash his back when he was in the bath on his own.
The mother said that she had asked the father “multiple times” to desist from those behaviours. The mother also gave evidence that she had spoken to the father on three occasions after their separation about the inappropriateness of these behaviours and had asked him to stop. She said that on the first two occasions she had done so, the father had defended his actions and downplayed them, but that on the third occasion he had denied that he had done it.
The mother’s evidence was that after she heard from the girls on Friday night, 27 July 2018, that their father was still asking them to massage him, she was angry. She sent the father a text message about the behaviour the girls had complained about. The father agreed that the mother had sent him such a text. In fact, he adduced the whole text exchange that night into evidence. It is lengthy but I consider it relevant enough to all be included. It was as follows:
Mother to Father: The girls told me at bedtime that you still ask them to rub sore parts of your body in return for rewards like computer time etc. I demand that you stop this. It is creepy and wrong. It is what paedophiles do to make children like them, and is a first step to sexual abuse. Do NOT coerce ANY of your children to touch your body. Go book a remedial massage and pay for it like everybody else does. This is the fourth time I have raised this with you.
Father to Mother: bullshit, how dare you think that I am a pedophile on my own children? remember I was born in Country G and lived there until was 29. I am not Australian. sometimes I go to their bedroom as Y stays up and says that she is scared. I have asked them to walk on my back in few occasion in the morning and my feet. I have rules about using computer and they know it
Mother to Father: Do not ask your children to rub your feet or body. It is horrible.
Father to Mother: Monday to Thursday :work on Microsoft office and research. Friday to Sunday they can play games with one hour of work on Microsoft office
BTW why did you take them home early from school on Wednesday?
Mother to Father: Why do you call ambulances for every little thing?
Father to Mother: and didn’t take Z to childcare
That’s got nothing to do with you. I did cos I thought it was appropriate
Who are you telling me that? It’s inappropriate that you telling me that as we are separated. why don’t you tell off those who abusing the ambulance personal
Mother to Father: Wasting tax payer resources and averting emergency services from real life threatening emergencies. I didn’t take Z because half the day was gone and it was naptime there. However he did tell me that he was willing to go. And I picked the kids up early so they could get settled and unpack before bedtime.
Ambulances are for emergencies. A tissue up a nose is not an emergency. You’re a hypochondriac.
Father to Mother: Don’t need to teach me the rules of ambulance, thanks. tell the 000 call centre to not sent ambulance for case like that
Mother to Father: Ok Mr Ronagh. Keep abusing the system. Dont ask the kids to rub your body again. INAPPROPRIATE.
Father to Mother: and listen. I am not interested to get into war with you as you are the mother of the children and I would like to keep an amicable relationship with you so we can communicate over the arisen problems , at some stage we need to help each other for the sake of the children
Mother to Father: Don’t ask the children to rub your body in return for rewards. That is the subject, stop changing it.
Father to Mother: We have been good so far and let’s keep it that way, X told me that she sat on Mr J’s lap and hold the steering wheel in the car while the car was moving. ask her if you don’t believe me. Should I call your dad a pedophile?
Mother to Father: Do not bribe the children to touch your body. It is wrong.
And we haven’t been good. You cheated on me and have then tried many different ways to screw me over. Do your best mate. But DO NOT BE CREEPY WITH MY CHILDREN.
Father to Mother: sending massage like that is very rude and upsetting. I never ever did bribe them to touch me. you said it again. I just told you
We have been good in terms of separate parenting
Mother to Father: So you are saying that you think.it is okay for the kids to rub you in return for rewards?
Or are you saying that the girls are lying?
Father to Mother: It’s not okay and I didn’t ask them.
Mother to Father: You used to do the same thing to me all the time.
Strange how the pattern of behaviour that they’re reporting is exactly the same.
Father to Mother: You don’t get it. sounds like you are drunk
Mother to Father: I don’t care if you’re offended by the way. I am more offended that you would do that to your children and think it’s okay. Im not drunk. Im angry with you because of what the kids just told me.
I am monitoring this and it better be the end of it.
Father to Mother: put it in to your head that sky might touch the earth but I would not abuse my children and in fact any children in any manner especially sexual abuse
Good night
Mother to Father: Get it into your electrically fried head that your pattern of behaviour with the children, is referred to as “grooming”. Google it.
Father to Mother: I was born and raised in Country G not Australia which has high number of child sexual abuse by family members. I do give you right to be worried about it but I still have Country G blood in my body and not sure what are you going to achieve from this accusations, I love my children and I will do my best for them to achieve their full potential in the future. do you?
Mother to Father: [Website address]
[Website address]
Turns out child abuse is a problem in Country G.
Father to Mother: I didn’t say there is no pedophile in Country G, compar to Australia is nothing as far as I know,
and I am not a pedophile and you should stop saying it
Mother to Father: Read the literature. It is HUGE problem there. Do not bribe or coerce the kids into rubbing you. Agree, and we can end this conversation.
Father to Mother: agree on what? I have never done
Mother to Father: So you’re saying the girls are both lying then?
I will let them know.
Father to Mother: I said I occasionally go to their bedroom to comfort Y and occasionally in the morning I have asked one of them to walk on my back. I never said to them oh walk on my back and you will be rewarded with something
(As per original)
The eldest child, X, had commenced counselling with a psychologist in April earlier that year on a referral from the family General Practitioner. She had been referred over concerns with behavioural problems and anger management. Curiously, given the parents’ separation, the same psychologist had been seeing the mother and the father separately for individual counselling as well. That psychologist wrote a report that the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“the ICL”) adduced into evidence and she was cross-examined. In that report, she observed that her final session with X was on Tuesday, 31 July 2018, at which time she informed the mother and X that she would be referring X onto another psychologist to assist with the assessment and treatment of her anger outbursts. The psychologist also reported the following:
… [X] appeared slightly anxious as we finished and began to tell me about the argument occurring between her parents, because her dad had been making her and Y, her younger sister, massage his back and shoulders and feet before they could have a treat. She seemed worried about the argument and concerned because her father was angry at her for disclosing the information to her mother. I clarified that her mother was aware of this behaviour and reiterated her mother’s instructions to tell her father no if he asked again.
The psychologist then wrote that she contacted the mother a few days later to ensure that she was aware of the “interaction between the father and children” and that the mother had informed her that she was aware of the situation.
It would appear that there must have been some discussion about the subject between the mother and X, at least, after the angry text exchange between the parents for X to have been able to tell the psychologist this on 31 July. It also appears that X was aware that her father was angry at her for telling the mother, even though she had not been back to the father’s place since 27 July. Perhaps they had some telephone or text contact themselves, but there is no direct evidence of that.
On Thursday, 2 August 2018 the father picked the children up for their regular time with him and was to have them until Sunday afternoon, 5 August 2018, as per the consent Orders agreed to by the parties three months earlier.
The father’s evidence was that after he had picked the children up, the girls “were not happy” to see him and that they said some strange things to him. He said that they said things to the effect of the following:
(a)“The money from the sale of the house has to go to mum, not you”;
(b)“[The] house is about to be sold and you should not get any money from the sale”;
(c)“You are not sick, you should go to work, you are abusing your work by pretending that you are sick. You are lazy”;
(d)“Daddy you are abusing us, you are a pedophile” (sic).
He said that he was shocked to hear these things and then had a conversation with the girls in which he expressed his shock and disappointment at hearing those things from them, to which, he said, they responded with apologies.
The father then texted the mother at 8:53 am on Thursday, 2 August, less than an hour after picking the children up that morning. He said:
STOP POISONING THE CHILDREN. Y TOLD ME THAT “YOU SHOULD GO TO WORK, YOU ARE NOT SICK. YOU ARE ABUSING THE WORK”
(as per original)
Six minutes later, the father texted the mother again and said:
Get the house ready to go to market instead of playing these games
The mother and the father then continued a relatively abusive text message exchange over the next hour or so, in which the father tells the mother a number of times to get the house ready to be sold and the mother tells the father to stop getting the children to touch him and accuses him of attacking her over the house to divert attention from that issue.
The mother’s evidence in her trial affidavit was that she received several calls from the children on Saturday, 4 August. She said she could hear the children yelling and crying and that X was “begging” her to come and pick them up early as their father was angry, yelling and crying all the time. The mother said that at 6:18 that night, she received an email from X asking her to collect them early.
However, I consider that the mother’s evidence in that respect does not accurately recall things as they happened. The text messages the father adduced into evidence include one from his phone to the mother on Thursday, 2 August at 5:58 pm (the evening of the day they went to the father) which says:
It’s X, (sic) can I please talk to you on the phone when you have the chance?
An email was adduced into evidence at the trial that X had sent to the mother at 6:18 pm on Thursday, 2 August, just twenty minutes after X had asked the mother to talk to her on the phone. That email says:
Dear Mum,
This morning when we told Dad not to massage us any more, Y called him a lazy man and practically called him a pedophile! (sic) Now Dad is really upset and I’m feeling really sad like Dad and Y. I want to go back to your place so it won’t be so sad and I also want to stay with Dad so he won’t feel lonely or sad. I know you want us to stay with Dad, but can you please pick us up a bit earlier on the weekend or we can just stay with Dad and feel even more upset.
From X
Between that evening and Saturday evening, the mother had successfully negotiated with the father to let her collect the children early. She collected them on Saturday evening rather than Sunday evening as per the Order. The mother gave evidence that on the return drive home from the father’s house, the children told her that the father had said if the children loved him, they would not have told the mother about the massages; that getting children to massage parents is okay in Country G, and that they should not have told their mother, and that the girls need not bother visiting him anymore as he does not need to see them anymore, but would see Z on his own. The father denied that he had said those things when cross-examined.
The mother said further in evidence that over dinner on 5 August 2018, while she and the children were eating dinner, X said during their conversation that she had to massage “dad’s butt”. The mother said that both X and Y went on to say that Z was “often bribed with chocolate to massage the top front of their father’s thighs”.
The mother went on in her affidavit to say that on 7 August 2018, at around 7:00 am, X came to her on her own and told her that the father was naked when he asked her to massage him. She said that X had described her father’s bottom as “pimply and hairy and gross”. The mother said that after she dropped the children to school that morning she contacted the police and reported what X had told her. The mother said that later that same day, X came to her again and told her that where her brother Z had massaged their father was “right up next to his privates”.
I am satisfied that the mother, in her 2019 trial affidavit, has made some mistakes with the dates of these events. Queensland Police Records adduced into evidence by the ICL reflect the mother first reporting her concerns to the police at 10:10 am Monday, 6 August (after the children had gone to school). That record reports that the mother told the police about the conversation with the children at dinner the night before and that both girls had told her that their father gets them to massage his bottom. The police record also includes the following:
Mother does not seem to be trying to exagerate this in anyway (sic). She even stated that she contacted the father and told him that the kids were feeling uncomfortable massaging him and to stop it. She stated that he told her it was none of her business and then went mad on the kids next visit and punished them for telling her. She further states that she is concerned by this behaviour and that she hopes there is not anymore to it. R/O did not talk to the children about this matter due to their ages, so that CPIU officers can obtain proper versions from them. The children are residing with the Informant, and is going to try to keep them away from the Father until this matter has been investigated.
The mother sent another text message to the father at 2:46 pm on Tuesday, 7 August, which said:
My mum is staying for the next week or two, and the kids all want to stay here too. So don’t come tomorrow to collect them. Thanks.
Police records reflect that the mother called the police again at 3:16 pm that same day, Tuesday, 7 August, and told them that X had come to her the night before (Monday, 6 August) and told her that her father would take her into a room by herself after he showered. He would be naked and then get X to massage him naked on the bottom and on the top of his legs. The police records reflect the mother telling them that X then became embarrassed and stopped talking about it, but that the mother reported that X claimed that the father also takes Y into the room by herself at times, too.
At 4:12 pm that same Tuesday, 7 August, the father texted the mother and asked:
Can I have them for Wednesday night at least?
The mother responded to him that the children “don’t want to go”. The father asked if the mother could let him talk to the girls but there was no text response from the mother until Thursday afternoon, 9 August, and there is no evidence that he talked to the girls.
The father did not collect them on Wednesday, 8 August, as per the orders. There is no evidence of any text exchange on that day about the issue or any phone calls. It appears he did not turn up at the mother’s home to pick the children up.
There is a copy of an email the mother sent to the psychologist who had been counselling X in evidence. It was sent at 1:39 pm on Wednesday 8 August, 2018. Relevantly, it says:
Hi M…, it has escalated.
On Monday afternoon X confided that she had also massaged her father alone. He was completely naked, and they were alone in the bedroom while the others were watching television. She had to massage his buttocks and thighs. No wonder she’s been angry and anxious, I don’t blame her.
I’ve reported this additional information to the police and I’m still waiting to hear back from CPIU.
The mother took the two girls to pre-arranged interviews with the Child Protection and Investigation Unit at the Suburb D Police Station on Friday, 10 August, 2018. Both girls were interviewed separately but at the same time by two different police officers in separate interview rooms. Both interviews were recorded on video. Both those recorded interviews were adduced into evidence and were played in Court at the start of the trial before me. I have watched them again in the privacy of my chambers when considering this matter and writing these reasons.
The Recorded Interview with Y
When Y was interviewed by a police officer and asked why she was there, she stated that she did not know but said she thought it was about “us massaging dad”. She said that the first time he had asked her to massage him he asked her to massage his toes, which she said she thought was “really weird”. She said they would stand on his back and massage him, and clarified when asked that it was only one child at a time.
She also recounted that X “once said” that she had massaged their father’s “bare butt” and that the father got Z to massage his thighs. She said that she was always with her sister when the massaging occurred and said that she did not remember this (X massaging their father’s bare bottom) and had not been there.
The father would, she said, “[make] excuses” for them to massage his “back and bum” by saying that he was sitting at work all day long and those areas had gotten sore.
Y said she thought that at first she thought it was just “normal” that she had to do it, but that when she found out it was inappropriate, she became uncomfortable. She was asked who had told her it was inappropriate, to which she answered “mum told us”. She said her mother had told them that their father should stop getting them to do it. She told the police officer that her mother had told them that the massaging could lead to sexual assault. She said that this had added to her discomfort, and that she decided that she was no longer comfortable massaging her father.
She said that they (she and her siblings) had told him that it was inappropriate and that they should stop doing it. She said “he kept going on” and we told him it was going to stop and that he should ask someone else, not us. She told the police officer that the father had said to them that it sounded like they were calling him a paedophile. She said she got angry with him then and “slumped in the back” (which I take to be a reference to the conversation in the car on the morning of Thursday, 2 August). She said that her father had become “sad” after hearing them say that and that he “kept going on for the rest of the day”. She said that the father “started punishing us and we didn’t know what we actually did for him to punish us”.
The police officer asked her who the first person to use the word “paedophile” was and she straight away confidently said “dad”.
When asked what parts she had massaged, Y said “his feet, his back, his bum, his neck, his shoulders and his thighs”. Y was asked whether the father was wearing anything when she massaged him and she said “yes, he wears clothes, yes, all the time”. She said “whenever I watched X, he had clothes on. When I’ve done it he has had clothes on. Whenever Z has done it, he has clothes on. X has done it without clothes on. This is what she said once.” Y said that X says “once I was massaging Dad’s bum and he had no clothes on”. Y told the police officer that sometimes her and Z have been on their own when massaging their father and that X had also been on her own when massaging him.
The police officer asked Y when X had massaged her father’s bottom without him wearing any clothes and Y told him that X had told her “about a week ago” that she had once done it. Y was not able to add anything to the timing of when X had actually done it. The police officer asked Y why X had told her that, and Y responded “we were talking about us massaging dad and she just came up with that”.
Y said that her father had started to cry at one point about it. They clearly told their mother that as she went on to say that the mother told them that their father cried to make them feel guilty. The police officer asked her if anybody has told her what to say. She said “I don’t know. I forget.” He then asked her if she repeats things that she has heard from her mother to which she said “yes, “the massaging has got to stop right now””. She was again asked who had come up with the paedophile word to which she said “dad came up with the paedophile word. Dad or X”.
The Recorded Interview with X
At the commencement of her interview with the police officer, X and the police officer were talking about things X liked to do when X said she has “‘girls’ nights out” with her mother, watching movies, because she “sometimes feels uncomfortable at Dad’s place”. When then asked if she knew why she was there talking to the police she said “because Dad’s been asking us to massage him.” She said that the mother has asked him to stop and he does not stop. She said “he keeps asking us to and he keeps rewarding us with chocolate and computer games and once even dessert and pizza. Because we really want them we keep massaging him. We keep doing it”.
X said that they massage his back, his legs, his shoulders, his shin and his foot. She said that “little Z” massages the front of the father’s thighs and that Y mostly massages his neck and shoulders. She told the police officer that “last week, we didn’t have to massage him then. He was really upset and he punished us for telling Mum.”
She told the police officer that when she and Y go to bed at night they would ask their father to come into their room and to tuck them in. She then said “we have to pay him with a rub on the foot. If we stop he goes out.” She said “if Y falls asleep first, then I feel really scared and uncomfortable. I want her to be awake with me.”
X also said that she wants her sister to be awake with her because she is uncomfortable when her sister goes to sleep. She was asked later why that was and responded that the father might come in and if Y was not awake, she thought he would “do something naughty”. When she was asked what that meant, she clarified saying that she meant that he would “do something sexual” to her or Y if one was asleep and the other one was not or if they were both asleep. She was asked if it had happened before and she said “No but I think it might”. She was again queried as to why she thought this and she said that she did not like it when you are alone in a small space with someone of the opposite gender.
She also said that she “doesn’t feel safe” around men and because men and women can have “s-e-x”, which was the way X first described sex. I note this was the only time the child seemed to me to be uncomfortable, hiding her face with toys in the interview room.
When asked about the parts of his body that the father has asked her to massage, X responded “his neck, his feet, his shins, his back, and sometimes his bare butt”. The police officer then asked her to tell her about the last time the father had asked her to massage his “bare butt”. X said that her father had pulled down his pants. She said she thought he had been about to get into the bath but then he asked her to massage his bottom. She said he said to her “my butt is really sore. I’ve been sitting all day.” She said that he told her he had “knotted muscles” and that he then asked her if she could “rub my butt” and he said “I will give you some chocolate”. She added, at one point around this moment, that this was “before he went on sick leave”. She said he then pulled down his underwear, turned around and she saw his “private thingy”. She said that she did not want to see his penis but that he continued to talk to her anyway, telling her to listen and massage him and if she did he would give her chocolates. She said to the police officer that she did not want to do it but “really wanted the chocolate”, so when he was lying on his bed and was completely naked, she used her elbow to rub his bottom. She said that it went for ten to fifteen minutes. She said the door had been closed and it was “silent”, “awkward” and “uncomfortable” and that after she had massaged him, the day continued like a normal day after that. X later told the police officer that she had not felt comfortable at her father’s place ever since this happened.
She said that this type of massage had only occurred once from memory, saying that it could have been more than that but it was that time which made her feel uncomfortable, and was why she did not want to be there and wanted to spend time with the mother.
When she was asked about what the father’s penis looked like and it’s position, she said that it was big, clarifying that it was big compared to little boys’ penises but probably the “average size” of a man’s penis.
X also described seeing her siblings massaging the father, noting that Z massaged the father’s thighs. She said “I’m guessing he touches his privates, by accident. I’m guessing it does happen. I’ve not seen it.” However, she later described an incident, which I infer she was saying had occurred, where Z was “focused” as he had been determined to receive the chocolate he had been promised by the father, and his hands “slipped” and touched the father’s penis, and the child said “sorry” and then continued massaging him. She also describes her sister using her elbow against his back and neck and also walking on his back.
X was asked where they had been when the father asked her to massage his “bare butt”. She said that it had happened in the bedroom and that one time “we had to do it in the kitchen when he was cooking pancakes.” But as she added “in our room, in the lounge room”, I consider that she was probably talking about where all the massaging had taken place and later she again repeated the assertion that there was only the one time that she had to massage her father naked.
A little later, she said that the father had a pillow and that he was lying flat with his head on the pillow and that his legs were separated a little bit on his bed. She said “he was completely naked, which I did not like”. She said “I didn’t feel comfortable to see him naked”.
She went on to tell the police officer that she had called her mum after the massage and told her she was feeling uncomfortable. She did not say that she told her mother then what had actually happened.
She was asked who was with her at the time and she responded “No one. The door was closed. Y was in the bath. Z was watching TV. Dad had the door closed and I was there alone with him.” She said that she told him she did not want to do it. She said to the police officer “I was really doing it against my will”. She said that she wanted to go out and tell Y and her father had said “do it harder X, I can’t feel anything.” She said “I just walked out, and he said “alright X, no chocolate for you.” She said that she then went into her own room to read. She said “I think it was a holiday and a Monday.”
X was asked about where the father was currently living at that time. She then asked the police officer why they needed the information and if they were going to his home. She said that she would feel “safer” if the police did visit him at his home because then he might “stop asking children to massage him”.
At the end of the interview, the police officer said that she was going to have to talk to the mother about the allegations to which X said, unprompted, that she was “thinking about staying with her [the mother] for a long period of time or maybe forever” and that she feels safe with her mum. Interestingly, X then denied telling her mother, saying “I’ve kept it to myself” and she said she thought her father had said to her “don’t tell anyone about this massage or you will be in big trouble” but that she thought that was the closest she could remember to what he had said to her as it had happened a long time ago.
A Pre-text Call between the Mother and the Father
On Sunday, 12 August 2018, the mother participated in a ‘pre-text’ (as the police call them) telephone call with the father. Parts of that pre-text call were played to the father in the interview the police had with the father and were also heard during the trial. In that conversation with the mother, the father denied the allegations the mother put to him about getting X to massage his bare bottom. He said to the mother that she was accusing him of being “gay” and “a paedophile”. He also said to her that he needed to see the children because he had many problems, was “mentally fucked” and seeing them was the only thing that made him “okay”.
Father’s Record of Interview with the Police
On Saturday, 25 August 2018, the father was interviewed by police. This interview was played at the start of the trial after the interviews with the children and was tendered into evidence by the ICL. The father said in evidence that he was told by the interviewing police officer after the interview had concluded that the police knew when they came to his house that he was “not guilty” and they know one parent is “fabricating an allegation” and that it was all “bullshit”. I do not accept this but I will return to this again later to explain my reasons for not accepting it.
The father told the police that he had been on sick leave for eight months at that time and that his sick leave had commenced in mid-December 2017. He attributed that to his state of mental health caused by work-place bullying. He told police that he had been diagnosed with major depression and had been on medication for its treatment.
When police asked him whether he asked any of the children to massage him, he told them that he does ask them to walk on his back and that sometimes he asks Y to walk on his neck and shoulder. He said that they sometimes mutually rub each other’s toes. He said that this sometimes happens when he goes into their bedroom to comfort them. He lies in the middle of their beds and puts his feet up on their beds and asks them to rub his toes and he rubs their toes. He told the police that the mother is trying to distract attention away from her own non-payment of the mortgage.
The father was asked if he has the children massage him “anywhere else” on his body and he responded “no”. He volunteered that the mother had told him that she believed that he had asked Z to rub his thighs. The police asked him whether Z had massaged him and he said “no, he is too little”.
He told the police that the mother had sent him the text saying it was “creepy” and “wrong” and that it was “child grooming”. Again, he said it was his understanding that the mother is trying to distract attention from her failure to comply with the Court property order.
Asked specifically about X the father said that she walks on his back and then he said “no, she is too heavy, she has massaged the toes, sometimes higher”. He then showed the police his lower leg and said that she does not massage “above the knee”. He then said that “they have never touched above my knee”. He denied offering the children rewards. He said “I did ask them. I didn’t force them. I didn’t reward them.” He said “it is just crap that I was saying computer rewards.”
The father said he could not recall when X last massaged him by walking on his back or rubbing his toes and his feet.
It was put to him that there was an allegation that X has had to massage his bottom and he said “no, this is just made up”. When asked why would X say it then, he responded “she has been poisoned”. Asked again whether he offered the children chocolates to massage him, he said “no, I don’t offer them anything to massage me in terms of reward. No.” Asked again, whether any of the children has ever received a reward for massaging him, he said “no”.
When it was put to him that he had asked Y to massage his “butt” but whilst he was wearing clothes, he said he had never had Y massage his “butt” at all.
He was asked about his attitude to nudity around the children. He said “I am always clothed. I never go nude in front of the children. I always wear clothes.” He said “I don’t go into the bath with the girls, no.”
He was played extracts of the pre-text call between him and the mother. The mother said to him during that call “are you denying that they massage your bum?”. He responded “absolutely”. She said “are you denying that you are getting Z to massage your thigh?” He responded “absolutely”.
The recording of the interview finishes with the father saying to the police “that’s a serious allegation. I should be arrested I guess. If I have done this, I should be arrested and locked up.”
Police did not charge the father with any offence. The interviewing police officer gave oral evidence at the trial. The father, who was without legal representation, asked her what she had said to him after the interview finished. She told the Court that she advised the father that the matter would be closed, that there was a difference between indecent and inappropriate and that the police considered that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he had indecently dealt with the children. The father did not suggest to her that she had said that they knew he was not guilty and that the allegations were “bullshit” as he had said in evidence. Neither of the two counsel appearing asked her had she said the things the father had previously asserted that she had. I saw this investigating officer conduct an interview with one of the girls. I saw her conduct an interview with the father. I do not accept that she would have said the things to the father after the interview with him had concluded that he said she did.
The Course of the Matter after that
The mother ceased handing the children over to the father for them to spend time with him. She also quickly commenced proceedings in the Court seeking to change the existing parenting orders. Her application was filed on 7 September 2018. The matter made its way to trial in the Magellan list before me. It was heard over four days, just under a year from when the mother filed her Initiating Application.
An Order was made in the early part of 2019 for the children to commence supervised time with their father at a contact centre which commenced in April 2019. For reasons which I will set out later in this judgment, X ceased spending time with the father at the contact centre in May 2019 and had not spent any time with him at the time of the trial in September 2019.
At the trial, as I have already observed, the father appeared without representation. The Court was assisted by solicitors and counsel for both the mother and the ICL.
I regret that it has taken me this long to deliver judgment in the matter. The obligation to continue to hear long and difficult parenting and property adjustment cases and to write considered judgments in each of those matters, in addition to the need to take appropriate recuperative leave, in the meantime explains the delay. I have recently reread all of the affidavits relied upon in the case, including the two family reports. I have again watched all three recorded interviews adduced into evidence and I have carefully read and considered all of the notes I took at the trial.
The mother’s proposal
In her Case Outline document filed 30 August 2019, the mother’s draft Minute of Order states that she is seeking sole parental responsibility for the three children, along with an obligation to consult with the father regarding his view about any decision which is to be made in respect of the children before it is made and for her to inform him of her decision after she has made it. She is also seeking that the children live with her, and that Y and Z spend time and communicate with the father as agreed, and failing agreement, up to two hours per week supervised at B Contact Centre and telephone contact two days a week. In respect of X, she seeks an Order that her time and communication with the father be only as agreed by the parties in writing. She does not want X to be compelled to spend time with the father.
There is also specific provision for telephone contact on particular special days if there is no contact scheduled, including birthdays, Christmas, Easter and Father’s Day, a requirement to keep the father informed of children’s treating practitioners and allowing the father to contact them in respect of the children and a requirement that the mother contact the father in respect of any emergency or serious illness involving the children.
The father’s proposal
From his Response to the Initiating Application filed 5 October 2018 to his Case Outline document filed 23 August 2019, the Orders sought by the father changed from that of seeking equal shared parental responsibility, the children living with him and spending alternate weekend time with the mother to seeking sole parental responsibility, the children living with him and spending no time with and having no contact with their mother. He also asks for an order that prevents the mother from contacting him at all.
The father was questioned about this significant shift in position and about the relationship he considers the children should have with their mother into the future in cross-examination by Mr Jordan of Counsel for the mother and by Ms Christie of Counsel for the ICL. Both counsel made submissions about what the Court should make of this more generally and how it should impact on my consideration of the father’s mental health and his insight into the best interests of these three children. I shall return to this below.
The ICL’s proposed Orders
At the end of the hearing, Ms Christie for the ICL submitted that the Orders sought by the mother should be the Orders to be made by the Court in the circumstances of this case, subject to two variations.
The mother proposed weekly time for the children with the father, supervised at B Contact Centre. Given the potential difficulties associated with organising weekly time at B Contact Centre for any time between the children and the father to occur and the changing priorities of the children as they get older, the ICL submitted that this time should be fortnightly rather than weekly. After hearing the submissions of counsel for the ICL, Mr Jordan on behalf of the mother informed the Court that he had been instructed, after Ms Christie had made her submissions, to adopt that same position as the appropriate one, and for the children’s supervised time with the father to be on a fortnightly basis.
The ICL also submitted the father should be permitted to attend school and extracurricular events of the children. It was submitted that this had been occurring anyway, with the father attending Y’s Christmas concert in 2018. There was no submission made as to whether this should include X’s school activities or whether X’s attendance at these events of her siblings should alter any Order made.
Deciding Parenting cases with sexual abuse allegations
The critical factual issue for determination in this case is whether or not the allegations made by X and Y about the father’s behaviour towards them and their brother, Z, are true or whether the father’s denial of the alleged behaviour is to be accepted.
As to the principles of law to be applied, the High Court observed in M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 (“M v M”) that:
The resolution of an allegation of sexual abuse against a parent is subservient and ancillary to the Court’s determination of what is in the best interests of the child. The Family Court’s consideration of the paramount issue which it is enjoined to decide cannot be diverted by the supposed need to arrive at a definitive conclusion on the allegation of sexual abuse.
The judges of the High Court said:
The ultimate and paramount issue to be decided in proceedings for custody of or access to a child is whether the making of the order sought is in the interests of the welfare of the child. The fact that the proceedings involve an allegation that the child has been sexually abused by the parent who seeks custody or access does not alter the paramount and ultimate issue which the Court has to determine, though the Court’s findings on the disputed allegation of sexual abuse will naturally have an important, perhaps a decisive, impact on the resolution of that issue.
The paramount issue which this Court must decide is what is in a child’s or children’s best interests and mandatory regard must be had to this in determining the proper parenting Orders to make in respect of any child. In that respect, s 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) also sets out a list of matters that must be considered by the Court in determining what is in a child’s best interests.
Fogarty J said in his judgment in the Full Court decision of N & S and the Separate Representative (1996) FLC 92-655 (“N & S”) that:
It is difficult to overstate the importance of protecting children from sexual abuse and from the consequences which often follow from sexual abuse. Sexual abuse involves the most severe exploitation of children, the most serious invasion of their rights to personal integrity and freedom and the most serious denial of their rights to personal growth and development. Its effects, both in the short and long term, can be devastating.
I observe that the High Court judges went on in their judgment in M v M expressly to say the following:
In considering an allegation of sexual abuse, the Court should not make a positive finding that the allegation is true unless the Court is so satisfied according to the civil standard of proof with due regard to the factors mentioned in an earlier High Court decision of Briginshaw & Briginshaw.
In that case, Dixon J, as he then was, said this:
The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. In such matters reasonable satisfaction should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences.
Relevantly, their Honours continued and said:
In resolving the wider issue, the Court must determine whether, on the evidence, there is a risk of sexual abuse occurring if custody or access be granted, and assess the magnitude of that risk. After all, in deciding what is in the best interests of a child, the Family Court is frequently called upon to assess and evaluate the likelihood or possibility of events or occurrences which, if they come about, will have a detrimental impact on the child’s welfare.
The existence and magnitude of the risk of sexual abuse, as with other risks of harm to the welfare of a child, is a fundamental matter to be taken into account into deciding issues of custody and access. In access cases, the magnitude of the risk may be less if the order in contemplation is supervised access.
The test is best expressed by saying that a Court will not grant custody or access to a parent if that custody or access would expose the child to an unacceptable risk of sexual abuse.
(emphasis added by the writer)
Fogarty J also acknowledged the existence of false allegations, as has been suggested exist in this case by the father, at 82,711 saying:
…courts must be aware that not all allegations of sexual abuse are true. False allegations may be made either by parents acting in good faith, as a result of a misperception of information about their child, or by parents deliberately fabricating allegations in order to gain an advantage in proceedings. Ambiguous events often have an innocent explanation.
This test has otherwise become known as the “unacceptable risk” test and was discussed further by the judges of the Full Court of this Court in W & W (Abuse allegations: unacceptable risk) (2005) FLC 93-235 (“W & W”), who said:
In summary, the law is well settled as to the standard of proof required to make a positive finding of sexual abuse, and that such a finding should not be made unless a trial judge is satisfied to the highest standard on the balance of probabilities that abuse has occurred. We accept, as a matter of practice, a trial judge will almost inevitably be required, in a case where sexual abuse allegations are raised, to consider whether abuse has been proven on the balance of probabilities, as well as considering whether or not an unacceptable risk of abuse exists. The High Court, in M & M, recognised the difficulty in defining with any degree of precision what constitutes an unacceptable risk, and the cases determined after that decision testify to the difficulty. However, the questions posed by Fogarty J in N & S do provide a structure or framework which may assist a trial judge to assess future risks to a child.
At paragraph 105 of that judgment, the Full Court judges, referring to that earlier judgment of Fogarty J in N & S, said:
Fogarty J discussed the question of what is meant by the term “unacceptable risk”, and he reviewed earlier authorities, concluding that it is inevitable that courts will have to make some effort to quantify the relevant risk. He then said, “In asking whether the facts of the case do establish an unacceptable risk the Court will often be required to ask such questions as: What is the nature of the events alleged to have taken place? Who has made the allegations?
To whom have the allegations been made? What level of detail do they involve? Over what period of time have the allegations been made? Over what period of time are the events alleged to have occurred? What are the effects exhibited by the child or children? What is the basis of the allegations? Are the allegations reasonably based? Are the allegations genuinely believed by the person making them? What expert evidence has been provided? Are there satisfactory explanations of the allegations apart from sexual abuse? What are the likely future effects on the child?”
What findings do I make in respect of the central allegations?
The father denied that he had ever asked X to massage his bare bottom. He denied that he had ever asked X to massage his bottom, naked or otherwise. He denied that he had ever asked Y to massage his bottom or that she had ever done so, even whilst he had clothes on. He denied that he had ever asked Z to massage any part of his body or that Z had. He made those denials to the police when they interviewed him in late August 2018. He also told the police in his interview that he was careful not to be naked around the children. He maintained the denials in his evidence before this Court, a year later.
He did not deny that he had asked the children to massage him in the past, though he was adamant that he had only ever had them massage his neck and shoulders, walk on his back, massage his toes and feet and shins, but never above his knees, on his thighs or bottom. He was consistent in his denials of the assertions that he offered and gave the children rewards or incentives in return for them massaging him when requested.
He consistently maintained throughout the period of time from when the allegations were first raised with him the assertion that he first made in response to the mother, namely that she made the allegations to distract attention away from her alleged non-compliance with certain requirements of the property adjustment Orders that had been made earlier in 2018 with their consent.
Under cross-examination, the father expressed the view that he believed the mother had “coached” X and “influenced” Y to say the things that they had said to the police and to the family report writer. He said in his trial affidavit, (and reiterated it under cross-examination), that he “strongly believe[s]” that the “main driving force behind the allegations of sexual abuse” is the mother’s “failure to comply with court orders” which she is using to “distract [him] and [the] authorities”. In this respect, the father says the mother did not comply with obligations imposed upon her in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Order of Judge Jarrett in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia of 28 May 2018.
The relevant parts of his Honour’s Order are as follows:
2. The parties shall do all such acts and things and sign all deeds and instruments necessary to give effect to the terms hereof and in particular to paragraph 1a) and 1b), within 30 days of the sealing of this Order (“the settlement date”) unless another time is set out herein, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing: -
Sale of Home
(a)The wife shall within 60 days from the date of this Order carry out a cosmetic renovation of the property situated at E Street, Suburb F in the State of Queensland, (“the home”) in the nature of replacing damaged doors, fixing tiling, replacing shower screen in ensuite, plumbing in vanity in ensuite and replacing worn carpet in the bedrooms, at her cost to be reimbursed on sale of the home, with a view to maximising the value of the home for the benefit of the husband and the wife.
(b)That the costs of the cosmetic renovation be agreed or if not agreed shall not exceed $15,000.00
3. The husband and the wife at the expiration of 60 days from the date hereof do all acts and things and sign all necessary documents to effect a sale of the home and by way of consequential arrangement that shall be made for the purposes of effecting a sale:
…
(b) The home shall be listed for sale by private treaty … for a period of three (3) months … with a view to selling the home within a reasonable time at the highest price possible;
(c)In the event that the home has not been sold within three (3) months from the date of listing, the husband and the wife shall then ...to procure a sale by public auction upon the following terms:
…
(f)That the wife be responsible for all outgoings associated with the home including the mortgage indebtedness, rates and amenities up to and including the date of settlement of the home.
The father’s evidence was that the mother had not paid all of the instalments on the loan secured by mortgage, had not undertaken the cosmetic renovations and was not taking steps to sell the property as required. He told the Court that pursuant to the Court Orders the property was supposed to be on the market by 27 July 2018 and that he was starting to put pressure on her to do so in the weeks leading up to the allegations first being made. He would have the Court accept that the mother made up the allegations, enlisted the children to support her against the father and coached them to repeat false allegations against him to deflect his efforts against her in this respect and that she made them up on 27 July 2018, as that was the date by which the property was supposed to be on the market.
With respect, the father did not make any ground with this theory during his cross-examination of the mother. Further, the wording of the property Order of 28 May 2018 does not give me any cause to consider that the mother could have reasonably perceived there to be any benefit to be gained from non-compliance with the ordered obligations. Any mortgage instalments and outgoings that were not paid (whether deliberately or because of financial distress) were always going to be adjusted for on sale in any event. Any reduction in the sale price of the property was going to impact almost as much on the mother as on the father in terms of their shares of the net sale proceeds. There was no incentive for the mother not to comply with the requirements of the Order and to delay getting the house in order for sale as provided. Concerns that matters around this would have prompted the mother to fabricate serious allegations against the father appear to me to be without much objective support. I should also observe that the house was sold not too many months later than it was meant to be and the proceeds distributed between the parties pursuant to the Orders they had consented to.
There was other very cogent evidence that casts further doubt on the father’s theory that the mother made up the allegations and coached the children to support her against the father. In the second of her family reports in respect of this family, Ms H opined that “there appears to be a significant incongruence in the sudden fabrication of such serious allegations and the pre-existing attitude and cooperation exhibited between both parents”. She quite confidently stressed this opinion again under cross-examination during the trial. Looking back at her first family report, written in 2017, one sees Ms H assessing the co-parenting relationship as positive and reflective of such achievement that Ms H recommended the children’s time with the father be increased. She assessed the parents as having “largely similar parenting philosophies, values and routines”. She said they also “demonstrate flexibility within the post separation co-parenting relationship and possess a shared vision for the children’s needs to be a paramount determination for their ongoing parenting arrangements”. She said:
These attitudes and positions create a strong foundation for sustaining an effective co-parenting relationship, and support a continuation of shared parental responsibility.
As I observed early in these reasons, both of the parents acknowledged that until July 2018 they had been getting on and co-parenting well. I accept Ms H’s opinion expressed in the second family report that the sudden fabrication of serious allegations was “significantly” incongruent with the circumstances as they had existed prior to that time. That is an important point in determining these matters.
The father also attempted to make much in his submissions about the inconsistencies in the particulars given by the mother in her evidence about the days and times at which the children, in particular, X, told her the things that gave rise to her most serious concerns when compared with the actual timing shown by emails (from X to the mother and from the mother to the psychologist) and police records of the notification from the mother and the information given to them by her. He argued that those inconsistencies were indicative of fabrication of the evidence.
I was not persuaded that the apparent inaccuracies in the mother’s evidence reflected anything other than simple, honest mistakes in recollection. This was in circumstances where the mother was recounting events in her trial affidavit as she could best remember them. That affidavit was written eleven months after the events. Contemporaneous documentary records showed that her recollections were effectively correct in substance but incorrect in timing.
The mother’s evidence about aspects of the father’s behaviour in respect of the children when they were still cohabiting, to me, seemed considered and honest. It included his actions of asking the children to massage him. The father simply denied that behaviour when counsel for the mother challenged him on it, yet, when the allegations arose in July and August of 2018, he admitted that he has had the children massage him in the past. Additionally, the text message exchange between the mother and the father on 27 July 2018 reflects, without any doubt, the mother’s assertion that she repeatedly asked the father to desist from this behaviour and, importantly, had continued to ask him to desist since separation, to no avail. The lack of any denial from the father in that text exchange that what the mother was asserting there was true (about raising it with him repeatedly to no avail) is, in my judgment, also significant. Had that not been true, one would have expected the father to have expressly denied it. Rather, as the mother pointed out in that very text exchange, it was the father who, in my judgment, sought to deflect attention away from the subject the mother was expressly raising with him, namely the subject of his asking the children to massage him in return for offers of reward. He did that a couple of times with the mother bringing him back to the subject on a couple of occasions in that exchange.
The father also submitted that X, too, was inconsistent in the matters she told the police in her interview. He submitted that was supportive of a finding that the matters she was telling the police were false. It is correct that she did make a few inconsistent statements. Most particularly, she told the police that she had not seen her brother, Z, touch his father’s penis whilst massaging his father’s upper thighs, but later said she had seen him accidentally touch his father’s penis and heard him say “sorry” to his dad for doing so. One of those statements must be incorrect, yet, I do not consider that inconsistency throws doubt onto everything she told the police in that statement.
In her oral evidence under cross-examination by the father, the mother was asked about her evidence that X had said over dinner on 5 August 2018 that she had to massage the father’s “butt”. The mother explained that the children started talking about their dislike of their father’s requests for them to massage him when X said something as a complaint in response to the others. It was to the effect of “yeah, yeah, but I had to massage his butt”. That evidence impressed me as realistic in the circumstances and honestly given by the mother. I accept X did say that in that way.
I was not left with the impression that the mother had fabricated allegations that the children had been complaining about being asked to massage their father in return for rewards. I accept that the mother’s evidence about that was true. I was not left with the impression that the mother had gone on from there to fabricate allegations that the requests for massage had moved to having at least the oldest girl massage the father’s naked bottom and that she had enlisted and engaged X’s support in repeating false allegations about that to police.
There is evidence that X had told a counsellor that after the police determined that they would not charge the father the mother told her to tell her teacher, the school Principal, her counsellor and as many people as she could about the allegations, so that she might be believed. I do not have any note or recollection of the mother being cross-examined about that. I find that she probably did tell X that but that does not persuade me that the mother had fabricated the allegations and was engaging X to help perpetrate a malicious injustice against the father.
The evidence of both girls, in the form of the recorded interviews, was completely consistent in respect of what they said about being offered rewards for massaging their father. They also were both consistent in that they both said the father asked Z to massage his upper thighs. They also were both consistent in that they said they had each been asked to massage their father’s bottom, albeit his bare bottom by X and his clothed bottom by Y. The assertion by X that the time she had been asked by her father to massage her father’s bare bottom had occurred prior to her father going on sick leave was also, in my view, inconsistent with a fabrication of that allegation in conspiracy with her mother. I consider it most unlikely that if the allegation was a fabrication that X would have offered, in an “off the cuff” type of way as she did, that it had happened back before the father went on sick leave.
X also told the police in that interview that she had felt so uncomfortable after that time her father got her to massage his bare bottom that she had called her mother and told her about it and asked her mother to collect her early and take her home to her place. Under cross-examination at the trial, the mother denied that X had called her and told her about it when it had happened, but did say that she remembered X calling her in distress sometime before Christmas 2017 and asking her to come and pick her up early, without telling her what it was particularly that had upset her.
The father told the police that he commenced sick leave in mid-December 2017. There is symmetry then between that timing, the mother’s evidence (which I accept as truthfully given) that she remembered receiving a call from X before Christmas where X was in distress, and X’s evidence that she remembered the time she was asked to massage her father’s “bare butt” was back before he went on sick leave and that she had rung her mother afterwards and asked her to pick her up early.
Some Other very Significant Evidence about the Father’s Mental Health
The only mention of the father’s mental health problems in his trial affidavit was in the last paragraph of that document. There, he said:
… I have been on work compensation since December 2017 as I have been diagnosed with depression due to long time workplace discriminations, abuses, bullies and etc. I have been receiving treatment for it with medication prescribed by my psychiatrist and visit to my psychologist.
(As per the original)
Counsel for the mother was somewhat critical of the father’s lack of better disclosure and frankness about this issue. The father was not legally represented in these parenting proceedings and, though an educated man he was only working in unskilled employment before he went on sick leave. Furthermore, though now reasonably competent in the English language, it is not his first language and he could not be described as being totally fluent and conversant with English and all its Australian nuances. However, counsel for the mother made a very good point through his cross-examination of the father about the extent of his disclosure.
Documents produced under subpoenas that the ICL had caused to be issued revealed that the father had been under the extensive care of psychiatrists and psychologists for a significant period of time since the breakdown of his marriage to the mother. They revealed that he had been receiving electroconvulsive therapy for his condition over a period of time. They also revealed that at one point in the first half of 2018, the father had presented himself to hospital complaining of having strong thoughts of getting a knife and harming himself and his three children. They also revealed that had been reported to the Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women (“the Department”) and investigated. Significantly, they revealed that the father had subsequently told doctors, when asked about whether or not he had been having any further thoughts of self-harm, that he would not reveal whether he had as he knew from the previous experience that such would be used against him.
Counsel for the mother drew the father’s attention to that and put to the father that his decision not to mention that history and the self-harm threat in his affidavit evidence was also deliberate, because of his apparent belief that such evidence might be held against him. Counsel for the mother also put to the father that his decision to not put any evidence from his treating psychiatrists before the Court was for a similar reason and because he did not want any of them to be cross-examined. The father denied this and ultimately, later in the trial, produced some documents that he had relating to his mental health, including medical reports. By this stage, I am satisfied that he believed that failing to produce them might hurt his case as much, if not more than producing them might. They were admitted into evidence.
Nevertheless, despite denying that his lack of disclosure and complete frankness was deliberate, I am satisfied that the father had obviously turned his mind to the issue, simply by the fact that he put a very brief paragraph about it at the end of his trial affidavit and that the decision not to put any more than that before the Court was a deliberate and considered one based on belief that it would, at best, not assist his case.
That said, the evidence was indeed relevant, as was much other documentary evidence that found its way into the evidence that was adduced in this case through the documents tendered by the ICL that were copied from documents produced pursuant to subpoenas that had issued on the ICL’s application.
The documents the father produced included a written decision of the Medical Assessment Tribunal that is part of the Queensland Worker’s Compensation system administered by the Queensland Department of Industrial Relations. It reveals that the father lodged an application for compensation relating to injuries sustained as a result of events that occurred between July 2017 and December 2017 in the course of his employment with K Company. The K Company accepted liability for the “[a]ggravation of pre-existing Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood/Major Depressive Disorder”. In October 2018, the father applied for a Review of that decision. In January 2019, the original decision to accept the application as an “aggravation of a pre-existing condition” was confirmed by the Review Unit but the matter was referred to the ‘General Medical Assessment Tribunal – Psychiatric’ for determination of whether the father has an incapacity for work resulting from the injury for which the application was made and whether that is total or partial and permanent or temporary. The Tribunal had to also decide whether the father has sustained a degree of permanent impairment and, if so, the degree of permanent impairment resulting from the injury.
The Tribunal referred to the fact that the father had already been medically diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood following the breakdown of his relationship with the mother that occurred in 2016. They observed that his GP’s records “documented on 19 April 2017 that his condition was improving” but they pointed out that the GP had at no point documented that his condition had resolved. The Tribunal also wrote:
[The father] described his mood currently as miserable. He reported at other times he was happy to stay at home and self-isolate. He described significant self-pity. He reported that he would like to leave Australia and return to Country G. He also reported that he cried for an hour a day and that his mood was worse at approximately 3:00 am upon awakening.
Further on, the Tribunal notes:
He reported that he now sees his children in a supervised capacity for one hour per week, but found this only benefited the children. [He] explained that he made a comment that he would kill himself and his children, although he does not remember this. He reported that since that time, he has only been allowed supervised visits.
With respect to the father, what he told the Tribunal was not the whole truth. One can perhaps understand why he might have been reluctant to tell the Tribunal the whole story, but the reasons he was only granted limited, supervised time with the children included the fact that the serious allegations raised against him by the mother based on the reports of the children, and X in particular, were still before this Court and yet to be determined at a trial.
The Tribunal’s decision went on. It said:
[The father] reported a loss of energy and constant exhaustion. He reported a loss of motivation. He reported no thoughts of deliberate self-harm, but also reported that he would not advise us of any thoughts of deliberate self-harm given that when he told people of his thoughts to kill himself and his children, he suffered multiple repercussions. He reported that he was afraid that he would retaliate if someone discriminated against him. He voiced a fear that he would lose control and hurt someone. He denied thoughts to harm anyone, but again reported that he was unlikely to reveal anything, given his previous revelation and subsequent consequences.
The Tribunal’s decision recorded that the father has told them of his medication regime. It included eight different medications on a daily basis. The Tribunal noted inpatient treatment, including Electroconvulsive Therapy (“ECT”), which did not result in any sustained improvement and that the use of antidepressant medication had not resulted in improvement. The Tribunal observed that the father had, in early 2018, denied a past psychiatric history, despite the fact that his General Practitioner had documented earlier mood disorder for which he was prescribed antidepressants. The Tribunal considered it more likely than not that the father was already suffering from an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood prior to and at the time of the bullying, racist and bigoted treatment that he was subject to in the workplace.
The Tribunal found that between July and December 2017 the father developed emotional symptoms that were caused by an aggravation of his pre-existing mental health condition and that his condition, more likely than not, deteriorated into a major depressive disorder. The determination was that it was at that time (May 2019) “chronic and stable and stationary” with little response to interventions. They determined he was partially and permanently incapacitated for work, with a 7% degree of permanent impairment resulting from the injury and that he could return to work in a position for approximately 10 hours per week.
In a January 2019 report from his treating psychiatrist, the doctor wrote that the father:
…is struggling to function. He is not sleeping well. He gets three - four hours of sleep at night. His self-care is poor. He spends most of his time at home ruminating about things. He does not go out. …He is unable to enjoy anything. He feels sad and irritable all the time.
As for the threat of self-harm, the evidence reveals that the Department received a notification on or around 16 May 2018, just two months prior to the serious emergence of the allegations being assessed in this case, that the father had presented himself to hospital disclosing having bought a knife the day before and thinking of using it on himself and having experienced passing thoughts of using it on the children as well. The thoughts apparently passed within a day or so, and the Department were satisfied that no action apart from a referral and an offer of support “for parenting with a mental illness” was needed.
The father did not dispute that had happened. He also did not dispute that his treating medical professionals were still recommending ongoing ECT but he said that he was not prepared to undertake it anymore, as he did not consider it beneficial.
All of this evidence satisfied me that the father had been suffering from an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression from after his separation from the mother and certainly in 2017. It was aggravated by the treatment he received at work in the second half of 2017, and continued through 2018 until the time of the trial.
Some Other Evidence of significance
There were documentary records from the children’s school commencing May 2017 reflecting some deteriorating behaviour on the part of X at that time. Further notes from the school reflect ongoing, slowly deteriorating behavioural problems with X through into 2018. I have already mentioned how X was referred to a psychologist for therapy in the first half of that year. X’s reported behaviour got significantly worse after the emergence of the disclosures that are the subject of assessment in this case. However, in mid-October 2018, the school was reporting that “the girls were more settled at school this term”, but within weeks the notes about X’s poor behavioural choices began to emerge again. The mother gave evidence in her trial affidavit that by the end of November, X’s behaviour had “settled somewhat”. She said she then decided that X no longer needed to attend upon the psychologist she had been referred to in early August.
Orders for the children to spend supervised time with the father were made in January 2019. They attended an orientation visit at the supervising children’s contact centre in late March, 2019. Over this same period of time, X’s behaviour and emotional well-being continued to deteriorate. The mother said that X was “having a terrible time on social media” and was “engaging in combative social media exchanges within her friendship group”. School records reveal that in March 2019 her behaviour at school became very difficult and she received a 20 day suspension from school after inflicting physical violence on another child. She was referred to another psychologist who saw her a few times and then referred her to the Child and Youth Mental Health Service (“CYMHS”) for assessment. Time with the father, the first since early August the year before, began on 7 April 2019. X began seeing a counsellor at CYMHS and soon afterwards, the mother says, X began reporting to her that she was seeing a child who was not there (an apparent hallucinatory vision) and was demonstrating being quite fearful of her. X had also drawn pictures of this vision which were quite disturbing. At around this time, X began refusing to go to the supervised visits at the contact centre with her father. The mother, acting on advice she was receiving from those treating X, stopped taking X to the visits with her father. There is some documentary evidence that supports the view that when X learned that she would not be forced to go to see her father at these supervised visits she became calmer. X was suspended from school for another four days in late June 2019 and shortly thereafter commenced an intervention program at the L Centre in a suburb of Brisbane which required her to attend on three days each week with a view to assisting her to make positive behavioural changes and to manage her emotional responses in a more positive way. School records reveal that her behaviour was still very challenging as at 5 August 2019. That was how things stood at the time of the trial.
Relevantly, the family report writer, Ms H, when giving oral evidence at the end of the trial was asked a question by counsel for the ICL about whether X should be spending any time with the father. Her answer went as follows:
… everyone’s goal is… to make sure that we have healthy, functioning children as a priority. Where I am hearing information about a child who is so distressed or their mental health is so dysregulated that they are unable to learn in a classroom, they’re unable to manage their emotions to the point where they are assaulting or pushing other people, that must be our primary focus and both parents’ relationships to that then become secondary. … Where we have already identified, regardless of fact, that this child’s relationship with dad creates a level of stress for her, adding that on top of her current distress is not in any way going to result in a more positive or more meaningful relationship for her with her dad or in any way going to assist in that being rebuilt, regardless of what the outcome of the allegations are… What we would be focused on for her is ensuring that she is engaged really well therapeutically with meeting her basic care needs of her mental health functioning and secondary to that, once that has stabilised, once she is able to function in her daily life to the point where these symptoms of her mental health aren’t interfering, then we can look at some of those other areas that might then fit into then resuming time with the father and rebuilding those relationships but there would be nothing productive about attempting to do that when she can’t even get through the day at the moment without her being so overwhelmed by her emotions.
(Emphasis added)
Determination of the Central Factual Issues
Unsurprisingly, counsel for the mother submitted that a finding should be made that the father did engage in the behaviour that the children reported to their mother, the police and others, and that their reporting of that behaviour is not attributable to fabrication and coaching by their mother. Counsel for the ICL also made submissions that ultimately the Court should, albeit cautiously, accept the truth of the children’s reports about the father’s behaviour towards the children, particularly X.
I accept those submissions. I am satisfied that the father did behave in the way reported by the children. I am satisfied that the father did ask the children to massage him in return for rewards in various forms such as giving them chocolate or bestowing privileges upon the children in the form of additional television viewing time or additional game time on the computer. I am also satisfied that on at least one occasion in 2017, before the father went on sick leave from his employment, the father called X into his bedroom, closed the door, completely undressed and asked X to massage his bare bottom in return for reward. I am satisfied that the second child, Y, did not see this or know that it happened until many months later when X revealed it to her and their mother. I am satisfied that X felt very uncomfortable, even distressed by the experience, including having seen her naked father’s penis when he undressed and lay down on the bed.
I accept that the father’s behaviour in that respect was completely inappropriate. I consider that the state of the father’s mental health at the time probably contributed to his behaving in that inappropriate way. I am satisfied that the father also had the child, Y, massage his clothed bottom as she said he did and that he had the child, Z, massage his upper thighs as the girls both said he did. I am unable to say that I am satisfied to the requisite degree that X saw Z accidentally touch the father’s penis when he was massaging his upper thighs, as she told the police in her interview. I cannot say that I was persuaded of the truth of that, given her earlier assertion in the same interview that she had not seen Z touch the father’s penis. However, my finding on this issue does not dissuade me from accepting the truth of X’s reports, made on multiple occasions to numerous different people, that her father had her massage his naked bottom. It barely needs to be said that the Court may accept some things reported by the child as truthful whilst at the same time rejecting others as untruthful. Similarly, it barely needs to be said that a decision by police not to charge the father with a criminal offence because of a view that the available evidence probably would not support a conviction does not speak decisively of guilt or innocence.
I am satisfied that the father’s denials of the behaviour the mother alleged she observed of him during their cohabitation, his denials that he ever had Z massage him at all, his denials that he ever asked the girls to massage his bottom, his denials that he ever offered the children rewards in return for massaging him and his denials that he had X massage his naked bottom were all false denials proffered by him to try to dissuade whoever it was he made those denials to, including the police and this Court, that he did not do what is alleged he did.
I am satisfied that X’s emotional well-being was seriously affected by the experience of being required by her father to massage his naked bottom and that, consequently, her behaviour at home and at school deteriorated in the first half of 2018 as has been outlined herein, such that she was referred to a psychologist for counselling. I am satisfied that without actually telling the mother the full details of the event, X felt sufficiently uncomfortable and unhappy with what her father had done and was doing with her and her siblings in respect of the massaging that she began to repeatedly complain to her mother. I am satisfied that Y joined her in those complaints and that the mother repeatedly asked the father to desist from the behaviour. I am satisfied that the mother did not initially consider the behaviour to be sexually abusive or to have the potential to be sexually abusive but that when the children continued to complain to her about it and the father continued to ignore her requests to desist from the behaviour, her concerns about what was driving the father’s behaviour began to escalate. I am satisfied that ultimately, when the children’s complaints became more vociferous, the mother’s concerns escalated to the point where she began to seriously question the father’s motives and effectively challenged him to desist by declaring her real concerns. I am satisfied the father’s response, claiming that the mother was simply trying to deflect attention away from her failure to act in selling the house, and the way he dealt with the children on the next visit reflected his poor state of mental health as well as his own concern that his inappropriate behaviour was now being fully revealed to the mother. I am satisfied that it was the father who was trying to deflect attention away from his own actions, now at risk of complete exposure. I am satisfied that in this heightened emotional atmosphere X felt sufficiently unrestrained enough to reveal to her mother and others the full extent of the father’s conduct that troubled her. I am satisfied that the father’s denials were just his way of trying to avoid responsibility for his behaviour towards the children, which he knew was entirely inappropriate.
The Consequences of these Findings
Having made these findings, it follows that I reject the father’s case that the children should live with him and have supervised time with their mother that he based upon his allegation that the mother had fabricated the story. The issue for me to determine now then is whether or not making orders that saw the children spending unsupervised time with their father would expose them to an unacceptable risk of being subjected to sexual abuse or other harm.
I consider the determination of that issue against the background of the findings I have made is relatively easy. Had the father admitted that the matters alleged against him were factually correct, including the allegations that he repeatedly offered the children rewards for massaging him and that he did have X massage his naked bottom, and acknowledged that he now understood that the behaviour was inappropriate and made a firm commitment never to engage in conduct of that kind again, it would have made the determination of this issue much harder. The Court may have had some basis for cautiously or even confidently accepting that the father had no inappropriate sexual intent in engaging in the conduct. Additionally, if the father had been full and frank in his disclosure around his mental health difficulties and there was evidence that he was fully compliant with the recommendations of his treating medical practitioners, the Court could have had more confidence that his mental health was not an issue impacting negatively on the process of determining this particular issue.
However, given the father’s false denials of the important facts that I have set out above, and the evidence about the state of his mental health, I am left with little doubt that the children would face a level of risk of exposure to sexual abuse, emotional harm and/or physical harm in the father’s unsupervised care that I quantitatively assess as being of an unacceptable level. I will not make orders that provide for the children to spend any unsupervised time in the father’s care.
Having regard to the evidence that X had repeatedly expressed the view that she does not want to spend any time with the father and the evidence of the serious deterioration in her behaviour in 2019 around the time that she started seeing him again, even though that was in the professionally supervised setting of a children’s contact centre, I will not make an Order that X must be taken to spend any time with her father, even if it is required to continue to be supervised. It will be for X and her mother to determine whether X spends any time with her father.
As for the younger two siblings, Y and Z, I do consider it is in their best interests to continue to spend some time with their father so as to maintain the relationship and connection with him, provided their father is committed to maintaining his relationships with them notwithstanding the fact that it will be limited in its frequency, duration and the circumstances in which it will take place.
I am satisfied that it is in the two younger children’s best interests for them to continue to see their father every second weekend under supervision. The family’s financial circumstances are such that it will have to be limited to the confines of a community based children’s contact centre such as the one they are attending now. Such centres generally are constrained by circumstances to offering families time slots of no more than two hours on one occasion every fortnight. No evidence contrary to this was adduced in this case. Accordingly, I will make orders that provide for Y and Z to spend at least two hours each second weekend with their father supervised at B Contact Centre or as otherwise agreed between the parents in writing.
As for X, I will leave it as a matter between her and the mother to determine whether X attends with her younger siblings at scheduled supervised visits with the father at the children’s contact centre. That will be given effect to in my Orders by an Order that provides that X shall spend time and communicate with the father as the mother and the father may agree in writing.
In matters such as this where supervision of children’s time with a parent is determined to be in their best interests, there is always the need to consider whether the supervision of such time should go on indefinitely or not. I am certainly conscious of the existence of a school of thought that indefinite supervision of children’s time with a parent is not necessarily in their best interests.
Y is nine years old and Z is five years old. In this particular case, a large part of the risk assessment that I have made is attributable to my consideration of the evidence about the father’s mental health and the other large part is attributable to what I have found were false denials on the father’s part of the conduct that was alleged against him. Should the father’s mental health improve, as it might if he maintains therapeutic treatment, and should he acknowledge the fact that the conduct he engaged in was as the children said it was and that it was inappropriate, such steps would be the first ones along the path to being able to convince the mother or, if not the mother, the Court that circumstances have changed sufficiently to warrant a reconsideration of whether or not the children’s time with the father must go on in a supervised context.
The family report writer recommended that a sexual offender risk assessment be undertaken by the father. It was not done for the trial as the father said that he did not have the funds to do so, notwithstanding the fact that he said he had only recently sent $100,000 of his property settlement funds to his family in Country G. The Legal Aid Office would not, or could not fund it. Undertaking such an assessment with a professionally qualified psychologist agreed upon with the mother might also be an important step towards convincing the mother or the Court that circumstances may subsequently justify a change to the supervision requirements of the children’s contact with the father.
Additionally, Y is nine and Z, though only five, is a boy. The children may reach an age and a level of physical and emotional maturity where the mother is satisfied that they can spend time with the father in certain circumstances that do not need to be professionally supervised. That will, of course, be a matter for the mother and the father and the children at the time. I am satisfied that the mother has, in the past, appropriately valued and fostered the children’s relationships with their father whilst tempering that with the right amount of protective consideration and action. I am confident that she will be appropriately determinative of any future changes in the regime my Orders will provide for, but if I am wrong, the father will always have the right to make application back to the Court if he considers he could convince the Court that the circumstances have changed sufficiently to make changes to the supervised regime I put in place in the children’s best interests. As such, I am satisfied that indefinite supervised time with the father is the Order that I should make in the children’s best interests.
As for the issue of parental responsibility, I have no hesitation in determining that the mother should have sole parental responsibility for all decisions to be made in respect of the major long-term issues in the children’s lives as that term “major long-term issues” is defined in s 4 of the Act. In circumstances where I have made the findings that I have and having regard to the evidence I have seen as to the communications between the parents at around the time the allegations emerged in this case, I am satisfied that it would not be in the children’s best interests, particularly X’s, to expect the parents to have to communicate, discuss and jointly make those decisions about major long-term issues as required by s 65DAC of the Act.
I will, though, make an Order that the mother must engage with the father in the decision making process in respect of any decisions in respect of any major long-term issues for the children, leaving the ultimate decision, in the event of disagreement, solely to her, of course.
Y and Z’s time and communication with their father
In making my decision about the time that Y and Z spend with the father, I am also conscious that the mother and the ICL both submitted that the two younger children’s time with their father should continue as it has been, supervised at a contact centre and on a fortnightly basis. It was submitted by counsel for the mother that while X’s views are arguably most important (I infer due to her age, the nature of her allegations made by her towards her father, and the behaviour she has exhibited which could be attributed to the allegations and/or to the reintroduction of time with her father), the views of the two younger children are also important. They seem to still enjoy spending time with their father and that should continue. However, as submitted by counsel for the mother, by keeping it to alternate weekends supervised at a contact centre, this affords the children greater protection from harm. The Order I will make will also provide for the children to communicate with the father by telephone twice a week, as is sought by the mother. That communication is to be initiated by the mother.
There was also an Order sought in respect of communication with the father on special days throughout the year, including children’s birthdays, the father’s birthday, Christmas Day, Easter Sunday and Father’s Day. In respect of these two children, I will make such an Order.
Other Orders
I will not make an Order that permits the father to attend the extracurricular and school events of any of the children that parents are invited to. I do not consider that it is in the best interests of the children for their father and mother to be at the same place at the same time. There is likely to be conflict. It would not be welcome at such events.
The ICL also proposed orders about provision of information about the children’s health practitioners and the mother contacting the father if there are any serious illnesses or injuries. I will make Orders that require the mother to keep the father informed about developments in the children’s lives and to provide him with copies of their school reports and annual photographs. I consider that is in the best interests of the children.
The Orders I make are set out at the commencement of these reasons.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and fifty-one (151) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Forrest delivered on 25 June 2020.
Associate:
Date: 25 June 2020
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
0